Pompeii

The age of the historical epics and period pieces unfortunately seems to be a thing of the past. Sure, there's still an occasional epic out there, but not nearly as many as there used to be in the genre's heyday, the 1950s and 1960s. Why? My guess is on that money thing. These are expensive movies. Real expensive. So now when we do see epics come along, gotta eat them up. Released this February, 2014's Pompeii struggled in theaters. What's the verdict? I for one, liked it a lot.

In 62 A.D. in Britannia, a tribe of Celtic horsemen are brutally massacred by Roman legions commanded by Corvus (Kiefer Sutherland). One of the few survivors is a young boy who sees his mother and father cut down in the battle, but he is captured by slavers days later and sold into slavery. Some 17 years later, the boy is now a grown man, Milo (Kit Harington), a gladiator known simply as 'the Celt.' His reputation grows with each brutal fight he wins to the point he's being sent to Italy to fight, leaving the Roman provinces behind him. The Celt is part of a large group of gladiators sent to Pompeii where he will fight as part of an upcoming festival to the gods. Traveling to the city, Milo helps a beautiful young Roman woman, Cassia (Emily Browning), when her carriage is stopped, but they're immediately separated. The new gladiators head into Pompeii, but a nearby volcano, Mount Vesuvius is showing signs of a coming eruption. What will happen in the gorgeous Roman vacation city? Will Milo survive the coming fights to find Cassia?

Made for anywhere between $80 and $100 million, this historical epic from director Paul W.S. Anderson received generally negative reviews this winter, making a little under $25 million in the U.S. but doing decent elsewhere, racking up about $97 million in box office. A push if anything overall financially, not a dud, not a huge success. Why the struggles? Well, there's some good and bad. The cast -- while good I thought -- doesn't feature a single huge star. Lots of recognizable faces but not necessarily anyone who's going to pull in the audiences. As well, if you've seen any number of historical epics set in ancient times from Roman to Greek to Britannia, you're going to be more than a tad familiar with the characters, story and sticky situations that develop. Is that a bad thing? That's going to depend on how much you enjoy and appreciate movies like this.

I'm a sucker for certain types of movies; westerns, war, heist and....yes, historical epics. I liked 'Pompeii' a lot. I was entertained from the get-go and loved going along for the ride. It's my go-to move in describing movies like this. It doesn't re-write the genre, doesn't do anything crazy unique or original. What is it then? It is damn entertaining, like a throwback to the heyday of the historical epics. In the vein of more recent film epics like Gladiator and 300 to TV shows like Spartacus and Rome, it is familiar. No doubt about that from the noble gladiators to the slimy, evil Romans. If you're a fan of the similarly themed 1950s/1960s epics, I think you'll enjoy this one. Don't expect anything that will blow you out of the water, but instead, a good, old-fashioned quasi-epic that's fun, entertaining and action-packed from beginning to end.

No stars, no problem here. Almost all the characters are archetypal characters, everything from the gladiator, the veteran gladiator, the evil Roman, the $ for eyes businessman, the sinister gladiator trainer, the beautiful, perfect young woman. You get the gist. A star of HBO's Game of Thrones, Harington is a very solid lead, a man of few words, an anti-hero looking for revenge. Russell Crowe in Gladiator is an obvious influence on the character, especially Milo's rivalry turned friendship with Atticus, a veteran gladiator a fight away from winning his freedom, played by a scene-stealing Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje. Harington obviously gets the love interest too, Browning playing Cassia, the pretty girl who needs to be rescued. It's the love at first sight back story, two lovers just meant to be together with everything else be damned.

Who else to look for? The only real weak spot is Jack Bauer himself, Kiefer Sutherland as the evil Roman villain, a legion commander turned senator, Corvus. Speaking in some sort of English accent (your guess is as good as mine), it's that over the top, so ridiculously evil bad guy you can't help but laugh. His loyal and equally sinister right-hand man, Proculus, is played by Sasha Roiz. Also look for Jared Harris and Carrie Anne-Moss as Cassia's parents, looking for some civic improvements (silly Romans), Jessica Lucas as Cassia's friend and servant, Joe Pingue as the owner of the gladiator school and Currie Graham as Bellator, the brutal gladiator trainer.

Now for those not so historically-inclined readers, the background for the 'Pompeii' is the horrifically violent eruption of Mount Vesuvius in the year 79 A.D. An estimated 16,000 people were killed in the eruption, Vesuvius spewing stones, ash and fumes 21 miles (21 miles!!!) into the air. The eruption is saved for the last 40-minutes and features some impressive special effects work, the CGI blending pretty seamlessly (with a couple horse-riding sequences standing out negatively). It's disaster flick meets historical epic, and the results are solid across the board. There's something horrifying about watching this display of nature's power, knowing this all really happened. It's a very cool extended sequence, all sorts of natural hell unleashed at the people of Pompeii.

Getting there is a lot of fun too, including one epic gladiatorial battle in Pompeii's arena, Milo, Atticus and a few other gladiators doing battle in a reenactment of the battle that claimed Milo's parents and tribe. Another big-time nod to Gladiator? Oh, yes, completely, but it's exciting. I am curious if the movie would have done better in theaters with an R-rating (the violence could and should have been pretty graphic) but as is, it certainly gets the blood and adrenaline flowing. A movie that was a lot of fun. Probably not for everyone, and as mentioned, it doesn't rewrite the genre. Give it a shot though. A whole lot of fun.

Pompeii (2014): ***/****

Thor: The Dark World

There are certain irrefutable things in life like death, taxes and the fact that all Avengers franchise movies will make a boatload of money. The Avengers was the top-earning film of 2012, becoming the third-highest grossing film of all-time. I've liked all of the movies to varying degrees with one major exception, 2011's Thor. I really didn't like this one, but come on, I've got to keep up with the franchise, right? Right?!? Here we go with 2013's Thor: The Dark World.

Following the adventures/misadventures in New York (in The Avengers), Thor (Chris Hemsworth) has returned to Asgard with his brother, Loki (Tom Hiddleston), in tow, set to waste away for his crimes. With the universe threatening to tear itself apart, Thor has gone about bringing about the Nine Realms back together. His quest though is halted when his love back on Earth, Jane Foster (Natalie Portman), accidentally comes into the possession of the Aether, an ancient powerful weapon that dates back eons and has remained hidden and buried all that time. The Dark Elf who previously possessed it, Malekith (Christopher Eccleston), wants nothing more than to reacquire the Aether, hopefully to tear Asgard, Earth and the entire universe to pieces with his new-found power. Hoping to save the universe, Asgard and Jane, Thor is left with few options, forcing him to turn to an unlikely ally, Loki himself. Can his brother be trusted?

I don't know what it is. I can't peg it down exactly what doesn't work for me about these Thor movies. I can say that I liked this second movie more than the original. Director Alan Taylor's superhero flick still isn't perfect, but something just seems more self-assured. It's still heavily flawed, but it isn't the deal-killer that I found the original Thor to be. There's a lot of issues I have I guess. One, I'm being hypocritical. I've watched the Lord of the Ring series, the Star Wars movies and countless other science fiction and fantasy movies so that in itself isn't a deal-breaker, but I struggle to go along with all the Asgard history and lore. Writing that plot synopsis, I felt like I should be reading it in MOVIE TRAILER voice. All the mythology and history and Aethers, it's all very cartoonish and comic book. I can't say that for the other Avengers movies. Based in comic books but rising above it...except for Thor.

One thing above all else is not in question, AT ALL. That would be star Chris Hemsworth who has become an international movie star courtesy of these movies. Talk about epically perfect casting. From the visual look with his long blonde hair to his commandeering physique to his booming voice that deadpans his way through his scenes, Hemsworth is the best thing going for these movies by far. I won't go as far as saying he's the only good thing, but it's closer than you'd think unfortunately. He commits to the part completely but it never seems jokey or forced. It's serious with some laughs. Hemsworth handles the action effortlessly from beginning to end -- his Thor hammer is one of the best cinema weapons ever -- and adds a touch of humor too. Some quick, little scenes work perfectly, including Thor hanging up his hammer like a coat as he enters an apartment. Hemsworth's performance is the heart of the movie, a great lead.

Now the unfortunate thing is that as many big names and potentially cool characters as this movie has, very few leave a positive impression. The biggest exception to that statement is of course, Hiddleston as Loki, Thor's treacherous brother who is obsessed with power and taking over Asgard. The chemistry between the brothers is great, their scenes together in the last hour my personal high points for the movie. As for the rest? Meh. I like Natalie Portman a lot, but she still seems out of place in the Thor movies. Anthony Hopkins is cool but given little to do as Thor's father, Odin, while Rene Russo returns as Thor's mother, Frigga. Idris Elba is as cool as ever as Heimdall, all-seeing Asgardian sentry who watches over the entry point to Asgard. In the annoying comic relief department, the usually reliable Kat Dennings is shrill and annoying as Jane's assistant, Darcy, Stellan Skarsgard is relegated to crazy scientist in background duty, and Darcy even gets a goofy British intern (Jonathan Howard).

But wait, there's more! Eccleston is pretty decent as the villainous Malekith, obsessed with destruction, Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje his freakishly strong enforcer, Algrim. In the wasted department are Thor's Warriors Three from the original, Ray Stevenson, Zachary Levi (a new arrival) and Tadanobu Asano, mostly given cameo-like appearances, Jaimie Alexander also returning as Asgardian love interest (of sorts), Sif. And because the Avengers franchise is interested in coverage across all their movies, Chris Evans makes a quick appearance as Captain America while Benicio Del Toro makes an appearance in the credits scene as a hint of where the Thor series will go.Also look for Chris O'Dowd in a small part.

And here we sit. I know what I want to say, but it's going to sound harsh. My biggest complaint of the Thor movies is that they seem almost generic without a whole lot of heart. They're fun and flashy, blending action and comedy, but that doesn't necessarily translate to "interesting." Thor is a really cool character, but what else is there to offer? 'Dark' clocks in at 112 minutes, but once you take away an incredibly long credits sequence (even taking away the minute scene added on) we're still looking at a movie that's now 101 minutes. Too much going on, too many ideas and characters, a story that bounces liberally among its countless options, and a coldness in general that the other Avengers movies manage to avoid in a big way. It's better than the first movie, but it's still not that good.

Thor: The Dark World (2013): **/****

Killer Elite (2011)

Not to be confused with Sam Peckinpah's 1975 flick The Killer Elite -- a mess of a movie but entertaining -- came 2011's Killer Elite. See, they dropped the 'The' to help us out. Throwing me for a loop even more was that the stories sounded somewhat similar. The more recent Killer Elite looked pretty generic to me, but I've been in a bit of a slump at Netflix lately so I thought I'd give it a try. Not a classic, but it was much better than I anticipated.

It's 1980 and after a mission doesn't go off quite as planned, mercenary Danny Bryce (Jason Statham) decides to leave the business and heads home to Australia. A year later, he finds out that his old partner, Hunter (Robert De Niro), is being held prisoner for not completing a high-paying but risky job. Danny takes the job on to save his friend. Working for a Middle Eastern sheikh, Danny must avenge the deaths of the deposed sheikh's three sons, the deaths coming at the hands of SAS (British Special Forces) agents. He must not only kill them, but get taped confessions in the process. With some help from his former team, Danny goes about finding them, but he isn't privy to the whole scenario. Waiting for him is a former SAS agent with a shadowy past, Spike (Clive Owen), who will do his best to protect his former partners too.

Based on the novel The Feather Men by Ranulph Fiennes, 'Elite' is supposedly based on real-life events. The Feather Men were a group of mercenary vigilantes who did all sorts of shady things, most of them helping protect others from killers and murderers. Now whether it's true or not is one thing. Take it's honesty however you want it -- it is certainly possible -- but what surprised me is how much I liked the movie. Set in 1980, it has the distinct feel of a 1980s action movie. No frills, no wasted efforts, and little to no sense of humor. All the characters aren't black and white, but shades of gray, and the world is one nasty place where everyone is in it for themselves. There are some twists toward the end that work pretty well, but as far as action movies go, it rises above the majority of those released recently.

This may sound odd concerning an action movie, but I liked the look and feel of 'Elite.' Director Gary McKendry -- in his first feature film -- does a great job of setting things up. He shot the movie on-location in Wales, England and Australia, and it doesn't have that generic look of 'been there, seen that.' With a story set in 1980, it actually feels like 1980 whether it be the clothes, the bad hair cuts, or even the throwback cars that make the chases that much more interesting. Throw in a solid score from Reinhold Heil and Johnny Klimek -- seemingly channeling Hans Zimmer's Inception score at times -- and you've got all the makings of a real winner.

With all those shadowy good/bad guys, McKendry certainly must have had some fun casting. All the sudden, it feels like Jason Statham is in every movie hitting theaters, but I'm a fan, and I'm okay with that. His steely-eyed, cold mercenary is what Statham does best. He glares and sneers, growls his lines, and when needed kicks/punches/shoots anyone in his way. Like some of his other movies though, it isn't mindless fight scenes repeated one after another. The fights have something to do with a...wait for it...story! As his SAS opponent, Clive Owen again shows he can be an action star. He's a great actor, but with roles like this that allow him to have some fun, he doesn't disappoint. Rocking an epic mustache, Owen's Spike is an enforcer of sorts for what the book dubbed 'the Feather Men.' We learn very little about him or his background other than that he's extremely capable and a highly dangerous man.

And then's there Robert De Niro.....freaking De Niro! It's great to see him play more mainstream, commercial roles too. Now are these especially good parts? No, not in the least. Playing Hunter, Danny's mentor and former partner, De Niro isn't exactly phoning it in, but it's close. He has some great one-liners and does have a good give-and-take with Statham. It's really more of a cameo than anything as he disappears for long stretches. Other worthwhile parts go to Dominic Purcell as Davies, the hot-headed Welshman (with handlebar mustache, epic sideburns, nasty, greasy hair), and Aden Young as Meier, the quiet killer, two former members of Danny's team now working with him once again. Star of TV's Chuck, Yvonne Strahovski plays Anne, the love interest that Danny must protect when threatened. Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje has a good part too as Agent, Danny's link for jobs and missions around the world.

Struggling in theaters -- making around $25 million -- and receiving mixed to negative reviews, Killer Elite is probably doomed to the $5 bin of movies at Wal-Mart. It's too bad because while not a classic, it is very watchable and I enjoyed it. Maybe it's that throwback feel to 1980s action movies or a solid cast working so well together, but I'd recommend this one. It isn't the tongue in cheek, over the top action movie that trailers and commercials presented it as. Cool globe-trotting cast, great action, and a solid and possibly true story.

Killer Elite <---trailer (2011): ***/****

The Thing (2011)

John Carpenter's The Thing -- released in 1982 -- is one of the all-time great science fiction and horror mash-ups. It keeps you on the edge of your seat, mixing in visually shocking effects with surprise and gotcha! moments that have you jumping out of that seat. One of the best things going for Carpenter's film is the mystery, a pre-story we never see, something else that happened about an alien entombed in Antarctica before this story even starts. Ever wonder what happened at that Norwegian camp? Oh yes, we're talking prequel, released in theaters this weekend, 2011's The Thing.  

I've made no bones about disliking most remakes, reboots and do-overs when it comes to movies. This newly released prequel just shows how stupid people are. Anyone complaining about a remake should probably just stop watching movies at all. For one, this is actually a prequel, setting up Carpenter's 1982 film. And two, the 1982 version is....wait for this...a remake of 1951 sci-fi classic The Thing From Another World. So anyone claiming "the original" should be left alone should just shut up. Your precious original is in fact, a remake too. The 2011 version? A worthy addition to the franchise, one that pays homage while exploring new territory.

At a remote Antarctic research site, the predominantly Norwegian staff has made a huge discovery, some sort of foreign space ship entombed in the ice, possibly for hundreds of thousands of years. The doctor in charge, Dr. Halvorson (Ulrich Thomsen), calls in a specialist, a paleontologist, Kate Lloyd (Mary Elizabeth Winstead), to help examine the frozen creature specimen found in the ice. Before the examination can take place though, the supposedly dead creature comes to life, putting everyone's life at risk. What is it? What is it capable of? Kate is the first to come up with an explanation as the body count rises. The alien can replicate itself as a source, posing as any living thing. Paranoia sets in with nowhere to go. The alien could be anyone and everyone. Can those uninfected individuals find out who is and isn't still human in time?

This is officially a prequel, but there is of course similarities between the movies, similar characters, story arc, that sort of thing. It would be nearly impossible for the two movies to be at least a little alike. What is good about director Matthijs van Heijningen Jr.'s prequel is that it does pay homage to Carpenter's version but goes down a different route about the halfway point. It reverts back to more of a monster chase movie, survivors trying to defeat this unknown creature. That may be the biggest difference; the creature is shown clearly in a variety of incarnations, one of them creepier than the others. Other nice touches? Ennio Morricone's original theme (listen HERE) is used with composer Marco Beltrami tweaking the rest of the score, a perfect mood and tension setter. The look of the movie is right, down to a long list of continuity jumps and connections that any fan of Carpenter's film will appreciate.  

What I think any viewer will be able to appreciate is more than just the shocking and surprising scares, the ones that are meant to make you jump, to flinch while watching. At its base, the story is built around fear and paranoia of not being able to trust anyone around you.  Winstead's Lloyd pieces things together, putting clues together that should reveal if 'the Thing' has taken over any more people. Even close friends and co-workers could have turned, been infected and it is nearly impossible to tell.  That ultimate fear, that terror is magnified at this remote research site. There's nowhere to go so the problem is there waiting to be dealt with. Some of the movie's most tense moments rely on that premise. When survival is the goal, you'll turn on anyone who is standing in your way.

Like the 1982 version, the 2011 prequel has a solid ensemble cast with a few standouts.  Winstead especially is a strong lead. A female lead in a horror movie dominated by a male cast might sound like it's out of left field, but she's great in the part, a smart, clear-thinking leader in the most trying of times.  Thomsen too is impressive, the doctor blinded by his find and its possible ramifications in fame and riches even as his crew gets knocked off one by one. Eric Christian Olsen plays Adam, Halvorson's assistant who has a long working friendship/relationship with Kate. The coolest characters though belong to Joel Edgerton as Carter, the chopper pilot clearly channeling Kurt Russell's MacReady, and Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje as his co-pilot, Jameson. Of the rest of the Norwegian crew, Jorgen Langhelle stands out the most as Lars, the non-English speaking grunt worker. The remaining cast members are exclusively Norwegian actors, most of them not around long enough to make an impression other than as Thing-food.

The monster/alien vs. human angle is played up more in the second half of the movie, much more than Carpenter's telling. As one reviewer so eloquently and appropriately put it, "The flamethrower action has been ratcheted up 10 or 12 notches." Some good surprises, some heavy creature gore and violence, and a story full of tension.

What will work the best for fans of Carpenter's film is the ending to the prequel. Anyone who has seen Carpenter's 1982 film knows and remembers the striking, startling opening sequence. So it's natural to assume this prequel has to connect the two movies, and let me say, does it ever. Even knowing it's coming, the ending of the movie is a whale of a finish, one of the great connecting transitions I can think of in a movie. As for some of the characters, it leaves it up to your imagination to decide exactly how things went down. All I can...when the credits start to roll keep your butt in the seat. Is the movie as good as 1982's The Thing? Nope, but it does it justice and then some.

The Thing <---trailer (2011): ***/****

Faster

Making his rise to stardom as a wrestler, Dwayne Johnson (aka The Rock) has diverted on his career a bit over the last couple of years.  Instead of tough, hard-hitting characters, Johnson went down the route of making more family friendly movies, and good for him for being brave enough to do that -- while also making bajillions of dollars. Still, it's always good to see a big star go back to his roots, and he's done that with the recently released Faster.  Don't be thrown off by the struggles the movie has had at the box office, this is a bare bones, exciting, fast-paced action movie that won't disappoint.   

My first thought when I saw the trailer for this movie a couple months back was that it felt like a throwback to the 1970s when car chases, anti-heroes, and equally bad cops dominated movies.  Well, I wasn't too far off.  It doesn't feel like a throwback, this movie IS a throwback to the good old days of 1970s cop/anti-hero/road movies like The Vanishing Point, Death Race 2000, Two-Lane Blacktop and many more I'm forgetting.  Oh, also add in some pretty strong violence and you've got the 2010 version.  Nothing groundbreaking here, and there were some things that threw me off, but never enough to distract from a very enjoyable, highly entertaining action flick.

Released from jail after a 10-year sentence, a prisoner known only as Driver (Johnson) knows exactly where he's going.  He walks into an office and promptly shoots a telemarketer in the forehead, only to get back into his classic Chevelle and drive off.  Two police officers, Cop (Billy Bob Thornton) and Lt. Cicero (Carla Gugino), are called in to investigate and figure out what's going on. The Driver isn't done yet though, and some more bodies start to pile up.  Someone wants him dead though, hiring a young English hitman, Killer (Oliver Jackson-Cohen), to knock him off. Cop and Cicero continue to follow the clues, but Killer is hot on the trail too.  Who can get to Driver first, or will he get them instead?

Story-wise, 'Faster' is about as simplistic as you're going to find.  Dude needs to kill five people, cops want to stop him, killer wants to kill him.  Handled correctly though, you're going to find a quality finished product.  It reminded me a lot of 1978's The Driver, a story similar in characters and tone, even addressing the stars by their occupation (driver, cop, killer).  And as I mentioned, Faster could have been released in the 1970s and no one would have batted an eye.  There are no pretensions about delivering a message here, just a man looking for revenge (his reasoning is revealed, and you definitely side with the Driver here), wielding a bad-ass six-shooter Magnum and driving a classic early 1970s SS Chevelle.

I've always liked Dwayne Johnson, and he shows with his part here he's got some legitimate talent.  Granted, he says about 50 words the whole movie, but that's a minor thing.  The man is a beast and looks like he could kill an elephant by flexing his arms a couple times.  It is definitely good to see him return to his action roots, and hopefully he sticks with them.  Driver is an anti-hero, but not one without any redeeming qualities.  You're rooting for him, and as the bodies mount, he begins to question what he's doing and what purpose it serves.  That's my kind of anti-hero, one struggling from within about what if he's doing is right.  The ending and how it resolves everything (one somewhat obvious twist aside) is a little predictable, but not a movie killer.  Kudos to the Rock, and welcome back to action.

Then there's the two men on his trail, the cocaine-using, chain-smoking cop two weeks away from retirement (uh-oh, heard that before), and the maniacally egocentric but very talented hit man.  First, Thornton looks, feels, and is the perfect choice for Cop.  You just know he's got a checkered past as involved as the crooks he's chasing, and he may know more than he's letting on.  Jackson-Cohen is more hit or miss with a character that could have been cut out almost completely from the story without affecting much.  It's just an unnecessary character in a story that doesn't require him to be there.  Also watch for Tom Berenger as the warden, Lost's Maggie Grace (looking great) as Lily, Killer's fiance, Moon Bloodgood as Cop's ex-wife, and Lester Speight, Courtney Gains, John Cirigliano and Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje as the Driver's intended victims.

As the movie moved along to Clint Mansell's appropriately moody and memorable score, I couldn't help but think of Faster as a modern day western. Instead of six-shooters and horses, we've got classic cars and automatic weapons. Right down to the characters and their background is reminiscent of the western hero, the loner riding into town on his horse.  The three main characters are all deeply flawed and seem to know they're doomed but continue on the road they've chosen regardless.  You just know they're all going to meet at some point down the road, just not who's going to make it out alive.

Faster <---trailer (2010): ***/****

G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra

Now if you're judging my feelings of summer blockbusters by my review of Transformers 2, you might think I hate all those big action movies, but it's really just the opposite. I love movies like that, the review just shows how bad I thought T2 was in comparison to most similar movies. A good example of what an enjoyable summer action blockbuster is G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra which surprised me. I thought it looked good but wasn't dying to see it, but a day later I'm still glad I did.

Plots can be secondary and often third or fourth in the list of important elements to a blockbuster, but G.I. Joe takes a familiar formula, villain threatening to destroy the world city by city, and adds an interesting wrinkle with some new technology. They're called the nanomites, microscopic robots originally intended to fight cancer cells but transformed into weapons that take apart and completely dismantle whatever they're shot at, like tanks, cars, buildings, you name it. So here's the plot going from the nanomites.

With some funding from NATO, MARS Industry CEO James McCullen (Christopher Eccleston) has perfected turning the nanomites into an offensive weapon and has spent billions of dollars on manufacturing 4 warheads with his new weapon. But while being shipped, the column guarding the warheads is attacked, with Duke (Channing Tatum) and Ripcord (Marlon Wayans) as part of the force. Whoever is attacking them, led by the mysterious Baroness (Sienna Miller), has advanced technology that the army is defenseless against. The column is saved by a group of fighters who rescue the warheads and Duke and Ripcord as well.

The group is transported to 'the Pit' a top secret base deep below the Egyptian desert where they're introduced to General Hawk (Dennis Quaid) who explains the layout to their organization. They are G.I. Joe, the best soldiers from all around the world working together to keep Earth safe from whoever would do it harm. Duke and Ripcord blackmail their way into Team Alpha and get to work finding out who wants the technology. Everything points to McCullen who with the Baroness, and henchmen Storm Shadow (Byung-hun Lee), Zartan (Arnold Vosloo) and one mysterious villian (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) look to make another grab for the nanomite warheads and it doesn't look like anything can stop them.

What I like about big movies like this is that it allows huge casts to work together and let them clearly have fun making a highly entertaining movie. Come on, Dennis Quaid is in the movie for about 15 minutes, delivers some appropriately cheesy/inspirational lines, and looks tough. He's gotta be loving that. The G.I. Joe team is an interesting list of unique actors and characters like Heavy Duty (Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje), the tough sergeant of the group, Snake Eyes (Ray Park) the resident badass and expert in martial arts and by far the coolest Joe, Breaker (Said Taghmaoui), the communication expert, and Scarlett (Rachel Nichols), the team's weapons expert. So as anyone who read some past reviews of mine knows, this is basically the Magnificent 7, a men-on-a-mission movie with Duke and Ripcord joining the team.

With some ridiculously cool technology available, the beneficiary is the action scenes. The coolest gadget was the accerlation suits which help you react quicker and faster, jump higher, so basically PF Flyers on steroids. The chase through Paris as Storm Shadow and the Baroness try to take out the Eiffel Tower is an exciting, well-put together sequence as the Joes frantically try to catch up with Duke and Ripcord in the suits, Scarlet on a motorcycle, and Heavy Duty and Breaker just trying to keep up. On the whole, the action is the reason to see this movie. It's cut so you can actually see what's going on and the CGI is apparent but done well.

On to the casting which ranges from very good to very wooden. I don't know Channing Tatum's appeal, check that, I do but don't get it. The guy's got the personality and delivery of a cardboard box and his so-called dramatic lines come across as comical, hopefully unintentionally so. The rest of the cast makes up for, including surprisingly enough Marlon Wayans who revels in the smartass sidekick role along with Sienna Miller who has finally made a mainstream blockbuster. For one, with dark hair and low-cut leather outfits, she looks amazing, and two, her character is a badass. Hopefully, she sticks with the more mainstream movies, or at least not completely sticking with the indies. It's a fun cast and it looks like they enjoyed themselves making GI Joe.

So is G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra a stupid summer blockbuster full of action and somewhat short on story? You bet, but it does what it's supposed to. It doesn't overdo the action sequences and CGI and keeps it exciting without trying to melt your face with its 'Michael Bay coolness.' Good cast top to bottom with one cameo I won't spoil here, and an ending that leaves the door open for a sequel which hopefully they do make in the next couple of years. Surprised by how much I enjoyed this so don't listen to the negative reviews, G.I. Joe is a lot of fun.

G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra <-----trailer (2009): ***/****