In the Heart of the Sea

Whether you've read it or not, everyone has heard of Moby Dick, the classic novel by author Herman Melville, right? Right?!? I'd hope so. If not, go check out a library. What many folks don't know is that Melville's story is partially based on a true story, the tragic story of the Essex (don't read if you don't want to find out some MAJOR SPOILERS). It's gotten a feature film adaptation getting somewhat mixed reviews, but you should decide for yourself with 2015's In the Heart of the Sea.

It's 1820 on Nantucket and the whaling ship the Essex is set to embark on a long voyage that will last at least a year and could stretch as long as two or three. The ship has a new commander, George Pollard (Benjamin Walker), who's relatively inexperienced but who will be aided by a very capable first officer, Owen Chase (Chris Hemsworth). With a crew of 21, the Essex sets sail on a voyage that will take them south through the Atlantic and west into the Pacific as they seek to fill their hold with hundreds of barrels of oil they will produce by killing as many whales as they can track. After months at sea though, they have little to show for their work, forcing Walker to give the orders to go further out into the Pacific where reports of waves of whales offer an enticing potential for success. What awaits though in the vast expanses of the unexplored ocean? Even the experienced sailors on-board the Essex couldn't predict what awaits them.

This recent release from director Ron Howard is based on a book of the same name by author Nathan Philbrick. SPOILERS AHEAD SPOILERS Writing in a simple, straightforward style (much appreciated!), Philbrick goes into detail of the time, the people and the tragic events that took place. While thousands of miles away from land in the Pacific, the Essex was attacked by an immense sperm whale and ultimately sunk, leaving the crew stranded at sea with limited supplies and no real hope of rescue in sight. Knowing it is the truth, it is a terrifying story to read, to know that these men experienced that pure terror. Melville's novel actually ends about halfway through the real-life story so don't think you've read and/or seen it all already! An interesting, uncomfortable read, but one that's worth it if you're a reader. RELATIVE END OF SPOILERS

Howard has tackled a pretty massive undertaking in turning the story and Philbrick's book into a feature film. The book itself isn't that big -- about 250 pages -- but it covers a ton of ground, both in terms of story, character and setting the time period. 'Heart' then has to cram all that into a movie that's about two hours long. It was originally scheduled to be released last March but was pushed back to a December release, and that's never a good thing. The story itself is interesting, and the acting is solid throughout with a cool storytelling and framing device, but it's missing that special something. The music is okay but nothing too memorable. The visual look of the movie is interesting, a bluish/green hue permeating the story. But when taken as a whole, 'Heart' doesn't have that one thing to take it up a notch or two from good to great or even really good.

Where it succeeds is the scope and scale. An early shot of the Essex is startling, a ship that's 87 feet long and barely makes a blip on the ocean's expanse. This is a little ship in a big old ocean. Long establishing shots of the ocean are unsettling, especially considering where the story is heading. There's no easy rescue available. If something happens, these men are on their own. That premise hits you at your very core, makes you realize how desperate survival really can be. The whale attack on the Essex is a quick, unsettling scene that I wish was actually a little longer and more drawn out to really let it breathe. The tension-building and foreshadowing of what's coming is highly effective, a massive whale bigger than any ever seen doing something that has never been seen just waiting in the unexplored depths of the ocean to strike. So yeah, the scope and scale are on point, but as for the more emotional moments...

They just aren't there. I felt very little connection with any of the characters, an issue with the immensity of the story. You've got so much to do as a director, so many goals you want to achieve, but what do you cut? Unfortunately here in 'Heart,' it's that emotional connection that allows us to get to know the characters, to sympathize with them through their horrifying trials at sea where death seems far more welcome than living at so many times. Hemsworth is solid, a capable officer seeking a captaincy of his own with one more successful voyage. Walker too is good as Pollard, a rivalry developing between the two men about how to command, a deep-rooted issue going back to both men's backgrounds and history. This puns sounds so horrifically forced and gimmicky considering the film's title, but it has very little heart. Characters pass away or disappear and we couldn't identify them if we tried. The scale/scope is excellent, but I wish it had evened out some.

Also look for Cillian Murphy in a solid supporting part as Matthew Joy, the Essex's second officer and a longtime friend of Hemsworth's Chase. Tom Holland plays Thomas Nickerson, a teenage Nantucket boy going on his first voyage. In a cool storytelling device, Ben Whishaw (Q in the Bond movies) plays Melville, seeking out a much-older Nickerson in late 1840's Nantucket, Brendan Gleeson as solid as always as Nickerson with Michelle Fairley playing his wife. Among the crew of the Essex, we see a couple faces pop up several times but never get to know them well either. Also look for Jordi Molla as a Spanish ship captain with a warning for the Essex crew as they prepare to head out to the Pacific.

Like so many historical epics and period pieces, 'Heart' seems like a prime candidate for a miniseries of some sort. Maybe a two or three-part series that would have been able to explore in more depth the the time the story takes place in, some more whaling background, the Essex's crew, the attack, and their desperate fight for survival in the wake of the improbable attack by the immense sperm whale inspired Melville to write Moby Dick. A good effort but ultimately a disappointing effort that doesn't live up to its potential.

In the Heart of the Sea (2015): ** 1/2 /****

Blackhat

Sometimes the formula is better than the finished product. That was my thought going into 2015's Blackhat, a colossal failure at the box office earlier this season. We mix director Michael Mann, star Chris Hemsworth and a cyber-thriller story....should be pretty good, right? Reviews and a very poor box office seem to indicate otherwise. Where does it end up then for this Michael Mann/Chris Hemsworth fan?

At a nuclear power plant in Hong Kong, a hacker causes the coolant pumps to overheat and eventually cause an immense explosion. Not long after, the same hacker unleashes his work on a mercantile exchange, making millions of dollars in the process by placing stocks in the right place. Chen Dawai (Leehom Wang), a military officer in China's cyber warfare unit, has now been placed in charge of the investigation, tasked with finding those individuals responsible for the attacks. As he investigates the attacks and how the hacker pulled them off, Chen realizes the code the hacker is using was actually written by...Chen himself, years before when he was in college. He actually wrote it with his roommate, Nicholas Hathaway (Hemsworth), now wasting in prison for a sentence because of his own hacking and computer crimes. Working together, Hathaway is granted release to help track down the hacker but time is in short supply. Could this hacker unleash another attack? If so, what's his end game?

I'm a huge Michael Mann fan. I love Last of the Mohicans, Heat, Thief, Collateral, and even like his less well-received efforts like Miami Vice, Public Enemies, and yes, this movie, Blackhat. I liked it. I did. I understand the objections but in spite of them a bit (while admitting they VERY much exist), I enjoyed this most recent Mann flick. Now that said, it seems not too many other people did. Released near the new year, 'Blackhat' cost around $70 million but earned only $17 million around the world. It's rocking a 5.4 at the IMDB and a 34% at Rotten Tomatoes. In other words, not good At All. There are some huge flaws that should have been dealt with, but if you're a Michael Mann fan, there's enough here to give a slight recommendation.

Probably the biggest complaint I have is that this movie feels far more like a cyber-thriller you would have seen in the late 1990s or even early 2000s, movies like Swordfish, Sneakers, The Net, Enemy of the State and many others. It feels dated, even a little past its prime. Yes, computer hacking is at an all-time high -- yeah for identity theft! -- but it's more the way Mann brings it to life. The opening scene as the power plant gets taken down "follows" the code as it races through the wires and computers and yeah, been there and done that countless times before. If this intro is supposed to look cool, it did....15 years ago. That's what is most surprising. Usually Mann is pretty up on things when it comes to his films -- period pieces, crime thrillers, biographies -- but this felt like a misfire considering that aspect of the film and its mildly successful attempt at timeliness.

So when you think of Mann movies, what comes to mind? For me, that's simple. When they work, we're talking bad-ass, renegade, freaking awesome, all that is man lead characters. We're talking Daniel Day Lewis' Hawkeye with a rifle in each hand running up a mountain. We're talking Pacino and De Niro mano-a-mano. We're talking James Caan in Thief, Tom Cruise in Collateral, Colin Farrell and Jamie Foxx in Miami Vice. Mann does a roguish anti-hero like nobody's business so a pairing of him, his script and Thor...um, Chris Hemsworth seemed logical. Other than Hemsworth not being my first (or 18th) choice to play a hacker, he makes the best of it. He's cool. He can mumble a line with line. He can seductively stare at both men and women. And when it comes down to it, and everything hits the fan, he's calm, cool and collected. Oh, and because he's a hacker, he can figure out seemingly impossible things with ease.

Who knows why audiences do and don't see certain movies. I wonder some if the lack of a recognizable cast beyond Hemsworth had anything to do with it. Wang's Dawai character is interesting but underdeveloped, an up and coming security officer who risks it all to get the job done. Wei Tang plays his sister, Chen Lien, loyal to a fault...until she develops feelings for Hemsworth's Hathaway. Yeah, the script goes there unfortunately. Oh, no, doomed love! As for Hathaway's relative team (i.e.: the ones making sure he doesn't bolt), there's an underused Viola Davis and an underused Holt McCallany with Andy On joining the group as a like-minded hacker. Also look for John Ortiz, Ritchie Coster and Yorick van Wageningen in key supporting parts.

There's a certain look and feel and touch to a Mann movie. He was shooting in handheld, shaky cam in digital long before others thought to do so. That look and feel of the movie is definitely there with a story mostly based in a very humid-looking Hong Kong, Malaysia and Indonesia. That Michael Mann style is there to burn. The set pieces are okay, but nothing too memorable with the exception of the finale at a crowded parade ground during a religious ceremony. Even then though, the finale disappoints because it could have packed quite a punch but instead goes for a far safer ending. Too bad.

So what's the biggest issue? It isn't the most action-packed movie. I'd say more than that it is even a tad slow to the point of being boring in a 133-minute running time. I did like it though in spite of its flaws, but just not as much as Mann's other previous ventures. A flawed recommendation.

Blackhat (2015): ** 1/2 /****

Avengers: Age of Ultron

By all accounts, 2015 at the movie box office is the year of BIG MOVIES. Released in early April, Furious 7 zoomed past the $1 billion dollar mark already and was joined this week by Avengers: Age of Ultron, the next big thing in the Marvel franchise. The scary part for my nerdy self is there's still Mad Max, Jurassic World, Spectre, Mission: Impossible, Terminator, and of course, Star Wars to come in theaters. I loved Furious 7 and wouldn't you know it? I loved Avengers too.

In the Eastern European country of Sokovia, the Avengers -- Iron Man (Robert Downey Jr.), Captain America (Chris Evans), Thor (Chris Hemsworth), Hulk (Mark Ruffalo), Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson) and Hawkeye (Jeremy Renner) -- are able to fight their way into a Hydra outpost to recover Loki's all-powerful scepter. Back at the Avengers base, Tony Stark wants to use this power for good, using the scepter's power to create a brand of artificial intelligence that could shield the world, to protect it from all threats. Nothing goes quite to plan though as the artificial intelligence uses its ridiculous amount of pressure, calling itself Ultron (voice of James Spader), and escapes across the world's technology intent on destroying the Avengers and ultimately ruling the world. Can this ultra-powerful tool and weapon be stopped? At what cost? Once again, it comes down to the Avengers putting their differences aside to pull off a seemingly impossible mission.

It's been three years since the first Avengers movie hit theaters and tore apart the box office, earning $1.5 billion worldwide. The Marvel Cinematic Universe is a franchise that continues to pile up the money, and typically, positive reviews. Fans love them -- for the most part -- and I include myself in that list. These Avengers movies have become the perfect blockbuster, huge, sprawling action adventures with a crazy cast and crazier action. Director Joss Whedon returns to helm this sequel, and even he admits the work that goes into making these movies (Read...the intense, soul-crushing PRESSURE) is brutally tough. Whedon even wrote this daunting screenplay. Potential world-ending villains, double-digit MAIN characters, countless quick, cameo appearances, and the high expectations of the franchise's countless fans, man, that is a TON of pressure.

So yeah, reviews were a little more mixed here than with the first flick. Sure, there are some flaws and hiccups along the way. None of those flaw/hiccups proves to be too big a problem simply because these movies are so damn fun. Like all the franchise entries, there is a certain formula to follow, but 'Ultron' is able to tweak that formula a bit. All the characters are there, the witty banter, the great villains, the world-shattering action. The F-U-N. The story doesn't always make a ton of sense, but it becomes an issue of...well, does it really matter? You sit back, eat some popcorn and go for the ride. It's a relatively long movie at 141 minutes, but it never feels long. Things are moving too fast and there's too many moving pieces for this money-raking sequel to actually slow down.

The biggest appeal for me with the Avengers flicks above the action or the villains or all the craziness is the ridiculous cast. These casts, my goodness, they're epic. With so many characters, we don't always get the depth/development/background you might want, but Whedon's script certainly goes for it. We continue to see the budding rivalry between Iron Man and Captain America, the budding lovey-dovey relationship between Bruce Banner and Black Widow, and I thought the coolest part, getting to know the most-human members of the Avengers, Hawkeye and a secret he's been holding onto and Black Widow and her past as an assassin trained by the KGB. There's so much to cover, a movie clocking in at 141 simply can't give too much character development. These are all characters capable of carrying a movie on their own -- and many of them have -- so when you combine them, it comes together pretty perfectly. There's almost too much talent for it NOT to work.

That cast, that ridiculous list of stars though, it simply isn't enough. Right? Right?!? We need more characters!!! James Spader is perfectly voice-cast as Ultron, the artificial intelligence hell-bent on destroying the world. Spader's voice is silky and smooth and droll and dripping with intimidation. Without ever appearing on-screen, Spader is a scene-stealer. Also joining him in the villains department are Aaron-Taylor Johnson and Elizabeth Olsen as the Twins, a Russian brother and sister with special powers, Pietro with super speed and Wanda with mental manipulation. Quite the interesting trio. Also appearing in smaller parts -- but necessary ones -- are Samuel L. Jackson as Nick Fury and Cobie Smulders as Maria Hill, Because of the behemoth that is the Marvel universe, there's also Don Cheadle, Anthony Mackie, Idris Elba, Hayley Atwell, Stellan Skarsgard, Thomas Kretschmann, and because that wasn't enough, more characters including Linda Cardellini, Claudia Kim, Andy Serkis, and an expanded role -- a very cool one -- for Paul Bettany as Jarvis.

This may come as a bit of sacrilege, but I thought the weakest part of this money-raking sequel is actually the action itself. Look, here's my thoughts. It looks great. It looks polished. It looks CRAZY at times, but you just know none of it is real. It is all CGI to the point you get lost in it. There's not as much emotional punch. Action movies have become so reliant on this stuff that is becomes a crippling crutch. I haven't seen it yet but Mad Max: Fury Road is getting ridiculously positive reviews because the action is real. They went out and filmed it and did the stunts. To a certain extent, the same for Furious 7. The action is great and shown on a huge, world-shattering scale, but it's almost too polished. The exception is the destruction-riddled finale, an incredibly put-together extended action sequence that is able to blend the CGI with the characters and their bonds (and some twists along the way) in an extravaganza of fights and stunts and destruction.

Yeah, there are issues. With this much going on, it would be near impossible for there not to be issues. But by the time you get to the scene where the Avengers -- and some surprising reinforcements -- dig their heels in for a last stand against Ultron's minions, with the fate of the world hanging in the balance, and it's all in slow motion...........oh man, fan boy moment! It's hard not to go along for the ride. It isn't perfect, and I liked the first Avengers more, but this is about as entertaining as anything you could ask for. Quite the daunting task taken on by Whedon and his script, but I'll call it booming, flawed gem of a success. Now onto other Marvel films....and there will be tons! The ending especially sets things up nicely for the next Captain America movie, set for release in 2016. Bring it on!

Avengers: Age of Ultron (2015): *** 1/2 /****

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): **/****

Rush (2013)

So do we have any auto racing fans out there? Nascar, Formula One, dirt track races, drag racing, anything? I've never been a fan, never been able to sit down and watch a race on TV from beginning to end. On the other hand, I love racing movies from older gems like Grand Prix and Le Mans to more current movies like the Fast and the Furious series. Released in theaters last year to basically uniformally positive reviews and a decent box box, 2013's Rush is one of the best racing movies out there.

It's 1970 and two young drivers, James Hunt (Chris Hemsworth) and Niki Lauda (Daniel Bruhl), are trying to make it from Formula 3 racing to the Formula 1 circuit. The two racers are complete polar opposites, James a smooth, charming ladies man with an incredible knack for racing, Niki the perfectionist who works incessantly at being the best driver he can be. Going down vastly different routes, both James and Niki make it to the pinnacle, finally getting to Formula One. Niki even wins the 1975 World Championship at the circuit's best racer. It all seems primed for the 1976 season, Niki signed with Ferrari while Hunt works with McLaren, both drivers at their prime with the best possible cars to drive and staffs to keep the cars driving at an optimum level. Can this rivalry be pushed too far though? How far will each man go to ensure a win?

What a really, really good movie. One of the most positive things to take away from this movie? Ron Howard is directing! He's had a relative rough patch of late recently, movies that didn't seem up to his talents like The Dilemma or the Dan Brown movies, The Da Vinci Code or Angels and Demons. Even considering his career films, 'Rush' seems like a bit of a departure for Howard, but that's a positive. A big positive. There is a hard-edge here to the story from the personal interactions to the intensity, even smaller things like language or nudity (Hemsworth does a nude scene. You're welcome, ladies). The story from Peter Morgan's script is a nice fit for a 123-minute long movie. It covers almost six full years but hits the necessary moments without feeling rushed, much of the focus on the 1976 season. There's not one high-reaching thing 'Rush' does well, one huge thing that sets it apart from the field. It just does a lot of things really well.

Nowhere is that more evident than the two leads, Hemsworth and Bruhl, and for different reasons. Making a name for himself as Thor in the Avengers movies, it's hard to believe Hemsworth has only been in the public eye for a handful of years. Bruhl is a less well-known actor probably most known to American audiences because of Quentin Tarantino's Inglourious Basterds. Their on-screen chemistry is the heart of the movie. It's not a hatred between the two men, just an intense, palpable rivalry that at times brings out the best and worst in them. Within sports, rivalries fuel it all, and when it is individuals more than teams -- especially in a film -- it works better. Bruhl even picked up some Oscar buzz for his performance here but ultimately didn't get a nomination for his past as Niki Lauda. SPOILERS Don't read the Wikipedia biography if you don't want to know where the movie heads. SPOILERS

It just works, the pairing between Hemsworth and Bruhl. The two men are different, but they've got more in common than they probably want to admit. Watching a movie about either man would have been intensely interesting so seeing the Formula 1 season play out between the two of them is even better. I'm struggling to explain it, but it's just a good dynamic. They don't hate each other -- maybe intensely dislike -- but for the most part their confrontations are hard-edged and brutal...with smiles on their faces. Through it all, there is a mutual respect that grows between the two men, something grown out of a profession that is inherently dangerous (Lauda's narration claims 2 drivers die a year) as the drivers live on the edge with each race. They push each other to the absolute limit, their intense desire to win becoming obsessive. It wears on their persona lives, their relationships, everything. Kudos to Hemsworth and Bruhl.

The focus is almost entirely on that duo, Olivia Wilde making an almost cameo-like appearance as Hunt's wife, and Alexandra Maria Lara as Marlene, Niki's wife who questions if he can ever be invested in a marriage. Pierfrancesco Favino is solid as a rival Ferrari driver, but the rest of the cast is almost entirely background. We meet some of the backers, the pit crew, but nothing in depth.

What works so well beyond the casting is the racing sequences. Stylish and edited at a freaky fast pace, these sequences are still easy to follow. Because 'Rush' covers so much ground, there's only that one big race, most of the build-up a quick, hard-hitting race that isn't wasting any time. The finale is a gem, the race for the World Championship coming down to one final go on a rainy, almost suicidal course, Nurburgring. The races have an almost washed-out look that stylistically works surprisingly well. Howard filmed on many of the courses where the story is set, acquiring a bunch of vintage cars. The 1970s setting definitely adds to the proceedings as does composer Hans Zimmer's score. There wasn't one huge theme that stuck out for me, but it's a great score that adds a lot to the racing sequences. I was impressed especially because it tries to do so much as a score, not just big, booming epic music.

An excellent movie all-around. Well worth tracking down. Without any knowledge of the actual history, the story surprised me, especially one decision Lauda makes that greatly affects everyone on the circuit, including Hunt. Crazy to think this actually happened, Howard more than doing it justice.

Rush (2013): *** 1/2 /****

Red Dawn (2012)

Unnecessary Remake No. 1,839, and away we go. Released in 1984, Red Dawn is a classic flick that is a pretty good example of what a really good and oh so bad 1980s movie can be. So 28 years later, enough time has passed. Right? Let's remake it for no apparent reason other than money!!! Brace yourself for 2012's painfully bad Red Dawn.

The world, she is a-changing as a heavily militarized North Korea and Russia begin to take advantage of a struggling economy in Asia, Europe and eventually across the world. American troops are being deployed internationally, leaving the states vulnerable to attack. In Spokane, U.S. Army soldier Jed Eckert (Chris Hemsworth) is home on leave visiting his family when the U.S. is actually attacked and invaded by North Korean forces. As parachutes rain down and planes unleash bomb after bomb, Jed manages to escape into the mountains with his younger brother, Matt (Josh Peck), and a small group of teenagers. At first, Jed's crew is content to just hide in the mountains and survive, but the North Koreans come looking for them, including killing Jed and Matt's father (Brett Cullen) right in front of them. Using his military training, Jed teaches them how to shoot, fight and kill (DRAMA!), taking the attack to the North Koreans. America! Wolverines!

This movie was doomed a bit from the start. It was actually filmed in 2009 and originally scheduled to be released in 2010. Studio problems and backing wreaked havoc, and ta-da! It was released in November 2012 to awful reviews and a pretty lukewarm response at the box office. The biggest issue is that there's absolutely no point to the movie in the least. The 1984 original was timely (if cheesy), dealing with very current issues at the end of the Cold War. A Russian invasion of the states? Far-fetched, sure, but still creepy. Well now we're having issues with North Koreans (originally written in the script as the Chinese, dropped so it could be released in China. Yeah money!) so they invade? If you're going to do a remake, pick a lousy movie that needs to be remade. If you're just doing it for the sake of doing it ($), then at least throw something new at us! Try a tweak here, a twist there. Nice work director Dan Bradley.

The 2012 remake starts off interestingly enough. The invasion scene is pretty cool, unsettling and exciting as paratroopers descend from the sky on a lazy Saturday morning. Jed and Matt head for the hills amid chaos in Spokane, gunshots and explosions all around them. From there, it degenerates into one cliched, overdone scene after another. All characterization has been stripped away -- making the original look like a masterpiece in character study -- to the point where Jed's crew of spunky resistance fighters are a faceless, nameless sea of teenage mediocrity. More than that, it's just stupid. How is an entire North Korean army not able to find a group of teenagers hiding in the mountains? Do they not have technology available to them? How do the Wolverines manage to sneak in and out of heavily guarded Spokane pretty much at will?

I'll get the minor positives out of the way here. Not yet a star when the movie was made in 2010, Hemsworth is a solid lead. The script does him no favors, but he's very watchable, making the most of his poorly written part that requires him to be gruff and squint. In a too little, too late part, Jeffrey Dean Morgan plays Sgt. Andrew Tanner, a Marine sent to work with the Wolverines and help take down a North Korean secret weapon. It's a wasted part -- around 10-15 minutes actually on-screen -- but a nice tweak on the Powers Boothe part in the original Red Dawn. Will Yun Lee plays Captain Cho, the North Korean district commander who says six words and glares at Hemsworth's Jed from afar with a menacing look. No background (or dialogue for that matter) or humanization, just foreboding looks.

One part almost single-handedly ruins the movie, and that honor goes to Peck as Matt Eckert. A former Nickelodeon star on Drake and Josh. All grown up and thinned out, Peck delivers a truly awful performance. Something seems to be going on with his eyes that ends up being distracting in a big way. Mostly though, he smiles awkwardly, mumbles a lot, growls in a scratchy voice when he's loud enough to understand and pouts like an 8-year old. Oh, and as for the iconic 'Wolverines!' cry, it's never explained, just screamed. It's the high school mascot, but they just assume we know that having seen the original. The other Wolverines include Josh Hutcherson so full of hate -- kinda -- because his parents are dead, Hemsworth love interest Adrianne Palicki, Isabel Lucas as Matt's girlfriend, Connor Cruise as the mayor's son, Edwin Hodge as Matt's black friend, and Alyssa Diaz and Julian Alcaraz as out of town teenagers.

I figured if nothing else the action would be good here, and it ain't bad to be fair. It ain't good though either. While exciting, much of it is edited so quickly and features the handheld running camera routine that cripples just about any action movie ever. With a movie that's just 93 minutes long, everything is stripped down to a bare minimum. Background, characters, actual human interaction, it all gets tossed out the window. This was an awful movie. Go back to the original. Patrick Swayze is cooler than ever.

Red Dawn (2012): */****      

The Avengers

Since 2008's Iron Man, the Marvel Comics universe has been introduced to a worldwide audience via a series of films featuring an infamous list of heroes. With each passing movie, the audience would see little snippets of something bigger being hinted at, something else coming along down the road. We saw quick scenes of characters, usually post-credits, and the rumors drifted. Would all these superhero characters team up as they did in the Marvel comics, forming The Avengers (<---the comic)? You bet, and that's where 2012's The Avengers rides into town to open the summer blockbusters.

For those not familiar with the Avengers' lineup, here goes, a refresher course in badass superheroes. The plot synopsis is next, but I wanted to start with a listing of these characters. The biggest and baddest? Well, I guess that's a personal choice, but I'm starting with Iron Man (Robert Downey Jr.), Tony Stark in real life, a rich, eccentric playboy philanthropist. Joining him are Captain America (Chris Evans), a WWII hero come back to fight in 2012, Thor (Chris Hemsworth), an other-worldly Norse god, and the Hulk (Mark Ruffalo), scientist Bruce Banner post-gamma ray accident. Rounding out the group are two assassins and special agents, Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson), a brutally efficient expert in hand-to-hand combat, and Hawkeye (Jeremy Renner), a pilot and marksman with bow and arrow. Good enough? That's just the start.

Director of espionage and intelligence agency S.H.I.E.L.D., Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson) arrives at a remote secure facility in the desert as a time portal opens up and brings an unwelcome visitor. It is Loki (Tom Hiddleston), half-brother of Norse god, Thor, and he intends to wreak havoc on Earth. Loki steals the all-powerful Tesseract -- a pure, clean and unmeasurable source of energy -- and intends to use it to take over the planet. With nowhere to turn and no mortal, normal solution, Fury turns to the only individuals he can in a plan dubbed the Avengers Initiative, a collection of "freaks" all with unique, bizarre powers. With these different personalities and talents, can the group put their differences aside long enough to save the planet?

This is a summer blockbuster, definition of basically, director Joss Whedon's film raking in over $200 million its opening weekend alone, and that's just the United States. It is a big, big movie, but a good big movie, and that means everything. It clocks in at 143 minutes total and even without the most pointed of stories manages to be entertaining from start to finish. 'Avengers' is in no rush to get anywhere. It is a great popcorn movie. The action is great to watch, shot on a huge scale and using CGI but never that ridiculous-looking 'Oh, look, it's CGI' type reaction. Genuinely funny with a handful of legitimate laughs, full of action and great characters, this will not disappoint fans of the Iron Man movies, Hulk, or Thor. The Avengers very much so lives up to its admittedly rather high expectations.

A good script is one thing, and having the talent to execute it another thing entirely. The cast here are movie stars who can act, not just movie stars. The obvious star is Robert Downey Jr. as Iron Man/Tony Stark, bringing this character to life perfectly the same way he did in Iron Man 1 and 2. Amidst a sea of solid actors, he manages to stand out, delivering countless smarmy, smart-ass one-liners. I'm also a fan of Evans too, and he's in close second as Captain America in terms of memorable superheroes. None of that is to say the rest are disappointing. Ruffalo and Hemsworth are excellent in smaller parts, pieces of an ensemble. Johansson seems a little out of place, but watching her in a leather catsuit puts any of those questions to bed. Renner too doesn't have a ton to do, but as one of the rising stars in Hollywood, it's one more solid, worthwhile part.

Not enough? Along with the always reliable, always worth watching Samuel L. Jackson, Hiddleston is a great maniacal villain you love to hate, Clark Gregg runs with his chance at more screentime as SHIELD agent Coulson and never looks back, Cobie Smulders (How I Met Your Mother) plays another SHIELD agent, Stellan Skarsgard is the brilliant scientist duped into working for Loki, Harry Dean Stanton as a security guard who meets post-rage Hulk, and Powers Boothe has a quick part as a member of the World Security Council. Oh, can't forget about Gwyneth Paltrow's quick appearance as Pepper Potts, Tony's girlfriend. Not too bad of a cast, huh?

The action is impressive -- more on that later -- but what I liked most was the team aspect of the Avengers. Who's the leader? How will they work together? Can they? The script has countless scenes that throw them together in groups of two and three, five and six, and just lets them go. Yes, they're all different people, but they are in fact fighting together. Jackson's Fury has a great scene late when he has to convince the remaining Avengers to band together, the movie on the whole taking a turn for the dark side as push comes to shove. Their interactions -- both dramatic and humorous -- are a pleasure to watch. Then there's that little kid, primal thing that kicks in. A fight among Iron Man, Thor and Capt. America? Oh, hell yes! A brutal, knock-down fight between Thor and Hulk? Sign me up. The specialist, expert team aspect sounds obvious that it would work (and it does) but these characters clicking into place makes the movie particularly memorable.

Oh, by the way, there's crazy amounts of amazing action. I mentioned earlier watching CGI action gets old quickly, but that's not the case here. The CGI for one, looks real. Crazy thought, isn't it? The movie never goes long without a fight/action sequence, but the best is saved for last, Loki's minions unleashed through a universe portal on New York City, and all that stands in front of them is the Avengers. It goes on for most of 45 minutes but the time flies by. The whole movie does in that sense. Highly entertaining, funny and dramatic, memorable action, and a lineup sheet of some of the coolest superheroes and characters around. Go see this.

The Avengers <---trailer (2012): *** 1/2 /****

Thor

One of many movies that I'm looking forward to in 2012, The Avengers will arrive in theaters on May 4. I've seen the other unofficial prequels that have all led to this movie including Iron Man (loved it), Iron Man 2 (eh), Captain America (loved it), and the Hulk movies (okay, but nothing more). Who's left? That would be 2011's Thor, a movie I really had little interest in seeing, but for the sake of The Avengers, I wanted at least to be up to date on everything. Yeah, that was a bad choice.

In the realm of Asgard, a king named Odin (Anthony Hopkins) has stopped the Frost Giants from destroying the remaining eight realms of the universe. Odin is quickly aging though and is ready to name his son, Thor (Chris Hemsworth), his heir and successor to the crown. Thor though is too arrogant, too cocky, and finds himself banished to Earth when he pushes his father too far, all his power and strength -- including his hammer -- is taken from him. He's found in the desert by Jane (Natalie Portman), an astrophysicist exploring sightings in the sky. With no powers, Thor doesn't know what to do as he explores this foreign world. Back home in Asgard, his brother Loki (Tom Hiddleston) is up to no good though, and Thor must find a way to stop him.

I think it took me about five minutes to decide I didn't like this film, and unfortunately things didn't improve over the next 110. From the previous Marvel superhero movies, I expected a certain quality even when the movie itself isn't that great. Director Kenneth Branagh seems lost here. There is absolutely no payoff here at all. None. Things keep building and building....well, sort of. Things happen in the desert, then Asgard, then other realms, then a lackluster fight at the end. People are shot back and forth through the realms, people fight. I don't see the point of the movie other than introducing the Thor character. It's dull, the attempts at humor fall far short of actual laughs, and a good cast is wasted...a really good cast.

What was my first sign of trouble? The sweeping panoramic reveal of Asgard, a Norse-like realm straight out of Viking mythology, reeked of Lord of the Rings. The overabundance of CGI bored me to death. I maintain that the best of computer-generated imagery is barely noticeable. It just flows with the movie. The scenes that call attention to themselves are pretty clear we're watching something a computer created. But mostly, it's the ridiculous tone. An acting legend he may be, but Hopkins just looks uncomfortable here. Hiddleston as Loki is one of the weakest, most boring villains around. And the introduction of the Frost Giants in the beginning? I realize this is all a fictional mythology, but that's the best that Marvel came up with? Big monsters that freeze things? When they're fighting Thor or his allies in battle, why don't they just freeze them off the bat instead of engaging in hand-to-hand combat? Wow, that's way too much analysis for a movie this dumb.

Now not that an IMDB rating means a lot (is The Shawshank Redemption really the greatest movie ever? I think not.), but Thor is rocking a 7.0 average at the time of this review. The only real bright spot I come up with is Hemsworth as Thor. He's one of the few actors here who looks comfortable in his role. He commits to the part for lack of a better description. Thor, the god of thunder, arriving on Earth with no powers but all his Norse mannerisms and stilted, boisterous speech patterns do provide some laughs. He orders a 2nd cup of coffee, slamming the empty mug down because that's what he's always done. More importantly though, Hemsworth is quite the physical presence. This dude is ripped, and he dominates the fight scenes he's in. Now if he joins The Avengers, I don't see why anyone else is needed -- especially if he's got his Hammer -- but more over-thinking on my part. Silly me. Anyways, Hemsworth is the best thing going here.

The rest of the cast doesn't fare too well. No doubt that Portman is an above average actress, and it's great to see her in a mainstream blockbuster, but this is not a good part for her. She floats along, tries to act pissed and falls hard for Thor because something's got to happen in this movie. Stellan Skarsgard and Kat Denning play Erik and Darcy, Jane's assistants in the field who get mixed up in the whole Thor arrival. Denning at least gives it a go with her cynical humor, Skarsgard just looks bored. Thor's Asgard crew of warriors -- potentially very cool, in execution not developed and cliched -- include Ray Stevenson, Tadanobu Asano, Josh Dallas, and Jaimie Alexander. Making an out of left field appearance, Rene Russo stands around for two or three scenes as Frigga, Thor's mother. Another bright spot in the cool character/actor department is Idris Elba as Heimdall, the Asgard gatekeeper to the portals that reach the other realms of the universe.

Because I'm struggling to put into words why I disliked this movie, let's talk connection with The Avengers. Clark Gregg is back as Agent Coulson, on-site and much-maligned field agent for S.H.I.E.L.D. who must investigate Thor's arrival, as well as his Hammer. Also look quickly for Jeremy Renner as Hawkeye, another Avenger introduced for the first time here. And if the other Marvel movies have taught us anything, watch through the credits as Samuel L. Jackson makes his requisite appearance in a short scene as Nick Fury. I didn't care for Thor -- the movie, not the character -- much at all, but I'm still psyched for the Avengers movie in May.

I'm trying to put my finger on this one, and I'm drawing a complete blank. I'm not sure what Brannagh was going for at all as a director. The story is aimless, drifting along with no real purpose or set goal. It bounces around far too much, and then when its deemed we've had enough, the credits roll. Hemsworth as Thor is trying though, and he does a fine job with the character, but there's not much else to recommend.   

Thor <---trailer (2011): */****

Star Trek

Thanks to his work with ABC's Lost, director/producer extraordinaire J,J. Abrams has basically got free reign if you ask me. Anybody who produces a show as good as Lost gets the benefit of the doubt, even if MI:3 was a bit of a disappointment. He seems to have a golden touch with whatever he goes after so when a teaser trailer was released for an updated version of Star Trek, more than a few eyebrows were raised. With a franchise as hugely popular and successful as Star Trek, anyone taking that on has got some guts.

Now other than some pop culture references (for one, George Costanza screaming 'Khan!'), I have no background in the Star Trek universe. Sure, I've heard of Captain Kirk and Spock and the Enterprise and all that good stuff, but I've never seen even a minute of any of the different shows or movies that so many fans swear by. In that way, I'd like to think I'm in the target audience for Abrams' movie, noobs almost completely oblivious to the series and franchise. With a sequel already announced after the huge success Star Trek had this summer -- over $250 million-- the opener in what could be a long series is an entertaining flick that sets the groundwork for fans new and old to the series.

In the year 2233, a Starfleet ship, the U.S.S. Kelvin is destroyed by a monstrous Romulan warship deep in space with first officer George Kirk (Chris Hemsworth) ordering an evacuation before sacrificing himself and the ship. One of the people escaping is George's pregnant wife who gives birth to a son, James. Flash forward some 20 years later and James T. Kirk (Chris Pine) is all grown up. Meeting a high-ranking Starfleet officer, Capt. Pike (Bruce Greenwood), Kirk is convinced into joining Starfleet where he enters officer training. After three years of study --taken care of quickly with a 'Three Years Later" title card-- Kirk does not get the orders he wanted, a position on the fleet's flagship, the U.S.S. Enterprise.

But with some help from friend and medical officer Bones McCoy (Karl Urban), Kirk gets on board as the flagship takes off leading the fleet on a dangerous mission. Reaching their destination, they find the same Romulan warship that destroyed the Kelvin almost 25 years earlier waiting for them with maniacal leader Nero (Eric Bana) in command. Having heard how his father died, Kirk suspects the fleet is flying into a trap and must do his damnedest to save the fleet, including taking over the Enterprise. There's elements of time travel and changing the future too so brace yourself for a handful of scenes that make your head hurt with some fast-paced conversations.

It's refreshing to see a big budget action movie with lots of style and glitz that is, well, good. Star Trek isn't just good in one aspect, it's a solid movie across the board. There's great action sequences blending CGI and actual stunts on a more personal level to go with believable and interesting interactions among a long list of characters. As the special features documentary mentions, Abrams has the ability to blend both the large and little scales, hitting you with an over the top space fight and then intimate moments after the battle. At just over 2 hours long, you won't even notice as the time flies by.

From what little I know of the franchise, this reboot sticks close to all the versions that came before it. Pine is a strong choice to play Kirk, and thankfully he doesn't do his best Shatner impression. He makes James T. Kirk a cocky but likable character that is easy to root for and get behind. The other key character is of course, Spock Prime, played to perfection by Zachary Quinto. Spock is half-man, half-Vulcan so he blends the characteristics of both species, the logic of a Vulcan and the fire and emotion of a human. The natural rivalry and subsequent bonding between Kirk and Spock is a key one that will almost assuredly be carried into later movies.

As for the rest of the cast, Abrams assembled a strong group of young, up and coming actors who will provide a strong springboard into the series. Urban plays McCoy, the medical officer, Zoe Saldana is Uhura, the linguistics expert, scene-stealing Simon Pegg is Scotty, the engineer, John Cho as Sulu, the Enterprise's pilot, and Anton Yelchin as Checkov, the navigator. Other than Pegg, no one really shines here but most of the group's screentime is setting up who they are and what they do. It will be interesting to see how they develop. Bana is a good villain if a bit underused, but it's the original Spock, Leonard Nimoy, that makes a great extended cameo. An all-around solid cast that helps bring the movie up a notch.

A pleasant surprise for another franchise rebooting, which I've got to say is not necessarily a bad thing with Daniel Craig reinvigorating the Bond series, Christian Bale doing the same for Batman, and now Abrams, Pine and Quinto stepping up to the plate with one of the most popular science fiction franchises ever. If you're concerned about not knowing anything about the series, don't be. The movie is a polished, exciting, well-told story. Don't miss it.

Star Trek <----trailer (2009): ***/****