3:10 to Yuma (2007)

Oh, remakes...we meet again. And a western at that?!? Oh, the horrors! As for my rule though, if you're going to do a remake, you'd better be ready to do something different, something with a twist. Here's a perfect case in point with 2007's 3:10 to Yuma, a remake of a 1957 western of the same name. The original is a good if not great western that with some tweaks could be great. Does the remake capitalize on that potential?

A rancher in New Mexico with a wife and two kids, Dan Evans (Christian Bale) is struggling. A drought has left his land barely getting by, and he's running out of money to pay off some significant debts. What can he do to save his family and their land? A highly lucrative, highly dangerous option has presented itself. An infamous outlaw and killer, Ben Wade (Russell Crowe), has been captured in the town of Bisbee following a successful payroll robbery. The railroad wants Wade brought to justice, hoping to send him to Yuma Prison where he will be tried and prosecuted, hopefully ending up in a noose. For $200, Dan agrees to go along in transporting Wade to the town of Contention where the outlaw can be put on a train to Yuma. With a small, not too capable posse helping, Dan and Wade hit the trail. Not far behind? Wade's murdering, bloodthirsty gang, looking to free their boss and not caring if they've gotta kill a few people in the process.

The 1957 3:10 to Yuma from director Delmer Daves stars Glenn Ford (as Wade) and Van Heflin (as Dan) in a pretty good but not great western. It's solid. It's entertaining. A remake isn't necessarily needed, but if you're gonna do it right...do it like this.

From director James Mangold, 2007 'Yuma' injects some energy into the western genre. Some of the DVD special features address that aspect, the love of the western, the general death of the western in theatres, and without getting preachy...the need for westerns in theaters. The original is a talkative movie, but the 2007 version is talkative, action-packed, highly entertaining, and features some great performances. Filmed on-location in New Mexico with an Oscar-nominated score from Marco Beltrami, 'Yuma' feels and looks authentic. It's dirty, dusty and grimy with gunplay and death hanging in the air. There's nothing glamorous or romantic about the late 19th Century in the American southwest. Throw it all together though, and we've got a western with a ton of energy that is just fun. It's entertaining. 'Yuma' shows you can be a so-called "adult western" while still having fun.

Who better to inject that energy into a decidedly-American genre? Lead actors from New Zealand and England of course! Crowe and Bale are perfectly cast in their respective roles. Crowe's Ben Wade is a killer, a bandit, brutal, ruthless....but damn, he's charming when he wants to be. Lightning-fast with a gun, he's also freakishly quick with a disarming line. Wade can play mind games with few equals, providing some fun as he messes with his captors. Crowe is clearly reveling in the part, clearly having a ton of fun with the amiable but brutally efficient outlaw. As farmer/rancher Dan Evans, Bale gets the more straight role but similarly throws himself into the part. His Civil War past still weighs on him, and he desperately wants to provide for his family, including his wife (Gretchen Mol) and two sons. While few men would take the risks associated with transporting a notorious outlaw, Dan has no other options. Two fascinating characters.

Crowe and Bale are excellent together, featuring some great banter throughout. The most memorable part though, that goes to Ben Foster as Charlie Prince, Wade's right-hand man, a lightning-fast gunslinger who's also just a touch unhinged. Foster is terrifyingly good here from his wardrobe, to his evil smile to ability with a gun. A great supporting part. Also look for Logan Lerman as Dan's oldest son, Dallas Roberts as Butterfield, the railroad representative, Peter Fonda (who's always welcome) as McElroy, a grizzled Pinkerton agent, Alan Tudyk as Doc Potter, Kevin Durand as the maniacal Tucker, Vinessa Shaw as a madam who meets Wade's liking, and in the odd, out-of-left-field department, Luke Wilson in a random part as a gunslinging miner.

A couple things bugged me on the recent viewing. Trying to stay ahead of the vengeful Prince and Wade's gang, Dan, Butterfield and Co. seem to be in absolutely no rush to get to Contention. They set down and camp....a lot. We're talking long, restful sleeps each night it seems like! Before that, they stop and have a nice dinner at the Evans ranch. Eh, time isn't of the essence or anything, right?

Some plot holes and discrepancies aside, this was a great western. There isn't a ton of action, but what's there is excellent. The opening stagecoach robbery -- featuring a gatling gun! -- is a quality scene-setter and some gunplay is sprinkled throughout until the finale, an exciting, bullet-riddled chase through Contention to the train depot. Where the remake differentiates itself from the original is the mix of drama and action. Mangold knows what he's working with in Crowe and Bale and lets the camera and story stick with his star duo. Their chemistry is without doubt throughout, two pros in a heavyweight fight just waiting to deliver the knockout punch.

As for my general complaint about remakes, do something different if you're gonna remake a movie that didn't need it. The 2007 version does plenty different, including quite a different ending. Some critics took issue with the ending and Wade's reasoning for what he does, but if you're paying attention, clues are dropped throughout as to his intentions. An excellent all-around western that's highly recommended!

3:10 to Yuma (2007): *** 1/2 /****

Exodus: Gods and Kings

Like the western, the historical epic has seemingly gone the way of the dodo bird. The genre was at its most popular in the 1950s and 1960s, turning out gigantic epics like The Ten Commandments, Ben-Hur, El Cid, Spartacus, The Greatest Story Ever Told, and that's just some of the biblical epics. About a year ago, I was naturally curious when I read that director Ridley Scott was at the helm of a new epic about Moses and the Hebrews' escape from Egypt. Reviews were mixed to negative, but it managed to make decent money in theaters. So where does 2014's Exodus: Gods and Kings fall? Let's see.

In ancient Egypt, a new pharaoh, Ramses II (Joel Edgerton), has been appointed after his father dies. The fiery new pharaoh has help at his side in the form of his stepbrother, Moses (Christian Bale). Many years before, an orphaned infant Moses was picked up in the Nile River and taken into the home and temple of the then pharaoh, Ramses' father. The Hebrew man grew up somewhat knowing his past, his blood, but he's moved on...until now. Seeing his stepbrother as a potential threat to his throne, Ramses exiles his brother. Moses survives though, starts a family in a far-off, isolated village and moves on. Years pass though and he continues to hear the plight of the Hebrew people working as slaves under Egyptian rule, still the cruel Ramses. There has long been rumors and teachings that someone will save the Hebrews, and that man may just be Moses himself. Can he realize it? Can he go back to Egypt and convince his brother to peacefully let the slaves go?

So basically everyone knows the story of Moses, of the Hebrew slaves in Egypt, the plagues one after another, the parting of the Red Sea and the eventual 40 years of wandering in the desert. I read about it a ton as a kid growing up, at home and in school, and then I saw the 1956 epic The Ten Commandments, still shown on ABC every Easter. That's both a good and bad thing for Scott's epic. It's familiar...but it's familiar. I liked it but didn't love it. There's the necessary spectacle and scale you need in a biblical/historical epic and a solid cast, but there are equal part flaws and misses that handicap the movie's potential.

There seems to be a trend going on in history books, on history documentaries, miniseries, all of the above. I think it's a good trend, one I've enjoyed watching as it develops. It's pretty simple. Look at history with a questioning eye. Did the Exodus story happen just as the Old Testament said it did? No, probably not, and that's where Scott steps in. In the movie's strongest moments, he's able to blend that Old Testament story with a fresh eye, a clean look at the story. In a different sense (and a necessary one), he tries to distance himself from The Ten Commandments, many viewers most familiar connection to the story. What was Moses like? What was Ramses like? What was the world they lived in throughout ancient Egypt? It provides a fascinating jumping off point into a dark, dirty, violent and particularly nasty world that we thought we knew.

Christian Bale is one of my favorites. I thought he was the best thing going by far in American Hustle, his Batman movies are great, and if he's in a cast, I'm pretty likely to at least give the movie a chance. In a cast that features quite a cast but not much in the term of characters, Bale is the one to get out unscathed and represent himself quite well. His Moses is a three-dimensional person, a man struggling with what may be his destiny, his fate, the thing he's supposed to do with his life. Is it going to be easy? Not in the least, and that's what he's grappling with. When it comes right down to it, will he make that difficult decision? Bale isn't great, but he's pretty good in a cool leading role. Edgerton too is one of my favorites, a budding star looking for those great roles that will propel him into stardom, but this isn't it. The script does him no favors, an old school, power-hungry villain who comes across as more cliched than a real person. Too bad because Bale and Edgerton's scenes together are a high point. I just wish there was more of them.

The rest of the cast is given little to nothing to do. The names are impressive but any sense of character development was left by the wayside. Look for John Turturro, Sigourney Weaver, Aaron Paul, Maria Valverde, Andrew Tarbet and Ben Kingsley in smaller parts. Two solid smaller parts go to Ben Mendelsohn as a cruel district commander who couldn't care less about the slaves he rules over and young Isaac Andrews as Malak, a child who is God's human representation on Earth, communicating with Moses about what's to come. A scary, intense performance from a talented young actor. I especially liked Bale and Andrews together in their scenes, especially when Paul's Joshua looks on, not seeing Bale talk to anything at all. What he sees is a man seemingly talking to himself in the middle of the desert. Uh-oh, here we go with some faith-based questions again!

 Now if the focus isn't on character development, it's gotta be somewhere else, right? You would be correct. 'Exodus' embraces the moment in terms of scale and gigantic qualities you'd come to expect from a historical and Biblical epic. The plaques and plights an angry, violent Old Testament God sends down upon Ramses and Egypt are a sight to behold from the locusts, frogs, blood in the water, to the diseases, and most frighteningly, the killing of all the first born sons of Egyptians, these scenes are the movie at its best, strongest and most comfortable. But by far, the most exhilarating scene is the chase across the Red Sea, Moses and thousands of fleeing Hebrews pursued by Ramses and his chariot army as the receding sea charges back at them, the waves growing ever-higher. An incredible sequence, one of those great uses of computer-generated imagery. So in epic terms, this movie is a huge success and well worth seeking out.

I just wish there was more heart somewhere mixed in with the scale and spectacle. It's a pretty decent movie with some great moments. Still worth recommending -- especially to fans of biblical and historical epics -- but it's good. It could have been much more.

Exodus: Gods and Kings (2014): ** 1/2 /****

Out of the Furnace

I love a good movie trailer. I love the previews before the featured show. And some of them, they just reach out and grab you. Recently, the new Godzilla trailer caught my attention with some great visuals, great style and even better music. Released last year, 2013's Out of the Furnace caught my attention for different reasons. I should qualify that. Reason, singular. That cast. THAT CAST.

Russell Baze (Christian Bale) has spent his whole life in North Braddock, Pennsylvania, working at the local steel mill and carving out a rough hewn, tough life for himself. That life is torn from him one night when he drinks a little too much and gets in a car accident, two people killed in the other car. Russell is sent to prison and serves his sentence for manslaughter, finding his life even more uprooted when he gets out. Almost everything dearest to him has been taken away from him, his brother, Rodney (Casey Affleck), also in trouble. His younger brother is a veteran of multiple tours in Iraq and is struggling to cope, getting involved with a backwoods crime boss, Harlan DeGroat (Woody Harrelson). As he tries to pick up the pieces of his own life, Russell is now trying to save Rodney from himself too.

The trailer for this crime drama from director Scott Cooper caught my eye immediately. About just as quickly, the reviews started to come out criticizing the film. It wasn't that 'Furnace' wasn't good. It was more so that it wasn't as good as it could (and maybe should) have been. The reviews were pretty mixed, and it never gained any footing in theaters, earning a little over $14 million. Opinions will vary, but I liked this movie a lot. If there's a complaint, maybe it's that 'Furnace' is a little too familiar. It does feel like other movies, other crime dramas revolving around families and crime bosses operating on their own. It is dark, brutal and violent but the formula works, simple as that. It was filmed on-location in Pennsylvania and West Virginia where the story takes place, giving the story a gritty, authentic feel. Dickon Hinchliffe's musical score is okay but a few days later no themes really stick with me.

Christian Bale is on a short list of actors that I'll basically see anything they're in. I liked him a lot as Batman and love what he can do and has done with a variety of different roles. In a lot of ways, 'Furnace' reminded me of an ultra-gritty 1970s crime thrillers. It's the type of role that's easy to imagine Clint Eastwood or Steve McQueen playing, and Bale doesn't disappoint. Bale's Russell is that familiar but cool anti-hero, a good guy who's fallen on some tough times. What will he do to hopefully reverse that trend?  It's a matter of a guy getting out of his head and doing what needs to be done, even if none of that is the easy thing to do. This isn't a showy or flashy part, but Bale brings the character to life without any huge, dramatic monologues. His most emotional scene is a quiet, moving exchange with his ex-girlfriend (Zoe Saldana) as they meet for the first time in several years. The important thing is simple though. You're rooting for Russell, hoping he can figure things out in a solid lead performance from Mr. Bale.

But that cast! THAT CAST!!! Some reviews had some fun with the cast here in 'Furnace,' the trailers listing Academy Award winner/nominee, Golden Globe winner/nominee with seemingly every member of the cast. Harrelson is the downright nasty villain, his Harlan a drug-addicted, menacing criminal thug who doesn't have a redeeming thing going for him. It's fun to see villains like this, bad guys you love to hate. Affleck too is especially good as Rodney, Russell's younger brother who's struggling to readjust after returning from his tours in Iraq. Their relationship feels authentic from the get-go, two brothers who have always been close, one desperately trying to save the other. There's also Sam Shepard as Red, Russell's uncle who's very similar in demeanor to his nephew, Willem Dafoe as Petty, the local bar owner with his hand in some underhanded ventures, and Forest Whitaker as the local sheriff trying to keep his town somewhat in check as it threatens to implode. Hard to beat that collection of talent in one movie, huh?

This wasn't a classic movie, but I don't think it's trying to be. It is a good story with interesting characters and an equally interesting premise. The violence is startling and far from glamorous, not stylized like an action movie. So in that sense, 'Furnace' is quiet, moody movie that I enjoyed a lot. Appreciate the cast -- however big or small the role -- and watch this one. I feel like some viewers went in expecting an all-powerful movie that would rewrite the crime drama. It's just a good movie with an ending that's as dark and realistic as real life, not a duded up, forced ending.

Deal with it. Enjoy it.

Out of the Furnace (2013): ***/**** 

Public Enemies

In the age of the gangsters, the 1930s in Depression-era America, one name stands out above the rest. Sure, there's Pretty Boy Floyd, the Barkers, Baby Face Nelson, Machine Gun Kelly, Alvin Karpis, even Bonnie and Clyde. But the name John Dillinger stands out, Public Enemy No. 1, a gangster, bank robber and possible killer who rose to notoriety in the early 1930s. I reviewed this movie from 2009 that works as a quasi-biography, but rewatched it recently and updated the review. Here were go with 2009's Public Enemies.

It's 1933 in Crown Point, Indiana and John Dillinger (Johnny Depp) has been caught and is just being brought to prison, or so his guards think. Instead, the notorious bank robber has arranged a breakout, a group from his gang busting out with him. With his gang back together again, Dillinger goes on a spree, robbing banks all over Chicago and into Indiana and Wisconsin. The gangster feels the noose tighten around his neck, his notoriety forcing the government's hand in bringing him to justice. The Bureau of Investigation (the FBI) is in its infancy, J. Edgar Hoover (Billy Crudup) placing a young but capable agent, Melvin Purvis (Christian Bale), in charge of bringing Dillinger to justice. Using all the technology available to them, Purvis and his agents do everything they can to capture Dillinger, but can the notorious bank robber continue his crime spree?

This 2009 crime thriller is based off a book of the same name, Public Enemies, by author Bryan Burrough. It's a great read, non-fiction at its best. Burrough's book covers a ton of ground about one of the more violent, turbulent times in American history. The 1930s were the time of the gangster, killers, bank robbers and thieves working on a grand scale with a trail of fast cars, money and riches and dead bodies. Almost every single one of them died bloody and violent. It was a bloody, violent, fascinating time in American history. Originally thought of as a miniseries, Burroughs turned his research into a book. With so many people, places and incidents, the film version was condensed to John Dillinger vs. Melvin Purvis. It's a wise choice because Burroughs' novel as is would have been overwhelming.  

We meet other people, but this is Johnny Depp's movie as he brings John Dillinger to life. A sympathetic character? No, not quite. It is on the other hand a fascinating character to watch. The people who met him during his crime reign of terror, a lot of witnesses said he was charming, likable and friendly. One of the biggest movie stars around, Depp is the best thing going in this movie, making Dillinger a human being, not just a historical name. Depp's Dillinger seems to know the life he's chosen necessitates a live-fast, live-hard mentality. Knowledge of the historical facts or not, you just know Dillinger is leading a doomed life. Sooner or later, his luck will run out. It's really the only character here given any sort of development or characterization too, John given a love interest in Billie Frechette (Marion Cotillard), a coat check girl from a poor background who falls hard for the gangster, as does he for her. Depp and Cotillard have a believable, real chemistry, giving the story that necessary human element.

Who best to direct a high-arcing crime thriller? How about a director with movies like Heat, Thief, Last of the Mohicans and The Inside to his name? Michael Mann takes the helm here for this style-heavy period piece.  'Enemies' was filmed on location in Chicago and around the Midwest where much of the story actually took place. Chicago serving as a backdrop for a story is never a bad thing, giving an air of authenticity here. The suits, the hats, the gentleman gangsters, the cars, it all adds up a to a more than worthy time capsule to 1930s Depression-era America. If there's a fault, Mann is too interested in the style, not the substance. He shot with a digital format, giving those scenes an odd, fuzzy look. The editing is fast and hard -- almost schizophrenic -- to the point the movement is hard to follow. Replace some of that aggressive style which doesn't necessarily work with some more story and characterization, and then we're talking.

Depp's movie, no doubt, but in star power, Christian Bale isn't far behind. It's just star power though. Bale is a really good actor, but he's given little to do here. The real-life Melvin Purvis was a bit of a dunce, the movie choosing not to delve too much into that angle. Bale is okay, but it's a necessary, workmanlike part, nothing more. Crudup does a good job with his quick scenes as Hoover, a glorified cameo. As for Dillinger's gang, look for Jason Clarke, Stephen Dorff, David Wenham and another violent gangster, Stephen Graham as maniacal Baby Face Nelson. Stephen Lang is memorable as a Texas lawman, Charles Winstead, brought in to help Purvis, Rory Cochrane playing one of his fellow Chicago FBI agents. There's also quick parts for Channing Tatum, Carey Mulligan and Giovanni Ribisi, and in the case of Tatum and Mulligan, don't blink or you'll miss them. There's plenty of other appearances that probably deserve some attention, but they're not around long enough to mention.

That's one of the weaknesses in Mann's film. Condensing Burroughs' book and doing so with just one focus -- Dillinger -- is still a daunting task. I think it tries to accomplish too much. A year-plus of story, countless speaking roles, and a whole lot of history. Depp is excellent, that's not in question. The action is very exciting, especially the infamous Little Bohemia shootout. Mann does action and does it well. The heavy, automatic machine guns, the B.A.R.s, the heavy pistols, these are guns that pack a punch so there's something visceral and adrenaline-pumping in the action scenes. Something is missing though. It's cool, but the movie doesn't have a ton of heart. The last 30 minutes are the movie at its best, Purvis and the FBI closing in on Dillinger. One what-if scene has Dillinger walking into the Dillinger Squad office, surreal and cool. The same for Dillinger's death, a stylish, cool scene aided by Elliot Goldenthal's musical score.

A good movie but with some serious flaws. It could have been a classic, and maybe with a miniseries it would have been. Still, Johnny Depp is cooler than you.

Public Enemies (2009): ** 1/2 /****
Rewrite of July 2009 review

American Hustle

Although he worked semi-regularly in Hollywood since the late 1990s, director David O. Russell has definitely put his name on the map over the last few years, starting with 2010's The Fighter. He followed it up with the halfway decent Silver Linings Playbook, picking up an Oscar nomination while not winning, and if the buzz is right, he'll pick up another nomination for 2013's American Hustle. Will he? Will he win this time around? Only time will tell.

A self-made businessman, Irving Rosenfeld (Christian Bale) owns a string of dry cleaners in New Jersey, but that's just a front for his far more lucrative job. Working as a con artist, he sells forged art, pulls shady deals, but mostly he embezzles money from desperate men who can't do a thing because they're so desperate when they realize they've been fleeced. One day at a Christmas party he meets Sydney (Amy Adams), a goal-oriented young woman without the means to reach those goals. Polar opposites, they hit it off immediately, Sydney becoming an involved part of Irving's running cons, the money rolling in in piles. Well, it does for quite awhile at least. They've caught the eye of an FBI agent, Richie DiMaso (Bradley Cooper), who rather than have them serve a jail sentence, enlists them in helping him run his own operation, taking down corrupt politicians looking to take bribes. Irving and Sydney know the plan isn't so simple, but they're left with no other alternatives. None of them know how far this plan could really go.

Two things came to mind when watching this Russell-directed flick, working off a script written by Russell and Eric Singer. One, it pays tributes to films like it from the past, embracing a throwback, retro style that plays well from the opening credits. Those credits are the old studio credits that a movie from the 1970s would have used, not the polished ones greeting audiences now in 2013. The style is everywhere, the big hair, the ridiculously awesome-looking suits as style changed in a big way between the 1970s and 1980s, the giant, spacious cars, the great soundtrack featuring everything from folk rock to soft jazz and everything in between, just the general look of 'Hustle.' It's like a modern period piece, if a quick trip to the past in the 70s/80s. It feels like we're in that fun to watch, visual and a very fun trip in a time capsule. Russell clearly spared no expense, and it shows, the atmosphere, the look (even in the background) all adding another layer to the story.

As for that second thing, it's the casting, a very talented cast from top to bottom. Having worked with Russell last year in 'Playbook,' both Bradley Cooper and Jennifer Lawrence return here, both of them leaving their mark. Lawrence plays Irving's wife, Rosalyn, more than a little kooky in her conversations, beliefs and generally....yeah, everything she does. With Adams (vamping it up), Bale (chubbing it up), Lawrence (crazying it up) and Cooper (perming it up with an awesome hairdo), you've got an ensemble that should be able to carry any and all movies. And don't be fooled, this is the definition of an ensemble cast. Each of those actors are more than capable of carrying a movie on their shoulders, and they have so seeing their ample talents together in a single movie, it's a treat. Oh, and there's more. Also look for Jeremy Renner, comedian Louis C.K., Michael Pena, Shea Whigham, Anthony Zerbe, Elisabeth Rohm, Jack Huston, Alessandro Nivola and some actor named Robert De Niro appearing in a brutally efficient, uncredited one-scene cameo. Yeah, I guess that's a decent cast.

Heading into this movie, I had a general idea of what the story was about, an ever-moving story based somewhat loosely on a true story, dubbed Abscam. I don't want to give too much away, Russell's film covering a ton of ground in its 138-minute running time. It is a smart, well-written script that gives the cast a chance to show off their talents. Why does it work so well? It's simple; that story. Too often movies have to be about a gimmick, a message, about explosions, violence or sex. 'Hustle' instead chooses to focus on a crazy situation that keeps on getting crazy, all the cast getting their opportunities to step into the spotlight. It was refreshing to see a movie that's content to be just that; a good movie. The humor is never overdone, and there's a lot of it. I was surprised how funny the movie actually is, one laugh after another as this blackmail/entrapment scheme gets more and more complicated.

I can't pinpoint a weak acting performance in Russell's film, but for me, it's more than easy to identity the strongest performance here, and that goes to Christian Bale. Having already won a Best Supporting Actor Oscar for his part in Russell's The Fighter (also co-starring Adams), Bale leaves another lasting impression with his most recent part. First of all, physically he put on a fair amount of weight, giving himself a nice little gut, while also favoring a truly amazing combover. In a weird way, Bale just commits to his Irving's goofy, gentlemanly style, but it's more than that. He makes Irving a real flesh and blood character, and oddly enough, one of the more sympathetic characters around because he's such an accomplished con man. Backed into a corner, Irving is worrying about maybe 13 different plates spinning all around him, also planning 15 or 16 moves ahead so he's always in control, even if it doesn't seem that way. It isn't necessarily a showy role, but that's what I liked it. Subtle in his delivery, letting his physical appearance add some laughs. It could be a busy Oscar season, but I'm betting money that Bale gets a Best Acting nomination. I hope he does.

If there is a weakness, it's that Russell's film covers so much ground with so many characters that by the end, it drags in parts. They all know what the ending will be, what it will offer and how it affects all the characters, but there are stretches getting to that point that slow things down needlessly. By no means is any of that complaint a dealbreaker. 'Hustle' is still an incredibly easy film to recommend. Could it use some tightening up? Probably, but you'll no doubt enjoy this one. Lots of talent, lots of fun.

American Hustle (2013): ***/****

Reign of Fire

Usually post-apocalyptic movies like to throw some natural calamity at us. If it's not nature -- an epic tsunami, a world-ending storm -- then it is something man-made. How about something else though, something different? How about dragons? Yeah, I thought it sounded kind of silly too. I never consciously avoided 2002's Reign of Fire, but I never actively sought it out until recently. While reviews and ratings are mixed, I liked it.

It is 2020 in the countryside outside of London, and a man named Quinn (Christian Bale) is leading a small group of survivors in the ruins of a castle. For some 20 years, immense, destructive dragons have been wreaking havoc all over the Earth, and now the few remaining people have been forced to band together to survive. Hoping to defeat or at least outlast the dragons, Quinn and his group are surprised one day to see an armored convoy approach their gates. Leading this American contingent is Van Zan (Matthew McConaughey), an obsessed dragon slayer hell bent on wiping out the dragons. The two men differ on what to do. Quinn wants to survive, Van Zan wants to go on the hunt. The right answer? Somewhere in between, forcing the men to work together.

Maybe the biggest reason I never sought this flick out was that the premise just sounded too silly. Dragons wiping out mankind? Desperate, poorly-supplied survivors trying to fight back? I don't know. Maybe I was thinking of Pete the Magic Dragon from growing up, but it didn't sound too appealing. Well, I was wrong. I liked it (didn't love it) because director Rob Bowman keeps it serious. If anything, even a little humor -- dark though it may have been -- would have aided the cause. But as is, it's an end of the world story. The backstory with the dragons is actually pretty cool, the creatures periodically coming from the depths of the Earth to ravage the planet, then retire back to deep, cavernous cavities. It isn't anything ground-breaking, but it's better than what I expected.

Playing the two leads, Bale and McConaughey provide an interesting Odd Couple at the forefront of the movie. A pre-Batman Bale is the more sympathetic (if not more interesting) of the two; a grown man trying to help other survivors keep living one more day. As a boy, he saw his mother killed when the first dragon escapes from under London. He's spent the rest of his life trying to right that wrong. The scene-stealing, more showy part goes to McConaughey as Van Zan, an American military officer obsessed with defeating dragons. His look alone -- Mad Max meets Neo-Nazi -- with a shaved head, heavy native tattoos on his arms, sleeveless bomber jacket, wicked goatee, and big old biceps is enough for a badass, but I thought McConaughey does a fine job with the character. He sneers and growls, giving Van Zan quite that dramatic edge.

Also look for a pre-300 Gerard Butler as Creedy, Quinn's long-time friend and right hand man, Izabella Scorupco as Alex, Van Zan's highly trained and effective helicopter pilot, Scott Moutter as Jared, a teenager Quinn saved as a young boy, and David Kennedy, Alexander Siddig and Ned Dennehy as three of Quinn's men who help him combat the dragon attacks.   

Post-apocalyptic. That must mean the world looks pretty dreary, right? The look of the movie certainly reflects that sentiment. It's a dreary, dark, cloudy world without sun after years of fire have ravaged the Earth. 'Reign' was filmed in Ireland and down to the sets and costumes, it looks like a modern Middle Aged story developing. The musical score from composers Ed Shearmur and Brad Wagner is good in that epic Hans Zimmer vein as well.

So how do you combat fire-breathing dragons? Well, you don't really, and if you try.....it sure ain't easy. 'Reign' has some fun with that issue as Quinn and his survivors basically hide when a dragon appears, but when Van Zan's heavily armed crew arrives, we're in for a treat. His attack on a raiding dragon is a high point of the movie featuring a complicated, suicidal plan. The action overall is the best part of the movie, and the finale in a desolated, demolished London is surprisingly cool too. Does this one deserve the rating I'm going to give it? Maybe not, but I liked it just the same. Entertaining, exciting rainy day type of movie that's good with a bucket of popcorn.

Reign of Fire <---trailer (2002): ***/****

The Dark Knight Rises

Considering the quality of both Batman Begins and The Dark Knight, was there pressure for director Christopher Nolan to deliver an epic close-out film for his Batman trilogy? Reviews were somewhat mixed as Nolan's final Batman movie hit theaters last weekend, and the tragic shootings in Colorado will almost certainly hang over the film (to a point at least). If there was ever a case of ignoring reviews (other people's that is, I assume you'd take mine as the God honest truth), this is it. Not a surprise, but 2012's The Dark Knight Rises is a great film, one that gives the trilogy the send-off it deserves.

It has been eight years since Batman (Christian Bale) has taken the fall for Harvey Dent's murderous rampage, and Gotham City is better than ever. Crime has almost completely disappeared, and the city has experienced a rebirth of sorts. Hiding away at Wayne Manor, Batman/Bruce Wayne is wasting away, a recluse who hasn't appeared publicly for years. But when things seem just right -- even perfect -- for Gotham, a new terror arises, a madman in the form of mysterious and masked Bane (Tom Hardy), a criminal who vows to rock the foundation, destroying the city to rubble. Having questioned if everything/anything he ever did as Batman accomplished anything, Bruce must now decide what's best for Gotham. Let the city save itself? Or is the only thing stopping Bane the return of Batman?

First off, I have to say how impressed I was both with this final movie, but the trilogy on the whole. I rewatched the first two movies over the last week-plus before checking out 'Rises' and can very much recommend doing the same if you can. There's a continuity, a comfort level that permeates through an extended viewing of sorts. What can I say that I haven't in the other Batman reviews? Christopher Nolan is an immense talent, and I hope he continues to direct movies of this superb quality. The best description I can come up with to describe my enjoyment is hopefully simple to understand. You watch these movies -- 'Rises' especially -- and you just have that feeling you're watching what a movie should be. Not what it could be. SHOULD. Immensely entertaining, well-acted and well-written, an epic scale but also a connection on the personal level, spot-on soundtrack/musical score. Batman Begins started the ball rolling, The Dark Knight perfected the formula, and The Dark Knight Rises continues to use that formula.

What struck me most watching this newest arrival was the quality of drama here with kudos to a script from Nolan and Jonathan Nolan. I almost took it for granted, but over three movies, you honestly come to like/hate these characters, but if nothing else you get to know them. As pure drama, this is the best of the three films. It is by far the most personal of the three. Bale delivers his finest performance as the tortured Bruce Wayne, questioning what his actions accomplished while hiding away at Wayne Manor. This is an individual with inner demons that threaten to tear him apart. Buzz started circulating in the weeks prior to its release that Batman would die in this final installment (no finale spoilers here), and the darkness of the story reflects that. Batman has become the true tragic hero; an individual who genuinely wanted to do right but through his own fault, society, greed, and so many other things is forced to change, adapt and improvise. A credit to Bale for doing such a fine job with a character that could have easily been phoned in.

Using that as a jumping off point, Bale isn't on-screen for seemingly long stretches of the 164-minute movie. While Batman is the obvious key and focal point, this is also a story about the people of Gotham City. Michael Caine returns as Alfred, Bruce's butler, and hits every single note he can in a pitch-perfect performance. Three key scenes are the heart of the movie -- two with Bruce and Alfred, one with Alfred on his own -- and they are heartbreaking to watch. Didn't think you'd hear that in a Batman review, did you? Caine is so good I hope he gets some Oscar consideration for Best Supporting Actor. Gary Oldman rises to the occasion late as Commissioner Gordon, also questioning the actions he's taken and Morgan Freeman is solid as always as Wayne Enterprises engineering genius Lucius Fox. One other smaller new addition is Matthew Modine as one of Gordon's fellow high-ranking police officers.

Then there's the rest of the cast, Nolan seemingly trying to put together Inception 2: The Reckoning. Tom Hardy has some epic shoes to fill, following Heath Ledger's performance as The Joker, and he's quite capable of that. It's not fair to compare the part to the Joker, but there is similarities. Hardy's Bane is all business, all chaos, all anarchy. He's a bear of a man, like a caged but highly intelligent animal. Joseph Gordon-Levitt is a scene-stealer as John Blake, a Gotham police officer who grows increasingly frustrated with the limitations of his badge. Marion Cotillard plays Miriam Tate, a rich philanthropist trying to work with Wayne Enterprises to create a powerful sustainable energy force. Anne Hathaway holds her own as well, putting in a memorable turn as Selina Kyle, a master thief dubbed 'the Cat' but never actually dubbed Catwoman. SEMI SPOILERS ABOUT CASTING In the surprise department, look for Liam Neeson and Cillian Murphy briefly reprising their roles from the previous Batman entries. END OF SPOILERS A great cast though from top to bottom. 

Some reviews pointed to the rather twisty-turny early portions of the story as a detriment to the end result, and I go both ways here. Through the first hour, we're not always sure of what's going on or even where the story is heading. Characters and some background are introduced and dealt with, but it's all laying the groundwork. When the knock-out punch does come, all I can say...brace yourself. The final 45-60 minutes threw me for a loop, but in a good way. It is everything epic you would hope a final showdown to be; in this case, Bane turning Gotham City into a city cut off from the rest of the world and threatening to destroy it all, killing 12 million people in the process. If you struggle with the early pacing, stick with it. The pay-off in the end is incredibly worth it in so many ways.

As I mentioned, this is a movie that has it all. The finale packs the biggest action punch, but an earlier motorcycle chase through the city following a Bane robbery is also highly memorable, as is Bane's takeover of the city with an abundance of explosives taking out bridges and even a quasi-NFL game. The dialogue is spot-on too, especially the scenes with Bale and Caine. On pure drama, it's hard to beat Bane's backstory (quick though it is), but also how Batman deals with solving the identical problem the mysteriously masked villain had to figure out. And then there's the ending. Should it come as a surprise that it is basically the perfect way to close out the trilogy? Hans Zimmer's musical score is solid throughout, but it's at its best in the final montage as everything is wrapped up. Two different twists make the ending a little surprising, but mostly? It's an appropriate dramatic and emotional ending for all involved.

Well, here we are. I'm sorry to see this trilogy go. As far as superhero movies go (and I struggle limiting these to just superhero movies), they've set the bar as high as they can. All other future efforts will be compared to these films, and I can't think of a better compliment to a director, cast and crew for turning out such a quality finished product. A classic on par with The Dark Knight, if not a slightly, tiny bit better.

The Dark Knight Rises <---trailer (2012): ****/****

The Dark Knight

Why are people so excited for this weekend's The Dark Knight Rises? Because Batman Begins was good, and 2008's The Dark Knight was great, setting the bar about as high as a movie can possibly go. The rare sequel that improves on the original, it is everything you would hope for in a superhero movie and much, much more. Just a little more timely reviewing today, and I hope to see 'Rises' Sunday so expect a review soon.

Helping clean up Gotham City and all its crime, the very mention of the name 'Batman' sends shivers up the spines of Gotham's criminal underworld. But for all Batman (Christian Bale) has done, he's never fought a criminal quite like this one, the Joker (Heath Ledger), a deranged murderer who wears faded, unkempt make-up and favors knives. The Joker has offered his services to the all the different heads of the criminal underworld, offering to kill the Batman and make their lives infinitely easier. The Caped Crusader might finally have some help though in Gotham's hierarchy as crusading district attorney Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckhart) vows to help Batman however he can. With a nut like the Joker around, nothing happens as expected.  

It's hard -- and probably not very fair -- to compare this second Batman movie from director Christopher Nolan to its predecessor. 'Begins' is an above average, highly enjoyable movie on its own, but it is merely one that opens the door for all that Nolan had planned with this sequel. 'Begins' introduces the Batman lore, the characters, the situations, laying the groundwork. 'Knight' takes the jumping off point and sprints with it. Hans Zimmer and James Newton Howard's score is again booming and epic and just right. Almost the entire film was filmed in Chicago, and the movie looks AMAZING. Talk about a director utilizing his locations, Nolan knocks that one out of the park. It's the little things that start things rolling, and the movie never looks back.

But what really sets Nolan's movies apart from even the high quality superhero movies -- The Avengers, Iron Man, Captain America -- is the inherent darkness involved with the characters and story. There is no camp quality to the proceedings, no tongue in cheek humor. This is a cutthroat world where anyone and everyone is potentially dead in a flash. The word that comes to mind watching this movie was 'brutal.' More on this later, but much of that comes from the performance of Heath Ledger. His Joker is a villain described by Michael Caine's Alfred as someone "who wants to watch the world burn." There is no rhyme or reason to the Joker's brutality. He encourages murder (and handles a couple of his own), mayhem and chaos and doesn't care who gets caught up in the maelstrom that ensues. As a fan of a darker, graphic novel look at a "comic book" world, that darkness and brutality appeals to me in movies. Nolan commits to that deep-seeded darkness and never lets up.

Now onto Heath Ledger as the Joker. This movie was in the news prior to its release (more in the news at least) because Ledger died six months before the film's release. Before it had even been seen, buzz was generated about Ledger's amazingly memorable performance as the Joker, and when audiences finally saw this movie in the summer of 2008, they weren't disappointed. In a performance that won him a Best Supporting Actor Oscar, Ledger delivers a performance that is terrifying, supremely dark, oddly charming and unlike any other villainous role ever. It's his voice, his speech, his peculiar mannerisms, his maniacal laughing, the distinctly iconic look with the faded, dreary make-up and purple suit, all these specific things that make this such a memorable and ultimately tragic performance.

Because Ledger's part was rightly given so much attention upon release, the rest of the cast doesn't always get the recognition they deserve. Other than developing that overly deep "I'm BATMAN!" voice since 'Begins,' Bale tweaks the character for the positive. He begins to question what he's taken upon his shoulder. He begins to doubt if he can actually win in the end, especially with a counter like the Joker. Eckhart too is a scene-stealer as Harvey Dent, the crusading district attorney who takes a no-nonsense approach to everything about his job. An idealist who wants the best, he's also a frustrated realist kept in check to a point by the system. Caine again is perfect as Alfred, Morgan Freeman returns as Wayne Enterprises resident genius Lucius Fox, and Gary Oldman gets much more to do as Lt. Gordon. Even Cillian Murphy makes a one-scene appearance as the Scarecrow. Additions include Maggie Gyllenhaal as Rachel Dawes (an improvement over Katie Holmes), Eric Roberts as Maroni, a powerful Gotham mobster, and Nestor Carbonell as the mayor of Gotham.

Like any classic, something has to set a movie apart from the average. The Chicago locations help that cause, especially an epic action sequence on La Salle Street and Lower Wacker Drive as Batman -- on a Bat-cycle of sorts -- does battle with the Joker who at different points has an automatic machine gun, bazooka and out of control semi trucks as weapons. There are the smaller but equally memorable moments, especially the Joker's infamous "pencil disappearing trick." The finale is the best though as the Joker's chaotic plan is revealed in all its cynical, brutal qualities. The final scene propels this 2008 movie into the trilogy wrap-up, Oldman's Lt. (now Commissioner as we all know him) Gordon delivering a monologue that is perfect in its simple, straightforward, forthrightness. Is that even a word? Eh. The movie is great, one all other superhero movies must measure themselves against. As for me, I'm counting down the hours until The Dark Knight Rises.

The Dark Knight <---trailer (2008): ****/****

Batman Begins

Here at Just Hit Play, I try to be timely if nothing else. So with the huge-mega-ultra-gigantic-Titanic-epic summer blockbuster (<----intended seriously, not sarcasm) The Dark Knight Rises due in theaters this Friday, we're doing a little movie recapping, starting with 2005's Batman Begins, director Christopher Nolan's first venture into the Batman series. This weekend's film will no doubt be a huge success, but that's only because Nolan set the bar so high with his first two entries, and this first one? Still a goodie.

Years since his parents were murdered in a robbery, Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale) is still searching for answers; some kind of resolution for his feelings of guilt, fear and desire for vengeance. After traveling the world and even training with a mysterious warrior, Ducard (Liam Neeson), at an isolated monastery in the Himalayas. Returning to impoverished, crime-torn Gotham City, Bruce creates a crime-fighting identity -- Batman -- to help combat the city's problems, using everything from Wayne Enterprises (his deceased father's company) to aid the cause. His impact is immediate, but other more sinister personalities await, including Dr. Crane (Cillian Murphy) who intends to cripple Gotham like nothing the city's seen before.

The superhero franchise reboot is nothing new recently. Over the last 15 years, Superman, Spiderman and Batman have gotten reboots with a long list of other superheroes getting their own chance at a franchise -- some more successful than others. What sets 'Begin' (and The Dark Knight) apart is a straightforward authentic feel. There is no tongue in cheek, campy angle to the superhero proceedings. That's not a bad thing in the least. Nolan takes what Batman fans know -- Alfred the butler, the Batmobile, the Bat cave, Detective Gordon -- and keeps it on the straight and narrow. The score from Hans Zimmer and James Newton Howard is epic without being overdoing it -- listen to the main theme HERE -- and the scale of the story has that epic quality without losing focus on the personal aspect; the characters. Simple you would think, but it's always surprising how many movies forget about that aspect.

What has made these movies so popular though -- for me at least -- is they are dark, dark and DARK. Like I mentioned, many people know Batman through the campy 1960s TV show or even the 1990s franchise ventures which we won't address right now....maybe ever. Unfortunately, the Batman comics are cynical and did I mention, dark? The TV shows and movies never took advantage of that aspect until here. Gotham City has been polluted by crime, poverty and corruption throughout the government (Tom Wilkinson is great in a small part as mobster Carmine Falcone), the city literally being torn apart. In general, Nolan (who also co-wrote the script) doesn't seem interested in any obvious laughs or tongue-in-cheek quality. Bad guys and good guys in a city in squalor. This would obviously get ratcheted up a notch in The Dark Knight, but 'Begins' certainly gets the ball rolling.

Having worked in film and TV since the late 1980s, Christian Bale had been at least a somewhat recognizable name for years. Not surprisingly, this put on the A-list of movie stars. Playing instantly recognizable superheroes tends to do that, huh? I like Bale as an actor, but he makes Bruce Wayne/Batman a likable character from the start. A superhero is one thing, but a tortured superhero? That's money in the bank. He has no super powers -- just a mansion and secret cave full of badass gadgets -- and must rely on his own skills as a fighter when trouble arises. Because of his past though, Bruce blames himself for his parents' death and feels he must do something to right that wrong. Without the humor of Robert Downey Jr. in Iron Man, Bale does a great job at putting a new, entertaining spin on a character that just about everyone knows.

Now on the other hand, if you're not a Bale fan, this cast almost certainly has something else to offer you. If there is a better casting job than Michael Caine as Alfred, Bruce's butler at Wayne Manor, I can't think of him. Caine is a professional, and even with his supporting part manages to dominate his scenes, making it look easy in the process. Same goes for Morgan Freeman as Lucius Fox, Wayne Enterprise's resident technological genius. Gary Oldman is limited by screentime as Jim Gordon, one of Gotham's few clean cops, but not surprisingly makes it worthwhile. Neeson as Ducard is a gem in the casting department, Murphy sinister and creepy as Dr. Crane/Scarecrow, and Ken Watanabe as mysterious ninja Ra's Al Ghul is only around for a little. Rutger Hauer plays Earle, the CEO of Wayne Enterprises in Bruce's absence, Katie Holmes is Rachel, Bruce's long-time but secret love and an assistant D.A., and Linus Roache plays Thomas Wayne, Bruce's brilliant, philanthropic father in a few quick flashback scenes.

It is a Batman movie though so there is some just assumed badass-ness (real word?) because of the character. The action scenes are brutal and don't feel forced, quick cut without being an indecipherable blur. Fans of Batman will no doubt get a kick out of seeing the reveal of the Bat Signal, of the Batmobile zipping through Gotham, all those little things that help make a good character great. 'Begins' sets the bar pretty high, but not quite high enough. As good as it is, it merely set the stage for The Dark Knight, an instant classic. Just the same, it's a great place to start. And don't forget about that last scene before the credits, featuring a perfect lead-in to the sequel. Superhero origin stories can be tricky, but this one knocks it out of the park.

Batman Begins <---trailer (2005): *** 1/2 /****

The Fighter

Of all the actors currently working in movies, one of my favorites is Mark Wahlberg. The first movie I saw him in was 1999's Three Kings, and I was immediately a fan.  Over the years then, I've been surprised to read and hear all the hate directed toward him. Some of it you can chalk up to his Marky Mark days, others to his limited range as an actor. Is he Pacino or De Niro? No, few people in the world have that ability, but he's an underrated actor. Partially I'm a fan because he's likable and always consistent, but also because his choice of movies is typically very audience-friendly.

Criticize him all you want for a limited acting range, but he delivered his best performance yet in 2010's The Fighter. It is a performance that was overshadowed by two other parts in the movie, both of whom won Academy Awards for their supporting roles, but he gets a chance to show off his acting chops and doesn't disappoint.  I'm more or less making Wahlberg-hater fans' point because he does play a similar character to one he's played several times before.  But you know what? He's good at it, and in telling the true story of boxer Micky Ward, Wahlberg does a great job bringing his character to life.

A boxer in his late 20s, Micky Ward (Wahlberg) out of Lowell, Massachusetts is at a bit of a crossroads in his life.  He's a good boxer who has potential but has never really amounted to anything.  Part of the problem is his family, dragging him down at all times even though they claim to be in his corner, always ready to support him.  First, there's Dicky (Christian Bale), his half-brother and trainer who struggles with his addiction to crack. A great boxing mind and strategist, but completely unreliable. Second, there's his mother, Alice (Melissa Leo), a completely self-serving woman who says she has his best interest at heart, but that's clearly not the case. Struggling through all these family problems, Micky meets Charlene (Amy Adams), a bartender he hits it off with. But when push comes to shove, Micky is going to have to make a decision, go for what's best for him or what's best for his family?  

As a warning going in, I feel like I should warn people about this movie.  As a sports fan, I got the impression this was a heavy boxing story which it isn't.  Yes, there is boxing, but it's more a part of the story than actually being the story.  Just so there's no confusion, I'm not comparing it to Raging Bull, but in terms of storytelling it is similar.  The boxing is a way to get somewhere, but it isn't a "boxing movie."  The Fighter is more about family and the struggles you go through at times putting up with them, loving them, fighting and arguing with them.  They may be bad for you and your life, but they're your family. How do you get away or turn away from your family?  As Micky finds out, it is no easy task.

Just a few months ago at the Academy Awards, Bale and Leo made news as they won Oscars for the best supporting actor and actress awards, respectively.  Of the two, I think Bale was more deserving for the win, but they both deserved it.  If anything, I would have given Supporting Actress to Amy Adams, but that's just me.  Ever since his ridiculous outburst on the set of Terminator Salvation, I've been an iffy fan of Bale's, but all personal feelings aside, the guy can act.  This is one of those performances where you watch it and just know this is what acting is all about.  His Dicky Eklund is a mess of a person, all of it to blame on himself, who had all sorts of potential but instead derailed his life.  Leo as Alice is the same way, a hypocrite on so many levels who can't even see what she's doing to her son, Micky.  These are the flashier performances, not quite Oscar bait, but close.

The heart of the movie though is Wahlberg as Micky Ward, a boxer teetering on the brink of a has-been and a never will be.  There's that underdog element to the character and the man, the fighter from the lower middle class family rising above his surroundings to amount to something...hopefully.  He wants to make it on the big time, wants to be the best fighter he can be.  At the same time, he feels an obligation to his family even as they drag him down, holding him back from achieving all the things he wants.  His relationship with Adams' Charlene -- similarly troubled, similarly wanting something more out of life -- is key as these two individuals find some sort of happiness together through each other.  They have a great chemistry together even though going in I thought Adams was an odd, somewhat interesting choice to play the character. My bad, I was wrong.  Other supporting parts include Jack McGee as Micky's father, George, and Mickey O'Keefe playing himself as Micky's trainer/mentor as he rises through the boxing ranks.

Watching clips of the movie, reading reviews, watching the trailer repeatedly, I wasn't sure what to expect going into the movie.  It's by no means a flashy sports movie, and I debate even calling it a sports movie.  It is about the people, their relationships and interactions, the day to day struggles to get along and survive with yourself and your family.  This is an acting movie from Wahlberg to Bale to Leo to Adams.  Director David O. Russell knows what he's doing and presents a real, moving story that feels like a throwback to movies of old, something right out of the 1970s (and I mean that in a good way).

The Fighter <---trailer (2010): ***/****

The Prestige

Released less than two months apart in fall 2006, The Prestige and The Illusionist both dealt with similar topics, magicians, in a successful manner. Good casts, great cinematography, twisting and turning stories, everything you'd think of in a movie about magicians. Both movies had average success in theaters, nothing spectacular, but each movie has developed a bit of a following on DVD since. I saw The Illusionist in theaters and really enjoyed it, and just watched The Prestige this week, and also liked it...I think.

With a triad of connections to the revamped Batman series, director Christopher Nolan and stars Christian Bale and Michael Caine, the movie reeks (I mean that in a good way) of professionalism. From the impressive ensemble cast to the elaborate sets and costumes, The Prestige is what a movie should look like onscreen. It's clear money was spent on the right things.

Working off a novel by Christopher Priest, Nolan tells a complex story of two magicians, Alfred Borden (Christian Bale) and Robert Angier (Hugh Jackman), over the course of their two careers, starting out as on-stage 'volunteers' for a magician in early 20th Century London. As the magician's assistant, Robert's wife Julia (Piper Perabo) nightly puts her life in danger with a stunt where she's tied up and dropped into a huge case of water. But one night, something goes wrong and Julia is killed with Angier blaming Borden for tying the knot too tight. So starts their rivalry that lasts throughout their careers, especially as their fame rises.

The situation escalates when Borden develops a new trick, The Transported Man, that amazes audiences but lacks the showmanship to make him a huge star. Angier on the other hand is not quite the magician his rival his, instead he goes for the show, the star, the applause. That is the story at it's most basic, and I'm wary to give out too much more. The whole movie is told as a story within a story, utilizing flashbacks to detail the two magicians' stories. The opening seemingly gives away the ending (definitely caught me by surprise), but don't be thrown off, there's much more to come.

Ever since the twist ending to The Sixth Sense, there's been a need to trick or fool audiences with a twist near the finale. 'Prestige' qualifies because Nolan intentionally wants to mislead viewers with this unraveling mystery. The opening line of the movie is almost a challenge with Caine's voiceover defying you 'Are you watching closely?' with an oddly haunting shot that does have a lot to do with a twist key to the story. I'm not usually good at spotting these twists, but I caught this one about halfway through the movie. I did not exactly what it was going for, and the ending more than lives up to expectations, but Nolan adds another twist that works really well and has sparked its own fair share of debate at any number of message boards.

As with any twist ending, The Prestige definitely needs repeated viewings to piece everything together. The ending comes so quickly and I was trying to keep up and figure it all out that I wouldn't be surprised if I missed something. And by the end, Bale and Jackman's characters are nothing like the men we met at the start of their story, it is hard to root for either character by then. Their performances are incredibly strong with both actors delivering career bests. For good measure, Caine plays Jackman's ingeneur, his builder, and delivers one of those low-key supporting roles that show what a great actor he can be. If that wasn't enough, there's also David Bowie in a surprisingly good part, Scarlett Johansson, Andy Serkis and Rebecca Hall as Borden's wife.

As the credits started to roll after the final scene, I didn't quite know what to make of this movie. It blends science fiction with a period piece but at the heart is a rivalry that could have been set in any time period. The ending wants you to be confused, forced to go back and think over what you've seen over the last two hours as two different twists are revealed in spectacular fashion with a creepy final shot. And as near as I can figure, it completely works. Frustrating? Hell yes, but worthwhile at the same time.

The Prestige <----trailer (2006): *** 1/2 /****

Terminator Salvation

Completely out of the blue this week, I went and saw Terminator Salvation with a bunch of family. Actually we bought tickets for Star Trek, but that's a different story. I've seen the first 3 Terminator movies so I knew the story and the background, and maybe most importantly, I've listened to star Christian Bale's on-set rant. That will always be entertaining. I'm kind of in the middle when it comes to Bale. I think he's a really good actor, loved him in 3:10 to Yuma, The Machinist, and Rescue Dawn, but I don't necessarily like him.

And as you look at the previews, trailers, posters and commercials, this movie is presented as Bale's movie, the beginning of the next round of Terminator moves. Bale plays John Connor, the rising leader of the resistance battling Skynet in the post-apocalyptic 2018 United States. For three movies, all we heard about was how John was this great, charismatic leader who must survive to lead the resistance. I hated Edward Furlong in T2, and Nick Stahl was all right in T3 so the precedent isn't that great. We're supposed to believe this character is the savior of mankind, but been given nothing to believe why. John Connor, initials J.C., get it?

It's odd then so much of this movie is spent on other storylines. My guess? Bale's only in about half of the movie's 115 minute running time. As John, he's okay, but it's not his best part. By far, this movie belongs to scene-stealing Sam Worthington as Marcus Wright, maybe the coolest character I've seen in a movie since Tyler Durden. A brief opening scene in 2003 shows Marcus on Death Row, signing a waiver for Dr. Serena Kogan (Helena Bonham Carter, great in a small part) to donate his body to science. Flash forward to 2018 where after a disastrous patrol where only John survives, a man, Marcus, walks out of the rubble. He has a mission, an objective, but even he himself doesn't quite know what it is.

If you've seen the trailer or any number of previews, you know Marcus' secret, but I won't blow it here. I will say his character's turmoil gives the movie some heart, even some depth. As the series looks ahead, and yes, the ending leaves a big opening for more movies, I certainly hope Marcus Wright is included somehow, even more so than John Connor. That's what surprised me about the movie in general, the supporting cast steals the movie. Also worth mentioning are Moon Bloodgood as Blair Williams, a resistance pilot who meets Marcus and believes he can help the effort, Anton Yelchin as Kyle Reese, a young man who will one day become John's father, Bryce Dallas Howard as Kate, John's pregnant wife (formerly played by Claire Danes) and Jadagrace as Star, Kyle's mute traveling partner. And just cause they're cool and generally badasses, Michael Ironside plays a resistance general and rapper Common as Barnes, one of John's men.

Now by this point maybe you're wondering why I even saw the movie. The movie is just there without a lot of reason to get involved. It's not bland, but it's close with some to all of the blame going to director McG. All other things aside, the action scenes are top-notch as John, Marcus, Kyle and Co. battle any number of Terminators. The post-apocalyptic setting in California gives the movie quite a unique look too, like a lot of westerns with the lone gunfighter trying to survive.

Maybe because this story has only been talked about in the previous three movies, with an occasional flashback or flashforward I guess, but T-Salvation didn't quite feel like a Terminator movie. It's a good action movie, but other than the names and some nods to fans of the series, it could have been a stand-alone movie. The Terminators are nameless, just metal robots trying to kill John and Kyle. The Governator himself, Arnold, makes a quasi-appearance but it's so badly done CGI that it's distracting. Other touches gone horribly wrong, the delivery midway through the movie of Arnold's famous line "I'll be back." SSsssssssssssssoooooo bad, so cheesy. I would recommend seeing the first 3 movies before Salvation though. It will definitely help you understand and clear up the storyline here. You might be lost otherwise.

Still, I liked the movie despite its flaws. As I said, the action and chase scenes are good on a big and little level, you care for most of the characters on the small level and the epicness of some of the attacks is cool to watch. Here's an official trailer for T-Salvation that hopefully convinces you to go see the movie, it's one of the more effective trailers I've watched in awhile. And one more push to get you to go see this one...Transformers 2 trailer runs in front of it. If Megan Fox sprawled across another car doesn't convince you to go, I'm out of ideas. You're on your own.