The Gunman

I'd like to thank Liam Neeson. I imagine a lot of actors in the late 40's and 50's might want to thank Mr. Neeson. Why is that? Courtesy of his Taken movies (and several others), it seems the middle-aged action star is back and getting a crack at carrying their own movies. The winners? Me. Moviegoers who love to see genuinely talented actors doing fun, more commercial movies. And of course, any and all of us who love a good action flick. Next up, Sean Penn in 2015's The Gunman.

A former special forces operative, Jim Terrier (Penn) has moved onto private security and in 2006 finds himself working with a kill team posing as construction workers in the violent, revolution-worn Congo. Millions (maybe billions) of dollars are up for grabs, leading the team to take out a mining commissioner with Jim taking the shot. He's forced to leave the country, leaving the woman, Annie (Jasmine Trinca), he loves behind. He tries to put it all past him, a lifetime of violence and killing, but he's ripped back into the world. Some eight years later, he's working in Africa as part of a humanitarian project when three men attempt to kill him. Jim dispatches them first, but he knows his past has caught up with him. Other members of the team in the Congo have recently turned up dead. Is Jim next? Who can he trust in the meantime while he finds out?

This movie got panned by critics upon its release last winter. I mean absolutely ripped, just torn up. I thought it looked pretty cool, but the overwhelming amount of negative reviews convinced me not to seek it out. The verdict? I liked it. A lot. It's dark, moody, violent and plays a little bit like a more adult Bourne movie (hold the Matt Damon). 'Gunman' isn't a classic, and at times it does feel a little too familiar to other action genre pieces. The Rotten Tomatoes page refers to this sub-genre as the rapidly aging Over-50 Action Hero Genre (get it? Because the stars are older...so they're aging?!?). I disagree. Sometimes, it's just fun to watch a good, old-fashioned bloody action movie. This ain't a classic, but my goodness, I liked it. So neener-neener, movie critics.

I think Sean Penn is a bit of a nut case, but that's why I like him. His political opinions, he doesn't care what you think of him. He takes film roles he likes, ones that seem to appeal to him. So just like Liam Neeson, it is very cool to see him take on a bullet-riddled action hero role with an ever-increasing body count. Penn's Jim Terrier has been at it for years, killing and killing wherever and for whoever will pay him. It's worn him down to the point his physical condition is rapidly deteriorating (an unnecessary subplot). Pile on the feeling he's lost anything good in his life -- cough the girl cough -- and we've got our moody anti-hero looking for redemption no matter what it takes. In the action genre, it is a well-worn, familiar character but for a good reason. It can be easy to root for that character. He realizes his faults and wants to do something about them dammit! Some reviews said Penn looked bored, but I thought he was pretty damn good.

Now, onto something bigger...Sean Penn himself! In his early 50's while filming 'Gunman,' Penn got absolutely shredded. SHREDDED. His arms are like tree trunks and when he starts dispatching killers on his trail....man, he looks like he'd actually rip their heads off. He's in ridiculously good shape, giving the character an edge of authenticity. Penn's face is tan and weathered, giving you the impression he could have been this gun for hire. He's more than capable of handling his own in the action scenes, especially those with hand-to-hand combat. These are quick, bone-crunching fights that are graphic but in a flash. Nothing feels forced, stylized or glamourized. Just highly trained killing machines looking to tear each other apart.

Moving along, the rest of the cast with some halfway decent names. Javier Bardem is a misfire here as Felix, a civilian contractor working with Jim who may have ulterior motives. He's an incredibly talented actor in just about everything I've seen, but this performance is cliched, broad, and way too big, like he's playing a spoof. Trinca is solid in a thankless part as the script generates into a....love triangle. "Yeah." I'm excited...Ray Winstone is a scene-stealer as Stanley, Jim's longtime friend with a hand in everything in the criminal/mercenary underworld. Fun part with some good laughs. Idris Elba makes what amounts to a cameo (maybe 3 scenes) as Barnes, a mysterious...well, something who may or may not be up to something. Last but not least, watch out for Mark Rylance (also excellent in the recent Bridge of Spies) as Cox, the Congo team leader, with Peter Franzen as his brutally efficient enforcer. Some solid supporting parts.

And last but not least, let's talk some blood-splattered action. 'Gunman' has it in droves. As Jim goes globe-trotting across Africa and Europe, a whole lot of people are trying to kill him, and he's more than willing to oblige them (well, the attempt at least). The best set piece has Jim and Annie tearing through an Italian villa as they're chased by a small army of gunmen. The hand-to-hand scenes (as previously mentioned) are quick and hard-hitting, uncomfortable and real. The finale too, set in a Spanish stadium hosting a bullfight, is a gem as well. A lot to offer for those seeking their action fill for the day.

Scenic locations from Africa to London to Spain, an appropriately dark, moody score from composer Marco Beltrami, a quick-moving story with some solid twists and turns, and a pretty good cast, especially Penn, Winstone and Rylance. The critics may disagree, but I definitely liked this action thriller from Pierre Morel. Hopefully you will too!

The Gunman (2015): ***/****

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): **/****

The Losers

Well, it's time to take a trip in the Way-Back Machine. Yep, we're going all the way back in April 2010 when I was relatively new to this whole blogging thing. Some movies need a revisit, like 2010's The Losers, an ultra-entertaining action flick that my cousin got me for a birthday present a couple years back. Timely, no, but I caught up with it this weekend. Yes, still an excellent, entertaining movie.

An elite black-ops team working with the U.S. Special Forces has been deployed into Bolivia to take out a compound run by a drug cartel. Headed by their commander, Clay (Jeffrey Dean Morgan), they've worked together for years, including Roque (Idris Elba), Jensen (Chris Evans), Pooch (Columbus Short) and Cougar (Oscar Jaenada). The mission isn't everything it seems to be, the team rescuing a group of 25 young children being held as drug mules and hostages. The kids board the helicopter intended for the team, but the helicopter is struck by a missile. Clay and Co. have become targets. Who wants them dead? More importantly, why? The man's name is Max (Jason Patric), a C.I.A. operative gone rogue. Trapped in Bolivia and believed dead, the Losers are left with no alternatives, getting help from a beautiful, mysterious woman, Aisha (Zoe Saldana), who promises to help them. Can this group pull off the impossible and survive the suicide mission ahead of them?

Hitting theaters in spring 2010, 'Losers' received middling reviews and did okay in theaters but was far from a hit. It seemed to have some horrific timing, released in a wave of men-on-a-mission movies like The A-Team (June 2010) and Takers (August 2010). Of the three, I liked this one best, director Sylvain White turning in a stylized, fun, shoot 'em up that more than holds up on a repeat viewing. Does it rewrite the genre? In a word? No. It doesn't need to. It is one of those perfect popcorn movies. Just sit back and watch it, clocking in at an action-packed 97 minutes. Very stylish, lots of cool characters, bullet and explosion-riddled action scenes. An easy movie to recommend. Too bad it didn't do better in theaters. I would have loved to see where the Losers went from here.

What works so well is the casting, and probably was at least part of the movie's struggles in theaters. There just ain't a ton of star power on display here. Now for me, I count that as a positive, but we're not talking Ocean's 11 star power to round out the Losers. The dynamic works, the men-on-a-mission premise that's one of my favorites. Each team member has a specialty, Clay the no-nonsense leader, Roque an expert in tactics and detonation, Jensen the nerdy tech specialist, Pooch able to drive anything with an engine and wheels and Cougar proficient in long-range eliminations (Yes, we've got ourselves a sniper). Their backstory is never spelled out, just hinted at, but we know they're damn good at their job...right up until they're betrayed and left out in the dark. Of the group, there's no weak spots, but I especially liked a scene-stealing Evans ("That's right. I've got a crossbow, bitches."), Morgan, Elba, Short and Janeada all getting their chances to shine too.

'Losers is actually based off a graphic novel series that was adapted into a screenplay written by actor/director Peter Berg and James Vanderbilt. And that's where we get a surprising angle on the movie. With graphic novels, character development isn't the first thing that comes to my mind, but here it is an essential part of the story. We get that development through dialogue, lots of quick, fast-firing conversations among the team. One that especially stands out has Jensen and Pooch debating whether to take a car or not, the back and forth coming in almost monosyllabic grunts, one-word answers in rapid fire succession. If there isn't more star power, so be it. The chemistry with the cast is spot-on perfect from beginning to end. This is a fun movie, and the cast is clearly having a ton of fun making it. We've got tough guys on a suicide mission with lots of action, funny, memorable one-liners and a great chemistry. That's a winning formula if you ask me.

Adding some sex appeal to the action-heavy hijinks is Zoe Saldana as Aisha, a mysteriously beautiful woman who wears slinky and/or tight outfits but who can also handle herself when the bullets start to fly. What's her motive? What's her end-game? Well, that's part of the fun. Hamming it up and clearly enjoying himself is Jason Patric as the maniacally evil Max. It's a ridiculous character, but Patric commits and it works in a big way. This is a villain that seems ripped from so many over-the-top 1980s action movies, but it fits right in with all the craziness. Holt McCallany plays Wade, Max's much-maligned enforcer, the straight man to Max's off the wall antics.

Onto the action! There's no time to waste in a 97-minute movie so in between scenes of the team bitching and moaning, ripping each other almost non-stop, we get action. LOTS of action. The opener at the drug compound sets the tone, quick and flashy and fun. The same later for almost back-to-back sequences, the Losers taking out Max's heavily armored convoy in Miami, the follow-up Jensen trying to navigate a well-guarded building with security on his tail. The obvious high-point is saved for the end though, the Losers forced to stop Max (and his diabolical, ecological-minded plan) at the Port of Los Angeles -- because all action movies require a good shootout at the Port of L.A. Like the whole movie, it's fun. Get some popcorn, sit back and appreciate it for all its entertainment value. Your time will not be wasted.

The Losers (2010): ***/****
Rewrite of April 2010 review

Pacific Rim

I saw the trailer for 2013's Pacific Rim and didn't have any screaming interest to see it this past summer. While it looked cool, I thought it looked like a hybrid Godzilla-Cloverfield-Transformers movie. I liked all those movies in one way or another, but something just hit me funny. It earned decent reviews and made some solid cash, but it took a couple positive reviews from folks I usually agree with to sell me on it. The main reason they liked it? Just a good, old-fashioned movie intended to be eaten with a big tub of popcorn. The verdict? Read on.

In 2013, Earth is under attack, immense, truly enormous creatures called Kaijus from another dimension that travel to our planet from an interdimensional portal on the floor of the Pacific Ocean. The creatures wreak havoc, mankind responding with Jaegers, equally huge humanoid war machines piloted by two human pilots. The Jaegers hold back the other dimensional creatures, but years pass and the Kaijus become bigger, faster and stronger to the point they're almost impossible to defeat. When the creatures start coming through the portal quicker and quicker, mankind becomes desperate, turning to an impenetrable sea wall to stop the creatures. While the wall is constructed, the Jaegers must mount one last stand, the unit's commander, Stacker Pentecost (Idris Elba), limited to his last four war machines. He turns to a former pilot, Raleigh Becket (Charlie Hunnam), to pilot one of the machines, but is it too late to save Earth?

Director Guillermo del Toro has said in interviews that his intention here was to make a tribute-like movie to horror and sci-fi creature flicks from the past. It's supposed to be big, fun, action-packed and entertaining, the perfect summer movie. Unfortunately, I think del Toro and screenwriter Travis Beacham just try to do too much in a 132-minute long movie. 'Pacific' is fun and dumb and goofy and exciting, but there's pilots, commanders, rival pilots, pilots who have daddy issues, science issues, tech issues, a pilot who wants a woman as his co-pilot but she's got some traumatic issues from her past affecting her, a black market dealer with golden shoes, and scientists who are more obnoxious than as funny as I'm assuming they were intended. It tries to please everyone and got taken down a notch or two in the process.

What is no doubt the best thing going here is the CGI, the visual look of the movie. It's good and bad, but more on that reasoning later. The Kaijus are something to behold, each of them with a distinct visual look, like a crossbreed between Godzilla and the gnarliest reptilian monsters you've ever seen. Their background isn't explained much unfortunately, but we know with each passing attack, the interdimensional creatures seem to have evolved into one indestructible being after another. How to do battle with them? Machinery, technology and in some cases, pure guts. The Jaeger fighters look like Transformers meet the Iron Giant, but with human pilots directing them. Each of these immense humanoid creatures has a personality of their own, typically reflecting the personality of the pilots inside, but also their own unique visual appeal. The CGI is incredible to watch. It's seamless, pretty much flawless. It looks real, not like something created on a computer.

But here I sit, the same problem I had with the Transformers movies. The CGI and the technology are ridiculous to watch, truly ridiculous. The advances in technology are remarkable, especially considering where computer-generated special effects were just 10, 15 years ago. Is it actually too good? It gets to the point that the battles between the Kaijus and the Jaegers become too muddled, too busy, too detail-oriented. Most of the fights take place at night, either in water or in congested, poorly lit cities so the battles become incredibly difficult to watch. On a simpler level, they get repetitive. Yeah, I know the pilots are human. Yeah, I realize the Kaijus are trying to annihilate Earth, but seeing one fight after another between the warring sides gets old. Sure, a Jaeger picking up an immense freighter and trying to beat the crap out of a Kaiju with it is cool, but these epically staged battles lose some of their effectiveness when we see the battles over and over.

Where I was encouraged was del Toro's decision not to cast any huge stars in this movie...at all. No A-listers in sight here, not by a long shot. The always criminally cool Idris Elba is the best performance here (and the coolest character name) as Stacker Pentecost, the driven, nearly obsessed Jaeger commander attempting anything he can that would turn the tide, his "We're cancelling the Apocalypse" speech a highlight. Hunnam is more hit or miss with a cool idea for a character, but something's missing. I can't decide if it's bad acting or just a bad part, the subplot with hopeful co-pilot Mako (Rinko Kikuchi) lacking any energy or originality at all. Always Sunny star Charlie Day and Burn Gorman are cast for some laughs as a scientist duo searching for clues to take down the Kaijus, but the attempts at laughs are pretty painful. Max Martini and Robert Kazinsky are a father-son duo piloting the most powerful Jaeger while Clifton Collins Jr. plays a control room tech. Ron Perlman hams it up as Hannibal Chau, the world's leading black market dealer in Kaiju parts.

I keep coming back to something, a thought I usually don't associate with fun summer blockbusters. I'll give this one a slightly positive review, but it could have been a movie of a really good to great to near classic movie. Directing the film, del Toro set out to make a fun movie. Is it weird then to say there was potential on display here for a possibly really smart, even intelligent film? Space portals open up all sorts of doors about the immensity of space. What could be out there? What could be trying to destroy us? Why are they doing so? How does mankind respond? Hunnam's Raleigh explains it all in an interesting, well-told monologue over the movie's first 15 minutes. There just could have been more, SO MUCH MORE. The same from the human perspective. We see the heroic Jaeger pilots become genuine celebrities. How about the Drift technique, linking 2 pilots together through their thoughts and past? It's a brilliant concept that isn't fully explored. I don't know if I've written a review for a movie wanting it to be smarter, to embrace its intelligence, but here it is. Pacific Rim is good but it could have been great, and that's the most disappointing thing.

Instead, the explanations and scene-to-scene transitions are rushed and muddled. The two comic relief scientists manage to mind-drift with the Kaijuis and somehow learn EVERYTHING about them in seconds. I'm not buying it. Things happen because the story requires it far more than I'd like. The Jaegers seem to have one weapon that handles the Kaijus effectively, but Raleigh completely forgets to use it in battle...until he needs to remember. If he remembered earlier, then there'd be no battle! The same goes for the finale, certain characters surviving because....well, because they survive. I liked this movie, but I wanted to love it. Too bad.

Pacific Rim (2013): ** 1/2 /****

Prometheus

With moves like 1979's Alien and 1982's Blade Runner, director Ridley Scott created two of the most well-known, well-respected, and popular science fiction movies of the last 30-plus years, and seemingly was on the road to becoming a sci-fi master. To be fair, with those two movies alone, he is a sci-fi master. He hadn't returned to science fiction until the recent release, 2012's Prometheus, a prequel to Alien. Worth the wait? Flawed overall, but an epic success when it does work.

It is the year 2089 and two scientists, Dr. Elizabeth Shaw (Noomi Rapace) and Dr. Charlie Holloway (Logan Marshall-Green), have made a series of discoveries -- cave paintings from different places and eras in human history -- that all have a common link. They all contain a drawing of some sort of being pointing to the same galactic location. Some two years later onboard the spaceship Prometheus, Shaw and Holloway are part of an expedition traveling to the darkest corners of the universe in search of what those paintings might mean. Is there intelligent life out there? Did they create us as a race? After the two-year journey, Prometheus arrives at the moon LV-223 to continue the investigation. They find evidence of another race but something else as well. What did this race create?

Some film directors just have credibility at the very mention of their name, and Ridley Scott is one of those few. When this movie is good, it is great. I didn't see it in 3-D, but the look of the movie is incredible, especially a mysterious opening sequence...but more on that later. The musical score is kept to a minimum, but when it's used, it makes quite an impression (kudos to composer Marc Streitenfeld). Like the most effective science fiction stories and movies, it succeeds because it makes you think, makes you question. What better place to do that than the far reaches of the universe? Anything could exist out there, friendly or aggressive. Were we put on Earth for a reason? Does faith mean anything? Do your beliefs truly mean something to you? When you're in a spot, how do you react? At its best, Scott's film explores some of these issues. Oh, he also does a fair job trying to scare the hell out of you as a viewer.

It's been years since I've seen the Alien movies, but as a prequel, it has a distinctly different feel. The visual is stunning here. Yes, it's a science fiction movie that degenerates into a creature feature (unfortunately), but it can also fairly and accurately be described as an artsy, minimalist take on mankind, space travel, the future and so much more. Basically the exact opposite of a summer blockbuster. It forces you to pay attention and think for yourself. It isn't always an easy movie to follow, but for the most part you're rewarded in the end. Nothing is ever really spelled out for you. That can be both rewarding and frustrating, especially in the finale. It is different though, and Scott tries for something more than the norm.

An effective, solid ensemble cast steps to the forefront for Scott's prequel, starting with Rapace and Holloway as the archeologists searching for answers. Charlize Theron is brutally cold and efficient as Vickers, the Weyland Corporation representative in charge of making sure the mission goes off according to plan. Her looks can deceive you, but she's cold and calculated. Idris Elba has another scene-stealing part as Janek, the Prometheus captain (with co-pilots Emun Elliott and Benedict Wong), an everyman but highly intelligent and able to piece things together for his job and mission. Guy Pearce in heavy make-up plays Weyland, the aging, decrepit CEO who finances the deep space mission. Sean Harris and Rafe Spall have smaller but just as important parts as Fifield and Millburn, two members of the investigating team, each with their own hopes on the mission. Also look for Patrick Wilson in a one-scene part, Shaw's father in a dream sequence.

The part that no doubt most moviegoers will remember though is David, an android created by the Weyland Corp. to blend in as a human, possessing everything but a soul. David is played to perfection by rising star Michael Fassbender in a part that could/should earn him an Oscar nod. The obvious comparison is to Hal in Space Odyssey, but that's limiting and not a completely fair comparison. This android has human mannerisms and touches -- he moves like a man, rides bikes, plays basketball, mimics Peter O'Toole in Lawrence of Arabia -- but there's also that one thing, that one little thing that prevents him from being a man. It's hard to put my finger on it, but Fassbender does an incredible job. His David is sympathetic, menacing, brilliant, intimidating and conniving. Because he can be programmed, it's can be difficult to get a read on his intentions, but whatever they may be, Fassbender is the star of Prometheus without a doubt.

Certain moments in Prometheus have stuck with me since seeing it and no doubt will stick with me in the days and weeks to come. The opening sequence is a jaw-dropper; a supremely muscle-bound, albino humanoid being left on a desolate, isolated landscape (a pre-civilization Earth?) as a spaceship takes off. He takes a potion that kills him, his body decomposing in seconds. Is it the creation of mankind? Who knows for sure? The arrival at LV-223 is equally impressive, the Prometheus attempting to find a landing zone as it travels through the atmosphere and the terrain below. Stunning visual sequences, both of them. Once the crew detects some variation on life, the visual turns to the dark and unsettling, the feeling of Doomsday looming in the air.

While I will readily recommend the movie overall, I can also say I came away slightly disappointed in the end. I don't need everything wrapped up nicely with a bow, and open-ended endings aren't a movie killer for me. But as is here, the ending left me unsatisfied. I wanted more.....of something. It doesn't have to be answers spelled out for me, but there's got to be something. Here, it just ends. On the whole, I'll heartily recommend it. Know there are flaws, but the positives ended up being particularly memorable for this moviegoer. Definitely give this one a try! Also check out the great teaser trailer below. The full-length trailer (watch HERE) is also above average as trailers go.

Prometheus <---trailer (2012): ***/****

28 Weeks Later

Name a sequel that improves or is just plan better than the original. The obvious ones that always come to mind for me are The Empire Strikes Back and The Godfather 2. Yes, both originals are classics in their own right, but the sequels improve on what made their predecessors better. In February I reviewed 2002's 28 Days Later, an entertaining if flawed zombie-like movie. Add another sequel to the list because I enjoyed 2007's 28 Weeks Later a tad bit more.

It has been 28 weeks since the Rage virus hit England, throwing the whole country into chaos as infected humans became rabid killing machines. The virus seems to have died out, and with help from American military and NATO forces, England is being re-inhabited slowly but surely. Among the population is Don (Robert Carlyle) who survived the virus, his two kids, Tammy (Imogen Potts) and Andy (Mackintosh Muggleton), out of country at the times. But as life starts to get back to normal -- relatively -- the American forces, including scientist/medical officer Scarlet (Rose Byrne), are trying to figure out if the Rage virus is in fact...destroyed. Secrets await just when it seems like all the problems are in the past.

Now that shouldn't come as a surprise, should it? I hope not. A 99-minute movie about a father reuniting with his kids isn't exactly a zombie movie fans dream scenario. Yes, the Rage virus is back....but how this time around? Building off its 2002 predecessor, 'Weeks' is that worthy sequel that takes another step forward instead of standing still. Original director Danny Boyle takes a producer's role, Juan Carlos Fresnadillo taking the director's reins here. While 'Weeks' has its fair share of gore/violence, it isn't just a B-movie schlock fest. It has an art-house feel, a minimalist take on an almost post-apocalyptic world. The score from composer John Murphy is unbelievably appropriate, a moody, electronic sound to it. The look is even better, a washed out world punctuated by vivid blood red shots.

Both 'Days' and 'Weeks' had moments that resonated with me, surprisingly moving and truly creepy scenes that sent shivers up my back. 'Weeks' opens the gate running with one of the all-time great stunners of an opening. It starts when the Rage virus first hit, Don and his wife, Alice (Catherine McCormack), hiding in a countryside cottage with four other survivors, none of them quite sure what's going on to the world. They rescue a hysterical boy screaming to be let in and moments later the cottage is under attack by countless infected victims. One of the few acceptable uses of shaky-cam comes from this scene, a frenetic, chaotic, visceral scene where it's easy to see survival mode kick into high gear. Murphy's theme -- listen HERE -- combined with Carlyle's acting, some incredible camera work including several memorable tracking shots, and a genuine chill factor make this opening 10 minutes one of the best movie intros ever. Watch part of the opener HERE. Spoilers obviously.

The whole movie is full of moments like these, but like 'Days' there are moments in between that drag. Thankfully, there's less of those and from the start, 'Weeks' kept my attention longer and more attentively. Again, it's the set pieces that stand out from the rest. An isolated world unlike we've seen -- an empty, vacant London -- with a small group of survivors desperately trying to make it one more day. Jeremy Renner plays Doyle, a Delta force sniper, and steals the movie with a few key scenes as the virus unleashes itself, a team of snipers given a shocking order to open fire. The finale especially (maybe the last 30 minutes) are exhausting to watch, the Rage virus getting loose and infecting countless victims in the blink of an eye. There's some surprises, some thrills, and a chilling final shot. It leaves the door open for more sequels, and won't be a visual that you'll easily forget.

Like 'Days' (sorry, I'm going to stop doing that eventually), 'Weeks' relies on an ensemble cast full of character actors and possibly future stars to carry the load. The movie is better that way because with big, HUGE names, the movie on a personal level wouldn't be as appealing. Renner is the unquestioned star as sniper Doyle, the charismatic hero who shares some surprisingly funny scenes with Lost alum Harold Perrineau as Flynn, a Delta chopper pilot. Carlyle too is particularly memorable, a father who made a decision that weighs on him each minute of the day. Byrne shows she's another rising star in Hollywood in her part as Scarlet, the conscientious doctor. Also look for the always cool Idris Elba as Stone, an American officer leading the containment effort.

Very much enjoyed this one. Cool cast, cooler premise, some particularly memorable set pieces -- especially that opener -- and I'm looking forward to hopefully another sequel, 28 Months Later, at some point in the future.

28 Weeks Later <---trailer (2007): ***/****

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): */****

Takers

For better or worse, the fact that moviegoers get older only to be followed by a younger generation allows studios to make the same movie over and over again.  But because the audience is new to the movie, it seems just that…new.  My 17-year old cousin thought 2010’s The Town was the greatest movie ever made (I really liked it to be fair), but when I brought up all the movies it borrowed from or paid homage to, she looked at me like I was nuts. The same idea kept running through my head as I watched 2010’s Takers.

Over a two or three month span in spring and summer 2010, a seemingly long list of heist/men on a mission movies hit theaters ranging from really good like The Losers to average but entertaining blockbuster, The A-Team. Takers was the last of the three to hit theaters, and thanks to the saturated market and some poor reviews, it didn’t do well. No secret here, but I’m a sucker for any of these movies. A-N-Y of them. So a hip-hop, more modern take on The Italian Job and every other heist movie ever? Color me intrigued.

After pulling off a successful heist that nets over $2 million dollars, master thief Gordon (Idris Elba) and his team – Jake (Michael Ealy), A.J. (Hayden Christensen), John (Paul Walker), and Jesse (hip-hop artist Chris Brown) – split up the take and prepare to go into hiding as they always do after a job in hopes of letting things cool off. A former associate and member of the crew just paroled after serving a 5-year sentence, Ghost (rapper Tip ‘T.I.’ Harris) approaches the group with an armored vehicle job that could earn them as much as $30 million. Gordon and Co. are suspicious, but the specifics of the plan seem too legit, too good to pass up, and they prepare for a quick turnaround for a second job. But as their plan comes together, two LAPD detectives (Matt Dillon and Jay Hernandez) are closing in on this elusive crew.

This is The Italian Job, Heat, The Town, Le Cercle Rouge, and any number of other heist movies rolled together into one finished product.  That’s not an exaggeration. One scene actually has a character asking “You want to do a real-life Italian Job?” When writing a script/screenplay, I’m guessing it’s that much easier when you don’t actually have to come up with an original idea. Take successful story, add in some semi-new twists, and ta-da! You’ve got every heist movie you’ve ever seen before in a slightly new packaging.

Familiar and/or comfortable is not always a good thing. Director John Luessenhop takes all those elements and never chooses which ones he wants to use and which ones he wants to leave behind. It’s not so much a script with a developing story as a series of clichés and stereotypes. Cop with a checkered past? Yes. Scorned former member of the group? You bet. Girlfriend (a wasted appearance from Zoe Saldana) who moved on to someone else in the group? Present. The acting ranges from quality – Elba, Christensen, Walker and Ealy – to just plain bad – musicians Chris Brown and TI should stick with music. The soundtrack is dull, the editing ultra-fast and ultra-hyper, and the twists of betrayals and double-crosses are easily spotted almost from the start. If you’ve seen any heist movie ever before, you’ll feel like you’ve seen this movie before, and just a head’s up…you have seen this movie.

A saving grace from the hackneyed script that’s pilfered from other similar movies is the cast. The specialists, the thieves, the master crooks, it’s hard to mess that up. Elba is the leader, Walker his tough right hand man who seems to be former military, Christensen and Ealy are the planners, and Brown is Ealy’s younger brother and newest member of the crew. The high points of the movie are Gordon’s crew interacting away from the job, later planning their heists, and figuring out their next move. On their own, none of these are great characters, but together they make the movie that much more enjoyable. The movie and story would have been significantly better overall if more time was spent with the crew, developing these already interesting characters. Brown is the only one who is out of place, and from the director’s chair, Luessenhop seems to know it, limiting his role in terms of actual lines. His Jesse character apparently picks up parkour on a whim in a cool if ridiculous/unnecessary chase scene near the end. Still, the other four are good and make up for Brown’s lack of acting ability.

Having seen this movie in a few other forms, I was rarely bored but knowing where the story is going certainly takes away some of the enjoyment.  Helping save the movie – along with the casting – is the last half hour following the heist.  If heist movies have taught us anything it’s that the heist is the easy part. It’s the fallout afterward where the stuff hits the fan.  SPOILERS STOP READING SPOILERS I was surprised how brutal the fallout is here.  Three of the five are killed, and it’s hinted that a fourth will die after being wounded. Actually, with the exception of one main character, all of the cast gets killed. That’s the new twist here, not because it hasn’t been done before, but because for a tween audience in 2010, it’s hard to imagine these characters being killed off.  More than that, it’s hard to believe a studio approved it. For the guts to go through with it alone, the movie goes up a notch in my book.END OF SPOILERS

An opening heist at a high-tech bank guarded by heavy security shows how skilled this crew is and sets the stage for the rest of the movie. The action is fairly commonplace, and like so many modern action movies, is almost indecipherable because it’s so choppy.  The big heist of the armored vehicle is exactly the same as The Italian Job remake and has hundreds of rounds being fired without anyone actually getting shot. The best segment is when Ghost springs his double-cross, unleashing a rival crew of pissed off Russians on Gordon’s crew. The following shootout at The Roosevelt Hotel is a doozy (in a good way), full of slow motion, shrapnel, gun shots and explosions all over, and cheesy music that still manages to work. That’s Takers. A cheesy rehash of better heist movies that’s still entertaining in a guilty pleasure. Just make sure you stick around through the end.

Takers ß-trailer (2010): ** ½ /****

RocknRolla

Before I saw Sherlock Holmes last winter, my knowledge of Guy Ritchie was limited to knowledge of a couple cult classic British crime stories, his marriage to Madonna and subsequent disastrous movie starring Mrs. Ritchie.  I liked Sherlock Holmes but didn't love it, and looking at his short list of movies none of them really jumped out at me, especially 2008's RocknRolla.  I remember seeing the trailer and thinking it looked like an annoyingly ultra-stylish story that knows it's cool and is going to take every opportunity it gets to show you how cool it is.  But then I really looked at the cast, and thought I had to at least give it a try.  I'm glad I did.

Ritchie has taken all sorts of abuse over the years for everything from his directing style -- as a Tarantino rip-off -- to his not-so private life with Madonna.  And even in a period piece about one of literature's most famous characters, Ritchie was able to make it an ultra-stylish period piece.  Not having seen Snatch or Lock, Stock... but knowing their reputation, it seems Ritchie is most at home in the London underworld where heavy accents and dialects dominate and everyone and anyone will turn on you for a buck.  RocknRolla is at times convoluted, at times overly concerned in its style, but in the end a very enjoyable, very entertaining British crime caper.

When a business deal goes south, two members of a British gang called the Wild Bunch, One Two (Gerard Butler) and Mumbles (Idris Elba), find themselves in needs of some quick cash, turning to an icy accountant (Thandie Newton) for some inside information.  The man they owe, criminal kingpin Lenny Nelson (Tom Wilkinson), doesn't necessarily need the money, but principle is principle.  Lenny, with right hand man Archy (Mark Strong), is caught up in a real estate deal with a Russian businessman (Karel Roden), who loans Lenny a famous, lucky painting of his until the deal can be completed. The painting wastes no time disappearing, and Lenny is up the creek, even more so when he finds out his stepson, drugged out rocker Johnny Quill (Toby Kebbell), is the thief. So it goes as all these crooks work to save their own backsides, a vicious cycle as One Two and Mumbles end up stealing the money that Lenny is due from the Russian, the painting playing a key role, and in the end everyone is going to run into each other.

Screwy enough for you?  There were times as all these various storylines cross and re-cross that I wondered if I was watching a Seinfeld episode.  But like the best Seinfeld episodes, Ritchie fixes everything in the end as all these characters, storylines and predicaments come together, everything tied up nicely with a bow.  Confusing at times, surely, but never to the point where you feel lost.  Because there is so much going on, you're not always sure quite where everything is going, but it's fun to go along for the ride.  At a certain point, you just go along and enjoy some really cool characters interact in some very stylish ways.  The London criminal underworld never looked so good.

The characters I included above covers about half the actual cast.  Jeremy Piven and rapper Ludacris have two small parts as Johnny Quill's former manager roped into helping Lenny get his painting back.  Tom Hardy plays Handsome Bob, a member of the Wild Bunch and friend of One Two and Mumbles.  There's other characters that drift in and out, but those are the biggies.  Two main storylines dominate all the action, Wilkinson and Strong as the kingpin and his tough as nails assistant trying to track down a stolen painting (the ridiculousness of the premise somehow works perfectly) while Butler, Elba and Hardy keep going after piles of money just waiting to be stolen.

Going away, my favorite parts of RocknRolla was the Wild Bunch.  They have a great dynamic among all the members of a gang that isn't low-level crooks but isn't top-shelf thieves either.  They're somewhere in between, knowing their place in the underworld.  Butler has struggled finding good roles since the success of 300, but this is a very funny gem for him.  Elba is equally perfect in an underused part as Mumbles, and Hardy (another great supporting part along with this summer's Inception) has a great twist to his character that produces some very funny results.  The high point for the Wild Bunch is a robbery gone bad when two Chechnyan thugs do everything they can to protect the cash they're guarding.  A running, chaotic chase scene with some great dark humor, knock down violence runs for almost 10 minutes and is the runaway favorite for the best scene in the movie.  Watch a portion of it HERE. The end of course says the Wild Bunch will be back, and I'm looking forward to it.

As strong as the cast was, I was skeptical going into this movie and ended up really liking it.  Almost every member of the cast is given their own chance to shine and none disappoint.  Wilkinson is his smarmy, intimidating best, Strong's narration is dripping with subtle humor, Newton is a sexy femme fatale that film noir would be jealous of, Butler, Elba and Hardy have a chemistry that speaks to longtime friends, and in the big picture, the stylish elements never go overboard.  Ritchie has a real winner here.  If I can offer any advice, watch the trailer below, but don't hold it against the movie. Don't do what I did, and hold it against the movie.

RocknRolla <---trailer (2008): ***/****