Mission: Impossible - Rogue Nation

I remember watching the first Mission: Impossible with my parents way back when it hit VHS (yeah, I'm old) and being thoroughly confused and entertained. I never thought it would become a franchise such as it has, especially after the big gaps in years in between the first and second sequels. Yet...here we sit. It's 2015, and the series is going as strong as ever. Case in point? The recently released Mission: Impossible - Rogue Nation, beautifully schizophrenic and action-packed, a movie that dares you NOT to like it.

For most of a year, IMF (Impossible Mission Force) agent Ethan Hunt (Tom Cruise) has been on the trail of a dangerous organization that seems to have its hand in everything. Their name? The Syndicate. Try though he might though, Ethan can never quite get his hands on the organization until finally, the Syndicate comes after him instead. With the IMF disavowed by the CIA and the U.S. government because of some of Ethan's more aggressive methods, Hunt now finds himself a fugitive on the run, turning to some old friends for help in not only staying alive but also bringing the Syndicate to justice. On top of any number of other problems, he has a new wrinkle to deal with. A mysterious agent, Ilsa (Rebecca Ferguson), who seems to be playing all sides against each other, and she seems to be after the same thing Ethan is. Who's who? Who can be trusted? What crazy action sequences can be filmed in the process?

I love these movies. Released four years ago, M:I Ghost Protocol took the series/franchise to a crazy level as one of the most ludicrously entertaining action movies I've ever seen. Naturally, I was slightly kinda sorta interested in seeing this newest venture. The verdict? Not quite as good as 'Ghost,' but pretty damn close and really freaking good. Nice work, director Christopher McQuarrie! It earned across the board positive reviews and is raking in the dough in theaters as we speak. And not surprisingly, as Cruise admitted last week, there will be a sixth M:I movie. No way I'd miss out on that. The series is just too good, too fun, too entertaining to pass it up.

There's just something perfectly straightforward about these movies. They cut away any excess fat and go to work. These are action movies on steroids full of gadgets, car and motorcycle chases, exotic locales, large and small-scale fight scenes, improbable stunts, great characters, and bad guys you just know can't and won't win in the end. The Bond movies are some of my all-time favorites (and always will), but it can be refreshing to watch a movie like this that is trying to blow your socks off. Literally, 'Rogue' wants you jumping out of your seat at some of the stunts. So is the story somewhat derivative of the original? Are some of the premises tweaked and twisted from the other movies? Yeah, but you're having too much fun to give a damn. 'Rogue' clocks in at 131 minutes, but that time absolutely flies by.  There are better movies out there, deeper and darker with more story, but in terms of pure fun, you'll be hard-pressed to find one better than this.

That Tom Cruise fella, he's still as cool as ever. As one of his most famous/iconic characters (up there with Maverick I'd say), Cruise seems to have shaken off his off-screen, personal issues (G-O-O-D) and just focused on the movies again. He's always been a daredevil, an adrenaline junkie, and he takes that to the max here. That well-advertised shot of Cruise hanging off the plane? That's actually him, that's actually a plane taking off, and N-O, there's no CGI involved. HE STRAPPED HIMSELF TO A PLANE AND IT TOOK OFF FOR GOODNESS SAKE! That's Cruise, and that's the incredible energy, focus and seemingly, pure joy he's brought to the franchise. His Ethan Hunt isn't tortured or in emotional turmoil. He's a secret agent, a damn good one, and he's going to get the mission done no matter how impossible. Cruise brings all that charisma and energy and it shows with scene-in and scene-out.

Now let's give Cruise credit. He's the star, the face of the franchise, but this isn't a dictatorship. Through all the movies, he's welcomed in other stars who end up being perfect fits, whether as good guys or bad guys. The scene-stealer here is Rebecca Ferguson as Ilsa, an agent with too many secrets to mention. Her chemistry with Cruise's Ethan is spot-on, sexually charged a bit but never too much, and as an action counter, she more than holds her own (and looks good doing it). I'm hoping this is a character who's in the franchise for the long haul. Because it is an action movie, we need some testosterone, and we get it via Jeremy Renner's Brandt, Ving Rhames' Luther, and Simon Pegg's Benji, the smart-mouthed, one-line slinging tech expert. Pegg is excellent as Ethan's sidekick of sorts with Renner and Rhames not given as much to do but still cool because they're Jeremy Renner and Ving Rhames.

One of the more underrated parts of 'Rogue' is the screenplay from the director himself, McQuarrie. Because we can't have just action scenes (Okay, Mad Max could), there are at least a couple scenes of exposition, setting up a character, or a mission or an objective. The scenes of the team piecing things together are excellent, especially one at a Moroccan desert bar when everything has blown up and nothing gone according to plan. These are the brief slow-down scenes that every movie needs. As an audience, we get to catch our breath (even for a second), and on-screen, the cast gets to show off their excellent chemistry. Oh, that Alec Baldwin guy gets a solid supporting part, chewing the scenery as only Alec Baldwin can. Also look for Sean Harris (as the villain), Simon McBurney (of British intelligence), Tom Hollander (the Prime Minister) and Jens Hulten (as the bad guy's brutal enforcer).

Seriously though, guys....the action. My goodness, the action. The opening scene -- Cruise hanging off a plane taking off -- is quick and hard-hitting, smacking you in the face to get things moving. 'Rogue' never goes too long with a follow-up, whether it be a car/motorcycle chase (my personal favorite), an impossible heist at an underwater vault, a fight to the death with gunmen everywhere at a Vienna opera, and over and over. It never gets repetitive and is always done in expert fashion. This is a crew, a director, a cast, everyone involved, who knows what they're doing. As far as action movies go, there are few equals to the caliber of what's on display here.

Could the villain have been stronger? Sure. I would have liked more Renner and Rhames too, but you know what? None of my complaints are enough to even remotely turn me off from this movie. Cruise and Ferguson and Pegg and that action -- THE ACTION -- just continue to take this franchise forward and into the stratosphere. Where will it head next? On the shoulders of the ageless Tom Cruise and that winning formula, I'll be there for the whole ride until they one day decide they've had enough. Go out and see this flick now!

Mission: Impossible - Rogue Nation (2015): *** 1/2 /****

Avengers: Age of Ultron

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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): ***/****

The Bourne Legacy

With three movies over a five year span, the Bourne trilogy starring Matt Damon was a spy series with its own personal style, a James Bond for a new, younger movie-going audience. There was an odd perfection in those movies and all their frenetic, generally crazy pacing. But following the last movie in the trilogy, 2007's The Bourne Ultimatum, Damon said he wanted out. Never one to give up on a successful series, Hollywood did...well....um....uh...they basically remade The Bourne Identity. Anyways, here's 2012's The Bourne Legacy.

Working with a top secret program funded out of the C.I.A. called 'Outcome,' secret agent and killer Aaron Cross (Jeremy Renner) tests off the charts compared to the agency's other agents. A product of some medical advancements, Aaron is smarter, quicker and stronger. His superiors (Stacy Keach and Edward Norton among others) though are in some serious trouble, their operations possibly coming into the limelight because of Jason Bourne's "treacherous" actions. Rather than face serious legal repercussions if their own actions are revealed, they torch Outcome, killing everyone involved. Aaron is among the targets but escapes. Now he's looking for some answers, starting with another survivor of the burn, Dr. Marta Shearing (Rachel Weisz).

I'm not sure where to start with this quasi-Bourne movie. I went in with some expectations if not especially high ones. The Damon trilogy is the rare trilogy that I thought improved with each passing movie. 'Identity' is pretty damn good on its own so that's saying something. Once Damon wanted out though, the series/franchise has to take a twist. I can't help but wonder how director Tony Gilroy's film would have done without the 'Bourne' moniker floating over its head. Knowledge of the first three movies will certainly help, but it's not essential going into this 2012 sequel. Sorry to say though I came away highly disappointed with this newest venture. Building off the Bourne name and success, sure, there's potential, but it ends up being one big, boring, repetitive mess.

Clocking in at a very long 135 minutes, 'Legacy' is 16 minutes longer than any of the previous three movies.....and that IS NOT a good thing. This is a story that needed tightening up. The first hour is sluggish even as we bounce all over the world in a convoluted circle of information, worried looks, and menacing stares. I suppose somewhere in there was an explanation for the story, but I missed it. Long story short? Treadstone, Blackbriar and now Outcome all top each other, one agency becoming more efficient and effective than its predecessor. On the whole, the issue is simple. This is a movie that drifts far too much. The three Damon ventures are frenetically paced to the point where you feel like running home after seeing them. Not here. I was bored, legitimately bored, and counting down the minutes until it was over.

So there's the issue. It seems that Gilroy (who also co-wrote the script) wanted to use the Bourne moniker to get people in the door but from there on in was going to distance itself from those previous films. Unfortunately, the story is basically a rehash of The Bourne Identity. Everything...everything feels like we've seen this before right down to the government war rooms, action scenes, and never-ending chases. In the process somewhere, there must have been an ending too, but it didn't make the final cut. Impressive action scene ends, Cross is semi-happy and cue Moby's Extreme Ways. Oh, oops, my bad. I guess the movie is over. There is no resolution, and not even a huge jumping off point for a sequel. The movie just ends. That's all.

Continuing to springboard off his success from The Hurt Locker, Renner is a very solid lead as Aaron Cross. First off and most important, he doesn't try to be Jason Bourne. He's his own man/character. Aaron's background seems wasted though. There's a layer in there about how he came to be an agent and why he's so driven now that is highly interesting, but nothing much comes of it. Either way, Renner is the best thing going for her. Weisz is a fine actress, but she's nearly unbearable here; shrill, loud and in full-on damsel in distress mode. Norton is the biggest waste here, given NOTHING to do, as Outcome's director while Keach has to look mean and growl. Previous Bourne actors Scott Glenn, Joan Allen, Albert Finney and David Straithairn are around for brief, blink and you'll miss parts. Louis Ozawa Changchien is very cool as Larx 3, an assassin without the glitches of previous agents while Oscar Isaac is memorable as paranoid Outcome Agent No. 3 who a curious Aaron meets early on.

The action for the most part is disappointingly and surprisingly kept in the background, much of it saved for the finale, a foot-turned-motorcycle chase in the crowded streets of Manila. While the stunts are impressive, they still have that rehashed feel to them. That's the movie. There are some very cool moments -- Aaron manipulating a tracker in a unique way via an animal, Aaron's explanation of his past -- but they never amount to anything. Very sorry to give this a low rating if for nothing else than the original three movies set the bar so high. Renner is a good choice to take the reins, but that's about it here.

The Bourne Legacy <---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): ***/****

The Avengers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thor

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol

It's already been 15 years since the first Mission: Impossible movie was released in theaters in 1996, and boy, how the time flies. The highly successful franchise spawned sequels in 2000, 2006 and the newest entry in the series, 2011's Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol. Espionage and action galore. Fans will not be disappointed.

Busted out of a Moscow prison, IMF agent Ethan Hunt (Tom Cruise) is quickly assigned another mission. With a short window of time, Ethan must break into the Kremlin and get out with an important file that could trigger a nuclear war between Russia and the United States. The mission goes under on a double cross, the Kremlin blown up in the process, and now Ethan and his team are being blamed. Who's responsible? A brilliant Russian scientist/analyst, Hendricks (Michael Nyqvist), who intends to "balance" the world by unleashing a nuclear missile in the United States. As he searches for the device and the launch codes, a disavowed Ethan and his team are the only thing in the way of stopping global nuclear war.

First off, I'm a sucker for spy movies of any sorts. When they are quality spy movies? Like shooting fish in a barrel, and I'm the fish. I love where the series has gone, keeping things fresh. The first was a twisting smart thriller, the second an action extravaganza, the third more of an old-fashioned popcorn movie, and the fourth a mix of them all. 'Ghost Protocol' is the combination of all of those things, blending a twisting, turning story with crazy action and ridiculous amounts of entertainment. It's got the smart qualities that have been present in all the M:I movies, the style, charm and gadgets of the Bond movies, and the stylized action of the Bourne movies. All the while, it keeps things entertaining and maintaining its own unique flavor and style.

Through the ups and downs of his career, I've long been a fan of Tom Cruise (even when he was jumping up and down on Oprah's couch). He is an actor, but he's also a movie star, and those are few and far between nowadays. He's aged obviously since 1996, but he's still Tom Cruise. Ethan has a revenge motive here, giving this very capable secret agent an even darker edge. He's looking for vengeance while also clearing his name. More detail on this later, but he also does most if not all of the crazy, ridiculous, off-the-wall stunts. And don't be confused. They are crazy, ridiculous and off the wall. His IMF team includes Brandt (Jeremy Renner), a supposed analyst, Benjy (Simon Pegg), the tech expert, and Carter (ass-kicking and sexy Paula Patton), an agent new to the scene who's also got revenge on her mind. Also look for Lost alum Josh Holloway in a small but cool part and the always reliable Tom Wilkinson as the U.S. secretary of state in a one-scene cameo. Even franchise alums Ving Rhames and Michelle Monaghan appear, albeit very briefly.

A whole review could very easily be devoted to just M:I4's action sequences, and there are a lot. Big, flashy action movies have been watered down by CGI and in general, a quality of 'been there, done that' and most specifically 'seen that.' Director Brad Bird and his script take your typical action sequence, and amp up the ante. We've all seen countless car chases so what do you do? You have a car chase in a Dubai sand storm. Heist-like situation? How about having it in the world's tallest building where you have to scale it from the outside? All I'm typically looking for in an action movie is to try and do something different, throw something at us as an audience we haven't seen. If it flops, so be it. You tried. When it works though? You've got a real winner on your hands.

Where to start with Ghost Protocol's action? The movie opens with the Moscow prison break continues to the Kremlin infiltration, jumps to a chase through Moscow in the dead of night and then goes globe-hopping to Dubai and Mumbai. It's not of the hyper-kinetic Bourne variety either. You can see all of it....which is kinda nice. The action is the type where 18 different things are going on, all dependent on the other happening at the precise, necessary time, especially the ending involving a Mumbai parking garage with rising and falling platforms. As with any movies, you need one character laying things out, explaining the ludicrous nature of what's being attempted, Renner's Brandt handling it nicely.

The high point though -- and it isn't even close -- is the middle portion of the movie, the mission taking the team to Dubai and the Burj Khalifa, the world's tallest building, to pull off a switch with international assassin Moreau (Lea Seydoux) and Hendricks' man, Wistrom (Samuli Edelmann), and a briefcase full of nuclear launch codes. Ethan has to scale part of the massive building 130 stories up, just a pair of high tech "glue" gloves holding him up. Credit to Cruise for doing most of his own stunts hundreds of feet up, but in general to Bird for providing one of the adrenaline-pumping sequences I can remember. Total it runs about 20, maybe 25 minutes, including the fallout when things don't go quite as planned, culminating in the sand storm car chase. The movie's action is a step above on the whole, but this extended sequence will certainly be a major factor in this spy flick being remembered down the road.

My first reaction was to give this 4 stars, but I can't quite go there....yet.  Maybe down the road I will. All the movies can be judged/criticized/loved/hated on their own so it's hard to compare them. Initial thoughts, it ranks with the original 1996 movie as the best of the series. This is what movies should be like. Fun, damn entertaining and just an enjoyable experience. Throw in Michael Giacchino's score -- using the retro theme from the TV show, listen HERE, and a great title sequence -- and everything here is firing on all cylinders. Cruise leads a great cast, and original action like you haven't seen before. GO see this movie....NOW.

Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol <---trailer (2011): *** 1/2 /****

The Town

I don't really know what happened to Ben Affleck around 2002, 2003.  It was somewhere in there with his relationship with Jennifer Lopez and his part in Gigli that his rising star took a big tumble.  Too bad because the guy definitely had some talent as an actor.  Well in the years since he's been working his way back up, and hopefully with his latest work as both actor and director pays off for him in 2010's The Town.

The movie comes from one of my favorite genres, the heist movie, and more than that...the last job!  It's the premise that a specialist like a robber, thief, crook, hit man, mercenary has been doing what he does for years, and he's fed up with it.  For whatever reason -- favors, guilt, money -- the man agrees to take on one more job before he rides off into the sunset.  This is a story idea that goes across genres, but it works so well with heist movies.  For just his second movie as a director, Affleck does a solid if unspectacular job with a story that is always solid if unspectacular.  It doesn't rewrite the genre conventions, but it does everything well, and that's all I'm asking for when I go see a movie.

A neighborhood in Boston named Charlestown is infamous for its production of bank and armored car robberies with hundreds of such robberies taking place every year.  One native Bostonian, Doug MacRay (Affleck), leads a crew with his hot-wired childhood friend Jim 'Gem' Coughlin (Jeremy Renner), taking down banks and armored cars after weeks of meticulous planning. One robbery doesn't go exactly as planned and Jim takes a hostage, a bank manager, Claire (Rebecca Hall), who they allow to let go soon after. Doug arranges to bump into her to see if/what she knows about the robbery but finds himself quickly falling for her and vice versa.  Can this situation ever work? And with an FBI agent (Jon Hamm) and his task force hot on Doug's crew, can they continue to work without being taken out?

Previewing the movie, one ridiculously stupid ad said The Town was "Heat meets the Departed" so basically the best ever heist movie vs. the best ever undercover thriller movie.  Yeah, good luck with those comparisons.  That said, it's not fair to compare this movie to either even if there are certain similar elements.  Affleck shoots in the streets to give the movie a gritty, authentic look to the story and provides some very cool Boston locations (more on that later) as a backdrop.  The heavy Boston accents can be hard to decipher at times, but you get into a rhythm with it eventually.  The story isn't anything groundbreaking, but it deals with characters and twists that are in a way...comforting, because we have seen this before.  It's all handled so well I didn't even mind though.

With comparisons to Heat and The Departed, I was a little surprised by the lack of action.  An opening robbery goes smoothly, a heist near the middle features a great chase through the narrow, claustrophobic streets of Charlestown, and the finale is the high point, a heist attempt at Fenway freaking Park for a take of over 3 million bucks.  It's hard to do something new or unique with a heist, but setting it in one of the most iconic sports stadiums ever was a genius idea from Affleck. The robbery and the fallout following is an extended sequence that lasts maybe 20 minutes, making up for any lack of action earlier in the movie.  Baseball fans will hopefully appreciate an inside look at Fenway Park in a very cool, very stylish final robbery/shootout.

Maybe more surprising than the lack of action is that the movie doesn't beg for seven or eight more shootouts and robberies.  It would be overkill.  But Affleck gets such good performances from his cast that it's a pleasure just watching them do their thing.  An underrated actor himself, Affleck is the going away star here as Doug, a generally good guy who got caught up in doing something that he's good at.  His childhood was anything but smooth, and he still suffers from some past demons.  His budding relationship with Hall's Claire is never sugary sweet, it's just a genuine bond between two people looking for some sort of normality, some sort of happiness.  They have a definite chemistry, and their final scene together did remind me of a similar scene at the end of Heat.  As the scene-stealer, Renner is phenomenal as Jim, Doug's childhood friend who always seems one step away from exploding.  It's an intense part and an impressive one that doesn't have him on screen much, but he dominates every time he's on the camera.

The cast goes much deeper than those three with Hamm in a thankless, unforgiving role as the FBI agent hunting down Doug's crew.  There's also Gossip Girl's Blake Lively in a surprising turn as Krista, Doug's old fling and sometime hook-up, Chris Cooper in a one-scene role as Doug's jailed dad, and Pete Postlethwaite as the Florist, the local mafioso who has his hand in everything, and Titus Welliver as Hamm's right hand man. I think an ultimate test for a movie like this with "bad guys" as main characters (and I've written about this before) is do you find yourself rooting for them to pull off the job, to get away in the end?  Maybe it's just my messed up barometer of morals, who knows.  The Town hits it head on because it makes these characters sympathetic through their flaws.  This isn't a classic, and I didn't love it, but it is a stylish, well-made heist movie with a great cast.  Definitely check this one out.

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