Ted 2

I loved 2015's Ted. It's filthy, raunchy, disgusting, stupid, smart and mixed all together, it's a gem. It's also a pretty good stand-alone film. In other words, it don't need any sequels or follow-ups or reboots or any rejigger of any sort. But here we sit, and it got a sequel. Hitting theaters last weekend to mixed reviews and an underwhelming box office performance, here's 2015's Ted 2.

It's been a year since Ted (voice of Seth MacFarlane) has married Tami-Lynn (Jessica Barth) and....well, everything isn't all right in the world. In the midst of a seemingly never-ending fight, Ted and Tami decide the best alternative is to have a baby to save their marriage. Other than the obvious issues of Ted being a teddy bear and not being able to...ya know, reproduce, they quickly hit a roadblock in court. A judge rules that Ted is not a human being. Instead, he's a piece of property. Now with the help of his best friend, John (Mark Wahlberg), and a like-minded young lawyer, Sam (Amanda Seyfried), Ted has to prove without a reasonable doubt that he is in fact, a person, a human being, and not just a little kid's toy. Let the road-tripping, weed-smoking shenanigans begin. No one and nothing is safe...

As I mentioned in my first Ted review, MacFarlane can be a pretty divisive guy, whether it be his humor, his directing, his animated shows...basically everything. I think when it comes to pure humor, he has few equals right now. He manages to find that generally pretty perfect of really smart and truly dumb while all keeping it incredibly entertaining. Sure, there have been misfires along the way, but the laughs are almost always there. Well -- and here comes the twist -- they're not there as much anymore. Just because I loved the first movie so much, I wanted to love this unnecessary but hopefully entertaining sequel just as much. I didn't, and it wasn't even close. There are laughs (no doubt about that), but there are just as many and maybe more misfires along the way.

My worry was this sequel would be more Million Ways to Die than the original Ted. Lovely premise, horrific, so not funny execution. 'Million' was one of the worst movies I saw last year to the point I almost walked out. The unfortunate part is Ted 2 falls somewhere in between with some great laughs that get bogged down in running bits and repetitive scenes that don't get laughs and don't have much energy. Case in point; Patrick Warburton returns as Guy, John's co-worker, this time in a relationship with Rick (Star Trek's Michael Dorn). They joke about weird sexual preferences, beat up nerds at Comic Con (over and over again) and genuinely don't provide many laughs, but the script keeps going back to them. Then, he brings it back around with Warburton (The Tick) and Dorn (Worf) dressing up as their past characters. It can be infuriating how equal parts clever and dumb one script can be.

When the movie succeeds and produces genuine, out-loud laughs, is when the focus is on Ted and John and all their stupid, mind-blowing antics. MacFarlane's voice work is -- as usual -- pretty flawless as we see all the different sides of Ted, MacFarlane bouncing among them with ease from scene to scene. Wahlberg too shows off his funny side, often times playing the straight man while Ted gets the bigger laughs. I'd love to see Wahlberg do his thing on camera with no one sitting next to him as the scenes are filmed. This is a great buddy dynamic as we see in their scene where they sing their made-up words to the Law & Order theme song, their efforts to steal Tom Brady's semen (Yeah, just go with it), and their rapid fire dialogue that reflects two friends that go way, Way back. Two great characters, a movie at its strongest. I just wish there was more.

And that's where the script issues seem to come in. There doesn't seem to be much of a script. The first hour is definitely stronger, but things fall apart in the second half. There's no real pointed direction where things are going, just scenes thrown together that kinda have something to do with the ones preceding them. That wouldn't be an issue if there were more laughs, but there simply aren't. Amanda Seyfried seems kinda out of place and quite the forced love interest for Wahlberg's John. At one point, she sings a campfire song in a nice nod to Three Amigos, but it falls short. As does a pot-smoking montage in a law library, too many Breakfast Club comparisons to mention. These scenes just don't play well to the point the theater was almost dead silent. By the time Giovanni Ribisi shows up -- Yeah, Donny is back! -- and starts dancing and being weird, I'd kinda checked out already.

Just like he proved with 'Million Ways,' MacFarlane is someone some very talented people want to work with. On top of all the above-mentioned names, we also get appearances from the always reliable Morgan Freeman, Mad Men's John Slattery, an expanded part for Barth as Tami, less Sam Jones (unfortunately), sinister John Carroll Lynch, a downbeat doctor in Dennis Haysbert, and a hysterical one-scene appearance from Liam Neeson who's got some questions for Ted at the grocery store and Patrick Stewart returning as our smooth voiced narrator.

When I laughed, I LAUGHED. Ted's appearance on the stand at his trial is priceless. A running bit between John and Ted taking awkward pictures of each other is priceless, and their encounter with Patriots QB Tom Brady is a gem. I just wish there had been more of those laughs. Any comedy is going to have its hit and miss laughs, but all you're usually looking for is more hits than misses. This one comes out about even. If you enjoyed the first one, you'll enjoy this one, but this sequel isn't on par unfortunately.

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

The Lego Movie

Even as a kid watching Toy Story, I was aware of what I was watching, of how truly good it was. As I've gotten older and revisited it while watching on my own, with my niece, with my cousins, I really appreciate what a great, innovative, unique, creative story it is. That's a stand-alone statement, a movie statement in a bubble. How else has it impacted movies? Animated movies haven't quite been the same ever since, Toy Story's influence especially seen in Wreck-It Ralph and most recently with 2014's The Lego Movie.

In the universe of the Lego, an ordinary construction worker, Emmet (Chris Pratt), has spent his whole life trying to be a part of the group. He wants to be liked. He wants to be accepted, and he likes his life -- rigid though it may be. One day after his shift on a construction site, Emmet sees something strange and rather than report it, he investigates. A mysterious, beautiful woman, Wyldstyle (Elizabeth Banks) is lurking around the construction site, and when he follows her, Emmet actually discovers a mythical object, the Piece of Resistance. His discovery leads Wyldstyle to believe that Emmet is the prophesied Special, the key to the resistance against President Business (Will Ferrell), seemingly a good president for Lego Land. Wyldstyle and a small group of Legos, the Master Builders, including their leader, Vitruvius (Morgan Freeman), are fighting against President Business and now, Emmet could be the unwilling, unknowing key to it all.

When 'Lego' was released in February, I wanted to see it in theaters but just never got around to it. The reviews almost uniformly glowed, and audiences ate it up with a current box office total internationally of $467 million. And in the end, it is excellent. Lots of talent assembled to lend their voices to the story, a very unique jumping off point, and creative in the same way Toy Story and its sequels are. Director Phil Lord and Christopher Miller do something familiar and make it memorable. Yeah, some party poopers criticized the movie for being one huge advertisement for Lego, and to a point, I suppose that is fair. But this is a movie that's more than that. You think it is one thing, and it goes somewhere else, but that's all for now. Some quasi-spoilers later maybe.

Like the best, the most memorable animated movies -- whether the modern age of CGI or the old school drawn cartoons -- there's got to be something that sticks with you. Here with 'Lego' it's something special and unique that will sound almost stupid describing it. Yeah, it is a world of Legos. Duh, right? Obvious but innovative. When a building gets knocked down, you hear the thundering....clicks of all those pieces moving around. When a water tower collapses, little blue "water" pieces rush after characters. When Wyldstyle adjusts her hair, that hair moves in robotic fashion JUST LIKE a Lego piece would. It sounds dumb, but those little touches go a long way in providing some great moments, putting a smile on your face. 'Lego' is full of such moments, in jokes for adults while still providing some laughs for the kids in the audience. That's where the best animated movies reside, somewhere in between, good for adults and kids.

I loved the voice talents assembled here. Some are recognizable the second you hear them speak while others take some thinking on as the story develops. A rising star in Hollywood, Pratt throws himself into the body of Emmet, our not so intrepid construction worker who could save the Lego world...or maybe not if he chickens out. Banks too commits, having some fun as Wyldstyle, a fiery counter to Emmet's generally quiet, well, everything. Freeman has some fun as Vitruvius, the wise elder who seemingly knows everything and serves as a guide and mentor of sorts to Emmet. The other Master Builders who become part of the crew include a clueless Batman (scene-stealing Will Arnett), ever positive Unikitty (Community's Alison Brie), Benny (Charlie Day), a 1980s spaceman frustrated with modern Lego technology, and Metal Beard (Nick Offerman), a pirate mutant with all sorts of enhanced body parts. It's a fun crew with a lot of variety, a bizarre-o version of the men-on-a-mission formula.

But wait, there's more! I'm a big Will Ferrell fan so it's always cool to see him throw himself into a fun part like this. His Lord Business is a great villain, over the top and goofy and always ready with a laugh. His enforcer is an equally scene-stealing Liam Neeson as Good Cop/Bad Cop, able to twirl his head around within a conversation, an excellent site gag. There's plenty of other voices to listen for including Channing Tatum and Jonah Hill as Superman and Green Lantern (desperately trying to be friends with Superman). Without giving too much away, also look/listen for Will Forte, Dave Franco, Shaquille O'Neal and a few others sprinkled in here and there. It's the randomness that works, especially when the Master Builders council is called, assembling all of the above with Shaq and the 2002 NBA All Stars, a Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle, a feuding Gandalf and Dumbledore, some historical heroes and then there's Emmett, a regular old construction worker.

So all well and good, right? And it is. It builds to something special here that as I look back on it is criminally straightforward. It feels weird saying this with an animated movie, but there's a heck of a twist in the final act that brings the movie together, even managing to take the entire movie up a notch or two. I LOVED this twist. It makes a good movie into a great one. There are hints along the way, but I wasn't expecting it at all. This is a smart, funny flick that delivers a message without being heavy-handed about it (We all have talents and skills. It's just a matter of finding your place with those talents). Also, it's funny in a self-conscious way, including two songs, Everything is Awesome by Tegan and Sara featuring The Lonely Island -- listen HERE -- and my personal favorite, Batman's self-written theme of sorts (listen HERE), Arnett absolutely nailing it.

An easy movie to recommend.

The Lego Movie (2014): ***/**** 

The Nut Job

I remember very clearly seeing the trailer for 2014's The Nut Job. I remember laughing out loud -- in a good way -- at the premise, so ridiculous sounding it had to be a spoof trailer, right? Right?!? But no, it wasn't. This was an animated heist movie....with animals. How could that not work? It just has to work on basically all levels. It just has to!!!

In the small city of Oakton, a beautiful little park with plenty of trees and creeks and rolling hills sits in the middle of the downtown area. All the animals that live there are prepping for a fast-approaching winter, the group led by Raccoon (voice of Liam Neeson) who's doing his best to help organize all the available food. A rebellious squirrel, Surly (voice of Will Arnett), is working on his own though to store up for winter, even finding a nut store near the park that will keep him fat and full all winter. Now, he's just got to find a way in without being caught. Raccoon catches wind of his plan and sends two brave squirrels, Grayson (Brendan Fraser) and Andie (Katherine Heigl), after Surly to see what he's up to. There's more to it though. A lot more. Something is going on inside the nut store that none of them had planned on.

Here we sit again. I feel absolutely ridiculous writing a plot description for an animated movie. At that, an animated movie about squirrels, mice, rats, groundhogs, a mole, and a power-hungry raccoon joining forces to rob a nut store. At the same time, that premise alone gets some points. This 2014 animated flick was backed by South Korean studios and did pretty well in theaters, earning over $76 million this winter, director Peter Lepeniotis' movie more than earning back its budget. I mildly liked it, but I wanted to love it. There are some laughs but not enough, and the story is lacking something. Maybe Pixar has just ruined things for everyone with all their unique, original, innovative ideas.

What does work? I loved the visual. Though it's never dealt with directly, 'Job' has the look of the 1950s as if the story took place in a little American town. It reminded me of so many classic Looney Tunes cartoons that I grew up watching. What exactly do Surly and Co. stumble into while trying to rob the nut store? They find themselves working around a gangster, King (voice of Stephen Lang), and his cronies trying to rob a nearby bank by tunneling in. That premise reminded me of several Looney Tunes adventures, Bugs Bunny working against some dimwitted gangsters doing their best James Cagney impersonations. While the animation has that crisp, clear look we've come to expect out of modern animated movies -- thanks again, Pixar -- there is also that throwback feel to the animation. It's colorful and detailed right down to the background and characters. It all adds up to a nice animated package.

What doesn't work? I came away disappointed with the voice work here. Will Arnett does his best as Surly the squirrel, but there aren't too many animated movies out there where the main character is so unsympathetic. He's mean, kinda a bully, and generally not very likable. Surly has his moments -- most with his mute sidekick, a mouse -- but I didn't like the character. Heigl is okay as Andie, the squirrel love interest. Fraser hams it up as the overly heroic and slightly nuts Grayson, but I didn't even realize it was Fraser, requiring a look-up. Neeson is cool because it's freaking Liam Neeson voicing an evil raccoon. The rest of the nut job heist crew include Precious (Maya Rudolph), a pug who teams up with Surly, Mole (comedian Jeff Dunham), the blind, dimwitted mole, Jimmy (Gabriel Iglesias), Johnny (Joe Pingue) and Jamie (Annick Obonsawin), a trio of groundhogs. It sounds cute, but in the end, it's just sorta meh.

So in the end, I think the idea is far better than the execution here. I really, really liked the premise, but as the story developed, it never really grabbed me and pulled me in. The potential was certainly there, but 'Job' doesn't pay off unfortunately. And let me tell you, I wanted it to pay off. It's a heist movie with animals for goodness sake!!! That has to be awesome, right?!?

That said, there is a quasi-saving grace in the finale. I wonder if the studio behind 'Job' has a hand in the studio behind musical artist Psy, known for his unbelievably catchy dance song Gagnam Style. Listen HERE. One of my favorite early scenes has Surly and his sidekick, Mouse, dancing in celebration to Psy's song. It's not the Gagnam Style dance, but it's funny. Very funny. The highlight for me was in the end credits, an animated Psy dancing as the credits roll, all the characters -- both humans and animals -- dancing along with him. It's gimmicky, a tad forced, pretty ridiculous, and it is FUNNY. It works, simple as that. Watch it HERE. Yeah, I'm a cheap date. It doesn't take much to entertain me.

The Nut Job (2014): **/****

A Million Ways to Die in the West

Seth MacFarlane is one of the more polarizing personalities currently working in Hollywood. The creator of TV's Family Guy and man behind 2012's very funny and very wrong Ted, MacFarlane typically inspires a 'love him or hate him' reaction from audiences. I typically come down on the love him side, loving Ted and for the most part liking Family Guy. So when I read MacFarlane was working on a comedy film western....well, color me curious. Here's 2014's A Million Ways to Die in the West.

It's 1882 in Arizona and cowardly rancher Albert Stark (MacFarlane) is trying to make the most of his small sheep ranch in the desert. He's dating the pretty, young teacher, Louise (Amanda Seyfried), and even though the wild west life is pretty rough, Albert is pleased....and then he isn't. After he negotiates his way out of a gunfight rather than shoot it out, Albert gets dumped by Louise. He just sort of drifts along afterwards, eventually meeting a new woman in town, Anna (Charlize Theron), who he clicks with very quickly. It isn't long before Albert gets roped into another gunfight with Louise's new man, but that's the least of his problems. Anna isn't telling him everything about who she is and more importantly, who she's married to. Her husband? Clinch Leatherwood (Liam Neeson), a bandit and one of the most notorious gunfighters around. Now, Albert is really in for some trouble.

Released in theaters just this past weekend, 'Million' earned over $17 but was still dubbed a disappointment. Reviews were decidedly mixed to negative, and what little word of mouth I heard was....I'll say, less than positive. Nonetheless, I plunged on! It's a comedy western -- which I'm not a huge fan of to begin with -- but it certainly looked like the talent involved had put together a winning product. Andddddddddddddd, yeah, unfortunately that's not the case. This is not a good movie to the point I will even say it is really, really bad. Making it worse, it does have some potential but never amounts to anything other than a winning joke or bit here and there. It is painfully long at 116 minutes (it feels much, much longer) and simply tries too hard. Simply swearing in the wild west with vulgar sex jokes, pretty raunchy physical humor, some drug jokes, it isn't enough. There's got to be something more.

The parts that do work? It all goes back to the title. The wild west was a particularly nasty place, and as MacFarlane's movie/script points out in its strongest moments, there were a countless myriad of ways to die and to die graphically. The bits that work come from that simple premise, the west was almost trying to kill you. MacFarlane's Albert has a funny monologue pointing out all those ways people can and do die from. The payoff is priceless, Albert literally pointing out the town mayor's dead body that's been lying in the street untouched for three days. The bit comes back later with a great sight gag. The same for the county fair where people always seem to die gruesome, grisly deaths. Gags like that work and do it well, an intelligence to the humor. There isn't enough of those sorts of gags and bits. Instead, we get jokes about a retarded sheep, a gunfighter who can't join the gunfight because he has two (TWO) bouts of extreme and very public diarrhea, and a sheep peeing on Albert while he's hiding from Clinch's gunmen. Now, that's funny!

Some reviews criticized MacFarlane for casting himself in his movie. That's the least of my concerns. You may not like his humor, but he knows how to get laughs. His quick, random asides work well, and a cowardly sheep rancher is an interesting chance of pace for a lead in a western. The script does him no favors though, his Albert getting too many ranting and raving monologues that feel forced. His scenes are okay with Theron, but they tend to slow things down even more. Neeson looks to be having some fun as the dastardly Clinch, a bandit who's reputation precedes him, but even he is underused. SPOILERS STOP READING SPOILERS There are a couple surprise appearances along the way but blink and you'll miss them. They include Christopher Lloyd, Ewan MacGregor, Ryan Reynolds, Gilbert Gottfried, Jamie Foxx (stay for the credits), and then Patrick Stewart providing his recognizable voice for a quick voiceover. END OF SPOILERS YOU MAY CONTINUE READING NOW.

Who else to look for? Wes Studi is a quick scene-stealer in his appearance as Cochise, the wise Apache chief who guides Albert through his struggles. Giovanni Ribisi and Sarah Silverman don't fare so well as an engaged couple. Oh, and Silverman is a prostitute, but the couple is "saving themselves" for marriage. So yeah, we get lots of raunchy sex jokes that fell short one and all. You could have heard a pin drop in the theater with each passing joke. Repeated jokes about anal and oral sex and ejaculation can only take you so far. Neil Patrick Harris plays Foy, Louise's new beau, impressive mustache to boot. Screen veteran Matt Clark gets a quick part too as a gold prospector.

What I found disappointing was that MacFarlane was genuinely trying to do something different here. In one way, he's trying to make a comedic spoof western in the vein of Blazing Saddles. He's not making a generic, studio-forced sequel. At no point does it click though, a series of bits and one-liners that work at times on their own, but ultimately fall short. MacFarlane looks to be a western fan, even shooting on-location in Monument Valley, made famous by famed western director John Ford. Everything from the look to the throwback-sounding score to the credits scream 'WESTERN!' but it never gels as one cohesive picture. Struggles to find the right tone, the right comedy, the right rhythm, you can point to any and all of these problems as handicapping the final product.

Your call in the end. I love westerns and when a comedy western is handled correctly, I'll go along for the ride. This western most definitely tried, but it just doesn't happen. A few good bits don't amount to something worthwhile in the end. I didn't like this movie at all, and there were more than a few extended scenes that were painful to watch. Truly painful, made all that much worse by the fact that somewhere in all that mess is a potentially very good movie. As is though, steer clear. If you do go see it, definitely don't watch the trailer.

A Million Ways to Die in the West (2014): */****

Non-Stop

Terror at 30,000 feet!!! There's all sorts of crazy, scary, terrifying situations out there. But what about those situations where you simply can't get away from it? Like literally, can't get away, like on a plane flying at 30,000 feet. There's a fun, little sub-genre of movies like this, including Air Force One, Flightplan, Red Eye, and most recently, Non-Stop.

A former police officer from New York City, Bill Marks (Liam Neeson) is a Federal Air Marshal who's been at it for years. After some family troubles years before, Marks struggles with the job, drinking heavily to the point his coworkers are aware of it as well. Boarding a six-hour flight from NYC to London, Marks is ready for whatever could be thrown at him...until now. An hour or so into the flight, he starts to receive ominous text messages from an unknown sender. His threat? Unless $150 million is deposited in a bank account, someone on board will be killed every 20 minutes. It has to be a joke, right? How could a killer get away with it? What could their escape plan be? Marks isn't sure how to proceed, but with the clock ticking, he's working against time. Can he find the supposed killer before he strikes?

I'm going to be honest here. When I first saw the trailer for director Jaume Collet-Serra's film, I will....I'll say, less than enthused. It looked exceptionally goofy, even dumb, in wasting a premise that sounded like it could be pretty cool. Now all that said, a local theater shows movies for $5 on Tuesdays so....yeah, I gave it a shot. 'Non-Stop' ends up being a lot of fun, taking advantage of a simple, straightforward premise. A killer on-board a plane? How could he possibly plan on getting away even if his plan somehow succeeds? At 106 minutes, it's basically the perfect length -- not too quick, doesn't overstay its welcome. The style is there, texts popping up on-screen as Neeson's Air Marshal interacts with the terrorist. With the exception of a quick introduction and the closing scene, the entire movie plays out on the plane as it flies across the Atlantic, almost like a stage play. Above all else, it is entertaining. It's fun, and sometimes that's all you need.

Another chapter to the Liam Neeson Badass chapter has been written. As I've written before, I'm a big fan of Mr. Neeson no matter the part, but I love him in these more commercial movies more than the more dramatic period pieces. It's like picking pizza though. There's not really bad pizza, just less good. Neeson was cut out to be an action star. It just took years to figure it out whether it was the Taken movies, The Grey, Star Wars, Unknown, and now here in Non-Stop. His grizzled Bill Marks is worn down, beaten up and struggling with alcoholism, but through it all, he still knows how to do his job and do it well, even when it seems he can do no right. Now in his early 1960s, Neeson for lack of a better description is a badass. It's fun to watch him on-screen, especially in ass-kicking mode. His weathered face, his gravelly voice, it all adds up and in a good way. Likable, believable and a hell of a good action star.

One of the biggest selling points for 'Non-Stop' for me was the catch. With a story like this, you know there's going to be a big twist, a big reveal, something that lays it all out there. There just is so deal with it. Here, the premise is a whodunit? Who is the person behind the diabolical plot that threatens to claim the lives of 150 people on-board this commercial airliner? Everyone in the supporting cast is a possible suspect so that's part of the fun. Can you piece it together before the big reveal? I had an inkling, but I couldn't peg this one. For starters, look for Julianne Moore as Jen, the fellow passenger who needs a window seat and ends up next to Neeson's Marks. Also look for Scoot McNairy, Michelle Dockery, Linus Roache, Nate Parker, Corey Stoll, Anson Mount, and Omar Metwally among others as assorted passengers and crew on-board who may or may not be working with the Air Marshal to find out exactly what's going on. Shea Whigham also makes a quick appearance as an agent on the ground communicating with Marks. It's a fun group with some solid variety. I was kept guessing until the very end as to who was behind the plot at 30,000 feet.

And then there's the reveal. I didn't love it, but it's a realistic ending so that's a win in itself. I was worried about some ridiculous, far-fetched twist coming out of left field. Thankfully, that never comes to fruition. So while I didn't love the ending, I didn't hate it each other. It was getting to the finale that's pretty cool. We see the responses, the contingency plans, the technology available from texting to filming video with a phone, all how it affects Marks' situation that gets progressively worse with each passing moment. This is a good, old-fashioned thriller with some nice modern touches. Uncomfortable, full of tension and adrenaline, with a lot going for it across the board. An easy movie to recommend.

Non-Stop (2014): ***/****

Anchorman 2: The Legend Continues

So for anyone who lives under a rock, the sequel to 2004's Anchorman hit theaters recently, Anchorman 2: The Legend Continues, raking in some solid if not huge numbers. It's a daunting task making an unnecessary sequel that follows an original film that is considered by many -- myself as well -- to be a comedy classic. Oh, and it's been nine years since the original was released? This sequel isn't the most timely of follow-ups, but director Adam McKay and star and fellow writer Will Ferrell waited until they could devote the right amount of time to actually writing the follow-up. Is it worth seeking out? You bet.

Having left San Diego and Channel 4 behind him, legendary news anchor Ron Burgundy (Ferrell) is living the high life in New York City, co-anchoring the nightly news with his wife, Veronica Corningstone (Christine Applegate). Well, he was living the high life. Called in thinking he's getting a promotion to a national network, Ron finds himself out of a job when Veronica is promoted instead. He's in a bad place now only to receive another job offer, a new news station that will be on television 24 hours a day. Ron is able to assemble his old news team, Brian Fantana (Paul Rudd), Champ Kind (David Koechner) and Brick Tamland (Steve Carell), and heads to New York City to rebuild his reputation. The news world has changed though, and Ron and Co. must adjust. Can they manage it?

There are certain movies where plot descriptions are beyond unnecessary. This is one of them. Do you like Ron Burgundy? Did you like Anchorman? If you said yes to either of those questions, you're going to head out and see this movie, story be damned. Though a sequel had been rumored for years, it finally came to fruition this past year when McKay and Ferrell revealed they had been working on a script, really devoting the time that script deserved to get it to theaters. Some nine years since the original was released, this isn't the most timely of sequels, but it's one that audiences have been looking forward to. We've been carpet-bombed for several months now with ads and appearances from Ferrell as Burgundy, the movie even under-performing some in theaters. If you read nothing else from this review, read this. If you liked the original, you'll like this one. Is it as good? No, but that would be almost impossible to do.

Instead, it uses the similar formula while adding some new wrinkles to keep things fresh and funny. How do they manage? Well, as dumb as the humor may be at times, it's also got some really smart (and funny) moments. Assigned to the graveyard shift on the new 24-hours news network, Ron and the team start to think out of the box. What do audiences want to see? Praise for America, sports highlights of home runs, big touchdowns and ferocious slam dunks, footage of cute animals doing goofy things and anything and everything sexy. Yes, Ron Burgundy can see into the future. Surprise, surprise, the ratings go through the roof, audiences eating up the new approach to the news. There is a subtle smartness here, Ron insisting on more graphics on-screen, showing a car chase live on-air and guessing who's driving and what's going on, even a countdown of the greatest vaginas of the 20th Century. Okay, maybe they're not all smart, but they're funny.

My worry was that the cast would turn their characters into caricatures of themselves, even more so than they already are, but thankfully we avoid that. It's fun to see Ron's development as he starts to realize maybe he's not the great newscaster he thought he was. The story gets pretty ridiculous in terms of a character arc -- really going off the beaten track in the final act -- but above all else, it's for laughs. Single Ron is separated from his wife, but still wants to be close to his son, Walter (Judah Nelson), deals with Veronica's new boyfriend, Gary (Greg Kinnear), a psychiatrist he believes can read his mind, gets semi-controversial with an interracial relationship with his new boss (Meagan Good), plays some jazz flute while ice skating, and eventually, even must fight back from being blind. Yes, you read that right. It's ridiculous. The entire movie is. It commits to being both equal parts really stupid and really smart. Leading that charge is Will Ferrell as Ron Burgundy, again stealing the show.

The best moments have Ron and the reassembled news team up to their usual hijinks, providing the movie's funniest moments. Finding out what Brian, Champ and Brick have been up to is priceless, a recruiting montage providing some great laughs in a scene you'd expect out of a men on a mission movie, not a screwball comedy. The quartet just has impeccable chemistry, each of the three supporting players given their chance to shine. You like the characters, like their shenanigans and can't help but laughs. Also look for James Marsden as Jack Lime, an established star in the news world who goes up against Ron as a new co-worker, Kristen Wiig as Chani, a secretary at the new station who has a budding romance with the equally odd Brick, and even Harrison Ford (yes, Harrison Ford) as Mack Tannen, a legendary newscaster. It's a ridiculously talented comedic cast.

SPOILERS I'm going to mention a couple scenes here -- one more than the other -- that features some good surprises and twists as the movie develops. Stop reading if you don't want to know. SPOILERS Both scenes are updates of iconic scenes from the original, the first being Brian Fantana's epic collection of condoms, one explanation after another bringing the house down, a nice update on his Sex Panther scene. The highlight though is a ridiculously over the top update of the Newscaster Fight (watch it HERE). The star power is nuts, the ante upped in every way possible. Ron and his team must fight the BBC (Sacha Baron Cohen), entertainment reporters (Tina Fey and Amy Poehler), ESPN (Will Smith), MTV (Kanye West), and the History Channel (Liam Neeson), accompanied by the ghost of Confederate general Stonewall Jackson (John C. Reilly). Oh, and Kirsten Dunst keys up the fight as the Maiden of the Clouds. And the Minotaur is fighting with the History Channel. It is truly nuts, completely ridiculous, and it works so, so well.

If there's a weakness here, it's that at 119 minutes, Anchorman 2 is a tad long. Some bits just work better than others. Ron and Co. driving in a Winnebago...well, cruise control driving, is inspired. A later montage of the team building up their new reputation is perfect, Ron and Brian at one point smoking crack on live TV. Other bits aren't as good. I'm looking at you Steve Carell and Kristen Wiig in some truly painful scenes. For the most part though, it works, one scene more nuts than the last. It's not on the level of the original, but it sure is funny. Enjoy it.

Anchorman 2: The Legend Continues (2013): ***/****

K-19: The Widowmaker

A product of the Cold War, a slew of movies about nuclear destruction hit theaters in the 1960s, films like Fail Safe, The Bedford Incident and Dr. Strangelove among others. At the same time in the 1950s and 1960s, war movies following the exploits of submariners were a hot commodity, movies like Up Periscope and Run Silent, Run Deep. An interesting cross-breed of the two separate genres comes 2002's K-19: The Widowmaker, based on a true story.

It's 1961 and the Soviet Union has finished producing its first ballistic missile nuclear submarine, the K-19. Following a disappointing practice drill, the government has brought in Capt. Alexei Vostrikov (Harrison Ford) to replace then-Capt. Mikhail Polenin (Liam Neeson) who will be kept on as an executive officer and second-in-command. The K-19 has been tasked with a dangerous mission; on its first voyage it must surface in the Arctic and fire an unarmed ballistic missile as a test run. Pushing his crew to the limits to make them the strongest, most trustworthy crew possible, Vostrikov tangles some with the friendlier Polenin. The differences are pushed to the side though when the K-19's nuclear reactor breaks down, putting the entire submarine at risk. Should the temperature rise too high, the K-19 would be destroyed in a thermonuclear explosion. Can they fix the issue in time?

From director Kathryn Bigelow, this 2002 drama is based on the true story of the Russian sub K-19, a ship that seemed doom from the very start (earning the nickname 'Hiroshima' from its crew). Reading up about the real-life incident, the story took some liberties with the history but generally sticks pretty close to the facts. It sat in my Netflix queue for quite a few months because I just wasn't psyched to watch it, but it ended up being a welcome surprise. If I have any complaints, it's that at 138 minutes, this is a long movie that takes a little too long to get into rhythm. Never boring, but not exactly exciting either in the early going. Composer Klaus Badelt's score is solid, using familiar Russian themes with some effective, quiet moments full of tension (and trust me, there's a ton of tension late).

That tension gets ratcheted up to a crazy level around the 60-minute mark when the nuclear reactor goes ka-put. It's at that point 'Widowmaker' finds its groove and the drama kicks in. The claustrophobic setting of the possibly doomed submarine adds to that sense of impending doom. The engineers and crew come up with a solution as the reactors' temperature rises dangerously high, an explosion coming up quick. The reactor has to be cooled with thousands of gallons of fresh water but a new piping and welding must be performed in the highly radioactive reactor room. Capt. Vostrikov must send men into the reactor knowing they will be doomed. That's basically the perfect dramatic moment, especially when the second and third crews see what the radioactivity did to the first crew, knowing now what awaits them. If that wasn't enough, the K-19 must also deal with the unexpected arrival of an American destroyer in the area and Russian government suspicion and involvement back in the USSR.

By 2002, Harrison Ford -- Indiana Jones/Han Solo himself -- wasn't taking a whole lot of roles (still isn't unfortunately I suppose). Other than his in-and-out questionable Russian accent, Ford does a fine job as Capt. Vostrikov. He's dealing with suspicions that he received the job because of his wife's political connections and now feels he must prove himself as a capable officer, commander and sailor. In the process, he drives his men to their limits and more. As his counterpart, Neeson is a very capable officer but one who has become a friend to his men too, not just a commander, an issue that comes up as difficulties arise and he must place his men in dangerous situations. Unfortunately, the rest of the cast is pretty faceless, lots of similar-looking men who don't do much to distinguish themselves from the crew. Peter Sarsgaard is solid as Lt. Vadim Radtchinko, the inexperienced reactor officer.

With more of a personal investment in the characters, the drama could have been effective on a far more effective, emotional level. Steve Nicolson, Christian Camargo, and Ravil Isyanov manage to distinguish themselves the most, but when the intensity picks up, it's hard to keep track of people. It's not a deal-breaker because the natural drama of the situation more than carries the movie through. Watching it, it was refreshing to see and appreciate a story that is focused on the human drama coupled with a much bigger possible worldwide effect. Not a whole lot of explosions or violence, just that all-important drama. Not a great story, but a really good one. Well worth checking out.

K-19: The Widowmaker (2002): ***/****  

Taken 2

As far as action movies go, 2008's Taken was pretty decent. Some surprisingly effective casting, an impressive body count, and European locations provided quite the formula for success. A hit with audiences, it not surprisingly produced, what else? A sequel, an unnecessary repetitive one at that. Oh, boy, here we go with 2012's Taken 2.

Having rescued his daughter, Kim (Maggie Grace), from sex traffickers and the Albanian mob in Europe, former CIA specialist Bryan Mills (Liam Neeson) is back in Los Angeles working as a security official for all sorts of international types. He's grown closer to Kim since the rescue, and is even on good terms with ex-wife Lenore (Famke Janssen). The relationship is good enough that Kim and Lenore visit Bryan after he finishes a job in Istanbul, a hopefully relaxing trip. Not so fast. The Albanian gangsters who he dispatched saving his daughter have organized and want nothing more than exacting revenge for their fallen comrades, especially mafioso Murad Krasniqi (Rade Serbedzija). All the underworld is looking for Bryan, and Murad and his army of vengeful mobsters are closing in. Can Bryan save his family from a brutal death?

I've had this conversation with my aunt several times before, and I keep coming back to the same thing. She questions why Neeson takes these more commercial (some would say dumb) action movies as opposed to showing off his acting chops. I love Neeson in either so let's say this; Liam Neeson is cooler than you. He's cooler than me. There aren't many people who can keep up with him in terms of pure badass-ness (Yes, I'm making up words again). Seeing him as a brutally capable CIA operative has been my biggest reasoning for checking out both movies, and he doesn't disappoint. He's more than believable as Mills, trained and ready to use a very unique set of skills to get some very dangerous missions done. Above all else, it's fun to see Neeson in these more commercial parts.

Unfortunately though, having watched this unnecessary sequel, I'm forced to say that Neeson is one of the only good things about this flick. Having written and directed the first movie, Luc Besson only writes this one, passing off the directing reins to Olivier Megaton. Did he not like his script? I certainly didn't. It comes across as both lazy and rushed at the same time. Take away the closing credits, and it only runs 86 minutes. Not bad for an action movie? You'd think, but the first half hour plays like an after school special about a single dad looking out for his daughter -- who has a new boyfriend (Luke Grimes) -- while also trying to get ex-wife Lenore through some difficult times in her second marriage. Who cares?!? Let's get to Neeson killing nameless bad guys! The final scene actually has Neeson, Grace, Janssen and Grimes sitting at an ice cream parlor laughing it up over.....I don't know, something amusing.

I'm not against all sequels when handled correctly. Take the characters and situation we like, and develop something, add something new. Don't settle for the same old, same old. So it doesn't seem like I'm completely ripping this one, '2' does try something new. What is that you ask? Take what made the first one entertaining, and pack it into about 48 minutes of non-stop action. By my count, Bryan and Lenore are kidnapped, but everything is righted and back to normal within an hour or two in real-time. Escaping from the Albanians (Oh, no, quasi-spoilers!), he finds Kim and manages to re-find the place within maybe 12 minutes. He chases some Albanians, some Albanians chase him, usually meeting a graphic PG-13 ending, and then -- as mentioned -- Bryan and family go out for some well-deserved ice cream. It is fun to watch because it plays so quickly, never slowing down, but that doesn't mean it's even remotely good.

As for that action, '2' continues to use the ultra-fast, hyper-kinetic editing that makes the actual action pretty much indecipherable. What exactly is the point? Do producers/directors/editors/studios think this looks cool? It never did. Slow things down, and actually let the viewing audience see all the cool fight moves, not a blur that's gone in a second. Oh, and in the criminally underused department, Leland Orser, Jon Gries, and D.B. Sweeney play Bryan's former C.I.A. cohorts. They're introduced -- just like in the original -- but do absolutely nothing except for a horrifically stupid scene late in the movie.

Beyond all the dumb choices in storyline and over-edited action, I think this is a movie that is simply stupid. It reminded me of The Expendables I and II, movies interested in nothing other than action. Scene transitions, explanations, all those good little things that average movies take advantage of are brushed off to the side here. At one point, Bryan literally disappears from a car while cornered. There is no physical way for him to have escaped sight unseen other than he's really cool and has cool guy skills. Later, Bryan and Kim crash through the security gate at the American Embassy in Istanbul. Bryan calls Orser's Sam and tells him to call the Embassy and tell them not to shoot him and Kim. That's dumb in itself, but when we next see Bryan? He's hunting Albanians again. The movie is in too much of a rush to even show how him and Kim got out of that sticky situation in a freaking heavily guarded American Embassy. Dumb much?

Okay, I'm surprising myself here. I'm disliking this movie more and more as I write this review. Neeson is cool, but it's just not very good. And come on, are you telling me that Kim, survivor of almost being a sex slave, would be so willing to go back to international travel? Eh, that's just one apparently minor complaint I had for a pretty bad movie. Ouch, this one lands with a thud. Oh, Istanbul looks cool so there's a positive.

Taken 2 (2012): */****  

Unknown

Here we are again....amnesia. Okay, at least partial amnesia. I didn't really care for 2011's Unknown, but because Liam Neeson and some other typically reliable (and cool) co-stars were in it I stuck with it. I kept waiting for it to get better, and it didn't. Maybe I'm missing something. The reviews I'm reading seem to be from a different movie.

Traveling with his wife, Elizabeth (January Jones), to Berlin, Dr. Martin Harris (Neeson) is prepping for a biotechnology summit. Going back to the airport to pick up a left-behind briefcase via taxi, Harris is in a horrific accident and is only saved by the driver (Diane Kruger). He wakes up some four days later though in a hospital with a serious head injury. Freaking out that his wife must be terrified at his disappearance, Harris heads back to the hotel, but Elizabeth doesn't even recognize him. She's with a different man (Aidan Quinn) who claims to be Dr. Martin Harris. Security forcibly removes Harris, leaving the good doctor to question what the hell is going on?

Because I'm struggling coming up with a transition here, the Wikipedia (yes!) entry lists this 2011 flick as a psychological thriller, and I'm thinking....yeah, I guess so. It seems like my 2012 Phrase of the Year, but like so many failures, there's a ton of potential here. Okay, maybe not a ton, but certainly some. Amnesia in thrillers is nothing new -- cough Bourne movies cough -- but when everything around you that you know just isn't right, that's an unsettling feel to watch. Your wife doesn't recognize you?  She's now with a different man claiming to be you? That's a great jumping off point.

Unfortunately that Twilight Zone feel to the story is undone by a couple different things. The biggest obviously is the execution. At one point, Neeson and Quinn are yelling the same conversation at a man to prove they each have talked to him before. Literally, word....for...word in unison in an angry, pissed off tone. I'm assuming it was a scene meant to be dramatic, but it got a laugh out of me. And that's the problem. The developing story is overdone. Neeson is running around Berlin yelling "I'm Dr. Martin Harris!" in seemingly every scene. That uncomfortable feeling becomes unintentional comedy.

The only reason I won't completely torch this film from director Jaume Collet-Serra is the cast. Even in schlock like this, they're still worthwhile. Liam Neeson is Liam Neeson. Even when the drama is overplayed, he's still fun to watch. Kruger makes the most of a part similar to her role in National Treasure 1 and 2. She's unknowing female sidekick, the pretty lady dragged along with our hero because he needs someone to talk to. Aw shucks, that January Jones sure is purty, but she just isn't a good actress. Quinn is okay in a pretty generic part. Bruno Ganz is a real bright spot as Jurgen, a former investigator Neeson's Harris uses to look for answers. Frank Langella is here too, but it's such an obvious, telegraphed part. When Frank bleeping Langella shows up 75 minutes into a movie, it's not because he's a Good Guy. That takes away some of the fun, although Langella at 74 is still all sorts of creepy and cool.

As things continue to unravel, I was hoping the big twist, the huge revelation would at least partially save the movie. Eh, not so much. When it comes along, it works in the moment, but that's all. Once you start to think about it, the whole story goes to hell. It's the type of twist that relies on far too much coincidence. At any number of given points, all it would take is one character saying one sentence to Neeson's Harris, and everything is settled. The problem? Then we have a 45-minute long movie. Movies held together like that -- because a scene NEEDS to happen -- come across as lazy to me. Steer clear, even if Liam Neeson is cooler than you.

Unknown <---trailer (2011): * 1/2 /****

The Dark Knight Rises

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Batman Begins

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Grey

When the trailers for 2011's The Grey were released, I was skeptical but at least a little intrigued. It was another movie that had very talented Liam Neeson being a bad-ass again (Taken, The Dark Knight, Titans), this time fighting wolves in a survivalist story. Then, when it was released, I heard all sorts of arguments and dissension over the ending...mostly, that it was lousy. So Neeson killing wolves with an ending that did its best to divide viewers? Color me curious.

Working for an oil drilling company in Alaska, hired gun and wolf-killer Ottway (Neeson) boards a plane with 20-some oil drillers, the dregs of society as far as anyone is concerned. Flying in horrific weather, the plane crashes in the isolated, desolate wilderness with only seven survivors, including Ottway. Low on both food and water, the survivors try to band together to make it from day-to-day, but there's something else. A pack of wolves is patrolling around the wreck site, and they're not waiting long. Just hours after their arrival, the wolves start attacking the survivors. Can Ottway lead them to safety, or at least hold off the vicious animals until help arrives?

Trailers, commercials and most TV spots built this Joe Carnahan-directed movie as an action-packed thrill ride, a group of supermen doing battle with wolves. Yeah, long story short? That's not the movie this is at all. It is a story about surviving, about battling through extreme adversity, about a will to live when everything in you and around you begs you to give up. Filmed in British Columbia, it is a lonely, chilling story that isn't necessarily entertaining, but I don't think it's supposed to be. By the end of the 117-minute movie, you feel cold, tired, wiped out and just plan exhausted. Yes, the small band of survivors fight wolves, but it's survival. They do so or die. They don't attack. They defend themselves. The will to live is a powerful weapon, one that can be hard to beat.

Going in another more fan-friendly, crowd-pleasing story, Neeson is a perfect choice to play the steely-eyed, cold as ice lead, Ottway. With his sniper rifle, he hovers over the oil sites, protecting the drillers from anything nature can throw at them (in this case, wolves). As we meet Ottway, he's hit his limit and only through a mechanical glitch is he still alive after a suicide attempt. But once the plane crashes and the survivors turn to him and his expertise, he has a reason to live, a reason to keep on fighting. Neeson is a very talented actor, but there's nothing wrong with being very talented and playing roles that are a little fun too. His fellow survivors include Diaz (Frank Grillo), the pessimist, Talget (Dermot Mulroney), the scruffy single father, Hendrick (Dallas Roberts), the rational medic, Flannery (Joe Anderson), the frantic worrier, Burke (Nonso Anozie), the sick survivor, and Hernandez (Ben Bray).

In not doing two hours of continuous wolf attacks, Carnahan has a lot of time (and that's a good thing) to develop the situation. The plane wreck is harrowing without being incredibly detailed, a terrifying ordeal to survive. The aftermath in all its carnage -- including frozen corpses -- is just as gruesome, but it's the more personal, emotional moments that work better. One dying driller (James Badge Dale) is freaking out, looking for someone to tell him he'll be okay, Neeson's Ottway instead being honest with him. He quietly and assuredly explains that death will not be painful, it will be a peaceful moment in a highly memorable scene for Neeson. Later as the survivors trudge across the landscape, several scenes around fires have the men talking about their situation, about life and death, their beliefs. Subtle and moving, they're great scenes. Grillo as Diaz, the doubting (and cynical) Thomas, Mulroney as Talget and Roberts and Hendrick stand out from the group in a good way.

I also feel the need to defend the movie because so many viewers took it upon themselves to rip it, most notably its portrayal of wolves. Basically, wolves -- even packs of wolves -- don't attack humans, they're scared of them. Yes, it's a fair issue, but an unnecessary one that misses the point of the story. This isn't a nature documentary on Discovery Channel or Animal Planet. The wolves are a means to an end, a reason to drive these men to their limits. In the end, they become worthy adversaries, lurking in the shadows and waiting to strike. Carnahan gives them the Jaws-treatment, we rarely see the animals in their entirety. Their attacks are surprising and in a few cases, shocking. Great rivals for Ottway and his motley group of survivors.

And then there's the ending, a finale that did its best to divide the viewers. As the movie develops, I'm trying to figure where 'Grey' was heading. Is it all a dream? Were they all killed in the crash? I can thankfully say....NO, no dreams, hallucinations or metaphorical looks at life and death. The ending instead is ambiguous to a point (and watch through the credits for a quick follow-up scene). For me, it's a moving, appropriate ending, one that isn't ambiguous in the least. But it doesn't spell every little thing out for you, and ta-da! Viewers are pissed! How you come away from this one? Personal taste and judgment I suppose. I liked the ending a lot, even more so the more I think about it. Carnahan has carved a nice tough-guy movie niche for himself, and he continues it here. Not what it was as advertised as, but it's better because of it.

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

Wrath of the Titans

Released in 2010, Clash of the Titans was your pretty standard big budget, CGI-filled blockbuster with a huge if wasted cast. Read my review from last fall HERE if curious. It was entertaining enough in a generic blockbuster sort of way, interesting in the moment but fairly forgettable after that. If that's not a recipe for success, I don't know what it is. Enter stage left, the unnecessary sequel, 2012's Wrath of the Titans.

It has been 10 years since half-God, half-man Perseus (Sam Worthington) helped save the world from the warring gods, defeating the Kraken and preserving peace. But now the gods are at it again, all sorts of hellish creatures and demons escaping from the underworld. Now Perseus lives with his son, Helius (John Bell), and wants nothing to do with the situation, even when Perseus' father, Zeus (Liam Neeson), asks him for his help in defeating the enemy. When Zeus is betrayed by his own brother, Hades (Ralph Fiennes), and his son, Ares (Edgar Ramirez), god of war, only then does Perseus join the fight. Even the half-god, half-man has no idea what awaits him this second time around.

Here's my problem both with this movie and the movie industry in general. Yes, this will sound stupid, naive and did I say 'stupid'? Novel concept, but basically movie's are based off the $ they generate, right? The 2010 Titans was a pretty solid, self-contained story with ridiculous amounts of CGI, some halfway decent characters, and a solid cast. Not to say it was a classic -- it most definitely was not -- but it was enjoyable enough. Generic, a little dull at times, but good in that inoffensive sort of way. I'm doing a hell of a job selling it, aren't I? There were no unsolved stories, no real mystery so why make a sequel? You guessed it. 'Clash' made almost $500 million worldwide. So away we go with a sequel, and yes, I realize I'm shooting my theory in the foot because I'm admitting I paid to see it. I like movies. Sue me.

'Wrath' is basically the same exact movie as 'Clash' except with a few new characters, new love interest, and a wide assortment of weird, cool and odd mythological characters. My hope writing the review of 'Clash' was that with a sequel, characters would get to develop some and a possibly longer run-time would allow the movie and story to develop and breathe...a lot. No such luck, the sequel actually clocking in at seven minutes less (99 to 106) and still somehow managing to feel longer. Go figure....anyways, it's the same formula. Video game-like action, cardboard cutouts of characters, far too much reliance on CGI, and no real interest in a story. It's all disappointing because just like 'Clash,' 'Wrath' certainly has the potential to be really good. It's there. It just needed to be worked with even a little.

Getting little to no help from a script, the cast does their best to work things out. I still believe Worthington is a budding HUGE star just waiting for the right role. He's a bright spot again as Perseus, the hero fighting for his father and son, willing to throw it all on the line. It could have used more of his subtle humor in an otherwise deathly serious movie. A little campy humor couldn't have hurt. Neeson again is awesome as Zeus, Fiennes excellent as the sneering, waffling Hades, and Danny Huston plays Poseidon, the three most powerful Greek gods. Rosamund Pike steps into the love interest part, playing Andromeda, a female general and kick-ass fighter while Bill Nighy gets to be quirky and eccentric as Hephaestus, the scientist/creator of the weapons of the gods.

The best thing going for 'Wrath' is the casting of a quasi-sidekick for Perseus, Toby Kebbell playing Agenor, son of Poseidon so another half-God, half-man roaming the countryside looking for trouble. He injects some much needed energy into a sometimes surprisingly slow-moving story as the roguish anti-hero. Kebbell has some fun with the part, not playing it so straight-laced and button-down. It doesn't have to be physical humor, but something to lighten the mood up a bit, and Kebbell does it well. His exchanges with Worthington's Perseus provide some of the movie's better highlights. Can't say I'm excited for a third Titans movie, but if it's on the horizon, I hope Kebbell returns.

The shame of it all is that 'Wrath' has a chance to be good. We get creature fights with a fire-breathing, two-headed hell-dog straight from Hades, a trio of Cyclops warriors, a running fight with a Minotaur through catacombs and labyrinths that all look alike, and an epic showdown with Kronos, one of the first God/Titans who's been imprisoned for years. Now he's released as a gigantic, immense creature made of rock and spewing lava. Pretty cool finale with him facing Perseus. There's nothing to tie it all together though. The CGI looks good, but gets tedious quickly. The story drifts from episode to episode, and the characters aren't particularly interesting. Gotta go with the same rating as 'Clash.' Lots of wasted potential, but you can certainly do worse.

Wrath of the Titans <---trailer (2012): ** 1/2 /****

Clash of the Titans (2010)

English actor Sam Worthington is at an interesting point in his career.  After toiling in relative obscurity on British TV and movies since 2000, the 35-year old actor now stands poised to become one of Hollywood's biggest stars...with the right part.  Where does he go from here? He was by far the best thing about Terminator Salvation and outdoing Christian Bale, managed to hold his own against James Cameron's CGI work in Avatar, and then followed it up with 2010's Clash of the Titans.

An updated version of a cheese-fest in the form of 1981's Clash of the Titans, this is a movie that was remade solely because there is CGI now.  That's it.  There's no other reason to remake the movie.  I haven't seen the original, never really having an interest in it.  But there was potential here if nothing else. It's Greek mythology, and it is nearly impossible to ruin that.  The gods up on Mount Olympus interact, controlling the world with an iron fist, the backstabbings, betrayals and hook-ups that a modern soap opera would be jealous of.  The movie never amounts to much though, a somewhat entertaining movie if nothing else.

The son of a mortal woman and the most powerful of all the Greek gods, Zeus (Liam Neeson), Perseus (Worthington) is saved by a Greek fisherman (Pete Postlethwaite) and raised as one of his own with his family. As he grows up though, a war develops and builds between the ego-tripping gods and the frustrated mortals.  The gods are ready to wipe out the mortals if they don't receive their due, especially lord of the Underworld, Hades (Ralph Fiennes), even threatening to release the monstrosity of a beast, the Kraken. The only option is to sacrifice an Argonaut princess, Andromeda (Alexa Davalos), but Perseus finally embraces his demi-god status to help the mortals win.  With a small group of Argonaut warriors at his side, Perseus heads out into the wilderness in hopes of finding a way to defeat the angry gods and the Kraken.

One of my concerns when I first started reading about the movie was some choices in casting.  As much as I like Worthington, I wasn't sure he was the right choice to play Perseus, son of Zeus. He basically gets to play the only character with any sort of actual development so he's got that going for him.  Like so many other characters though, it is only taken so far.  We've got to have a reason to root for him, and Worthington -- through his own fault or that of the script (more on that later) -- never really provides that reason. He handles the action sequences well enough, but I wish they could have done more with the main character in what looks like it will be a franchise with Clash of the Titans 2 scheduled for a 2012 release.

The rest of the cast -- without a ton of huge star power, not a bad thing -- is more hit or miss.  Neeson, Fiennes and Danny Huston play Zeus, Hades and Poseidon, the most powerful of the Greek gods. Neeson is the best of the three but is really around only to say 'Release the Kraken!' Fiennes glares and looks mean, and I don't believe Huston actually says a word (unless I missed it). Gemma Arterton is a bright spot as Io, Perseus' guardian angel of sorts who looks over him. Mads Mikkelsen is also a big positive as Draco, the Argonaut warrior who questions Perseus' status. A stock character, and one you've seen before, but a good one. His Argonaut squad includes Liam Cunningham, Hans Matheson, and Nicholas Hoult. There's also a CGI warrior -- a Djinn fighter -- who's pretty cool. Along for the adventure are two hunter/fighters brothers, Ozal (Ashraf Barhom) and Kucuk (Mouloud Achour), two very underused characters.

This was a summer blockbuster in 2010 so what should we expect from this flick? Action...lots of action.  Because there is no really good, detailed way to say it, the action scenes are both good and bad.  The potential is there with CGI creating all sorts of mythological characters for Perseus and Co. to battle (giant scorpions, Medusa, the Kraken, Hades' winged attackers), and the CGI looks solid for the most part.  However, the action is from the 'Let's over-edit this scene so it is indecipherable to watch and/or follow!' school of editing. Look it up, the school actually exists. Edited so quickly that the viewer can't see anything is never a good choice as a film-maker.  When the action and editing is slowed down enough where we're able to keep up, it's good stuff.  There just isn't enough of it.

Something was missing from this movie, and maybe it wasn't just one thing; maybe it was lots of little things.  For a blockbuster with all the makings of an epic, it clocks in at just 95 minutes before an extremely long 11-minute credit sequence.  That is not long for an R-rated comedy, much less a historical/mythological epic.  The look of the movie is too clean, too neat and tidy. The musical score is lacking, receding into the background too much where a good score would drive the action. Mostly though, I just never got fully into the movie. With a finished product that's barely 90 minutes long, there just is no time to take a breathe here.  Characters vanish as soon as they appear, and the ones that do stick around aren't given a chance to develop or interact at all.

A decent enough, entertaining movie, but one that is pretty forgettable in the grand scheme of summer blockbusters. Hopefully with the sequel, the cast, script and director actually get a chance to stretch out and get comfortable. The first movie certainly had the potential to be pretty good even if it ultimately wasted that potential.

Clash of the Titans <---trailer (2010): ** 1/2 /****