Spotlight

Early in high school, I decided I want to go into journalism, specifically hoping to be a sports reporter/beat writer. I loved sports and still do and currently have a job with the Chicago Tribune as an editor. Even in my eight years since graduating college, I've seen journalism change drastically. God knows where it will go in eight years. Naturally, I was psyched to see 2015's Spotlight, a movie that shows how important journalism is and should continue to be. Oh, and it's a damn good movie.

It's 2001 at the Boston Globe and the Spotlight desk, led by editor Walter 'Robby' Robinson (Michael Keaton) with its three-man staff, focuses on big, deep, investigative stories that sometimes take months and even years to develop into something. The Globe is getting a new editor, Marty Baron (Liev Schreiber), who wants the Spotlight team to investigate an untold story, one that's gone untouched for years with only a story written here and there. He wants the team to explore the story of a Boston priest who was brought up on charges for child molestation and all the gory details. Even as investigative journalists, they've got their work cut out for them, dealing with the Catholic church and victims that don't necessarily want to be interviewed. Even with that said though, Robby and his team have no idea the depths of what they will find as they investigate deeper and deeper.

A quasi-journalist myself, I'm a sucker for all journalism movies from All the President's Men to State of Play to Kill the Messenger and many more in between. I think movies like this are relevant more than ever now in 2016 as newspapers continue their descent into oblivion of sorts. Where will journalism -- especially print journalism -- go from here? Will it survive? Can it? Movies like 'Spotlight' show a need for this sort of investigative reporting, hard-hitting storytelling and dogged journalists who pursue the truth because someone, anyone has to do it. I loved this movie. It's getting all sorts of Oscar buzz, and it will no doubt pull some serious nominations (and hopefully some wins too). It deserves any and all of the buzz it is getting.

Director Tom McCarthy jumps into this film with a refreshing thought. Simply put, he wants to tell a story. There's no explosions, huge twists, pyrotechnics, nudity or violence to speak of. It is a straightforward, elegantly-told story that tells just that, a true story. Much like The Big Short, 'Spotlight' tells a story that is astonishing in its truth, discomforting down to your very toes and unsettling to the point it can be hard to believe you are in fact watching something that actually happened. The story drifts along with the investigation as it gets deeper and darker, the Spotlight team truly understanding the depths and horrors of what goes on with priests in the Catholic church. It's not often you see films like this that are just so perfectly professionally done. It doesn't need a ton of style or an in-your-face mentality. Like its main characters, McCarthy's film simply is looking to find the truth and tell a story.

'Spotlight' is a film that respects its characters and what they do without glorifying them. These reporters want to tell a story, sometimes ones that are incredibly difficult to track and nail down. Some pretty talented actors were picked to bring these real-life reporters to life, including Keaton's Robby, Mark Ruffalo's Mike Rezendes, Rachel McAdams' Sacha Pfeiffer, and Brian d'Arcy James' Matt Carroll. In brief snippets, we get to know about them and their personal lives, nice touches that help us as we go along with the investigation. There isn't a weak performance in the group, and they feel incredibly authentic in bringing them to life. Even when it seems like they've hit a dead-end, they keep looking, keep investigating, even when the truth sounds impossible. Schreiber too is excellent as new editor Marty Baron with John Slattery doing a fine turn as Ben Bradlee Jr., an editor with the Globe who plays an integral part in the clergy cover-up investigation.

But wait...there's more! Because the above-mentioned performances weren't enough, right? I think Stanley Tucci has the ability to walk into a room and steal every scene he's in, an ability he shows off here as a lawyer who wants to do right, who wants to fight for his clients, often the victims and survivors of clergy abuse. Also look for Billy Crudup, Jamey Sheridan, Paul Guilfoyle, an uncredited Richard Jenkins lending his voice to a key role over the phone, and Len Cariou.

Working off the true story, McCarthy tells his story on the ground, in the newsrooms and cramped offices, at the reporters' desks with their desktop computers, phones ringing and notebooks in hand in just about every passing scene. We see them on the phones, pursuing leads, digging through old clips and paperwork, and you get the sense of this is what journalism IS and what it SHOULD BE. It feels authentic. It feels real, and that's why the movie is so criminally straightforward and memorable. 'Spotlight' does not pull any punches. This is the true story of a horrific cover-up that you just shake your head at that something this horrifying could go uncovered, unreported for so long. Will it bring home a bunch of Oscars? Who knows for sure? I know this though. It definitely should.

Great movie. Go see it.

Spotlight (2015): ****/****

The Omen (2006)

It's that time of the year again. Time for candy, costumes, Halloween and horror movies. I've never been a fan of horror movies -- it's easy enough to scare me -- but there are exceptions. One of my favorites is one of the creepiest, scariest flicks ever, 1976's The Omen. I love it, love all of it. But 1976 is what....like almost 40 years old, right? Let's pointlessly remake it!!! Here's 2006's The Omen.

A rising star in politics, Robert Thorn (Liev Schreiber) and his wife, Kate (Julia Stiles), are expecting a child but there are complications during the birth and the baby dies. A priest at the hospital tells Robert something though. A mother died giving birth the same night, but her infant son survived. With Kate having experienced some serious medical issues in getting pregnant, Robert agrees to take the child as their own...without telling Kate. Robert continues to rise through the political ranks -- even becoming the United States ambassador to England -- as their son, Damien, grows up. As the boy gets older though, Kate begins to notice a string of odd incidents plaguing the boy from a shocking death of his nanny to other extremely difficult things to explain. Robert is stunned when a panicked priest hits him with a revelation. He believes Damien is the son of the Devil, the Antichrist. There's no way it could be true, right?

So why remake the original The Omen? Well, other than the money. As near as I can find out through some Internet digging, it was for a gimmick. The 2006 Omen was released on June 6, 2006 at 6:06.06 in the morning. In other words? lots of 666, the number of the beast. Yeah, yeah, it is a cool gimmick but seriously? Making a movie so it could be released on the sixth day of the sixth month of the sixth year? Come on now. You've gotta come up with something better than that. It did okay in theaters, getting mostly negative reviews but still making $120 million at the box office. If you are going to make a remake of a classic, you should try something new. Do something different.

And that's where we sit. Director John Moore is at the lead of a horror flick that doesn't do much at all to differentiate from the 1976 original. There are a couple changes -- some nightmares for Kate, a reliance on bright, vivid colors to foreshadow impending doom -- but as a whole, this is an almost scene-for-scene remake of the original. The story is virtually identical, whole scenes of dialogue are repeated, and the biggest difference ends up being how certain characters are dispatched (in Final Destination mode). It's creepy, unsettling and legitimately scary at different points with several very good jump out of your seat moments. But...if you've seen the original, you've seen this movie. Some minor differences overall, but mostly, this is the same film.

How about some casting? Liev Schreiber is one of my favorite actors around, and he's got some big shoes to fill here playing the Gregory Peck part. He's got the best performance in this horror remake, an underplayed part focused on the extreme disbelief of the news he receives about his son. No father wants to believe his son/daughter is evil or bad, much less the Antichrist himself. Stiles doesn't come off as well, a performance that is missing something. It feels forced and overdone. Young Seamus Davey-Fitzpatrick is very creepy as the possibly evil Damien, his cold, icy stares putting him firmly in the 'Creepy Kids in Movies' department. Also look for David Thewlis as Jennings, a photographer who may know the truth about Damien, Mia Farrow as Miss Baylock, Damien's sinister nanny, Pete Postlethwaite as Father Brennan, a possibly unhinged priest, and Michael Gambon as Bugenhagen, an archaeologist and exorcist.

Look, as I mentioned, this isn't a bad movie. Far from it. It's professionally done, creepy, unsettling and genuinely scary. The score isn't as good, not quite as memorable as Jerry Goldsmith's original score, but the look of the movie is solid. Dark, gloomy, rainy and foreboding, it does add a dimension to the Satanic story. There was no reason to remake it though, especially if the new version is going to stick so close to its predecessor. Maybe viewers unfamiliar with the 1976 original will enjoy it more. I didn't dislike it, but it's okay at best and not much more.

The Omen (2006): **/****

The Last Days on Mars

The unknown is almost always scarier than the known. What's behind that door? What creatures and secrets do the depths of the ocean hold? What about the far reaches of space? For me, especially watching movies, the mystery proves far more interesting than the actual reveal. The revelation can be forced, contrived, far too familiar or just not very good, like 2013's The Last Days on Mars, a potential-filled science fiction film that never creates its own identity.

Having served a tour at the Tantalus Base on Mars, an eight-man astronaut and scientific crew is just hours away from being relieved so they can begin the six-month trip back to Earth. One of the crew, a scientist named Marko (Goran Kostic), has made a startling discovery but with time running out he convinces the base captain, Brunel (Elias Koteas), to let him go out and explore one of their dig sites. Listening back at base over a transmission, the crew hears some sort of explosion and screaming but don't know exactly what happened. Racing out to the site, Brunel and one of his lead technicians, Vince (Liev Schreiber), are stunned at what they find. A huge hole has appeared in the ground, Marko's body seemingly down at the bottom. When Vince goes down to investigate, Marko's body isn't there. What exactly is going on?

I love a good science fiction movie. I don't necessarily like being scared when I watch a movie, but if I'm going to go along with it, this is the type of movie in terms of style. The unknown, the mysterious, the possibility of something unstoppable and terrifying, now that's scary. This sci-fi flick from director Ruairi Robinson is based off a short story called The Animators from author Sydney J. Bound. It doesn't overstay its welcome at just 98 minutes. Released last fall, it received a very limited theatrical release, received uniformly negative reviews and in the end is just sorta there. It isn't good, and it isn't bad. 'Mars' has its moments, but for the most part, it never does enough to distinguish itself from several other like-minded science fiction films.

Ah, that mystery. The build-up, that unknown, that possibility of anything, it's a powerful motivator in a story like this, and it doesn't have to be science fiction. Thrillers, dramas, it just works. I don't want to give too much away in terms of spoilers, but I'll give 'Mars' credit. The twist and the reveal works. What Marko finds somewhere in Mars' soil is genuinely creepy because....let's face it. It could happen. There's so much going on in space and its reaches that we can never really know what to expect. The twist is all well and good. It works, but in taking it forward, the execution just isn't there. The rest of the story plays like a knockoff of countless other better science fiction films from John Carpenter's The Thing to Invasion of the Body Snatchers. What this science/astronaut expedition finds on Mars threatens mankind, our existence itself if it escapes. It should work better in that sense. A small group of people fighting for their own survival, but also fighting for something bigger. That formula never quite gels.

With an ensemble cast, there's some recognizable names, some recognizable faces and a couple folks you just know are fodder waiting to be knocked off. Schreiber is the biggest name and the star, his Vincent Campbell a talented engineer who's struggling with some inner demons. Like the rest of the cast though, the script does him no favors. We get mentions of family, of wives and kids, of lives left behind on Earth, but it never translates to form any personal interest in these people. You're rooting for them because they're in a hellish situation, but that's all with no emotional investment. Koteas represents himself well as the base captain, trying to hold his crew together. Also standing out from the group is Olivia Williams is Kim, the hard-edged scientist who doesn't hold back her opinions, tough though they may be. In addition to Kostic as the selfish Marko, look for Romola Garai (Lane), Johnny Harris (the worrisome, selfish Irwin), Tom Cullen (Harrington), and Yusra Warsama (Dalby).

 Disappointing end result here, and maybe because it was just too familiar. When the twist is revealed, the momentum should pick up, but it doesn't. It limps to the finish line. The only real mystery is who will survive but even that can be pretty predictable. Too familiar, too cliched, and not willing to take any real risks. A good-looking, creepy, eerie movie at times that never comes together.

The Last Days on Mars (2013): **/****

Lee Daniels' The Butler

The names of the U.S. Presidents are instantly recognizable, names synonymous with the history of the United States, especially that building where the president leaves, whatever it's called. The White House I think? What about all the people who work at the White House, who keep the place running? And no, it's not just the nameless/faceless individuals who get killed during terrorist attacks in movies like White House Down and Olympus Has Fallen. I kid of course as we jump into 2013's Lee Daniels' The Butler, the true story of one of the White House's longtime butlers.

Growing up as a young boy with his sharecropping family in 1926 Georgia, Cecil Gaines has his outlook on life forever impacted when his father is shot down by a white man, the land owner where the family work, after raping his mother. Cecil is taught to be a house worker, a butler, and grows up finding jobs here and there working as a butler for the rich and well-to-do, eventually ending up at a Washington D.C. hotel. It isn't long before a grown-up Cecil (Forest Whitaker) has created quite a reputation for himself, earning an interview and eventually a full-time job at the White House, working with the sizable staff to make sure the President's home is a crisp, clean operation on a day-to-day basis. It's the late 1950s though, America heading into a turbulent time in its young history. Cecil has an inside look at America's involvement at home and internationally, all the while trying to raise a family with his wife, Gloria (Oprah Winfrey).  

This wasn't a movie I was dying to see, but I was nonetheless curious, even intrigued to see it. Loosely based on the true story of Eugene Allen, 'Butler' is director Lee Daniels' second film since his 2009 movie, Precious, that really put him on the map. It received pretty solid reviews and was a surprise success in theaters, earning over $167 million. I'm not really sure what to take away from it overall. I can appreciate what the message is going for, what it's trying to stand for and say about American history, yet that said, I didn't especially like it. What it's trying to do is admirable. What it accomplishes? Still mulling that over. Some of that can be chalked up to the script which tries to accomplish a ton in a 132-minute movie.

What I didn't question was Forest Whitaker in the lead role. Playing Cecil Gaines, Whitaker is our window as an audience into a whole lot of American history. We see his mindset, his frustrations, his motivations, his friendships, his rivalries, all of it. It isn't a flashy part, far from it, just a very straightforward, effective part. Whitaker's Cecil is a family man who wants to provide for that family, especially his wife, Gloria, struggling with alcoholism as she misses Cecil, his oldest son, Lewis (David Oyelowo, a good performance with some odd moments as a 37-year old playing a 15-year old), who dives headfirst into the civil rights movement, and his youngest son, Charlie (Elijah Kelley). His narration as a lead characters gets to be a little heavy-handed at times, but that's the script and not on Whitaker's shoulders. A very solid performance for Whitaker, a man trying to get by and live in some extremely turbulent times.

Beyond the family though, the supporting cast is mostly a long list of historical characters and bit parts that aren't around long enough to resonate. We meet a handful of Presidents including Dwight Eisenhower (Robin Williams), John F. Kennedy (James Marsden), Lyndon B. Johnson (Liev Schreiber), Richard Nixon (John Cusack) and Ronald Reagan (Alan Rickman), even meeting Nancy Reagan (Jane Fonda). These little episodes are pretty cool, but they're also gone as quick as they started. Because of that pacing issue, these scenes, appearances and story developments aren't as effective as they could and should have been. In storytelling technique, 'Butler' reminded me of the classic Forrest Gump, bouncing around to a lot of stories, a lot of key moments in American history, the story giving us a window into those moments. Where Forrest Gump blended the humor and drama though, 'Butler' stays on the dramatic path, and it wore on me. This can be a heavy, dark movie to get through at times.

Give the movie credit. It tries to do a lot. Ultimately though, I felt like it tries to do too much. A story focusing on Cecil's 30-plus year career at the White House would have been fascinating in itself. The same for a man trying to care for his family through the turbulence of the Civil Rights movement, into Vietnam and beyond. Doing both ends up making things too bouncy to the point neither story gets the attention it deserves. Much time is spent with Oyelowo's efforts in the Civil Rights movement, Cecil and Gloria worried and angry back home. Moments that feel like they should resonate well and carry the movie feel rushed, not letting those moments breathe. Much like the recent The Monuments Men, this feels like a story that would have been better suited to a miniseries. The effort is admirable, the execution tolerable. Moments like Cecil interacting with his fellow butlers (Cuba Gooding Jr. and Lenny Kravitz) ended up resonating more with me than most of the far-more dramatic scenes. Also look for Terrence Howard , Mariah Carey, Alex Pettyfer, Vanessa Redgrave in odd, out of place parts.

That's the biggest issue. It doesn't pick a route and stick with it. Moments that work among portions of story that drift too much, kinda a necessity with a story that covers six decades in a man's life. I also resented something from the final scene, a written, on-screen message thanking all the men and women that have helped gain "our freedom." As a white individual, this message hit me the wrong way, and I admit I may be over-analyzing. Is this a movie meant solely for an African-American audience? Should I not be watching this movie? It's a mixed bag in the end, a generally interesting movie that ultimately doesn't live up to its potential.

Lee Daniels' The Butler (2013): ** 1/2 /****

Salt

One of the best trilogies around, the Jason Bourne movies did their fair share of reinventing the action genre.  They weren't so much stories as one linear chase scene with an occasional flashback.  This was action at its leanest, chases on foot and in cars, shootouts with police, gunmen and assassins, and epically physical one-on-one hand to hand combat.  It was the rare trilogy that actually got better with each new movie.  If there was ever a female version of Jason Bourne, I think I saw it in 2010's Salt.

Salt star Angelina Jolie is that rare movie star who can effortlessly switch back and forth between genres, jumping from popcorn flicks like this one or the Tomb Raider series to heavy dramatic roles like Changeling or even using her voice in animated fare like Kung Fu Panda. She is in the news as much for her relationship with Brad Pitt and her kids and her charity work that her acting can get lost in the shuffle.  As an actress, she's underrated, but personally she's always looked the most comfortable in action movies, and Salt is no exception.

CIA agent Evelyn Salt (Jolie) is heading home to spend her anniversary with her husband (August Diehl) when she's called back to lead one more interrogation, a Russian, Orlov (Daniel Olbrychski) who claims to have news that could cripple the U.S.  Upon questioning, Salt thinks nothing of it but as she leaves the room, Orlov claims that an undercover Russian agent is going to assassinate the visiting Russian president in New York City later that day.  The agent's name? Evelyn Salt. She claims innocence to fellow agent and friend, Ted Winter (Liev Schreiber), but is kept as a prisoner by FBI agent Peabody (Chiwetel Ejiofor) until the truth can be figured out. Instead of sticking around to prove her innocence, Salt escapes, staying one step ahead of her pursuers.  Winters doesn't think she could be a Russian agent, but the evidence starts to build against her.  Maybe, just maybe, could Salt actually be a sleeper agent as part of a vast Russian conspiracy to cripple American interests?

I'm open to just about any type of movie, but I can always appreciate a simple, straightforward, big budget action movie that has no pretensions about being anything but an action movie.  No message, no ulterior motive, just over the top, ridiculous action that gets your adrenaline and blood flowing.  So like the Bourne movies, that's what Salt is.  At just 100 minutes, no time is wasted with back stories or subplots that go nowhere.  A few very brief flashbacks explain some of Salt's history, but they're over so quickly it doesn't slow any momentum down.  Yes, there is a twist late that really doesn't come as a surprise (it seemed really obvious to me), and there are plot holes that seem easy to fix, but the pacing is so lightning-fast you won't even notice until afterward.

Jolie proved her acting chops in the Lara Croft Tomb Raider series and just improved her credibility with other action flicks like Mr. and Mrs. Smith and Wanted (which sucked by the way).  She is more than credible here from the start, the secret agent who you're not quite sure of her intentions.  It doesn't hurt in the least that Jolie is drop-dead gorgeous although she does look freakishly thin at times.  But in the action scenes, she again handles her own without any obvious uses of a stunt double.  If there's a fight, she's part of it, taking down anyone and everything trying to stop her from completing her mission.  The character certainly keeps you guessing as to her intentions, and the ending leaves things open for a sequel. It would be unnecessary, but the last few minutes are very cool with a memorable final shot, Jolie: Action Star.  Schreiber and Ejiofor get the thankless parts of the schlubs who have to chase her, but both actors are pros and make the most of it.

So in Female Bourne, Jolie leads the police, CIA, Russians, FBI, Secret Service on a man hunt throughout New York City and Washington D.C.  The action is hands-down the best part of the movie with a wide variety of chases and fights.  An extended chase early has Jolie's Salt jumping from an overpass onto a passing semi-truck and being forced to jump to another high speed truck when a roadblock is set up in front of her.  Yes, there had to be some CGI and green screen work here because I don't care how badass Jolie is (and she is), there's no way a studio green lights an action sequence like that.  The computer/stunt work is handled so seamlessly though it's hard to even tell the difference.  That's all of the action here.  Of course it is all ridiculous and not at all realistic, but Salt makes you believe that maybe, just maybe, this could happen.

The story does take a surprising turn about 50 minutes in, and not necessarily for the better.  Director Phillip Noyce rights the ship quickly enough that it isn't a complete loss, but there's no denying that the second half of the movie just isn't as high-quality as the first half.  That's a relative complaint though because the first half is a solid blueprint of what an action movie can be.  For all the faults, see this one for Angelina Jolie in kickass mode as Jason Bourne, I mean Evelyn Salt.

Salt <---trailer (2010): ***/****

X-Men Origins Wolverine

Superheroes have always been around whether it be in comic books or on TV shows.  It was only in the 1970s that superhero movies became extremely popular with the success of the Superman series.  Other series followed, especially Batman starring Michael Keaton.  But the trend of the last 10 years or so is the franchise reboot that extends beyond superheroes into franchises like James Bond.  How did these characters become the famous superheroes audiences came to love?  Series like Superman, Batman, and Spiderman (with several more coming down the road) have all gone down that route.  Joining them now is the X-Men series with 2009's X-Men Origins: Wolverine.

Growing up I was always aware of the X-Men cartoon and the action figures, but I never really got it into (I was more a Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles man).  The same goes for the movies that came out in the last 15 years, aware of them but not really interested.  So heading into 'Wolverine,' I had nothing more than a very basic knowledge of the series and its characters with no notions of what the story should be like some diehard fans might have.  So take my review with a grain of salt because of that, but I loved it.  I wasn't sure what to expect, but it's the type of action movie that handles everything extremely competently, blending action and character into a highly enjoyable mix.

In 1845, young Jim Logan kills his father in a fit of rage and is forced to run away with his half-brother Viktor.  They are not normal like other kids and seem to be some sort of mutants.  They don't age and together fight in the Civil War, both world wars and Vietnam.  It's during the Vietnam War that Viktor (Liev Schreiber) kills their commanding officer so along with Logan (Hugh Jackman) they're sentenced to death.  A normal man can't kill them though and put back in their cell, they are rescued by an Army colonel, William Stryker (Danny Huston), who offers them a way out and a chance to use their freakish abilities.  Both Logan and Viktor quickly sign up.

Working for Stryker with a team of fellow mutants with superhuman abilities, they do all sorts of extremely difficult jobs that no human would be able to do.  But after years of doing someone else's dirty work, Logan walks away from the team and moves to a lonely mountaintop in the Canadian Rockies with his girlfriend, Kayla (Lynn Collins).  Six years pass before a pissed off Viktor shows up and kills Kayla, driving Logan back to Stryker for help in defeating his half-brother and enemy.  Stryker offers a dangerous procedure for him where a substance called avantium will be injected into his body, making him nearly invincible.  Logan agrees and though he barely survives the procedure, comes out on the other side as super-warrior Wolverine.  Watch out, Viktor, here he comes.

What little I knew of the X-Men, I knew Wolverine was a bad-ass with his razor sharp claws and gnarly looking mutton chops (yes, those qualify as bad-ass).  Jackman gives the character a dark edge that is needed for a story like this, and it never hurts when an actor does most of his own stunts.  The stunt coordinator on the DVD special features says that the star did 90% of his own stunts, and it looks like it.  Not having seen the first three X-Men movies, I'm only going off clips I've seen, but Jackman looks like a new person here.  This dude is ripped and looks like he would rip your head off if you messed with him.  It's still a little weird seeing such a tough guy though sing and dance on Broadway though.  Something just doesn't add up there, but as long as he makes movies like this one, I'm not one to complain.

Now every superhero needs an arch nemesis and Wolverine is no different, getting two opponents, Schreiber's Sabretooth, and Huston's Stryker.  Schreiber is another great actor in a long line that's venture into the action genre, and he doesn't disappoint, producing one of the coolest villains I've seen in awhile.  Sure, he's the bad guy, but he's not that bad really, and I found myself rooting for him to team back up with Wolverine.  Huston plays Huston, a slimy bad guy you know is a bad guy from the moment he's introduced.  It's just a matter of time before his real motivations are revealed.

If anything, this movie has too many cool characters.  Jackman, Schreiber, and Huston are very strong leads and carry the movie, but that's just the start.  Only in the movie for about 30 minutes is Stryker's team of mutant assassins, all who make a lasting impression in a very short time.  There's Wade (Ryan Reynolds), the smartass swordsman, Agent Zero (Daniel Henney), expert with any gun, Dukes (Kevin Durand), the strongman, Wraith (Will.I.Am of the Black Eyed Peas), a man able to appear and disappear at will, and Bolt (Dominic Monaghan), a powerful mind able to manipulate electricity.  There's also Gambit (Taylor Kitsch), a younger mutant able to use kinetic energy to explode objects.  All I'm saying, it's a good thing the rest of the story is good because all these characters are more or less left behind after the first 30 minutes.

But what I liked most was that with the development of all these great characters, they then dropped them into some expertly-handled action scenes that use a fair share of CGI without overdoing it.  After being betrayed by Stryker, Wolverine goes on the hunt and the movie never really slows down after that.  It's never long between fights among Wolverine and Stryker's henchmen, including Agent Zero, as well as Viktor who always seems to pop up at the worst possible time.  The movie gets started on the right note too with one of the best opening credits sequences ever, showing Logan and Viktor's fighting in a long list of wars.  These indestructible warriors make quite the team as they dispatch Confederates, Germans, more Germans, and North Vietnamese soldiers.

A perfect example of what a superhero movie can be when handled the right way.  Characters are fully developed without sacrificing anything in terms of story, style or action -- of which there is a lot.  Jackman and Schreiber are the high points in this flick, but the cast as a whole is very impressive.  At least one spin-off has been confirmed with one of the supporting characters, and as Jackman points out in the special features, "I love playing the character, and as long as there's a demand for more, I'll keep playing him."  Good news for superhero movie fans everywhere.

X-Men Origins: Wolverine (2009): ***/****

Defiance

Somewhat disappointingly, Defiance has struggled at the box office these last two weekends so before it completely slipped out of theaters I went and saw it today. Really, how can a movie with Daniel Craig going up against Nazis not be worth the price of admission? I ended up liking it, but not loving it. First off, it's not the action movie it has been presented as in the trailer and commercials on TV.

That's not a bad thing here as the action scenes are highly effective and feel very realistic. For one, not everyone hits at what they aim at. I "love" action movies where the good guy always hits his mark. It kind of takes the suspense out of things. Back to the movie though, it tells the story of four brothers, the Bielskis, who take to the woods in 1941 Belorussia, now German-occupied territory, after SS squads and local police start rounding up Jews, some of whom are shot on the spot and others transported away to ghettos and labor camps.

By far the strongest part of the movie are the two leads, Craig as Tuvia Bielski, the oldest of four brothers who emerges as a leader, and Liev Schreiber as Zus Bielski, the second oldest who loses his wife and child to the death squads. Hiding in the woods, they begin to draw attention, in a good way, as other fleeing Jews look for safety. Soon, the Bielskis must start to protect and provide for hundreds of fleeing Jews who start new lives in the relative safety of the woods.

Tuvia and Zus are about as different as two brothers can be, but they have one obvious thing in common; survival. Tuvia does not want to fight back against the Germans unless absolutely necessary. His 'defiance' will be by living the life they tried to take away from him. Zus couldn't disagree more, he wants to take the fight to the Germans and ends up joining a Russian partisan outfit. The tension between the brothers drives the movie as we see the two paths diverge and meet again several times in the story.

Back to the action, there are several running firefights including a few as the Bielskis first take on the Germans, learning what's effective, and then developing into bigger battles. The finale is a good one, director Edward Zwick is no stranger to moving battle scenes, as the Bielskis and Co. are caught out in the open by a German tank and supporting infantry. Watch the finale to 1989's Glory (massive SPOILERS if you haven't seen the movie) and tell me it isn't one of the most powerful battle scenes ever made. I get teary-eyed just thinking about it. My issue with the adversaries, the Germans, is that no face is put with the "bad guys." They're more of a presence than anything, looming in the woods and towns waiting to strike.

Because the movie is mostly set in camps in the woods, parts do drag a bit in the middle in between battle scenes. Other than some slow-moving scenes in the middle, and a forgettable score by James Newton Howard (typically as reliable a composer as is out there), this is a WWII drama worth recommending, notably for the performances of Daniel Craig, quickly becoming one of my favorite actors, and Liev Schreiber. It's a moving tale of survival based on a little known true story from WWII that shouldn't disappoint. Just don't blink or it may already be out of theaters!

Defiance trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oIO8OI0JP50

Rating: ***/****