Thor: The Dark World

There are certain irrefutable things in life like death, taxes and the fact that all Avengers franchise movies will make a boatload of money. The Avengers was the top-earning film of 2012, becoming the third-highest grossing film of all-time. I've liked all of the movies to varying degrees with one major exception, 2011's Thor. I really didn't like this one, but come on, I've got to keep up with the franchise, right? Right?!? Here we go with 2013's Thor: The Dark World.

Following the adventures/misadventures in New York (in The Avengers), Thor (Chris Hemsworth) has returned to Asgard with his brother, Loki (Tom Hiddleston), in tow, set to waste away for his crimes. With the universe threatening to tear itself apart, Thor has gone about bringing about the Nine Realms back together. His quest though is halted when his love back on Earth, Jane Foster (Natalie Portman), accidentally comes into the possession of the Aether, an ancient powerful weapon that dates back eons and has remained hidden and buried all that time. The Dark Elf who previously possessed it, Malekith (Christopher Eccleston), wants nothing more than to reacquire the Aether, hopefully to tear Asgard, Earth and the entire universe to pieces with his new-found power. Hoping to save the universe, Asgard and Jane, Thor is left with few options, forcing him to turn to an unlikely ally, Loki himself. Can his brother be trusted?

I don't know what it is. I can't peg it down exactly what doesn't work for me about these Thor movies. I can say that I liked this second movie more than the original. Director Alan Taylor's superhero flick still isn't perfect, but something just seems more self-assured. It's still heavily flawed, but it isn't the deal-killer that I found the original Thor to be. There's a lot of issues I have I guess. One, I'm being hypocritical. I've watched the Lord of the Ring series, the Star Wars movies and countless other science fiction and fantasy movies so that in itself isn't a deal-breaker, but I struggle to go along with all the Asgard history and lore. Writing that plot synopsis, I felt like I should be reading it in MOVIE TRAILER voice. All the mythology and history and Aethers, it's all very cartoonish and comic book. I can't say that for the other Avengers movies. Based in comic books but rising above it...except for Thor.

One thing above all else is not in question, AT ALL. That would be star Chris Hemsworth who has become an international movie star courtesy of these movies. Talk about epically perfect casting. From the visual look with his long blonde hair to his commandeering physique to his booming voice that deadpans his way through his scenes, Hemsworth is the best thing going for these movies by far. I won't go as far as saying he's the only good thing, but it's closer than you'd think unfortunately. He commits to the part completely but it never seems jokey or forced. It's serious with some laughs. Hemsworth handles the action effortlessly from beginning to end -- his Thor hammer is one of the best cinema weapons ever -- and adds a touch of humor too. Some quick, little scenes work perfectly, including Thor hanging up his hammer like a coat as he enters an apartment. Hemsworth's performance is the heart of the movie, a great lead.

Now the unfortunate thing is that as many big names and potentially cool characters as this movie has, very few leave a positive impression. The biggest exception to that statement is of course, Hiddleston as Loki, Thor's treacherous brother who is obsessed with power and taking over Asgard. The chemistry between the brothers is great, their scenes together in the last hour my personal high points for the movie. As for the rest? Meh. I like Natalie Portman a lot, but she still seems out of place in the Thor movies. Anthony Hopkins is cool but given little to do as Thor's father, Odin, while Rene Russo returns as Thor's mother, Frigga. Idris Elba is as cool as ever as Heimdall, all-seeing Asgardian sentry who watches over the entry point to Asgard. In the annoying comic relief department, the usually reliable Kat Dennings is shrill and annoying as Jane's assistant, Darcy, Stellan Skarsgard is relegated to crazy scientist in background duty, and Darcy even gets a goofy British intern (Jonathan Howard).

But wait, there's more! Eccleston is pretty decent as the villainous Malekith, obsessed with destruction, Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje his freakishly strong enforcer, Algrim. In the wasted department are Thor's Warriors Three from the original, Ray Stevenson, Zachary Levi (a new arrival) and Tadanobu Asano, mostly given cameo-like appearances, Jaimie Alexander also returning as Asgardian love interest (of sorts), Sif. And because the Avengers franchise is interested in coverage across all their movies, Chris Evans makes a quick appearance as Captain America while Benicio Del Toro makes an appearance in the credits scene as a hint of where the Thor series will go.Also look for Chris O'Dowd in a small part.

And here we sit. I know what I want to say, but it's going to sound harsh. My biggest complaint of the Thor movies is that they seem almost generic without a whole lot of heart. They're fun and flashy, blending action and comedy, but that doesn't necessarily translate to "interesting." Thor is a really cool character, but what else is there to offer? 'Dark' clocks in at 112 minutes, but once you take away an incredibly long credits sequence (even taking away the minute scene added on) we're still looking at a movie that's now 101 minutes. Too much going on, too many ideas and characters, a story that bounces liberally among its countless options, and a coldness in general that the other Avengers movies manage to avoid in a big way. It's better than the first movie, but it's still not that good.

Thor: The Dark World (2013): **/****

G.I. Joe: Retaliation

While it made over $300 million back in 2009, I can think of exactly one person I know who saw and liked G.I. Joe: Rise of Cobra. Okay, one person other than me. It was mindless, stupid fun with a cool cast. Well, the makers didn't exactly strike while the iron was hot, but it didn't seem to matter. With little of the same cast returning, 2013's G.I. Joe: Retaliation was an immense box office success. Is it any good?

Having led a successful mission to recover stolen nuclear devices in Pakistan, a G.I. Joe force is prepping for evacuation when an air strike wipes out much of the force. What happened? Who ordered the attack? Only three G.I. Joes survive the air strike, including Roadblock (Dwayne Johnson), Flint (D.J. Cotrona), and Lady Jaye (Adrianne Palicki). They manage to escape in the aftermath, vowing revenge. All evidence points to Cobra Commander being up to something, but no one knows that he's replaced the President of the United States (Jonathan Pryce) with one of his right-hand men, Zartan (Arnold Vosloo). The evil Commander is just waiting for the right opportunity to unleash his plan. The surviving Joes are back in America by now. Can they figure out what's going on before they're eliminated too?

As mentioned, this sequel from director Jon M. Chu is a not so timely follow-up to the 2009 original. It earned over $370 million in theaters so it obviously landed well with audiences, a good thing considering it had some issues getting to theaters. A release date was pushed back almost a year to transition the film to 3-D (more on that later) amidst rumors of horrific audience screenings. Only a handful of cast members from the original even returned, and those parts are pretty weak in execution. It's not quite a sequel in name only because there are unifying links, but it sure is close to being a stand-alone movie. I'll be giving it a positive review based almost solely on some cool characters and action, but there's some big issues along the way. We'll get there in time.

Taking the helm for the franchise going ahead -- supposedly at least -- Johnson does a fine job as Roadblock. We learn little about him other than meet his two daughters (very briefly), and that he's a capable soldier with just about any weapon at his disposal. Cotrona and Palicki are okay as the rest of the Joes, Palicki there mostly to wear skimpy outfits and fire automatic weapons. Other member of the G.I. Joe organization are Snake Eyes (Ray Park), a helmeted, silent, sword-wielding ninja, and Jinx (Elodie Yung), a ninja who's....well, a ninja with no other background provided. Also joining the cast is Bruce Willis as General Joe Colton, the original inspiration for G.I. Joe. It's not a big part, but Willis makes the most of it, deadpanning his way through a couple good one-liners.

Now for the bad guys, cool because they're bad guys without any real background, reasoning and motivation. Price is the evil President, hamming it up and having some fun with it. Vosloo is there in appearance only, not uttering a word. Byung-hun Lee is the coolest villain as Storm Shadow, a sullen ninja with a tricked out pair of swords with only one rival, Snake Eyes. Ray Stevenson joins the villains too as Firefly, a mercenary working with Cobra. Luke Bracey plays Cobra Commander (replacing Joseph Gordon-Levitt), but it's a wasted part. Little in the way of lines or actual screen time, it's there because the G.I. Joes fight against Cobra commander. That's all. Walton Goggins has a small part as a sinister, brutal prison warden.

Not surprisingly, the best thing going here is the action. With a movie that runs about 100 minutes, I'm guessing no more than three to four minutes go by in between action scenes. We're never far from a chase, shootout, fist fight or cool one-liner. The opening raid to get back the Pakistani nuclear weapons is solid, and the finale at Fort Sumter (yes, Fort Sumter!) is cool because about 100 different things are going on at the same time. The high point is Snake Eyes and Jinx trying to capture Storm Shadow from a heavily guarded mountainside in the Himalayas. Using bungees, Snake Eyes, Jinx and a small army of Cobra ninjas swing perilously thousands off feet up in the air. The action is pretty good, making up for a script that isn't interested in character development at all (we're talking any background at all), scene to scene transitions and dialogue that isn't a snappy one-liner. This is an action movie, pure and simple. Literally, there's nothing else going on!

Okay, quasi-spoilers from here on out. When this sequel was made, producers/studios apparently decided 'Cobra' star Channing Tatum wasn't capable of carrying the franchise going forward. Well, their mistake, because in the time in between, Tatum shot to stardom with 21 Jump Street and Magic Mike among others. As for the pushed back release date? Supposedly audiences hated that Tatum was dispatched rather quickly in this sequel. Reshoots had some more development between Tatum's Duke and Johnson's Roadblock, scenes that are pretty decent but also pretty obvious in how forced they are into the story. Tatum has goatee, doesn't have goatee, does have goatee. It's a ridiculously forced, contrived "solution" that works because Tatum and Johnson have good chemistry, but it's hard not to notice.

In general, there is something missing here. 'Retaliation' is so ridiculously all over the place with so many freaking characters that it is almost frenetic in its final version. It's never dull so that's always a positive, but it is so mindlessly stupid it's hard to describe. A mildly positive review because even through all the flaws, I was entertained from beginning to end.

G.I. Joe: Retaliation (2013): ** 1/2 /****

Thor

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

King Arthur

Few stories have resonated through the centuries like the legend of King Arthur. There are some who question whether he actually existed or if this knight was just the stuff of legends passed down through the years.  However you want to interpret the person -- fictional or real -- the names instantly ring a bell when mentioned.  There's Arthur, Lancelot, Guinevere, the Round Table, and all Arthur's noble knights.  So how do you make a movie about a person/character who may or may not be real with little in the way of concrete information existing on him? Here's a doozy for you. Do the best you can, and fill in any necessary blanks with battle scenes.

That's basically 2004's King Arthur which claims to tell the most accurate account of the Arthurian legend. One of the biggest issues surrounding Arthur is when did he actually live?  Was he around in the Middle Ages and the Crusades searching for the Holy Grail? Was he around near the fall of the Roman Empire in the fifth and sixth centuries?  Directed by Antoine Fuqua (Training Day, Tears of the Sun), this action-packed historical epic goes with the second premise and does a fair share of rewriting when it comes to the legend.  This is not your grandparent's King Arthur with a romantic view of a vicious, incredibly dark historical time.  It's down and dirty, and everyone is at risk.

After serving a 15-year term as a protector of Britain, half-Roman, half-Briton Knight Arthur (Clive Owen) is ready to go home to Rome.  His men, Sarmatian men enlisted as Roman soldiers, similarly want to return home after many years of service while seeing their fellow knights drop one by one. With their release coming though, they are enlisted for one more dangerous mission, a trek into Woad territory (natives trying to expel the Romans) where a Roman family's villa stands.  Bring them back and they will be free. Arthur convinces his men to go along on the nearly suicidal mission, but even he doesn't know what awaits them.  The Woads wait in ambush for them, but news drifts down from the north.  A Saxon army (led by Stellan Skarsgard) is marching south, killing everything in its path.  Arthur and his knights must now band together with the Woads (blue paint warrior Keira Knightley leading) to not only accomplish their mission, but somehow survive and get home.

Historical epics are right up my alley, I'll give just about anything a try.  But with an action-heavy director like Fuqua and producer Jerry Bruckheimer in charge, you're going to get a ridiculously action-heavy movie that's short on story.  How often can you say that for a movie that runs 138 minutes? There is a ton of potential here because of the money clearly spent in getting the movie made.  The cast is impressive, the action is on a huge scale, Hans Zimmer's musical score appropriately epic, and the story is the stuff of legend no matter what pretensions the movie has about being the most accurate telling of Arthur's story.  But with all that said, it's a mess of a movie overall.  An exciting, interesting mess, but still a mess.

I'm not an Arthur aficionado who will complain about the mangling of the legend's story, but this pushes even beyond my basic knowledge of the story.  It doesn't have to be the romantic portrayal of Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table, but some of the choices here were just odd.  Arthur's remaining Knights serving their 15-year tour of duty for Rome are Sarmatians, a people from Eastern Europe with an Iranian background.  That's fine, but they all look very British.  Guinevere is a Woad, a Briton barbarian by all accounts who is an expert with a long bow and fights alongside the men.  By the by, Knightley in a skimpy leather battle attire is never a bad thing.  Merlin (Stephen Dillane) is not a magician, but a Woad medicine man who looks like a barbarian heathen. Skarsgard sleepwalks through his performance, and Til Schweiger is laughably bad as his son, the also-evil Saxon warrior. Now I'm not sure what was or wasn't accurate -- history is always open for interpretation -- but this one just went too far for me.

What does work is the portrayal of Arthur and his knights, mostly because the actors playing the parts are so talented, not because these individual parts are well-written.  Owen is a suitable Arthur, a commander who is not like his men but has earned their respect through his leadership and in battle.  His Knights include shifty and intelligent Lancelot (Ioan Gruffudd), expert bowmen, falconer and scout Tristan (Mads Mikkelsen), quiet but capable Gawain (Joel Edgerton), young hopeful Galahad (Hugh Dancy), boorish, brutish fighter Bors (Ray Winstone), and ferocious man of few words Dagonet (Ray Stevenson). As a fan of men on a mission stories, I was a sucker for this part of the story, and all of the characters left an impression on me, especially Gruffudd, Mikkelsen, and Winstone.  I would have loved to see a story that focused more on these characters as opposed to such a large-scale story, but overall they are the best part of King Arthur.

Finishing the movie, I was more than a little surprised to find out it had a PG-13 rating.  This movie is VIOLENT.  We're not taking Braveheart violence, but it's close.  Battle scenes are incredibly graphic with blood spurts, decapitations, limbs being hacked off, and countless uses of axes, knives, spears, arrows impacting and tearing bodies apart.  All that said, the action is top-notch.  If anything it's too good and too much.  A showdown between a huge Saxon patrol and Arthur's small crew on an iced over lake especially stands out as memorable. The last battle is almost 40 minutes long and becomes tedious.  It's well-handled with CGI kept to a minimum (always a positive), and the action is done on an impressive scale, but it all becomes too much after the 98th stabbing or beheading.  There are only so many ways to see a man die.

King Arthur <---trailer (2004): ** 1/2 /****

The Other Guys

When it comes to current comedic stars, I don't know if there's one that splits audiences so much as Will Ferrell does. Critics say he plays basically the same character in every movie, and to be fair it's not that far from the truth.  But it's a good character, typically a very funny one.  His movies have been hit or miss the last few years with some successes like Step Brothers and bombs like Land of the Lost.  I'm in the 'like' group so I'll basically see anything he's in.  Chugging along at the box office, The Other Guys is a bit of a departure for Ferrell, but in a good way.

It comes from one of the more reliable sub-genres you'll find in movies, the buddy cop movie.  Put two opposites together and let the fireworks begin.  The biggest selling point of 'Other' is that Ferrell doesn't play his typical dolt, and co-star Mark Wahlberg completely commits to being the straight man and gets a ton of laughs in the process. Is it particularly original? Not especially, but through all the cliches this buddy cop venture is funny from beginning to end.  And always important in a comedy, it's quotable with too many good lines to even mention.

In a New York Police Department precinct, unlikely detective partners Allen Gamble (Ferrell) and Terry Hoitz (Wahlberg) are in the shadow of other detectives all over the force.  Allen revels in routine and sticking around the office doing paperwork while Terry after an incident with an accidental shooting feels cooped up with nowhere to go.  Almost by accident, Allen and Terry stumble into a major case no one else seems interested in.  A mega-millionaire (Steve Coogan) is in trouble with his clients for losing billions of dollars in a shady business deal (think Madoff).  No one seems to believe these two cops no matter what they say, and it doesn't help that their bumbling technique often gets them in more trouble than necessary.  But something doesn't seem right as Gamble and Hoitz get deeper into the case.

Best starting point is Ferrell and Wahlberg who together have this great chemistry that produces some of the movie's biggest laughs.  Neither of them is hamming for the camera, just letting the lines and the delivery do all the work necessary.  Ferrell in comedies and Wahlberg typically in dramas are both talented guys and play well off each other.  Ferrell's Gamble has a "dark" past that has heavily influenced the way he acts, fearful of what might come out if he resorts to his old ways.  Wahlberg's Hoitz was involved in an accidental shooting (maybe the biggest, funniest surprise of the movie) and is still dealing with the repercussions.  So it's a good start in a comedy, the history is played for laughs as it rightfully should, but we actually get to see some of these two knuckleheads and their past.

Now on the other hand, they're just funny together.  Ferrell is clueless in a kind of adorable ignorance way as opposed to his usually oblivious moron who doesn't realize he's an oblivious moron.  Some of his line deliveries are beyond perfect, including one epic comeback to a threat from Wahlberg that goes on and on, getting better all the way.  Wahlberg was already one of my favorite actors and an ideal choice to play alongside Ferrell's toned down antics.  He's intense, on the edge, a little crazy as this great cop who made one mistake and is still paying for it.  Of course, he realizes this and lashes out -- in a funny way -- at everyone around him.  He sees things that he wishes were there (watch out! Colombian drug lords!) and ends up leaving a very positive impression by the end.

Director Adam McKay has a knack for getting the best out of his supporting cast, including a few surprises here and there. Samuel L. Jackson and Dwayne 'The Rock' Johnson are phenomenal in small parts as two super cops who are the pride of the NYPD. Michael Keaton plays Captain Gene, the captain of the precinct, a part incredibly subtle in its humor with one great running gag about him unknowingly quoting TLC songs as motivation/inspiration. Eva Mendes looking as beautiful as ever shows off her comedic chops as Sheila, Allen's smoking hot wife, and Coogan in an underused part as the slimy businessman up the creek and looking for cash.  Ray Stevenson plays the resident bad guy, necessary to look tough every so often. There's some great cameos, including one so perfect I can't ruin it, but NY Yankees fans shouldn't be disappointed.

Reviewing all sorts of movies here, it's nice every so often to just review a movie that's funny non-stop and entertaining with no higher pretensions.  The story just drifts along at times before focusing back on the important elements.  The action toward the end is ridiculous and over the top, the soundtrack sounds like a bad 1980s soundtrack, and there's just enough of a new spin on the buddy cop relationship to keep you guessing what's coming next.  Really though, check this one out for Ferrell and Wahlberg, a nearly perfect comedic team.

The Other Guys <---trailer (2010): ***/****     

The Book of Eli

Apocalypse movies have been all the rage of late, and why not? Maybe people like to see a picture of what the world we live in is heading for -- possibly that is -- but there's clearly a formula developing as to how to make apocalyptic movies. There's been a recent string of these movies including 2012 and The Road, and most recently The Book of Eli which opened in theaters yesterday.

A combination of Mad Max, The Road and Fahrenheit 451, The Book of Eli appeals to me in the same way many westerns do. The setting is the west in the U.S. some 30 years after 'the flash,' some cataclysmic incident where the ozone layer was torn open and the Earth began to burn. It wasn't a world destroyer though as many people survived, some forming into smaller groups and building communities and towns that dot the country. During the incident -- it's never spelled out although religion is hinted at for being a cause -- a revolution resulted where books, all books, burned. Now a quarter century later the world tries to build up again.

One of those people who survived the blast is Eli (Denzel Washington), a man in his late 30s, maybe early 40s who travels across the country, all the while heading west. In his possession is a leather-bound King James Bible, possibly the last one in existence with all the book burnings. He protects it closely, ready to dispatch anyone who tries to take it from him as he crosses the bleak, vacant stretches of land. One day, he walks into a small town run by a man known only as Carnegie (Gary Oldman) who rules the area because he controls the all-important water supply. In trying to gain as much power as possible, Carnegie has been looking for years for a copy of the Bible and through a young woman, Solara (Mila Kunis), working in his bar finds out that Eli has one. Carnegie wants it and will spare nothing or no one to get it, but Eli has no plans of giving it up easily.

Making their first movie in nine years, the Hughes brothers, Albert and Allen, turn in a strong movie in their return to the big screen. Working with cinematographer/director of photography Don Burgess, the twin brother directing combo create an intensely visual movie full of washed out colors -- almost like sepia -- that give everything a tired, beaten down by the world look. As Eli treks cross-country, it feels like the viewer is in this desert wasteland with him. The desert presents all sorts of dangers like hijackers (Eli's handling of an ambush is a great introductory sequence, one of the better recent action scenes) and an almost complete lack of water.

The action scenes are inspired as Eli equipped with a razor-sharp machete, pistol and pump-action shotgun deals with hijackers, thugs, and Carnegie's men. Unlike many action movies, these scenes are shown in one continuous shot without a cut. So instead of a flurry of quick-cut individual shots, we get one fast yet clear shot of Eli dispatching his attackers. As if those weren't cool enough, there's also a gunfight straight out of the old west as Eli turns to his pistol to get him out of a sticky situation with Carnegie and his demands.

This builds and builds to a phenomenal final 30 minutes. The first 90 are strong and highly enjoyable on their own, but the last half hour takes it to another level. There's one major twist -- think Sixth Sense -- that is hinted at throughout the movie but is handled so well it would be hard to pick up on an initial viewing. I didn't see it coming at all and am still coming around with it. But on a bigger level (no twist involved) it's a very emotional ending, surprisingly so since this movie is being marketed as an action flick, that goes back to what all apocalypse movies have...there will always be a remnant, a group to carry on where others have fallen. This ending features a great cameo from Malcolm McDowell, quite a departure from his Clockwork Orange part.

Starring as a man of few words on a mission, Denzel Washington is phenomenal as Eli. With little in the way of dialogue and even less background, Washington brings Eli to life, a character you find yourself rooting for because somehow you know he is in the right and doing something incredibly worthwhile. When Eli does speak, Washington shows off the old acting chops, especially when he explains how the book came into his possession. An actor more than a movie star, it's always nice to see Washington get to do some heavy-duty fight scenes too. Oldman gets back to his bad guy roots as Carnegie, and Kunis continues a string of movies where she's shown she is more than just shrill Jackie Burkhart. Also worth looking out for is Ray Stevenson as Redridge, Carnegie's right hand man, Jennifer Beals as Claudia, Solara's blind mother, Tom Waits as a suspicious storekeeper, and Frances de la Tour and Michael Gambon as an old married couple Eli meets on the road.

Not overly religious and not quite a straight action movie, The Book of Eli has a little bit of everything for the audience. Great casting, especially Washington and Oldman, help boost this apocalyptic story into something more than just its spare parts. As for the twist, it is one of those revelations that make you want to go back and watch the movie again, see if you can spot all the clues as they're presented. In this movie's case, I look forward to seeing it again because it certainly fooled me the first time around.

The Book of Eli <----trailer (2010): *** 1/2 /****