The Amazing Spider-Man (2012, U.S.)

Oh, how sad I was to find this movie so run-of-the-mill. I had heard such great things about it and I'm a huge fan of Andrew Garfield, but alas, it just felt like every other super hero movie, really.

I'm not sure what it was. The cast was great: Andrew Garfield, Emma Stone, and Rhys Ifans usually stand out to me. Sally Field and Martin Sheen were really great as Peter's aunt and uncle. I enjoyed the focus on the science aspect. The action scenes were good. So why did it seem to fall flat?

The only thing I can think of is that I was not convinced by "The Lizard." His initial transition was good, but then he just seemed to fall on the corny side as far a supervillains go. So that's really all I can come up with. It was good, but it didn't blow me away. Another victim of hype.

Rating: 3.5

The Hunger Games (2012, U.S.)

So, this book is probably one of my favorite books of all time, and definitely my favorite YAF sci fi. I did go to the movie with absolutely no expectations because I didn't want to be disappointed, and that really helped. As could be expected, the bulk of the plot remained while the complexities of character relationships, motivations, and feelings were unfortunately watered down. I talked about this a lot with the people I went with, and several of the examples that we came up with had no easy fixes in film format. Therefore, I'd have to say the filmmakers did the best they could. (I was still sad about Haymitch, Cinna, and Effie's watered down personalities, especially.)

The thing that stood out the most to me was the sets. I mean, wow. The arena was exactly as I had pictured it. The mountains and forests of Katniss's home were just like the ones where I live, which is kind of where I imagine District 12 to be. And her village was just so Appalachia. On one hand it felt like a stereotype of West Virginia, but on the other hand it felt exactly real. Amazing stuff. The capital was also well done, but I felt like we didn't see enough of it. The same goes for costumes. Cinna getting Katniss ready for event after event before the Games sticks in my head, and yet we only see her at one interview and the big presentation of tributes before the Games start. (I have to say though that her interview dress with body glitter was gorgeous and her and Peeta's flame costumes were interesting, but not quite as breathtaking as I had hoped.) Again, what frustrated me the most was that they did such a good job with so many things, but there just needed to be more, more, more.

Acting was very strong. I think Jennifer Lawrence was a perfect Katniss. I liked Gale and Peeta too, although they were just good, not stellar. (This could partly be because the whole thing is about Katniss and her girl power, but I do remember having stronger impressions of the boys, especially sweet Peeta, when I read the book. Still, it's been years, so who knows.) Also notable were the little girl who played Rue (not quite how I pictured her, but I'll never picture her any other way now—those eyes!), Stanley Tucci as Caeser Flickerman (his cheesy personality practically leaped off the screen), Elizabeth Banks as Effie (though her character wasn't written well, because her purpose was vague and her screen time was minimal), the guy who played Cato (holy hot and evil, Batman!), Woody Harrelson as Haymitch (he was definitely lacking in screen time, and his transformation/the complexity of his relationship with the tributes was weak, but he did a lot with what he had), and Lenny Kravitz as Cinna (interesting choice, but I really liked him in the role, though I wish he had more screen time too... and more fierce glitter eye shadow).

So, how many times have I said that James Newton Howard is brilliant? I don't know that this score would necessarily be one that I'd buy to listen to all the time, but it definitely complemented and enhanced the movie. The tribal sounding music with drums during the tributes' training particularly stands out in my mind, though I also remember some haunting songs in emotional scenes or during establishing shots of District 12. Brilliantly done.

Yeah, clearly the trend here is that I wanted a lot more, but I think they mostly remained true to the spirit of the book. As always, I wonder whether I would have been lost in parts (or not gotten as much out of them) if I hadn't read the book, but I don't think I would have. (Unlike a certain HP7 I could mention...) I can't decide between a 4.0 or 4.5, but I don't think I would use the word "love" here, so I guess it has to stay a 4.0. Close call though.

Rating: 4.0

Melancholia (2011, Denmark)

I am enraptured.

Apparently this is the most "polished" film that Lars von Trier has ever made, which he wasn't pleased about. I haven't really seen enough of his films to form a complete judgement, but I think this film really showcased his artistic genius and creative eye without frustrating the viewer, which makes it just about perfect.

Basically, the film is told in two parts, one focusing on each sister. The first is about Justine and takes place during her wedding reception. (Her new husband is played by Alexander Skarsgård, and I think we all know how much I adore him!) Justine is clearly suffering from depression and is having a hard time staying in the moment. Meanwhile, a new planet has appeared from the other side of the sun. The second part is more about her sister Claire, who clearly suffers from clinical anxiety. The planet, dubbed Melancholia, appears to be on a crash course with the earth (though Claire's husband says it won't happen).

So that's the bare bones of the plot, but it is just so beautifully complex that it's hard to describe. It seems like a lot of reviewers didn't like it because they didn't understand it; they were looking for planets crashing, big Hollywood entertainment value. A large percentage of reviewers seemed to like Part 1: Justine and were frustrated or hateful about Part 2: Claire. I think this is because they didn't understand it. Many people understood that Justine was depressed, but they didn't understand Claire's anxiety, and they didn't like Claire. I, however, have more firsthand experience with mental illness than I would like to have, and it was clear to me that both sisters were ill in different ways and that Claire's illness goes unremarked because she is so busy trying to take care of Justine, whose illness is much more obvious to strangers. Anyway, the planet of Melancholia seemed to be a metaphor for the sisters' illnesses. Justine's is hidden (behind her sometimes sunny personality?) as Melancholia is at first. It goes largely unremarked and misunderstood. Claire's is overwhelming, inescapable, and she feels out of control as the planet comes rushing toward Earth. The approach of Melancholia causes her to panic because she can't control it, and that is a fundamental component of anxiety.

So anyway, yes. To summarize the plot, we have sisters, mental illness, metaphor, planetary collision. The acting was phenomenal. Kirsten Dunst and Charlotte Gainsbourg made me believe both that they were sisters with a strained relationship and that they were mentally ill. It's hard to catalog all the minute expressions and glances that made up their performances, but needless to say, they were exquisite and didn't overact at all. The quality of acting really contributed to the success of the film. Toward the beginning, we see Justine and Michael in the limo on their way to the wedding reception, and their looks and giggles and kisses were so infectious and convincing, I felt like I really was intruding on the loving bliss of happy newlyweds. And it only continued from there. The chemistry between all the actors, even the young boy who plays Claire's son, was magical.

In terms of other elements, I don't think anyone would be surprised to hear that the film was visually stunning. It opens with a long (very, very, very, very long) montage of the moments directly before the planets collide at the end of the film, and even though it was a disconcertingly long intro, it was so beautiful that it was hard to mind. This was also when the film's primary music was introduced—Wagner's Tristan und Isolde. It set the perfect mood and continued to hold the entire film together to the end.

I could go on forever. I can't wait to see this film again. It's so intelligent, beautiful, heartbreaking, wonderful, thought-provoking, and strangely real. The last film I loved this much was probably Never Let Me Go, and we all know how I felt about that. (Strange that they're both shockingly realistic but technically sci-fi. I could have stumbled on the perfect genre here.) I'd recommend this to everyone, but especially to those with sisters or firsthand experience with mental illness. It's hard to watch in that regard, but it really strikes a chord.

Wow.

Rating: 5.0

Cowboys & Aliens (2011, U.S.)

This is not my kind of movie at all. Yes, I like science fiction, and yes, I've recently discovered that I like some westerns, but I would never see this movie in a million years. But. Daniel Craig! Harrison Ford! I would have been missing out if I'd missed it, so thank goodness for that.

I had no idea what it was even about (aside from the obvious cowboys and aliens) before I went to see it, so I will fill in a bare bones plot here. Basically a man (who turns out to be Jake Lonegan, played by Craig) wakes up with no memory of who he is and with a weird mechanical cuff attached to his wrist. It is revealed quickly that he is, for want of a better word, quite a badass. He can fight. He's witty. And let's face it, nobody looks sexier in chaps and a cowboy hat. Nobody. (That alone makes the entire movie worth watching. Seriously. He's that sexy.) When he finds his way to town, alien aircraft start snatching the townsfolk out of the sky, including the son of the rich cattle baron Dolarhyde (played by Ford). The remaining townsfolk (woman played by Wilde, a young boy, a dog, a preacher, the doctor/store owner, Dolarhyde, and Lonegan) head out to find the aliens and get their kin back. In the process, they have some very scary encounters and discover what exactly the aliens are after.

Visually, the movie was pretty awesome. The western scenery was sometimes stark, sometimes beautiful. (On that note, the score felt the same way. It had a western feel and not a sci-fi feel. Even when the music said "the aliens are coming!" it could have just as easily been "the Indians are coming!" or "a stampede is coming!") The costumes seemed very accurate (except perhaps the tightness of Craig's chaps, and I am definitely not complaining about that). The spaceships were cool. The alien's home base was dank and creepy. The one thing I didn't like (which is probably why I don't like alien movies in general) is how disgusting the aliens were. Don't get me wrong, they were really well done, and I know they're the bad guys, but do they really have to be so slimy and nasty? I mean, their chest cavities open and they have extra three-fingered hands in there next to their pulsing heart/lungs/whatever it is. Disgusting. Effective I guess, but yech! Also they like to use their teeth on people, which is vile. That excessive violence and gore and yuckiness just isn't my thing, so that took away from the experience.

Still, the more I thought about this movie after the fact, the more I liked it. Yes, the ending felt a little too easy, but the journey was more important. It had the feel of an old western, but without the racist portrayal of Indian enemies. Instead, the enemies were really nasty, greedy extraterrestrials. And when that concept feels so plausible, you have to admit that the movie was well done. Some aspects, like Lonegan's mind-activated weapon cuff thing, seem a bit ridiculous when you think about them, but somehow it still doesn't require the suspension of disbelief that you'd expect. It's hard to explain.

The acting was, of course, phenomenal. The supporting cast was made up of actors with a lot of talent and familiar faces. Ford was on the ball, and it was nice to see him in a role that accepted his age, didn't treat him as a romantic hero, and let his talent shine in another form. And Daniel Craig. Wow. I already mentioned the sex appeal, of course, but his acting talent is practically unparalleled. He has the most expressive face I have ever seen. Just his eyes convey so much. (I always say he has the best crazed man expression, with darting eyes and heavy breathing.) Even when he's perfectly still, all the way down to his face muscles, you can see countless emotions flickering through his eyes. It's fascinating to watch. In this role, like his role as Bond, he is manly, in charge, and yet emotionally weak (though he tries to hide it). He also plays his humorous lines and physical comedy (mostly involving Dolarhyde's idiot son) with this understated feel and a straight face. Brilliant. (Another positive aspect of the film was the writing, which was sometimes funny in very straight-shooting, serious, dry, manly sort of way, if you get my meaning.) Basically, my reasons for seeing this movie, Ford and Craig, were what made it stand out so much. It would have been okay, and even good, without them, but they made it as great as it is.

I'd recommend this to the right sort of viewer, and even to those who think this might be a bit out of their comfort zone. You just have to see it to appreciate it!

Rating: 3.5

Never Let Me Go (2010, UK)

I just don't even know where to start with this film. To call it "heartbreakingly beautiful" would be the understatement of the century. I'm tearing up just thinking about it. It was so wonderful that I even watched the "making of" featurette, which I don't do too often. (Ironically, the last one I watched was another British boarding school setting—Like Minds.)

The concept is similar to that of The Island, but rather than being action-packed and set in the future, it is set in a very slightly alternate past and is more psychological, reflective. Basically, a group of children (possibly clones) are brought up in boarding schools and lectured on good health and the like. At 18, they move to homes around the country before beginning the process of fulfilling their purpose, which is to donate organs to "real" people. (That is the broad concept. More specifically, the story focuses on three friends and their relationships with each other.) I thought that setting it in the past is much more effective, because it is so much more plausible. Only a slight change in medical technology, no fast cars, advanced gaming systems. Just life as we know it with a slight change. The message is subtly different from the earlier film as well. It's more about accepting fate, making the best of the time you're given, and not being afraid to love. The difference is especially apparent in the operation scenes, though you'd have to see them both to know what I mean.

The mise en scène is striking and adds a lot to the story. The colors are all muted, sometimes dreary but mostly soft. The same can be said for the sounds. There isn't too much ambient noise, just things like gentle breeze and waves, quiet birdsong, and the like. It creates a sad, almost bleak and haunting feel, sort of like a waking dream. They also used a lot images that were simple but somehow beautiful, like a lot of broken toys laid out on a table, a bird sitting on a teapot, an abandoned and rusted boat on a lonely beach, a glimpse of the crescent-shaped scar on Tommy's back. One image that especially stuck with me was the children singing their school song toward the beginning. The way it was filmed made them seem so young and innocent, and it was heartbreaking because as a viewer, you know that they're headed nowhere. The importance of art to the story, and the manifestation of Tommy's inner self in his strange, wonderful drawings also adds to the sad and dreamlike feel.

Of course, the film wouldn't have been nearly as effective without the absolutely stellar cast. I've always been a fan of Keira Knightly (Ruth). I was very impressed by Carey Mulligan (Kathy) in An Education. And I could tell from The Social Network that Andrew Garfield (Tommy) was someone to watch. But in this film, and together, they were beyond brilliant. The chemistry between all three of them was palpable. They were three friends being ripped apart by the cruel circumstances of their fate. On top of this, the first half hour or so focused on them at age 12, and the child actors they cast might as well have been the three older actors 15 years ago. They look the same, have the same vocal inflections and mannerisms. Incredible. (In the making of, I learned that they made a special effort to cast kids who looked the same, and that their adult counterparts read through scenes with them and coached them as to how they would act. Very effective.) Toward the end, there's a shot of Kathy (Carey Mulligan's character) in a car, and for a second I actually thought they had flashed back in time and it was her 12-year-old self. That's how close they were. The adult actors also had to age from 18 to 28, and for Donors that can be a long and hard 10 years. The actors were fantastic in acting the emotional and physical changes of those 10 years, and the hair/makeup/costuming/whoever department did a fantastic job as well. Of all the actors, however, I just can't say enough about Andrew Garfield. His character is very complex, a big-hearted boy who has fits of rage, is nervously shy around other people and yet the object of two girls' affections, quiet and wise. He acts all these things to perfection. The most powerful scene in the entire film is one of him screaming in anguish and rage (which strikingly and powerfully echoes a similar scene that his childhood counterpart had) that goes beyond heart-wrenching to gut-wrenching. The overall film gave me the feeling that my heart was breaking into a million pieces, but this scene of Garfield's was especially powerful and moving. I won't lie, it made me sob. And sob. And sob. Truly magnificent and intense, a distillation of the feel of the rest of the film.

The score for this film was perfect. So perfect and so beautiful that the credits hadn't finished rolling but 5 minutes ago before I was on iTunes downloading it. I hate to pull out that old favorite phrase of mine, but the score really was heartbreakingly beautiful. It's hard to explain, but the feeling I get from listening to it is like the stream of time is slowly, inexorably flowing by the characters and there's nothing they can do to stop it but capture a few moments of love and beauty. Imagine that in musical form, and that's Rachel Portman's stunning score. I also mentioned the children singing the school song earlier, but one additional piece of music that really made the movie was a cassette that young Tommy gave to young Kathy with the song "Never Let Me Go" on it. She listens to it as a young woman and as an adult (and presumably quite often in the interim), and both the young actress and the older one have a wealth of emotions flitting over their faces as they listen to it. The song is perfect of the film, and the way it was used was even more perfect. I really just can't say enough about the music. (Or the acting, or the mise en scène, or the writing, etc. etc. etc.)

I loved the whole thing. Kathy's final words are a perfect, haunting conclusion: "All of us complete. Maybe none of us really understand what we've lived through. Or feel we've had enough time." I can't wait to watch this again or to read the book. Definitely planning to do both. *edit: It's tomorrow, and I just watched it again before I had to return it to the library. It was just as good the second time, and I really just want to watch it again now. This film is one that will be stuck with me for ages, I think. I've used these words several times before, but I'll say it again: very haunting, very powerful, very beautiful, very heartbreaking.*

Rating: 5.0

Source Code (2011, U.S.)

I have very mixed feelings about this one. It definitely had a very interesting concept for a science fiction thriller. And it had the one-of-a-kind, sweet, sexy, boy-next-door, unlikely-hero Jake Gyllenhaal. Some good special effects (exploding trains and the like). A hint of romance. A dash of (misplaced?) patriotism. Lots of promise, but it just didn't come together well.

It's not that it was confusing. At first it was a bit confusing, as I got the hang of the plot. In fact, it was a bit confusing for Coulter (Gyllenhaal), and the viewer figures out what's going on as he does, which was pretty good for the plot. As far as sci-fi action flicks go, this seemed pretty strong for the most part, especially considering it took place over and over again in the same 8 minutes with the same handful of characters on the same train.

I was mostly frustrated because the developing romance didn't make much sense, and the ending made no sense at all. It felt like they were going somewhere else with the story, but the original ending was too depressing so they rewrote it to be conveniently-ever-ever. (This is just a theory, but that's how it felt to me.) Both of these things made the whole thing feel forced and ruined the effect. I barely convinced myself to go up to 3.0 instead of 2.5.

I would recommend this to anyone who's desperate for a good sci-fi thriller (a somewhat under-used genre in today's market, it seems to me). Yes, even though I didn't rate it higher, the kernel of the story was very good; just the execution was lacking. I also recommend it to diehard Jake Gyllenhaal fans (like myself). He really carried this movie. He has a very quiet, underrated talent and plays the tough yet tender hero very well.

Rating: 3.0

Metropia (2009, Sweden)

I have to copy the plot summary from imdb to make this make sense: In the near future, oil reserves are nearly depleted and Europe is connected by a series of underground tunnels. While navigating these tunnels, Roger hears a voice in his head. Seeking a way to rid himself of the voice only leads Roger deeper into a bizarre conspiracy of control at the highest reaches of government.

This is rather oversimplifying, but it's difficult to explain. As you can see from the poster, this had the most interesting animation style I've ever seen. I couldn't quite decide whether it was 2-D or 3-D. The correlation between voice actors and characters was interesting as well. Roger looked vaguely like Vicent Gallo, while Stefan looked even more like Alexander Skarsgård. Yet these two characters also looked like each other a bit (which is a part of the story, not coincidence). So that was all pretty neat.

The world that they created in this dystopian future Europe was fascinating. The superior public transportation system, which is such a positive aspect of European life now, becomes the symbol of the worst parts of life in the future. Consumerism (and objectifying a specific woman in commercials for a specific product) gives the corrupted leaders a means of control over the populace. The colors are mostly black and gray, and only a few things stand out. Most noticeably Roger's dull red jacket, the model's brilliant blond hair, and the bright blue color of the shampoo she's advertising.

I can't fully do this film justice. The concept, the mood, the animation, the voice acting—all were superb. I highly recommend it, especially if you like something a little different every now and then.

Rating: 3.5

Fireball (2009, Canada)

So, I watched this in an attempt to erase the memory of The Lost Samaritan out of my head and replace it with a better Ian Somerhalder. I should have known better. Hello, look at this poster. That about sums up the movie.

A violent football player, Draven, wants to get revenge on all the people who've done him wrong. Somehow his body chemistry changes and he becomes a human torch. A fire investigator and a federal suit try to track him down, as he sets fire to everything. The big finale takes place in a nuclear plant.

Yeah, terrible. This is beyond B. There are no words. Bad writing, bad acting, bad scoring, bad everything. I don't know how I made it to the end. Don't watch it.

Rating: 1.0

Repo Men (2010, U.S.)

Remy is a repo man for The Union, a company that installs artificial organs and takes them back when the owners can't pay their debts. After a job-related injury, he wakes up to find himself the owner of a state of the art heart. When he can't pay, he goes on the run, and his former partner is sent after him.

The concept wasn't bad, although I fail to see why his company wouldn't have covered a work-related injury. (Though to be fair, their boss was pretty evil.) The music was pretty cool, very smooth and jazzy, which lent a nice contrast to the constant action. The huge twist ending was also exciting. However, mostly I found the whole thing to be entirely too graphically violent.

Rating: 2.5

Inception (2010, U.S.)

I don't even know what to say about this one. I had to make a conscious effort to relax my brow at the end of the film because I was doing some intense thinking the entire time. It is one of the most confusing things I have ever watched. There were essentially four stories nested within each other, plus side plots as flashbacks and goodness knows what else.

The basic premise is that a team is going to make a lot of money by placing an idea into a man's head. To do this, they have to approach him in a dream within a dream, thereby penetrating his subconscious as much as possible. The lead, played by DiCaprio, is slightly broken—mentally because he's gone into the dream world one too many times and emotionally because of what happened to his wife. He's a great actor, and he's complimented by a lot of other great actors. Joseph Gordon Levitt is a personal favorite of mine, and the rest of the cast was strong.

Two of the most important parts of science fiction are the world building and convincing science, and both were wonderful. It's one of those things that has to be seen, not explained, however. In fact, I probably need to see it again so I can remind myself what happened.

There were a couple of inconsistencies, but if you like a good thinker, this is definitely one for you.

Rating: 4.0

Gamer (2009, U.S.)

Wow.

In a dystopian future, people play an online game called "Society" )like the Sims) where they control real people in a not-so-virtual world. These actors are paid to "work" in this game. Then the game creator, Castle, gets another idea, creating a modern warfare game where the game's "characters" are cons from death row in America's overcrowded prisons. It is intense. Gerard Butler plays a con who was set up for murder and has survived 20-odd "missions" in the game. (If they survive 30, they're pardoned.) Logan Lerman is the 17-year-old gamer controlling him. Ludacris heads a subversive group called Humanz who are trying to expose the evil of Castle's empire.

It is intense, action-packed, thought-provoking. It offers some interesting commentary on modern society, thinly disguised by a horrible future. Of course, at what point does commentary on society's obsession with gaming, sex, and violence just become a vehicle for gratuitous gaming, sex, and violence? It's kind of a fine line, and they toe it here, but I think it works. Because once you finish watching this, you'll start thinking about those things, but then you'll think, "Well bad me for liking this movie so much!" At least that's the feeling I got.

Sometimes it was a bit over the top (i.e. when Kable vomits whiskey into a gas tank and then urinates into it as well, which somehow makes the car work), but for the most part it was excellent, from the science to the action to the satire to the very last plot twist. I was pretty surprised (having only watched this in a quest to find the pre-chick flick Butler), but I really liked it and would pretty strongly recommend it.

Rating: 4.0

Jumper (2008, U.S.)

When 15-year-old David is about to drown (while saving something that belonged to his big crush, Millie), he realizes he can instantaneously transport himself anywhere he wants. (In this instance he goes to the Ann Arbor Public Library, which I thought was amusing.) Eight years later, he's living in NYC and using his talent to rob banks. Suddenly a shadowy group called Paladins, who hunt Jumpers, start coming after him. For some reason he decides this is the perfect time to travel to Italy with his girl. There he runs into a British Jumper who tries to explain how foolish David is being.

There's a lot of action, a lot of very neat special effects as they jump from place to place, and a lot of beautiful settings (Tokyo, the Coliseum, the Sphinx...). They didn't overcome the lack of coherent plot and overall logic. Why were the Paladins exterminating Jumpers? Where did the Jumpers come from? Why take a girl you haven't seen in years on a trip to Italy when you're being hunted by bad guys? How does the Brit Jumper know about the Paladins and how does he track them? Why bother making David's mother a Paladin, and why does she have another child who is irrelevant to the plot?

It really was a neat premise and had fabulous special effects, but there is no escaping from poor plot. Fail.

Rating: 2.5

Avatar (2009, U.S.)

This was possibly the most underwhelming movie of the year. (Okay, maybe not fair to this movie. The Hurt Locker was worse.) It was not the biggest epic of all time, as all the hype would have you believe. Something tells me that the main reason for the hype is that it looked amazing on the big screen in 3-D. I do think it deserved its Oscars for Art Direction, Cinematography, and Visual Effects, but Best Picture nomination? I don't think so.

Avatar is like a combination of the Matrix and Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee. (Actually, Dances with Wolves might be a better example, since the soldier goes native.) Not a good combo. A bunch of Americans colonize an alien planet in order to get their hands on this valuable rock, but they don't even bother to say why this rock is so valuable. It seems like they were so focused on visuals that they ignored the need for a clear plot. In addition to that, the blue people seem to be a racist mix of Native- and African-Americans. Terrible.

I've always been a fan of James Horner, but this score seemed very recycled. Some of the music sounded reminiscent of Titanic, which I guess isn't a huge surprise. But then there was a repeated strain that sounded identical to one from Troy. I looked it up, and lo and behold, Horner composed that score too. Seems like the well of creativity is dry. Not that it wasn't good, it just didn't seem original.

Overall, this movie was just one big disappointment. Visually beautiful, at least!

Rating: 2.5

G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra (2009, U.S,)

And I cannot believe I'm saying this, but I really liked this movie. Really. I like a good action movie when it's done well, and this was. It actually had a plot (*gasp*), cool technology that seemed feasible, awesome action sequences (military/gun type and martial arts/hand to hand style), decent acting, funny one-liners... and major eye candy. Channing Tatum has never really been my type of guy, but every time I see him in a military movie, I forget all about that! Ha ha.

The concept of an evil genius taking over the world by creating armies of men whose brains he controlled with nanotechnology and by using nanos to create weapons of mass destruction... wow. It sounds ridiculous when I type it, but the fact that the movie was so convincing on such ridiculous ideas is what made it good.

Seriously, I never thought I'd say it, but if you want a good mindless (and yet somehow thoughtful) action movie, look no further than G.I. Joe. From the ending, I'd say they intended to have a sequel. I hope they do!

Rating: 4.0

Serenity (2005, U.S.)

I'm really glad this movie got made. It was so nice to have answers to all the big questions, like where the Reavers came from and what "two by two, hands of blue" actually meant. (Although the Reavers made my skin crawl a lot more when I didn't know where they came from.) On the other hand, it definitely felt like they were trying to cram a whole lot of information into a film that wasn't even two hours long. I think they could have stretched it out a bit.

Still, they did an amazing job. It's really hard to talk about it without comparing it to the series, though, and I'm guessing not many people reading this (if anyone even does) have seen the series. Suffice is to say that the acting, writing, and effects were on par with the series (and sometimes better.)

Even with this "conclusion," Firefly will always be one of those series that could have gone a lot farther. Since it didn't, Serenity was just what the captain ordered.

Rating: 4.0

X-Men Origins: Wolverine (2009, U.S.)

Let's face it. Hugh Jackman is a badass. I don't know if anyone else could have pulled this film off. The plot was a bit confusing at places and strained credulity at others, but it was still pretty awesome.

Aside from Hugh Jackman, the rest of the cast was pretty amazing. Dominic Monaghan and Will.i.am I thought were especially good, but Ryan Reynolds just stole the show. Considering that they all had such minor roles in a story that revolved around Jackman's character, it was especially impressive. (Side note: two of my favorite Aussie actors made brief appearances... Wish they were longer!)

The special effects were also jaw-dropping. Fight scenes were over-the-top, but pretty cool and well-choreographed.

One last thing that especially impressed me was the score. Of course, I've love Harry Gregson-Williams since the first time I heard the Kingdom of Heaven score. (Other good work of his includes Shrek and Gone Baby Gone.) Normally superhero-type movies have cheesey, over-the-top scores, but this one was perfect. It used some of the stereotypical action stuff, but it also had some truly beautiful parts too. That man sure can compose.

Overall, I think this is a good addition to the X-Men films (perhaps the best one), and I look forward to the other Origins films they're planning to make.

Rating: 3.5

Speed Racer (2008, U.S.)

One guess why I watched this bit of silliness—yeah, that would be Matthew Fox. I love that man, and I loved him as Racer X. Add to that the brilliant, truly comic-book inspired score by Michael Giacchino, and the whole thing was worthwhile.

Don't get me wrong, this was a good family movie. The Wachowski brothers did a great job of creating this brightly-colored science fictional world, where car racing is a way of life. It was almost overwhelming to the point of distraction, all this color and such.

The movie's got great messages about family, fighting against the corrupt capitalist upper-class, doing the right thing, etc. The cast was really high-profile, which was a bit incongruous with this type of movie. (The last thing I saw Emile Hirsch in was Into the Wild, so seeing him now as Speed Racer was even stranger.) The plot was confusing at times, but it all became clear in the end.

As I seem to have really lost my gift for description, I think I'm going to give up on this review. Suffice is to say that for the type of movie this was, it was really good. Oh, and did I mention Matthew Fox?

Rating: 3.5