(Long Island, N.Y.) Brooklyn’s Finest is an odd film for me to review. An ensemble crime drama starring an eclectic cast of veteran actors (including the welcome return of Wesley Snipes to feature films after an extended stint in Direct-To-DVD Land), Brooklyn’s Finest started out strong. Very strong. As the various characters were introduced, you really got a feeling that their various story-lines were interweaving and converging to an incredible climax.

You knew things weren’t going to end well, but for who? And why? And how? The tension kept redoubling until it was almost unbearable, but then Brooklyn’s Finest committed the cardinal sin: it lost its focus and squandered the amazing atmosphere of impending doom it worked so hard to establish. Suddenly, the tapestry of the character’s stories began to unravel, and you could feel the air being let out of the picture…or perhaps it was just me sighing at the missed opportunity of a fantastic payoff. Brooklyn’s Finest eventually gets itself back on track (somewhat), but to tease us, cut us off, and then start up again like nothing happened was completely anti-climatic. And stupid.

But, I’m getting a head of myself. Let me do the usual storyline/character recap first: Brooklyn’s Finest is actually comprised of three separate tales set in the eponymous NYC borough that slowly intertwine over the course of its running time. The stories are:

1. Eddie Dugan (Richard

   Gere

   ), a lackluster beat cop one week

   from retirement. His career is exemplified by gross mediocrity and, as a final F-U from his rather disgusted superiors, he is given

   the unenviable task of breaking in new recruits during his last days on the force. Adding to his shame is that fact that his only friend is a hooker who, in addition to serving his carnal needs, also manages to listen to his constant whining without snickering. That’s the power of a $100 bill, folks.

2. Salvatore “Sal” Procida (Ethan Hawke), a detective who, despite not being able to pay his bills or come up with a down payment on a much-needed new house, still insists on pumping out kid after kid with his equally dim wife, Angela (Lili Taylor). From what I was able to gather, Sal has 3 daughters, 2 sons, and twins on the way, yet he doesn’t seem to understand why he can’t make ends meet on his limited salary.

   Needless to say, the numbskull is desperate and has taken to doing hits and lifting dough from the crime scenes he raids, but it’s still not enough. Wouldn’t a box of condoms maybe 3-4 kids ago been cheaper and safer, Sal?

3. Clarence “Tango” Butler (Don Cheadle), an undercover cop in deep with the NYC drug trade. As a matter of fact, he’s in so deep that he’s actually become best friends with a known underworld kingpin, Caz (ol’ Blade himself, Wesley Snipes. I missed ya, Wes!). After years of whining to his bosses for a desk gig (the duality of his current job has been wearing away at his soul and marriage for years), his prayers are finally about to be answered- but ONLY if he betrays Caz and puts him behind bars.

So, there you have three intriguing stories, each of which would make a solid film on their own. But when combined, they become more than the sum of their parts…at least, for a while. Eddie has his hands full trying to feed his rather apathetic policies to enthusiastic and headstrong rookies who think he’s a coward while doing his best to resolve his own wasted career to himself. Sal’s house contains mold that is killing his wife’s asthma, making the illegal acquisition of the down payment money for their new home an all-encompassing need and source of stress. And Clarence is wrestling with the choice of betraying his best friend (who doesn’t know he’s a cop- how long has Clarence

been undercover?!?) to give his career a boost and his sanity a rest. These situations are completely separate at first, but as the film speeds along the audience becomes privy to something that the characters do not: that these three men are on a collision course that will eventually claim lives. The fact that Sal, Eddie, and Clarence are all fully-fleshed out and wonderfully-acted instead of generic cardboard cut-outs creates a tangible atmosphere of dread once you realize what they’re in for.

But, as I stated in the

opening paragraph, Brooklyn’s Finest drops the ball in the middle. The pace, which was like a locomotive charging at full-speed, is suddenly de-railed and the picture grinds to a near-halt. This just KILLED the movie for me. All that work getting you involved in the characters and their plights (I mean, I was literally on the edge of my seat for the first third of the film), and to throw it away like that…it’s nearly unforgivable. Again, restating from the opening paragraph, Brooklyn’s finest finds its way back and eventually barrels down the same apocalyptic path, but by then it’s too late. The movie just wasn’t quite the same.

Which is a shame, because Brooklyn’s Finest had all the makings of a classic. It has an all-around amazing cast, and from what I read its leads even took pay cuts in order to get the film made within its low budget. It’s also extremely gritty and realistic, and it’s deft hand-held camerawork and moody lighting solidly compliment those sentiments. In addition, Brooklyn’s Finest was actually filmed in the real-life areas it was set in, which helps its authenticity a great deal. This may not sound like a big deal, but do you have any idea how many movies actually don’t do that? For example, remember Jackie Chan’s Rumble In The Bronx? Yup, it was filmed in Vancouver. True story! But back to Brooklyn’s Finest- I honestly have nothing to complain about, save for that 7-foot speed bump the

movie hits halfway through.

Still, Brooklyn’s Finest is well worth your time, if only to see some excellent performances and, more importantly, to imagine what might have been if it had managed to stay on course.

(Long Island, N.Y.) Whee, another Kevin Smith film. Can you tell how genuinely excited I am? Honestly, I think I’ve given up all hope that writer/director Smith will ever turn out another decent film. By “another decent film,” I do admit that his 1994 indie premiere Clerks was pretty good, but since then he’s just released stinker after stinker and I just can’t

take it anymore.

The fact that the films Smith has made occasionally contain flashes of good wit or humor previously tricked me into believing that Smith was actually some kind of Idiot Savant. Thus, I was prompted to write the following quote about him at the end of my review for his 2008 film Zack and Miri Make a Porno, the closest he’s come in years to making something semi-watchable: “I suppose if I didn’t feel that he truly possessed some undeniable talent buried deep down, I wouldn’t care that he keeps churning out so many bad movies. But the fact of the matter is that the man IS talented, but you only manage to see glimpses of that talent in each flick he creates.”

Anyway, I take that back. I’m through waiting for the guy to get better. Onward…

So, today’s I’m reviewing Cop Out (formally called “A Couple of Dicks,” referring to the fact that the two main characters are detectives, but the studio thought that was too dirty-sounding, so…), a cop buddy comedy film starring Bruce Willis and Tracy Morgan playing the same roles you’ve seen different actors do 10.000 times before. To call this movie a re-hash of every movie where you’ve seen an inept fool team-up with a tough-guy to take down the Mafia or a gang or terrorists or whatever would be…well, the truth. But regardless of Cop Out’s astonishing lack of originality, I’ll cover the plot quickly for you anyway.

Jimmy and Paul (Willis and Morgan) are two police detectives that have been partners for 9 years. As per the norm in this type of movie, Jimmy is a hard, no-nonsense type that kills the bad guys and gets the job done, while Paul is a numbskull who is wacky, basically incompetent, and probably should have been killed in the line of duty years ago. Tracking down the head of a local drug ring, Jimmy and Paul are on the verge of cracking a major case. But of course, the bust goes sour and their informant killed, landing them in hot water with the Stupid Chief who (surprise!) takes away their badges and guns! When does THAT ever happen in a movie (besides all the time)?

In addition to that misfortune, Jimmy is then robbed of a valuable baseball card that he was planning to sell to pay for his daughter’s $50,000 wedding (this is funny- when Jimmy is suspended for a month without pay, he whines to the Stupid Chief that he’s broke needed the money to pay for the wedding- he makes $50,000 a month? Wow, police work pays better than I thought!). Tracking down the card thief (Sean William Scott, who supplied probably the only genuinely amusing performance of the entire movie), we discover that he sold the pricy piece of sports memorabilia to the very drug lord Jimmy and Paul were trying to take down when they got suspended! Can you believe the coincidence? So, the two irreverent cops, despite being suspended and legally possessing none of their law-enforcing powers, nonetheless decide to take down the dealer and get Jimmy’s card back. There’s a little more to Cop Out than that, but I’ll leave it to you to find out if you actually choose to subject yourself to it.

Cop Out was pretty much the equivalent of the wet puddle you’d typically find in the bottom of a fast food restaurant’s garbage dumpster. It had some legit laughs here and there- sure, I can fully admit that- but it got worse and worse as it went on and was almost totally unwatchable by the end. Bruce Willis was, as usual, Bruce Willis (when is he not?), and while

Tracy Morgan was amusing at first, his ultra-stereotypical crazy bumbling sidekick character got old after the first 10 minutes. You literally could have substituted him with any other comedian in history and the result would have been exactly the same.

And while Kevin

Smith is responsible for directing Cop Out (shame, shame), at least he didn’t write this bomb, which means it thankfully didn’t turn all sentimental and sappy and completely lose it’s edge halfway through (like in every flick that he’s scripted himself). Sadly, someone who’s even a worse writer than Smith penned this heap (brothers Mark and Robb Cullen), and it’s actually given me some (a little) begrudging respect for Kevin’s abilities in this regard. The humor in Cop Out is painfully by-the-numbers and bad, the pacing is uneven, and the plot borders on being a live-action cartoon in terms of logic and character interaction. But regardless of who wrote this travesty, the usual Kevin Smith trademark of awkwardly forcing his favorite music in a scene, no matter how ill-fitting, was here in force; having seen quite a few Smith films (save me!), I think it’s safe to say that I’ve never seen a guy with such undying love for 1980’s rap music and cheesy power-ballads before.

BTW, Smith has no idea how to direct actions scenes at all. Every fight or gun battle was slow, awkward, clumsy, and featured camerawork that really appears to have no interest at all in focusing on who’s shooting at what or where. There’s a scene where a house full of assailants open fire on our heroes and there’s a tight close-up of Bruce Willis, edging along the side of the building and shooting at…something. I don’t know what, since all the bad guys were firing out of the front windows. Needless to say (but I will, anyway), my 12 year-old nephew has filmed movies with action scenes that flow better.

So, yeah, the new Kevin Smith movie isn’t good. BIG surprise.

(Long Island, N.Y.) So, we’re talking about Shutter Island today. I’ve seen the preview for directing great Martin Scorsese’s new film (based on Dennis Lehane’s 2003 novel) seemingly millions of times, as it’s been attached to nearly every film that’s been released for the past 6 months. It was getting to the point that I was starting to hear the following line of dialogue from the trailer in my sleep, delivered by star Leonardo DiCaprio with what appeared to be a harsh Massachusetts accent: “We’re dooooLEE ap-POINN-ted Fed-RAL MAAH-shalls.” Try saying that with your friends. It’s fun.

Anyway, Shutter Island. The trailers painted it to be Scorsese’s foray into horror, a genre first for the director of noted gangster films such as Goodfellas and Casino. Only, in reality, it’s NOT a horror movie, but more a mystery/thriller. Another disservice the trailer does for the viewer, in addition to portraying Shutter Island as something it’s not, is that it heavily hints towards what the film’s “twist” ending is. But if you’re lucky enough not to have put two and two together from the preview, you probably will about 5 minutes into the film itself. And you know what? The conclusion you draw as to the twist ending will probably be right on the money, but you’ll still have to sit through the remaining two hours of Shutter Island nonetheless (well, you don’t HAVE to, but it’d be silly to walk out having paid to see it). This is maddening in the sense that knowing the obvious outcome robs the movie of all tension and/or anticipation on the part of the viewer. But, that large flaw aside, is Shutter Island worth watching anyway? Read on for the exciting answer!

So, this Shutter Island place is home to the Ashecliffe Hospital for the Criminally Insane, and Teddy Daniels (Leonardo DiCaprio) and Chuck Aule (Mark Ruffalo) are a pair of U.S. Marshals sent to the island to investigate the disappearance of a patient, murderess Rachel Solando (Emily Mortimer). They are introduced to head administrator Dr. John Cawley (Ben Kingsley), who right away comes across as shady and deceitful. And you know what? He just might be! But regardless of the good doctor’s allegiance to the letter of the law, Teddy and Chuck begin their probe into the whereabouts of Rachel, and soon find themselves encountering more questions than answers (which is always the case in this type of movie). To complicate matters, Teddy reveals to Chuck that he has ulterior motives for being on Shutter Island: that he’s actually there to take revenge on an inmate named Andrew Laeddis for

the death of his wife two years prior. Soon, a savage hurricane hits, Dr. Cawley and his staff turn against the officers, evidence of grisly human experiments surfaces, and Chuck mysteriously disappears, forcing the intrepid and troubled Teddy to go it alone against the grim secrets and dangers of Shutter Island.

Well, we’ve already covered how this film telegraphs it’s climatic punch a light-year ahead of its delivery (if it didn’t for you, I’m envious), but does that make it a bad movie? Not really, no. Shutter Island is still chock full of the classy touches we’ve come to expect of Martin Scorsese, including slow, steady, prolonged camera shots (a rarity in this day and age

of rapid-fire everything) and some very tight and creative editing. Also worth mentioning is another Scorsese trademark, namely the score; Shutter Island’s classical music soundtrack is actually very good and contributes greatly to the Silent Hill-meets-1950’s Detective Story atmosphere of the movie. And personally, it was a relief that Marty didn’t manage to sneak a Rolling Stones tune into one of his flicks for once.

Of course, an impressive ensemble cast is another staple of Scorsese movies, and Shutter Island is no exception. Leonardo DiCaprio, whose 2007 movie Blood Diamond was the subject of my very first review here on Long Island Exchange (hopefully my writing has improved a little since then), continues to cement his reputation as one of this generation’s greatest actors, delivering a gritty, multi-faceted character with a tragic past. But it’s not just DiCaprio carrying this movie on his shoulders, oh no. I mean, look at this list of actors: Ben Kingsley, Max von Sydow, Jackie Earle Haley, Ted Levine, and Elias Koteas, all of whom put in a great performance. I mean, Scorsese has assembled an amazing cast, here.

So, with assets like this, how could anything, other than the transparent plot, be wrong? Well, here’s a valid complaint: Shutter Island is a bit long, and it’s plot a bit too centered around it’s big twist. And when that twist can be figured out so very easily, a movie that is a “bit long” can wind up feeling like an eternity. Now, I’ve been complaining about the non-surprise plot twist my whole review thus far (sorry!), but to be fair, I suppose I should address an important question: is it a BAD twist? Actually, no. In may ways it’s actually a very good convolution, but if you went into The Sixth Sense knowing Bruce Willis’ character was dead (sorry if you haven’t seen it yet, but man, Sixth Sense was made YEARS ago), you probably wouldn’t have found that movie nearly as gripping, either.

Also, and this may seem nit-picky, but the film seemed to go out of it’s way to get Leo to every part of the island for some strange reason. That was just odd.

So, Shutter Island: a moody mystery with some really fantastic settings (I forgot to mention this- the island’s environments are really breathtaking, and the hospital creepy as hell), but it drags pretty badly in parts and a lot of the suspense is killed because of a script that inadvertently gives everything away right at the beginning. Not one of Scorsese’s best, but certainly not one of his worst, either.

(Long Island, N.Y.) Well, another day, another remake- this time around, it’s The Wolfman, directed by Joe Johnston and featuring an impressive ensemble cast. However, I find it easier in my heart to forgive this one, as its source was originally filmed way back in 1941 and not a mere 5-10 years ago like most movies suffering remakes these days. Starring the great Lon Chaney Jr., the original Wolfman film was a tale of a man bitten by a bloodthirsty werewolf and, now infected with it’s curse, is finds himself forced to endure a transformation into the mythical beast with the emergence of every full moon.

The 1941 version is considered a classic and the Wolfman himself is a part of Universal Pictures’ famous stable of movie monsters including movies such as Dracula, Frankenstein, The Mummy, The Creature From The Black Lagoon (my girlfriend’s favorite), The Invisible Man, and The Phantom of the Opera. In addition to the Wolfman, several of these characters are also rumored to have new installments en route as well. It’s actually been a while since we’ve heard so much as a peep out of any of these guys, so as long as their respective remakes are well done, I say bring ’em on.

Taking up Chaney Jr.’s role for this go-around as the Wolfman is Benicio del Toro as Lawrence Talbot, a well-known actor in late-1800’s New York. After many years abroad, he returns home to his estranged family in England upon hearing of his brother Ben’s brutal murder, the latest rash of such killings that have been plaguing the countryside. What links these incidents is the savage way the victims have been mauled by their unknown assailant- almost is if it was a snarling beast and not a man. However, the locals authorities are at a loss as to the identity of the culprit, so after reconciling with his father, Sir John Talbot (Sir Anthony Hopkins, who brings the acting goods yet again) and consoling his brother’s fiance, Gwen (Emily Blunt), Lawrence sets out to investigate the cause behind his brother’s grim fate. A strange medallion that was in Ben’s belongings holds the key to his search.

Told that the medallion comes from a nearby Gypsy camp, Lawrence heads there and questions the old woman his brother got it from. But after the woman warns Lawrence that he’s in danger, the camp

comes under attack by a huge, wolf-like creature, and in the ensuring carnage Lawrence is bitten and gravely wounded. He is brought back to his father’s estate and watched over during his recovery by the ever-vigilant Gwen. However, to the amazement of everyone, Lawrence fully recovers from almost having his head ripped off lickity-split and soon seems better than ever…hmm. I think we can all see where THIS is going, yes? Well, if you can’t (don’t feel bad, Lawrence doesn’t know what’s going on either), I’m afraid I’m going to spoil the surprise for you: Lawrence was bitten by a werewolf, and guess what? Now he’s one too! Come the next full moon, we’re treated to some cutting edge make-up and CG effects as Lawrence painfully morphs into a deadly, humanoid wolf-thing, and goes on a murderous rampage, ironically just like the creature that claimed the life of his brother.

The locals, now understandably terrified, call for action, and it comes in the form of Inspector Francis Aberline of Scotland Yard (Agent Smith himself, Hugo Weaving). Aberline, whose previous work on the infamous Jack the Ripper case went (shall we say) less than brilliantly, is instantly suspicious of Lawrence, who himself suspects that something odd is afoot when he wakes the next morning half-naked and covered in blood. Mistaken for simple run-of-the-mill lunatic (as per the custom in horror movies, no one believes in monsters) and whisked away to one of

the pleasantly barbaric asylums of the day, things are looking bad for our hero. Even with the assistance of Gwen, now smitten with Lawrence, you can tell things aren’t going to end well for anyone involved. After all, there’s still another werewolf running around out there, his or her identity a mystery..

The 2010 version of The Wolfman isn’t really the template future filmmakers should follow for bringing the various Universal monsters back to celluloid life. Simply put: it’s far too fast-paced for its own good. I noticed this early on; the film starts out in high-gear and only gets faster and more intense as it goes along, scarcely allowing the audience to catch its collective breath…or get to know the film’s cast at all. Back-stories and relationships between characters are only hinted at, not explored; for example, Lawrence and Gwen fall in love and you’re left scratching your head as to why. They certainly didn’t seem to spend one second getting to know each other or anything.

The furious pacing extends even to the editing of the film itself: scenes are oddly cut, with no transitional shots to smooth things out. Here’s Lawrence opening a door; next shot, he’s halfway up a staircase, then suddenly in a bedroom. The pacing suggests that the point of the Wolfman was to get to the action/horror scenes as soon as possible, but at the cost of any tension or atmosphere that occasionally slowing things down might have served to create. As it is, The Wolfman isn’t scary in the least because it doesn’t give you any time to GET scared. This is a shame, because the film had enough going for it to warrant fleshing it out more; namely, its cast and visuals.

Let’s get to the cast first. As stated above, the Wolfman boasts a strong ensemble that helps to elevate the film slightly

beyond its shallow moorings. Benicio del Toro is effective as the lead, a man at odds both with his family and his own tragic past, now forced to deal with the savage curse of the werewolf. Anthony Hopkins…I mean, he’s Anthony Hopkins. In other words, he basically commands any scenes he’s in. Here, he plays Lawrence’s father as detached, loving, and sinister, and it was welcome to see him play a dark character once again. Emily Blunt as Gwen was solid, but forgettable; your typical damsel in distress.

Is Sigourney Weaver the only woman capable of playing a truly strong and determined female character that you can actually root for? It seems most modern roles for women have reverted back to 1950’s-style fare, which is a shame. And Hugo Weaving…well, I personally enjoy his work a great deal, but I think he suffers from lack of range; he plays most roles the same. The intense stare, the slow enunciation, the sophisticated air…all the Weaving trademarks are here. They work best when he plays a character in authority, so as an agent of Scotland Yard the role was suited perfectly for him, and as such he added a great deal to the movie. But again, The Wolfman is paced too damn fast for anyone’s performance to really shine like they should with the talent involved.

I can’t end this review without touching on how breathtaking The Wolfman is to look at. From the locations, to the sets, to the costumes, the film just oozes dark gothic beauty and texture. The cinematography is top-notch and the lighting fantastic, plainly establishing the mood in each scene- be it the dark and foreboding interior of a run-down Victorian mansion or moonlight filtering through the barren trees of a lonely forest. From its locations to its elaborate and fully convincing creature effects, The Wolfman mixes the practical with computer effects for entirely believable results, creating a visually unique and enthralling world.

Oh, and there’s LOTS of blood and gross stuff, too. Basically, any time the Wolfman smacks someone at least a gallon of blood and a few limbs go flying, along with the occasional head or two. The gore hounds will have a field day with this one, believe me.

Okay, to wrap it up: The Wolfman…real fast, real pretty, real vapid. Good, but with its

great cast and visuals squandered in favor of mindlessly ushering the film along at a breakneck pace, it’s total adds up to less than the sum of it’s parts. A shame.

(Long Island, N.Y.) It’s funny- Taken, the excellent action movie starring Irish actor Liam Neeson that was released last year (reviewed HERE), keeps getting mentioned in my recent reviews. Last week I took note of the comparisons made in the entertainment press between Taken and Mel Gibson’s recent film Edge of Darkness (reviewed HERE). This week Taken bears mentioning once again, as its director, Pierre Morel, also helmed the subject of today’s review: From Paris With Love, a blazingly fast-paced French-made action movie starring John Travolta and Jonathan Rhys Meyers.

Long-time readers of mine will probably recall how exacerbated I’ve become with the action movies produced within the last 10 years or so. Unlike the hard-hitting, “take-no prisoner”-style stars of the 80’s and 90’s, modern action movies tend to feature the type of lead actors that would have served as mere cannon fodder to the Schwarzeneggers of yesteryear. I was close to surrendering all hope for the genre when an intense little film named Taken reared its head, proving to me that completely ruthless action movie protagonists that get the job done were NOT a thing of the past after all.

Directed by Pierre Morel and co-written by Luc Besson (director of The Professional), Taken spun the tale of a man slaughtering half of France in a bid to rescue his abducted daughter from the clutches of a sex slavery ring. In their newly-released follow-up, Morel and Besson prove that their previous collaboration was indeed no fluke; From Paris With Love once again delivers the goods like no recent action flick (before or since Taken, that is) has.

From Paris With Love (no relation to the similarly-titled James Bond movie) is light on story, and what little is there basically exists simply to help usher along non-stop scenes of action and bloodletting. I’ll recap the tale for your edification, but since I don’t have much to work with, it ain’t gonna take long: James Reece (Jonathan Rhys Meyers) is the personal aide to the U.S. Ambassador in France and part-time lackey for the Central Intelligence Agency. When not playing nursemaid to diplomats and heads of state, he’s running around doing the CIA’s low-level scrub work, but he does it happily in hopes of one day landing a job as a full-fledged agent. The opportunity to move up the ladder finally comes in the form of the ridiculously-named Charlie Wax (John Travolta), a skilled, deadly, high-level CIA operative that James has been assigned to as a partner to aid in stopping a terrorist attack. Charlie, with his shaven head, chains, and leather jacket, is a man “on the edge” that “plays by his own rules.” You just know that he’s had his badge and gun taken away by a Stupid Chief at least a few times in his career, but he always gets them back. Why? Because he gets results.

Anyway, once James picks him and his beloved cans of energy drink (don’t ask) up from the airport, Charlie hits the ground of Paris running and it isn’t soon before bullets are flying and people are dying. James tries his best to keep up with the wild Charlie and his antics, and soon realizes he must really kick it into high gear if he’s going to make it as an agent in the field…or even through the next 5 minutes. But it’s soon revealed that James might have an actual connection to the case Charlie’s working on, and that connection might not only cost him his life, but the lives of thousands of others as well.

I liked From Paris With Love a lot. Sure, it barely has a plot and all the characters are as thin as the paper the script was typed on, but it’s fast-paced, action-packed, funny, and Travolta was a blast. He plays the role of Charlie Wax with equal parts zany and bad-ass- when the straight-laced James finally becomes unhinged and starts beating a suspect, not only does Charlie display a level of pride not unlike that of a father for a son, but he gleefully starts egging him on as well! How great is that?

Also, Charlie’s rather gung-ho character is extremely proficient at (and possibly overjoyed at the prospect of) killing large quantities of people with very little effort. He’s a guy that just takes care of business with no hesitation or remorse, and it’s this single-mindedness of purpose that has been missing from action movies for years. Charlie doesn’t get tearfully reflective on his past or wonder if all the blood spilt is wrong…he’s too busy dealing death and trying to whip his sissy-boy partner into shape. It’s the French, I’m telling ya. They know action (not to mention how to instill a degree of endearing quirkiness in their films). You don’t get completely ferocious movies like From Paris With Love from American studios, who foolishly feel they have to “humanize” their heroes by making them soft and/or merciful. The French, on the other hand, understand that the fastest way from Point A to Point B is, mathematically speaking, zero. As in, “zero surviving bad guys.” I’m not sure what (if anything) Pierre Morel has directed before the one-two punch combo of Taken and From Paris With Love, but I’m certainly keeping him on my radar in the future, as this man can handle action like a champ. While I do wish the talented Luc Besson would direct more often (he’s more interested in building up his production studio and writing these days), if Morel is the man to fill his shoes, I’ll deal with it.

Okay, I’m done with my rant- back to the acting. Jonathan Rhys Meyers was solid (despite my friend Don’s claim otherwise) as diplomatic stooge and rookie CIA agent James, looking unnervingly like a young Miguel Ferrer circa Robocop. Oh, and Polish actress Kasia Smutniak (as James’ girlfriend Caroline) did a good job of looking hot and reciting her lines, but really, this movie totally belonged to Travolta. I just wish he had gotten himself into better shape for it; it would have made his various stunts a bit easier to believe if he wasn’t rocking a little pot belly. But the super-tight editing (and some good look-alike stunt men) enabled me to put that aside and completely buy into what he was doing. For example, there’s a crazy scene where some bad guys have an actual fire pole running through a hole cut into the living room floor of their apartment as an escape route. Travolta follows the baddies down by diving into the hole head-first and wrapping his legs around the fire pole, leaving his hands free to pump everyone fill of lead while sliding upside-down. Now you KNOW Travolta didn’t do all that himself, but due to an expertly-cut series of shots and a guy that looked relatively like him taking the dive, I’ll be damned if it didn’t look a heck of a lot like he did. That’s good filmmaking, there. In contrast, the recently-released Jackie Chan family comedy “The Spy Next Door” tried the same trick with its aging star (previously known for his acrobatic abilities), with far less stellar results. Note to filmmakers: don’t hire doubles who are a foot taller and 35 years younger than your star if you insist on having long, sustained, straight-on shots of the stunts. It just doesn’t work.

Overall, From Paris With Love was really fun. It’s light on plot and character development (light? that’s being kind), but heavy on guns, violence, speed, and personality. I’m giving it three stars because I love well-done action films, but if you’re in no way a fan of the genre, feel free to subtract at least a star. Of Morel/Besson’s two movies, I think I liked Taken a bit more- unlike From Paris With Love, Taken’s plot actually has some emotional resonance due to the kidnapping angle, so they’re hard to compare. However, Travolta’s character was easily as ruthless as Liam Neeson’s in Taken, so perhaps a team-up between the two is called for? Wow, could you imagine that…Paris would be decimated, if not all of Europe. Make it happen, Luc Besson.

Oh, and I’ll leave you with one more thing: “A Royale with Cheeseeeeee.” Go watch From Paris With Love to make sense of that one, but it’ll be funnier if you’ve seen Pulp Fiction.

(Long Island, N.Y.) Edge of Darkness, Mel Gibson’s first starring role since 2002, is an interesting movie. An adaptation of the 1985 BBC television series of the same name regarding a police detective investigating his daughter’s murder, Edge of Darkness has been regularly compared in the press to last year’s Liam Neeson-starrer,

Taken (a personal favorite of mine, reviewed HERE).

However, the comparison is ill-suited. Yes, both films involve fathers doing the whole gumshoe bit and eventually taking the law into their own hands after some malady has befallen their beloved daughter, but that’s where the similarities end. Whereas Neeson’s character in Taken instantly goes into full Harbinger of Death mode and starts spilling gallons of blood everywhere he goes, Gibson takes a far more subtle route at first and tries to stay within the boundaries of the law. Sadly, this not only makes his investigation less effective for him, but less enjoyable for the audience. Here’s a good example of why: Gibson’s character, Thomas Craven, pays a visit to his late daughter Emma’s (Bojana Novakovic) boyfriend, and the two share the following exchange:

Boyfriend: “I know everything about what happened to your daughter, but I’m not going to tell you.”

Mel: “Okay. Maybe you can tell me later if you want. Goodbye.”

Now for laughs, let’s give this same scene the “Liam Neeson/Taken” treatment:

Boyfriend: “I know everything about what happened to your daughter, but I’m not going to tell you.”

Liam: “Oh, really…?”

Fast-forward 5 minutes. The boyfriend is hogtied and being slowly lowered into a vat of deadly acid.

Liam: “You sure you don’t want to change your mind, son? AH-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HAAA”

Now which investigative technique works better, hmm?

Bear in mind, I’m not knocking the character of Thomas Craven for attempting to adhere to the laws he was sworn to uphold. But the idea of this kid telling him that he has all the answers to Emma’s murder and Mel just politely respecting his desire not to divulge said info just killed the movie for me. I eventually recovered and managed to enjoy the film, but that nagging thought remained.

Anyway, Edge of Darkness starts with Thomas picking up twenty-something Emma

from a bus station for a visit. All seems well at first, but the reunion’s cut short when Emma eats a point-blank shotgun blast on the porch of Thomas’ house, delivered by a masked assassin yelling “Craven.” Emma dies in Thomas’ arms, and he is naturally devastated. Obviously this was a planned hit, but while the police believe that it was probably meant for Thomas in retaliation for a previous bust, Thomas soon discovers otherwise.

Starting out on his quest for answers, Thomas questions the contacts in Emma’s cell phone, the aforementioned boyfriend (remember? The guy that knows everything?), and her boss at the shady nuclear weapons company she interned at (played by Danny Huston of X-Men Origins: Wolverine fame). Early on in his hunt, he is contacted and given clues regarding Emma’s fate by a mysterious CIA agent named Darius Jedburgh (Ray Winstone, replacing an earlier-cast Robert De Niro), but is this portly cigar-chomping Brit a friend or deadly foe? Soon Thomas discovers that Emma’s murder is surrounded by a tangled web of political conspiracies and cover-ups, and that to reveal the truth he must begin to break the law himself. Making the decision to get to the bottom of Emma’s death by any means necessary, Thomas soon finds his own life in danger but is prepared to see his crusade through to the bitter end.

Again, I must point out that the comparisons of Edge of Darkness to Taken are rather unwarranted. Edge of Darkness is a much, much slower-paced film, starting out as a pure detective piece and evolving over its runtime into a political thriller of sorts. Yes, Mel Gibson’s character does eventually end up going down the path of violence, but he sadly never becomes a glorious, unstoppable killing machine- just a man pushed to the edge. The slow pace of Edge of Darkness actually works in its favor more than once, as it serves to punctuate various action scenes with a definitive explanation point when they happen. One minute Mel’s walking along, the wind is blowing, birds chirping, all is right with the world, and then BAM! Out of nowhere a car crashes or someone gets shot. It’s a dirty trick on the part of the filmmakers but quite effective nonetheless, especially given how brutal Edge of Darkness can get at times.

As far as the story goes it’s solid, but the cloak and dagger shenanigans surrounding Emma’s death were a tad too convoluted for my tastes. Yes, it’s all pretty much tied up in the end, but it comes across as sloppy as opposed to finely-woven. What did impress me was the emotional aspect of Edge of Darkness, with Thomas’ constant mental flashbacks to Emma’s youth throughout the film giving you a good idea of how much he grieved for his lost little girl. But while these scenes were touching, they started bordering on weird when Thomas actually started talking and interacting with the little ghost kid. But hey, I’m no grieving parent, what do I know?

Acting-wise, Edge of Darkness delivers big-time. Again, Meg Gibson establishes in my eyes that he is one of the most underrated actors in all of Hollywood. Yes, my viewing of Edge of Darkness was tainted by the memory of Mel’s wacky, anti-Semitic DWI arrest rant a few years ago, which is a shame, but I did my best to separate the eccentric man from the capable actor and was able to appreciate his multi-faceted performance, which expertly conveys grief, anger, confusion, and despair. What also impressed me is Mel’s apparent willingness to age gracefully, unlike most Hollywood veterans who desperately cling to the specter of their youth. Gone is his “Lethal Weapon” persona, leaving us with a middle-aged man with wrinkles, thinning hair, and who actually gets winded after scuffles.

The rest of the cast was good as well- Danny Huston excels at playing slimy bad guys, and Ray Winstone was an interesting casting choice as a government “cleaner” who may or may not be experiencing a change of heart after years of doing other’s dirty work (although, due to his thick accent, I only caught every other word he said). I’d comment on Bojana Novakovic’s turn as Emma, but she’s barely in the movie long enough to even notice.

Overall, despite being somewhat slow and messy in spots, Edge of Darkness is a good film that tugs on the heartstrings

and supplies viewers with some good old fashioned action and intrigue. Check it out.

Now where’s my sequel to Taken, Mr. Neeson…?

(Long Island, N.Y.) Legion, helmed by first-time director Scott Stewart, is basically a Catholic-themed remake of James Cameron’s 1984 film The Terminator. How, you may ask? Simple- let’s run down some basic plot points about the main character and see if you can tell which flick I’m actually talking about:

• A lone, naked man magically materializes in a dirty urban back alley after traveling a great distance. He is initially confused and in pain but quickly recovers.
• He steals clothing and firearms.
• He gets into an altercation with the cops.
• He steals a car.
• He sets off to find and protect the woman (who happens to work as a waitress) whose child will lead humanity out of an impending apocalypse and back onto the road to salvation.
• When he finds her, she initially doesn’t believe his story involving a Greater Power’s decision to enact Judgment Day on the human race. She sure believes him once people start dying all over the place, however.
• He is pursued by another being from his point of origin who is determined to stop the child savior’s birth at all costs. This being is superhuman, unstoppable, and pretty mean.

Honestly, up until now I could be talking about either film, really. It’s only when you get into the specifics do the differences between the two become clear. Yes, Legion borrows a tad (okay, maybe more than a tad) from The Terminator, but it also mixes in such good old-fashioned cinematic stand-bys such as zombies, Angels, and a healthy dose of Old Testament-style fire and brimstone. The result is a very solid but not outstanding action/horror movie which is equal parts excitement, humor, and boredom.

Okay, our movie opens like this: Kyle Reese…wait, I mean renegade archangel Michael (Paul Bettany, who has starred in a wide variety of roles, including A Knight’s Tale, A Beautiful Mind, and as the voice of JARVIS in Iron Man) flies down from Heaven, cuts off his wings (eew), and heads off to save mankind against his boss’ wishes. It seems that God is sick of mankind’s bad habits of stealing, murdering, and creating soulless pop music, and is set to bring about Armageddon for a second time to show us what for. Michael rebels because he still sees all the good we, as a race, are capable of, which only ticks God off even more. But instead of repeating history with a yet another flood (we have lots of boats now, ha ha), The Almighty decides to have his Angels start possessing human beings, turning them into zombies and pitting them against each other.

Soon the Earth is tearing itself apart, and the only hope for humanity’s survival lies in the belly of a single trailer park waitress named Charlie (Adrianne Palicki), 8 months pregnant (and still smoking cigarettes…what a good mommy!) and working in a greasy spoon diner in the middle of the New Mexico desert. It turns out that her unborn child is actually the Second Coming of Christ (well, they never actually SAY that, but given what happens in the latter half of the movie, what else could he be?), and his birth will usher in a new era of peace and redemption for our planet, provided Michael can hold off the legions of God’s horrific minions long enough…

There’s not much to Legion, frankly. Yeah, I know the premise is actually pretty dark and interesting, but it’s merely just a set-up for cool action scenes and slow-as-molasses “character development” bits that just drag and drag and drag. Normally I will angrily deride a film for glossing over its characters and their motivations, but in Legion such scenes are actually a detriment. Here, these sequences come across as slow, stiff, and tacked on as an afterthought, bogging down the pace with awkward (and at times embarrassing) attempts to “humanize” characters that end up getting killed 10 minutes later anyway. In an otherwise

energetic film like Legion, it’s better to let the character’s personalities speak for themselves on the fly.

Speaking of personalities, we have ourselves an ensemble cast here, which is why Legion works better than, in theory, it should. Veteran actors

Dennis Quaid and Charles S. Dutton both make appearances as the owner of the New Mexico diner and his cook respectively, and they both breathe life into what could have easily been cookie-cutter roles in lesser hands. Dutton in particular is always a welcome presence, with his seemingly effortless charm and sharp delivery. And who would have thought that Paul

Bettany would make a more-than-capable action star, given his past resume consisting mostly of more serious, dramatic work? Don’t get me wrong- he won’t be replacing Arnold Schwarzenegger as the heir to the 80’s Action Crown anytime soon, but the intensity he brings to his role as a gun-toting Angel with the guts to defy God Himself is impressive.

On the opposite end of the acting scale you have Lucas Black, whom I haven’t seen since 2006’s The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift. But while he’s still just as wooden and lacking in charisma as ever, at least he’s still not playing 17 year-olds when he looks at least 40 (now he’s playing a 20 year-old!). Anyway, Drift King plays a mechanic who is basically “Joseph” to Adrianne Palicki’s “Mary” (Biblically speaking, of course), and you have to wonder why God chose this unintelligent, white trash couple to raise his kid this time around. Then again, the film acts like God didn’t want the Second Coming and is even trying to kill his own son, but if that was the case, why is Charlie even pregnant with him to begin with?

So, we have some good actors and some bad ones. Now let’s talk about everything else. Well, aside from the boring scenes where disposable people are talking non-stop about their unimportant pasts so reviewers like me can point and go “Wow! Look at all that character development!”, the pace of Legion is pretty fast and the action hard-hitting while actually remaining visible to the naked eye (no shaky cameras or fast edits here! Yay!). And, as stated earlier, the overall story driving Legion is rather dark (God’s mad and wants to kill us), which leads to some genuinely creepy scenes and imagery. All this gloom and doom is thankfully offset, however, by the rather sly sense of humor the movie possesses. The Apocalypse and laughter…always a good combo.

So, in the end, Legion is a good horror film; high on action, creep factor, and laughs, but low on gore (with one or two exceptions), brains, and genuine character building moments. It’s certainly worth checking out, but one has to lament it’s unmet potential. Perhaps a sequel could remedy that…

(Long Island, N.Y.) Man, vampires are popular these days. I’ve been a big fan of ’em too, be it the gothic horror depicted in old Hammer Studio’s Dracula films or Neil Jordan’s excellent adaptation of Anne Rice’s novel “Interview with the Vampire.” There’s just something cool about vampires. Or at least, there WAS something cool about vampires- thanks to the recent “Twilight Saga” phenomenon, the image of the stately yet horrific creature that stalks the night in search of blood has been transformed into that of a whiney, self-absorbed twit, filled with teen angst

and just as likely to start crying as drink your plasma.

Another problem is the fact that, due to their place in popular culture, vampire movies have been done to death and beyond. It’s rare when an original take on their lore comes along, but directors Peter and Michael Spierig (of 2003’s low-budget horror flick “Undead”) have done just that. The existence of so many vampire movies where the bloodsucking fiends have tried again and again to take over the world begs the simple question so many filmmakers have overlooked: “Well, what if vampires DID take over the world?” Well, the Spierig brothers finally answer that question with “Daybreakers.”

And the answer is far less complicated than you’d expect. No, the world hasn’t been transformed into a series of castles surrounded by ever-present thunder storms while their vampire owners brood, read Milton, and await the comfy new velvet-lined casket they ordered on Amazon.com. No, once an unexplained plague has transformed most of humanity into the bloodthirsty undead, things…actually go on pretty much as they had before. Vampires take the train to their 9-to-5 job, sip gourmet blood-laced coffee (“I’ll take an Iced Single Vente, 7 pump Peppermint, Caramel Sauce Top and Bottom, Light Ice, No whip, Mocha, 2 shots AB Positive, thanks!”), and all the other mundane things you and I do on a daily basis (well, except the blood drinking part). It’s a tightly-run society, but the problem is that with Vamps in the majority, the remaining shreds of humanity are being hunted for their hemoglobin to the point of extinction.

Realizing that the supply of real blood is growing ever more finite, Charles Bromley (Sam Neill, who was born second only to Udo Kier to play an evil vampire lord), owner of a pharmaceutical company that farms humans, has tasked his head researcher Edward Dalton (Ethan Hawke) with finding a blood substitute. Alas, all of Dalton’s efforts so far have only produced a serum that has the unfortunate side-effect of making its recipient explode. Um…that’s bad. But unbeknownst to Bromley, Dalton has ulterior motives for discovering a non “boom boom” causing blood substitute- the guy just hates being a vampire and pities the poor humans in hiding, to the point that he lives only on pig blood (the vampire equivalent of the 37-cent cans of “Potted Meat Food Product” you find in Wal-Mart). A working blood substitute would negate the need to hunt down the rest of humanity and possibly bring a truce between the two.

However, time is running out for the vampire race. Despite extreme rationing, blood is scarce and those who are deprived of it long enough are turning into creatures called “sub-siders,” which are mindless, bat-like mutations that attack other vampires. The hunt for the remaining humans is ramped up, and fate (in the form of a random car accident) brings Dalton together with a rag-tag bunch of humans on the run, led by Lionel “Elvis” Cormac (Willem Dafoe) and Audrey Bennett (Claudia Karvan). Realizing that discovering a simple blood substitute will not deter his vampire masters from still bleeding humanity dry (“There will always be someone willing to pay more for the real thing,” quips Bromley), Dalton absconds with Cormac and his crew, hoping to solve both race’s problems by curing vampirism itself. But with the vampire world delving into chaos as their food supply disappears, will the possible cure help anyone on either side, and does Dalton have the time to discover it?

Daybreakers was a pretty good example of my willingness to give points to a film based on an original premise. Presenting our modern society filtered through the lens of vampirism, the Spierig brothers had a chance to put some interesting spins on the overdone vampire film genre. Cars have tinted windows and video camera systems, allowing

daytime mobility (the vampire Special Forces soldiers wear armor incorporating the same technology); homes and apartments have steel shutters that close at dawn; undead-related advertising is splashed everywhere; and the underground is dominated by a complex series of

“subwalks” that allow vamps to travel on foot at any time. Clearly a lot of thought went into how vampires would cater society to their unique needs, while keeping things realistic. As a result, the world of Daybreakers feels organic and believable, which is vital for any sci-fi/horror movie.

But aside from the attention to detail, Daybreakers is still a good effort, albeit slightly flawed. The cast is as solid as can be- while I thought Ethan Hawke was a tad bland in the lead, he was more than made up for by Willem Dafoe, whose human resistance leader character “Elvis” was pretty much off his rocker and generated a great deal of the laughs in the movie. But the real standout to me was Sam Neill as Charles Bromley. Neill was just so INTENSELY smug and evil, while still managing to convey just a bit of his lost humanity at the same time. There’s a side-plot regarding his missing human daughter that is resolved in a rather sad and shocking way, and it was one of the higher points of Daybreakers’ narrative. Claudia Karvan as Audrey, Elvis’ right hand woman, was a great addition to the cast as well, being tough yet sympathetic at the same time. You actually end up feeling for a great many of the characters in Daybreakers, and this empathy is magnified by the fact that this movie isn’t afraid to kill off people you might normally expect to make it to the end credits. It’s a nice bit of unpredictability that most movies lack nowadays.

Daybreakers ain’t perfect, however. The pace starts off brisk but flounders in spots, and while the story is interesting and thoughtful, the finale drops most of that in favor of action, gore, and exploding bodies. Now I normally like action, gore, and exploding bodies, but the #1 problem most filmmakers seem to have recently is balancing it with their stories. Most directors seem to simply use their plots as a disposable set-up for cool fight/explosion scenes later in the movie, which is a shame in Daybreakers’ case. It doesn’t end as intelligently as it begins.

So, give your 17th viewing of Twilight: New Moon a pass and give Daybreakers a shot. Sure, there’s no 150 year-old vampires romancing 16-year old high school girls or Native American steroid junkies running around in the woods in their Daisy Dukes, but that doesn’t mean that it still can’t be a decent movie, right?

Seriously, though, Daybreakers is good, original film. Go see it.

(Long Island, N.Y.) Sherlock Holmes, the famous fictional detective whose adventures were transcribed by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (starting in 1887) in the form of 4 novels and 56 short stories, has been the subject of countless media adaptations- films, television shows, and even a cartoon entitled “Sherlock Holmes in the 22nd Century” (seriously- go look on YouTube). Now everyone’s favorite gumshoe has been dusted off by director Guy Ritchie (AKA the former Mr. Madonna) for a new generation of film-goers with Iron Man himself, the talented Robert Downey Jr., in the title role.

Overall, it’s a fun ride that…um…er… Wait a second. I’m going to break from my usual format here, because I’m having a problem…and I think it might be writer’s block. It’s a problem I’ve never had writing a review before here at Long Island Exchange, so please…bear with me.

To be honest, I AM having a hard time writing about this movie, and I’m not 100% sure why. I mean, it was a solid flick…I’d even go so far as to call it “very good.” But despite that fact, the film just isn’t inspiring me to write about it. Now, I’ve seen movies so bad that I wanted to kill myself and movies so good that I’ve wanted to send tacos to the entire cast and production team, and when it came time to write their respective reviews, the words always flowed like cheap malt liquor on one of my dates. Yet Sherlock Holmes has me stuck in neutral, so to speak, and I can’t think of a decent reason at all for this. Perhaps if I just ramble about whatever comes to mind regarding the movie, it’ll help me place things in perspective…

Well, first of all, the twitchy Robert Downey Jr. certainly brings the goods here, presenting a take on Holmes that differs from the stereotypical stiff upper-lipped Englishman clad in a deerstalker hat and cloak. Instead, Downey concentrates more on Holmes’ eccentricities, such as his anti-social personality and bohemian lifestyle, often ignored in previous adaptations of Doyle’s work. I personally found this refreshing, and I suppose it also serves to make Holmes a bit more “cool” to the youngsters, but it thankfully never comes across as obvious pandering- at least, until he is revealed to be UFC-style fighter kicking butt to pay the rent in-between cases. Now, while Holmes’ prowess in fisticuffs is touched upon in the books (yes, I’ve actually read some), I found this aspect of the film to have an akward, tacked-on feeling, as if to please the kids in the Mixed Martial Arts crowd. However, I’m suprised to say, I actually enjoyed the fights and how Holmes would plot them out in his head before successfully enacting his strategy. I mean, it worked within the context of this “new” Sherlock Holmes, so I guess I can forgive this odd little inaccuracy.

Conveniently forgotten from the books (although very subtly hinted at here and there) is his drug use, although this omission I can understand- depicting Holmes taking cocaine breaks between visiting crime scenes might make him seem a tad less believable as a crime-fighter. But the Holmes of Doyle’s novels (as well as Downey’s performance) was a great detective not in spite of his faults and vices, but BECAUSE of them. That being the case, I’m all in favor of showing all the man’s warts and character flaws. And while Guy Ritchie’s Sherlock Holmes comes closer than any to doing so, there are still lines it won’t cross.

The film is scored well by Hans Zimmer (in fact, the music is easily one of its high points), shot expertly, and accurately conveys the grit and grime of Victorian-era London (despite the romantic view some have of it, the city of that time was a really, really dirty place). The movie’s pace is brisk, the dialogue and back-and-forth between Holmes and his loyal assistant, Dr. Watson (Jude Law), is both witty and biting, and every actor that is not British manages a convincing British accent (in the case of Downey, his previous work on the 1992 biopic Chaplin more than likely served him well here).

Even the plot, which surprisingly is not based on any of Doyle’s stories, is somewhat interesting. A bloke named Lord Blackwood (Mark Strong), who would probably be way into Scandinavian Black Metal if he were alive today, has been running around London conducting horrific human sacrifices. Holmes and Watson arrive at Blackwood’s latest offering to his pagan god and apprehend the maniac before he can kill again. Blackwood is put to death for his crimes, but soon rises from his grave and continues his murder spree, all the while displaying powers that can only be called supernatural. The subsequent appearance of Holmes’ love interest and only person to ever outwit him, Irene Adler (Rachel McAdams), along with her shadowy and mysterious employer (a certain “Professor” that Doyle fans might be aware of…) only causes to complicate things further. Oh, and let’s not forget Dr. Watson’s impending marriage to Mary Morstan (Kelly Reilly), which is threatening to break up his long-standing partnership with Holmes. Poor Sherlock…the man has problems. Can even his legendary intellectual prowess and powers of observation, deductive reasoning and forensic skills overcome all the obstacles laid before him?

Hmm…I think I’ve got it. Sherlock Holmes IS a good, charming movie, but on some base level it’s just not engaging enough to be all that memorable. It might be the fact that no one has any real back-story- the movie just starts off with every relationship already in place, relying on the audience to have a personal familiarity with all the characters in order to get involved. It might be the abundance of unconvincing CG that makes up much of the backdrop of London (man, I miss the days when they built actual sets for movies…). It might even be the contrived way that Holmes sometimes puts two and two together- I know the guy is a genius and all, but he makes some on-the-money conclusions based on basically no evidence or first-hand accounts…it’s kinda hard to buy that. Heck, it could even just be the constant brawls and widespread destruction of property that Holmes and Watson get into in every other scene, which is ill-fitting for what’s supposed to be a mystery-based period piece.

Overall, my problem with Sherlock Holmes is that some of the intelligence of Doyle’s works has been stripped away in favor of numerous action scenes (which REALLY ramp up in the climax), but it’s obvious that this was the only way to engage modern ADD-afflicted audiences. If Guy Ritchie had done a straight translation of one of the original Holmes novels I’m sure it would have been quite engrossing, but I hardly would see the slower pace and more thoughtful story structure packing theaters with rabid crowds. So, as it is, Sherlock Holmes is indeed a fun, humorous, and exciting movie, but missing that little something that made the super-sleuth of the novels special. The ending of the film perfectly sets itself up for a sequel, but despite my misgivings about this installment, I find myself very much looking forward to its eventual release. And when a movie does that, I guess it’s done its job, and done it pretty well.

And hey, I’ve done my job too! I guess that writer’s block is gone now. I bet you all were worried, huh?

(Long Island, N.Y.) Avatar marks the return of James Cameron to feature films since puttering around on the ocean floor making documentaries for the last 12 years. Yes, it’s hard to believe it’s been that long since Cameron shattered box office records with 1997’s Titanic, and I was personally rather distressed by the length of his hiatus.

Not getting any new films from the man that brought me cinematic gems such as Terminator 1 and 2, Aliens, The Abyss and True Lies really took its toll on me after a while. But he’s finally back, and after a ridiculous amount of hype and hyperbole has unleashed Avatar upon the masses, an epic 3D sci-fi tale combining live-action and computer graphics. But despite lofty claims by Cameron that Avatar would revolutionize the way we watch films forever (short answer: it won’t), the question remains: can the man still bring the goods after sitting on the sidelines for so long?

Avatar has been in production for several years, with Cameron talking smack early on about how the CG characters and environments would be truly photo-realistic; that it was to be filmed in 3D with newly developed stereoscopic cameras that simulate human sight and provide a true sense of depth; and it would pioneer great advances in actor motion capture. From a man known for his big-budget blockbusters that push the limits of current technology, these aren’t claims to be taken lightly. Soon, the hype train was rolling and it seemed that nothing could derail it. But the much-anticipated appearance of Avatar’s first theatrical teaser trailer was met with as much acclaim as it was

doubt and disappointment. As time passed, the voices of the skeptics grew only louder, but Cameron himself held steadfast, even requesting the release date be moved from the summer (the usual release time for big movies) to the holiday season, just as he had done years before with the successful release of Titanic.

Let’s pause for a moment for a quick side note: Avatar is being released to theaters in IMAX 3D, regular 3D, and standard ol’ 2D. For the purposes of this review, I watched the IMAX 3D version, Yes, it was pretty. Onward.

So, what is this Avatar thing, anyway? Well, in many ways it’s a return to Cameron’s roots as a science fiction fan; in fact, he claims the inspiration for Avatar was “every sci-fi book I ever read as a child.” What that translates into is basically an intense love story between a human man and an exotic female alien (I know, every young boy’s fantasy). Now, before you macho types start groaning about this being a “lovey-dovey chick flick,” remember that when you strip away the bloody veneer of Arnold Schwarzenegger blowing away everyone in sight, the original Terminator was also, at its core, a love story. And everyone loves The Terminator, right? I know I sure do.

Set in the year of 2154, Avatar is the story of Pandora, a beautiful and dangerous planet in Alpha Centauri, which is over 4 light years from Earth. There rages a conflict between the native Na’vi, a peaceful race of 12-foot tall blue-skinned humanoids, and human colonists hoping to plunder Pandora of its natural resources. Enter Jake Sully (Terminator Salvation’s Sam Worthington), a marine rendered paraplegic after taking a bullet in combat. Due to crummy veteran’s benefits he can’t afford the operation that could restore his legs, and as a result he’s wheelchair-bound. But as luck would have it, his twin brother is killed while prepping for something called the “Avatar Project” and Jake is selected to take his place due to his being a perfect genetic match. Taken to Pandora, Jake discovers that the Avatar Project enables humans to “project” themselves into and control genetically-grown and tailored half human/half Na’vi bodies known as “Avatars,” enabling Jake to walk once again. Initially designed to be used to explore the harsh habitat of Pandora and establish contact with and learn from the Na’vi, Jake is given another task- to infiltrate and gather Intel on the Na’vi, so that the human military might better be able to deal with ’em when the time soon comes.

Although recognized as an Avatar and initially regarded as an outsider, Jake nonetheless manages to live amongst the Na’vi and eventually gain their trust, but plans go awry when he

finds himself falling in love not only with their spiritual, nature-based culture and the beauty of Pandora, but with Neytiri (Zoe Saldaña), a feisty warrior gal. Soon Jake must decide which world he now belongs to and pick a side in the upcoming conflict between the primitive Na’vi and the high-tech human intruders…

Plot-wise, Avatar was predictable and unoriginal- it’s basically a complete re-tread of Dances With Wolves with a sci-fi/ecological spin. I found this to be a fairly major let-down, given the ability James Cameron has displayed in the past to craft a fairly groundbreaking tale. However, that didn’t stop Avatar from being a really good movie. The story, while paint-by-the-numbers, was emotional and well-told; the chemistry Jake and Neytiri display while exploring the lush forests and jungles of Pandora is very organic and endearing; and the acting across the board was excellent. Also, the design, detail and animation of all the CG was super-impressive…in fact, the graphics on display in Avatar really set a new bar for film effects in general. The Na’vi (in addition to the environments of Pandora) are all 100% rendered on computers, but I’ve never seen such fluid, emotionally expressive CG characters before. Quick little trailer clips don’t give you the proper appreciation for it- it takes actually viewing the movie itself and seeing the characters in motion for an extended period to understand. If viewed with an open mind, I dare even the most grumpy moviegoer not to be enthralled.

But for all the hype about how Avatar was going to change movies forever, in the end it’s just another pretty flick with some good acting and characterization that could simply be considered the next evolution of computer graphics. That’s all. In other words, it’s the type of movie Star Wars creator George Lucas would make if he cared at all about story and character and not just getting to the next batch of CG muppets.

I’m also not sure how Avatar would hold up to a second viewing, but the beautiful visuals certainly help to keep your attention glued to the screen the first time around. After not really being all that wowed by the recent disaster flick 2012, I was beginning to think I had become completely jaded when it came to visual effects. However,

Avatar really blew me away in that regard. But is that enough too keep one busy for a second 3-hour go-around? Or a third? Due to its predictability, going into Avatar the first time you already know everything that’s going to happen, and it’s not like there’s a detailed and complex plot to dissect afterwards. But like I said, the story is solid, touching, and told quite deftly, and the assorted creatures, landscapes, and military vehicles (the designs of which were very much inspired by Cameron’s 1986 film Aliens) are all quite imaginative. All that really helps to suck you in.

But with all that said, would I have preferred that as much effort went into crafting a unique and intriguing tale as making all the pretty mountains, animals, and spaceships? Sure. But someone laid out almost 300 large for Avatar’s budget, and as much as I would have liked him to do so, James Cameron can’t reinvent the wheel when he’s on someone else’s dime like that, especially in this economy. But despite the fact that Avatar has a very rudimentary plot, I’m just happy to finally watch a blockbuster-type movie that isn’t soulless, mindless, focus-tested chum like 95% of Hollywood movies are nowadays. Of course, Cameron is a big enough name that he probably could have just thumbed his nose at the studio and ran with some completely out of left field plot concept, but maybe the guy’s rusty after 12 years. I’ll forgive him. Besides, you want a fresh plot that actually takes chances? Expecting to get it from a $300 million Hollywood studio film simply isn’t realistic…you usually only get breakthroughs like that from cheap films made outside the system, like the incredible District 9 (on DVD December 22nd!).

Now, the big shocker, at least for me: Sam Worthington actually wasn’t terrible in his leading role here. Maybe it was just because he was voice acting for a 12-foot Smurf for most of the movie, but I thought he didn’t stink up the screen nearly as bad as he did in Terminator Salvation. He actually displayed a fair amount of charisma, although that didn’t make up for his native Australian accent constantly popping up throughout the movie (just like in Terminator Salvation). Sigourney Weaver (as Dr. Grace Augustine, a botanist in charge of the Avatar Project) had a much bigger part than I thought she would have based on previews, and she was great as usual, lending the proceedings a great deal of wit, intelligence, and sass. Michelle Rodriguez reprises every role she’s ever played in her professional career as “The Tough Chick,” something she excels in. And I was personally psyched to hear the great Wes Studi voicing Eytucan, the Na’vi king and Neytiri’s father (his casting made perfect sense, given the many parallels between the Na’vi and Native Americans). But the movie is completely stolen by Zoe Saldaña as Neytiri, whose charm and talent are undeniable.

Anyway, Avatar is VERY long, but I actually didn’t mind the excessive length in this rare instance. In fact, it was the first 3 hour movie I’ve seen in ages that DIDN’T make me want to kill myself, so it must have done something right. Again, it doesn’t live up to the insane hype, but I don’t think anything on Earth really could have. But it’s still a really good film backed by the talents of an army of excellent actors, artists, and designers.

But in the end, I’m just happy James Cameron is finally back.