Attack the Block

OPENING: 07/29/2011

STUDIO: Studio Canal

RUN TIME: 88 min

ACCOMPLICES:
Trailer, Official Site

The Charge
Inner city vs. outer space

Opening Statement
The South London housing estates, or “blocks,” have always been a great place to stage a film, especially to a Yankee like me. When I think of London, I think of some place nice and clean and free of crime where you can walk down the alley after having a few pints at the local pub and not feel the least bit afraid of being accosted. However, films like last year’s Harry Brown have shown a new side to London; a seedy underbelly of corruption and crime that lies on the outskirts of that fantastical version of London I’ve dreamed up for myself. From what I’ve seen, South London is truly a scary place to not only live but especially to grow up, where the teens seem to have lost all hope and as such turn to the things people do when they lose hope: drugs, crime, violence, sex and more wanton, senseless brutal violence. Into this scenario we drop an alien invasion and there we have the set up for Attack the Block.

Facts of the Case
Attack the Block starts off with Jodie Whittaker as Sam, a young nurse who lives in the blocks of South London. On her way home from work she is attacked by a gang of masked youth. They threaten, bully, and rob her. She luckily escapes relatively unharmed but clearly shaken by the experience. The same youths that attacked her, soon after she runs away, spot a meteorite hit the earth not far away from where they are, so they investigate and find and kill an alien. Soon thereafter, many more meteorites start landing, releasing a slew of aliens bent on killing people in the block.

The Evidence
After seeing this intro I started wondering, “They aren’t going to try and make me sympathize with this group of roughians I just saw picking on and stealing from a defenseless woman, are they? Those archetypes are meant for despising not for cheering on.” And yet that is exactly what they went on to do. Let me back up here and tell you all the things that are great about this film, because there are a few, before I dive into that main problem I have.

The use of actual things–puppets, actors, shadows–to represent the aliens instead of relying on CG is so utterly refreshing. Although sometimes it isn’t pulled off completely and you can clearly tell it is a puppet chasing after the kids, the effect of having something real there for the cinematographer to shoot, the actors to play off of, and the audience to feel, comes though and I appreciate it. Speaking of actors, all the boys in the gang did an outstanding job but I want to especially point out John Boyega’s Moses, who leads them out of alien oppression (a clever nod on the writer’s part). John played his part excellently, and though the character didn’t change much from beginning of story to the end, for his debut, the guy did a brilliant job.

Which brings me back to my problem: the writers trying to pull my heartstrings with characters who are unrepentant about their wicked ways. Now don’t get me wrong, I like a good anti-hero just as much as the next guy, but with a good anti-hero you are either let us in to see why they have to be bad or they must have so much charisma they just win you over. Unfortunately, Boyega plays Moses like a stoic stone of cold efficiency who knows what he does is wrong but doesn’t care–it may be what he does to get by but he also enjoys the power it gives him. Some may call this film a classic redemption story, however, as I’ve stated before, I didn’t notice much, if any, change in Moses’ character by the end of the film. I could easily see Moses, after the credits roll, continuing to terrorize innocent women in the streets of South London. What the events in the film taught him were not that he needs to repair his ways but what to do in case of an alien attack. I find this set up to mostly resemble a horror film where the group of unlikable miscreants is set up at the beginning of the film before the killer comes in.

Closing Statement
What Attack the Block is on the road to becoming is a cult classic. I don’t know if the general public will embrace it, possibly for the same reasons as I have not embraced it. However, there will definitely be a group of people who will absolutely love this film – they will attend the midnight screenings, tell their friends and lend out the DVD they will eventually get to anyone who will watch–even when no one owns DVD players any more.

The Verdict

7/10

Captain America: The First Avenger

OPENING: 07/22/2011

STUDIO: Paramount Pictures

RUN TIME: 125 min

ACCOMPLICES:
Trailer, Official Site

The Charge
Avenge

Opening Statement
This summer’s quartet of comic book superhero blockbusters comes to a close with Joe Johnston’s Captain America: The First Avenger. Fortunately, this final stepping stone on the way to Marvel’s The Avengers proves to be 2011′s most satisfying superhero flick.

Facts of the Case
Steve Rogers (Chris Evans, Fantastic Four) is a scrappy, 90-pound kid from Brooklyn. The year is 1942, and Steve wants nothing more than to serve his country by joining the military and going overseas. He’s been turned down time and time again; he’s too small and too sickly to serve. Still, the persistence eventually pays off: Steve is finally accepted and is shipped off to basic training. Shortly after his arrival, a military scientist (Stanley Tucci, The Lovely Bones) persuades Steve to become his first test subject in a very important experiment. Steve is injected with a remarkable serum which instantly transforms him from the Army’s least intimidating soldier into a bulky, powerful hulk of a man.

Alas, Steve’s new powers aren’t going to be put to use on the battlefield. Our would-be war hero is sent on an important but nonetheless humiliating publicity tour; selling war bonds by dressing up in a ridiculous red, white & blue costume and dancing onstage with a group of chorus girls. However, when Steve learns that his old pal Bucky Barnes (Sebastian Stan, Black Swan) is missing in action overseas, he determines to stage a rescue mission. With the aid of arms manufacturer Howard Stark (Dominic Cooper, Young Victoria) and the no-nonsense Peggy Carter (Hayley Atwell, The Duchess), “Captain America” begins a dangerous mission which will eventually bring him face-to-face with the villainous Red Skull (Hugo Weaving, The Matrix).

The Evidence
After the depressingly generic Green Lantern, I was feeling a little burnt out on superhero movies. It was a little difficult to work up much enthusiasm for Captain America; did I really want to sit through another by-the-numbers origin story created for the specific purpose of teasing a sequel? Thankfully, Captain America is precisely the refreshing change-of-pace the genre needs at this moment in time. This is a movie which is both charmingly earnest and genuinely surprising; two factors which have been missing from too many films about men in spandex.

Director Joe Johnston warmed up for this film some twenty years earlier with his under-appreciated The Rocketeer. Captain America: The First Avenger also offers shades of such entertainingly retro outings as The Phantom and Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow, but it’s less aggressively self-aware than those films. It pays homage to old-fashioned war movies and equally old-fashioned comic books in a manner which is entertaining but never too distracting; the world Johnston has created is absorbing and the story works on its own terms.

Johnston is clearly having a ball with this particular cinematic playground, as this is a film which just oozes affection for the era in which it is set. Johnston doesn’t so much recapture a moment in time as recapture the pop culture vibes of that era; creating a movie which seems to have been assembled from a collection of newsreels, comic books and war movies of the early 1940s. His art deco design boasts numerous visual delights, and his staging of the aforementioned publicity tour is a fascinating piece of cinema: it’s an unexpected departure from the norm for this sort of film, it’s marvelously staged, it’s delightfully satirical and unexpectedly affecting all at once. The battle scenes later in the film have a kind of four-color “gee whiz!” quality about them while still managing to maintain some measure of weight. The balancing act Johnston pulls off in this area is most impressive.

Lead actor Chris Evans is perhaps saddled with the most difficult task of all the Marvel Studios superheroes, as he’s required to play a character who is good-hearted, earnest and compassionate. Those are great human qualities, but they can also be the foundation of a dull character in the hands of an incapable actor. Fortunately, Evans manages to hit just the right note and maintain a strong screen presence. There’s something about him which suggests Gary Cooper’s turn in Sgt. York; a kind of shy, thoughtful tenderness beneath the war hero exterior. He’s equally convincing as the runt from Brooklyn and as the muscle-bound man of action, and the CGI work done on both versions of the character is impressive enough that we don’t spend much time thinking about it.

The supporting cast is also solid, with Tommy Lee Jones standing out in a very Tommy Lees Jones-ish role as a gruff, world-weary Colonel. Jones is given a handful of good lines which he nails with his understated delivery. Hayley Atwell makes the most of a ever-so-slightly underwritten role, bringing a great deal of personality to this film’s obligatory love interest (as a result, we end up caring about her considerably more than we did about Natalie Portman in Thor or Blake Lively in Green Lantern). We also get three esteemed actors having a blast with gloriously hammy German accents. In order of success: Hugo Weaving (whose intonations often seem to transform into a Werner Herzog impression), Stanley Tucci (as wonderfully understated as ever) and Toby Jones (whose impressive facial expressions compensate for his exceedingly wobbly accent).

I’m obliged to report that not everything is wonderful. The Red Skull’s plan will undoubtedly prove a little confusing to those unfamiliar with the comics (that sort of shorthand is best left to throwaway in-jokes, not major plot points), and the character’s actual actions are never really as interesting as Weaving’s hypnotic performance. Dominic Cooper is a little underwhelming as a young Howard Stark; failing to deliver the pitch-perfect charisma John Slattery offered in Iron Man 2. Additionally, the movie finishes on a wrong note, as one character delivers a line which strives to be simultaneously funny and touching but which actually proves merely awkward.

Obviously, the ultimate purpose of Captain America: The First Avenger is to build up to Joss Whedon’s The Avengers. I have conflicted feelings about this, as Captain America handles this material very smoothly yet still seems as if it would be better off without it. Had Johnston been directing a stand-alone film without the need to segue into a larger blockbuster, he could have delivered something even more moving and impressive. You’ll know what I mean when you see the film.

Closing Statement
Still, given the constraints that it’s working under, Captain America: The First Avenger is very nearly as good as it possibly could have been. It’s arguably the most successful Marvel Studios film to date (only Iron Man could compete), and one of the strongest efforts of Johnston’s career.

The Verdict
8/10

Transformers: Dark of the Moon

OPENING: 07/01/2011

STUDIO: Paramount Pictures

RUN TIME: 157 min

ACCOMPLICES:
Trailer, Official Site

The Charge
Be afraid of the dark.

Opening Statement
Michael Bay’s Transformers was a disappointment, and his Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen was regarded by many (myself included) as an insufferable disaster. However, audiences have responded to the franchise with enthusiasm, so Bay is back once again with Transformers: Dark of the Moon. It’s yet another letdown from the famed director, but it comes a bit closer to hitting the mark than either of its predecessors.

Facts of the Case
Our story begins with a compelling prologue set in the 1960s, which provides an alternate history of the moon landing. Apparently, Buzz Aldrin and Neil Armstrong actually discovered the wreckage of a massive Cybertronian spacecraft when they arrived on the moon, but the government covered that fact up for security reasons. The ship had been piloted by Sentinel Prime (voiced by Leonard Nimoy, Star Trek) and had been carrying advanced technology which could have saved the Cybertronians if his mission had been completed.

Fast-forward to the present, where heroic Autobot Optimus Prime (voiced by Peter Cullen) has just learned of the moon landing cover-up. Hurt by the betrayal but recognizing an opportunity to help his own race, Optimus sets out on a mission to revive Sentinel Prime and retrieve the lost technology. Unfortunately, the villainous Decepticon Megatron (voiced by Hugo Weaving, The Matrix) is still hatching a diabolical plan of his own.

Meanwhile, our old pal Sam Witwicky (Shia LaBeouf, Disturbia) has just graduated from college and moved in with his new girlfriend Carly (Rosie Huntington-Whitely). Alas, despite receiving a medal from President Obama and earning a college degree, Sam is having a difficult time finding work. He’s finally reduced to accepting a job working in a mailroom for a company run by the terribly eccentric Bruce Brazos (John Malkovich, Jonah Hex). The job is one of many frustrations for Sam, who’s also upset about his girlfriend’s flirty boss (Patrick Dempsey, Enchanted) and his self-perceived lack of significance. However, it’s only a matter of time before Sam finds a way to insert himself into the latest Autobots vs. Decepticons smash-fest.

The Evidence
In a variety of ways, Transformers: Dark of the Moon represents the very best and worst of Michael Bay’s tendencies as a director. That’s kind of a relief when you consider that Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen was basically a endless demonstration of the reasons Bay is often picked as the critical whipping boy of summer blockbusters. However, this installment of the Transformers franchise also packs in a few potent reminders of why Bay’s films are so immensely popular.

Let’s start with the good news: the final hour of Transformers: Dark of the Moon comes awfully close to being the thrilling Transformers adventure we’ve all been hoping for since the first film was announced. While Bay’s action scenes in the previous film were cluttered, choppy and often incomprehensible, this time he gives us surprising clarity, fluidity and a real sense of space. At long last, he’s served up some action scenes which offer the kind of genuine primal thrills a film about robots punching other robots ought to deliver. The director turns in his best visual work to date, and his use of 3D is some of the strongest I’ve seen lately.

Additionally, the Transformers are actually the central figures in the plot this time around, as the saga of Optimus, Sentinel and Megatron forms the core of the story. Finally, it feels as if Bay is placing the spotlight on the title characters, which is something which should have been a given from the start. The pseudo-science Ehren Kruger’s screenplay offers is entertaining as opposed to eyeroll-inducing this time around, and his X-Men: First Class-style historical fiction element is a fun idea which leads to the immortal cinematic moment in which Optimus Prime shakes hands with Buzz Aldrin. Any film in which such an event takes place can’t be all bad, right?

Unfortunately, to get to Bay’s summer movie fun in the final hour, you’re going to have to slog through the film’s insufferable first half, which is dominated by the movie’s awful human characters and some of the worst cinematic comedy you’ll witness this year. This series has never been a great outlet for Shia LaBeouf’s acting, but he somehow manages to turn in the most obnoxious performance of his career in his third outing as Sam Witwicky. I suspect that LaBeouf is trying to pull off some sort of explosive Robert Downey Jr.-ish energy in his performance, but his rushed quips and high-octane temper tantrums grate on the nerves. Fortunately, during the last hour LaBouef tones down this nonsense and settles into agreeably forgettable action-hero mode. As for newcomer Rosie Huntington-Whitely: she’s here strictly as an object for the cameras to leer at lustfully from time to time. She serves the same function as Megan Fox in the previous installments and has even less of a character to play.

However, things get really bad when we’re dealing with the supporting characters. For some unknown reason, Bay has encouraged his actors to go to embarrassing extremes in their performance. The characters played by John Malkovich, John Turturro, Alan Tudyk, Ken Jeong, Frances McDormand and Patrick Dempsey are so cartoonish that they make Bugs Bunny and Daffy Duck look like characters in a Tarkovsky film. Only Turturro manages to wring some amusement from his character, as his comic timing saves a few potentially terrible moments. Everyone else just falls flat on their face; Malkovich has a scene which made me wince in pity. While I appreciate the fact that Bay is attempting to bring some levity to the proceedings in an era when too many summer blockbusters are grim, humorless affairs, the seemingly endless moments of intolerable comedy he delivers in this film make one yearn for the film to start taking itself too seriously.

Closing Statement
There’s a rather entertaining action movie lurking within Transformers: Dark of the Moon, but Bay nearly crushes all of the progress he makes in this installment by amplifying the poor qualities of his human characters. It’s a shame that some of the strong action sequences he delivers are stuck in a film this frustrating. Still, I must make a confession: though Bay’s film does contain some of the worst scenes you’ll see in any movie this summer (or all year, for that matter), I enjoyed sitting through the wild inconsistency of this mess more than I did sitting through the consistent mediocrity of Green Lantern, Cars 2 or Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides. That’s not a recommendation, or even a suggestion that Dark of the Moon is any better than those films. It is what it is.

The Verdict
5/10

Green Lantern

OPENING: 06/17/2011

STUDIO: Warner Bros.

RUN TIME: 105 min

ACCOMPLICES:
Trailer, Official Site

The Charge
In brightest day. In blackest night.

Opening Statement
While DC Comics has a large stable of iconic superheroes that ranks as a worthy rival to the lineup Marvel has to offer, considerably more of Marvel’s characters have been given the swanky big-screen treatment. While Marvel has provided us with films about The Fantastic Four, The X-Men, The Incredible Hulk, Spider-Man, Iron Man, Daredevil, Captain America, Thor and others, DC has primarily focused on the one-two punch of Batman and Superman (with occasional flops about characters from those two universes, such as Supergirl, Catwoman and Steel). At long last, we’re breaking away from the old routine with Green Lantern. Unfortunately, this new franchise is off to an awfully rough start.

Facts of the Case
Hal Jordan (Ryan Reynolds, The Proposal) is a hotshot pilot whose remarkable talent is only matched by his penchant for irresponsible behavior. He’s had a hot-and-cold relationship with employer/fellow pilot Carol Ferris (Blake Lively, The Town) for years, and lately things have been on the cold side of that spectrum. A recent disaster at work, an increasingly strained relationship with his siblings and haunting memories of his father’s tragic death have only amplified Hal’s personal problems in recent days.

Hal receives a welcome distraction when he’s suddenly transported to the site of a spaceship crash. Inside the ship is a dying alien, who presents Hal with a mysterious green ring. Before Hal has time to process this, he’s whisked away to the planet Oa and trained as a member of the Green Lantern Corps, a universal police force devoted to keeping life forms of all sorts safe from a wide variety of threats. Soon, the hotshot pilot finds himself faced with the task of battling foes both foreign (and I mean really, really, really foreign) and domestic.

The Evidence
Martin Campbell’s Green Lantern suffers from a variety of problems, but perhaps most prominent among them is a severe case of origin-itis. Here’s the thing: we’ve seen a seemingly endless supply of comic book origin stories at this point, and they’ve generally grown less intriguing as time has passed. I’m fairly certain that audiences are willing to accept on faith the idea that a character has been given a set of superpowers. Is there really a need for would-be franchises to provide us with feature-length explanations of how these miraculous things happen rather than simply dealing with such business in a prologue and focusing on delivering a compelling story? Green Lantern feels like a warm-up for an actual movie, which is something which can be said about entirely too many cinematic origin stories of late (the recent X-Men: First Class comes to mind, though that film delivers more entertainment than this one).

The premise of the Green Lantern Corps is one which contains a tremendous amount of potential for thrilling space opera, yet there is nothing operatic about Green Lantern. The film is a curiously mundane experience; one which spends entirely too much time wallowing in Hal Jordan’s uninteresting personal problems on Earth and precious little time exploring the vast, detailed, well-constructed wonders of Oa. Indeed, Hal’s one extended trip to Oa seems to fly by at an alarming speed, as if the filmmakers are counting the special effects cost of every second of screen time (despite the film’s vast budget of $300 million). The Oa material is interesting, but Campbell gives us little time to soak it in; the film rushes through some nifty visuals and exposition and then shuttles Hal back to Earth for the rest of the film.

I don’t have a problem with the fact that Green Lantern spends a good bit of time setting up the details of how Hal was recruited as a member of the Green Lantern Corps, but I do have a problem with the fact that the film then proceeds to force Hal to have some sort of half-baked personal crisis in which he debates whether or not he wants the job. This material feels strikingly similar to the sort of thing Peter Parker went through in Spider-Man 2, but the key difference is that Spider-Man actually had a legitimate reason for his “maybe I should just quit” period. That Hal Jordan would quit over the smallest of problems seems a blatant contradiction to the notion that he’s an adventure-loving rogue. After a while one begins to feel that the whole enterprise ought to be titled Green Lantern: Whiny Space Cadet.

The film is lacking in wonder, yes, but it’s also lacking in energy. The lackluster romance between Hal and Carol tends to sap the film of its momentum; a problem exacerbated by the fact that Reynolds and Lively really don’t have much chemistry together. The writers also struggle in their attempts to inject some humor into the proceedings, giving Hal a series of Spider-Man-style quips which probably read better than they actually sound (Jerk: “Watch your back.” Hal: “That’s impossible.”). There’s very little that doesn’t feel like filler; even the massive battle with the evil space demon Parallax (voiced by Clancy Brown, Carnivale) feels like a half-hearted attempt at giving Hal something important to do while the groundwork is being laid for a sequel.

Still, Green Lantern isn’t quite a Catwoman or Jonah Hex-level disaster. In fact, the film is perfectly watchable, as Campbell and co. have done solid work on a technical level and there are a handful of smaller elements which add much-needed spice to the mix. Most valuable is Peter Sarsgaard’s (Orphan) offbeat turn as Hector Hammond; a nerdy scientist fueled by a compelling mix of buried rage, insecurity and nervous intelligence. Tim Robbins (The Shawshank Redemption) also seems to be enjoying himself as Hector’s fatuous U.S. Senator daddy. As I mentioned, the visit to Oa is entirely too brief, but the world itself is compelling and the characters there even moreso: the charming Tomar Re (voiced quite well by Geoffrey Rush, The King’s Speech), the gruff Kilowag (a thunderous Michael Clarke Duncan, The Green Mile) and the crisp, polished Sinestro (a nearly unrecognizable Mark Strong, Kick-Ass). There’s also a grin-inducing moment which pokes fun at the absurdity of supposedly identity-disguising superhero masks.

Closing Statement
There are promising ideas in Green Lantern, but this is a film which promises far more than it actually delivers. The idea of a sequel is kind of appealing, mostly because it feels like the writers were saving their best cards for later installments. However, I doubt most viewers are going to feel much enthusiasm for the franchise after sitting through this underwhelming origin story. Sadly, Green Lantern is one of this summer’s most disposable blockbusters.

The Verdict
5/10

Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides

OPENING: 05/20/2011

STUDIO: Disney Films

RUN TIME: 137 min

ACCOMPLICES:
Trailer, Official Site

The Charge
In the fourth Pirates opus, Jack’s back. But can this new story under a new helmer be as good as its predecessors?

Opening Statement
There are many people who love the initial entry of Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl, although seeing the awfulness that was The Country Bears and knowing that The Haunted Mansion was soon to follow, Pirates just seemed like a similar ploy for Disney to pillage their old tourist attractions and try to eke out a few doubloons. However, Pirates found a savior in Johnny Depp and his oddly mannered but oddly alluring Jack Sparrow. He is still the best reason to watch any of the three (now four) Pirates films. He has carved out for himself a place on the list of greatest characters ever committed to celluloid. The success of Pirates led to the inevitable sequels and the unavoidable franchise that developed. Most said the films that followed the first Pirates installment were unfocused and bloated, a CGI discordance. I however find their breadth and scope, the imagination and the gutsy-ness it took to bring these stories to the screen, both amazing and inspiring. The fourth film, Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides, is a worthy successor into the further adventures of Captain Jack Sparrow.

Facts of the Case
Jack finds himself crossing wits and swords with a lady from his past, the mysterious Angelica (Penelope Cruz). She takes him on board the Queen Anne’s Revenge, ship of the brutal and unjust pirate Blackbeard (Ian McShane) and becomes embroiled in a search for the Fountain of Youth. This is a race to see who gets there first. It is run between the Spaniards, Blackbeard’s crew and the indestructible Hector Barbosa (Geoffrey Rush) who is more concerned with revenge for his lost ship and his lost leg then after immortality. Along the way they must all contend with zombies, mermaids and all sorts of other devilry.

The Evidence
New to the series is director Rob Marshall, he of Nine, Memoirs of a Geisha and the Academy Award winning Chicago, taking over for Gore Verbinski, director of the first three Pirate films. He brings a new sensibility to this movie without taking anything away from what has been established before. As you can see from his filmography, Rob knows a thing or two about song and dance, and this plays into the newness he brings. On the previous iterations of Pirates, Jack got by and won battles on his wits, quick thinking and luck more then anything else. However, this time Rob choreographs the fight scenes like dance routines (Step-two-three-four, Stab-two-three-four) and as such Jack comes across as having somehow learned gymnastics and acrobatics and therefore having far more skill and grace then he’s ever shown before.

What Rob does not do away with, and that which I am glad he does not, is the brutality and the weight of the situations taking place. The Pirate films could have so easily become cartoon-like in their depictions of the life on the high seas, bloodless and play violence, especially under the guidance of the Disney machine. But Gore Verbinski did not shy away from showing a gutted old salt, a boy on the gallows or a sailor meeting his crushing demise under the tentacles of the Kraken and, thankfully, Mr. Marshall is not shy either. There is a scene near the end of the film where a whirlpool rips the flesh off a man’s bones. It brings with it the heft and punch it should…as well as a harkening back to a certain Last Crusade.

Rob brings along with him a couple of actresses he worked with on Nine; the first being Dame Judy Dench who makes a brief and comedic cameo as a society lady. The second is Penelope Cruz, teaming up with Depp for the first time since Blow, who I feel is miscast as the daughter of Blackbeard. She does not have the ruggedness of appearance or personality that we’ve seen in this series from other women of the sea, but instead has to try and balance a loyalty to her father that exposes her emotions with a hardness of heart towards all those she uses and manipulates. It is a disservice to both her as an actress and to the series. There is also a subplot that develops between a missionary and a mermaid (sounds like the beginning of a joke) that went on far too long and which also ended rather ambiguously for the poor missionary. I suppose the writers were trying desperately to fill the hole left by the expulsion of the Orlando Bloom and Keira Knightly storyline, but really, any time away from Jack and his crew was time ill spent.

Closing Statement
Those small defects aside, this movie will join its three brothers on my DVD shelf. I was shown breathtaking sights that I could never have envisioned on my own. The film took me on a journey, an adventure, from one end of the world to the other, though perils and wonders with people I enjoy spending time with. The story expanded my imagination and brought into new light things that I previously thought I had already known. I had fun, and cannot ask for anything more from a film. Savvy?

The Verdict

8/10

Source Code

OPENING: 04/01/2011

STUDIO: Summit Entertainment

RUN TIME: 93 min

ACCOMPLICES:
Trailer, Official Site

The Charge
Make every second count.

Opening Statement
Director Duncan Jones made a strong initial impression on audiences in 2009 with his intelligent, moving science fiction film Moon. Now he’s returned with Source Code, another sci-fi flick which proves that Jones is the real deal.

Facts of the Case
Our story centers on Captain Colter Stevens (Jake Gyllenhaal, Moonlight Mile), who finds himself in a puzzling situation. He is on a train, sitting next to a woman named Christina (Michelle Monaghan, Kiss Kiss Bang Bang) who seems to know him. The only puzzling thing is that she keeps calling him “Sean.” Stevens catches a glimpse of his reflection and is alarmed to discover that he looks like someone else. As Stevens is attempting to put the pieces together, a bomb goes off and the train explodes.

Stevens suddenly finds himself placed inside of a small capsule, where he is informed by a superior officer (Vera Farmiga, Up in the Air) via video screen that his job is to figure out who bombed the train and why. Using advanced “source code” technology (which permits a person to engage in a very limited variation on time travel, for lack of a simpler explanation), Stevens must travel back to the train and inhabit Sean’s body again and again until he solves the mystery of who bombed the train. He is only able to work within the same eight-minute window before the train explodes each time. Additionally, he’s working on a deadline: another, larger explosion is being planned and cannot be thwarted until Stevens is able to determine the identity of the bomber. Fortunately, Stevens is able to retain memories of each trip he takes, allowing him to put new pieces together with each journey into the past.

The Evidence
There were multiple moments in Source Code which caused me to breathe a sigh of relief. Not because the hero had just avoided some nasty accident, but because the screenplay had so deftly evaded some obvious pitfalls. There are numerous opportunities for the film to run off the rails in a bid for cheap thrills or emotional manipulation, but it stays true to its premise (slippery as the nature of that premise may be) and refuses to compromise itself at any point. What a nice surprise it is to find a movie which carefully considers the consequences of everything it does and refuses to insult our intelligence.

Of course, I don’t suppose it’ll be as much of a surprise to those who have seen the aforementioned Moon. While the science-fiction elements of Source Code are a bit more convoluted than those of that film, if you can accept the movie’s basic principles you’ll discover a film which provides terrific entertainment as a thriller and leaves you with some nifty notions to chew on as you leave the theatre.

The film begins as a lean thriller built on a gimmicky yet entertaining sci-fi premise, as Captain Stevens returns again and again to the doomed train attempting to find clues. But before long, his perspective begins to change and the scope of the film begins to widen. When he begins his investigation, Stevens regards the individuals on the train as some sort of computer program; simulated versions of real-life figures from the recent past. But as he spends more time around them, he can’t help but begin to feel they are real human beings. There is no scientific revelation which fuels this notion; just an emotional current generated by the fact that the passengers on the train appear to be real, living humans in every single way.

After a while, Stevens not only becomes obsessed with solving the mystery but with “saving” the passengers on the train, a notion that military scientist Dr. Rutledge (Jeffrey Wright, Casino Royale) finds entirely pointless. It would seem that Rutledge is correct from a scientific point-of-view–there is nothing that can be done to alter the past since what Stevens is engaging in is not actually time travel but rather a complex interactive experience based on recent events. Reality is one thing; what feels like reality is another.

I will not spoil what develops as the film progresses, but suffice it to say that the movie has a lot of tricks up its sleeve, none of which seem unreasonable or frustrating. With each new development comes a series of new ideas (scientific and ethical) to consider, and it’s terrific to observe the lovely, economical manner in which the film outlines and explores these notions. The film is no less complex than Christopher Nolan’s Inception, but the running time is considerably shorter because the film finds ways of getting things across without resorting to countless speeches about why things are happening the way they are happening.

In this case, it’s unlikely that many are going to complain that Source Code is confusing, simply because the film works just fine on a basic thriller level and only requires you to consider the larger ideas to the extent that you’re interested in them. That’s not a knock on Nolan’s excellent sci-fi outing, which offers a structure which is fascinating in its own right. However, Nolan’s film requires its characters to consider its ideas and explore them for the audience (thus emphasizing its complex nature), while Source Code frequently allows the audience to do that for themselves. While a couple of items seem a little wobbly under close inspection, for the most part attentive viewers will find themselves rewarded and stimulated by this film’s deceptively intricate design.

Gyllenhaal makes a sturdy lead, and proves more persuasive as the hero of a cerebral thriller like this than as the rough-and-tumble protagonist of Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time. Michelle Monaghan is warm and appealing as the woman Stevens begins to develop feelings for as the film progresses. She seems like the world’s kindest, most forgiving person until you recall that she cannot remember all of Stevens’ ungainly actions over the course of the film. Vera Farmiga essays another conflicted character to compelling, subtle effect as Stevens’ superior officer, and Jeffrey Wright is predictably terrific as a scientist who seems to veer between giddy and agitated from scene to scene.

Closing Statement
Go see this movie. Not only is Source Code an excellent film well worth your nine bucks; it’s the sort of film we’re seeing less and less of these days–an intelligent, mature thriller based on an original screenplay which offers an emphasis on ideas rather than explosions (though you get plenty of those, too). I can’t wait to see what Mr. Jones delivers next.

The Verdict
9/10

Sucker Punch

OPENING: 03/25/2011

STUDIO: Warner Bros. Pictures

RUN TIME: 110 min

ACCOMPLICES:
Trailer, Official Site

The Charge
You Will Be Unprepared

Opening Statement
I’m almost ashamed to admit that I liked Sucker Punch. All the reviews from “professional” critics suggest I should hate Zack Snyder’s latest slow-mo opus. And yet, by the time I left after the credits rolled and I regained the ability to move my eyes away from the screen, the only thought going through my head was: Boy, were they wrong!

Facts of the Case
A mental institution lends itself to Zack Snyder’s Sucker Punch, a film set within the structure of the mind, ala Inception, except without all the exposition. A tragic accident sends Baby Doll (Emily Browning) to a local insane asylum where a corrupt warden exploits the women for his own personal use. Devising a plan to escape, Baby Doll and the other inmates engage in a dangerous battle, utilizing their wits and imagination to conquer their fears, and escape from a lifetime of servitude.

The Evidence
I’m not sure if the above description does Zack Snyder’s Sucker Punch proper justice. This is the type of film that requires a second, maybe even third viewing in order to fully comprehend its vast scope. Is it complicated? Not really. Is it confusing? A bit. Is it fun? Hell yeah.

Snyder presents a dazzling, exciting, entirely computer-generated dream world that’s hard to resist. Planes circle blimps in a style reminiscent of World War I, humungous samurai warriors wield razor sharp katana blades amidst a snow covered dojo, dragons chase WWII bomber jets, and fat cooks defend their chocolate candy with razor sharp knives. Make no mistake, Sucker Punch is a video game come to life. No effort is made to conceal this fact; not even in the trailers, or countless promotional tie-ins. If you walked into Sucker Punch expecting something different, or more grounded in reality, then you’re an idiot.

So why did Punch bomb at the box office? I think the problem lies with the film’s failure to aim at any one particular demographic. Sucker Punch is too dark for youngsters, but not dark enough for the R-rated crowd (those expecting sex, bloody violence and grisly images); too geeky for girls, and too risqué for dates. Punch caters to movie geeks (like me), those who love CGI, and respect the slight nods to other motion pictures–Look! Lord of the Rings! Look! Seven Samurai! Look! Wings! This is visual pornography, replete with incredible fight sequences, nifty slow-mo shots, and a terrific soundtrack. If anything Sucker Punch deserves to be praised as the greatest music video of all time.

Yet, complaints from other critics are based on the film’s plot and characters, which they claim are not up to par with the film’s technical prowess. Okay. I’ll buy that. The characterization at times feels flat; the personas are shown by their names–Blondie, Baby Doll, Sweat Pea, Rocket–and wardrobe choices rather than by their actions or abilities. The story feels like one ripped off from a video game–the girls must collect four items (a lighter, a knife, a map, and a key) in order to escape the institution, while the dialogue does little but serve as a means to move the plot from point A to point B. (Granted, Snyder revealed that some 20-plus minutes of extra footage would find its way onto the Blu-ray, suggesting that most of the heavy characterization was excised in favor of spectacle.)

But what else did you expect?

Nothing in the ads promised anything otherwise, and yet critics walk out shaking their heads in disgust, surprised by the film’s overall execution.

Perhaps when not based on source material, people are unwilling to suspend belief. I didn’t find Sucker Punch more unbelievable, or lacking in characterization, than, say, Michael Bay’s Transformers, or Zack Snyder’s own 300, but those films were based on well-known properties, and have much higher critical scores as a result. Apparently it’s okay to adapt a video game or comic book for the big screen, so long as it comes patented first.

In Sucker Punch I found a thrilling, sometimes ponderous, splendidly shot action flick unlike anything I had previously seen. Like Watchmen, Snyder’s nifty comic book epic that ultimately crumbled under its own goofy significance, Sucker Punch refuses to play it straight. This isn’t Avatar, an otherwise stellar visual extravaganza that played to audience expectations when it came to character and story. No, this is dark, pulpy filmmaking, the kind typically reserved for Quentin Tarantino (eye popping visuals are to Snyder what dialogue is to Tarantino); the kind Tim Burton used to make. People punch, slice, shoot, and dance their way through situations; in Snyder’s world, violence is the only rational solution.

I liked Emily Browning’s sensuous Baby Doll, Vanessa Hudgeons’ rockin’ Blondie and Abbie Cornish’s Sweat Pea. Together, they made a slam-dunk trio. (Tellingly, after witnessing her performance in this film, Jenna Malone–who plays Rocket–has my vote to play Harley Quinn if they ever decide to include her character in the Batman films. She’s sexy, dangerous, and dangerously sexy.) Oscar Isaac, meanwhile, does an impeccable job playing the ruthless bastard who needs to die–quick. Scott Glenn was kinda random.

Sucker Punch caters to no one, but instead exists in a world of its own. All it asks, from the moment those curtains open to that somewhat diluted finale, is that we throw out convention and explore the realm of the imagination, and appreciate the film for what it is, instead of what it is not.

Personally, I think it’s the best film Snyder has offered so far–I can’t wait for Superman!

Closing Statement
Sucker Punch sees Zack Snyder doing what he does best–defying convention and delivering a bold, exciting, visually spectacular epic. Dont believe the haters, Sucker Punch is a damned good time.

The Verdict
8/10

Black Death

OPENING: 03/25/2011

STUDIO: Magnolia Pictures

RUN TIME: 97 min

ACCOMPLICES:
Trailer, Official Site

The Charge
Repent

Opening Statement
I’ve never been much of a horror film junkie–not because I don’t like the genre, but because I foolishly insist on holding it up to the same standards of quality as I do every other genre. As far as I’m concerned, the levels of gore and the creativity of the kills are almost entirely insignificant in contrast to the story, the acting, the overall craftsmanship, etc. That’s why I’m grateful for films like Black Death, a thoughtful and genuinely unnerving period piece which effectively explores still-relevant subjects.

Facts of the Case
Our story takes place in the Year of our Lord 1348, when the bubonic plague is sweeping across England for the first time. Many believe that the plague is some sort of punishment from God, though there is a great deal of debate as to who has offended God and how. Ulric (Sean Bean, Patriot Games), the Bishop’s envoy, believes he knows the answer. There is talk of a pagan village which somehow completely evaded the plague, and Ulric is persuaded that this village has caused God to bring down a curse upon the entire country.

Ulric recruits a young monk named Osmund (Eddie Redmayne, Elizabeth: The Golden Age) to lead his team to the village (Osmund is familiar with the area) and serve as a spiritual advisor of sorts to the men. Upon arrival, Ulric and his men discover that the village appears to be a charming, idyllic little society, causing some of the men to question their initial assumptions about this supposedly terrifying community. Even so, Ulric remains persuaded that there is deep evil lurking within this place.

The Evidence
Black Death begins on a note of grim despair and grows progressively gloomier from there. It becomes clear very quickly that this is a tale which will end in tragedy; the only question is just how large the scale of that tragedy will be. A cinematic depiction of the horrors of the bubonic plague is certainly a despondent subject in and of itself, but this is merely a backdrop to an unflinching examination of man’s inhumanity to man and the dark side of unwavering belief.

One of the most admirable traits of Black Death is the manner in which it refuses to adopt a holier-than-thou stance towards the individuals in the film. It’s easy to look back at the misguided brutality of the era and judge it as mindless evil, but this was an era in which science had explained very little about how the world works. There is genuine belief that if the correct supernatural forces are appeased in some way, the plague will simply vanish. There isn’t a medical cure, so surely there must be a spiritual one? These characters are ignorant, but not willfully so.

And yet, then as now, there are many who simply use religion as a means of excusing their own vices and small-minded belief systems. Ulric may be a True Believer who is deeply convinced that he is on a holy mission, but most of the men who have joined him simply have a taste for bloodshed and barbaric behavior. If engaging in such behavior counts as serving God, then hey, they’re on God’s side.

By now you may think you’ve figured out what kind of film this is. You may very well be wrong. This isn’t a film in which the evil, mindless Christians launch an assault upon the gentle, peaceful pagans in the name of heaven. What the Christians eventually discover in the pagan village is horrifying, partially because it’s so familiar: a dark mirror image of barbarism and poisonous dogma. Black Death is such an effectively bleak picture because it depicts a world in which any traces of goodness are quickly suffocated. It is a world in which Christianity, atheism and paganism are similarly incapable of bringing humanity to a good place, because the plague of humanity’s nastiest elements (fear, intolerance, bloodlust) have infected them all.

The film is well-directed by Christopher Smith (best-known for his witty horror flick Severence), who brings an unyielding sense of dread and a surprising artfulness to the proceedings. There were moments when the scenes of Ulric and his men on their long journey to the pagan village reminded me of Werner Herzog’s Aguirre, the Wrath of God, though in this instance the building madness meets them halfway. Interestingly enough, many of the most horrific scenes take place in broad daylight, which curiously works more effectively than a shroud of darkness would have.

The performances are effective, if a shade anachronistic at times. Young Eddie Redmayne is technically the lead, as he has the most screen time and has the most substantial character arc. He moves from clear-eyed curiosity to intense agony in expert fashion; forming the film’s flickering emotional core. Sean Bean achieves something tricky in his role, convincing us that there is some semblance of pure-hearted innocence in his violent character. He is so certain that he is doing the right thing; we almost pity him at times. The pagans are represented by the mysterious Carice van Houten (Black Book), who adds a potent undercurrent of menace to her surface-level Patricia Clarkson-ish charm.

Closing Statement
I suppose Black Death isn’t a horror film in typical sense–there aren’t many things jumping out of the shadows accompanied by loud musical stings–but its subject matter is undeniably horrific. Many things in the film are chilling, but perhaps none moreso than the creeping realization that we haven’t yet escaped the cold cycle of historical repetition. There’s no escaping the film’s power, either: once its bleak grip takes hold, you can’t look away.

The Verdict
9/10

Drive Angry 3D

OPENING: 02/25/2011

STUDIO: Summit

RUN TIME: 104 min

ACCOMPLICES:
Trailer, Official Site

The Charge
All hell breaks loose.

Opening Statement
While chatting with the WGA lady about my incorrectly cancelled insurance she says, “Drive Angry? Oh yeah! When does that open?” Sigh – Drive Angry 3D co-writer Todd Farmer, tweeting five days after his film’s release.

Facts of the Case
Milton (Nicolas Cage, Raising Arizona) is an ex-con out for revenge against the fanatical cult that killed his daughter and kidnapped his baby granddaughter. He has three days to locate the satanic gangsters before their leader, Jonah King (Billy Burke, Twilight), sacrifices her to the Devil himself. Along for the adventure is Piper (Amber Heard, And Soon The Darkness), a recently unemployed waitress whose Dodge Charger will get the gun toting grandpa where he needs to go. What nobody else knows is that Milton isn’t any ordinary ex-con– he’s escaped from Hell itself. Not only do Milton and Piper have to deal with the cops and cult on their tail, but a minion of Hell known only as The Accountant (William Fichtner, The Dark Knight).

The Evidence
I’ll admit it. I went to see Drive Angry 3D on a fluke, hoping, at best, the film would deliver cheesy thrills and wacky Nicolas Cage moments aplenty. I had to do a lot of soul searching before committing to even seeing the film in theaters as the whole 3D trend is growing tiresome and the trailers campaign made the film look like a cheese ball amalgamation of other long forgotten B-flicks. Begrudgingly, I decided to blindly embrace the flick assuming, at the very worst, the film’s potential for so-bad-it’s-greatness made it a fine enough curiosity piece.

Brothers and sisters of geek cinema, I was wrong. So very wrong. In a world of film nerds alienated by Hollywood’s fascist approach to 3D, Drive Angry 3D single handedly redeems the entire movement. Not only that, it is easily one of the most badass, unpretentious rides you’re likely to go on in 2011. The biggest crime is that by the time you’re reading this, Drive Angry will likely to have come and gone from your local Cineplex, spoiling your chances at seeing it in its intended form.

Regardless, the movie is fantastic in its own right. Not since Black Dynamite; has an exploitation throwback managed to succeed on so many levels. Screenwriter Todd Farmer and Drive Angry director/co-writer Patrick Lussier are well versed in genre cinema, combining Christian mythology with Southern fried action in a unique mash-up of Walking Tall, Race The Devil and The Terminator.

The beauty of Drive Angry is the sheer authenticity it captures in this mash up. Aside from a few flourishes of contemporary slang, the script feels ripped straight out of Roger Corman’s mid-70s screenplay shelf, only better. The heroes of Drive Angry are vulgar, violent, and insatiably horny. The villains are vile pieces of excrement intended to make you hiss and cheer (but only when they explode into three dimensional pieces of roadkill).

This attitude toward the material creates some memorable action set pieces, including a mid-intercourse shootout (with sustained Jack Daniels drinking throughout) and a disco-infused police road block pile-up. Despite a somewhat generic “Tell him I’m coming for revenge” flavored opening, the film ups its action ante with jaw dropping gusto, keeping audience giggling with glee one scene after the next. Lussier directs these scenes unflinchingly, imbuing old school clarity, and– thank God– never copping to “shaky cam” or similar modern action film gimmicks. Being a 3D film, Lussier often succumbs to bad CGI touch-ups for his climactic money shots, a decision easily forgiven as the effects are so obviously hokey that it’s hard not to feel the director winking at your from his seat in the editing bay. Whether this point comes across in home video remains to be seen, but on the big screen the message is crystal clear and the joke is always funny.

Keep in mind the film isn’t all one-liners, hot sex, exploding cars and zinging bullets. The glue that binds the chaos is the film’s cast. Nicolas Cage grounds the film in genuine pathos, downplaying Milton’s titular anger with a slow burn that recalls the anti-hero mannerisms of Clint Eastwood or Charles Bronson. Cage, a tried and true cinephile himself, hits the B-movie anti-hero tropes brilliantly, allowing the film itself to go over-the-top but never his performance as Milton. This is easily one of the best action roles of his career, a little quirky (his ongoing request for coffee is pure Nic Cage) but very badass.

Amber Heard’s Piper is an absolute firecracker. The daisy-duke clad dish is also a rough-and-tumble shitkicker that’s as fast to fight as she is to bed. While a definite sex pot, her relationship to Milton is mysteriously platonic throughout the film, leading the character’s evolution to a surprisingly heartfelt (if predictable) dénouement. Most refreshingly, Piper is a genuinely complex character, a rarity in horror and action films in general. She isn’t a Megan Fox type but more a Linda Hamilton. As it stands, Piper is the best action film sidekick/sex bomb to come along in a very long while.

While I can’t praise Cage and Heard enough, the film truly belongs to William Fichtner. The Accountant is a role that will be talked about in cult circles for years to come– funny, menacing, and completely unpredictable. He is the film’s wild card, a wise and morally astute Demi-God whose motivations constantly keep you guessing, despite an unwaveringly simple objective. From his opening narration to his final confrontation with Milton, Fichtner plays the character with an enthusiasm and relish that makes everything The Account says resonate on a number of levels, while feeling infinitely quotable.

Gushing aside, the flick has a few problems. Though he doesn’t turn in a bad performance, Billy Burke’s Jonah King is upstaged by Fichtner, Heard, and Cage in every scene. Yes, he oozes menace and evil, but Burke isn’t quite magnetic enough to believably pull off the role of a cult leader. This bit of miscasting makes him feel like merely a decent villain, certainly the second banana to Fichtner. Genre vets Tom Atkins (Night of the Creeps) and David Morse (16 Blocks) are wasted in thankless parts. Their presence is welcome and they give the characters a bit of weight and humor, but they both feel a bit stunt-casted. Finally, the film’s hyperactively violent and sexual tone could easily be construed as misogynistic. If you aren’t into exploitation films and don’t feel like overdosing on sex and bloodletting, Drive Angry isn’t for you.

Closing Statement
Disconcertingly, audiences seem to agree Drive Angry isn’t for them. The film clocked in at 9th place in its opening weekend, cementing a spot as one of the biggest bombs of Cage’s long and varied career. This is unfortunate given the sheer imagination and sense of fun that Drive Angry consistently carries. In a time when studio committee comic book adaptations and tepid CGI family films rule the roost; Lussier, Farmer, and co. appeal to story, spectacle, and originality with affection for their genre and product. Much like Grindhouse and any number of non-remake horror/action films, it seems Drive Angry just doesn’t have a wide enough audience. That’s okay; the quality of the film will cement a cult following that will likely reap strong profits on DVD and Blu-ray for years to come. Even without the 3D novelty, Drive Angry is a film whose vulgar, violent voice will not go unheard.

The Verdict
8/10

Rango

OPENING: 03/04/2011

STUDIO: Paramount Pictures

RUN TIME: 107 min

ACCOMPLICES:
Trailer, Official Site

The Charge
Johnny Depp is Rango

Opening Statement
After helming the first three installments of the wildly popular Pirates of the Caribbean franchise, Director Gore Vebinski tackles his first animated feature, bringing the voice talents of Pirates star Johnny Depp along with him. The result is a fun, frisky, visually inventive film that manages to avoid the usual animation-flick conventions.

Facts of the Case
Our hero is a lizard (Johnny Depp, From Hell) named… well, we’re not exactly sure what his name is. But he’s a lizard, he lives in a glass tank and he spends his days participating in some sort of paranoid-schizophrenic community theatre with a variety of inanimate objects. One day, the lizard is flung from his tank into the middle of a dusty road. Suddenly, he finds himself alone in an unfamiliar world. With the aid of an armadillo (Alfred Molina, Spider-Man 2) and a terse female lizard named Beans (Isla Fisher, Wedding Crashers), our protagonist finally makes it to the little town of Dirt.

Because no one in Dirt knows the lizard, the little green guy decides to create a new identity for himself. From now on, he will be known as Rango, the roughest, toughest gunslinger in the west. Alas, with such claims inevitably come fights with bad guys. Despite the fact that he’s in way over his head, Rango is determined to tackle his new challenge. Not only will he take on the bad guys; he’ll work to figure out why Dirt’s precious water supply has disappeared.

The Evidence
I really dig Rango, but I’m not sure that you will. Permit me to explain myself. I enjoyed Gore Verbinski’s first Pirates of the Caribbean installment, but I think that series got better in its second and third installments. That’s largely because Verbinski grew less interested in plotting and more interested in exploring his flights of loopy imagination. The third film’s trippy “Multiple Jacks” sequence was a high point of the series for me, but others found it an incredibly irritating bit of self-indulgence. Your feelings towards that sequence may very well inform your feelings towards Rango, which basically picks up where the “Multiple Jacks” sequence left off.

What a weird little movie this is. The plot is simple – too simple, it could be argued – an easily digestible variation on Chinatown with a tortoise played by Ned Beatty replacing John Huston’s Noah Cross. The plot only exists to set up Verbinski’s exercises in visual lunacy, as the director starts with a foundation built by Sergio Leone and goes haywire from there. In one sequence, Verbinski incorporates elements of both Apocalypse Now and 2001: A Space Odyssey in a large-scale action set piece involving a character in drag battling a horde of angry moles riding bats.

If that sounds tedious on paper, be assured that it’s thrilling in execution. The countless movie references present in Rango aren’t wearisome attempts at injecting some pop culture pizzazz into the proceedings (I’m looking at you, Shark Tale). This is a movie madly in love with movies, and it references old Clint Eastwood flicks not to be cute but rather in an attempt to create an experience that generates a similar spine-tingling kick. Rango’s love of cinema extends even further – it could be argued that the film is one which takes place entirely in the head of a movie junkie; a world filled with residents who worship a great movie star. No, really.

The film is largely a fast-paced experience, filled with busy action scenes and lots of physical comedy, but it does have a few serene moments of quiet beauty. While I really appreciated the understated moments, the busy scenes certainly have plenty of fun stuff to offer. While action scenes often feel obligatory in children’s movies, Verbinski loads this movie with so many visual treats that we’re never bored. The film also demonstrates an eagerness to entertain that’s reminiscent of Mel Brooks at times; throwing up one quick joke after another. Some are corny and some are groan-worthy, but they’re delivered so cheerfully and in such quick succession that you’re bound to start giggling after a while.

The voice work is uniformly solid, with Depp in an enjoyably manic turn that veers between Kermit the Frog-style yelps and lusty, deep-throated growls. Old pros like Alfred Molina, Ned Beatty, Bill Nighy, Harry Dean Stanton, Ray Winstone and Stephen Root bring color and gravitas to the gruff supporting cast, while Isla Fisher and Abigail Breslin bring youthful energy to the film’s principle female characters. The character design is absolutely terrific throughout, as the filmmakers seem less interested in creating plastic toys for happy meals than in designing grizzled beasts you can’t take your eyes off of. The cast isn’t very cuddly, but then that’s the case in most westerns.

Most animated flicks these days attempt to offer entertainment for viewers of all ages, but Rango is one of the few likely to play better for adults that it will for children. Young kids will appreciate the film’s energy, but it’s doubtful they’ll grasp its often-subversive wit. Parents may want to take the “Parental Guidance” rating a bit more seriously this time around, as the film features a greater level of innuendo, macabre humor and violence than the majority of animated films (characters are actually killed from time to time). The kids at my screening certainly enjoyed it, even if they did leave the screening quoting lines like, “Can I gut-shoot somebody?”

Closing Statement
While Rango does offer a simple and predictable plot, almost everything else about the movie feels fresh and offbeat. Whether or not you have kids to bring along, this one is well worth checking out.

The Verdict
9/10