Movie Review: Angels & Demons (2009)

Directed By: Ron Howard

Starring:
Tom Hanks as Robert Langdon
Ewan McGregor as the Camerlengo
Ayelet Zurer as Vittoria Vetra

Angels & Demons exists in a world where the word “implausible” has no meaning, but, because it never pretends to be realistic, we don’t really mind. Soaring along at a breakneck pace that should make The Da Vinci Code envious, it tells a compelling story in an equally compelling way. Based on Dan Brown’s prequel to his aforementioned controversial bestseller, Angels & Demons has been changed ever so slightly so that it is a sequel taking place an undisclosed amount of time after Harvard symbologist, Robert Langdon (Hanks), exposed the greatest cover-up in human history. Now, the Catholic Church has summoned Langdon to Vatican City to investigate the possible resurgence of one of the Church’s greatest rivals, the Illuminati. The Illuminati had once been a group of scientists that, after being brutally persecuted by the Church, began to meet in secret and swore vengeance for their unjust punishment. Now, just days after the Pope died of a supposed stroke, the Church’s violent past has come back to haunt them.

Langdon arrives to find that the four cardinals favored to be the next Pope have all been kidnapped and that a highly-volatile substance called antimatter has been stolen from CERN (the European Organization for Nuclear Research). A threat, credited to the Illuminati, promises to kill the four cardinals every hour leading up to midnight, at which time the battery on the antimatter canister will die and all of Vatican City will be destroyed. A scientist from CERN, Vittoria Vetra (Zurer), has also been called and she quickly explains that, when antimatter and matter come into contact, they react violently. She will need five minutes after finding the bomb to change the battery. But, where is it? Live video footage of its dying battery meter has been streamed directly to the Swiss Guard’s computer, but that only means that it can be anywhere in the Vatican--a big enough place to make a search impossible.

You may be feeling overwhelmed already; what’s more is that all of this material is presented within the first thirty minutes of the movie. The rest follows Langdon and Vittoria as they desperately search for clues and markers that will lead them to the next Cardinal’s location and eventually to the antimatter. Now, call me skeptical, but I did have a problem believing that Robert Langdon was capable of solving all of these mysteries in a matter of hours; the film, ultimately, depends on his success. If he misses a marker or misreads a clue, then it’s all over. Quite quickly, we begin to worry that the film is exploiting not his intelligence, but his luck. When every scene is dependent on him somehow making a truly miraculous discovery, a certain amount of intrigue is lost. Instead, Ron Howard chooses to build suspense with his visual style and, while it does indeed work, it lacks some of the power that permeated Dan Brown’s novel.

Angels & Demons does not have the controversial plot that made The Da Vinci Code such a huge success, but it was a far better book that translates into a better movie. Beautifully-filmed and lacking that god-awful Tom Hanks hairdo, it repairs many of the problems that plagued Ron Howard’s first attempt at bringing a Dan Brown novel to life, while creating a few of its own. With a more adventurous story comes a natural, but unfortunate progression into implausible (and, occasionally, downright unbelievable) territory. It becomes increasingly difficult to ignore some of the film’s sillier action set pieces, but, if you can put that aside, Angels & Demons is an impressive, entertaining, and often intelligent film. Based on a novel that I found to be captivating and thoroughly engaging, the film does a surprisingly effective job at translating its source material to the big screen. I suppose the biggest compliment that I can afford to this movie, the third big action movie of the summer, is that it made me feel as though I was reading the book all over again.

News: This Week's Special Reviews

Due to the limited nature of the following films, I was unable to review them prior to this week's deadline and will probably be unable to review them within the next few weeks. Therefore, they will be covered at a later date in the form of Special Reviews. These reviews will arrive, at the latest, when the films are released on DVD and Blu-ray. I apologize for any inconvenience and hope to have these films reviewed at the earliest possible oppurtunity.

Movie Review: Star Trek (2009)

Directed By: J.J. Abrams

Starring:
Chris Pine as James T. Kirk
Zachary Quinto as Spock
Eric Bana as Nero

After X-Men Origins: Wolverine failed to live up to my expectations, I feared the worst from this year’s summer movie season. Right out of the gate, we had already stumbled and the threat of completely falling out was imminent…until now. Star Trek, a prequel that is everything a good prequel should be, is a near perfect mix of the traditional Trek charm and modern filmmaking techniques. Sporting brilliant special effects that never overshadow its characters or its plot, Star Trek does something that is very difficult to do: it has given us everything that we crave from a summer blockbuster, but it also has a knack for telling a truly compelling story. In addition, it manages a second miracle that was highly unexpected: it makes the Star Trek franchise cool again, without isolating the core fan base. For the first time in years (or perhaps ever), Trekkies dressed as Klingons and general audiences can sit together and enjoy the same film that goes where no man has gone before.

The film begins with the birth of James T. Kirk (to be played as an adult by Pine); his father (Chris Hemsworth) is killed while saving eight-hundred people, including Kirk’s mother (Jennifer Morrison) and Kirk himself. That is a rather large legacy to live up too…and, when we meet him as an adult, he isn’t even trying. He scoffs at the memory of his father, spends his time trying to pick up women at bars, and gets in brawls with people that are bigger (and stronger) than him. A chance encounter with Captain Christopher Pike (Bruce Greenwood), however, convinces Kirk to follow in his father’s footsteps and join Starfleet. Early on, he forms a volatile relationship with Spock (Quinto), who believes that Kirk is reckless and irresponsible. However, the two must transcend their differences and unite if they hope to take command of the U.S.S. Enterprise and protect planet Earth from the ruthless Captain Nero (Bana) and his army of Romulan warriors.

With the war against Nero as the driving force, Star Trek is free to explore the unlikely friendship that we know is to be formed between Kirk and Spock. As two men touched by incredible tragedy, they have a compelling bond that neither of them can deny. If there was a recurring complaint that I had with the original films, it would be that they often felt emotionless and robotic. Not only has J.J. Abrams injected the film with a more eclectic visual style, screenwriters Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman have established characters and relationships that are realistic and vibrant. This, I believe, is the key to making Star Trek appeal to the masses. If there are any audiences members that do not enjoy watching grand-scale spaceship battles or swordfights on a giant laser drill, they will surely enjoy the unexpected romance between Spock and Uhura (Zoe Saldana), the beginning of the long-lasting feud between Spock and Leonard ‘Bones’ McCoy (Karl Urban), and many more character-driven subplots.

It is easy to lavish praise on a film like Star Trek, especially when it is released only one week after a film like X-Men Origins: Wolverine. Whereas Wolverine tried to skate by with the smallest amount of effort possible, Star Trek constantly seeks to push the boundaries of action, special effects, and storytelling. Though both films are prequels, Star Trek tells its own intriguing and distinctive story, rather than merely riding on the coattails of its predecessors. With numerous nods to the original films, it pays homage to many of the beloved Star Trek adventures, namely the cinematic Star Trek II: The Wrath of Kahn. Additionally, it remains firmly rooted in the Trek timeline so Trekkies will have no reason to reach for their pitchforks…ahem, phasers set to stun. Star Trek is what the summer movie season should be all about. Exhilarating action and beautiful special effects abound, but the story is so good that we are more absorbed in it than we are in any of the strictly visual stimulation.

Movie Review: Next Day Air (2009)

Directed By: Benny Boom

Starring:
Donald Faison as Leo
Mike Epps as Brody
Cisco Reyes as Jesus

Next Day Air is a reprehensible film, but it’s a funny one. All of its characters are one of the following: a moron, a drug dealer, or a drug dealer that is a moron. Seriously, look at this lot of people. We have the delivery man, Leo (Faison), who delivers a package to the wrong address because he was high at the time. Then, there is Jesus (Reyes) who was waiting on the package at the right address, because it contained ten bricks of cocaine belonging to his brutal boss (Emilio Rivera). Finally, we have a trio of screwball bank robbers who receive the package that they were not expecting and open it without checking the address first. These three are Brody, Guch, and Shavoo (Epps, Wood Harris, and Omari Hardwick, respectively). When they realize what is in the package, they decide to sell it for some easy money. Even crack addicts know that selling that much stolen cocaine is not that simple.

The film, running at a slim yet appropriate runtime, is all about how these people collide in a tiny apartment complex at the end of the movie. Bullets fly, people die, and everything gets bloody very quickly. It makes you wonder how the MPAA felt that pervasive language was somehow more offensive than the violence. Apparently, it is okay for a person to get riddled with bullets, as long as they don’t say the long-feared f-word in the process. And, certainly, there are more forbidden four-letter words than there are gunshots. The dialog, though lacking a sense of smoothness, is, dare I say, charming in a weird way. It is quick-witted, snappy, and almost always funny. First-time screenwriter Blair Cobbs really doesn’t have an interesting story to tell and all of his characters are pretty bad people, so it is a testament to his ability to craft engaging dialog, and probably even more so to the talented cast delivering it, that I gave an f-word about any of it.

It’s too bad really that the overall film isn’t better than it is, because there is a lot of talent coming from every aspect of the filmmaking process. The cast, especially relative newcomers Cisco Reyes and Yasmin Deliz as the bickering yet loving Latino couple, are surprisingly impressive in the deplorable roles provided to them. I only really cared about what happened to the characters played by the aforementioned Reyes and Deliz, but I certainly did not mind watching the rest of them fumble around, proving if nothing else that drugs really do kill brain cells. Director Benny Boom and cinematographer David A. Armstrong also bring an undeniably unique visual style to the film that I must admit pleasantly surprised me. Unfortunately, the overall end product is less than the sum of its parts because the story is really quite dull and uneventful. Propelled by the stupidity of its principle characters, it fails to engage us and we cannot help but feel like we are just being dragged along for the ride.

Ultimately, Next Day Air features the establishment of a plot and then the progression of that plot until nearly everyone is dead. Because there is no hero or villain and the plot is merely a predicament rather than a story, that is how we know the film must end. After all, which of these characters deserves to walk off into the sunset in one of those obligatory cheesy happy ending? How the conclusion arrives is based on what I imagine was a game of chance, no doubt, with all of the characters on a dartboard and a desperate screenwriter tossing ten or so darts to decide which ones would live and which ones would die. It is the presence of such randomness that hurts Next Day Air so profoundly, despite its impressive technical approach. Because any ending is possible and we have no reason to side with anyone, does any of it really matter?

Movie Review: S. Darko (2009)

Directed By: Chris Fisher

Starring:
Daveigh Chase as Sam
Briana Evigan as Corey
James Lafferty as Iraq Jack

There are three types of people in the world. The first are those who have never heard of Donnie Darko and will probably never hear about this movie; no doubt, if you are one of those people, you are not reading this review now. The second are those who have seen Donnie Darko and believed that this film, a straight-to-video sequel from director Chris Fisher, would be blasphemous garbage. These people, having refused to see the film, probably saw my star rating and have stopped reading altogether. Now, it’s just the rest of us. You are a person that, most likely, knows about Donnie Darko and, whether you liked it or not, still have an open mind about S. Darko. I fall into that same category. Richard Kelly’s mind-bending, time-altering cult classic was (and still is) a daring and ambitious film that warranted no sequel. Alas, here we are and a sequel has been made. This time, it tells the story of Sam Darko (Chase), Donnie’s youngest sister.

The logic behind this film is warped more profusely than the logic of its predecessor, due primarily to the fact that screenwriter Nathan Atkins is trying to confuse his audience. Whereas Richard Kelly’s vision confused because of its skillful complexities, S. Darko does so because of a faulty script. Occurring seven years after her brother Donnie was killed when a jet engine crashed into his bedroom, the film picks back up with the titular character of Sam. She has fled from her troubled home with her best friend, Corey (Evigan), for a cross country road trip that takes them to the miniscule town of Conejo Springs. This place is a breeding ground of whackos and psychos and perhaps it has just gotten two more. The seemingly craziest of all, however, is Iraq Jack (Lafferty), a troubled veteran who has been having mysterious visions that foretell the coming apocalypse. Soon, Sam begins to have visions that are equally-troubling.

That is really as much as I can disclose about the plot, for two reasons. The first is because it is my policy to do my absolute best to not spoil any film, regardless of my opinion about it. The second is because I simply did not understand any of the material that would not be considered a spoiler. To fumble through a more extensive plot explanation would be giving the film more thought than the creative minds behind it did. What I can tell you is that, while Donnie Darko dealt primarily with the so-called living receiver, S. Darko focuses more on the manipulated dead. For those of you that have no idea what these terms mean, S. Darko is likely to have no effect on you, not even eliciting the enjoyment that comes from recognizing connections to the previous film. Stop reading, watch Donnie Darko again, and return here. For those of you that do know what I am talking about, let’s continue.

There were a lot of directions that, if taken, would have made S. Darko a far more intriguing film. Acting as essentially a remake viewed from a different perspective, it is indeed well-made, beautifully-shot, and well-acted. It has a handful of unique themes that it attempts to present, but ultimately they serve no purpose. In the end, the success or failure of S. Darko depends on your enjoyment of its interpretation of the world created in Donnie Darko. The reason that I believe only knowledgeable fans of Richard Kelly’s film should even attempt to watch this one is because you owe it to yourself to have a reaction to every film you watch. Love it or hate it, any kind of response is better than none at all. For those who understand the logic behind S. Darko, you have prepared yourself to either like it or dislike it. For those who have either never seen its predecessor or failed to understand it well enough, it will be impossible to have a solid response. Did I like it? Yes, but it hardly matters. When it comes to these two films, all that matters is what you believe.

Movie Review: The Grudge 3 (2009)

Directed By: Toby Wilkins

Starring:
Johanna Braddy as Lisa
Emi Ikehata as Naoko
Gil McKinney as Max

The problem with The Grudge 3 is the same problem that plagues most third installments in popular franchises. By the time they are released, audiences have already seen everything that the series has to offer. Even more problematic for this straight-to-video entry is the fact that The Grudge 2 was already stretching the material fairly thin; director Toby Wilkins and screenwriter Brad Keene have absolutely nowhere new to take this story and, quite frankly, the ghosts that were once so frightening are dull retreads. Kayako (now played by Aiko Horiuchi) still walks around like every bone in her body, except for her ankles, is broken. Toshio (now played by Shimba Tsuchiya) still crouches in hallways and meows like his dead cat. It is simply impossible to be scared by this pair anymore and, unfortunately, Keene’s script is so formulaic and uninspired that the entire fate of the film rests on its ability to terrify. Needless to say, it does not succeed.

Borrowing all of its presented themes from either The Grudge or The Grudge 2, the film relies solely on material that we have already seen before and that was far better constructed the first time around. It proudly stands as the first film in the American franchise to be rated R and yet, though it does spill more blood than the first two entries combined, they were far more frightening and disturbing. The Grudge 3 is certainly more violent, but that violence is so poorly-executed that it almost always seems silly and awkward. Take for example the opening scene, in which the only survivor from The Grudge 2, Jake (Matthew Knight), is hurled around a room until all of his bones are broken. His doctor, Sullivan (Shawnee Smith), finds his mangled body on the blood-splattered floor. Under the vision of Takashi Shimizu, this would have been a horrific scene. However, due to a flawed approach, Jake looks like a ragdoll and the scene only manages to elicit a few minor chuckles rather than the necessary chills.

After the death of Jake, we are introduced to a slew of characters, most of which are included only to be killed off as quickly as possible. Sadly, genre veteran Shawnee Smith is one of these hapless side characters. Obviously included only to convince hardened horror fans that this is a serious movie, Smith is entirely wasted in a miniscule and underdeveloped role. Instead, the film focuses on four other characters, all played by relative newcomers. Three of these are siblings: Max (McKinney), Lisa (Braddy), and Rose (Jadie Hobson). Max runs the Chicago apartment complex that became home to the vengeful spirits in the last film, and he lives there with his two sisters. The fourth and most interesting character is Naoko (Ikehata), Kayako’s sister and the only person alive capable of stopping the curse. She arrives in Chicago, hoping to help those plagued by her sister’s ghost. Yet again, people begin to die, just as Max, a once loving brother, becomes increasingly hot-tempered and violent.

If Ju-On: The Grudge was like a classic rock song originated by your favorite band and The Grudge was like an excellent cover of that song performed by a talented new group. Then, The Grudge 2 was like hearing a decent rendition of it sung by a slightly intoxicated wedding singer and The Grudge 3 is, well, like listening to a severely scratched CD of that wedding singer. There are moments when it sounds okay, but it is mostly just static that skips every few seconds. That is exactly what The Grudge 3 is like. You can tell what the filmmakers wanted it to be, can see the mistakes that they made, and yet the film is far more flawed than merely the problems of this production. Certainly, the acting is hokey, the ghosts look goofy, and the story is quite dull, but the film becomes even worse when you take into account its predecessors. It steals too much from The Grudge and especially from The Grudge 2, making us wish that we were watching those films rather than watching this infinitely inferior one.

News: This Week's Special Reviews

Due to the limited nature of the following films, I was unable to review them prior to this week's deadline and will probably be unable to review them within the next few weeks. Therefore, they will be covered at a later date in the form of Special Reviews. These reviews will arrive, at the latest, when the films are released on DVD and Blu-ray. I apologize for any inconvenience and hope to have these films reviewed at the earliest possible oppurtunity.

Movie Review: X-Men Origins: Wolverine (2009)

Directed By: Gavin Hood

Starring:
Hugh Jackman as Logan/Wolverine
Liev Schreiber as Victor/Sabretooth
Danny Huston as William Stryker

With the premiere of X-Men Origins: Wolverine comes the beginning of the highly-anticipated summer movie season, the time of year where explosions and car chases fill every theater across the country. The box-office is almost always high…but, in the case of this film, the quality is not. The fourth installment in the popular X-Men franchise and the first prequel is a mixed bag of solid performances, faulty special effects, nicely-choreographed fight sequences, and an undeniably hokey plot. In other words, every time I found something that I enjoyed, I found something that I disliked just as much. Compared to Bryan Singer’s masterful visions of the legendary comic book series and even to Brett Ratner’s less impressive attempt, X-Men Origins: Wolverine seems pedestrian and quite unnecessary. Though it certainly is an entertaining action movie, it fails to tell its own unique story, instead choosing to act almost solely as a set-up to the films we have already seen.

Taking place some time before the events portrayed in X-Men, the film details the life of James Logan, better known as the titular Wolverine (Jackman). We learn very early on that he is completely invincible and that those shiny metal blades that slice out of his knuckles were once made out of what appears to be bone. Piecing together what we already know about the character, we can see from the beginning exactly where this film is going. Eventually, his skeleton (and, yes, the blades) will be covered in an indestructible metal alloy called Adamantium and his memory will be wiped clean. We know this because this material has already been covered before. The question posed by this origin story is this: how did these events come to occur? The film tells of his ill-fated love with the beguiling Kayla (Lynn Collins), his tumultuous relationship with his brother Victor (Schreiber), and the beginning of his long-lasting war with the vile William Stryker (Huston).

Screenwriters David Benioff and Skip Woods encounter their first pitfall simply by making Victor and Stryker such important characters. Knowing that Victor will eventually become Sabretooth in X-Men and that Stryker will return in X2: X-Men United, we also know that neither of them can be defeated and that they will both somehow escape Wolverine’s vengeance. Another enemy, the long-awaited Deadpool (Ryan Reynolds), is introduced in a role that amounts to little more than a cameo. It’s especially unfortunate because, had the screenwriters focused more on this character as the primary adversary, I believe that it would have been easier to overlook the noticeably flawed technological side of this occasionally silly-looking film. X-Men Origins: Wolverine is proof that, though a film has a $150 million budget, it still can occasionally look like it belongs on the Sci-Fi Channel. Its computer effects especially pale in comparison to those presented in the previous films

Am I being excessively hard on X-Men Origins: Wolverine? Sure I am--when a film has such a huge budget, features a truly talented cast, and is the prequel to a remarkable trilogy, it is difficult to not expect something more than what is offered here. For full disclosure, I must say that I enjoyed myself on a very basic level. After all, the computer effects aside, Gavin Hood is very good at crafting nearly wall-to-wall action set pieces that are masterfully-constructed and undeniably exciting. In addition, numerous nods to the previous films and intriguing revelations about the character of Wolverine did keep me interested for much of the duration. Still, audiences deserve better…in fact, the franchise itself deserved better. The compelling political overtones and the captivating relationships that propelled the original trilogy are often replaced with even more explosive action and dialog that always sounds as though it was meant to be a sound byte in the movie trailer. It’s unfortunate because, though the film isn’t bad, it could have been so much more.

Movie Review: Ghosts of Girlfriends Past (2009)

Directed By: Mark Waters

Starring:
Matthew McConaughey as Connor
Jennifer Garner as Jenny
Michael Douglas as Uncle Wayne

Matthew McConaughey has become the unofficial crown prince of the romantic comedy. This is because nearly every woman in the world fantasizes about him falling in love with her…but will these same women enjoy him in the role of Connor Mead, a complete and undeniable douche bag whose moral compass is not just skewed, but practically nonexistent? He arrives at his brother’s wedding and, on the first day alone, advises his brother not to get married, insults the bride’s father, hits on the bride’s mother, and reveals that his brother had sex with one of the bridesmaids a few years ago. The bridesmaid in question is not Jenny Perotti (Garner) who was Connor’s long-time friend and love interest, until they slept together and Connor ran away at the thought of spooning. The girl in question was another bridesmaid and, of course, Connor bedded her as well. I know what you’re thinking and yes, he is one of those guys. He breaks up with his girlfriends in bulk using conference calls, proudly proclaims that love does not exist, and thinks that the institution of marriage is phony. That’s okay, I guess, until you make a speech about it…at a wedding.

Inspired by Charles Dickens’s A Christmas Carol, the film follows Connor over the course of one very strange, but hopefully life-changing night. The ghost of his long dead uncle, Wayne (Douglas), arrives and, like Jacob Marley before him, informs Connor that he will be visited by three ghosts: the Ghost of Girlfriends Past (Emma Stone, in a delightfully colorful role), the Ghost of Girlfriends Present (Noureen DeWulf), and the Ghost of Girlfriends Future (Olga Maliouk). Strictly-enforced formulas tells us what is going to happen next, both the formula created by Dickens in 1843 (which, with just a few tweaks, still holds up well) and the formula created by every other romantic comedy ever made. But, it is the combining of these two formulas that, against all odds, makes Ghosts of Girlfriends Past work. Certainly, you have seen everything that is presented here countless times before…but not executed in a way quite like this.

To say that the chemistry between stars Matthew McConaughey and Jennifer Garner stole the show would be a gross understatement. Both are talented actors, but they work off of each other in a truly genuine way. The dialog they exchange is clever and appropriately snarky, with Garner getting the majority of the truly biting remarks. This is lessened by the all-too-convenient ending that does ultimately betray the intelligence of poor Jenny Perotti, who finds herself falling for Connor’s charms yet again far too quickly…even if he was visited by three ghosts. However, a strong supporting cast, including Michael Douglas like you have never seen before and Emma Stone in one of the film’s most memorable roles, provides support whenever the film’s cliché-heavy script threatens to tear it down. The overshadowed Lacey Chabert, however, is one of the supporting cast’s strongest members, playing a neurotic egghead to near perfection. Chabert is a delightful young actress who could, if she makes smarter decisions than she has in the past, create a healthy and abundant career for herself.

If you would have told me just last week that I would be recommending Ghosts of Girlfriends Past over the latest X-Men adventure, I would have probably laughed nervously and then checked your medication. Alas, movies can certainly contain a few unexpected surprises and this undeniably fun romantic comedy is one of them. Using two distinct formulas that we have seen before (and will, no doubt, see again), it combines them in a surprisingly fresh and entertaining way. You will know exactly how the movie is going to end, but who cares? Women would have lodged internet protests had the film ventured too drastically from the familiar path. It is all about enjoying the journey and having fun along the way. And, you know what? I enjoyed the movie and I had fun almost the whole way through. Is it clichéd? Of course it is. Is it formulaic? You better believe it. But, is it good? Well, yes…yes it is.

Movie Review: Battle for Terra (2009)

Directed By: Aristomenis Tsirbas

Starring:
Evan Rachel Wood as Mala
Luke Wilson as Jim Stanton
Brian Cox as General Hemmer

Battle for Terra is the latest film to cash in on the Real-D 3-D craze. Leaving the era of blue and red paper glasses far behind, it is a fairly good example of why I enjoy films that explore all three dimensions rather than just two. If done properly, the effects can immerse you into a movie and bring a whole new world to life. For this film, that world is Terra, the only planet left in the universe that can sustain human life. Because we destroyed not just Earth, but also Mars and Venus, humans have now arrived to claim Terra for their new home. But, the peaceful Terrians refuse to surrender their planet without a fight. Who can blame them? They are a friendly species who enjoy art and music and celebrate life whenever they get a chance. They are a stark comparison to the humans presented here, most of whom seem directly lifted from the Bush administration.

The humans, led by the treacherous General Hemmer (voiced by Cox), arrive on a space ship called the Ark and deploy T-shaped fighter ships that suck up the horrified Terrians for research. There is great irony in the idea of humans invading an alien planet; usually, we see things the other way around. It is this compelling approach that really kept me invested in the film. Unfortunately, the film’s execution is not nearly as intriguing and is surprisingly flawed from the very beginning. A cautionary tale about our abuse of the world, Battle for Terra is so blunt with its message that we often feel as though we are being bashed over the head rather than watching a film with a moral message. Obviously, its warning should be heard and a film like this one could have been a powerful tool for motivating the next generation to stop making the same mistakes that we have made. But, the filmmakers fail to understand that subtlety is key when making a film like this. Rather, they craft a robot that, not only explains how irresponsible the humans were, but also features video evidence.

Still, the ineffective use of its moral is overshadowed by a rather disjointed and occasionally dull narrative structure. The film establishes its plot within the first fifteen minutes and then the rest of the film is a cycle of set-up, action scene, set-up, action scene, and so on and so forth. Many of these beautifully-filmed, but nonetheless hollow scenes only serve to display the use of 3-D technology, a fact that becomes bothersome when they begin to take up much of the film’s already slim runtime. We crave more of the characters, especially of our heroine, the fearless Terrian named Mala (voiced by Wood), and the human who inadvertently becomes her friend, Jim Stanton (voiced by Wilson). Alas, much of what we desire will not come to fruition; Battle for Terra is too busy rushing off to its next high-flying space fight and it has a tendency to drag its characters along for mere plot explanation.

Of course, to criticize the film for this and to not provide some form of disclosure would be hypocritical of me. Honestly, Battle for Terra marketed itself as a space war; the title is straight-forward and the trailer is not misleading. If you were intrigued by its marketing, then it is fair to say that you will probably enjoy the film as well. And, I did, but, like this week’s ­X-Men Origins: Wolverine, I could not help but feel as though there was so much material left unexplored. Both films are good enough, but neither is as good as it should be. Battle for Terra is perhaps the better of the two, but only because it manages to engulf us in a creative and beautiful world that is surprisingly exhilarating to see in 3-D. The film is technically delightful and features a cast that is perhaps more impressive than that of any other film scheduled for release this summer. Children will probably enjoy it…but, more important than that, Battle for Terra, despite its many flaws, deserves that enjoyment because of its sheer technical prowess and its compelling story.

News: This Week's Special Reviews

Due to the limited nature of the following films, I was unable to review them prior to this week's deadline and will probably be unable to review them within the next few weeks. Therefore, they will be covered at a later date in the form of Special Reviews. These reviews will arrive, at the latest, when the films are released on DVD and Blu-ray. I apologize for any inconvenience and hope to have these films reviewed at the earliest possible oppurtunity.

News: Even Better Than Coppertone

We have all been there. You see a trailer, tell a few friends, and, before you know it, you are in line paying ten dollars for a ticket and another twenty for a medium coke, a large popcorn, and a box of Goobers. Two hours later, the coke is gone, the popcorn bucket is empty, the Goobers have melted, and you are wondering how anyone could derive such a delightful trailer from such an awful movie. You have just been burned by yet another bad movie! This is where my blog begins. Think of it as sunscreen when you are going to the beach. SPF Eighty Five provides you with essential protection from bad movies in the form of honest and accurate movie reviews. My reviews have two purposes. The first is to share my opinion with all of you. The second is to describe the movie so that you can decide for yourself whether you want to see it or not. My opinion will probably differ from yours many times, but I simply hope to provide you with the knowledge necessary to arm yourself when heading into your local cinema.

In order to ensure that you get the maximum benefit possible from this blog, you will need to know how I will be doing things in the future. As all of you know, new movies arrive each and every Friday. Most critics have their reviews published the day the movies are released but, as I am a freelance critic lacking access to advanced showings or screener copies, this is simply not possible. Instead, I will be reviewing movies the week after they are first released. For limited releases, I will most likely not get the chance to review them during their initial theatrical run. Instead, I will provide a notice detailing what limited releases I will be covering at a later date and will then review them as soon as possible in the form of a Special Review. From time to time, I will be also reviewing films that are either straight-to-video or made-for-television. Again, I will review these the Friday after they are first released or shown.

Each review will be accompanied with a star rating. For the purposes of this blog, I will be using the tried-and-true four star scale, simply because it is the one favored by most mainstream critics (including Roger Ebert and many others). I also believe that it is perhaps the easiest one to use and understand. Still, a brief explanation of exactly how I will be using the scale is necessary. Films that are awarded star ratings of four (4), three and a half (3.5), three (3), two and a half (2.5), or two (2) are recommended. Films that are awarded star ratings of one and a half (1.5), one (1), one half (0.5), or zero (0) are not recommended. Now, many people only look at the star ratings when reading a review, but I urge you not to do this. This rating solely reflects my opinion, but my actual written review will accurately describe the film. Again, you may not enjoy the same movies I enjoy; my reviews will examine exactly what the film has to offer and may encourage you to see it, even if I did not necessarily like the movie.

In addition to my regularly scheduled set of reviews, this blog will also be home to The Essential Cinema Club. This will be an exclusive club honoring only the best of cinema. Additions to this club will not appear weekly and there may be long gaps between additions to the club. This is because I will be taking this quite seriously and I do not want to feel as though I have got to choose a film rashly in order to meet a deadline. Movies inducted into this club will not be awarded a star rating, because they should so wonderful that they transcend the trappings of my scale. Also, in order to become a member, a film must have been released at least two years prior to being inducted. I believe that all of these exciting and useful aspects of SPF Eighty Five will make it your ultimate protection from bad movies. Never get burned by another Uwe Boll film again. Stop by here first to find out which films you should see and which ones you should skip.