A Nightmare on Elm Street review

I maintain that I'm not someone who believes nothing ever could or should be remade. Somethings definitely don't ever need to be touched because there's little to nothing that could be brought to them to improve what's already there; but then some I would say... ehh... if you've got some goods and with technology and skill levels higher now than back then why not. In that lovely line up and late seventies and early eighties horror icons Freddy Kruger graduated and won the respect of his fellow classmates by being Most Creative, Most Charismatic and Class Clown. Sadly he loss athletic awards to that jockey Jason Voorhees, but he never let that keep him down. Being who he was is partly what made the 'Nightmare' franchise what it was. You had a different type of killer that could get you in the worst possible way, in your sleep and sooner or later you would have to face him.

However with all the sequels and "Freddy vs. Jason", he loss almost all that villainous terror and became like a weird game show host. He was just there to dance around, make jokes and kill the teenage contestants. Albeit in a creative manner, thus the idea of remaking "A Nightmare on Elm Street" would (for me at least) fall into that why not spot. But the key to remaking this is to return that horror to the character, what he did, what he was before he died and to get us into the lives of these kids. That's why the first one (and a couple of the sequels) worked. Instead we get 90 minutes of almost complete CW movie of the week B.S..

I'm not a hater of Bay's Platinum Dunes company either mind you. In fact I still enjoy both their remakes of "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" and "Friday the 13th". Both of those spent a lot of time attempting to not rest into the originals they were set after, but tried to play it a different way while giving fans what they generally wanted. In fact they've never remade something that was sacred (and no the whole remake of 'Rosemary's Baby' and 'The Birds' isn't true) so even if I hated the movie (like 'The Amityville Horror' or this) it never bugged me too much. However they did fuck this up. But let's dwell on the few positives first. Jackie Earle Harley was the fan choice for Kruger and he was a damn good one. There actually is a point where I was 100% on board during the movie because of the way he played Kruger. The mannerisms, the voice, the cock-eyed glances, those worked to a tee. He brings some of that classic Freddy humor, but strangely a bit darker and with more kick.

There's also a portion of the movie in which it does turn into a horror, mystery picture and it kind of works. The flashbacks to the pre-school work in a subtlety creepy fashion and generally the film is very handsome looking. As are most P.D. pictures. Now let me see... what else...ummmmm that's it! Pretty much everything else sucks! The opening of the film (which you've seen on the second trailer I believe) is more like a parody to a Freddy movie than anything else, most of the 'teen' actors are awful and seeing them attempting to seem sleep deprived or emotional or just anything other than slightly wide eyed versions of characters we've seen on CW shows is almost funny at times. Hey some ARE from CW shows! Generally look for the people who look impossibly pretty in the film and that's them. I'm also getting pretty fucking tired of Steve Jablonsky's scores in P.D. films because IT'S THE SAME DAMN THING EVERY MOVIE! I'm not saying get a new composer, I'm just saying hold a gun to someones head and tell Steve to make music that isn't just loud clangs and electric bangs.

Now... another thing P.D. is known for is picking up directors who are from roughly the same background Bay was from until Don Simpson and Jerry Bruckheimer gave him his break with "Bad Boys". So here we have nearly legendary music video director Samuel Bayer making a pretty generic attempt at horror. Seriously with his lengthy background I expected far more dream sequences and even the ones we got we're completely great (although two did do the trick). His recreating of classic scenes from the first movie was also something of a shitty move, because he either played it straight (as in the body bag being pulled down the hallway) and shot it almost beat for beat or try to amp it up the scenes with CGI (like the one of him coming out of the wall) and all I think is SUCK.

Honestly there isn't a lot more to say about the film; none of kids have real personalities or do or say anything interesting. It's all part of moving ahead with this almost interesting story that for a little while isn't bad and then gets boring and repetitive as the deaths are all pretty much the same, the vibe and characters all feel the same and at the end you really didn't give a shit if the new Nancy (who reminds me of something Tim Burton once drew) defeats Freddy and 'saves' the other kids. In fact by the end you don't really want to do anything except leave the theater hoping you're next outing to a horror film won't suck anywhere near as much as this did.

The Losers review

"The Losers" is perhaps some of the most fun I've had watching something in the realm of PG-13 action that's not 3D or based around superheroes or sci-fi. The key to the movie is honestly... the release date. Had 'The Losers' been knocked back into the real heat of the summer movie season or into the early fall there's a hefty chance it would've blended in with a lot of the other movies in the same field (i.e. 'The A-Team' or 'The Expendables') and thus wouldn't have the same pop and flair it's got now. Have you seen this film? Yeah probably. This was the type of action picture that came around like clock work in the 90's and offered that ambiguous rating that smeared PG-13 and R together so the only way to know the different was with nudity or counting the 'fucks'. Early Michael Bay, Tony Scott, John Woo (both U.S. and Hong Kong), Robert Rodriguez's 'Mariachi' trilogy and others making crazy fun and gleefully ridiculous action films in which darkness wasn't a consequence for getting into shoot-outs or blowing up air plan hangers. Remember "Con Air"? Did that shit make sense? Hell no, but was it fun to watch? Yes. Sorry I'm I don't find joy in the watching of human condition films day in and day out. Generally when you have troubles of your own, the problems of attractive young people living pretty well tend to effect you slightly less than intended.

In anycase this is a big reason why "The Losers" is good, it just feels like a 90's throwback, man-on-a-mission exploitation flick. However that alone doesn't make it enjoyable. Credit goes highly to it's cast. Really I loved how it's not the typical cast of action hero stars we see in every movie. I fucking like Jeffery Dean Morgan as Clay, the leader of the bunch, Idris Elba is always exciting to watch, even in the episodes of "The Office" he starred in. I've said this about a thousand times, but Zoe Saldana and Columbus Short are making quick work of becoming major players and then we have Chris Evans aka Captain America and formerly Johnny Storm and Oscar Jaenada who's got quite a tracklist, but few major flicks. I have a sneaking suspicion that could change after this. And then Jason Patric as Max, the Keysor Soze like villain who attempted to kill the losers after they completed a mission he headed and is now trying to buy 'green arms'. If anything I'd say he's more an old school Bond villain than a Soze in the film, but it's still fun to watch Patric play a villain in a bigger film than he's had of late.

Now again I stress that you've probably seen this film and could easily dismiss it or discard it like nothing new and you wouldn't be wrong except for the fact that we don't really get these films any more. So much emphasis is placed on darkening subject matter and putting a more realistic and humanistic face on things that the market is filled with it. "The Losers", isn't heartless (after all one of the things that prompts their revenge plot is the murder of children), but it breaks from that by delivering a boat load of action, mildly witty jokes that... ehh... do the trick frankly and style. The screenplay penned by Peter Berg (director of 'The Rundown' and 'Hancock') and James Vanderblit ('Zodiac') helps place it in that 1995-1997 early summer action flick world. Best of all it's a film done on a budget that again proves that mega stars and $100 million don't make the movie all the time. And also Joel Silver and Warner Brothers backing up director Sylvain White, who's only real claim to fame is "Stomp the Yard" (it made money I guess...), but impressively handled big action set pieces and brought something fresh back into the genre. All and all it was a good call.

Now I do also urge people to read the graphic novel. It is equally fun, albeit a bit more graphic in it's violence; but a damn entertaining series. "The Losers" taps onto that mainstream, general audience thing for those looking for 90 minutes of escapist thrills and spectacle where shutting your brain off is fine and you'll have a good time. Fans of old school Bruckheimer or just general fans of the works of Luc Besson, you know have something new to watch and enjoy.

The Runaways review

I thought it fairly impossible for me to actually be like 'hey that Kristen Stewart ain't so bad'. In fact for a while I was putting her in the boat as Ashton Kutcher, probably my favorite actor to rag on for the countless film choices he's made which range pretty much from lackluster (like 'Bobby') to down and out shit (which is about about 95% of his filmography). I remember the days before her snarling ass went into the world of 'Twilight' and gave me another reason to dislike the way classical horror creatures were being made in today's light; back when she was in David Fincher's taunt thriller 'Panic Room' opposite Jodie Foster, Jared Leto, Dwight Yoakam and of course the always awesome Forest Whittaker. After that it was just major press and premieres where she constantly appeared to never give a shit about all that she had become for really just being a shell of a character created in crappy books and turned into crappy movies; which in turn makes it where acting isn't that much of a concern thus basically being a mannequin might work out for you.

However... I am a firm believer that given the right circumstances and the right material that people can stand out and prove that they've got something worth while and 'The Runaways' is that for Stewart. Here is a rock movie, bio-pic that's filled with sex, drugs and rock n' roll slapped together with a touch of 70's grit, 70's glam and style that touches on work that we saw from Stone in the 90's or Scorsese in the 80's. Seriously after this I'll be shocked if director Floria Sigismondi isn't getting hardcore offers for her talents and this being her first feature film makes it all the more impressive. Not to be outdone however is Dakota Fanning who at age 15 has decided to start taking on smarter and in turn harder roles. She is the Cherie Currie to Stewart's Joan Jett (a favorite of mine during that 7th grade thru 10th grade exploration into 60's, 70's and 80's rock music).

The way the two actresses work is fantastic because it never feels like we're watching a regular teen girls gone bad flick constantly or we're seeing a straight as an arrow band film. Stewart is perfect for Joan Jett because of her snarls, her often straight faced demeanor and that little bit of a fuck you attitude. The few freak out scenes she has she owns pretty damn well because they aren't over the top and you can see it boiling up nicely. Fanning's Currie is kind of that character who came from the middle ground. She wasn't a rebel, but she wasn't a priss. She had that same fuck you attitude but in a different package as Jett and as their flamboyant manager Kim Fowley played by the seriously always more than fucking great Michael Shannon could see, that was what this band needed. Sex appeal, but the attitude that they could do the same thing men could on stage and then some. And that they did.

There are moments of complete music zen in the film where I was gone further into the picture then I ever expected. This is again to the credit of Sigismondi who displayed great skill in not over directing or over editing certain pieces of the film. There is a slower drift during even the fastest of songs that lets the style wash over you and bring you in. Said style is something that was very common with 70's movies of all types. There was that dynamic stylization of things that reminded you that hey, you're watching a movie and yet still managed to captivate the viewer (see Scorsese's 'New York, New York' and you'll see some fine examples). Then of course we come to the sex and drug use which is always when the movie gets down and dirty and that it does! From snorting coke in the bathroom of a plane landing in Japan, to crushing pills with platform shoes backstage and snorting it off the ground; tis rock n' roll excess at it's finest!

The only thing that probably holds back "The Runaways" from complete and utter perfection (for me at least) is that parts in the final act seem to zip by and really the star of the story is Currie and Fanning with Stewart and Jett being... ehhh... not quite a supporting character, but not quite the star either and when the final act kicks in to full gear we only briefly touch on Jett's rise after The Runaways disbanded and the creation of Joan Jett and the Blackhearts. Honestly I wish we could've gotten hardcore into that as well, but as noted in the credits the film is based on the book by Currie, so perhaps it was always more about her than the band or Joan Jett. Regardless of that... 'The Runaways' is a damn good picture and one of the best of the spring. In fact I like it so much that I'm willing to forgive Stewart for the horrible mistake of actually being in 'Twilight' and now apart of that saga. Good business move? Absolutely. Good movie choice? NO. However if she can start picking roles that are different and work for her as this did... well... she might actually be something noteworthy. As for Fanning... well shit isn't she already noteworthy?

Death at a Funeral review

The idea of America remaking anything from overseas is considered... how shall I put it... the worst idea imaginable in our cinematic world. There's tons of reason why it's a bad call, but very few reason why it can work. By the way we aren't the only country that does this, Sweden's been known to remake movies and shows as well although I can't tell you what their success rate is. Often with any sort of remake if it doesn't work it could be a million things but generally there's a few usual suspects. Gus Van Sant's "Psycho" didn't work, A: because remaking it wouldn't really add anything to the story (or stories considering there is sequels) and B: because he was so scared of screwing it up, he basically made a straight by the book remake of it scene for scene, word for word and in turn it sucked. Other times it's because of poor casting choices ('Point of No Return'), poor directing choices (the Pang Brothers managing to fuck up a remake of their own film 'Bangkok Dangerous') or simply a studio that isn't interested in telling the right story (FOX and the shit burger that was 'The Day the Earth Stood Still').

When remakes DO work like in that case of 'The Departed', 'Insomnia' or hell I'll be nice in throw 'Friday the 13th' in there because really they got that shit right for a change; it's because the people involved understand how these stories need to be told to make them actually work no matter what other changes occur. While I won't say Neil LaBute's remake of 'Death at a Funeral' is on par with some of those (mainly the first two), I will say that it works, it is surprisingly funny and it successfully handles on ensemble in one place for the entire movie; all of which is fucking hard to do while not boring the shit out of the audience. Now trading terms of black comedy- for black comedy (the second referring to making it an almost all black cast) is another issue; one that tends to inspire idiotic beliefs that it'll be a stereotypical movie of that nature, and as annoying as it is that people think that at first glance they do have a long line of evidence to support that. Add Chris Rock (who it feels like we haven't seen in years) and Martin Lawerence (who hasn't done anything of even mild importance in years) and it appears to be moving in on Tyler Perry turf, but with better names.

No, in fact both Rock and Lawerence play well in the film. But aren't really the stars per-say. Rock sure, but Lawerence plays in the the supporting cast which perhaps steals a great deal of the show. James Marsden continues his supporting comic reign on the world, Zoe Saldana also continues to play up the fact that she's pretty, can act and be funny. Danny Glover as the constantly pissed off Uncle Russell who hits and demeans Norman, Tracy Morgan's character. He and Luke Wilson's conversations were perhaps one of my highlights as their chemistry was near perfect. Everything's filled out with Kieth 'They Live' David, Loretta Devine, Regina Hall and Columbus Short, who is well on his way to becoming well known and making some pretty decent film choices to display his range. Everybody is given a chance to shine in the film and they all succeed and right there might be why this film works as well as it does.

Frank Oz's original 'Death at a Funeral' was... to some a modern comedy classic. I thought it was funny, but nothing beyond that. Much like how I feel about LaBute's. They again used Dean Craig's screenplay and wisely didn't change much if any of the jokes, but manages to make some of the ones that weren't too funny in Oz's, extremely funny while at the same time missing the mark on some of the other ones that did work. The slightly added slap stick humor is also done pretty well and helps to provide an escape from the constant dry humor that fills the whole picture. It's like a balancing act that the whole time you're waiting to topple over all the way and it never does. It's nice to see a non-Apatow mainstream comedy accomplish something again. Seriously it feels like most of the comedies that do work now are either made by him or involve people that often work really close with him.

This also isn't Chris Rock's first run in with remaking a foreign property. His last directorial effort and his best in my book 'I Think I Love My Wife' was based on the french film 'Chelsea in the Afternoon'. So perhaps Rock as an eye for seeing things that can work well over here that may or may not need some extra padding or re-working. I won't lie there's better films out right now you could watch, but this is one of the few comedies to come out this spring that actually can make you laugh successfully.

Kick-Ass review

Before I delve into the actually nitty gritty of the ‘Kick Ass’ review, I’d like to vent or rather expel some issues and a degree of confusion, frustration and overall disillusionment I’ve been having with the cinematic world of late. Recently I’ve been conflicted in a personal sense due to a lot of the films I’ve been watching both old and new and the world of film criticism and land of elitist film viewers. The conflict arose when time after time this belief that the only way to make a great film or even a good film is A: in the independent market and B: seemingly inspired by foreign works; some old and some new, but mainly old. And that anything made within the confines of the ‘mainstream’ or studio system is automatic shit. If you earn money, you’re automatic shit and a sell out. If you get big press, you’re automatic shit, a sell out and pomes. I suppose the same can be said of elitist views in the music world as well, but that’s not my the point. I began to question why this was. I started looking back further and further, going through my owned films and seen films and old reviews and thinking, is there something I’m missing? Am I blind to something that I can’t wrap my mind around? Why don’t I think the same thing?

I mean sure I love foreign pictures quite a bit, I may not own as many I’d like but I don’t have forty bucks to drop on a criterion every week. In fact having forty dollars once week for anything would be nice, but in truth I can’t buy DVD's in bulk as I used to. As for independent works, sure some are great and some suck just like anything else. I spoke with a friend about my feelings on the matter, which I probably haven’t described too well, but that’s because it’s hard to truly explain and she told me that it’s a generational thing. That depending on the time and what’s out there will very much dictate what we see coming out on both ends. In addition to that I re-watched the documentary “A Decade Under the Influence” which chronicled the 70’s filmmaking world. I loved hearing the big names of then (and many that are still big now) talking about how French and Italian new wave got them into wanting to make movies and so on and so fourth, but what I found really fascinating was that the filmmakers they loved from the 60’s and what not were inspired by a lot of the “bad” movies we were making over here. None of them talked up the work of John Ford or Billy Wilder as their inspiration. After a while I began to develop a hypothesis.

Sure there’s independent movies coming up and dying to see, just as there’s summer blockbusters I’m looking forward to (although much less than usual), but there’s so many terrible things getting pushed out there on both plains that it’s clouding the view of the better ones. A lot of the independent filmmakers of today seemed to have gotten their inspiration from those same 50’s and 60’s auteurs, however the difference is with those inspired in the 70’s and the ones now is that then they loved the idea of smaller stories and of a different style that was unlike what they’ve seen before. Now they love the idea of telling a little story, but don’t care for style, think as long as the characters seem ‘different’ from what we see in the mainstream that it makes the characters truly different and original and often those little stories they’re telling aren’t that original.; in some cases filmmakers telling almost the same stories, but with different actors and locations. So again I ask, what makes them so much better than the mainstream if they’re lacking originality and creativity but with less money and resources?

Now this brings me to ‘Kick-Ass’ which lands in that zone of a creative, ballsy and original independently made film that people might not recognize as such. I’ve sadly never read too much of the comic, although I have seen it in the past; but as a film it succeeds as an action picture, a dark comedy and as a satire of comic book heroes in an ultra violent and over the top manner while still placing some realistic looks at the aspects of costumed heroics. Could this movie been made as easily in the a straight studio zone? Ehhh… probably not. But thanks to producer, co-writer, director Matthew Vaughn, co-producer and co-writer Jane Goldman, Brad Pitt and Plan B and of course Lionsgate it could be made and presented to the popcorn munching public as best as possible.

Is it flawed? Yep. I really dig Aaron Johnson as this kid, but his voice got tiresome. Works for the character, but a tiring voice. Some music choices were off putting, while some were great (Hit Girl’s action sequences probably the best example of great choices). And as with any satire it takes me a little bit to ease into that mindset and world. Everything else though, I dug the hell out of. Some of shotty CGI, works for me. The lack of a moral and often emotional compass with allowing an 11-year old girl to drop fucks, cunts and bodies like clock work, while getting kicked around by the likes of Mark Strong, who has yet to make me dislike him, reminds me of the old days when movies had that bit of balls that made them stand out. And the dark humor works almost every time.

However suggesting this movie is a bit tough. Easily I can see why Roger Ebert felt the way he felt about it. Partly because I’ve been a reader of his for a long time and this isn’t the first time his feeling or morality effect the way he reviews a film, but just in general I could see someone being put off by the films violence and crass humor. For the mainstream crowd I guess I’d try to appeal to need to see a good popcorn flick with action and laughs and to the indie crowd I’d attempt to appeal to their possible knowledge of more violent independently made films of the early 90’s like ’Bad Lieutenant’, ’Menace II Society’, ’Reservoir Dogs’, or ’El Mariachi’ mixed with the satirical humor of ‘Clerks’.

'Kick-Ass' is at it's core a throwback movie to a time when action movies didn't always play it straight. When who was a hero and who was villain was a bit if-y and when people had the guts to make something unconventional at a time when everything is considered controversial. I've been a fan of Vaughn's past two directorial works, the british crime, dark comedy 'Layer Cake' and I even had some mild affection for his fantasy romp 'Stardust', but 'Kick-Ass' returns him to that violent and jivy feel he had with 'Layer Cake' and his produced films with Guy Ritchie. Having not read the books prior to going into the film also allowed the film to surprise me more than I expected with just how out there it was willing to go.

Personally I miss getting to see films that go as over the top as they can or films that don't have that attempt for something more than being the next indie darling. I miss that ridiculous fun or seeing something original and fresh that isn't a melodrama or a melodrama trying to pose as a comedy with a serious point about the human condition. It seems like the amount of Vaughns or Duncan Jones' or Neil Blomkamps in the cinema world either aren't getting enough work, not getting it displayed or frightening enough don't exist.

The Ghost Writer review

A good mystery nowadays is hard to come by. Reason being is because of peoples need to A: know how something ends before they see it and B: because mysteries don't sell tickets anymore; at least ones that hide too much in their trailers. Roman Polanski's "The Ghost Writer" is a fantastic return to the mystery films we don't see anymore, just as much as Martin Scorsese's "Shutter Island"was (in fact they'd probably make a good double feature). It's a classy, intelligent and handsome looking picture with one of those endings that's 'movie awesome'. As in it's far fetched to happen in the real world, but in a film it's great stuff.

Ewan McGregor plays the ghost writer who is hired to replace another writer who killed himself or had accidentally killed himself from a mix of too much alcohol and a fall from a ferry at night. He'll be working on the memoirs of former British Prime Minster Adam Lang (Pierce Brosnan). The ghost has little care for politics and as it seems politicians but because of that he can get to the heart of Lang which could help turn the massive manuscript into something that might actually sell in stores. He travels to Cape Cod and meets Lang, his wife and his crew; he quickly realizes that this might not be the easiest job he's taken on.

Lang is constantly taking in phone calls that seem to aggravate him thus making the writing sessions hellish. Kim Cattrall plays Lang's assistant and probable mistress with adds a heavy tension when Lang, his wife and the assistant are all in a room together . And Olivia Williams, who I feel like I haven't seen since "Rushmore" plays Lang's wife who's mood and interactions with the ghost range from close and nearly personal (sometimes beyond that) to filled with piss and vinegar. Interestingly enough the way the whole mystery kicks off isn't from this other worldly clue dipped into our main character's psyche; it actually comes from his boredom on the island after Lang leaves to Washington D.C. to face some public allegations of war crimes and approving tortures. After a a brief conversation with a local man (aka the amazing Eli Wallach... if you have to ask who he is, then God help you) his interest in what happened to his predecessor is peaked, and along his minor investigations he begins discovering odd mix ups in the the old manuscript as well as hidden documents, secret messages and pictures, mysterious cars following him and a strange British protester.

Yeah there's a lot in "The Ghost Writer". And it works in that classic mystery, drama sense. McGregor is perfect for this kind of role because like most Polanski mysteries the main character is smart, snarky and often in way over his head. Those are some of McGregor's best types of characters because that a bit of him in reality. However the two performances that are actually award worthy are Williams and shocking enough Brosnan. Williams delivers a spit fire performance with much subtly and intelligence and is fantastic at misdirection. Brosnan delivers one that's pitch perfect for a politician. Someone who is out of touch with the world outside his little bubble, but wants the world to see him in a most regal light possible. And more importantly someone who's got something to hide from the ghost and the public to keep that lie going.

To quote Michael Caine, this isn't a pisser. As in not a movie you can run out to get food during or use the bathroom and come back and everything necessarily add up. Everything is done for a proper reason of atmosphere and building to the finale in which something(s) come to light. However while watching the film you might catch various other things that could lead you into asking completely different questions about a character's motives, that's always a good sign to me. Roman Polanski is a fantastic artist, a pretty shitty human being... but that's something he has to live with and doesn't effect his work. It's nice to see him returning to the forefront of the cinematic world with something so strong and it gives me hope that other filmmakers of that same caliber who have almost fallen out of sight (Brian DePalma, William Friedkin, Philip Kaufman etc) could return if only given the chance to do material that works as well as this does and I have no doubt some of them can find material this strange to get made. Right now "The Ghost Writer" is jumping around theatrically, but if it hits your area it's well worth seeing and is definitely one of the best films of the year so far.

Clash of the Titans review

Between my second grade love of dinosaurs and my fourth grade interest into the paranormal, there was my third grade love and interest in Greek mythology. I vaguely remember the story and characters both this and the original film are based off of, but not enough to toss around facts and what not. But I will say that just about everything in Greek mythology is pretty damn interesting and in the right hands can be made into a working and exciting film. The original "Clash of the Titans" was filled with Ray Harryhousen monster creatures and wall to wall royal British performers. In addition to that it was one of those high adventure, glory to all fantasy pictures that worked well then and still kind of does today. Now to Warner Brothers "Clash of the Titans" of 2010 we have a might of a mixed bag.

At issue is primarily the reason in which our hero Perseus (Sam Worthington) goes on the quest. I'm more than willing to put aside my notions of Greek mythology and familiarity with the original film for whatever said reason is, and in this case it's revenge for killing his foster family at sea. Ok, that works, hell the one thing about those "God of War" games I do enjoy is the story of the man who seeks to kill the Gods for what they've done to him. However here the tone and the idea behind it seems to twist in the wind and often change making some key plot points questionable and really killing the emotion of things. The tone is another bother throughout the film; advertised as a pre-summer action blockbuster that gives us a fantasy world style closer to Peter Jackson's Middle Earth, making it a dark, muddy and war-torn world; whereas what we get is a mixture of that and that high adventure of the original movie. Sometimes it's a noticeable thing and sometimes it eases on by, it all depends on what happening.

Yet with these flaws I did still have a good time watching "Clash of the Titans". The enjoyed almost all the set designs, costumes, weapons and CGI design. It was great seeing Ralph Finnes and Liam Neeson as Zeus and Hades and the look of the God's suits of armor was different and a pleasing bit of creativity. The action sequences for the most part work well, sans this bizarre timing issue in which it seems like as the movie progresses the battles are shorter, but well blocked. For example the giant scorpion sequence feels like a good fifth-teen minute bout, where as Medusa and the Kraken breeze through pretty quickly. Director Louis Leterrier is no stranger to heavy action pictures by the way, cutting his teeth under the french Jerry Bruckheimer, Luc Besson. Leterrier directed "Transporter 2" (my favorite of the series), "Unleashed" (my favorite Jet Li martial arts film) and the one that brought him up in the world, Marvel and Universal's reloading of "The Incredible Hulk". His work on the Hulk shines through for being one of Marvel's best movies, jumping into that comic world of the Hulk and bringing in the love that people had for the book and the tv show and making fit together better than Ang Lee, while not making it just an action picture. Furthermore he had a great cast, didn't misuse or miss a chance to let they strut their stuff in a big budget movie and had some fantastic action sequences. In my mind his 'Hulk' picture was miles better than the heavy handed and often dull "Iron Man".

But even with that under his belt some of his look and feel are missing from 'Clash...' and instead is aimed at presenting a faster paced action film without caring as much for what's going on with the characters. Even in "Transporter 2" a great deal of time is spent with the family of the kidnapped son and seeing Franks connection with the boy so that it all means something more than bullets flying and cars crashing. Some of these work well and some are like I said earlier, ended too soon. But in the end it feels like a better version of Stephen Sommers' "The Jungle Book". In fact that's the best movie comparison I have for this (barring animals throwing things at one another and all that jazz). There's some nice work here, but it doesn't hit any homeruns or go that extra mile to become more. Worthington as a hero I think does better with "Avatar" than this simply because he's a fairly hollow character here, which might be why the tone shifts around so much. Gemma Arterton sells herself well and actually managed to make me look forward to "Prince of Persia". She has that perfect observant voice and a look that's both beautiful, but more realistic looking than Hollywood looking. But the badass award really should go to Mads Mikkelsen, who plays Draco the leader of the small band of soldiers aiding Perseus. Time after time he delivers impressive combat skills in the action sequences and plays a better version of that tough as nails, but ya love em' character.

"Clash of the Titans" is not really what this film is, but more or less an easy way to capitalize on the name and give a slightly twisted up version of that story. One that's fun enough of a mixed bag that agrees with me. Not unlike my feelings towards the last two Harry Potter. This is adventure in it's purest form so it's flaws can be... tolerated slightly more, however I'd have loved to completely dig into the film and run with it all the way. But perhaps with this succeeding it will open the doors to more Greek themed adventure flicks that I can completely love.

formspring.me

Ask me anything http://formspring.me/IcoCalminski