The World's End (2013)

Being a huge fan of Edgar Wright's work, going so far as to call "Shawn of the Dead" one of my favorite comedies ever, it goes without saying that "The World's End" was up very high on my list of Most Anticipated films of 2013. Like I do with most movies that I'm really looking forward to, I purposefully kept myself somewhat in the dark about it, going so far as to not even watch the trailer for it. And for some reason it didn't play in front of any film I've seen this year. So I went into "The World's End" with basically a clean slate, only expecting quality based on past experience and the cast.

Thankfully what I ended up getting was, as expected, a very well made film that was exciting, stylish, mysterious, funny and surprisingly heartfelt all at once. And while this was only to be expected since that list of attributes could be slapped on the box of every movie Edgar Wright ever made, it still is worth repeating because it just goes to show how impressive of a filmmaker this guy is. I'll say this right now: There are few directors out there whose works are more consistently entertaining than Edgar Wright. When this guy makes a movie, it's to your benefit to pay attention.

"The World's End" follows the adventures of five friends from school who once had a legendary night of pub crawling in their younger days. Twenty years later the de facto leader of the group, Gary (Simon Pegg), who is now a high functioning alcoholic, attempts to get the group back together to relive that night, which in his mind was the greatest moment of his frankly pathetic life. The rest of the group aren't really into it, having moved on and realized that Gary is a titanic schmuck some time ago, but eventually they all cave in and agree.

Oh yeah. Who wouldn't follow this guy?

Past that point is gets a little weird. Once the pub crawl begins, it becomes clear the town and people in it are a bit different since they were last living there. At first they chalk up to them being older, but pretty soon it starts going an "Invasion of the Bodies Snatchers" route, and things get officially, as the English would put it, cocked up. This leads to an escalation of sci-fi craziness that would seem bizarrely out of place had it not been written in such an effective and exciting manner.

The cast is pitch-perfect and made up of some of the funniest people I can think of. Of course Simon Pegg and Nick Frost are two of my Funniest People In The World in No Particular Order, but Martin Freeman does his best revival of his turn as Watson in "Sherlock" to play the uppity one to hysterical effect as well. What's amazing about Simon Pegg though is how much of a pathetic scumbag he's playing in this, but still manages to be somewhat charming and loveable, and you actually want to see him succeed. I suppose that's just called "acting talent."

The script, penned by Pegg and Wright, is full of the usual rapid fire, too-smart-for-most-American-audiences cleverness that is predominant throughout the Blood and Ice Cream Trilogy of this, "Shawn of The Dead" and "Hot Fuzz," but whereas those films hit the ground running at a thousand miles an hour, "The World's End" takes it's time and is a bit slower paced with both story and jokes. The laughs aren't as densely packed as the other films, which gives it a sense of maturity the others lacked but at tradeoff of not being as memorable or endlessly quotable. That's not to say it isn't funny, which it very much is, but it's not nearly as goofy as the rest of the trilogy.

"Reservoir Dogs" would have been far less tragic (and more drunk) if it had been these guys. About the same amount of profanity, though.

All of Edgar Wright's films have recurring themes, among the most common of them being growing up, whatever that means. And finding out what becoming "an adult" is all about and what it means to each individual person is at the forefront of the story of "The World's End." Ultimately it's about Gary making amends for his past transgressions (kind of) and coming to terms with himself and realizing what it takes for him to be happy while embracing his faults. And ultimately he saves the world by doing so (kind of). And thanks in no small part to some surprisingly powerhouse acting on the parts of both Simon Pegg and Nick Frost, it winds up being a rather moving story.

While it may not reach the levels of side-splitting hilarity as the rest of Edgar Wright's filmography, "The World's End" is a worthy final entry in the Wright/Pegg trilogy. It's always nice to know that no matter how many wretched, unfunny comedies are spewed out en masse from Hollywood, there's at least a few people left who still get it. You just have to go to England to find them.

Check out the trailer. I chose the one that DIDN'T give too much away.

THE BOTTOM LINE - "The World's End" is a delightful romp of drunkenness that is charming in the way that only Edgar Wright and his cast of regulars can manage to be. Despite being more leisurely in pace than "Shawn of The Dead" or "Hot Fuzz," it's the most touching and visually impressive entry in the series. And while it's not as jammed to the brim with gags both overt and subtle as the others, it's still very, very funny. You gotta check this one out.

Shaun of The Dead (2004)

Despite the fact that I am of the opinion that zombies are played out and are officially boring at this point, in an ironic twist one of my favorite comedies remains to this day "Shaun of The Dead," a film that is so genius it manages to make me laugh my fool head off in spite of the zombies within it. It's one of those wonderful movies that gets better the more you watch it, since the jokes contained within are so dense and fast-paced that it's probably close to impossible to catch everything the first, second, or even third time you see it. That combined with the fact that it contains two of my "Three Funniest People in The World in No Particular Order" makes "Shaun of The Dead" a film that I'm always okay with busting out.

The film follows a couple of days in the life of Shaun (Simon Pegg), a 30-something who is a bit of a slacker without much direction in life. After he gets dumped by his girlfriend Liz (Kate Ashfield), he gets very drunk and then decides to get his life sorted out the next day. Unfortunately for Shaun, the next day is when the zombie apocalypse happens.

Who knew, right?

Shaun and his flatmate Ed (Nick Frost) head out to safety, deciding that the best place to go is the Winchester, the pub they are regulars at. On the way there they pick up Liz and her two flatmates, along with Shaun's mother and step-father. Together do their best to survive the onslaught of zombies, as well as their leader Shaun who, despite the best of intentions, has a habit of mucking things up. To be sure, the whole "Go to the Winchester" idea turns out to not be a very good one. This all leads to a finale which gets surprisingly grim given the light, fun-filled tone of the rest of the film, although at the end of the day "Shaun of The Dead" still ends on a relatively happy note. (And song.)

While both Simon Pegg and Nick Frost are comedic geniuses, that wouldn't have mattered much had they not had a great script to work with as well, which they fortunately do. "Shaun of The Dead" is written as tight as a drum, with barely a word wasted or not made to return later as a gag. This includes entire sequences both physical and verbal repeating themselves in different context. Things like a passing exchange during a video game session coming back verbatim during a last stand at the bar makes for extremely rewarding re-watching when you catch it. The iconic "walking to the store" shot playing out twice in extremely different but yet oddly identical ways is probably the best example of that.

And if you notice, he does switch it to a Diet Coke. I love those little touches.

Most likely surprising to most people is that aside from being very funny, "Shaun of The Dead" functions quite well as a straight-up zombie film. All the tropes and standard elements of the genre are present, which makes sense considering its parodic nature, but what's interesting is that were you to take all the humor away the film is actually a far better zombie movie than most legitimate zombie movies manage to be. And I'm not talking a little bit here. I'm talking light years ahead of anything a maestro like Romaro has done in decades.

Perhaps the reason it works is because of the fact that, since it's a comedy, the stone-faced seriousness of the genre along with its fatalism and commentary on human nature is absent. To me, that garbage usually makes zombie films a boring sit, and I have a difficult time caring about any of the characters because generally speaking, in a zombie movie most every human is a terrible person. And if they aren't, by the end it's usually a good bet that they'll have lost most of the humanity they had. Since you know, these movies are very diverse in their plots.

Since "Shaun of The Dead" is free from that crap, and it's okay to actually like the characters since it's a comedy, when bad things happen to them it actually has the shocking side effect of being sad, which the movie plays up to a heartrending degree on occasion. You don't want to see these people get killed (Well, maybe David), which is such an alien reaction for me to have in a zombie movie that it's hard for me to comprehend. Even Ed, the most obnoxious, dense, and insufferable member of the group is a fantastic character who usually ends up being everybody's favorite despite him being a total chump. In fact he's front and center of the second most emotionally charged and tearful scene of the film. And how many zombie movies can you remember which had a death scene you even felt like considering entertaining the notion of crying at in the first place? And that's for the "loser" of the movie.

Damn it, Ed. That was an original pressing.

I would also feel remiss to not mention that the acting in "Shaun of The Dead" is unexpectedly fantastic. And I'm not just talking comedic acting here, although this film is a master's class in the very finest of British humor. While every single actor here is hysterical, even the deathly serious Bill Nighy (I freaking love that guy), there are scenes of such emotional depth, particularly from Simon Pegg, that on occasion it is easy to forget that you're watching a zombie spoof.

You know, it's a difficult thing explaining why you like a certain comedy. Humor is always troublesome to quantify without sounding redundant, so I'll just leave my comments regarding the comedic aspects at "This is one of the funniest movies I've ever seen." It speaks completely to my particular tastes in comedy. Whether or not it will for anyone else is completely dependent on that individual. But seriously, I have a hard time believing anyone could watch this movie and not love it. Unless of course they're deathly offended by zombie gore and gratuitous f-bombs.

I should probably stop there. The more I think about "Shaun of The Dead," the more I want to write. And I don't really want to write a novel here. Just freaking watch it. If you've already seen it, see it again. It gets better each time. If you're like me and have already seen it like a dozen times, well hell. Let's give it another go. You grab the hog lumps and I'll grab the pints. (Might be a bit warm. Cooler's off.)

I'm actually not a huge fan of this trailer, but it's decent I guess. At least it's not made to look like a dumbass American comedy like the American trailer made it out to be.

THE BOTTOM LINE - "Shaun of The Dead" makes my short list not only for favorite comedies, but it's also probably one of my favorite films, period. Like "The Big Lewbowski," it's an infinitely quotable and re-watchable film that somehow, impossibly still manages to get better every time.

Jack the Giant Slayer (2013)

This must be the month of "crappy snoozefests with too much CGI" given the movies I've seen lately. Between "After Earth," "Oz the Great and Powerful," "Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters" and now "Jack the Giant Slayer," I should have made June a themed month or something. This is getting really old, man. I need to shake it up or something. All this expensive but meaningless schlock is starting to wear on my nerves.

"Jack the Giant Slayer" isn't honestly as bad as those other films were. It's nowhere near the CGI-frosted horrors of "Oz the Great and Powerful" or the laughably pathetic acting of "After Earth." That much credit I must give it. It's probably the least bad of the four films on that list. Even while "Hansel and Gretel" was honestly a little more entertaining, I cared more about the protagonists in "Jack the Giant Slayer" since they were actually kind of likeable.

That doesn't mean it was good though. It just means that I wasn't pissed off when the credits started rolling. And the reason I wasn't pissed off was because it wasn't worth it to be since "Jack the Giant Slayer" is such a nothing of a movie as to barely be worth having any emotion at all over it.

What can I say about this? You already know the story. Jack (Nicholas Hoult) is a farm-boy who ends up trading a horse for magic beans, they grow into a giant beanstalk, they climb up the beanstalk, there's a land of giants up there, the giants come down and attack the kingdom, Jack and everyone else defeats them, happily ever after, the end. Just add a whole lot of CGI and a useless princess to rescue to it and you've got your movie. Great, let's move on, shall we?

Alright fine, I can't end it there. Talking about something too much is in my nature, after all. Jack is a standard hero-type who is bland as all hell because there isn't anything particularly special about him besides the fact that his name is in the title of the film. I liked Nicholas Hoult as Beast in "X-Men First Class," but there isn't much for him to do here besides gape at the majesty of the CGI landscapes and grin like a dope every time the princess Isabella (Eleanor Tomlinson) is on screen. Whatever.

They had a lot of leather hoodies in ye olde Darke Age, did they?

The far more interesting character is Elmont (Ewan McGregor), a soldier who is tasked with looking after Isabella, and who leads the expedition up the beanstalk to the land of the giants. Out of everyone there, Elmont is hands-down the most proactive member of the cast and under any other circumstance I'd just assume he was the main character. But alas, he is not. Elmont, a bad-ass who takes charge and performs more heroic actions than Jack does is relegated to being merely a background character who pops in every once in a while to be awesome and then leaves.

He and that glorious mustache are too good for this movie.

There is a side plot involving a dude named Roderick (Stanley Tucci), who I guess is the king's adviser or something, and his attempt at controlling the giants with a magical crown so that he can take over the world. I'm assuming he's the king's adviser since it's always the king's adviser who ends up being totally whacked and evil and traitorous. Why kings even had advisers I have no idea. All they do is turn on you.

All the Roderick stuff just ends up being kind of pointless in the end anyway. He doesn't get much accomplished and fails pretty catastrophically during an exceptionally short reign over the giants. But you knew that was coming anyway. I thought the whole thing was a pretty stupid plan from the get-go considering that the giants are far from immortal or unstoppable, and their numbers aren't exactly overwhelming. Roderick couldn't take over the world with just them even if his plan had worked.

Roderick also is not helped by his incredibly obnoxious and frankly confusing assistant, Wicke (Ewen Bremmer) who is this psychopathic wormy dude whom I believe is supposed to be intimidating but is more annoying than anything else, especially so when he starts killing off characters cooler than himself. But thankfully the film sends him down the gullet of a giant in the beginning of the second act, so we're not dealing with him for long. But since it's PG-13 we can't even have a satisfying death scene for him, because the movie always abruptly cuts away from any significant violence just before it happens. This is common throughout the film, makes it look watered down and wussy, and gets really annoying really fast.

By the way, at no point am I buying that Stanley Tucci is a threat to the king when the king is played by Ian McShane. Ian McShane passes more intimidating things through his GI tract than Stanley Tucci and his little minion. Although "Jack the Giant Slayer" makes McShane, the Eternal Bad Ass himself look ridiculous in chintzy golden armor that looks like paper mache, and keeps it pretty low key. So there is little of Al Swearengen to be found here. What a waste.

Seeing Ian McShane in that absurd outfit causes me physical pain.

I can't even get excited about Bill Nighy playing the head giant, Fallon, although his voice work is, as usual, excellent. That classic Nighy quirkiness is present, although Fallon, like everyone else, is such a cardboard cutout of a stock character that it really doesn't matter that Bill is doing a great job. Again, what a waste.

I totally believe that giant is real. Not at all fake looking. Nope.

I think the most significant idea that "Jack the Giant Slayer" had was to imply at the very end of the movie that civilization advanced to our modern age without hot air balloons, blimps, airplanes, satellites, or a day without total cloud cover considering that the last shot of the film shows a very real and still there land of the giants floating in the sky and out of sight past the clouds. Whatever. It's a dumb ending to a pointless film. I can't even get that mad at it since it doesn't matter.

A standard trailer for a standard movie.

THE BOTTOM LINE - "Jack the Giant Slayer" is a pretty looking fairy tale as told through the lenses of the most standard and stock movie making machine you could assemble. It's got skill and craftsmanship on the technical side, but there's no imagination or innovation in the script, and like "Oz the Great and Powerful," it has virtually no soul. It's another 9-figure budget extravaganza that left me feeling like I wasted my time.

Total Recall (2012)

Don't despair everyone. I have the solution to our troubles. A desk, a computer, a nail gun, and a stack of paper. That's all it would take to solve the remake epidemic.

Just hire a guy to sit at a desk all day. In front of him will be a big stack of paper. On each sheet of paper would the name of a film. All this guy would do would be to sit at that desk and go through the stack one by one, and sort them into one of two piles: the "Remake" pile and the "Leave it alone" pile. Using the computer to do research, he would determine where a movie belonged according to the following criteria:

A) Is the movie less than 20 years old?

B) Is the original film rated R? And if so, is the remake going to be PG-13?

C) Is the original generally recognized as a "good movie?"

If the answers to ANY of the above criteria is "yes," it automatically goes into the "Leave it alone" pile. If the answers are all "no," than it is acceptable to put it in the "Remake" pile. However, every time a piece of paper goes into the "Remake" pile, the guy has to pick up the nail gun and shoot himself in the leg with it. That way we can be damn sure that movie needed another go around.

"Oh man. This remake of "Clash of The Titans" better be awesome!"

I understand why they keep remaking movies since you know, less work is involved because being original takes effort. There's also the built-in audience demographic that go and buy a ticket out of shear morbid curiosity, only to find out that the remake is in 3-D, so they have to shell out $15 for a ticket. That way when the votes are tallied, and everyone decides the remake is a pile of woodchuck vomit, the studios have still made their money back. Brilliant. But of course it's our own damn fault.

That brings us to the remake of "Total Recall." You know, because that was necessary. Walking into the theater, there was really only one thing going through my mind over and over again: "Why can't they stick to remaking bad movies?" It's not like the original was some masterpiece or anything, but it was good! It's probably the smartest Arnold Schwarzenegger movie ever made. What am I talking about, probably? It is the smartest movie he was ever in.

Seriously, I really like "Total Recall" and movies like it. By "movies like it" I mean any kind of movie that can have massively different interpretations depending on who you talk to. Remember when you realized that it's possible that Quaid is dreaming everything past the point where he sits in the chair at Rekal? Didn't that just blow your mind? But what's great is that it's just as likely that he's not dreaming. It's really up in the air, and you can dissect it for days and still not have a definitive answer. It's like "Blade Runner" in that regard.

And let's not forget the practical effects in "Total Recall." As unintentionally hilarious as the "explosive decompression" scenes are, those are some awesome effects that are actually happening in front of the camera. And it's not only the eyes bulging out of the head stuff, either. There's Arnold pulling the tracking device out of his nose, the exploding lady disguise, Kuato coming out of the dude's stomach, and let's not forget the immortal three-breasted hooker. "Total Recall" was really one of the last movies to really do this kind of thing to this extent.

So what's the deal with the remake? Will we see models and lots of cool makeup work, or overly-flashy fake looking CGI? I'll give you two guesses, but you'll only need zero because the answer is obvious OF COURSE THEY CGI'D THE CRAP OUT OF THIS MOVIE. But that's merely the beginning of this conga line of betrayal.

I feel ya, man.

Oh man. This freaking movie. I barely know where to start. Now, I will admit to never reading the short story "Total Recall" is based on, called "We Can Remember It For You Wholesale." I can't say whether it was more faithful to the story than the Schwarzenegger film was, but just 15 seconds into the film, I gotta tell you, I was ready to leave. This story is just plain dumb, and if that's how the original was, the changes they made in Arnie's film made it waaaaay better.

In the remake of "Total Recall," there are only 2 inhabitable places left on the planet: Britain and Australia. In what I can only assume is meant to be an allegory to history, Britain rules over Australia, or "The Colonies" as they're called. Subtle. Bryan Cranston is Vilos Cohaagen, who is either the ruler of Britain or simply an obscenely wealthy man who moonlights as a warlord, and wants to take over the world (ie - Australia). Anyways, for reasons of fast transport as well as establishing and maintaining control, Britain and Australia are connected by...oh god I can't believe I'm typing this...gah...a tunnel that has been drilled through the core of the Earth to connect the two countries. I'll let that sink in.

Ow. My brain.

Do I even need to explain to you in how many ways that is insultingly stupid? First of all, it's called "pressure" and "heat." Look it up. Second of all, who in the hell built it? And how? Did they hire Delroy Lindo and Hillery Swank? Thirdly, in the CENTURIES it must have taken to dig it, even if it were possible, which it isn't, how was it financed? That would have bankrupted the world thousands of times over. And don't tell me it's like "Star Trek" where money doesn't exist anymore because we clearly see money, which has Barack Obama's face on it now. Because they would totally have American currency since in this movie AMERICA DOESN'T EXIST ANYMORE.

Why couldn't they just build a transport on the surface of the planet? They have hover cars and all kinds of crazy technology, and you're telling me that the best idea they had was to pull a Bugs Bunny, take a wrong turn at Albuquerque, and wind up on the other side of the planet? And I'm talking about this from a perspective of it NOT being physically impossible, which it is. I mean, heat and pressure aside, do you have any idea how fast they were traveling? We see in the beginning of the film that it takes less than 2 hours to go from one side to another. That's nearly 4,000 mph. That's quite the brisk clip, I'd say.

But lastly, as I pointed out to my friend Stephen as we watched the film, even if they could magic the damn thing into existence overnight, the whole thing would be rendered useless in under a decade. I just leaned over to him and said "Dude, Steve, continental drift."

That's right. Tectonic plates move, and there's nothing you can do about it. And I'm guessing it wouldn't take too much change in alignment to make that tunnel through the Earth unusable, especially at the mind bending speeds they're going at. One little hiccup in the line and it's good night for everyone involved. I can't be the only one troubled by this stuff, can I?

Can you believe I'm only 15 seconds into this movie? I've been ranting like a madman about this and I'm 15 seconds in. Good gravy, I'd better cut to the chase.

In all honesty, I was actually entertained by the first half hour or so of the new "Total Recall." It begins much like the original, so it isn't surprising to have that be the best part of the movie. Colin Farrell however, as much as I can enjoy him in a role, just doesn't possess the shear charisma that pours off of Schwarzenegger. As passable of a job as Farrell did, and I would call it passable, I just spent most of the movie missing Arnie.

::sigh:: "I remember when Arnold used to shoot a big gun one handed..."

The biggest problem with the new "Total Recall" is that it's just so stock. I swear, if you hadn't watched the first 20 minutes, and just walked in without knowing the setup, I really don't think you'd possibly peg this as a "Total Recall" remake. I believe you'd think you were watching "Conspiracy Laden Sci-Fi Action Movie #689." That's what was great about the original: it had a uniqueness to it that helped it stand out from the standard schlock. A lot of that came from the fantastic effects work, but it also because it played a lot more with the idea that this is almost entirely in Quaid's head.

The new "Total Recall" really kind of forgets about that whole thing pretty early on. In fact, I realized near the end that for the last 40 minutes or so, I had totally forgotten about it. It really had just degraded into a loud, dumb, explosion with no real point. It was like I was watching a Michael Bay movie with less racism. Now, there were action beats in the original that momentarily got away from the mind-screw aspect of the story, but they had laid it on thick enough in the beginning to really help it carry over through the rest, so that you were still thinking about it after Arnold got done punishing traitorous cabbies with a drill. This movie though, they didn't even try.

I asked Steve after we left the theater the question, "If you had never seen the original, would it have occurred to you at any point that the whole movie was a dream the moment after Colin Farrell sat in that chair?" He thought for a (quick) moment and said "Nope. I never would have gotten that."

About the only thing in the film that alluded to Farrell dreaming was an advertisement for Rekal on a big billboard right at the very end of the film, as Farrell smugly contemplates his victory. I thought it could have been like an end credits roll for his dream, kind of like "This has been a Rekal production." Steve thought I was probably giving the movie too much credit. Steve is a smart man.

I know you're not going to believe this, either, but I have not begun to get mad at this movie yet. Oh no. There was something in this movie that was so awful that I literally have no idea how it made it past the preproduction stage. It has to do with casting, but not for the reasons that you might initially think, even though nobody involved is a paragon of acting. I'm referring to the casting of Jessica Biel and Kate Beckinsale. Jessica plays Colin's love interest and Kate plays his "wife," who functions as one of the main antagonists.

Take a look at these two ladies.

Kate.

Not Kate.

Hey, "Total Recall." Want to know how to make your movie needlessly confusing to the point of unwatchability? MAKE YOUR HERO AND VILLAIN LOOK NEARLY IDENTICAL TO EACH OTHER!

To begin with, they look like they could be sisters already. Then they are given the exact same hair cut, and they both wear dark clothing which looks the same. And this isn't a situation in which they do anything with it, they just happen to be played by two actresses that look like identical twins, and nothing about it is ever mentioned. I cannot tell you how frustrating that is.

I lost count of the number of times I was momentary befuddled because I thought Kate Beckinsale had switched sides and was helping Colin Farrell. It got to the point were I was asking Steve nearly every 10 minutes "Is that his wife or his girlfriend?" The most he could say was "I have no idea." And what blows my mind about this is that it would have been roughly the EASIEST FIX IN THE UNIVERSE, and it's called "bleach." Give one of them blonde hair or something. Or a wig, if they didn't want to do that. This isn't difficult, people, for love of Crom. Hell, just CGI their hair another color. You CGI'd everything else.

The funniest part of the whole "Are you Kate or Jessica" debacle was a scene that was so gloriously incompetent while proving my point in such full, intimate, and unflinching detail that it almost made the frustration worth it. It occurs right at the very end of the movie, after Cohaagen and presumably Kate Beckinsale have both been vanquished. Ferrall wakes up in an ambulance to see Biel sitting there, saying that they won. She then kills an orderly and is about to kill Farrell, because it's not Biel, but Beckinsale.

You see, in trying to tie in things from the original, they had to put in that disguise that Arnold had (you know, the fat lady with the exploding head), only this time, it's a hologram that goes over your head. Well, Beckinsdale got a hold of one of these things and used it to get to him. But the moment that she pulls the hologram collar off her head is priceless. As Jessica Biel is choking Ferrall, she yanks it off dramatically to reveal Kate Beckinsale!

And had I not seen the rest of the movie, I would have bet $500 it was the same damn person. It would have been hysterical had it not been pissing me off for two hours at that point.

I'm just so very tired.

You know, "Total Recall" is one of those movies that just makes me more angry the more I think about it. Apart from the simple reason that it just plain should not exist, the changing of the story in such a stupid way is just insulting to a great film that was a landmark in sci-fi.

THE BOTTOM LINE - While there is some admittedly good action in the first half hour or so, the fact it devolves into a by-the-numbers explosion-fest with a stupid plot by the end makes the remake of "Total Recall" just plain bad. What's worse is that it's unnecessary, and could stand as a monument to the perils of remaking good movies that didn't need fixing or updating. Just watch the original again. Skip this crap.

Wrath of The Titans (2012)

For anyone who saw the remake of "Clash of The Titans," they will remember it as a lackluster, boring mess with not nearly enough clashing or Titans. It was more like "Mild Scuffle of The Big Things." There didn't seem to be much room for improvement, either, especially after "Immortals" showed us that for some reason Greek mythology about monsters and Gods in titanic struggles for the Universe is generally really, really dull. I don't know what it is about these movies, but they can't seem to get a decent one going. The best case scenario we could hope for with the "Titans" sequel was a certain level of "not sucking."

And I got just that. It didn't suck. It wasn't that great, but it didn't suck.

MEDIOCRE.

 BECAUSE IF YOU'RE TOO GOOD, THEY'LL EXPECT SOMETHING FROM YOU NEXT TIME.

"Wrath of The Titans" starts off about 16 or so years after "Clash of The Titans," and Perseus has gone back to his life as a fisherman and is raising his son since his wife died off camera in between films. In keeping with the story, the Gods are growing weaker since nobody prays to them anymore, and it's getting to the point where they are half a step away from being mortal and dying.

In their desperation, Hades and Ares come up with a plan to get their immortality back by doing something exceedingly silly like releasing Chronos, the ancient creator of the Gods, so that Chronos might grant them their powers again. And of course, Zeus is the only one who remembers that Chronos had tried to kill them all and destroy the Universe before they imprisoned him. One might cut Hades slack by imaging that it had probably seemed like a good idea at the time, but honestly, when the plan goes belly-up like it obviously would, Hades has nobody to blame but himself.

But he seemed like such a trustworthy fellow...

With Zeus imprisoned, Perseus has to save the day like always, and you can pretty much write the story from there. There are no big plot twists or anything not happening like you'd imagine they would. It's pretty par for the course.

So what is it that makes "Wrath of The Titans" better than "Clash of The Titans?" Well, that's an easy answer: Action. The biggest difference between the two movies is that the sequel actually has a decent amount of it. And while some of the same problems plagued "Wrath" as plagued "Clash," they tended to be less and not as frustrating in nature.

I've said that the first film's biggest problem was that it put Perseus up against creatures that were far too powerful. For that reason, Perseus can't really fight them properly, and has to instead go around looking for a one-hit-kill-loophole to exploit, which makes sense, but it tends to undermine the badassery of the hero. I mean, I'll bet Schwarzenegger would have at least found a way to punch the Kraken in the face.

Ngyaaaaah!!! You kill my fatha!! Eeyaaagh!!! Git to da Pegasus!!!

I seriously need to be in charge of all the movies, but my vision may be too much awesome for the public to handle. Anyways.

The good thing about "Wrath" is that Perseus actually does some fighting against things that aren't that ridiculous for him to take on. I mean, true he does fight Ares, the God of War and win at one point, which while a bit out there at least involved swinging swords, punches and headbutts. That's preferable to holding up a Medusa head and saying "Here, look at this." At least he's doing something.

The casting of "Wrath" is held over from the first movie, with Sam "Oh please James Cameron make Avatar 2 and 3 so people will care about me again" Worthington as Perseus, Ralph Fiennes as Hades, and my personal unapologetic man-crush Liam Neeson as Zeus. They're all pretty much the same as last time, only this time Zeus doesn't whine as much, and Hades doesn't wheeze anymore, so improvement all around on that front. Worthington is still way too English to be Greek.

One notable addition to the cast, however, and by far my favorite part of the movie was Bill Nighy popping in to play a crazy old outcast God, Hephaestus. I swear, I could watch that man act all day long. When he's given an odd, quirky character, he turns in some of the most unique performances of anyone I've ever seen every time he shows up. It's quirky yet never annoying.

And no, he's not "The Science Guy." I'm so tired of having to explain that. Watch "Shaun of The Dead" for crying out loud.

 He's quite alright. He ran it under a cold tap.

There were some problems, naturally. The biggest plot hole of the movie involves the final, ultimate destruction of Chronos, which was well within the God's grasp from the beginning...which begs the question why they never used it to finish him off. The other question that sprang to my mind is why nobody is praying to the Gods anymore after the events of "Clash of The Titans." I mean, that was some heavy stuff. Zeus basically came down and said "LISTEN TO ME OR I'LL KILL YOU." That didn't change any minds?

Oh well. I'm just happy something got punched in the face in this movie.

THE BOTTOM LINE - "Wrath of The Titans," for all the good things I've said about it, wasn't a great movie. It was just OK. If you liked "Clash of The Titans" for some weird reason, you'll love this because it improves on it in every way. If you hated "Clash of The Titans," well, this one is better. It's not great, but it's better. Recommended for a rental and lowered expectations.