Iron Man 3 (2013)

It's at this point that I wonder if I'm the right person to be writing about the Marvel movies. True, it's not like I was assigned this or anything, but you know what I mean. After Phase 1 of Marvel's plan reached its conclusion with "The Avengers," and out of the 6 films in that series, I was blown away by a grand total of 1 of them, it started becoming clear that perhaps I'm just not a Marvel guy. I just don't get the rabid, slavering praise they usually receive.

Maybe I need to read the comics to truly "get it," but I've never been a comic book fan. I just watch the movies and hope that there won't be too much stuff that flies over my head. This usually doesn't work out. I just assume every time the audience I'm seeing it with freaks out and applauds over a character appearing that they're someone important. This may hinder me from getting the same level of enjoyment from the film that they do, but at least I'm not subject to the same insane nerd rage they have whenever they see the next great "ultimate betrayal."

I'm sure I'd feel the same way about Deadpool, friend, but fortunately I don't even know who that is.

With "Iron Man 3" I was excepting to have a really good time. Hopefully. However there was a bit of apprehension on my part, considering that even though I love Robert Downey Jr., the character of Tony Stark has been steadily sliding down the scale towards irreverent, obnoxious comic relief. Yes, I know he's always been a snarky smart-ass but Joss Whedon took him so far in that direction in "The Avengers" that he should have just dressed like Oscar Wilde and had a rimshot after every line.

Actually, "The Importance of Being Ernest" would have been way better with robots.

I was very relived to find that "Iron Man 3" did indeed drop pretty much all of the camera mugging that Tony Stark had been doing in his last few outings, and instead had him act like a human being who doesn't have something witty to say after every single thing that's said. Now it's only about 50%, which means it's still a lot, but coming from 98% in "The Avengers" it seems almost dour.

Unfortunately this is one of those instances where I have to once again be a big buzzkill and go against the common consensus when it comes to the Marvel franchise. Like most of the rest of the films before it, there isn't too much glowing praise I can give "Iron Man 3" because it was just okay. It wasn't bad, by any means. This is a well directed, well acted film that has a great look and style to it. Hell, it's by Shane Black, who is a director I really like. The craftsmanship on display is admirable. I can not take that away.

But at the same time I'm having trouble remembering much about it. Some of that has to do with the fact that I don't have an encyclopedic knowledge of these characters, which made the story kind of hard to follow. Some of that has to do with some clumsy storytelling. And some of it has to do with me being kind of bored through a portion of it.

After "The Avengers," Tony Stark is suffering from some PTSD, which is understandable since he almost died. He can't sleep, is getting even weirder than normal, and eventually starts getting full blown panic attacks. Throughout the film he tries to come to terms with all that, which serves as his character arc here. I do have to give the "Iron Man" trilogy credit for having Tony Stark evolve as a character with each film.

The actual plot has to do with The Mandarin (Ben Kingsley), a shadowy Osama bin Laden type figure who is doing a pretty good job of blowing up a lot of stuff without getting caught. There is also an epidemic of exploding people going on which seems to be connected to The Mandarin. After his friend and head of security, Happy Hogan (John Favreau) gets severely hurt in one the attacks, Tony foolishly calls The Mandarin out, only to get his house blown up and all his stuff wrecked.

Oh man. This was ill-advised.

A side story that eventually takes center stage is a scientist named Alrich Killian (Guy Pearce). He's working on technology that will allow people to rapidly heal themselves, and also turn themselves into 3000 degree walking infernos if they feel like it. That's a hell of a side effect, but there you go. That's a real scientist in action, folks. There is no thing in science which doesn't lead to horrible, world-ending abominations of mankind.

"Hey man. Do you want science or not?"

So we've got The Mandarin blowing stuff up, Killian doing science that assures that he'll be a villain, and Tony traipsing around Tennessee trying to fix his suit. Eventually everything comes together and we get a showdown with these walking fireballs and a whole lot of Iron Man suits that are all fully capable of fighting without anyone inside. This is all fine, and fulfills the requisite number of explosions, at least in the third act when the action thankfully kicks in after a pretty talky first two acts.

I will praise "Iron Man 3" for Tony getting to show off his ingenuity after he is deprived of his suit, and must construct a bunch of makeshift weapons that come across like if Red Green had to make an machine like that. True, there was no duct tape that you could see, but I'm pretty sure there was probably some in there somewhere. Either way it was fun to see him go DIY after we're used to him pulling the most random bits of super technology out of his ass like the computerized version of Batman's utility belt.

"If they can't find you handsome, they might as well find you capable of improvising lethal weaponry."

I will say that Guy Pearce is doing a very good job of turning me around on my opinion of him. For a very long time I thought he was at best an average actor but lately he's really been busting his ass proving me wrong. In this film he's quietly intimidating to great effect, and he was actually a lot of fun to watch. Even though he character going from the mindset of helping mankind to terrorism just because a rich jerk snubbed you once seems like a rather severe leap. I'm just saying.

Ben Kingsley as The Mandarin was...interesting. When he's being the cold, ruthless terrorist he's perfectly evil, as Kingsley is an old hand at villainy to say the least. Then the character is taken in a slightly bizarre direction, and while it seems out of nowhere and probably a departure from how he is in the comics (I have to assume), I have to admit to getting a lot of entertainment out of him in the second half of the film.

 The Mandarin could be either a terrorist or the singer for an awesome power metal band.

Gwyneth Paltrow was alright I guess. Pepper Potts was always kind of a nothing character for me, personally, as I'm not quite sure why she's there because she doesn't really do anything. But at least here she serves more of a purpose when she gets kidnapped and is the focus of a "shocking moment" that was effective for all of two seconds before I called what was going to happen after. I was a bigger fan of Rebecca Hall, because even though she's kind of pointless too, she is gorgeous while doing so. Not that Gwyneth isn't easy on the eyes as well but Rebecca Hall is so hot you could cook a steak on her.

Medium rare, please. :D

The only person I didn't care for was Harley, a little geeky child played by Ty Simpkins. Ty is a fine young actor who was good in "Insidious" but I was not a fan of Harley. He's obnoxious and can't physically shut up. There's a scene where he ends up giving Tony a panic attack after rattling all these questions about the alien invasion at him, and I almost felt sick to my stomach - not because I had PTSD but because I wanted to punch him so hard that it caused me pain. I will admit that the chemistry between him and Downey Jr. was great, though. You can tell they had a lot of fun.

You know, all of this adds up to a fine film. It's entertaining, it's well acted, and it's seldom dull. So why aren't I aglow with praise? I'm not sure, really. I think it just goes back to me not really caring overly much about the Marvel franchise. And at the end of the day, if I can't recall a good majority of the film a mere day after seeing it, what does that say?

"That you have a moderate to severe head injury?"

I'm not sure. I don't know what my deal is with these movies. But whatever my issue, it probably means I'm going to get a lot more people telling me I'm dead wrong. Fine, whatever. Start the nerd rage. Take a number. I'm going to be over here, watching "The Dark Knight Rises."

Here's the trailer for "Iron Man 3," in case you've been under a rock for 6 months.

THE BOTTOM LINE - "Iron Man 3" is a competent movie. It's fine. It's well done. And it's fading from my memory so quickly it's difficult to remember many of the praises or various issues I had with it. I can't see myself watching it again, although I'm not upset that I saw it. I honestly have very few feelings towards it whatsoever. So if my apathy isn't condemnation, by all means consider this a recommendation.

Lawless (2012)

No cheeky lead-in for this one, folks. Not feeling it. I'll just say that I wish snazzy suits like dudes wore back in the 30's were still hip. I'd wear the crap out of those things.

"Lawless" focuses on Prohibition era Franklin County, Virginia, a place notorious as "The Wettest Country in The World." In Franklin County back then all you had to do to stub your toe on a moonshine still was to walk 12 feet and kick blindly. I'm also assuming it was likely also known as "The Most Flammable County in the World."

The Bondurant brothers run a fairly successful bootlegging operation, and have an understanding with the local police that allows them to continue doing so. The understanding is slightly complex, but it involves moonshine and the continued decreasing health of the sheriff's liver. The oldest brother Forrest (Tom Hardy) and middle brother Howard (Jason Clarke) are manly men - tough and no-nonsense. Forrest in particular has a special talent of being physically impossible to kill, which comes in handy when the local competition decides to do things like murder him. Apparently the anti-pain stuff in Bane's mask must still be in Tom Hardy's system, because when Forrest gets his throat cut, he just kind of sleeps it off and lowers his voice for a few days. No big deal.

"Are you sure you don't want to at least lay down? I'm pretty sure he made contact with your spine."

"You know I never miss a Redskins game. Keep driving."

"How are you breathing?"

The more wimpy third brother, Jack, is played by everyone's favorite fast-talking geek with the stupid name and very punchable face, Shia LaBeouf. I'm just going to go ahead and admit that I dislike him. Quite a bit, actually. When he first came on the scene I thought he was alright, but as the years have gone by his schtick has gotten more and more insufferable - reaching the capstone with the "Transformers" series.

Fortunately for us, in "Lawless" he plays someone who is a hick. So because of that, he speaks slowly and without much "witty" LaBeouf banter. I have to give him credit for actually being able to shut his mouth for once, but at the same time he's still not that spectacular. But when you're dealing with him, it's really just for the best to call it a day when he's not teeth-grindingly annoying. But hey, he has proven he can play a person of low to middling intelligence.

If you have that haircut, you are required by law to have an IQ under 85.

Even though "Lawless" follows Shia LaBeouf's Jack around most of the time, it really doesn't feel like Jack's story. The real main character here is clearly Forrest, and for the life of me I have no idea why that character wasn't put more front and center, despite nearly every event revolving around him. From the start of the film he's in charge of the bootlegging operation, and only steps down temporarily once, and the only reason he did that was because he needed to give the sutures a chance to glue his head back on his neck. But after that, once he's healed he's back in the thick of things. And I'm having difficultly remembering an occasion where Jack made himself indispensable.

That's not to say that Forrest isn't in the movie a lot, because he certainly is. Tom Hardy gets the second most amount of screen time next to Shia, it's just a matter of perspective. I don't really see the point of having the movie be told through the viewpoint of Jack. It'd be like watching "Die Hard" from the perspective of Argyle, the limo driver who drops McClaine off and waits in the parking garage for most of the movie until he does that one useful thing at the end. Yeah, he did do something, but in the long run, it wasn't anything that McClaine or someone else couldn't have found a way to accomplish just as well. Jack is just nowhere near as interesting or as cool as Forrest is.

Also, Tom Hardy sounds spot-on like Tom Berenger in "Platoon" in this. I kept waiting for him to ask Shia what he knew about death.

But as awesome as Tom Hardy was in "Lawless," there are only two things you'll remember - Gary Oldman and Guy Pearce. These guy were both amazing, although one gets totally shafted.

Gary Oldman plays a Chicago gangster who Jack sees gun down a car right in the middle of the street. Jack is admittedly impressed and inspired by the act. I'm not quite sure if Oldman really had too much else to do with the plot, even though he spares Shia's life at one point for reasons I can't really remember since it wasn't made abundantly clear. I think he was there mostly to showcase the brutality of a true criminal and to inspire the brothers to step up their game.

Oldman is only in this movie for 5 minutes. Tops. It's really a damn shame because casting Gary Oldman in anything for just 5 minutes is just a stupid thing to do. I wanted to see more of him, especially after he bashes in a dude's head with a shovel. It's brutal, shocking, and really really awesome. And funny. And it's the last you see of him. Damn.

"Gary? Back up. If you want to shoot the barber pole...Gary...you're shooting...GARY! BACK UP!"

Guy Pearce plays Rakes, a Special Deputy who comes to Virginia to shake down the bootleggers and get a cut of their profits. Pierce, I must admit, is pretty entertaining in this movie. I've never thought too much of him as an actor but I'll give credit where credit is due - after Gary Oldman he's the most entertaining character in the film. Fortunately for us he functions as what is essentially the main antagonist, so we see a lot of him. He actually reminds me a bit of Gary Oldman's character from "The Professional." He's over-the-top and corny, so much so that you really don't think a whole lot of him at first. That is, until you see him work.

His hair looks like a Michigan Wolverines helmet.

There are several scenes where so you see Rakes become an absolute monster. The most memorable one being the time he gives Shia LaBeouf the epic beating that I've fantasized giving him myself. It's particularly fun to watch as Rakes is a bit of a fastidious clean-freak, what with his impeccably neat suit. surgically combed hair and spotless gloves. He doesn't really get "serious" about the beating until Jack has the gall to bleed on his suit. Then it's personal. And yes, it's a bit weird having a guy who seems like he'd be better off in a Bond movie in this period piece, but he injects some much needed life into what is otherwise an almost plodding script.

Other than that there's really not more to recommend "Lawless." It's not bad. It's just not that memorable. I will say it's better than the overly long and far more tepid "Public Enemies" from a few years ago. That's not a huge endorsement, but it's something.

Pretty much just watch for me. Yeah, pretty much.

THE BOTTOM LINE - "Lawless" is notable for having Shia LaBeouf not being completely insufferable, for Tom Hardy doing an awesome Tom Berenger impression, Guy Pearce having a silly haircut, and Gary Oldman hitting someone with a shovel. That's about it. If you like period pieces about 30's America, it's worth a look. Otherwise don't kick yourself over missing it.

Seeking Justice (2011)

Nicolas Cage time!!! Wooo!!! Once again we join our intrepid over-actor as he has another fun filled, spastic journey which will fill our hearts with joy and glee. So what is on the menu this time, Mr. Cage? A cheesy B-horror flick? An over the top gore fest? Something were you get to play a crazy person?

"Seeking Justice": noun - A 2011 film staring Nicolas Cage, who plays a teacher whose wife is savagely beaten and raped. He makes a deal with a mysterious man who will kill the man responsible, in exchange for a favor to be called in at a future time.

Oh. Well, that doesn't sound whimsical at all. That sounds...grim.
 
In all honesty, I really dug this plot. I like the thought of a exploring what a person will do in their deepest, darkest moments of despair, and I also like the exploration of the grey areas that "justice" can overlap at times. I think if you asked the vast majority of people, husbands or wives or whatever, who were in the hospital a mere hour after their spouse had been beaten and raped whether or not they wanted whoever was responsible to die, a good amount of people would say "Hell yes." Ask them again in a few days or weeks and you might get a different answer, but if you ask them right after they came out of the IC unit, I don't think most of them would be feeling too much compassion for those responsible.

Of course, us being the audience, we know that it's not the best idea to get involved with people advertising free murder (in exchange for...oh I don't know...a "little favor" in the future). We've all seen these movies. But it does make sense in context. I can't really blame the character for doing something stupid like that, or getting involved with really shady people. I'm not sure I wouldn't do the same thing in that situation, honestly. And despite what you're saying, I'll bet you'd think seriously about it too. Not saying it's smart, but there you go. Not everyone thinks clearly during their moments of despair.

"Hello? Listen, my dog just died, can it wait? What? I won a cruise? Well, I suppose I have time to answer a few questions for a cruise..."

So obviously, the favor gets called in, it escalates into something more than Nicolas Cage bargained for, and he tries to get out of it. Guy Pearce plays the mysterious "Simon," the man behind everything, and in a nice change of pace does a job that isn't straight "C average." I mentioned in my "Lockout" review that Guy Pearce is the definition of an "average" actor for me, and I'm seldom impressed with him but in "Seeking Justice" he was pretty good. He's no Nicolas Cage (shut up, he's a good actor) but he does a passable evil jackass.

Here's Guy going undercover as Timothy Olyphant.

The rest of the story really isn't anything overly special. In fact the plot is fairly predictable most of the way through. However that isn't to say that it's bad. "Seeking Justice" is well directed, well acted, and well paced. Despite the fact that it isn't going to blow your mind or reinvent the genre for you, that doesn't stop it from being a passably fun use of an hour and a half of your time.

I think the weakest link is honestly the ending. This isn't because it's necessarily bad, but because it's probably the most stock section of the film. While some sequences of "Seeking Justice" did contain some elements of "twists," with varying degrees of success, the ending is pretty much going down exactly how you figure it's going down. You'll be able to guess how it's all wrapping up and probably be pretty spot on about 20 minutes before the end credits roll is what I'm saying.

"Remember, feet shoulder width apart. Bend slightly forward. Relax. Look down the sights, make sure to line the barrel straight up with the foreshadowing and squeeze the trigger. Very good."

Speaking of "twists," that's another thing that "Seeking Justice" did pretty well...up to a point. The "twists" pretty much boil down to the question "Who is involved in this shady organization that kills bad people?" The answer winds up being "Nearly everyone." Well, that's not true, there are plenty of characters who aren't involved, but there winds up being just a few too many characters who are. Had it been just one other character who winds up in it, that would be one thing, but the movie gets a little slap happy with the idea.

So what about my Nicolas Cage fix? Did I get to see one of my favorite actors going insane? Unfortunately for me, but most likely fortunately for everyone else, not really. Cage plays it pretty straight this time out. There's no high pitched wailing "He's scratching at the DOOOOOOR!!!" or punching ladies while wearing a bear costume in this. Although that is to the film's detriment. If anything I think Cage plays it a little too dialed back. Perhaps he was trying something new. However, as much as I prefer my Cage's to be crazy, this might help sway people into seeing him for the decent actor he is.

For example, the scene where he visits his wife, played by January Jones, at the hospital was kind of weird for me, but at the same time was a really nice moment of acting from Cage. I was expecting a full blown meltdown, but instead, as he's walking down the hallway into the room, he barely has any expression at all. As he's standing next to her, he just kind of looks borderline sad. I was actually getting a tad annoyed and thought "How could they get such a boring performance from him?" But then everyone leaves him alone in the room with his comatose wife, and he starts cracking a bit.

What I liked about it was that it was less of an explosion and more of a barely controlled implosion. I saw a guy who was so overwhelmed that he really didn't know what to do. I guess it makes more sense, because people don't always throw an Al Pacino-esque tirade whenever they're upset. Sometimes you just don't know what to do with yourself, and it's all you can do to just stand there and try to keep your brain from falling out of your head. It's a nice bit of acting from a guy who doesn't get nearly enough credit. Remember, he is a "Best Actor" Oscar winner.

So overall, I'd liked this flick. It was pretty good. It's also nice to see Xander Berkeley in something again. I really don't know why that guy isn't better known. He's a pretty prestigious supporting actor, and not only in little movies, either. Remember "Air Force One?" He was the turncoat Secret Service agent who shoots William H. Macy. He was John Conner's step-dad in "Terminator 2." Has was on "24" back in the first couple seasons when it was good. It was also nice to see Harold Perrineau in something were he wasn't screaming "WAAAAAALT!!!" over and over again. Seriously, screw "Lost" and Michael. And Walt. And Jack. And Locke. And Kate. Oh, especially Kate! That stupid, selfish piece of crap character needed to be thrown off the first sizable cliff they came to. And you know what? Screw Sawyer, too. I liked him until he kept going after Kate. What the crap does he see in her? Is it because she's hot? Because she's a criminal? Because she's a worse sociopath than he is? Why?! OH! And don't get me even STARTED on what they should do to Ben Linus!

What was I talking about again?

Sorry. "Lost" takes me there.

THE BOTTOM LINE - "Seeking Justice" is a passable revenge drama with a little bit of action thrown in. It's not the over the top Nicolas Cage that I love, but as always, he's pretty entertaining. It won't blow your mind, but I've seen waaaaaay worse than "Seeking Justice." Recommended.

Lockout (2012)

Hoo boy. Where to start with this one. I remember that I was looking forward to this film, partly because A) It came right the hell out of nowhere, so it had the element of surprise going for it, B) It looked interesting enough, what with a prison in space, and C) I like Guy Pearce.

Well actually, that last part isn't 100% accurate. I am not irritated by the presence of Guy Pearce. I really don't have anything negative to say about him, but neither do I gush over his performances. He's kind of the definition for me of an "average" actor. He gets in front of the camera, says his lines in a competent but very "straight C student" manner, and at no point am I really buying what he's saying. But it's never bad enough to tear down my suspension of disbelief. 

If I see him on the box, I say to myself "Oh. Guy Pearce. I didn't even know he was in this. Cool." Then I set the case down and reach for the newest Val Kilmer movie.

Movies like "Lockout" are not helping my neutrality on Guy Pearce. If there was going to be a movie that made me jump on The Pearce Express, if such a thing existed, this ain't the one. And again, much like Guy himself, it's not that "Lockout" is overtly bad so to speak. It's just so damn "straight C student" average that it's difficult to care. Although this is where the analogy breaks down a bit, because honestly, "Lockout" isn't pulling a C average. This is like the C student getting wasted the night before finals, sleeping through half of them, and subsequently getting his GPA pounded into the D range.

You know it's on when The Guyster turns his gun all ghetto-grip.

The idea of "Lockout" is that there is a prison that has been built in space to hold the world's most vile criminals, the world's only "Ultra-Max" prison. The point of that is, of course, that the prison is escape-proof, because there's literally nowhere to go. For some reason that I honestly forgot by the halfway point (it doesn't matter) the President's daughter, played by mobile landing strip...er...forehead...er...actress...yeah we'll go with that, Maggie Grace, goes to the prison along with some secret service guys in order to interview some prisoners for some reason.

I think it had something to do with uncovering an EEEEEEEVAL corporation's plans to use prisoners as test subjects for the effects of cyro-freeze for long term space travel. Why the corporation using them as frozen test subjects is EEEEEEEEVAL when the prisoners were frozen in stasis anyway is a bit hazy, especially considering they are all mass murdering psychopaths. It seems to me that using these criminals (in a manner that doesn't hurt them in the least, by the way) to do some good for the betterment of mankind, like the exploration of freaking space, is something of a noble idea. Weyland-Utani these guys ain't.

Bitch please...

Anyway, of course the pooch gets predictably screwed when one of Maggie Grace's secret service idiots does a titanically stupid thing and winds up inadvertently arming and setting loose one of the inmates, who promptly frees every other inmate in the prison. This takes him about 34 seconds, by the way. This scene is so bone headed for so many reasons that it really helps sum up why this movie kind of just sucks.

1) Before the interview, the secret service guys are told to relinquish their weapons. Of course, the one guy is a freaking idiot and keeps the gun he has in his boot on him. What a pro. But besides that, are you telling me they didn't have to go through a metal detector or any security screening whatsoever? They just took his word for it? This is supposed to be "THE MOST ADVANCED PRISON EVER MADE," and it's easier to bring a gun through its security than it is to get through a TSA checkpoint?! More on the advanced nature of the prison in a bit.

2) Why, of all the prisoners there, do they trot out the most insane, clearly psychotic, uncooperative, dangerous inmate they could possibly find for the President's daughter to interview? This guy is like if you took SID 6.7, crossed him with The Joker and gave him "killing Tourettes" where he has a clinical need to murder something every 14 seconds. This guy actually knows the secret service guy has a gun because he smells it on him. Oh yeah. that sounds like a great person to talk to: The guy who can smell guns. Let's get Barbara Walters on this!

A more trustworthy face you couldn't hope to find.

3) Why in the sweet hell are the secret service guys even on the same side of the glass as the criminal? Aren't there prison guards for that? You know, people TRAINED for it? People who wouldn't, say, bring a gun into the room with the ridiculously dangerous man? But nope. Not a prison guard in sight.

4) THE GLASS ISN'T BULLETPROOF?!?!?!?

5) There are no security countermeasures in place at all? No bulkheads being automatically locked down? No knockout gas? No shutting off life support? No electrified floors? No collars on the inmates like "The Running Man?" No machine gun turrets? Like NOTHING?! That's all this ultra-max slam has in the way of security? A non-bulletproof pane of glass, two unlocked doors and a dude with glasses armed with only a clipboard to guard the button that lets EVERY CRIMINAL LOOSE AT ONCE!?

6) You're telling me that somebody actually programmed a command on that panel to "Open Every Door And Immediately Thaw Every Prisoner." When in the name of Odin's Mighty Butthole would you ever need that, especially when the inmates seemingly outnumber the guards about 10 to 1? That seems like not only an absurdly pointless command to even make possible to execute, but a mind-shatteringly dangerous one as well, for situations, oh I don't know JUST LIKE THIS ONE. Let's face it, when the glass on this piece of space junk isn't even bulletproof, I'm guessing prisoners getting out is a real possibility!

I don't even know if it's worth it to continue. That scene is pretty much the dumbest thing I saw in that film, and it really never gets any better. I'm surprised I haven't even mentioned Guy Pearce in it yet, which is a plus for him because he honestly pissed me off, too.

I think this is the only movie I've seen Guy Pearce in where he was memorable enough to annoy me. It's the same thing that got me about Tony Stark in "The Avengers," which is that every goddamn line out of his mouth is a quip or a joke or snide sarcastic remark. It's one thing to have a character who makes funny comments, or has a sense of humor, or who is irreverently sarcastic. But it needs to be tempered with "normal person speak."

No human being on earth is going to have something smarmy to say in response to everything single thing said to them. Even Snake Plissken said "What?" a couple of times. But it always makes me grind my teeth down to a fine powdery residue when I am forced to suffer through a character that talks like Oscar Wilde writing John McClane. And again, even John McClane, as badass and funny as he was, didn't have a "Thanks for the advice" moment every line. When they do, I don't want to see them kicking ass, I want them to shut the hell up!

"Uh...something witty...um...how do ya like THEM apples...supplements...damn it, CUT! Gimme a minute...damn it...apples...come on, Guy, THINK!"

There were other grievances I had, but it really just wound up being a haze of annoyances that held me in a perpetual state of "why the hell am I watching this?" for 90 minutes. From the absurdly bad CGI in the beginning bike chase that looked like bad PS2 graphics, to Peter Stormare's incredibly annoying "where the hell are you supposed to be from" accent (seriously I can't stand that guy), to a shot of adrenaline, instead of being injected somewhere that makes sense like the heart, being shot into someone's eyeball (and not the tear duct, right in the middle of the freaking pupil, because that works) to that really bad blowjob joke that was in the trailer, to none of the inmates stopping the craziest inmate from constantly screwing everything up by killing stuff, to gravity suddenly working in space, and finally to a free fall from orbit around Earth to ground taking less than 20 seconds...it just wasn't working for me.

It's unusual to say, but Guy Pearce is too good for this. Or perhaps this is the perfect Guy Pearce vehicle. Maybe he's really on to something with the whole "being in a bad movie" idea. If the movie is bad enough, it would make a middling actor look much better in comparison. In that case, well done?

Not bad.

THE BOTTOM LINE - There are so many better sci-fi action flicks out there that would be a far superior film to this. Hell, just watch "Escape From L.A." Even that brain-dead schlock is way more fun at least. Watch "Doomsday." Watch "The Running Man." Anything but "Lockout." It's just a waste of time. Skip it.

Prometheus (2012)

Sometimes writing this blog sucks. When a movie reaches a certain level of quality it quickly becomes really hard to write anything about it out of fear of sounding redundant. Or sometimes there's just so much to talk about that you either write a novel or nothing at all. Here's one of those moments.

I'll own up to something right off the bat here, so everyone knows where I'm coming from with this. I am a HUGE "Alien" fan. The "Alien" franchise is one of my favorites of all time, right up there with "Star Wars." And while I didn't see them as a child, the "Alien" movies helped define my taste in both the science fiction and horror genres, and was a big part of my adolescence.

I'm such a big fan I even like "Alien Resurrection." Now, don't get me wrong, that is a terrible movie, but I still inexplicably have fun with it despite how terrible it is. "Alien Resurrection" is a glorious wreck of two trains, one carrying Joss Whedon writing a story about cloning while not knowing how cloning works and the other carrying 5,000 gallons of KY jelly. And he had the gall to come out and say that the reason it sucked was because all the actors said their lines wrong. Did he read his script? What an asshole.

Yup. Totally Sygourney Weaver's fault right there...

I'd been keeping on and off again tabs on "Prometheus" for years, ever since it was called "Alien 5." Then Ridley Scott changed the name, it became a prequel, then it wasn't a prequel, then it was, and it just kept going back and forth until I stopped listening. It was too painful to hear every time they made a big change. Eventually I walled myself off from it and kept in the dark. The only thing I allowed myself to see was the trailer when it was first released. And it looked so good that out of all the movies coming out in 2012, the only one that I was more excited about was "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey."

Needless to say, the expectations were sky high.

I ended up seeing "Prometheus" twice, in actuality. I saw it on opening day, but I realized I couldn't write a review of it at that point, because I didn't really know what I thought. I knew that I didn't hate it. I knew that I enjoyed myself, but I didn't know if that was because of my "fan-goggles" or not. Perhaps the fact that I was practically wetting myself with joy every time I saw something familiar was tainting my opinion of it.

So I went back and watched it again a few days later. And I'm happy to say that "Prometheus" improves drastically on a second viewing, and it confirmed my original thoughts on the film: "Prometheus" is really, really good.

Whoa! They made a "Mass Effect" movie? Sweet!

The thing about "Prometheus" is that there's a lot of ideas going on in it. Any movie that asks the question: "Who are we and where did we come from?" and attempts to give some answers is biting off a big mouthful to chew. Aside from that, there are recurring themes of evolution, rebirth, and parricide that really give "Prometheus" what I have to be snobby and call "an intellectual edge" that makes it a much smarter film than any film in the "Alien" franchise to date. Not to say that "Prometheus" is better, or that the others weren't "smart," but they were horror/action films. "Prometheus" is a before anything else a sci-fi film.

Not really knowing where to begin, I'll just start by saying that the cast was phenomenal. I was happy to see that Noomi Rapace confirmed my suspicions that her portrayal of Lisbeth Salander in "The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo" series was simply the result of a horrible character, and that she is actually a very good actress. I enjoyed her greatly in "Prometheus," although it is inevitable that comparisons to Sygourney Weaver will occur, since she is the Ripley character of this one.

Is she as good as Sygourney? That's impossible to say since Ripley and Beth are two completely different characters. I'd say that overall Beth isn't as emotionally (or physically) strong as Ripley is, but the way Noomi plays Beth, she never comes off as weak - just realistic. In fact you could argue that Beth is far more logical and intelligent than Ripley since she thinks about things instead of acting out of blind emotion (re: running back into the alien hive to save Newt). Perhaps that evens things out. Ripley is a badass, Beth is smart.

Noomi is also looking a HELL of a lot like Kari Byron in this. Ridley Scott must have been reading my "wish list."

 Oh baby. You can bust my myth any day. Awww yeah... #needsgirlfriendbadly

And of course, adding to the lovely factor is Charlize Theron, playing the corporate jerk who doesn't really care about any of the crew, kind of like Paul Reiser's character Burke in "Aliens." Between this and "Snow White and The Huntsman," she really can play wicked quite well. The real star here, though, is Michael Fassbender, who seems to be on a mission to completely dominate every single movie he is in. His portrayal of David, the ship's synthetic (robot) is, in a word, stunning. He had a lot to live up to, filling the shoes of Ian Holm and Lance Henriksen, but Fassebender is a mack-daddy, so of course he pulls it off.

And if you squint really hard and huff a lot of paint, Fassbender kind of looks like the love child of Ian Holm and Lance Henriksen.

I know there has been some division among fans, however. Honestly, I don't get it, but if someone wasn't paying attention, they might come away with misconceptions since this is not really like the other "Alien" films, at least at first glance. There really isn't any horror element to it, at least not in terms of what we've come to expect. Whereas the other movies were essentially slasher movies in space, "Prometheus" is more of a suspense/drama. The gore, for the most part, isn't really there like in the others, there is less emphasis on action, and there is more of a sense of mystery and discovery than tension and dread, although those do make themselves known on occasion.

But at the same time, there are a lot of similarities, particularly in the pacing department. It begins slow and it takes it's time until a nasty discovery is unveiled which threatens the crew. Slowly they begin to get picked off, just in this case not by a monster in the conventional sense. There is the equivalent of the chestburster scene, and although it is much later in the film, I would say that it's far more intense since the scene in the original was much quicker. A corporate betrayal is uncovered, and the ending is actually quite similar in a lot of ways. There's also a "fourth act" confrontation, which "Alien" basically invented. Hell, even the android's severed head starts talking.

And for being not as action-oriented, there are some legitimate squirming-in-your-seat nail biting moments that I imagine would be especially rough for anybody who has ever given birth. C-Section nightmares all around, kiddos.

 Nobody can watch this scene and tell me later it wasn't intense as all hell.

So I guess I don't understand where the split comes in. It may anger some to hear this, but take it from a person who is quite protective of the series: This is not a betrayal. This is "Alien" with an intellectual spin on it, and there's a lot to talk about in it.

When I talk about an intellectual spin and "big" ideas, dig on this:

SPOILER WARNING

According to "Prometheus," a race of aliens ("The Engineers") created human life on Earth by sacrificing one of their own into the primordial waters. In fact, that is presumably what's going on in the very first scene. The very first scene of the film is the beginning of life, and "The Engineers" are for all intents and purposes, God.

When the crew find the alien ship on the distant planet, it was on a course for Earth. It's reason was to wipe out all life in order to start again. It had been sitting there for around 2,000 years. Now, "Prometheus" takes place less than 100 years from now. Can you think of something possibly God-related that happened about 2,000 years ago that might make the creator of human-kind upset? Something that might make them say, "Ok, you've all had your fun, but you all suck, and it's time to start from scratch" perhaps?

That's right. "Prometheus" drops the hint of the idea that Jesus was an alien. That's a big idea.

/SPOILERS

"Prometheus" may be upsetting for someone looking for a movie just like what the rest of the movies were, but was that really all you wanted? Getting the same thing over and over again can get boring, and I personally didn't want to see Ridley Scott get back in the directors chair only to do his best James Cameron impression. James Cameron is the guy doing the best impression of James Cameron, anyways.

I guess what I mean is that if all you wanted was to see "Aliens" again, throw in the DVD of "Aliens." After all, there really was no improving on that one anyways. When I get Ridley Scott, I expect a high level of quality, and hopefully some interesting intellectual angles. And that's exactly what I got.

Well, that and a whole lot of creepy H.R. Giger looking architecture.

THE BOTTOM LINE - "Prometheus" was not what I was expecting, but that didn't stop it from being very good. It's a fine entry into the "Alien" franchise which gets better with repeat viewings, since there's a lot to take in, and I dare say it's objectively the best of the series since "Aliens." If it doesn't make my Top 10 of 2012, I will be shocked. Its biggest problem is that it will feel very hollow if it's not followed up on. This NEEDS a sequel, or even better to be made into a trilogy to be linked into the events of "Alien." Highly Recommended.