Taken 2 (2012)

It's no secret to anyone who knows me that I have a severe man-crush on Liam Neeson. I apologize for and rescind nothing. The man is a mack-daddy of the highest caliber as far as acting is considered, and even in dreck like "Star Wars: Episode I" he can make utter crap halfway decent just by being in it. Well, maybe not decent, but we'll call it watchable. As long as he's on screen, that is. And not in the presence of annoying, racist CGI sidekicks.

And yes, I had heard nothing but bad things going into "Taken 2." And it's true that I had refused to see it in theaters even though I'm a huge Liam Neeson fan, and I loved the first "Taken." The reason I refused to pay to see it in theaters was because of the fact that producer Luc Besson has a nasty habit of releasing R-rated films edited down to a PG-13 in theaters, which is what both "Taken" and "Taken 2" did, only to release the "Unrated" cut later when it comes out to rent. This is actually just the original version of the film, not some super special edition. And I'm not paying $9.50 to see a version of a movie that I would see on TV. I'm a grownup. Let me watch my grownup films.

That aside, did "Taken" really need a sequel? It seems a tad unnecessary. I suppose there are worse films to make sequels to. Honestly if you're looking at from a storyline standpoint there's more reason to have "Taken 2" than there was to have, say, "Terminator 2," since the events of the first "Terminator" essentially make it so a sequel should literally be impossible. But it's not like "Terminator 2" where we're dealing with plotholes involving physical impossibility. Mills could feasibly have people come after him again, and they don't have to travel through time to do it. So sure, why not? Make a sequel.

But that brings up the worst part of the whole "Taken 2" idea. Based on the title itself, they've kind of roped themselves into a corner. The bad guys can only do one thing - abduction - because the name of the movie is "Taken." What if one of the baddies just said "Hey, why don't we plant a car bomb and kill him with that?" Would the other guy bring up the fact that the name of the movie they're in isn't "Car Bomb," and it's against the rules? And now they're talking about "Taken 3," and at that point it's like Jack Bauer and another one of his very long days.

 "Oh god, not this crap again. Who am I, Bill freaking Murray?"

For those reasons, including the fact that the only other film I've seen from director Oliver Megaton (really?) was "Transporter 3," an acceptable but forgettable affair, I wasn't expecting too much out of "Taken 2." In fact I wasn't expecting anything at all. This turned out to be a pretty smart way to approach it. "Taken 2" wasn't as bad as everyone was saying it was. But it still wasn't that good. It kind of just "was." It's a movie you'll see once, forget a good chunk of it not too long after it's done, and never really think too much on it ever again. But there are worse ways to kill an hour and a half.

Picking up a year or so after the first movie, "Taken 2" finds Mills and family on a trip to Istanbul. Once there, the relatives of the people Mills killed previously enact a plan to get their vengeance, and Liam Neeson and Famke Janssen end up being the ones who are kidnapped, with Maggie Grace being the one who has to save them.

Yes, I know the idea of Maggie Grace: Action Hero sounds lame. That's what the trailer would have us believe this movie is, but honestly there's more to it than that. It's true that she does a little bit of reckless driving through the streets and runs on some rooftops, but the whole ordeal with her saving Liam Neeson is only about a 20 minute chunk of the movie. Once she does rescue him it's business as usual from that point on as Liam does what Liam will do and kicks some ass.

Liam is actually shooting people. Maggie is just sitting there going "Rrrrraaaaaaawwww Pwaaaaaaaahhh EEEEEEEEEEK Brrrraaaaaaa HONK HONK! Rrrrrraaaaaaa..."

And really, aside from that bit it's really the same movie as before. Liam tracks down bad guys, Liam kills bad guys. While this is usually a point against a sequel, hey it's not like they're rehashing bad stuff. "Taken" was a good movie. The fact they're somewhat copy and pasting it isn't a bad thing. It just makes it fairly unremarkable and not very memorable.

Honestly the worst part is that compared to "Taken" this movie doesn't have nearly the same amount of action, at least from what I recall of it. Which truthfully isn't that much. I remember the French dude from the first movie getting killed, Maggie Grace throwing grenades and driving a car, Famke Janssen getting tortured, Liam getting a gun, and Liam killing the main villain with a coat rack (I think. It was really quick and hard to make out). That's all I remember. I still recall most of the first movie, and I haven't seen that in years. I saw "Taken 2" just the other day and I'm already blanking on all but that handful of scenes. Take that for what it's worth.

There were still some things I enjoyed about "Taken 2" though, and oddly enough they both heavily featured Maggie Grace. The first bit was that whole "grenade" thing I mentioned earlier. After being kidnapped, Liam is able to call Maggie Grace on a phone he smuggled in and coaches her through how to find him, using a map and loud noises. These loud noises just happen to be some grenades, which Maggie then proceeds to throw while Liam estimates distance based on how long it took the sound to reach him. It's a neat scene, and I found Maggie just chucking grenades where "it doesn't look like anyone is there" to be oddly funny.

But wait a minute. Timing that precise via cell phone would be all off because of the natural delay in reception... (Stupid nitpicky brain, stop that! You liked that scene!)

There's also a bit in the beginning when Maggie Grace is practicing for her driver's test, which they kind of bring back during the car chase where she's driving and Liam Neeson is still coaching her while shooting out the passenger window. I thought that was a fun callback which actually made decent sense in context, because even though the thought of Maggie Grace making like Steve McQueen is enough to make one roll their eyes, it's not like she's very good at it yet. She's barely keeping the car on the road and is kind of panicky, which is a reasonable reaction. Although having to suffer through her wailing "I can't!" before she does what she just said she couldn't do over and over again got really old.

That brings me to my last point. I don't like Maggie Grace. Never have. Probably never will. I don't think she's that good of an actress, she always gets moderately to severely annoying characters to play, and her forehead is far too big to not be distracting. At first I was willing to cut her some slack because I figured that I just despised her character on "Lost," Shannon, with the fiery passion of Eternal Hellfire so much that I just assumed my hate for that character was spilling over onto Maggie as an actress, which wasn't fair to her. But then the catch came when I saw her in things other than "Lost," and she's still basically playing Shannon. Not as horrifyingly wretched, of course, but Shannon is still in there. And she needs to be killed with fire.

I did cartwheels when they shot your ass in "Lost." CARTWHEELS.

So that's "Taken 2." It's not as bad as they all said, but neither is it worth spending 90 minutes with unless you're a huge fan of Liam Neeson, particularly if you've already seen the first film. If that's the case, you've already seen the better version of what is essentially the same story. And at least in the first one there wasn't all those events that happened in a movie proceeding it that the heroes seem to forget about, which makes them look stupid. What else am I supposed to think when they're saying stuff such as "You hear all about these terrible things that happen to people over there."

Kind of like that one time that your daughter and her friend went to Paris and got kidnapped and sold as a sex slave, resulting in her friend's death and the deaths of a whole lot of people you killed getting her back? Things like that? Yeah, that might have been worth remembering.

THE BOTTOM LINE - "Taken 2" is not the cinematic abomination that it had been made out to be. Seriously, it's not that bad. It's a decent action movie, and I was reasonably entertained. Its biggest problem is that it's a sequel to a better film. Don't cancel any plans in order to see it, but it's not going to hurt or offend you or anything. And hey, it's Liam Neeson. Can't be all bad.

Batman Begins (2005)

Let's go back in time a bit. It's 2004. It's been 7 years since George Clooney and Joel Schumacher took Batman, one of the most iconic superheros of all time, and gave him a fluorescent makeover complete with his very own absurdly niche-market credit card. His most worthy opponent had been reduced to a mute, brainless, walking slab of ground chuck in a luchadore mask, and even Arnold Schwarzenegger, the King of The Awesomely Bad One-Liners, was unable to utter a single sentence that didn't physically hurt. But while the pain of Chris O'Donnell whining about wanting a Robin-Signal in the sky has finally begun to fade, still, there is a lingering sadness hanging over nerd culture.

Oh, true - "Spiderman 2" was still being fawned over by pasty comic book geeks everywhere, at least whenever they could spare a moment to stop arguing over important things like if they got Peter Parker's hair parted on the correct side. But for every "Spiderman" movie that didn't make nerds want to bludgeon things to death with their mint-condition Spider-mobile, there were movies like "Daredevil." Movies like "Catwoman." Movies like "The Hulk." And soon would come movies like "The Fantastic Four" and "Superman Returns." Truly, this was a time for some despair.

And beneath it all, that lingering sadness remained. Beneath everything else, hitting harder and cutting deeper than any other betrayal was that one sad, heartbreaking fact: They had done it. They killed Batman.

This paid for the funeral.

Then we start hearing things. They're bringing him back. Instant fear seeped down the pant leg of many a nerd as the 'Nam flashbacks of Alicia Silverstone donning the Batgirl costume rushed back, threatening to drive many to madness. I know that I was one of them, rocking back and forth in the corner of my room in the fetal position as echos of Clooney's fourth-wall desecrating line "This is why Superman works alone" bounced around in my head.

But then we started to hear other things. Things about this guy barely anyone had heard of named Christopher Nolan. The only thing anybody seemed to know about him was that he was "that one guy who made that one movie that went backwards, or something."

Well, I for one knew exactly who he was, and the name of that movie was "Memento." He had also done a movie with Al Pacino and Robin Williams called "Insomnia." I had seen both of those films, so I looked at "Batman Begins" with a new sense of hope, because after seeing those two films, I knew that Nolan was a guy who knew what the hell he was doing. And as more information came out, it became clear that finally, at long last, they were taking Batman seriously again for the first time since 1989.

I just going to come out and say it, "Batman Begins" is the best superhero origin story ever made. Period. Now, some may argue that the first Sam Raimi "Spiderman" was the best. I would say that while it's true that "Spiderman" was a great origin story, I have to give it to "Batman Begins" simply because to me, it made the most sense out of any origin story I'd ever seen. Most of this came from the first part of the film showcasing the often forgotten fact that Batman is, in fact, a ninja.

For all of you blowing a gasket at that, think about it. Bruce Wayne is trained in the mountains by people, who as we plainly see, are ninjas. He employs diversion, mind games, and stealth to take out enemies without being seen. He wears black and stays in the shadows whenever possible. He throws shurikens for crying out loud. Oh, true, he calls himself "The Batman" instead of "The Ninja-man," but if it looks like a ninja, moves like a ninja, and fights like a ninja, odds are it's a ninja.

No, nothing ninja-esque about this dude at all...

What that does is make Bruce Wayne a more realistic and interesting superhero. Let's compare Peter Parker and Bruce Wayne.

Peter Parker is a normal kid. Whether or not he's really super smart depends on the movie you watch (I'm not up on my comics, so I don't know what he's like in those), but for all intents and purposes, he's normal. Then he gets bitten by a radioactive spider and hey presto he has superpowers. These powers are just heaped on him without him really having to work to get them. Oh true, he has to fall off an occasional building before he masters his web shooters, but all of a sudden, he's doing back-flips and kung-fu battling villains like a madman, despite him never learning how to fight. He can just do that now.

Because spiders are natural warriors?

You wouldn't think it, but this dude holds 3 MMA championships.

Bruce Wayne trained his ASS off. There was not a single "power" he has that was given to him. He worked for every single bit of skill that he has, and every cut, every broken bone, every concussion, every single injury he sustained was willingly taken out of his obsession with stopping the crime that took his family away from him. And at the end of the day, he's human. And more than any other superhero, the physical strain that he goes through is clear to see. He's not a superhero, he's just an exceptional man who has no special powers to fall back on when he's in trouble.

For my money, this is a far more interesting character to follow than someone like Peter Parker, or god help me, that goody-goody two shoes Clark Kent. I've just always loved the fact that Batman has to leg sweep a guy once in a while, you know?

"My plan? Well, I was thinking about flying really fast and picking something up. It's all I seem to do."

More than any other "Batman" films, the Nolan series starts off by showing what Bruce Wayne actually went through to become Batman. Every other time it was just the prerequisite "dark alley gunshots" and Mr. and Mrs. Wayne lying on the wet sidewalk in a flashback/dream sequence. In this movie, his struggle seems more poignant because we see the buildup to those struggles, which is something the other films all lacked entirely.

I love Christian Bale as an actor, but out of everything I've seen him in, I think his turn as Batman is going to be what people remember him for, which is a good thing. I liked Michael Keaton as both Bruce and Batman, because he was the only guy to play Bruce Wayne like he was crazy enough to dress like a bat and fight crime. I even thought Val Kilmer was a great Bruce. He just wasn't great under the mask, frankly. But Christian Bale is the first guy who's played a good Bruce Wayne while still looking like he could be Batman physically. The way he carries himself and the way he is crazy ripped leaves little doubt that he could actually do these things. You look at Val Kilmer as Batman and wonder if he's worried about his hair getting messed up under the cowl.

As far as the rest of the cast goes, it's only one cast member away from perfect. Having Michael Caine, Gary Oldman, Morgen Freeman, my unapologetic man-crush Liam Neeson, Cillian Murphy, Ken Watanabe, and even frigging Rutger Hauer in "Batman Begins" basically makes it a movie composed of a respectable chunk of my favorite actors. And then there's Katie Holmes. Her performance is tolerable enough I suppose, but when she's on screen with actors like Michael goddamn Caine, it's like watching Homer Simpson boxing Drederik Tatum: the best she can hope for is her corpse still looking vaguely human after he pounds into a meat-flavored pile.

"Now den. Oym gonna 'it ewe wiff dis bat, an' ewer gonna take it. 'Cause oym Muwhyco Caine."

Oh, quick side note, be on the lookout for future royalty on the streets of Gotham. 

Psychotic, inbred future royalty...

If there was a short coming with "Batman Begins," it was probably that I felt that it waffled slightly when it came to the question "Who is the bad guy in this?" Now, this is simply a matter of the movie pulling some twists on us, obviously, but it did feel on occasion that there was no central villain for the good middle hour of the film. And I must say that I was upset that Cillian Murphy's villain, The Scarecrow, was essentially made a non-issue about forty minutes after it appeared that he was the main bad guy. Of course, they work him into the main villain, Ras al-Ghul's plot, but he's really just a pawn in a bigger scheme. And he has what is undoubtedly the least dignified and most unsatisfying send off for a Batman villain that I remember seeing. Getting tasered in the face by Katie Holmes? Really? That's the resolution of that one? Lame.

I also wasn't a big fan of how the effects of Scarecrow's "fear-gas" were implemented. The visions that people are seeing when they are under its effects really don't seem that terrifying. I mean, most of the time, other people are just appearing as having glowing eyes. I suppose when Scarecrow sees Batman while suffering its effects it kind of works, but really all Batman looks like is a drooling gargoyle. Not really that scary. Now, if they were rotting, decaying, grotesque corpses or something, that I can see being scary. But how far could you push that and keep a PG-13 rating? Who knows.

Those little nitpicks aside, I loved "Batman Begins." I had been a fan of Christopher Nolan before, but his rescuing of The Dark Knight earned a spot in my favorite directors file.

And to think, we thought he knocked it out of the park on this one. If we only knew...

THE BOTTOM LINE - This was more of a retrospective than an actual review, I know. This is mostly because honestly, if you haven't seen "Batman Begins" yet, what the hell are you doing? It's one of the most important comic book movies ever, being the beginning of what I would call the best superhero trilogy ever made. Very Highly Recommended.

The Dark Knight Rises (2012)

I'm going to forgo my normal lead-in of nonsensical rambling and cut straight to the chase with this one, because "The Dark Knight Rises" is something of a special case. It's no exaggeration to say that the hype needle for this movie is pegged firmly at critical mass, and it's probably safe to say that of all the movies coming out in 2012, this is probably one of, if not the most important one. For that reason, it's difficult to come up with irreverent tripe to ramble about. So verily shall we sally forth.

There is little about the Christopher Nolan Batman films than can be said, or exposited further on than has already been said. It's arguably the most groundbreaking and best superhero movie series of all time, and saved a classic character, turning the death blow of the late 90's and George Clooney into a mere forgettable mishap most people are happy to ignore. It took the story of Batman and looked at it from a mature, dark, and philosophically challenging perspective that even the excellent Michael Keaton era Batman movies were lacking in.

Arriving finally at the conclusion to Christopher Nolan's story, it's a bit of a scary thing. On one hand, I couldn't wait to see how it all wraps up. On the other hand, could this film possibly stand up to the mammoth task before it: Being as good as, or inconceivably, topping "The Dark Knight?" For that reason, I had a fair bit of trepidation as far as choosing how excited I was going to be for "The Dark Knight Rises."

In the end, I was hopeful that it would live up to Christopher Nolan's signature level of quality (and honestly, that's a pretty safe bet to make), but I wasn't expecting to be blown away by it like I was with "The Dark Knight." After all, that's one of the best movies I've ever seen. It would be unfair to hold it to that standard. So I went in expecting to be impressed, but not demanding to be floored.

"Why Bane, your hands are surprisingly soft..."

Fortunately, that was a very safe mindset to go into "The Dark Knight Rises." To say the least, I was impressed. This is an outstanding conclusion to the trilogy, and more than lives up to the hope that surrounded it.

This is another one of those really tough to talk about movies. And it's not because there isn't much to say, because there is, but like "Prometheus," there is just so damn much to talk about that you don't even feel like getting started, because you'll write a novel. So I'll make this as brief as I can.

Walking out of the theater, the first thing that struck me was how utterly, absurdly BIG this film is. I don't mean that just in terms of running time, although at just under 3 hours, there certainly is a lot of that. It's long, and it feels long. But it's that good kind of length that isn't tiring, because it's so all-engrossing that there isn't a moment during it that you aren't completely engaged in the story. In that way it's like "Lord of The Rings." The reason it's long is because there is just so much story to tell that it needs to be 3 hours.

Now could some of that have been cut? Sure. Not every frame needed to be in there, but I think there would have been too much lost in terms of tone and atmosphere had they taken much out. Nothing in "The Dark Knight Rises" felt superfluous, which I can't even say about "Lord of The Rings." (Liv Tyler, anyone?)

When I say "big" it's that there is just so much story crammed into this thing that it can't really be easily summarized, another problem with writing a review of it. The basic idea of "The Dark Knight Rises" is that Bruce Wayne has gone into seclusion after the events of "The Dark Knight" 8 years previously. Batman is now a wanted criminal after taking the fall for the death of Harvey Dent. A new threat emerges in the form of Bane, a genius mercenary who is Batman's mental equal, and his physical superior. Leading an army from the sewers, he plunges Gotham in a chaos that would make the most diabolical Bond villain green with envy.

Which, if he were Bond, would make the Batsuit the equivalent of Batman's tuxedo.

That's the 25 cent tour of a $500 film. There's so much more going on than that, including ghosts from Bruce's past coming back to haunt him, a looming apocalypse over Gotham, character's fall and redemption, and sacrifices of the noblest and vilest kind, all set to a backdrop of what it is to truly suffer, and what the meaning of hope really is, and how it can both break and save you. It's a lot to take in.

The Christopher Nolan Batman series has been very lucky to maintain a constant source of talent from the cast, all of whom have stuck with the series from the beginning. Christian Bale as Batman may very well go down as the definitive version of The Dark Knight, whether or not you are a fan of the Bat-Voice. As much as I liked his performances in the other two films, "The Dark Knight Rises" may well be his shinning moment for the character. Of all three films, this film shows him going through more emotional turmoil than ever before, and Bale plays it magnificently.

Of course Michael Caine steals every scene he's in as Alfred, but that's to be expected since that's been par for the course throughout the series. The much lauded "Some men just want to watch the world burn" speech from "The Dark Knight" is given a bit of a run for it's money here, with Caine given some frighteningly good dialogue, among the best in a movie chalk full of it. None of it is quite as chilling as Alfred's story from the previous film, but they are all much more emotional as Alfred is struggling with what to do with Master Wayne, often on the brink of tears. It's a great example of why Michael Caine is one of the greatest actors of all time.

Some people were upset with the casting of Anne Hathaway as Selena Kyle, AKA Catwoman (although the name "Catwoman" is never used once in the film), and I suppose if you just plain don't like her than you won't like Anne in this. To be honest, I'm just lukewarm on her as an actress but I found her Catwoman to be just fine. She was definitely rocking the femme fatale with a great sense of style, although I'm not sure if I prefer her or Michelle Pheifer. Either way, at least I'm enjoying a great view.

Is it sad that it took me about halfway through the film to realize that her goggles, when raised up, made the "ears" of her suit?

Marion Cotillard was honestly the weaker of the two female leads for me, although her part is quite meaty, deceptively so considering how she appears for most of the film. She just didn't connect as much for me as Anne did, although to Marion's credit, the character is pretty boring until a pretty shocking development at the climax. Then she gets to show off a bit.

Joseph Gordon-Levitt was something of an enigma for me for the majority of the film. While his acting job is just fine, in fact he's quite good in it, his performance is constantly overshadowed by that nagging question that was in the back of everyone's mind: "Are they going to make this guy Robin?" So that was a bit distracting for me.

Gary Oldman and Morgan Freeman were also magnificent, of course, but the real big news for this movie, as is always the case for movies like this, was the villain. I had to say that I was worried about Tom Hardy as Bane, due to the fact that he was really hard to understand under that mask, at least in the prologue that I saw. He sounded like a broken drive-thru speaker. I'm pretty sure they cleaned that up, however, because at least for me, I had no problem understanding him in the final product. After I got used to it, his voice rang through crystal clear, and the only thing that made it weird was his latin/gypsy accent.

And it's a good thing he was understandable, because despite Alfred getting some great lines, the real gems in the dialogue department were saved for Bane. Nearly every line he says is completely, 100% badass and chilling. And he talks a lot. My favorite speech in the film is the one that is featured in the trailer, the one where Bane says "When Gotham is ashes...then...you have my permission to die." There is so much more going on during that speech though, about the true nature of pain and fear and suffering.

 "Come at me, bro."

He talks about how there can be no pure despair without hope, that horrible bit of hope that keeps you going, keeps you suffering, and only causes your pain to be that much deeper after your hope does you no good. It is among the most beautifully evil and monstrous things I've ever heard a villain say to a hero. I didn't think they could one up Heath Ledger's masterful read of the whole "Madness, as you know, is like gravity" bit, but man did they top it here. Not taking away anything from Heath, but that monologue was incredible and chilling to the bone.

The rest of the move is almost irrelevant, since it's revolving around these great characters. In many ways, it's a lot like "The Dark Knight." It's a fast paced film, despite it's length, and is really going a mile a minute the whole time. There isn't a whole lot of time for breathing, and makes for a very intense movie going experience. And as far a tone goes, if you thought "The Dark Knight" was dark and grim, "The Dark Knight Rises" could school it in terms of bleakness, which is a good thing, otherwise it wouldn't seem proper.

If there was any kind of problem I had, it was really only two things, and they both happen at the end of the film. And don't worry, I'll be spoiler free, but if you've seen it you'll know what I'm taking about. The first involves a certain character who has...shall we say...a bit of a twist at the end. They start talking, explaining what their deal was, and shedding a ton of light on a ton of stuff, and basically standing the entire plot on its head. It's beautifully done, and had my jaw firmly planted on the floor.

Then that person keeps talking. And talking. And talking. It's not that they aren't saying anything interesting, because they are, but at a certain point I started getting a little antsy with it, saying "Ok, you've shocked us all, now move on with the action!" A bit more brevity could have been utilized is what I'm saying.

The only other thing I had a problem with was how the whole Bane issue was resolved. Again, I won't say anything about what actually happens, but the way it finally resolves for good is a little jarring and seemed a bit cut short.

To close, I also learned something about myself watching this film, and it happened when it got to the end. Now, here's where I HAVE to get into spoiler territory. I won't be descriptive, but if you read this, some pretty big shocks WILL be ruined.

OBSCENE SPOILER WARNING. FOR THE LOVE OF CROM, DON'T READ IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN "THE DARK KNIGHT RISES."

Now, I generally consider myself a fan of bleak endings. Typically it's because I appreciate a movie that has the balls to do something that is unexpected or against the grain. Killing off Batman would have definitely been just that. But when the sacrifice is made, I have to admit, I was a little upset. There was a part of me that said "Wow. What a great and fitting ending" while another part of me, the bigger part, said "What? No! You can't do that! Noooo!"

And by god if they didn't sell the hell out of that concept. I really thought they were going there. And then we find out what we find out, Alfred nods and it was like a weight lifted from my shoulders. It's not the happiest ending, but it's the happiest one Bruce could ever hope for. And it's enough to make me a little choked up.

I guess there's a part of me that's a big softie. At least for The Goddamn Batman.

END SPOILERS

Sup.

THE BOTTOM LINE - "The Dark Knight Rises" is a fantastic film that is an amazing ending to an exceptional series. I think these three films will stand for a long time as the apex of the comic book movie. In terms of holding up to the others, although this was a great movie, I would probably watch the other two before I watched this one again, mostly based on run time. That being said, I would rank it (just) above "Batman Begins" but (just) below "The Dark Knight." They're all pretty much equal in terms of quality, and it's easy to think of them as one big film. This is certainly making my Top 10 of 2012. Very Highly Recommended.

Battleship (2012)

What is it about the early 90's lately? It must be all us old farts who grew up during that time making movies about what they remember as kids. You've got your "Transformers" movies, "Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles" is getting an extraterrestrial facelift (Michael Bay, please just stop doing things), the second "GI Joe" movie is coming out this summer, there are rumors of third installments for both "Ghostbusters" and "Bill & Ted." There was even the thinly veiled "Rock 'em Sock 'em Robots" movie "Real Steel." I'm waiting for them to try and make Slap Bracelets and Super Soakers into a film. But my big question is: As long we're making movies out of boardgames now, why hasn't there been a "Hungry Hungry Hippos" movie?

I mean, I can see it happening. Make it one of those killer crocodile flicks like "Rogue" or "Primevil" or maybe even "The Ghost & The Darkness." Hell, you could probably get Val Kilmer to headline it. He isn't doing anything. I don't recall ever seeing a killer hippo horror movie. They can make "Night of The Lepus" but they can't make a hippo a killer? Hippos are scary man. I read a story about how one accidentally ate a circus midget one time. The rest of the movie kind of writes itself after that.

So "Battleship." It is slightly difficult to know where to begin with this one, because on one hand, there is plenty...PLENTY that I could complain about. It would not be hard. Let's get one thing out of the way here, this is not Akira Kurasawa caliber film making. But on the other hand, I ask you, what should one reasonably expect to see when going to see a movie based on the board game "Battleship?"

D'oh! Okay, bad example.

The answer is, based on the trailers, a ridiculous amount of action with some high levels of cheese and possible camp. And you know what? That's exactly what I got. Although I could tear this movie apart bit by bit and stone by stone until all that is left is a hole in the ground, I really can't say that I feel that "Battleship" deserves it. There's just not enough terrible in the movie to make me mad enough to do it.

I had a good time.

What I found fascinating about "Battleship" was that it was basically what would happen if Michael Bay had the slightest shred of talent. Make no mistake, this could easily have been a Michael Bay movie. Hell, it practically screams it. The alien ships even kind of look like something the Transformers would ride around in. But it is free from all of the things that make Michael Bay movies so unbearably wretched. Here's a short list:

1) The comedy is kept separate from the action.
2) You can see what's going on with the action.
3) There are no brutally offensive and racist stereotypes.
4) None of the characters are annoying, shrieking jackasses.
5) It was 2 hours long (as opposed to 2 hours 45 minutes)
6) It doesn't contain over an hour of padding (see #5)
7) The camera doesn't do that annoying, dizzying "spinning around the characters thing" every 2 minutes.
8) No helicopters in slow-motion at sunrise.

*THAWUP THAWUP THAWUP THAWUP THAWUP*

I swear, if the people who made "Battleship" had made "Transformers," we might have gotten a trilogy of half-way decent films instead of the 8+ hours of putrid festering septic discharge that we received. Basically what I'm saying is that "Battleship," while silly and easily comparable to movies like "Transformers," conducts itself with far more dignity than the Michael Bay abominations.

But how did they turn a board game into a movie? Well, by alien invasion, of course. In this time of "Transformers" movies, I guess it's not enough to have big ships blasting each other to pieces with giants guns anymore. We've got to have ships that also fly and shoot stuff that isn't realistic weaponry. And I suppose since "GI Joe" and "The Avengers" already did a lot of that stuff, the makers of "Battleship" felt they should just do the alien invasion plot. You know, since that's original and whatnot.

The aliens came because we made the stupid mistake of trying to communicate with them with huge radar dishes. Naturally, they get the message and promptly say "Nice. Let's invade." So the aliens come ready to blow everything up, but for some bizarre reason, they only send a few ships. This isn't a full-out "Independence Day" level invasion here, this is more like a scouting party. After their communication ship gets destroyed during the landing, the aliens set course for the only other place on the planet they can call home: the dishes that sent the signal. And those happen to be in Hawaii. And fortunately for us, that's also where the navy is.

 Don't MAKE Rihanna act more like Michelle Rodriguez at you...

 At this point you'd think that the navy would start kicking some butt, however this is where the film takes a slightly annoying turn. The aliens throw up a defensive shield that walls them off from anything getting through it, and the navy happens to be on the other side of it. So Taylor Kitsch and Rihanna are our last hope, as the only ships inside the barrier are 3 destroyers.

What sucks about that is that while it does harken back to the game, with a small fleet and limited room, Liam Neeson is on the other side! That means that he is given essentially nothing to do for the entire film except scowl at the thought of Taylor Kitsch banging his daughter. That's a shame to waste such a great actor like that. Although truthfully I was expecting him to die in the first wave of attacks like 20 minutes into the film, so I guess it's nice that he lived.

And while I would hate to see him get blown up, I was imagining in my head Liam standing on the deck of his aircraft carrier...looking out at a the mushrooming explosion of one of his ships going up, binoculars slowly being lowered from his face as he sets his chiseled jaw, clenches his teeth a bit, and growls in his always-kind-of-there Irish accent, "You alien bastards. You sank my battleship."

That would have seriously made "Battleship" the best movie of the year. Automatically.

After the shields go up, from that point on it's really all about the action. Every once in a while it cuts back to the slightly annoying subplot of Taylor Kitsch's girlfriend, played by the not very charismatic Brooklyn Decker and an amputee solider working to stop the aliens on the mainland. It's not that it isn't good, it's just that it's predictable and honestly pretty boring after we just saw a destroyer LITERALLY get cut in half. Driving a Jeep into a power station can't really compete with that.

And in the end, like I said earlier, "Battleship" does its action very well and keeps every encounter with the aliens rather fresh and exciting. No fight is exactly like another. Probably the most different (and memorable) scene is the one we were all secretly hoping they would manage to fit in: the scene were they fire at coordinates. Oh yeah. They go there.

This is also the scene were the actor who steals the movie, Japanese legend Tadanobu Asano, really steps up to show that he is by far the most useful and interesting character in the film. Seriously. This guy blows everyone else on his side of the barrier away. He also has the funniest line in the film.

So do I wish there were more ships involved in "Battleship?" Yes. Do I wish they had used Liam more? Of course. Did the alien invasion make much sense? No. Was that fact offset by the fact one of them got shot in the face with a cannon? Oh hell yeah. So am I disappointed? Nope.

Although I always knew the aliens were keeping them hidden in the "J"s...

THE BOTTOM LINE - "Battleship" is a pretty fun time. Yeah it's loud and dumb and stupid and silly and all kinds of ridiculous and the plot makes little sense and everything else, but it's worth it to see how big, dumb and silly can be handled WELL, because I think we've forgotten what that's like. Recommended.

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.

The Grey (2012)

Is it too early in the year to call that something is probably going to make my Top 10 of 2012? I hope not, but on the other hand, if there are 10 other movies that come out this year that are better than "The Grey," I'll just call myself a lucky S.O.B., and pat myself on the back because I called it back in December that 2012 is looking to be an unbelievably good year for movies. This my friends, is a good start, and the question "will 10 better films be made this year" is the kind of thing that makes me excited just thinking about.

The thing I don't understand is why on Earth is Liam Neeson not huge? I'm talking Johnny Depp (but not annoying) huge. Mel Gibson (but before he went crazy) huge. Marlon Brando (but not fat) huge. I swear that this guy is the single most charismatic actor over 50 around right now, and I don't understand why he's not more popular than he already is. When you say "Liam Neeson" people usually respond, "Oh yeah, the guy from "Taken?" Yeah, he's pretty cool." That's not acceptable. Liam Neeson's name needs to be on the lips of every single person who watches movies, because he deserves it, and his name alone should be worth $200 million in the box office -- to start.

AND WHERE THE BLOODY HELL IS HIS OSCAR?! Do you have ANY idea how many amazing roles this guy's done? Only one nomination for "Schindler's List" back in 1993? Please. That's an insult to a guy who could take anyone in Hollywood to school. Give me a name. Liam's just as good, if not better. Sean Penn does NOT need another Oscar. Why don't they give it to the greatest actor to ever come out of Ireland? And while we're at it, give one to Sean Bean, too! He's runner-up!

Also, if he's not doing books on tape, he needs to. Listening to his voice is like having sex in your eardrums, it's unreal.

So what if I'm sporting a total man-crush on the dude? I apologize for nothing!

He's a dreamboat.

In "The Grey," Liam Neeson is a guy working for an oil pipeline in Alaska, and his job is to work like a sharpshooter, protecting workers from any wolves that may attack them. So when the plane he's on with a bunch of workers crashes in the Alaskan wilderness, right in the midst of a pack of killer wolves, it's probably a good thing he was along for the ride. At first it seems like it will be a survival movie, but it isn't long until the wolves show up, and from there it essentially becomes a slasher flick as the survivors get picked off one by one.

WASSUUUUUUUUUUP!!??!?!

It's a bloody movie, as one might expect. The violence is brutal and savage, and there were a couple moments that elicited a hardy "OH! DANG!" from me as somebody become a nice freshly made corpse. But it never came across as gratuitous, in my opinion. It's just that it's really effective. This isn't like Jason Voorhees thinking up new ways to creatively kill you with various pointy objects. They're wolves. They eat stuff. They kind of have a one track M.O.

To be fair, it was impossible to not nitpick it a little. "The Grey" does hit a bit of a speed-bump about halfway through when we get a lot of character background in a couple talky scenes. It's good stuff, but it kind of diffused the tension a bit since I'm thinking "Umm...have we forgotten about the wolves? You guys sure are chatty for people being hunted." Also, their survival technique may not have been the best. Why don't they ever attempt to build shelter? Why do they sit with their backs to the woods where the wolves are coming from? Why don't they climb a tree since wolves don't freaking climb? Where's Les Stroud when you need him?!

"Ya'll chill. I got this."

"The Grey" is a movie that should be stock. It should be an average, by the numbers story about survival that you've seen many times before. And at its core, it is. This is not an original or a groundbreaking story, but what makes "The Grey" shine is the way it is presented and told. By utilizing phenomenal camera-work and set design, the scene is set to show a very cold, harsh and brutal climate in which the characters are forced into, but the editing of the film, along with the moments when we enter Liam's head/subconscious, serve to place us in another world of almost surreal quality. The landscape is dangerous to begin with but with "The Grey" we may as well be on another planet. It's almost Aronofsky-esque, which is a HUGE compliment.

What will stick with me most about "The Grey" are the absolutely gorgeous shots that are some of the most striking visuals I've ever seen. The best among them include the first time the wolves appear. Coming in from the darkness, we see only one pair of glowing eyes at first, then another, and another, and before long they are filling the blackness beyond the dim torchlight. One of the survivors, unable to go one step more, sits down to die beside a river beside a sprawling Alaskan mountain range, and as the camera very slowly zooms in on the back of his head, as he silently contemplates the end, off in the distance is the very faint sounds of something coming for him from the woods. A crest of a hill at night as wolves howl from just beyond the ridge, with only their breath visible as it slowly rises up, and we can only guess at their numbers by the plumes of steam appearing.

O hai.

All of these scenes are just positively chilling to the core. I mean, when was the last time in a horror movie you knew the villain was coming because you saw their breath in the frigid, winter night air? Brrrrrrr! That's scary stuff!

And what's best about those scenes is that it showcases what I loved most about "The Grey," which was its subtlety. You don't need to see the wolves. You hear them. And since the film does enough with establishing the fact that they could be anywhere at any time, the tension is essentially never broken. It's like the shark in "Jaws." You didn't need to see the shark to know that it's out there in the water. And like "Jaws," this movie played its hand pretty close to the chest, and only pulled out the wolves for a good reason.

The sad part is that this is pretty standard stuff for a suspense film. These are not ancient secrets long buried and forgotten. This is film making 101, but so many movies like this would be far more upfront and obnoxious with hitting you over the head with either the gore or the "monsters" in fear of having the audience grow bored, and that's a bunch of crap. Just see the 2011 prequel to "The Thing" (actually, don't see it) for absolute proof that not having subtlety is absolute death for suspense. Otherwise you're banging pots and pans around going BWARGARBLRAGH!!!! And that's just annoying.

What's great about "The Grey" is that it's a movie that's not afraid to NOT show something, and let the audience fill in the blanks and do some work, which is far more effective in the long run. And that's what subtly is all about.

Pictured above: Taping knifes and broken bottles to your hands. In other words, a standard Irish wedding.

One thing that may annoy people is the ending. You know what? If you hate the ending, shut up. It's great. It ends on the absolute climax of the main character's emotions, at the end of his journey, the defining moment of his life, and not a second more is spilled over. In that way it's like the closing frame of the first "Rocky." It's a fantastic ending.

Once more into the fray...
Into the last good fight I'll ever know...
Live and die on this day...
Live and die on this day...

That about says it all.

THE BOTTOM LINE: I was blown away by "The Grey." Unless 10 better films come along, this is making my Top 10 of 2012. Very Highly Recommended, although a liking of "different" movies will be helpful since it is slightly unconventional. Fans of Darren Aronofsky do not want to miss it.