Adventure Time

It's been two months since The Croods sauntered into theaters and became the first major children's hit of 2013 (Escape From Planet Earth might have technically been first, but just try and find somebody who actually remembers it). Now, just as the Dreamworks picture's theatrical run is just about wound down, who do you expect to pick up the slack? It's not Pixar, or Sony Animation, and certainly not Aardman. So who takes the reigns of children's animated theatrical showings now? Well, it's the blandly-named Epic, coming to us from Greenwich, Connecticut's own Blue Sky Studios (the makers of Rio and the Ice Age franchise). While animated movies that feature mainly action and adventure don't often do that well at the box office (Blue Sky's parent company 20'th Century Fox found that out the hard way thirteen years ago with Titan A.E.), Epic still had a couple of things going for it this past weekend. One - as I said - is that with the Croods effectively out of the way, the family film has no serious competition until the end of June. The second is director Chris Wedge, whose experience perhaps is not all that extensive (in this millennium he has only directed the first Ice Age and Robots), but he's still a talented filmmaker who can deliver impressive results. Sure, his name will never be featured among the likes of modern animation legends like Lee Unkrich or Brad Bird, but if he's going to make a movie, It doesn't hurt to take a look.

My, what a long neck you have...

M.K. (Amanda Seyfried) is a normal teen who moves in with her father Professer Bomba (Jason Sudeikis) after the death of her mother. Professor Bomba is an eccentric, constantly searching the forest to try and find evidence of a small, advanced society whose existence keeps nature alive and the forces of evil and decay in check. While M.K. scoffs at these theories, Bomba is in fact correct, as a war has long been raged between the destructive Boggans and their leader Mandrake (Christoph Waltz) and the noble Leafmen, led in battle by the noble Ronin (Colin Farrell) and ruled by the good Queen Tara (Beyonce Knowles). But the time is coming to name an heir, and an accident finds the skeptic M.K. shrunk down and joining the Leafmen in helping keep the balance in the forest, as Mandrake and his followers push to make the forest theirs once and for all.

The Three Amigos!

Epic has all the makings of a second-tier animated film, and it's not just because it comes to us from a second-tier production studio... actually, that might be the reason, so why don't I just move on? The animation is actually quite crisp... when the characters you're supposed to focus on are right in front of you. Character models are well-animated, with fluid movements, and look like they might have come off of the Disney or Pixar lots. The backgrounds as well are quite lovely, the lushness of the forest and the dark, Burton-esque bleakness of the Boggans' territory beautiful to behold. But when the "camera" pans back and we see characters moving at a distance, it's obvious where the animation budget was cut. Background characters or main characters moving at a distance appear to have jerky, simplified movements, completely distracting you from the rest of the world and marking the low-point of 3D animation. It pulls you out of the movie, and when the animation is this good, that's a shame.

Yes, he uses that sword. It's pretty awesome.

The story is another point of contention, not in that it's bad but in that the heroine-transforming, nature-saving tale it weaves cribs from bigger, oftentimes better fare. Obvious comparisons are James Cameron's Avatar and Fox's animated FernGully: The Last Rainforest, but the film also borrows heavily from epic adventures such as Star Wars and The Wizard of Oz with impunity. In fact, Josh Hutcherson's young Leafman Nod is almost an exact copy of Han Solo, right down to owing money to a crime lord. The characters are certainly a problem, as most of the talented cast can bring nothing new beyond the archetypes they are shoehorned into. They do the best they can, though some (such as Chris O'Dowd's snail who openly pines to join the Leafmen) are better than others (I'm looking at you, Aziz Ansari). Most of them, especially Seyfried and Waltz, manage do a great job regardless of the material. Still, there are a few question marks among the cast, most notably why they cast so many musicians in support roles. I mean, I get that Aerosmith frontman Steven Tyler does the film's one (albeit truncated) musical number, and Beyonce of course provides a track for the closing credits (while doing a decent job acting-wise). But how did rapper Pitbull get in here? Especially when he couldn't even handle the half-dozen lines he was given? Was he supposed to provide something musically too? And if he did, what happened to it?

Christoph Waltz has never looked better!

But while there's absolutely nothing top-notch about Blue Sky's latest effort, it does enough, well enough, and prettily enough to be entertaining for families with nothing better to do. The story itself does solidly enough, and even picks up in the last act to provide sufficient entertainment for all ages. Throughout it is sweet and elaborate with it's message without getting too preachy for its own good, proof that the filmmakers didn't try to do too much with their decent idea. It's a shame that most people will forget completely about Epic  before long, as there's just nothing really memorable about the sub-two hours you spend in the theater. It's certainly good enough to take your kids to on a hot summer day as you await the arrival of Monsters University in a month, but by the same token it won't be something you'll need to see again, even when it eventually becomes available on DVD. Once again, this is a Chris Wedge production that is good enough, but not quite great. Never great.

Black Panther

I have not always been a fan of Quentin Tarantino. These days, he's known as one of the most influential directors in Hollywood, but for the longest time I didn't quite get it. Sure, Pulp Fiction was pretty good, the nonlinear storytelling was certainly unique and interesting, but to this day I can't stand Reservoir Dogs; I just don't understand what it was is that people saw in that mess. It wasn't until I finally caught Kill Bill on DVD that I gained any interest in the incomparable director, who borrows heavily from his favorite sources yet still manages to create an experience all his own. I was even more fond of his portion of the 2007 double feature Grindhouse. Sure, my friend Kiki may never forgive me for dragging her in, but even she has to admit that Death Proof was a lot of fun to behold.

But it was 2009's Inglourious Basterds that might be remembered as Tarantino's best film. The director's WWII-inspired vengeance tale had it all: Femme Fatales, orgies of violence, excellent acting (and an Academy Award for newcomer Christoph Waltz) and an excellent, vengeance-filled story. Best of all, gone was possibly the worst and most-telling sign of a Tarantino movie; the unnecessary conversation. Every previous flick of his had them: long, arbitrary dialogue meant to express the filmmaker's opinion on one topic or another. Usually they had little or nothing to do with the plot of the movie, and often were the dullest aspects of his work. Basterds was surprising in that it largely rid itself of them, and the result was a clean, uncluttered film that retained all of Tarantino's creativity and imagery and none of his self-indulgence. It's as if the years of experience had finally matured into a sense of focus, and he no longer needed to add these elements out of mere amusement.

Just don't call him "Sundance"...

That maturity is what made Django Unchained such a desirable destination this Christmas Day, though to be fair I saw it only because Les Miserables was sold out until late in the evening. It seems like all I see on Christmas lately are dark, violent movies (Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, True Grit), and I confess I had hoped for a more uplifting tale this time around. But, Les Mis will wait, and I was certainly going to see Django anyway. As many film aficionados know, Tarantino's is not the first Django flick, which began as a violent 1966 spaghetti western directed by Sergio Corbucci and starring Franco Nero (who makes a cameo here), and spanned dozens of unofficial (and one official) sequels. The new movie slightly resembles those older ones if you squint and turn your head to the side, but while the new Django (Jamie Foxx) doesn't drag his own coffin around behind him, he does cut a patch of bloody vengeance through the pre-Civil War south as a former slave freed by bounty hunter Dr. King Schultz (the returning Waltz) to rain terror and lead on bad men. Seeking out his abducted wife Broomhilda (Kerry Washington), he and Schultz must discover a way to rescue her from the plantation of the charismatic. ruthless, and evil slaver Calvin J. Candie (Leonardo DiCaprio).

Yup, that's some hammer.

There are usually two major sides to any Tarantino film. The first is the humor/violence aspect. Yes, I know it seems odd to pair two seemingly disparate themes in the same discussion, but when these elements seem to go well in hand with this particular man behind the camera. Even with such serious themes as American slavery and the thin line between law and crime, Tarantino makes sure to have fun with his characters, whether through visual gags or legitimately funny dialogue and contexts that he puts them in. That extends to his famously violent scenarios as well, as often he makes positively grisly carnage appear light-hearted and fun. There's nobody in the industry who loves squibs more than Tarantino, and he puts on arguably his bloodiest display of violence and depravity for the amusement of his audiences. Following Django as he kills white men for money is genuinely cathartic as well, tickling that portion of your brain you don't often get to use in a world that tries to be politically correct, especially when it comes to the slavery issue. Here is a cinematic hero that attempts to right the wrongs of the era, and it's absolutely entrancing to watch.

Yes, that's Samuel L. Jackson. Yes, he's awesome.

The other aspect is the darkness Tarantino often embraces. Like Basterds, Django focuses on a grim era in human history, substituting the pro-slavery Deep South for Nazi Germany. While certainly not historically accurate (also like Basterds), the director certainly does his absolute best to capture the horrors of being black in the mid-1800's. The result is definitely powerful, as we see just some of the horrors and atrocities happened upon people at the time, down to even the casual use of the "N" word (hey, I'm white; I have no desire to say it) to emphasize just how bad things were. To that point, he also deftly forms his cast with some of the better actors in Hollywood, with Foxx ably leading them with a dry wit, a thousand-mile stare and just enough crazy to be believable. While I would have loved to see The Wire's Michael K. Williams in the role (early reports had the excellent actor as a favorite), Foxx puts forth one of his better performances, followed closely by the blessedly consistent Waltz, Samuel L. Jackson and a creepily effective DiCaprio, who just seems to get better with each performance. My only complaint is Washington, whose potentially interesting character is reduced to a damsel in distress. Tarantino has created a number of strong female characters in his films (Jackie Brown, The Bride, Zoe Bell in Death Proof and Shosanna in Basterds), and the lack of one here certainly feels like a step back. Putting it in historical context, I guess it makes sense, but considering his willingness to revise history I would have loved to see more strong females, especially when Washington has enjoyed better roles in the past.

You don't say anything bad about Django's dress code.

It's a tough call to name Quentin Tarantino's best movie at this point. I still say his best is Basterds, but I can definitely understand the argument that puts Django Unchained on top. It's a strong, fun, enjoyable adventure that includes some of the director's best work behind (and of course, occasionally in front of) the camera. It feels like forever since I've updated the list, but Django Unchained finishes off as the #3 movie of 2012. Tarantino has grown so much as a director that it's impossible not to be drawn into the world he has created, whether you are sickened by the time or entertained by the exploits. You definitely won't be bored, that's for damned sure.

More Drama

A caveat: If I had remembered before I bought my ticket that my newest review topic Carnage had been directed by Roman Polanski, I would have kept right on walking. This isn't any criticism of Polanski's talent, which is unquestioned. What I do have a problem with is supporting the career of a convicted child rapist who fled the country at the first sign that his plea bargain wasn't going to be everything he dreamed of. I'm not even sure how respected (and a few not so respected) actors can stand to be in the same room with him, let alone work with him in a professional setting, as there is no doubt that he is a fugitive from justice. I'm not a legitimate movie reviewer. I don't get paid to write what you read three times a week. I do this because I want to. That means every time I pay for movie ticket to a movie, I'm doing so because it's a film I for some reason want to see, or at least don't have any major objections for doing so (yes, even Bad Teacher and Red Riding Hood). In sitting through Carnage, I went through with what would normally be a deal breaker: supporting a movie I didn't feel deserved my hard earned money.

Any minute now...

That being said, Polanski's latest effort - based on the award-winning God of Carnage by French playwright Yasmina Reza - is a talent packed comedy about two sets of parents who attempt to come together in a conciliatory fashion after the son of Alan and Nancy Cowan (Christoph Waltz and Kate Winslet) gets into a fight with the son of Michael and Penelope Longstreet (John C. Reilly and Jodie Foster)  and strikes him with a stick, knocking out two of the boy's teeth. In the Longstreet's New York apartment, the four start out in a pleasant enough manner that gets becomes increasingly strained as the four eventually and dramatically vent their issues with one another. This isn't limited to the argument between the couples, as each spouse turns on one another as well in their own version of the schoolyard squabble.

Aaaaany minute....

Whether or not you've seen The God of Carnage on stage, you have to admit that Polanski does a very good job bringing the popular play to the silver screen. As a film that takes place in real time, with no obvious breaks, we're treated to the entirety of the story's battle of egos, as none of the combatants are eager to let their enemy have the last say. I was reminded in the first few minutes of Sartre's No Exit, in which the characters stay in one room, the entire time, with no ability to leave no matter how much they might wish to. Early on it is coincidence and good intentions that keep these four people in the same apartment together. Later on it's a less wholesome mix of pure arrogance, pride and booze. I loved that the film leaves no breathing time to allow the characters to visibly deflate, and that the slow, anxious beginning actually leads SOMEWHERE; before the four actors began bickering I was sure the film was headed towards sheer boredom.

There it is!

When the film gets to that point, it's the actors who make it happen, and if this were a battle of the sexes, the ladies would walk away with it all. Don't get me wrong, Christoph Waltz and John C. Reilly do more than just fine in their roles. Waltz plays a lawyer whose whole existence would be on a business call if he could help it, and is as smarmy and repulsive as you would expect a sleazy lawyer type to be. And Reilly plays the buffoonish self-made man well enough, especially when the whiskey comes out and he does his best imitation of friend Will Ferrell. But it's truly the actresses who make themselves stand out, from Kate Winslet's privileged woman constantly annoyed by her husband's constant business and his disregard for their son's behavior to Jodie Foster's human rights author who is the only one who really believes there could be a peaceful reconciliation between the sons. Foster especially is engaging, and when she really brings the volume you can see veins throbbing in her neck., so dedicated is her performance. Winslet is not far behind, and especially towards the end does she stand out, at times even dominating Foster in pure screen presence. My only complaint is that while all four are portrayed as juvenile and unlikable, it seemed to me that the script intentionally allows the women to be far more forgivable in their hysterics, while the men are simply portrayed as assholes. In what would have been a great story about four unsavory people, the subtle reverse sexism is not unbelievable, but perhaps just a little unfair.

Yeah, well, he had it coming

Of course, there's not much more to Carnage than adults arguing inside the walls of their living area. Fortunately, this simple concept works enormously well, and thanks especially to some great acting from the film's cast, it's one pulled off so perfectly that it almost makes up for an agonizingly slow start and a knee-jerk ending that would works on a stage but feels completely out of place on the screen. If you want to see something a little different in the theater now, and you have no problem paying money to see the product of a child abuse fugitive on the big screen, then Carnage might be worth a couple of hours of your time. Otherwise, you're just as well off seeing it later, or perhaps seeing the stage play and skipping this altogether. I can't tell you what to do with your money; I just wish I'd been more judicious with mine.

All for One, One for the Junk Pile

Like most people, I have a day job. It’s not my first love, but it IS how I pay the bills. There are days where I love my day job, with my daily interaction with co-workers, employees and managers keeping me fresh and on my toes. On the other end of the spectrum, sometimes my day job can beat me down so badly that I’m desperate for any respite, any calm in the storm. This past Friday was one such day, on which I left work frazzled, tired and just a little out of my mind. On days like this, I feel that a good dumb movie can help to raise beleaguered spirits and help one feel better by forgetting all the stresses of the day. On this particular Friday, I went to see The Three Musketeers, in 3D.

“But, Mr. Anderson,” you’re saying with polite reverence, “You said GOOD dumb movies. The Three Musketeers looks like utter crap! And you hate 3D, you complain about it all the time!”

You’re not half wrong there. From my first viewing of the film’s trailer, I was quite certain that there would be little to no redeeming value left in the finished product. The title, the third major film based on the novel by French author Alexandre Dumas in the past two decades, looked to incorporate style over substance, with little explanation as to not only why a new adaptation was ever needed, but why on Earth It would need to be shown in 3D. As many of my readers already know, I abhor most 3D films with VERY few exceptions, as often the overhyped technology is too much money spent to far little effect. But, lately I admit that for several reasons I have developed a soft spot for this obvious car wreck. The first was director Paul W. S. Anderson (no relation), whose 2010 franchise sequel Resident Evil: Afterlife was one of the few 3D movies I absolutely loved. The reason for my appreciation was that Anderson actually filmed using the same technology that pioneer James Cameron did in Avatar, the title that reinvigorated the 3D discussion. Using Cameron’s RealD 3D technology, Anderson created the perfect comeback to a franchise that had struggled creatively in its previous outings. As such, this is a man who obviously knows how 3D technology is supposed to work in this day and age of modern wonders. Another reason was the casting. Unknown Musketeers aside, the care in choosing several secondary roles was key. Between the obvious casting decisions (Christoph Waltz as the evil Cardinal Richelieu) and those strangely against type (Orlando Bloom as a heavy), Three Musketeers hosted a surprising bevy of talent on its roster. And don’t forget Anderson’s wife Milla Jovovich as turncoat Millady de Winter. Sure, Jovovich isn’t the best actress out there, but she’s a gamer who does all that is asked of her and appeals to the audiences of her films thanks to her professionalism and obvious sex appeal. For these reasons I was willing to offer the film a mulligan, hoping for something that would outshine its obvious flaws.

Well, one of you is going to have to go

When Musketeer hopeful D’Artagnan (Logan Lerman) travels to Paris to join the King’s elite soldiers, the events that follow are very similar to that of the novel, as he makes early enemies of former Musketeers Athos (Matthew MacFayden), Porthos (Ray Stevenson) and Aramis (Luke Evans), only to team up with the trio against the soldiers of Cardinal Richelieu (Waltz), the man secretly ruling France while misleading the young King Louis XIII into believing he is in full control. Athos, Porthos and Aramis were removed from the Musketeers after being betrayed by Athos’ lover Milady (Jovovich), a double agent for the Duke of Buckingham (Orlando Bloom). Soon the four become privy to the plots of Richelieu, who has devised a plan to send France and England towards war, with the ultimate end of him in total command of the country. It is up to the four warriors to take up the challenge and fight soldiers on both sides to save France and their King.

Shouldn't have brought a cutlass to a flintlock pistol fight

Of course, that spectacle I mentioned earlier never really comes to pass. The Three Musketeers is about as far from a great movie as you can get without being downright horrible, but Anderson does manage to make it a close call as he tries to create an adaptation of the classic tale with as much spectacle and fury as he can muster while failing on just about every conceivable level. It doesn’t help that Anderson feels out of his element when taking on this classic novel, incorporating steampunk elements (such as airships) where none were really should have been needed. For the most part the implementation of 3D was wasted, surprising and disappointing considering Anderson’s previous experience with the technology. Anyone who has seen the shower scene in Resident Evil: Afterlife knows how amazing 3D could actually look (get your minds out of the gutter), and I was expecting more of that ingenuity here. Unfortunately, that doesn’t show itself except for a brief instance towards the end featuring dueling airships. Worse, it’s nowhere near as entertaining, as there is very little that could excite small children, let alone the young adults that are the film’s target audience.

Kissing the hand was scandalous ENOUGH

At least the film has solid acting, which was much more than I could have expected. The Musketeers themselves are all standouts, as MacFayden, Stevenson and Evans proudly play their roles to great effectiveness. Between the dour Athos, the proud and Strong Porthos, and the pious Aramis, the tiny shred of personality that the film possesses shines brightly. It’s a shame then that the three get relatively little face time, especially Porthos and Aramis, who get a few moments to impress but not nearly enough. Instead we see others pushed to the forefront, and those are unfortunately nowhere near as artistically stimulating. Despite his talents and seemingly a natural choice for the role, Waltz’s Richelieu is a disappointment, too campy and unthreatening even to adequately chew scenery. Despite being the film’s central antagonist, he gives far too much ground to his underlings, especially Mads Mikkelsen as the petty and cruel Captain Rochefort. Logan Lerman has no business headlining ANY film, let alone a potential blockbuster. His bland recitation of dialogue is one of the film’s main flaws, and with too much attention on him this is far too noticeable a one. Jovovich was in fact a mixed bag, with Milady’s impressive… um… “talents” often overshadowed by not even an attempt at actual acting. However, one that surprisingly stood out to me was Orlando Bloom, playing the snide and clever Duke of Buckingham. Bloom, who usually plays upstanding and generally friendly characters, is so out of place here that it gives the film a new lift whenever he is on screen. Sadly, whereas The Three Musketeers has only one Orlando Bloom, it could have used three or four more. He’s on screen far too little as a secondary villain to be a serious nuisance, though he comes off as more diabolical than Richelieu when given the chance.

I'm sorry, did you say something? I was staring at your chest

Despite some clever jabs that catch you off guard and tickle your funny bone, there isn’t a whole lot to recommend in seeing The Three Musketeers in the theater. The film’s saving grace was supposed to be Anderson’s 3D implementation, but with that being less than stellar, the title had to actually rely on the script and its performers to get by. The result is an un-clever stupid movie that might be decent for mindless fun, if your definition of “fun” is far more subjective than mine. A few good moments do not a movie make, and so I can’t bring myself to actually recommend this title to anyone. If you decide to ignore me and DO go to see The Three Musketeers, at least do yourself the favor of skipping the 3D showings. They, like another Musketeers adaptation, are thoroughly unneeded.

Worst or Best? Time Will Tell

Finally, we get around to the 2011 film watching only to remember that most stuff that comes out in January is absolute crap. Oh, there's the occasional gem, but for the most part January is the month where almost every new release is either the dregs from the production company's cutting room floor or an expanded release on something released in New York or L.A. already for the sole purpose of qualifying for the Academy Awards. If you're a legitimate 2011 film released in January, it's a good chance the boys upstairs either think you have no chance of gaining critical acclaim or you're a big-budget action film released solely to make a big payoff during a slow month. And if you're The Green Hornet, both may apply. In spades.

Ah, for the days when things were simple...

The long-in-production film (which had been in development in some capacity since at least 1993) finally came out this month, though I seriously doubt it's been a film most people have been waiting for. Directed by Michael Gondry, the film's big draw was its 3D implementation, by far now the most overused technology from the past year. Though there seems to be no need for 3D or IMAX when you see the trailers for The Green Hornet, someone big obviously decided that it was the way to go. The Hornet's been around seemingly forever, from radio shows in the 30's to film serials in the 40's, a TV show in the 60's and many comic book series. Despite this, the character is simply written off as a Batman clone while in fact predating the caped crusader by three years. But is the combined acting and writing of film star Seth Rogen enough to derail the film more than previously expected?

An early shot of Rogen securing the writing credits for The Green Hornet

Seth Rogen stars as Britt Reid, full time party-goer and heir to his father's (Tom Wilkinson) media empire. Never having a strong relationship with his father, Britt nevertheless mourns when dear ol' da dies under mysterious circumstances. Deciding to make something of his life, Britt teams up with his house servant and friend Kato (Jay Chou) and takes to the streets in an Imperial Crown sedan dubbed The Black Beauty as the hero known only as The Green Hornet. Meanwhile, Russian gangster Benjamin Chudnofsky (Christoph Waltz) takes his aggressive brand of violence to the streets of Los Angeles to weed out the competition and rid himself of these new crime fighters.

Older woman, younger man... That's different, I suppose

The first half of the film is actually quite enjoyable, with the "origin" story for the Hornet believable and succinct. Painted against the backdrop of a crime-ridden LA, the division between the rich upper class and the poorer sections of the city is as distinct as the differences between Britt and his father, who he sees as something of an ass. When the film starts and its just Britt and Kato messing around and having fun, even when they start kicking ass as the new superhero duo, the film is a lot of fun to watch. Even allowing for the mediocre and unnecessary 3D conversion, there are some cool scenes and it helps that the leads are as charismatic as they are. Don't get me wrong: Seth Rogen is COMPLETELY miscast as the hero type, he's something of an arrogant fool who uses his wealth to go through with what many would consider a stupid idea and dismiss it before too long. Still, he's the kind of guy you'd like to sit down and drink a beer with, at least until he hit on your girlfriend and you knocked him cold. "Over the top" would be the perfect phrase to describe his performance, as he quickly becomes too much to bear. On the other hand, Chou is well cast as the enigmatic Kato. The award-winning Taiwanese singer, songwriter, director and actor makes his American film debut and doesn't feel at all out of place filling the shoes once worn by legendary martial artist Bruce Lee. The two actors have great chemistry together (a must in any buddy film) and for the first half an hour to forty-five minutes it's enough to keep me entertained.

Gotta love Chudnofsky's double-barreled pistol

Sadly, after those initial moments I began to get restless as the film gets far too meandering and cliched. First of all, while Waltz is convincing as the self-conscious Russian antagonist, the part isn't well written in the slightest. Waltz is on that post-Oscar kick where you can do whatever you want and get paid tons of money to do it because, well, when you win an Academy Award it opens so many doors you're not sure where to go. That's why so many Oscar winners (see: Cuba Gooding, Jr) go on to have such unfulfilled careers after winning the big award, since they have so many bad options it's hard to pick the diamonds out of the rough. Cameron Diaz's appearance as the film's love interest also summons some demons out of the plot, as she's immediately treated as a romantic target for both Britt and Kato, eventually leading to a partner-breaking feud between the two. Original, huh? But I'll give Diaz credit: her character refuses to be a simple female token and has enough brains to be her own person outside of the main duo. Diaz is up to the task and puts on one of her better performances in recent years. Take that for what you will. The rest of the cast are largely unimportant, though I'll give any casting agent credit for putting into this film Wilkinson, Edward James Olmos and The Wire's Chad Coleman. Each are great actors in their own right and Olmos never gets enough credit for his gritty, down-to-earth demeanor. Wilkinson is an ass for his small role, but does a fine job with it. All in all, the supporting cast has the better talent but the leads get all the story.

Definitely NOT in the running for an Academy Award

We all have to start off somewhere, and this year I started off with what at best could be a hopped up, mediocre explosion fest. There's some good here, most especially Chou and Waltz, but not nearly enough to really recommend for even the average audience member. The writing and dialogue get annoying fast, the plot is silly and full of holes, and the 3D isn't good enough to make you forget that there was no real reason to put it in anyway. It may debut at #1 on 2011's Top 10 Films, but being number one on a list with one title ought to see this film quickly drop down the list in the months to come. If you wanted to see it then I won't tell you not to, but if you didn't want to see it in the first place, you made the right choice in my eyes.