These are the Days of an X-Men Renaissance

It's actually kind of amazing how much information we got about X-Men: Days of Future Past between when its production was announced in May 2012, and now. Of course, we learned the title, which immediately heralded back to the classic X-Men comic book storyline of the same name. We were disappointed that X-Men First Class director Matthew Vaughn was leaving the project to focus on other work, but then excited again when we found out that Bryan Singer - who had directed the first two wonderful movies - was returning to direct the newest installment of the franchise he helped build. We learned that it would combine the casts of both pre-existing X-Men storylines, with Patrick Stewart and Ian McKellan playing alongside their younger character counterparts of James McAvoy and Michael Fassbender. We learned that Hugh "Wolverine" Jackman would once again be the face of the series. Empire magazine published their special issue about the film with 25 collectible covers. We were given what seemed like half a dozen full-length trailers, countless promotional clips and set pictures, and the sight of speedy newcomer mutant Quicksilver (Evan Peters) eating an X-tra Bacon, Egg & Cheese biscuit in a Carl's Jr. ad (yeah, that was kind of stupid). We also got some bad or potentially bad news, ranging from the complete cutting of fan favorite Rogue (Anna Paquin, whom the trailers had initially featured) to the current sexual assault allegations leveled against Singer. Point being, there was an almost insane amount of hype surrounding this entry to the X-Men film franchise, almost too much to actually hope the final product would live up to expectations. Well guess what? It lives up to expectations. And in some ways, it surpasses them.

Just promise me there'll be no singing.

Days of Future Past takes place within two disparate timelines. In a chaotic, post-apocalyptic future, Professor Xavier and Magneto (Patrick Stewart and Ian McKellan) lead a small band of mutants trying to avoid extermination at the hands of mutant-hunting Sentinels, robots built during the time of Xavier and Magneto's youth. Through one of the group's ability to send people backwards in time (because, you know, the story demands it), de-facto tough guy Wolverine's mind is sent back in time to his younger body to prevent the actions that have brought about the chaotic world in which our heroes live. When he wakes up in 1973, he must unite the two young mutant leaders, now at odds with one another, into a team that can halt the future war on mutant-kind before it ever starts.

... I'm sorry, was I saying something?

The best thing about Days of Future Past is that it combines the greatest elements of the X-Men films. For the old-school fans, you have the return of several classic franchise actors, including Halle Berry (Storm), Shawn Ashmore (Iceman), and Ellen Page (Kitty Pryde), not to mention Stewart and McKellan. For fans of the most recent First Class kinda-reboot, you have the the unique (for a superhero film) 1970's atmosphere, the best from the cast with McAvoy, Fassbender, Jennifer Lawrence and Nicholas Hoult, and the main focus of the narrative. And of course, there's Jackman in the lead role once again, not that the casting agent would let you forget. Singer melds these disparate parts fairly well, mixing timelines and art styles with precision, flipping from young Xavier's private plane in one scene to Sentinels battering down a door in the future, and the transition works without any loss of cohesion. The fact is, if you liked ANYTHING from the previous X-movies, you'll find plenty to enjoy here.

One of these things is not like the others...

But Singer doesn't just rely on combining nostalgic elements when it comes to building his latest effort, and his newest additions make for a nice compliment to the preexisting franchise. Games of Thrones' Peter Dinklage is perfectly at home as an adaptation of classic X-Men villain Bolivar Trask, putting an appropriate face to the public discrimination and fear that has long been the dividing line the team from the likes of the Avengers or the Fantastic Four. And even Evan Peters' take on Quicksilver is surprisingly effective. Yes, that Carl's Jr. commercial was an incredibly poor marketing idea, and at first glance his costume is just plain silly. But when Singer actually uses the character in the context of the movie (in a slow-motion action sequence set to Jim Croce's "Time in a Bottle"), it's such a thrill ride that you wish it wouldn't end. Sadly, the character practically disappears after this, but hopefully he'll make a re-appearance further down the line, if the directors can capture the same level of fun and excitement that Singer nailed in that one scene.

Fifty bucks on him gutting the hippie!

And that actually sums Days of Future Past up quite nicely; it's fun, and it's exciting. People haven't been enamored with this particular superhero franchise of late, from the spottiness of the Wolverine movies to the bad script elements of First Class to the plain awfulness that was X-Men: The Last Stand. But thankfully Days of Future Past rises above those faults. The cast is perfect - even Lawrence finally seems comfortable sitting in the bright blue skin of pseudo-villain Mystique after conquering just about every other role she's been handed - and the script is not just well written, but includes more than a few inside jokes for the lifelong comic book fans. In fact, that the story was based on such a well-known comic book storyline is a main reason this new entry was hyped so heavily, and so effectively. And yet this isn't just a pandering adaption, or at least if it is, it's hidden well enough to not be immediately insulting to those paying for tickets. Beyond that, the visuals are stunning, the dialogue and character development are amazing, and - especially important when Amazing Spider-Man 2 had so many jarring, bloated bits - it doesn't feel like too much has been crammed in to make the movie unwatchable. Instead, just the right balance means that you'll be riveted to your seat for the entire 131 minutes.

They act like they've never seen a man in purple armor and a cape before... oh, wait...

In closing, I think it's safe to say that after years of mediocrity and unfulfilled potential, the X-Men franchise is back on its feet and on a path to glory with Days of Future Past. Sure, the story has a few hiccups, some parts kind of rely on the audience remembering the plots and unseen characters of the previous films, and the ending isn't particularly clear how the universe will play out in future films. But despite the weariness the hype might have on your decision whether or not to see this in the theater, let me assure you that this is a superhero movie well worth a trip to your theater, even if you're not a fan of the genre. It might be one of the best of its kind in recent years, and there's no better way to celebrate that than seeing it on the big screen.

Cops and Robbers

September brings a whole new season, and with it many changes. Around the country, leaves change color and fall from the trees, the sun sets earlier and earlier, and Hollywood starts churning out the movies they think will actually have a chance of making an impression on critics and moviegoers. Yes, hidden amid the glut of Summer blockbusters and early-year critical fodder have been several intriguing films, including The Place Beyond the Pines, Mud, Fruitvale Station and The Way, Way Back. But with the soon-to-be-released likes of 12 Years a Slave, Gravity, Saving Mr. Banks, American Hustle, The Wolf of Wall Street... I could go on, but you get the picture. The coming months are so jam-packed with Oscar bait that even movies that would have been sure things a year or so ago will almost certainly find themselves on the outside looking in. Autumn (and winter afterward) brings with it the Big Boys, and the first officially serious candidate to rear its head is Denis Villeneuve's ensemble title Prisoners.

Jackman trying out as the "older, weathered" Bruce Wayne, perhaps?

In his follow-up to the Academy Award-nominated Canadian Incendies, Villeneuve takes his all-star cast and pits them against an unenviable foe when the daughters of friends Keller Dover (a poorly-monikered Hugh Jackman) and Franklin Birch (Terrence Howard) are kidnapped in broad daylight near their suburban homes. The police and Detective Loki (Jake Gyllenhaal) apprehend prime suspect Alex Jones (Paul Dano), only to discover no evidence linking the mentally-underdeveloped man-child with the crime. Days pass without any clues, and with the families driven mad by the tragedy, Keller decides that the only way he will see his daughter alive is if he takes matters into his own hands.

Oh, wait, he just has that face all the time.

It's the above-mentioned veteran actors - plus talented performers like Viola Davis, Maria Bello, and Melissa Leo - who give Prisoners it's most compelling strength, with Jackman front and center as a distraught father who desperate choices in an attempt to rescue his daughter. Since Jackman so often appears in relatively simple action films like The Wolverine and Real Steel, it's always wonderful to be surprised by the acting muscles he doesn't often flex, even if they belong to such a dark and despondent plot. Jackman owns his material, and while I am ragging on him in the photo comments about his stone-carved angry face, he does so much with vocal inflection and his actions that it makes up for any other weaknesses in his performance. Gyllenhaal also stands out, though a lack of character development means that those easily-recognizable demons from his past (which manifest themselves in neck tattoos and conspicuous eye twitches) are never explained. The film splits its time between those two actors, and not once do they fail to keep you hooked.

A little help from the rest of the cast.

Now if only the rest of the cast had been treated as reverently as the two leads. After the first act, I assumed Dano would be my favorite actor in this. Besides the fact that he has some great films on his resume (Little Miss Sunshine, Ruby Sparks and Looper just to start), Dano is a natural talent who is really going into new territory with this role. As the mentally-disabled prime suspect, he puts real fear in the audience in his early scenes. But sadly, despite still playing a major role in the remaining acts, he is relegated to the background. The rest of the supporting cast is also misused, most getting one or two front-and-center scenes before fading back into obscurity. It's certainly not due to talent issues; this is one of the best-collected casts in recent memory, with more than enough ability to keep things interesting. Given more to do, they might have helped improve the film's mood, as well as director Villeneuve's pacing. Instead, they are mostly wasted.

He still can't believe he graduated from the Police Academy.

And it's the hands of Villeneuve where Prisoners gets a little sketchy. He gets some great performances out of his actors, and knows how to perfectly frame a shot. The director's technical prowess is certainly not my concern here. However, he might have been given a bit too much control over the movie's final release this past weekend. For one, the film is two-and-a-half hours long. Typically, I don't care about length; unlike many ADHD-riddled moviegoers, I can actually sit through a movie that's longer than an hour and a half and not be fidgety by time the credits roll, so long as the movie is actually good. I'm willing to sit through such a long film when the time is actually used to tell the story, as opposed to relatively short films who use so much filler you have to wonder about why they got made in the first place. Sometimes I even think that standard two-hour movies SHOULD add another twenty minutes to flesh out certain characters or elaborate on particular plot points, which would have made all the difference in the world. But Villeneuve tries to mimic the pacing of award-winning thrillers like The Usual Suspects with mixed results. Scenes are deliberately paced, there are far too many side-plots, and the red herrings become far too distracting as the story leads to a formulaic, mediocre ending. By my reckoning, an entire subplot containing a copycat kidnapper could have been cut without any major issues, perhaps to the benefit of allowing the side characters to become more significant (okay, I'm done with that rant). I'm rarely a fan of studios clamping down on a director's "artistic vision", but this was a situation where Warner Brothers perhaps should have stepped in and requested some cuts to the final product.

Obligatory pointing-of-the-gun cliche.

Perhaps Villeneuve just got a little overly-excited about directing his first American feature. He's still a talented director, but his treatment of Prisoners wasn't his best effort at expressing that ability. He's got a great cast, a solid story and the perfect mood, but the material doesn't quite gel in the way it really ought to. It's still a decent flick, and one I'd recommend for a decent DVD perusal. But awards bait this is not, likely forgotten in a few months time. It's truly a shame, as with the talent involved, it could have easily turned into one of the year's best. In a nutshell, that  is the difference between potential and the real world.

Open Letters Monthly: The Wolverine

Now that Marvel Studios have changed the way people see comic book movies, it's time the other major studios got on board. It's currently 20'th Century Fox's turn with The Wolverine, the second spin-off (and sequel to the much-hated X-Men: The Last Stand) of the popular mutant superhero team that first leaped onto screens way back in 2000.

Riddled with guilt over his actions in The Last Stand, the man formerly known as Wolverine is living the hermit's life in Canada when he is discovered by a Japanese agent named Yuki,sent to give him a message. A man the near-immortal Logan saved in World War II wants to say goodbye, but when Wolverine goes to Japan to give his farewell, he is made an offer from the dying clan leader. For saving his life that day at Nagasaki, Logan is given the deal of a lifetime: allow his mutant healing factor to be transferred to someone else, so that he can live a finite existence and eventually be given peace from the demons that haunt him. But some demons wear human skin, and the world just might need Wolverine alive and kicking, even if he doesn't always feel the same.

The Wolverine is directed by James Mangold and stars Hugh Jackman, Hiroyuki Sanada, Tao Okamoto, Rila Fukushima, Will Yun Lee, Haruhiko Yamanouchi, Svetlana Khodchenkova and Famke Janssen.

Click here for the full review at Open Letters Monthly.

Too Dumb

All I wanted to do was see a stupid movie. Why did the creators behind Movie 43 have to ruin that?

A series of sketch shorts from the minds of Peter Farrelly and Charles Wessler (who ruled Hollywood in the nineties with hits like There's Something about Mary and Dumb and Dumber) and filmed over the course of many years, Movie 42 uses a dozen directors and an insane number of A-list stars in fulfilling the most base of art forms; they try to out-gross one another with scenes that include a young couple with a poop fetish, superhero speed dating, teen menstruation, a truth or dare game gone out of control, violent leprechauns, and a man with testicles dangling from his chin. No connection other than existing within the same 90 minutes is made apparent, and if any of that appealed to you, I guarantee that Movie 42 will still find a way to disappoint you.

Yup, Emma Stone will officially do ANYTHING.

What fools you at first into thinking that there's something here is the multitude of top-notch talent involved in the process. There are two Academy Award winners (Kate Winslet and Halle Berry) in this cast, countless former nominees (as well as current noms Hugh Jackman and Naomi Watts) and even more respected character actors, all of whom apparently didn't realize what they were getting into when they signed on for the ride. Gross-out humor is one thing when it comes from people you expect (the Scary Movie and associated spin-off franchises use most of the same low-budget talent) but with the exception of Anna Faris (in a scene with real-life husband Chris Pratt), you wouldn't expect the same from this particular class of actor. Watching these celebrities do things they wouldn't normally on film was much of the appeal of seeing Movie 43, and likely the only thing to draw audiences this past weekend.

Anna, I thought you had gotten past this!

The problem is that for all the gross-out, completely obscene humor Farrelly and company put forth, they often forgot to make sure what we were seeing was FUNNY. You can get through entire scenes without even cracking a smile, and that happens far too often. It would be one thing if there were just spots of weakness, misogyny and the over-reliance of sex jokes that interrupted the gut-busting laughter, but that is tragically THE WHOLE THING. Even if the scene in question had a promising concept, it was quickly lost to easy sight gags and rampant stupidity. For instance, watching Richard Gere, Jack McBrayer and Kate Bosworth argue over why teenage boys are having sex with their company's new music player, the iBabe (which represents a full-sized, naked woman) gets old quickly. And Liev Schreiber and Watts playing homeschooling parents who don't want their son to miss out on all the bullying, awkward situations and humiliations of high school plays like a scene out of time. Berry, Winslet, Jackman, and Greg Kinnear are all wasted as they do little or nothing that could possibly get a rise out of the audience. The only moments I found remotely funny were the skits "Veronica", in which Kieran Culkin and Emma Stone murmur dirty things they want to do to one another over the PA system of a supermarket late at night, and "Victory's Glory", in which Terrence Howard plays a coach giving an inspiring speech to a black basketball team who believe they are inferior to the opposing, all-white team. In fact, Howard's emphatic screams of "You're black! They're white! This ain't hockey!" were the only times the entire film that anybody in the theater laughed out loud.

Yup, that's the whole game plan.

It's sadly obvious that Peter Farrelly has no freaking clue what funny is anymore. While he was able to get away with gross-out gags back in the nineties, those at least were both outrageous and hilarious when they needed to be. Here his antics (and those of directors like Brett Ratner, James Gunn, Steve Carr and Steven Brill) fall completely flat, easily maintaining the targeted level of obscenity but almost never getting off the ground with anything representing actual humor. As a result, it's easily the worst movie of 2013. Sure, it's still early, but you have to WORK to be this bad, and I can't imagine anyone else falling this low in the near future. My old movie-watching sidekick Anne used to speak of the "Stupid Factor", a phenomena in which something could be so stupid that it was actually pretty funny and clever. That used to be Farrelly's M.O. not all that long ago. Now he gives stupid movies a bad rap, possibly putting out not just the worst movie of 2013, but of the whole decade.

Singing and Dancing

While my sister and I were growing up, our parents always wanted us to have a healthy appreciation for the arts and culture. Movies, museums and the theater were visited often, and those trips helped shape me into the man I have become, and continue to guide my perceptions of the world today. One I remember with some clarity was a showing at Boston's Wang Center of Les Miserables, the musical about poverty and revolution, crime and punishment in 1800's France. Even after all this time, I can remember the legendary musical numbers performed live by people who were masters of their craft. On Christmas, the whole country got a chance to see Tom Hooper's vision of that story on the big screen. Hooper, who could have done any project he wanted after scoring big with 2010's The King's Speech, decided to tackle the challenge of turning a story told 98% in song to a cinematic masterpiece. How did he do? Well, let's review.

Les Miserables follows Jean Valjean (Hugh Jackman) - a man who served 19 years in prison for stealing a loaf of bread to feed his sister's children - after he is paroled. While he at first cannot find work due to his reputation as a "dangerous criminal", Valjean eventually catches a break and manages to make some wealth and do some good for the people of France after fleeing parole and taking an assumed name. His nemesis and the man chasing him is Javert (Russell Crowe), an officer of the law who rigidly enforces the law and cracks down on even the smallest infractions. Valjean finds a purpose in life when he attempts to aid the sick and struggling mother Fantine (Anne Hathaway) and adopts her daughter Cosette upon her death. Meanwhile, a revolution is building as the downtrodden common folk take up arms against the oppressive King and bourgeoisie.

Hope you enjoy Hathaway's performance... it's damned short

The good news is, if you love the musical as much as some people I know, you won't have any problems with the big screen rendition of Les Mis. Hooper changes almost nothing about what makes the musical so impressive, from its memorable musical score to its multiple-threaded story full of entertaining characters. He augments only in the tiniest bits, most notably in the addition of a new song for Jackman at the midway point. Like the musical, the actors rarely speak in anything but verse, and the director gets great vocalization from his cast by having had them sing live during filming, rather than recording it in post production. While it takes some effort to get used to, and at a few moments the singing doesn't quite match the music, the result is a largely authentic emotional response from his actors, who really get into their performances as though they were really playing on Broadway.

She dreamed a dream, and then she was gone.

The cast of course is a big reason for why the whole thing turned out nicely, and the main credit for that can be attributed to Jackman and Hathaway. Hathaway especially steals the show, and considering she has MAYBE twenty minutes of screen time in a two-plus hour movie, that says a lot. She's assisted somewhat by Hooper's direction (the fall into degradation of Fantine just happens to be the most masterfully shot sequence in the whole movie), but for the most part she deserves all the credit in the world for taking an important bit part and wringing everything out of it that she could. I didn't even know she could SING, and here she is belting out solos like a veteran vocalist. She's an Oscar guarantee at this point, bringing talents to the role that very few people could have expected. Jackman, however, has a history with song and stage, and so his excellence as Jean Valjean comes as absolutely no surprise. The part plays to the best aspects of his theatrical abilities, and anybody who is used to seeing him play manly men in the X-Men films or Real Steel needs to see his work here. The rest of the cast are a step down, though both Eddie Redmayne and debuting Samantha Barks will completely surprise you with their acting and singing abilities. Both have long, excellent careers ahead of them at this point. Helena Bonham Carter and Sacha Baron Cohen put on strong performances as secondary villains (when am I going to stop being surprised by Cohen's talents?), and while Amanda Seyfried did not really impress me with her appearances, she was so barely present that it's hard to really give her a hard time. The only dud in casting was Crowe, who sports a fine singing voice but can't seem to loosen up and look natural for the camera. It's especially surprising when you consider what a good job he did in the unspectacular Man with the Iron Fists. Here, he puts on one of his lesser performances, the weakest part of an otherwise great group.

If it wasn't for Hathaway, everybody would be talking about her.

But while Hooper gets a lot out of his cast and puts on some great visuals, his story feels... exactly the same as the musical. At the core, you're getting pretty much the same experience you would on a stage, and while that is pretty impressive it also speaks to a glaring lack of individuality in his vision. The last time I saw a musical theater-turned-theatrical release, it was 2007's Sweeny Todd, which suffered from much the same ailment. There just wasn't enough to make it feel like more than they filmed a stage play. While Hooper's Les Mis is a far superior experience than Tim Burton's production, at times the director could have mixed things up a bit to make up for the play's... melodramatics, especially in the final act. The final ten minutes are largely underwhelming, shoehorning an obscene amount of plot into a few minutes of film, and the closing scene is almost as bad as Titanic's "applause" finale. So why did this make the final cut? Because it was that way in the musical, that's why.

And he's STILL the manliest man in Hollywood.

There are people who absolutely LOVE the stage version of Les Miserables. Usually when adaptations such as this are made, they alienate fans of the original by completely changing elements that made the original experience unique, whether major or minor. But fans of the stage Les Mis will have no such issues, as few changes and an excellent voice cast guarantee that diehards will walk out of the theater crying and sure they have just seen a masterpiece. For the rest of us, this musical is great, but doesn't live up to that impossible superlative. Keep Jackman and Hathaway earmarked for their exquisite performances, but otherwise this is "just" a great, deeply encompassing good time at the movies, not one of 2012's absolute best.

Open Letters Monthly: Rise of the Guardians

Dreamworks finally makes their presence felt in the 2012 Oscar race for best Animated Feature with the release of Rise of the Guardians, the folk-tale inspired film based on the Guardians of Childhood series of books by William Joyce. Though Dreamworks has often lived in the shadow of Pixar as far as their animated features have gone, they are always capable of putting out something extraordinary, such as the original Shrek or How to Train Your Dragon. Likely to be nominated, and with Pixar putting out a great-but-not-Pixar-level product in Brave, and Dreamworks might actually have a shot at the big prize this season.

Jack Frost doesn't know why he suddenly came into existence almost 300 years ago. All he knows is that he controls the cold weather, isn't seen by anybody, and wants to live without rules and restrictions that would compromise the fun he has every day. But when the Boogeyman returns from centuries of isolation in an attempt to rule the world with fear, Jack finds himself summoned to join the Guardians of Childhood, led by the legendary Santa Claus, Tooth Fairy, Easter Bunny and Sandman. Together, they have a chance to fight back, and Jack may just discover the person he was meant to be.

Rise of the Guardians is directed by Peter Ramsey and features the voices of Chris Pine, Alec Baldwin, Jude Law, Isla Fisher and Hugh Jackman.

Click here for the complete review at Open Letters Monthly.

Metal Movie Mayhem

So there's this movie in which the history-rich sport of boxing, once ruled by superhuman personalities like Muhammad Ali, Joe Lewis and Mike Tyson, has evolved into a video game. Remote-controlled robots taking the place and punishment of those men who would enter the rings in the sport's heyday. And yet this isn't called Rock 'Em Sock 'Em Robots: The Movie, but the far more nonsensical Real Steel, starring Hugh Jackman and based on a short story by Richard Matheson. What's that, you say? Robotic boxing sounds like one of the stupidest ideas you've ever heard of as a plot device for a movie? How about a basic father/son reuniting storyline or every boxing cliche under the sun, brought to you by Disney? Still stupid, you say? Yup, I thought so too. Turns out though that more than million people thought this was worth seeing on opening weekend, proving that when it comes to cinematic entertainment, there really is no accounting for taste. It didn't hurt that Real Steel was all but unopposed this past weekend, with only the George Clooney political thriller The Ides of March approaching anything like a concentrated audience. Of course Ides is no family film, so while Real Steel prances about like a heavyweight fighter, it has only proven itself a bully in a middleweight contest for now. When I attended it earlier this week, it was only because the film was the best available I'd yet to see (sorry, Dream House) and to be honest, I really felt like I NEEDED to see a stupid movie after having my emotional core besieged by the wonderful 50/50. If Real Steel could provide cheap fun for the night, isn't that all it really promises?

We see a lot of this

Charlie Kenton (Jackman) is a former boxer who had to give up his honored past-time when the sport changed. More extreme fans and offshoots like UFC eventually forced boxing to adapt to the more ruthless, no-holds-barred entertainment that the people were clamoring for. Since the human body can only handle so much, robots eventually replaced the boxers of the world, and that forced guys like Charlie to make a change. Now the down-on-his luck performer is deep in debt to rough honchos, and has irreparably lost two robots to battle damage in two subsequent losses. Charlie's luck begins to change however, when into his custody comes his preteen son Max (Dakota Goyo), whose mother has recently passed away. While Charlie wants nothing to do with the kid and eagerly signs over custody of Max to the deceased's sister, he still has to care for Max while she is away in Europe. This leads to the boy discovering an old sparring bot while helping Charlie dive for spare parts at a junkyard, and soon the father and son team are touring the country with a bot named Atom that can take a huge amount of punishment while Charlie trains it to become a winner in the ring, Meanwhile, Max teaches Charlie to be a better man than he was.

It's the devastating "Whatsis Neme"!

So. Obviously there's got to be SOMETHING wrong with this film, outside of it's nonsensical existence. You're waiting for me to point out what that is, aren't you? Well, let's go down the list. The special effects aren't an issue. Perhaps I was blinded by the immense size of the IMAX screen on which I watched this, but Real Steel sports some of the best special effects this side of a Michael Bay blockbuster, with special care taken in the design and implementation of the robotic athletes. Unlike many films, actual robots were built for the story-focused scenes, and CGI used only in actually making them duke it out. A great attention to detail and excellent effort made to animate these beasts is the film's greatest accomplishment, a far greater feat than many a Summer thrill-ride was able to achieve in 2011. The world presented is also deep, with vast cornfields, wide open areas and very little urban sprawl used to hearken back to a less populated America, in a nostalgic effort to let us know that as much as the sport of boxing has changed, the world in which it had it's greatest moments remains the same or at least similar. Add atop this an excellent soundtrack by Danny Elfman (of Oingo Boingo and The Simpsons fame), and there is not an element visually or aurally that is out of place.

Previously on Lost

So the problem isn't in the special effects; those are up to snuff. Hmmm. Maybe it's the acting that is Real Steel's fatal flaw? Nope, sorry. While the cast could never in a million years be referred to as "perfect", there are also no obvious weak links to drag the whole ensemble apart. Hugh Jackman is his usual boisterous and charming self, and as the manliest man to ever sing "Oklahoma", it's too bad that he never seems to pick great movies in which to be the star. With the exception of his turn as Wolverine in the X-Men series of films, the vast majority of his career has been either poorly-criticized or poorly-attended. It's a shame, as he's obviously talented enough to be more than a mere action star, but too large physically to fully break away from that mold. At least he looks like he's having a good time making this film, which is a lot better than John Travolta has looked in the last half-dozen years. Most of the other actors come nowhere close, but are able at least to do a passable job for the genre. Some of the better actors, Anthony Mackie and Kevin Durand in particular, aren't given a lot to do beside being strong personalities. Seeing Evangeline Lilly in something not created by J.J. Abrams was intriguing enough, but she's not quite able explain why she thinks she wants to do this as a career. Sure she's spunky, but there's nothing new to see with her. Dakota Goyo has probably the closest thing the film has to a "why is he here" role, as his stubborn child character is hardly top shelf, even if it had been remotely unique. Still, these actors show up and are enthusiastic to be on the set, so it's nearly impossible to fully discredit their work.

Two men enter, one man leaves! Two men ent... oh... wait...

Hmm, that's two down. Really, do we need anything else to be wrong with Real Steel? The ridiculousness of the entire presented universe is far from intelligent, to start. Sure, there's the fact that a human body can do so much, but that isn't nearly enough to explain why boxing with robots would become so popular. Just ask any fan of fighting as sport: there's something exciting about seeing two humans beating the ever living crap out of one another. The same can't be said for two robots, especially when the concept of a "more extreme" form of the art is nullified by keeping many of Boxing's original rules. Even if robots aren't indestructible, why do they need breaks between rounds? Why ARE there rounds? Why not keep them fighting constantly? There are obviously a lot of questions that could be asked in that vein. So why does robot combat become so exciting? Who knows? Certainly the filmmakers never paused to consider that particular question, the way we're expected to just accept that crowds would go gaga for an "unbeatable" bot from Russia (at least, its owner is Russian) whose fights in person must be boring and predictable. But even this isn't a deal-changer, as escapism goes a long way to make your forget the inanity of the entire situation, and Jackman does his best to cover the rest.

Jackman talking to his agent about the announced Real Steel sequel

Okay, there really is a big problem with Real Steel that might be an issue for you as a viewer. Ever seen a boxing movie? Rocky? Raging Bull? Cinderella Man? Well, these filmmakers have seen all those movies as well, and more. With the exception of the fact that the robots are the big, bad fighters, there is not one unique story element to be found anywhere in this film. Walkout dad and stubborn son finding they have more in common than they thought? Complete with redemption angle? The aforementioned "unstoppable" champion bot? Charlie's unrealized fighting potential? Even the entirety of the cliched "championship match" at the whole thing's end? You'll find it all elsewhere. It would have been great for Real Steel to get a real story to match its random title, but unfortunately that wasn't given much consideration by director Shawn Levy. That's unfortunate since Levy's last film, the very funny Date Night, was more than a few steps above his previous efforts. That this film has been a success while the under-appreciated Warrior rots in empty theaters is disconcerting to say the least. Still, Real Steel for the most part holds it's own as even with a completely unoriginal story it manages to hang with the median of 2011 action movies, faring better than Cowboys & Aliens and Captain America and perhaps on par with Fast Five. Spend as much on a ticket as you think it's worth, and this sci-fi tale might sneak up on you. Just don't expect to be blown away by anything other than the visuals.