The Danger Zone

I'll make no bones about it; despite the critiques of its detractors, I have overall enjoyed the Resident Evil films from Paul W.S. Anderson. The first movie I thought was an underrated gem in its ability to weave the hostile environments of the Capcom survival horror game series with a new cast of characters and in a story Anderson exclusively penned for the big screen. And while Resident Evil sequels Apocalypse and Extinction slowly deteriorated the quality of the franchise, Afterlife rejuvenated my love of heroine Alice's tale by being infused with much character and class while raising standards with its amazing special effects. It was arguably the best genre film of 2010.

Resident Evil: Retribution takes place immediately following the cliffhanger ending to Afterlife, and features Alice being taken captive by the global supercorporation Umbrella. Escaping from their top-secret base is the first step, as Alice slowly begins to uncover Umbrella's master plan, joining up with new allies in preparation for the ultimate final battle with the company responsible for all but wiping out the population of the planet.

Resident Evil: Retribution is written and directed by Paul W.S. Anderson, and stars Milla Jovovich, Sienna Guillory, Michelle Rodriguez, Johann Urb, Kevin Durand, Li Bingbing, Boris Kodjoe, Oded Fehr and Shawn Roberts.

Click here to read the full 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.

Lucky Number Four

These days, I think every author of teen books is trying to replicate the monumental success of Twilight. Why shouldn't they? Besides the fact that author Stephenie Meyer's name has become nearly on par with that of Harry Potter scribe J.K. Rowling when discussing books for teens, she could literally fill a swimming pool with small bills and take a dip, so well do her books sell. Even the final book in the series - Breaking Dawn, which many FANS admit was a ridiculous mess - sold over a million copies just in the first twenty-four hours of sales. On top of that, the money generated from producing the movies based on the vampire/werewolf romance novels have been hugely successful, and made stars out of leads Robert Pattinson and Kristen Stewart. Sure, teen novels have been turned into films before, but not until Harry Potter and Twilight have they been so amazingly profitable. And if you're a production studio adapting popular series of books like these to the big screen, you have a franchise that can potentially make you guaranteed money for years to come. That brings us to I Am Number Four, based on the book by Pittacus Lore, the pen name of authors James Frey (he of A Million Little Pieces fame) and Jobie Hughes. Though the first book in this series was only released last August, the rights to the film had been purchased nearly a year prior by Michael Bay and Dreamworks pictures, hoping that the planned six-part book series would make for a popular film franchise. I don't know how that will work out for them, but I was interested enough in the premise to check out this film, even if I know I'm well past the age of the target audience.

So this is small-town America, huh? Looks dirty

I Am Number Four introduces us to the Loriens, aliens who live among us and are the last survivors of an extinct race. There are nine special teens, who were created to protect their home planet from other aliens, the warmongering Mogadorians, but never got the chance. Now separated and hiding on Earth, one teen (Alex Pettyfer) begins to develop the powers needed to fight these evil creatures and protect his new home from possible invasion. The Mogadorians have followed these escapees to our planet and hunted down three of their prey, with Number Four now in their sights.

This is going to make some things... difficult

When I saw Michael Bay's name pop up in the opening credits, I knew I was going to see a lot of special effects and explosions. He does demand things to be awesome, after all. I also expected to be put to sleep by uninteresting characters and stretches of boring exposition. I was right about the first part. Boy, was I wrong about the second. While the film has enough action and demolitions to excite at least three of your five senses (especially if you manage to see it in an IMAX theater), I was quite surprised to be greeted with a story that didn't insult my intelligence and characters I could actually sympathize with and enjoy. That isn't to say that the story was PERFECT. In the beginning there's a bit of voice-over to explain the highly descriptive background, and I was afraid there would be much more to come. Thankfully, after setting up the tale the voice overs take permanent hiatus until the film's conclusion, which made sense. Even if they could have avoided using them at all, the story probably needed these monologues to fully integrate the viewer into the film's narrative. Besides that, the film actually does a good job weaving a plot that uses a lot of tiny clues and things left unsaid to actually help move the story forward. Director D.J. Caruso is still learning to be a big-time Hollywood director, but it's a step in the right direction. The alien romance story, however, being between an inhuman outsider a young mortal woman just reeks of Twilight stink, not really a huge surprise but disappointing in its lack of originality.

Officer Jimmy had two days left until retirement

The acting here is much better than I would have imagined. England-born Pettyfer has plenty of experience playing teen novel heroes at this point. He's been Alex Rider in Stormbreaker, based on the book series by Anthony Horowitz, as well as the lead in this year's Beastly, based on Alex Flynn's reimagining of Beauty and the Beast. Just as 2010 unveiled Garrett Hedlund as a young talent to watch out for, Pettyfer might be one of a few names (including Olivia Wilde and Saoirse Ronan) to keep an eye on once the dust that is 2011 has settled. As the young outsider who has been constantly on the move since arriving on our planet, Four is tired of running and wishes he could just settle down like a normal human being. Pettyfer does a great job in this coming-of-age role, managing to act enough like a normal teen to fool many of the characters around him but different enough to make sure we realize he doesn't actually belong there. Timothy Olyphant adds a lot of character as Four's mentor Henri, a warrior from their home planet dedicated to protecting him at all costs. Some of the best scenes are the verbal interplay between Olyphant and the younger Pettyfer, with Olyphant's mentor role often getting the better of these exchanges. Other solid performances belong to Callan McAuliffe as Four's nerdy friend Sam, Teresa Palmer as a young woman hunting down Four for reasons unknown, and Lost's Kevin Durand as the leader of the evil Mogadorians. The only one who doesn't quite live up to the rest of the talent is Glee's Dianaa Agron as Sarah, Four's love interest. While the character, a former popular girl turned outsider and shunned by those who she once called friends, is interesting enough, she just doesn't quite get all the nuances of the part to fully carry it off. Credit for not making her a useless maiden in distress, though; Sarah is a committed young woman determined to live life her way, and the relationship between her and Four is realistic and honest.

Yes, you came at a bad time

The film doesn't skimp on the fireworks, and many of the inherent effects, including mutations, energy blasts and transformations look simply amazing on the big screen. Since I Am Number Four probably could have been transformed into a 3D film, like so many short-sighted action films before it, it was thankfully decided to bypass the concept in this release. 3D has been such an overused technology since James Cameron reintroduced it in 2009, and for every Piranha 3D or Resident Evil Afterlight that makes it work, there are titles like Green Hornet and Clash of the Titans for which there was no need or even competent implementation. It's an expensive format that costs millions more to make and costs movie watchers twice as much to see in the theaters, so time will tell just how much a game-changer 3D has truly become. Until then it's almost more brave to make this kind of film WITHOUT the 3D label and declare that you don't need all that extra glitz to create an experience worth watching.

Is The Hunger Games next for Pettyfer?

While the story is really no different from teen entertainment like Twilight or the old WB/UPN show Roswell, the fact remains that I Am Number Four is a by-the-numbers teen action film done well enough to be a great experience. It lacks some subtlety, but that's on par for a film financed by Bay. It's currently my #1 for 2011, though I doubt it will have the staying power to remain the whole year on the list. I still question whether a viable franchise can be built out of an unknown quanitity like this. Twilight was in book form for three years before a film was put out. Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone took four years between book and film releases. The point I'm trying to make is that you can't force a franchise into existence; sometimes it's those happy mistakes and unforseen events that create the built-in audience you want in a motion picture. When you try to force it, you end up with disappointing returns because there's not enough teenagers giving a damn about your film to spend the money or time, as evidenced by this past weekend's box office. I may not be a Twilight fan, but even I can see how the vampire series made such an impact while Four has struggled out the gate.

Bullseye

What is it these days with the movie industry trying their hardest to portray things "accurately"? It seems every filmmaker who once contented themselves with dreaming up original ideas before immortalizing them without needless speculation about exactly how things should be, now go the extra mile to make things as accurate as they possibly can. Medically accurate. Historically accurate. Scale accuracy. Hollywood is slowly becoming so obsessed with how things need to appear that I fear someday soon these same film legends will forget that they're trying to ENTERTAIN an audience. Ridley Scott I fear is strolling down that road. The director, whose sci-fi films Alien and Blade Runner were among the best of their genre, seems to be on a permanent accuracy-high since his good but over-hyped Gladiator won Best Picture in 2000. Since then, he's produced a number of films that have been lauded for their "historical accuracy" and while some, like Black Hawk Down or American Gangster, were fairly well received and made gobs of moolah, Kingdom of Heaven's lack of audience is a perfect example of what can happen if you too overly rely on such semantics. At least, these thoughts are what I had after seeing Scott's latest directorial effort, Robin Hood.

Russel Crowe and other people

In his take on the fabled hero who robbed from the rich and gave to the poor, Scott has attempted to draw upon the true happenings in England during the year 1199. Russell Crowe plays Robin Longstride, an archer in King Richard's Crusades and the war against Philip II of France. Along with his fellow archers Alan A'Dale (Alan Doyle) and Will Scarlett (Scott Grimes) and another soldier called Little John (Kevin Durand), Robin leaves the King's army and journeys home to England, where the men want to live in peace. Richard the Lionheart is killed in battle, and when news reaches England of the King's death, John (Oscar Isaac) is immediately anointed the new King of England. However, all is not well, as John's childhood friend and knight Godfrey (Mark Strong) secretly plots with the the French King to invade England, and John's rise to power facilitates the Barons of England-ruled territories to rebel against him, fracturing John's rule. Robin and his (not yet merry) men, meanwhile, have found themselves in Nottingham, a village where Robin is asked to fill in for a deceased knight, Robert Loxley, and meets Lady Marian (Cate Blanchett). Over the course of the film, Robin also learns much about his past, which had been a mystery to him for most of his life.

So tell me, why will a spoon hurt more?

This particular adaptation of the Robin Hood legend actually plays out more as a prequel to the more popularly known stories such as the one depicted by Disney. Starting not all that differently than the Kevin Costner variation, this new telling puts aside much of the feuds with King John and the Sheriff of Nottingham to focus more on the traitor Godfrey and the impending French invasion. In this way we actually get something different than we're used to, while also being exposed to enough familiar territory to be comfortable. It's a delicate balance, and this level of storytelling is one that Scott does well. As for the "historical accuracy" aspect, there are plenty of spots in the tale that Scott either glosses over or just plain gets wrong. I'm fairly certain the French never used a rowing variation of the Higgins boat made popular during the invasion of Normandy in WWII when invading England. Many bits, such as the details of King Richard's death or the inaccuracy of the French invasion, happen nothing like what appears in historical texts. In all, the "historical accuracy" claim seems to be unfounded and unnecessarily rolled out.

Marian wishes for more historical accuracy

This in itself isn't too bad when you consider the interesting characters and the actors who portray them. Though Crowe is a talented performer, he's really not suited to the role of hero. His best performance to date is of Officer Bud White in LA Confidential, a complete and unrepentant asshole, yet he keeps trying to play these noble roles of characters who are put under the thumb of oppression and lead those like him out of it. Robin is a capable, strong, and charismatic individual who for much of the film is just a common soldier. Yet by the end he's practically commanding the British army to victory. This is mostly the script's fault, but Crowe is not infallible, especially when his accent (which I guess is Scottish, but who can really tell?) changes constantly over the course of the film. He's also not quite so convincing when he's trying to be more suave. It's obvious he was cast in an attempt to recapture the glory of the Gladiator days, and here it just doesn't work. Blanchett is also talented as the Lady Marion, but she's another performer who had one major role and has been trying to duplicate it's success ever since. Her dialogue is mostly empty and voicing thoughts for the audience's consumption, and her eventual romance with Robin is not a little contrived. And of course Scott couldn't resist plugging her into soldier's garb when given the opportunity She's talented enough to pull it off, but there's only so much she can do. Imagine if she'd gotten a REAL role, what she could do with it. The standouts of the film are by far Mark Strong as Godfrey and Oscar Isaac as King John, Strong has been in a lot of good films lately, with Sunshine, Kick Ass and Sherlock Holmes painting the canvas with talent and believability. As the traitorous Godfrey he is charismatic in a deadly sense; he can convince you he's your best friend while sticking a blade in your spine. Isaac is more of a campy performance, but make no mistake: This is no Alan Rickman "spoon" stint. John is an unloved King, full of the things that make you hate even his appearance when he's on screen. He's everything Robin isn't, and it's a shame they don't spend more time together on screen, as that might have brought the film to another level.

They would settle for TARGET accuracy

The Merry Men get much less attention than they usually would, and that's a shame. Kevin Durand actually puts on what I think is his strongest show to date as Little John, the playful but dangerous second-in-command to Robin. The only non-archer in the group, Durand plays to his physicality the best of any role he's had since Lost. Mark Addy makes a fun Friar Tuck, recently taking over Nottingham's Abbey. With the odd habit of beekeeping (to make Mead, of course), Addy is fun in the little bit he's allowed to perform. Scott Grimes and Alan Doyle are fine if underused in their supporting roles. Grimes, best known for his work on Band of Brothers and ER, is charming but doesn't do too much else besides fire arrows. Doyle uses his musical talents as a member of the Celtic band Great Big Sea to play the minstrel A'Dale, but when he's not making music he's pretty much a side note. A little more attention to these men, as well as the professional William Hurt as Earl William Marshall would have helped expand the story and take a little away from focusing on Crowe's foibles.

William Hurt is better than this

Taken with a grain of salt (and avoiding talk of historical inaccuracies), I enjoyed Robin Hood in spite of it's problems. It's an overwrought mess, obviously bucking for awards but not good enough in any capacity to be deserving of them. It is however a fun viewing if you don't focus on how good it SHOULD have been. It's about on the same level of Hereafter: Interesting story with talent in both the director's and actor's chairs and yet somehow lacking in what makes a wonderful movie-going experience. Not equal to the sum of it's parts, I'd still recommend seeing this if you want to take in a fantastical action film with good acting, and it certainly was better than the movie you PROBABLY saw when it was in theaters, the disappointingly mediocre Iron Man 2. A word of warning to historical scholars, however: YOU won't be able to sit through this film.