Rush Hour

I like sports movies, I really do. Depending on who is making them, they can be among the best or most exciting films in any given year. But if I'm being honest, they're not exactly the most original of tales. Whether you're watching Rudy, Rocky or Warrior, the story is essentially the same: man triumphs over impossible odds and learns just a little something about life/himself in the process. Even if the final outcome is defeat, there's a silver lining or a personal victory that overshadows the fact that they were just knocked down. It's an entirely predictable genre, even more so when the film in question is based on true events. That's when you need a good director to pull together everything he's got and assemble a movie that combines the truth of history with an engaging narrative that only filmmakers can provide.

Ron Howard's Rush has the distinct disadvantage of following Formula One racing, with all the speed of NASCAR but little of the built-in fanbase, at least here in the States (hey, SOMEONE made the Cars franchise profitable). More specifically, it chronicles the legendary feud between James Hunt (Chris Hemsworth) and Niki Lauda (Daniel Bruhl), starting from their early days in the sport and through their fateful clashes during the 1976 Grand Prix. On the surface, no two people could be more different; the handsome and charismatic Hunt was an unbridled partier and ladies' man, but an eminently skilled driver; Lauda dour-faced and critically serious, but an unparalleled strategist. Yet despite their differences on and off the track, they had much in common: both were expelled from their business-oriented families, both with a desire to win against all odds. It's that hunger that drives them to compete harder and harder against one another, despite the tragic events that occurred in Germany on August 1'st, 1976.

Even the cars are vintage.

Despite not possessing rock-star credentials, it's easy to get behind this pair of feuding heroes. Of course, Hunt is easy to align with, Hemsworth's easy charisma and performance (along with his blond locks) make his an easy casting decision. But it's Bruhl's Lauda who the audience really connects with, as we see him conquer obstacle after obstacle in his hunt for the World Championship. Bruhl is also an unlikely star, with average looks and thick German accent that would barely sniff a Hollywood production. But of the two, he steals the show, and is easily the best part of a cast that, beyond he and Hemsworth, doesn't offer a ton of depth outside of Olivia Wilde's little-explored romantic interest for Hunt.

This isn't even a set pic; it's just an average day in Hemsworth's life.

The story is also solid, if more than a little predictable. The backbone of the plot is the feud between the two leads, and with both actors performing admirably, there's little that really deserves any complaint. If there's any weakness, it's the pacing and lack of exploration into the Grand Prix itself, a series of races that barely gets any screentime - or even a decent explanation as to its rules - before the final act. Basically, we see snippets of each relatively unimportant match, which include dozens of landmark racers (even mediocre sports fans ought to pick out Mario Andretti's name spoken by announcers) and only faintly touches on the finishes (and lack thereof) of the main duo. Only two races are really focused on, and even those are marred by painfully confusing jump cuts, overly-ambitious CGI, and shaky-cam, the most overrated trick in filming action of all time.

This is probably the best racing shot you'll see.

And that's the limit here in Howard's directing, the focus on character at the expense of the actual sport. I'm not saying that Howard is a bad director. Though he's certainly had his share of turds (The DaVinci Code, The Dilemma), he's also put out some of the most memorable films the modern era in Apollo 13, A Beautiful Mind and Frost/Nixon. As a director, Howard doesn't confine himself to any particular genre, choosing instead to do whatever strikes his fancy. And while he's by no means one of the biggest directors out there, he's versatile and just good enough that Rush never truly gets away from him. But whether the confusion over his race scenes is meant to be intentional, it will fail to enthrall racing neophytes and takes them right out of the movie, ensuring that the film will never truly enamor itself to a mainstream audience.

And that was his face BEFORE the accident!

As a sports movie, Rush is a solid, well-acted story about overcoming the odds and learning about yourself and life. If you're going into this with ideas that it will break out of that mold, you will be sadly disappointed. I can see this DVD taking up space on a racing fan's shelves, but like most similar fare it won't appeal much to non-sports fans. Still, if you're looking to see something outside of your comfort zone and don't mind accents and a few difficult-to-watch scenes, Rush is one of those movies that can catch you by surprise, especially when there's just not a whole lot better playing at theaters right now.

Double Feature: 'The Words' and 'The Cold Light of Day'

Last weekend was something of an historic moment for Hollywood. While the beginning of September has kids going back to school and is often a weak time for theaters in general, and production companies shove out what they believe to be some of their less prestigious fare, a feat was achieved in the release of ensemble drama The Words and action thriller The Cold Light of Day. The pair of new releases added little to a weekend in which the top twelve grossing movies brought in only $51.9 million, the worst since 2008 and one of the lowest weekend grosses in recorded history. Both films featured rising stars and proven performers, so why did nobody turn out to see them? Where did it all go wrong?

Of the two releases, The Words was felt to have far more potential. Beyond the original story (centering around the harmful effects of plagiarism) that would on the surface appear to agree with the literary-minded set of Hollywood, this was a time-traveling ensemble piece that more than a few people expected to contend for awards this winter. Pulling it together is the talented cast led by The Hangover's Bradley Cooper but also featuring Jeremy Irons, Zoe Saldana, Dennis Quaid and Olivia Wilde, with Cooper giving a surprisingly soulful performance that stands far out from his previous, more light-hearted efforts. The only negative thing I can say about Cooper's work is that the script does its best to get away from him in order to tell the story; when he's center stage, however, he's electrifying.

Don't worry; you're not forgotten, Mr. Irons.

But if there's one performance that will be remembered this award season, it will be Jeremy Irons as the nameless Old Man from whom Cooper's desperate author accidentally cribs in creating his best-selling novel. It's funny how Irons has reinvented his career in the past year, with his success on the Showtime series The Borgias likely a major factor in his casting. The Old Man vocalizes wide swaths of the tale, but that's no problem; if Irons' throaty rasps could do all narrative voice overs for the rest of time, I'd never complain about them again. The work he puts in here is exemplary, and cannot be easily defined by a few lines of text. He's easily redefined himself as one of Hollywood's go-to scene-stealers.

Yup, this is me at crunch-time.

But The Words' rookie co-directors Brian Klugman and Lee Sternthal just don't have enough narrative clout to make this film work overall. While most of the movie takes place in Cooper's present and Irons' past, a third time frame presenting the preceding events as a work of (maybe autobiographical?) fiction from ANOTHER author (Quaid) falls flat, although I can at least understand why the storytellers felt they had to go in this direction. However, the result is a choppy narrative that tries to delve too deeply into what shouldn't be all that difficult a message. Some great dialogue is wasted on a mediocre movie, though at least The Words was not the worst widely released movie to come out last weekend.

That distinction gets to belong to The Cold Light of Day, a low-tech action thriller that riffs off of the Bourne series without any of the charm and excitement that made those films such unexpected hits. The story pits an everyday guy (Immortals' star Henry Cavill) in an unbelievable situation; despite the extremely long odds, we've no doubt as to who will come out on top. When I first saw trailers for this film I was under the assumption that this would be the one to catapult Cavill into recognizable status leading into next year's Superman reboot, but apparently it wasn't even going to get a wide release in the states following the drubbing it got overseas. But with The Words as their only competition, it seems Summit Entertainment had a change of heart and started throwing the film at whatever theater would carry it. Honestly, they probably would have been better off going the limited release route.

Simply put, this is a dry, unoriginal action piece that has some decent actors rattling off inane dialogue and performing stunts that have been done to death in better, more groundbreaking productions. French director Mabrouk el Mechri certainly knows how to work his chosen genre (as he proved in the surprisingly good JCVD), but this movie has none of fun, charm and wit that is needed to carry a really good action flick. I get that every director needs to pay their dues until they get a REAL Hollywood job, but making films like this just because you don't want to give someone a shot just yet is kind of ridiculous.

The most awkward father-son chat EVER.

To make things worse, most of the veteran talent seems intent on cashing their paychecks, for all the enthusiasm they shrug into their performances. This should have been a big year for Bruce Willis, but between the last second delay of the GI Joe sequel, the "been there done that" of Expendables 2, and his uninspired performance here, it's been a mixed bag for the action star. Moonrise Kingdom has been his only legitimately good gig lately, and he might earn some points sitting across from Joseph Gordon-Levitt in the upcoming Looper, but overall this has to be a disappointing year for him. Likewise preening for the camera is Sigourney Weaver, which is a personal pain for me. In recent years Weaver has stopped caring about the roles she takes, and for every great cameo in Paul or Cabin in the Woods is matched by even more godawful dreck not fit for public consumption. What on Earth happened to Ellen Ripley and Dana Barrett? This used to be an actress I loved to see in movies; now she's little more than a famous face brought in to spruce up a sorry paint job. Finally, Cold Light does little to showcase Cavill as a potential action star. He's definitely working harder than his veteran cast-mates, but still lacks that special something that makes someone a movie star. Maybe that will change come Man of Steel's arrival next year; maybe it won't. But for whatever reason he doesn't have the inhuman strength required to carry this particular movie all that far.

Trying to hold a nonexistent audience hostage is not a good idea...

Hmm, normal guy whose existence is stripped away with the revelation that his family is not what he thought it was? And then in Bourne-like fashion he fights against all odds to retain his life, only to succeed thanks to highly irregular coincidences? Where have I heard of this before? Oh, that's right, that was the same story as Abduction, one of the worst films of 2011! You know things aren't right when you're copying the mission statement of a Taylor Lautner vehicle, but hopefully Cavill's career won't take the downward spiral that will siren-call Lautner after the final Twilight film releases. Cavill has the talent and potential to be a bigger star than most of the current "Next-Gen" actors currently working their way up the Hollywood ladder. Thankfully, nobody really sat down and watched this film, so he is in no danger of becoming the next Brandon Routh just yet. But it does raise yet another red flag in relation to the upcoming Superman film; with almost nothing (especially director Zack Snyder) pointing towards a positive experience with Man of Steel, can everybody involved in the project really step up and do a better job than they've ever done before? Because for that movie to even meet the insanely high expectations placed upon it, Snyder, Cavill and company are going to have to do just that. And The Cold Light of Day does nothing to allay those fears that it won't.

Time's Up

Sometimes a good hook is all a film really needs to capture its audience. When the majority of popular films out there are remakes or stories so derivative that they might as well be, anything that stands apart from the norm can, and more often than not will, excite and draw a real audience. That hook allows you to tell any story you wish, and if you do a good enough job, those people will turn to their friends afterward and tell them all about your movie, expanding your viewership at the next showing. That catchy, original idea is exactly the kind of film In Time aspires to be. When I first saw the trailer for this sci-fi thriller, it didn't matter that it starred two actors who don't do a lot for me (Justin Timberlake and Amanda Seyfried). It didn't matter that the supporting cast sported a variety of not-quite-there names including Cillian Murphy, Olivia Wilde, Vincent Kartheiser and Johnny Galecki. It didn't matter that director Andrew Niccol's previous works interested me not one whit. What did matter was the concept; a society where time is currency and the rich live forever, while the poor constantly check their chronometers to see their last minutes ticking away. Sure it's an obvious analogy to the state of inequality in the world and especially the United States today, but that single element is what drove people to the theater this past weekend. All that was left was for the director to tell his story, and hope that it's good enough for repeat performances next time around.

The name's Salas. Will Salas. And I don't dance.

Will Salas (Timberlake) is a factory worker just trying to eke out a life in the ghettos of Dayton with his 50-year-old mother Rachel (Wilde). With his wages such that he is literally living a day at a time, Will finds himself faced with perhaps competing in illegal fights (think of them as arm wrestling matches to the death) to earn some time on the side. After he rescues 105-year-old socialite Henry Hamilton (Matt Bomer) from the wrong side of the tracks, Hamilton tells him that the system in place is there to keep the rich alive and force the little people into short lifespans, for purposes of population control. He also tells Will that he is tired of his empty existence and came to the ghetto because he wanted to die. After determining that Will would not "waste his time", Hamilton passes over a century of time to Will before killing himself. Now Will has enough time on his hands to mingle with the elite of New Greenwich, but Hamilton's death is tagged as suspicious by the Timekeepers, a police force led by Raymond Leon (Murphy). Leon launches a manhunt for Will, who eventually pairs up with a rich magnate's daughter (Seyfried) and the pair become a modern day (or would it be futuristic?) Robin Hood and Maid Marion, robbing Time Banks and redistributing all the time in the world to those who have none.

Silly concept, "stairs"...

While In Time certainly carries a strong message that likely appeals to the "99%", the story itself could have used a lot more work. The action is quick paced and natural, which is why it's so annoying that it takes so long to get to such a point where we are not overly-reliant on plot exposition and dialogue heavy with overtones just to get by. After a largely empty first act, the tale gets truly underway with the escaped couple doing everything they can to screw the man and eventually each other, though in different ways. Actually, the worst thing the film could have done was force a romance between Will and Seyfried's Sylvia, as the two actors have little in the way of chemistry to make such a coupling believable. It's a shame, as the things that Niccol does well as a director (action, a strong message) are almost ruined by his overemphasis on those strengths. The action is almost good to a fault, in which a few moments arise that are beyond his talent as a director and/or beyond the budget of the special effects department. And the message is so obvious that when the film's character's sit down and spell it out so that the audience without a shadow of a doubt "gets it", it's a simple yet exhaustive exercise in frustration to sit there and take it.

Hair has seen multiple technical advancements in the future

At least the silly dialogue and direction is delivered by something akin to a decent array of talent. Seyfried is the lone poor casting choice, as in my eyes she still hasn't done enough to prove that she deserves to be a leading lady. It's clear she has some talent, but so much of her dialogue is so thrown away and flat that you're not sure whether she's just raw or simply isn't trying. I certainly won't deny that she has the looks to be a star, but if she doesn't pick up the pace there are other pretty people would kill to be in her shoes. Timberlake meanwhile has a few dull moments but otherwise puts up one of the more impressive, stripped-down performances of his career. For once, as an actor he puts aside much of his natural charm and actually plays a role that is not a simply-adapted version of himself, and it works wonderfully. Cillian Murphy is as effective as his stone-faced demeanor can carry him, and considering the bluntness of his part that actually goes a long way. As a hard-nosed but honest cop, Murphy is one of the film's villains but not one you can hate, as he's just a working stiff doing his job to the best of his ability. There's almost something admirable about his character, and Murphy plays to that exceptionally well. More villainous but less featured are Mad Men's Vincent Kartheiser as Sylvia's wealthy entrepreneur father who doesn't care about the poor people who suffer under the system and Alex Pettyfer as the leader of a gang who kill people by stealing what time their victims have for themselves.Kartheiser is effective, but the almost seems out of place among all the far more attractive folk around him, ruining my "pretty people with problems" argument before it could even take off. Pettyfer's turn as a bad guy seems like an inspired move considering how poorly his last two films (I Am Number Four and Beastly) have fared with audiences. More likely it's a coincidence, but Pettyfer manages to be charming and snooty all at the same time, and comes off as a natural leader for others to follow. I'd love to see him headline another motion picture, but perhaps he needs more of these solid supporting roles to gain a following before he tries again. Olivia Wilde is wasted in yet another movie, her brief appearance at the film's opening quickly forgotten as the story continues on with her in absentia.

Not a face you want to see at a fancy soiree

Eventually the film comes to an end that is somehow both satisfying and disappointing as once again the glorious message of inequality makes itself known and characters meet their cliched stops. As least the ending itself wasn't predictable, as just enough was juggled to leave the true ending of the heroes in doubt until the film's final moments. Still, closing scenes of triumph hearkened back to earlier scenes of defeat, and the whole thing stunk of bleak writer's cramp stunting what could have been a good film. In Time is a good hook and a great IDEA, but as a story it never grasps what it needs to be most effective, instead relying on its actors to dredge it from the mire like some cheap Jedi mind trick. It almost works, but this film is definitely one that works better in theory than in practice. I enjoyed myself, but I'm not sure I'll be recommending it to my friends, and you can bet there will be others who feel the same. A perfectly okay film that will make for a nice rental or streaming download, but not something that needs to be seen on the big screen.

The Date Night sequel nobody wanted...

Change-Up a Screwball

On my most recent day off from work this past week I took the opportunity to make it a "Movie Day.." Doing so meant back-to-back film viewings, usually something you would have to plan out in advance in order to make sure your movie times don't overlap. Sure, you could always so the same thing with DVDs, but when there are so many new films coming out in theaters right now I couldn't justify not taking that chance. I also didn't plan things ahead, purely lucking into a showing of the screwball comedy The Change-Up airing mere minutes after the closing credits for Rise of the Planet of the Apes began rolling. While Rise had been my de facto choice that morning, that had been more due to the film schedule than my actual willingness to see it. The Change-Up was the actual release I'd been waiting for, but fate put Rise in between us, and by that rewarded me with an unexpectedly better than average experience. Afterward in my post-cinema afterglow I decided I hadn't had enough of the theater and that the comedy from Wedding Crashers' director David Dobkin would make a nice foil for the simian-soaked sci-fi drama. I wasn't expecting Shakespeare, but if it was instead the result of monkeys attempting to re-write Freaky Friday, that was all I could have hoped for.

I KNEW they forgot something! It's called "humor".

Best friends since pretty much forever, Dave (Jason Bateman) and Mitch (Ryan Reynolds) have grown apart over the years. Dave, a responsible husband, father and hard-working corporate lawyer, represents everything orderly and intelligent, and has been hard at work trying to make Partner at his firm. Mitch is an aspiring actor and resident slacker, a swinging bachelor who doesn't care who he sleeps with. He represents chaos and pretty much every sin you can imagine. Still, the two are good friends who meet every once in a while for drinks. It is under the influence of these drinks that duo decide it is a good idea to urinate in a public pool while discussing the insecurities of their lives and inadvertently wishing for the live of each other. The next morning, Dave and Mitch find themselves inside the bodies of their best friend, and now everything they've prepared for will come crashing down unless they can switch back in time

Trying to charm his way into a decent movie

Yes, the whole plot has been done before, albeit in more family-friendly settings. Sure, it's a foul-mouthed, R-rated Freaky Friday, but at least the story is told in a somewhat decent manner. The two men are switched because one is overworked and feels he has missed out on his bachelor days, while the other needs to learn responsibility and the reward of an honest day's work. That doesn't quite explain how two such disparate people could have remained friends their entire lives, at least not without seemingly rubbing off on one another a bit more. The lack of logic is only overshadowed by jokes that aren't very funny, or at the very least appeal mainly to the worst of the Jackass fans. Gross-out humor CAN be funny, but in most cases for The Change-Up that doesn't fly, especially when it comes to humor surrounding Dave's twin babies. Sure, you might groan when those jokes hit, but you likely won't be remembering them fondly when you leave the theater.

...I'm sorry, I seem to have suddenly forgotten my snarky comment

The actors do try their best to overcome the weaknesses they are expected to run with. Jason Bateman is probably the best, though if you've seen Paul or Horrible Bosses then you've already seen better Bateman films, though this is the only one where he gets to play against type. The same can be said for Ryan Reynolds, as for much of the film he plays well despite appearing to be more conservative than he would in similar films like Van Wilder. Still, it's hardly the best for either actor, who have had much better material in the past. Olivia Wilde actually puts together some great scenes as Dave's beautiful legal assistant, even if she's sabotaged by a mediocre script. As Dave's wife, Leslie Mann isn't as good as Wilde but also has some good scenes, especially with Reynolds. And Alan Arkin chews through a few scenes as Mitch's emotionally-distant father. There is some definite talent here, but despite some good chemistry they can't quite overcome the mediocrity that is set out for them like a Las Vegas buffet table.

The cast trying to convince each other that this was a good idea

As I said before, gross-out humor can on occasion be funny, but it's the really SMART humor that will get me rolling in laughter every time. While The Change-Up does have a few smart scenes among its crudity, the vast majority of it is only barely watchable and will leave you rolling your eyes in humor frustration. If you HAVE to see something like this, I wouldn't recommend this particular title to whet your appetite. Instead you should check out the much funnier, much smarter Horrible Bosses if you can still find it in theaters. At least that one gives you a good enough reason to spend your hard earned money.

Best Pun Ever

How many comic book movies are we up to now? Thanks especially to illustrated paper giant Marvel Comics' rush to get every major hero out into the theaters in record numbers (Thor, X-Men First Class, Captain America), the comic book film has been the definition of cinema in 2011. It hasn't just been the two major comic book labels (along with DC's Green Lantern) that have been releasing screen material either: independent comics have been adapted for the big show in 2011, including Dynamite Entertainment's Green Hornet and the Korean comic Priest. Not all of these films have been worth watching, but the success many of them have garnered is a positive sign for future projects in that vein. The latest to join their ranks is Cowboys & Aliens, based on the graphic novel from Platinum Studios. Combining themes of westerns and alien invasion, the film's trailers boasted of explosions, big-name stars (Daniel "007" Craig and Harrison "Indy" Ford), and the helm under the control of Iron Man director Jon Favreau, fast proving himself a talented action director. The real question going in was whether this particular title would be closer to Favreau's excellent work in the first IM film, or if it would be more akin to the train wreck that was Iron Man 2.

Obviously, the aliens worship Prince concerts...

It's 1873, and Jake Lonergan (Craig) suddenly awakes in the middle of the Arizona desert. He has no idea of who he is, what he does, or how he came to be in his current predicament. He certainly doesn't know how he came to be in possession of the strange metal bracelet stuck to his wrist. Stumbling into the closest town, he is recognized by the local authorities as a wanted felon, and news of his arrival reaches the ears of retired Civil War Colonel Woodrow Dollarhyde (Ford), who wants Lonergan to return the gold our amnesiac apparently stole. As this is going on, strange alien crafts attack the town and kidnap many of the local populace, leading Lonergan (who discovers his bracelet is a kick-ass weapon) and Dollarhyde to put aside their differences and hunt down the monsters who kidnapped their townsfolk, hoping to take them back.

Whew, that must have been a REALLY fun night!

Westerns as a genre haven't been major plusses in cinema in recent years. With forced hybrids like Wild Wild West, Jonah Hex and The Warrior's Way failing at every turn, the genre right now is a far cry from its heyday of Gunsmoke and The Magnificent Seven. The day of legendary western directors like Sam Peckinpah can be chronicled by my friend Brian, but these days success in that area is rare as the past year has featured a couple of major victories in the True Grit remake and the animated Rango. That doesn't make the idea of creating a western film any less hazardous to your financial backers, however. If anything, it will make some people too hopeful for the fading western genre to make a comeback, and disappoint many in the process.

He'd better hope there are no snakes... he hates snakes...

Still, regardless of the status of the western in this day and age, I had a lot of fun in Cowboys & Aliens. While the western angle is somewhat cliched (references to the Civil War, hostile Native Americans, wanted felons, corrupt authority figures, etc.), the sci-fi elements respond aptly by being just as if not more cliched. The result is surprisingly a film that feels fresh and almost original, thanks especially to a story crafted by a small army of screenwriters and expertly told by the ever-expanding Favreau, back on top after last year's IM2 debacle. The film has not a boring moment, and while some parts are so insane as to be unbelievable, my enjoyment at the theater never ebbed, which is more than I can say about most of the films I've witnessed this year. With a well-rounded cast of characters each with their own personal motivations, Favreau does a wonderful job developing them from somewhat-contrived personas to somewhat-contrived people we can root for. The story may be the weakest part of the film, but it considering some of what I've seen this year, here it is but a paltry criticism..

Don't make the mistake of fist-bumping him

It helps that those characters are played by some of the most talented folk in Hollywood. With the future of James Bond in serious question, Daniel Craig was very much in need of a new career direction. I'm not sure how I feel about him doing films like this, but he certainly takes to it naturally. The English actor makes for the most unlikely American desperado, but effective he is. Even though Jake Lonergan doesn't have much that is different from many a western anti-hero, it's still fun seeing his past unfold, and to watch Craig believably learn it alongside us. Harrison Ford is also amazing as the "bad guy" Dollarhyde. Ford has played the Hollywood hero so long it's somewhat strange to see him play such a gruff and cruel character, but when you think about it you can see where the progression of his career naturally pushes him to this point. Perfectly blending rich honcho with concerned parent in a way that makes him even more compelling than Craig, Ford once again proves to us that he still has "it.". The two are easily the best the film has to offer. I wish I could say the same for Olivia Wilde as mysterious traveler Ella. While she starts off interesting as a gun-toting self-capable woman on the frontier, poor development and lousy dialogue sabotage what could have been a very good performance. Sure, Wilde has the looks and a good head for the business, but I'm starting to wonder when that great performance is going to arrive on the screen. The secondary characters in Cowboys & Aliens are a good bunch, manned by talented character actors who take their jobs seriously and know exactly what they have to do to be believable to the audience. Sam Rockwell, Clancy Brown, Adam Beach, Raul Trujillo, Walton Goggins and Keith Carradine all expertly play their roles, from Rockwell as a mild-mannered saloon owner to Brown's rifle-wielding priest to Goggins' sycophantic bandit. And as my compatriot Paul has often said, "There's no such thing as a bad movie with a Carradine," in this case the local Sheriff. Sure, these roles are anything but original, but this cast really works their chemistry and makes the hard work pay off, creating an authentic western setting to blow up with ray guns and plasma discharge.

Is Craig channeling a little Christian Bale here?

Sure, it's riddled with flaws. The story is comprised of two cliched genres that don't do much to deviate from their set procedures with the notable exception that they coexist in the first place. The special effects are top notch, but it is the stellar core cast and the smart directing from Favreau that separate this film from your average Syfy Original movie. While it's far from the best action film I've seen this year (or am likely to see), it inhabits that same realm of cool that was already kept warm by fun thrill-rides Fast 5, Captain America and Battle: Los Angeles. If you're tired of the typical adventure film and want something very different, Cowboys & Aliens should be right up your alley. At the very least, go see Daniel Craig and Harrison Ford out-act most of Hollywood for a couple of hours.

Twenty-Eight Years: Worth the Wait

When Tron was released in theaters waaaay back in 1982, it was right on the forefront of what was then a technical revolution. Though you may not think so to look on it now, the film was far more advanced in the special effects department than anything that had come before, and paved the way for generations of big budget special effects blockbusters. Because of Tron's financial success at its release, I'm hesitant to call it a cult classic, but it's obviously difficult to deny the effect this film had on both people and filmmakers, whether or not you could agree on the film's quality.

It's Tron! Oh, wait, it's just Alan

And so all these years later, we finally have a Tron sequel. Tron: Legacy takes place in the modern world, one in which your standard .jpg file is larger than that of the 1982 Grid, the digital universe Kevin Flynn had gotten trapped in so many years ago. In 1989, Flynn (Jeff Bridges reprising his role) disappeared off the face of the planet, leaving behind his tech company, ENCOM, and his young son Sam. Fast-forward to the present day, and Sam (Garrett Hedlund) is still the largest shareholder of ENCOM, but doesn't have much interaction with the company. When his father's friend Alan (Bruce Boxleitner, also reprising his earlier role) arrives with a clue that might lead Sam to find his long-lost father, it sets him on a journey to the very place dear old dad told him stories about in his youth: the Grid.

Looks like somebody's got a battle disc with Sam's name on it

Frankly, any trailer you've seen or commercial you've witnessed advertising this film doesn't do justice to the special effects present here. Granted, I saw Tron: Legacy in a digital 3D Imax theater, and I couldn't really recommend you see this film for the first time in any other capacity, but since the effects are the meat and potatoes of the film-going experience in movies like this, it's a relief to not be let down in this capacity. Like those of Avatar or Resident Evil: Afterlight, the effects do an amazing job of drawing the viewer into the film's atmosphere. Almost everything is impeccably rendered, from the light cycle battles to the flight path of hurled identity discs to the lights of the Grid's great city. The 3D aspects of the film are not necessarily needed, but do add a bit of depth to the effects that are obviously already light-years ahead of the film's predecessor.

Hey, digital boots off the couch!

Like the original film, the sequel has a bevy of acting talent that make their mark on the digital plane. At this point it's obvious Jeff Bridges can do any damned movie he wants, even (and perhaps especially) a Tron sequel. Playing two roles, as the Grid's creator Kevin Flynn and antagonist Clu, Bridges has the opportunity to literally be all over the place, and being not one but two driving forces behind the story is no small task. Bridges does a great job in both roles, matching the patience and paternal instincts of Flynn with the rash arrogance of Clu. Hedlund is surprising good as Flynn the younger, and while the "spurned son looking for his father" role is a bit trite, he makes it work well, and makes a fairly convincing hero. Olivia Wilde is no doubt attractive, but I've yet to see her play a character with much in the way of depth. True, she gets kudos for her role on the TV show House, but that's unfortunately not a show I've been watching and I don't know how good she really is. She seems to be experiencing a career surge right now, but hopefully the roles she gets in the future will be stronger than the mainly useless Quorra, who manages to be both an important plot device and incredibly inconsequential all at the same time. I want to believe Wilde is talented, but I've yet to see her in a role that proves it. Boxleitner appears in no more than a few scenes as Alan, and even fewer as the film's namesake, but that's fine as he's stepping aside to let a younger hero step up. And Michael Sheen is quite entertaining as a flamboyant program who owns a nightclub in the city, which I know sounds weird but you don't think about it when you're watching the movie. Sheen, who has made a name for himself by portraying real-life personalities such as Tony Blair, David Frost and Brian Clough, is positively cheeky in this nice change of pace from his more serious fare.

The digital young Jeff Bridges is scarier than the new, older Jeff Bridges

If there's one complaint to be had with Tron: Legacy, it sadly has to do with the film's main antagonist. Clu is a digitally-represented model of the younger Kevin Flynn. While, when we're seeing Clu on the Grid, he USUALLY looks fine, once in a while - and especially in an early flashback scene when the same style is used to depict a young Flynn - the model looks no more advanced or realistic than those used in the CGI animated film Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within... which was back in 2001. When talking about CGI characters, people may make mention of "uncanny valley", which is a robotics term referring to artificial humans. The more realistic and "human-like" you make a synthetic, the more direct a revulsion that creation ellicits from a human audience. It's a problem with most human CGI characters in film, and only children's films seem to not be affected like this, since most human characters in that genre have exaggerrated features to make them more animated. Regardless, being creeped out by the film's antagonist is certainly not a disaster, simply my biggest problem with the film. Some people had problems with the plot and story at parts, but Tron never claimed to be Shakespeare. This was a problem the original film had as well, a weak story overshadowed by state-of-the-art special effects and good acting. I'll let the minor quibbles be handled elsewhere and enjoy the film for what it is.

What, do all digital women just lounge around until needed?

And enjoy it I did! Despite the fact that the original Tron was not a very good film and to outshine it would have not taken an enormous effort, Tron: Legacy took today's technology and told Tron the way people could have only dreamed of doing so almost thirty years ago. The directorial debut of Joseph Kosinski has been a success, if not exactly a perfect opening. Sure the story is silly and hackneyed, I'll fully admit to that. However, the visual spectacle is the main reason you're going to see this film, and the good acting is simply icing the cake. It's got problems, but this sleek, sexy world is unlike anything you've ever seen and even its eventual release on DVD will be impressive if you've got a blu-ray and a sufficiently high-tech entertainment rig. It's my new #10 film for the year, and while it's appearance in the Top 10 will certainly be short-lived, I reiterate my statement that you should absolutely see it in the biggest, loudest movie theater showing it while you can.