Up

**** Stars

Up is Disney Pixar's tenth film. Any signs of fatigue in their latest feature? Not-a-one. Pixar is the only studio that can call itself critically and commercially perfect. You would think that the studio's much deserved bragging rights would distract its filmmakers from their initial intent (telling an original story), but if anything, they just seem to get better and better. While I'll admit Wall-E is still their strongest entry, Up is easily worthy of being hailed as a cinematic masterpiece.

The opening of Up is quite possibly the most poetically heartbreaking sequence in the history of animation, or arguably any genre for that matter. Pixar has found a way to tell a person's life story in a montage-like format without almost any dialogue (this was also mastered in their 2008 Best Animated Picture Wall-E, which was criminally robbed of a Best Picture Nod).

The protagonist of Up is Carl Fredricksen (voiced wonderfully by Edward Azner) who we see grow from childhood to old-age. He has one big passion in life. You could argue that it is two different things. 1.) That it's his eternal desire to explore Paradise Falls, a fictitious place that forever shouts adventure or 2.) Ellie, the love of his life. Meeting at a young age, Carl and Ellie spend a life together, becoming married and both dreaming of that eventual Paradise Falls adventure. Too bad "real-life" stuff gets in the way, and that dream is put on hole until Carl grows old, and beyond the years of Ellie's life.

Now I have always hated giving out the plot of movies in my reviews. I hate it, hate it, hate it. Of course, it is my job to explain what a film is about so you can determine if you want to see it or not, but that always seems to become a summary of a film's narrative over an appropriate analysis. Every critic has done it at one point. In this review, I'm here, nearing its end, to redeem that on-going distraction.

I will not to tell you anymore about what happens in Up. All I'm going to say is what you need in order to understand what the film and and its title are externally promoting. Carl, growing old and desperate for one final act of adventurous soul-searching, ties numerous amounts of balloons to his house and flies UP into the air and away on a journey that is much bigger than he could ever imagine. Carl is joined by Russell (Jordan Nagai) a young and overly optimistic boy scout who accidentally boards the house during takeoff, and eventually a talking animal named Dug. The three are a hilariously diverse trio, able to balance comedy and true emotions that you wouldn't expect from an outside perspective.

Bottom line: If you let your imagination take over and ignore the urge to bash films that are wildly considered perfect (shame on the continuing cycle of the three-or-so random critics for once again ruining another chance for a Pixar film to reach 100% on Rotten Tomatoes since 1999's Toy Story 2), prepare for Up to reward you up and beyond any possible expectations.

Drag Me To Hell

***1/2 Stars

Drag Me to Hell, Sam Raimi's deliciously campy horror extravaganza, is an effortlessly watchable experience. In the nostalgic style of Raimi's Evil Dead legacy, prepare to enter the ultimate mix of schlock and terror, in a film that stands on its own as a newly surefire cult-classic in the making.

Alison Lohman plays Christine Brown, a typical bank worker who unfortunately suffers from the wrong-place-at-the-wrong-time syndrome, that will lead to her potentially losing her, uh, soul to the devil (yes, it's one of those kind of horror films). But don't worry, Raimi wastes no time on religious or sacrificial accuracy, and instead goes right for the entertainment factor, mixing in all the B-movie shock and awe moments one desires from such a formula. With this, Raimi succeeds admirably.

When a poor little old lady dressed like a real life Little Red Riding Hood after a life in rehab approaches Christine's desk at the bank, requesting a third extension on her mortgage payments, Christine chooses a career move and denies her. The old-hag gets upset, pathetically begs her, then when rejected again, casts an evil spell on her.

You can tell Drag Me to Hell was made in our economic recession day-and-age when the one mortal sin this poor young woman commits is denying a loan for an old lady who is undeserving of it anyways. Sure, we're suppose to feel empathy for her because its her home and all, but should Christine suffer perfusively because of someone else's financial troubles? Ah, forget it. I'm not getting into that one.

What we're really here for is a frighteningly good time. Raimi claws his way into your nerves without your permission and discharges hell covered with numerous vintage-horror elements. Drag Me to Hell will scare the living bejesus out of you. A hard task to accomplish when you're also watching one of the funniest films of the year. Sam Raimi, welcome back.

Terminator Salvation

*** Stars

I never thought I would say this, but I am defending McG, on both the successes and failures of Terminator Salvation.

First and for most, I will report that the real failure of the newest prequel/sequel/re-boot/spinoff (whatever you want to call it) of the Terminator franchise is the script. The problem? There is no story. Nothing really happens. Yet I found myself strangely intrigued by the film, which feels written as a wasteland, set in a wasteland, and produced with characters playing nothing more than ponds in a wasteland. What we have here is a fascinating look about where our society stands on action and story. Now, if you know me at all, or have read any of my reviews, you probably know I would choose the latter without question. However, I am surprised to say that I actually praise Terminator Salvation for its action and nothing else. This is true for three reasons:

1.) McG has taken a step in the right direction. Who would have thought the man behind the Charlie’s Angels franchise could be such an organic director when staging action scenes? After the opening credits of Salvation, we are dropped directly into a post-apocalyptic wasteland in the year 2018, where John Connor (Christian Bale) and the human resistance are staging off against Skynet and its army of Terminators. Connor stumbles upon the appearance of Marcus Wright (Sam Worthington), a human or machine (see the film for the answer to that one) whose last memory is of being on death row years prior. McG gives us a fantastic one-shot action sequence where John Connor is taking off and crash landing a helicopter. Wait, what? Just one-shot? What about McG’s frantic shots from the past? Where’s the Michael Bay-like-antics we were expecting? You won’t find any of that here. McG has found a way to let the visuals unfold as if the film’s multi-million dollar explosions were rehearsed limitlessly until he got the shot just right. The highly-criticized filmmaker has avoided his predictable retrograde, and has embraced a forward-looking stability.

2.) Christian Bale. Say all you want about his temper, the man is a perfectionist. Even with a nothing role like this one, Bale still finds a way to breathe life into a stiff character. Imagine Nick Stahl reprising his role here (he played Connor in T3: Rise of the Machines). That would have failed, miserably. And McG knew it too. After first turning down the Terminator Salvation offer while promoting The Dark Knight, Bale finally agreed to the film after McG personally flew out to Europe to discuss the role with him. Afterwards, Bale stated that he loved the guy’s attitude, about how he didn’t care that everyone despised him because of his name and track record. Bale is a perfect John Connor, and even with a weak script, we are totally taken aback by the method actors unprecedented intensity. The man owns the screen. What don’t you ?#!$%& understand?

3.) Its running time. If McG can do a pure action film under two hours, then why must Michael Bay make us sit through 140 minutes of just-as-impressive-but-much-much-sillier action sequences? Don’t give me wrong, I dug Transformers (although I’m not THAT excited about the sequel) and The Rock is totally bad-ass, but it’s clear that Bay is not interested in structure as much as he is a little kid with $200 million, giving him the ability to blow random shit up (To see one of the many spoofs of Bay, check out this hilarious clip: Click Here). Strangely enough, Terminator Salvation is more action-packed than Transformers, but the way the action is handled in Salvation is far more taut and superior.

McG gave every cast and crew member a copy of Cormac McCarthy’s The Road, in order to capture a totally apocalyptic atmosphere. The man had a structure in mind, and to the best of his abilities, he succeeded in what he set out to do. Terminator Salvation is no masterpiece or classic in-the-making, but it does have me anxiously awaiting the inevitable fifth installment.

Angels and Demons

*** Stars

Movies like the The Da Vinci Code and Angels and Demons kind of have the same restrictions as Watchmen, where the books are rather unfilmmable. For the first half or so of Demons, there are several moments of expository dialogue and the whole telling-not-showing dilemma. This movie could be much better, but to enjoy it for what it is, you have to enter the theater accepting the fate of its structure.

What's refreshing about Angels and Demons is how much of an old-fashioned adventure it is, a totally fun ride that coasts along effortlessly for its 140 minute runtime. While I agree with the majority that The Da Vinci Code was a letdown, it certainly wasn't awful. If people had a problem with the 2006 smash hit, they may be delighted to know that Angels and Demons is a major improvement. However, if you enter this film with any sort of judgment on its plausibility or realism, then this is not the film for you. I would suggest reading Dan Brown's excellent book before hand.

Now for those who just want to see the movie, here are the basics: Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks) is back in action (although the book is actually the prequel, the filmmakers have wisely based it after the events of The Da Vinci Code) after the murder of Leonardo Vetra, a physicist who created the first ever anti-matter. Anti-matter, the opposite of matter, has enough power to cause monumental destruction.

After Vetra's death, his daughter Vittoria (Ayelet Zurer) and Langdon travel to Vatican City to find the secret brotherhood behind his murder, The Illuminati. Once they get to the holiest place on earth, clues’ including the four alters of science (Earth, Air, Fire, and Water) mark a path that will lead them to the element that could kill millions. While this is happening, thousands have gathered at St. Peter's square due to the death of The Pope, where The Cardinals are in meeting to select the newest head of the religious world.

Yes, the plot is absurd. Sure, the ideas are far-fetched. But that's the point. Who in the world would want to see a summer blockbuster that must stick to the strict codes of religious practices? That's what Confraternity of Christian Doctrine (CCD) classes are for. We're not here to learn about the accurate translations of selecting a new pope or the restrictions of real science. We're here to see Robert Langdon on a preposterous adventure that stirs controversy and excitement.

Of course there has to be a sense of coherency and narrative structure. Without that, movies like this would be impossible to enjoy. What I mean is this: I have heard several people stating that the movie is silly and unrealistic, yet they defend and applaud Dan Brown's novel. How in the world can you claim that one is not silly and the other is when the latter is based off the source material? If you want to argue that you don't like Hanks as Langdon or Ron Howard's over-the-top antics so be it, but if you can't get passed the absurdity of the plot, again, just stay away.

For me, I like Angels and Demons. I like its excitement. I like Tom Hanks's natural influence on screen. And strangely enough, I like its release date. After the month of May, this summer will soon consist of mostly mindless dribble and/or blockbusters that would rather produce dollar signs over art (a few exceptions include Funny People, Public Enemies, and Inglorious Basterds). And while Angels and Demons is a blockbuster and a sequel, at least it's ignoring certain people's pointless criticisms (you know who you are) and lets we interested few to appreciate a fast-paced thrill ride.

Star Trek

**** Stars

Star Trek is the perfect summer movie, perfect in its understanding of being purely fun and exhilarating and perfect in its ability to avoid reducing itself to cheesy melodrama. Action, humor, story, visual effects, Eric Bana, excitement, and Leonard Nimoy? Star Trek works for everyone. J.J Abrams’s reboot of the historic science fiction franchise is the best time I’ve had at the movies all year.

Now you wouldn’t expect this right away would you? But the forty-year-old franchise that skidded to a halt (after its last film Nemesis made a dismal $43 million at the box office in 2002) is resurrected. And to many people’s surprise, they may discover this to be the best blockbuster since The Dark Knight.

Now for the record, I will not say this is “The Dark Knight of 2009” (because I hate when critics compare films like that unless you’re referring to box-office statistics) but I will say that Star Trek is the best time at the movies since The Dark Knight. Star Trek is two hours of everything a movie should be.

The story begins in riveting fashion, an introduction that stands among the greatest space sequences this side of 2001: A Space Odyssey. We begin with the story of George Kirk (the father of James T. Kirk) and his acts of heroism that saved 800 lives in only 12 minutes. Pardon the Star Trek linguistics here: When The Federation Starship USS Kelvin travels to investigate a lightning storm in space and discovers that it is in fact a black hole, it becomes under attack by a Romulan mining vessel. After the Federation’s captain is captured and killed by the Romulan captain Nero (the extraordinarily talented Eric Bana) Kirk is put in charge to save the ship and its crew. Unfortunately, he must sacrifice himself to save everyone. In doing so, his wife and newly born child escape the ship without harm.

Then the infamous origin story of the famous Star Trek characters begins. James T. Kirk (Chris Pine) is a troubled kid from Iowa and Spock (Zachary Quinto) is a confused adolescent on his home planet Vulcan. As they grow up, the two meet after Kirk beats Spock’s unbeatable training program for the Starfleet Academy. The term “opposite’s attract” is full-boat here in this fascinating friendship that soon turns to adventure on the infamous USS Enterprise.

The cast is phenomenal. Along side Pine and Quinto are Bruce Greenwood, Simon Pegg, John Cho, Zoe Saldana, Karl Urban, and Leonard Nimoy as the key ingredients that make up the past and future crew of the Enterprise. Counterbalancing with a villain is Bana, who I think should be in every movie. His portrayal of the evil Nero is spot on. We never suspect him as a mere rip-off of a standardized villain, but rather a saddened and lost character that comes across the agony of losing the ones he has loved. This is a space opera, one that will simply take your breath away.

You could not find a better director to take over Star Trek than J.J Abrams (who is responsible for ABC’s Lost and the very underrated Mission Impossible III). He injects life into a franchise that I thought could never be what it has become. He has found a way to make optimism cool again. Sure, his newest film if filled with dark elements, but we are never taken into a cynical and haunting territory.

And in today’s world, our society can be a cynical and haunting territory. We are at what feels to be an endless war and our economy has passed the point of a recession. Yet there are still moments in our lives that keep us going. For me, Star Trek is one of them. Within its two-hour runtime, I forgot the morose of our country’s faults. I experienced a breath of fresh air. And I say our country must launch a new campaign to the public, one whose slogan should give Star Trek an underdog chance of becoming a potential Best Picture nominee. Note to the Academy: Admit it. You screwed up your nominees last year and told The Dark Knight to step off. Now you have yet another chance to redeem yourself. Make J.J Abrams’s Star Trek, your redemption.

X-Men Origins: Wolverine

** Stars

It's not shocking that after months of excessive marketing and hellish online coverage that X-Men Origins: Wolverine is just another standard comic action flick that rarely rises above the level of memorable. Hugh Jackman pours his heart and soul into the title character, but his wonderful talents are sadly wasted in what could have been a potentially great addition to the comic-book genre, is no more than a avant-garde piece of B-movie action junk.

While I must say that Wolverine disappoints, it is no where near as bad as people are saying it is. It is only disappointing because its expectations were so high. Strangely enough, I am glad X-Men Origins: Wolverine made $85 million on its opening weekend because at least this whole fiasco of the film getting leaked online has subsided into everyone's distant memory. Have we gotten so involved in the hype around a film that we forget to analyze the actual film itself? Maybe Snakes on a Plane made a bigger impact in the industry than we thought it did.

The plot: After accidentally killing his father (he thought he was someone else) a younger Wolverine (real name Logan) and his brother Victor (Liev Schreiber) head off to live their lives through the history of American wars (and the opening credit sequence, which is rather impressive) and soon must deal with the outcomes of their actions. Victor and Logan join a special team recruited by William Stryker (Danny Huston) of gifted assassins--or mutants--to take out specific targets and enemies. When Logan refuses to comply with the destruction of a village, he quits the team and heads for a life of solitude and isolation with his girlfriend.

Six years after the fact, in order to get the plot moving again, Logan is pulled out of isolation after his girlfriend is murdered by his brother Victor. Logan gets pissed, which soon turns him into...Wolverine.

Now with an origin story, it would be nice if the film didn't rely on several instances of expository dialogue. For example, how Wolverine got his name is rather lame. I don't want to give it away, but I will say that it has something to do with one of Logan's girlfriend's favorite stories and he uses it as a love memento. Although it's a touching remembrance, we're not here to see Wolverine become a cheesy version of The Punisher. For god sake, give the character some originality.

The cast is very solid. Jackman still and always will rock, Schreiber is excellent (when isn't he?) and Ryan Reynolds is sadly limited to very small screen time as Deadpool (I wanted more of Reynolds as Deadpool!) Thankfully his own spinoff has now been confirmed after the box-office success of this film.

For all you jerks who watched the film before its release date, if you continue to do that, you will not only be affecting people's careers, but the potential for more superior films. What if Batman Begins was leaked online and it bombed at the box-office? The Dark Knight never would have been made.