Why the post-credits sequence from THE WOLVERINE is better than the movie itself.

Obviously there are major spoilers for THE WOLVERINE coming up. And it's in bold. So, you know, you've been warned. 

After the post-credits sequence of THE WOLVERINE ended, I sat there in the darkened theater next to my girlfriend. "Wow," she said. The first thing that popped into my mind, really the only thing I could think to reply was, "That scene was better than the entire movie we just saw." That's because in roughly two minutes, THE WOLVERINE's post-credits sequence accomplishes with flying colors what the film itself struggles to do throughout its entire two hour run time. 

You see, THE WOLVERINE and its post-credits sequence have, in essence, the exact same purpose. They're both attempting to set the stage for something much greater and much more ambitious. Just as the Iron Man, Captain America, and Thor films assembled all of the moving parts together in preparation for THE AVENGERS, both THE WOLVERINE and its post-credits sequence are preparing for X-MEN: DAYS OF FUTURE PAST. However, unlike those previous films and their post-credit sequences which simply worked to add to the excitement built up by the films themselves, the post-credits sequence from THE WOLVERINE is so fantastic and skillful at what its trying to do that it makes the already mediocre film that precedes it feel completely unnecessary. 

As THE WOLVERINE's title suggests, the film is primarily about the reemergence of Logan's (Hugh Jackman) animalistic persona. When the film starts, we see an unkempt Logan living in a cave, having nightmares about Jean Grey (Famke Janssen) and how everyone he loves ends up dead. He's not the Wolverine anymore. He doesn't want to be a soldier. He's doesn't want to kill any more people. The only thing he wants is an honorable death and to be reunited with Jean. Through the remaining majority of the movie, we see Logan go to Japan to say goodbye to this soldier he saved from the atomic bomb in Nagasaki (we'll let the logic slide this time) who has become the most powerful man in Japan through the technological giant, the Yashida Corporation. When he gets there, he discovers the real reason he's been brought to Japan is because Yashida himself has found a way to transplant Logan's healing factor into his own body, making Logan mortal while gaining eternal life for himself. Though this is Logan's chance to get exactly what he wants, he knows the pain that goes along with living forever and declines.

What follows is a convoluted and confusing set of uninspired events that either don't make any sense or carry little to no emotional weight. Yes, the villains are sub-par at best. Yashida and his son are simply assholes who treat everyone that loves them, and especially Logan who has saved both Yashida's and his granddaughter's lives on multiple occasions, like garbage. Svetlana Khodchenkova, who plays the reptilian mutant/oncologist Viper, is completely ineffectual in the role. Hindered by what appears to be a terrible dub and shoddy, pedestrian dialogue, the moments she has with Logan and Yukio (Rila Fukushima) become increasingly laughable as the movie goes on. And yes, the film is populated by director James Mangold's misguided decision to shoot nearly every action scene while sitting in a moving blender and the writers', Mark Bomback and Scott Frank, choice to saturate the film with quick moments that are only present to be "paid off" later in film. These moments are some of the best things that movies can do. But only when they are setup organically and not casually slapped in to make the audience ooh and ahh. 

Okay, THE WOLVERINE has some positive elements. The fact that the entire film takes place outside of America is extremely refreshing and both the Canadian wilderness and Japan cityscape/countryside are gorgeously shot. Equally refreshing is the presence of strong, independent women who are beautiful, but more importantly who are intelligent and can kick some serious ass. Mariko's (Tao Okamoto) evolution from a beaten down servant of her father and fiance who wants to kill herself, back into the strong, eventual CEO of the Yashida Corporation is one of the film's finest accomplishments. Unfortunately, the film's inability to do the same for its star is what destroys any hope of it being something truly special.

THE WOLVERINE ultimately fails because its main purpose, to transform Logan back into the Wolverine thus helping set the stage for his involvement in the future of the X-Men, isn't realized. Yes, in the end Hugh Jackman tells Famke Janssen goodbye and that's supposed to tell you that he's changed from where we saw him at the beginning. But that's just it. The only real evidence we get that Logan has changed is because the film blatantly tells us. And this could even be excused if anything about the character had actually changed. Yes, Yashida as the Silver Samurai cuts off Logan's adamantium claws and he has to return to the bone claws he used when he was originally the Wolverine. And yes, he does tell Jean goodbye, something he is unable to do at the beginning. But that's it. He killed tons of Yakuza members, but is he really any more comfortable killing than he was at the beginning? He seemed ready to kill that guy in the bar after that guy killed Logan's bear friend. Yet, when he is faced with killing Mariko's father he hesitates, not wanting to give him an honorable death that he doesn't deserve. Sure, he throws Yashida off of that building, but only after Mariko had all but killed him herself. 

The fact is, the character arc and motivations for the Wolverine/Logan are all out of whack. I've always had a weird relationship with the character. I always found it so hard to connect with him because you never feared for his life. There's no reason to be emotionally taken in by what is happening to him because you know that he's going to end up on top. I'll give the film some credit in this regard. Assumingly with this problem in mind, the film's creators tried to focus a lot of the story on Logan's relationships. However, Jean only appears in these repetitive flashbacks that seem to be trying for something deep and metaphysical, but come off primarily as cliche. Logan's relationship with Mariko is also a mystery. It forms so quickly and without any real explanation that it just feels too forced. I understand that these characters have been through a lot, but is that enough to form a complete relationship in the course of a few days? I know that she probably wants to thank him for saving her, but is a long-term relationship really the best means? 

While I might be being a little facetious, these issues are big ones. The whole point of the film is to show Logan's transformation back into the Wolverine. And the primary vehicle for showing this is through his interactions with Mariko. In failing to successfully portray this relationship, Logan's arc and subsequently the movie itself both fail. And then the credits roll and we fast-forward two years. 

What follows is a scene of Logan at the airport. Under a monitor reading "Trask Industries," he is stopped by TSA and opts for the patdown to avoid any significant problems that could arise from a full-body scan meeting adamantium. As he looks at some coins, a ring, and some keys that are in one of those gray airport bins, they start to vibrate. Logan, just about the time all of the audience members do, realizes that this is probably the work of only one person. He whips around, unsheathing his bone claws to see Magneto (Sir Ian McKellan). Under a fedora, Magneto holds Logan's adamantium arm in place. He explains that they are going to have to work together because there is something on the horizon that threatens the fate of all mutants. Logan is understandably skeptical, struggling to free himself from Magento's grasp. Then everyone in the airport, except for the pair, freezes. And as goosebumps formed on the arms of every nerd in the theater, out of the crowd emerges Professor Charles Xavier (Sir Patrick Stewart). Logan, as shocked as the rest of us asks how. "As I told you when we first met," Professor X says, "you're not the only one with powers." Cut to black. 

And that's it! Every single thing you need to get to an EXTREME H'OH MY GOD level of excitement for the new film. The subtle, big brother-esque cameras labeled with Bolivar Trask's company name set a sinister tone as Magneto explains the dire straights the mutants find themselves in. The gravitas that Stewart and McKellan bring to the scene, and that was absent from THE WOLVERINE, brings so much weight to scene that in the brief two minute clip, you can feel just how urgent this situation truly is. Everyone's motivations are clear and easily understandable. The situation is understood, the characters motivations are understood, we are introduced to the villainous presence that will be the main antagonism for the X-Men both current and past. 

But perhaps most interesting, we can gather everything we need to know from THE WOLVERINE in that one clip. Logan is at an airport so clearly he has made his way back to civilization. And his interaction with the TSA officer tells us that his patented gruffness is still present. Most telling, however, is his reaction to Magneto. He is not reserved. He does not think about revealing himself as a mutant to the humans or think about hurting them. His first and only reaction is to attack, to kill. As soon as he sees the metal items start to float, he immediately whips around, claws unleashed. And they're bone claws. The absence of his adamantium tells us that something life-altering has happened to Logan. Do we need to know what? Do we need to know he spent some time in Japan and dealt with a crazy dying man in a Silver Samurai suit? Or that he had a weird relationship with that crazy dying man's granddaughter? We know that he is an animalistic warrior again and that both Magneto and Professor X need him for the oncoming war and that's all we need.

If THE WOLVERINE were a standalone film, a movie that wanted to try and touch some deep truth within the Logan/Wolverine character or simply tried to explore the character in a way that has never been tackled on film, then things might be different. It still wouldn't be an amazing movie, but it would be enjoyable and you could understand why they did it. But in the age we live in, everything is building to something else. No comic book based movie is just a comic book based movie anymore. It's always building to some team-up or some larger clash down the road. Don't get me wrong, those movies can be done and done well. IRON MAN, THOR, and CAPTAIN AMERICA were all fantastic and really helped build the excitement for what was to come. And though THE WOLVERINE is not on par with these films, it could have easily added to the excitement of the upcoming X-Men movie. Had they somehow integrated the presence of Professor X, Magneto or the other X-Men into the film or had Trask Industries a lurking presence, I would not be writing this. But the fact is that they didn't. The creators saved it all for a post-credits sequence that was so brilliant that it made their film seem redundant, unnecessary. It's just a shame that in an era where post-credits sequences are populated with bad jokes and other trivialities, when we actually get a one that is amazing, it completely undermines the movie that precedes it. 

But hey, they're both better than X-MEN ORIGINS: WOLVERINE, right? 

MONSTERS UNIVERSITY Is Much More Than OK

After the lack-luster performance and quality of last year's BRAVE followed up the complete and utter dumpster fire that was 2011's CARS 2, many, including myself, wondered if Pixar had lost its touch. And after hearing that the animation giant's next film would be yet another rehash in the vein of TOY STORY 3 and the aforementioned CARS 2, I was of two minds. Yes, I absolutely adored 2001's MONSTERS INC. But I worried that it was yet another hint that the creativity and originality that put Pixar on the map was gone forever. Luckily, the results squash any fears I might have had. MONSTERS UNIVERSITY, which has Billy Crystal's one-eyed, quick talking Mike Wazowski and John Goodman's fuzzy, blue-haired scarer extraordinaire James P. Sullivan beginning their undergraduate scaring educations, is true to the spirit and tone of its predecessor while never feeling like its simply treading (or slithering) old ground. 

The film begins with a brief prologue that depicts a middle school incarnation of Mike. He's not a natural scarer by any means. But during a field trip to Monsters Inc. (Hey! That's the title of the last film!), a chance encounter with both famed frightener Frank McCay and the human world sends him on his way to study at the acclaimed Monsters University School of Scaring. Unlike Mike, who is the ideal student that gets good grades but doesn't have that special something that one has to be born with, Sully is a natural and has the jockish attitude of someone who comes from a long line of acclaimed boogeymen. But success only seems to come easy to Sully. During the scare finals that conclude the monsters' first semester of scaring, the short comings of both Mike and Sully become apparent. And after they try to reenter the program (and avoid one of the more "boring" career tracks like scream canister manufacturing) by winning an annual scaring competition, the pair's strengths and weaknesses come to the forefront. Mike is talented academically. But his desire to be the greatest scarer of all time is like a short, skinny kid wanting to play in the NFL; there's a possibility, but not in the way he hopes. (Better get those kicking shoes warmed up!) Sully, on the other hand is a smart ass coasting on his name alone. He's not as skilled or imaginative as everyone likes to think he is. And as a result, he has morphed his underachieving into a defense mechanism to hide his overwhelming fear of failure. 

And before you ask (and I know you totally were), there's a reason I've spent so much time on Mike and Sully's characters. That's because the scaring duo are two of the most completely realized characters on screen this year. In terms of psychology, physicality and voice-acting, Mike and Sully are pretty much perfect. Creating characters that feel more fully realized than even those from most of their "real" counterparts has been, and continues to be, one of Pixar's greatest strengths. Sully's a bit thinner this time around and sports a faux hawk hairdo. When he first barges into his and Mike's first scaring class (as loud as he is late), the way he plops himself down in his seat, slightly leaning back with a look on his face that says, "This is all just a formality, bow down to my greatness," tells you everything about the character without him saying a word. Likewise and in complete contrast is Mike, whose slouchy, cheek-clenching walk and preemptive flinching cement that the outcast middleschooler we see trying to find a field trip buddy at the beginning of the film is still searching these many years later. Pixar's ability to set up these contrasting personalities so fully and so vividly that is what makes the eventual relationship between the pair so believable and equal to their outstanding dynamic in MONSTERS INC. 

But, in reality, this ability to create complete and interesting characters isn't limited to the mon-stars. When Mike and Sully must join a fraternity in order to compete in the annual Scare Games and win back their spots in scaring school, the only one that will have them is Oozma Kappa. (We're OK!) This rag-tag group are the unhippest of the unhip. They're the classic, REVENGE OF THE NERDS underdogs. But, because Pixar is so good at being able to fully individualize even the most minor of characters, the brothers of OK are as endearing as they are bizarre. There's Don Carlton (Joel Murray), a middle-aged nontraditional student and former salesman with tentacles and bat wings that form his mustache and side burns. There's the purple, fur-laden Art (Charlie Day), a hippie (or the monster equivalent of a hippie) philosophy major who is basically legs with a face and Terry and Terri Perry (Dave Foley and Sean Hayes), two halves of the same two-headed monster, one of whom is a dance major while the other... isn't. And there's a multi-eyed cutie named Squishy whose mom's residence acts as the OK frat house. There's the obligatory jock fraternity populated with the self-entitled, "best of the best" and a sorority filled with bubbly, cheerleader-type monsters who dress in pink and seem harmless but harbor a hellish, EXORCIST-like intensity that would make even Linda Blair scream. 

In charge of everything is Dean Hardscrabble (voiced wonderfully by Dame Helen Mirren), the dragon-centipede hybrid mistress of Monsters University and founding member of both the School of Scaring and the Scare Games. She is hard-nosed (which isn't easy when you don't have one), by-the-book and doesn't suffer fools gladly. She expects the best from her students and removes those whom she deems unworthy or mediocre. Throughout the film she appears almost petty in her treatment of Mike and Sully, engaging in childish bets and continually putting them down even when they are successful. But as the film progresses, it becomes clear that the vibe she radiates is due to her immense dedication to her students and her extreme desire to see them accomplish everything within (and maybe outside of) their potentials. 

MONSTERS UNIVERSITY is not a deep film. But it's not trying to be. It's trying to be a fun and enjoyable ride for kids and adults alike that also teaches the benefits of friendship, teamwork and trust in one another. Anyone that's seen ANIMAL HOUSE or REVENGE OF THE NERDS or really any underdog sports film knows how this one is going to end and MONSTERS UNIVERSITY hits every single beat it has to. But while the story may be nothing new to movie-goers, Pixar seems to realize that and plays with it. When a moment doesn't feel right, there's a reason it doesn't. And the film's ability to anticipate that feeling in its audience members and tease it out before explaining what's really going on is a layer that will be completely ignored (and rightfully so) by the kids, but that makes for an incredibly fun viewing experience for seasoned film junkies.  

There is just so much to love about this film. Its script is incredibly quotable, both for lines that are simply hilarious, and for lines that are surprisingly thoughtful and wise such as Mike explaining to Sully that, "The best scarers use their differences to their advantage." Yes, it is a little disappointing and really downright confusing that after BRAVE there is no truly strong female character with significant screen time (apart from the hard to connect with Dean Hardscrabble). And yes, it's derivative of many college-centric comedies that have come before it. But within every scene of MONSTER UNIVERSITY there are multiple things to love. Be a quick line or the brilliant cinematography, an expertly timed sight gag or a group of insignificant details that help flesh out this already immersive and stunningly gorgeous world, the film has so many joyful and pleasurable things going on at once. The way Pixar is able to make a world filled with colorfully manic monsters feel so human is remarkable. 

In a summer populated with so many dark and gritty films, having something as joyous and heartwarming as MONSTERS UNIVERSITY is a sight for sore eye. (Right, Mike?) And it's the film's moral core that really makes it something special. It teaches children (and reminds adults) the rewards of being truly honorable, honest and loyal to your friends. When a character does something morally wrong they are punished for it. When they get away with it, it's their conscience that does the punishing. But the life lessons the film teaches are never conceited. They're always supported with empathy for the shortcomings of the characters. 

It may not be deep, but the film is sweet, adorable and perfect family entertainment. And just like the monster brothers of the Oozma Kappa Fraternity, MONSTERS UNIVERSITY is much, much more than simply OK. 

9 out of 10

MAN OF STEEL... Literally

MAN OF STEEL's trailers were amazing. The second trailer in particular was pretty much perfect. It was gorgeous, mysterious, had intense and absorbing action and introduced some very thought-provoking themes for a summer blockbuster. Basically it was representative of everything anyone could hope for in a superhero film. Sure, it was odd to see Jonathan Kent so cynical, suggesting that maybe Clark should have just let those kids in that sinking bus drown. But he's Kevin Costner! And I didn't think too negatively about it. I mean it's produced by Christopher Nolan and looks like a Terrence Malick movie! But Terrence Malick and Christopher Nolan, Zack Synder is not. And while the film had the same gorgeously shot action scenes and intriguing questions of those impeccable trailers, what appeared mysterious and absorbing in the trailers is exposed to be a cold and joyless film populated with heavy-handed homilies and mindless destruction. 

MAN OF STEEL is essentially an origin story. It begins on Superman's (Henry Cavill) home planet of Krypton which faces imminent destruction from an unstable core. The rebel, General Zod (Lexington's own, Michael Shannon), is attempting a coup because of his unwavering belief of the ruling council's incompetence with, literally, matters of life and death. On the opposite end of the spectrum, scientist Jor-el and his wife Lara (Russell Crowe and Ayelet Zurer) decide to launch their naturally conceived child, Kal-el (the planet has instituted genetically-controlled births in order to control population growth and create the most efficient society possible), on a spacecraft towards Earth, infusing his cells with their genetic codex in the hope of preserving the Kyptonian race. In the process, Jor-el is murdered and Zod is sentenced to 200 cycles in the Phantom Zone (an extreme, alien form of solitary confinement). Meanwhile, Kal's ship makes it to Earth and is found by Jonathan and Martha Kent who take him in as their son and give him a new name - Clark. As Clark Kent grows up, Zod, who has escaped from the Phantom Zone after the destruction of Kypton, begins his manhunt for the key to his race's survival - sending the two on a crash course towards one another that leaves the fate of our planet hanging in the balance. 

Ultimately, the film seems interested in a particularly engrossing theme and tries to present it in a way that hasn't really been covered in any Superman movie up to this point. The idea that Clark/Kal is equally as human as he is Kyptonian and the fact that this alienates him (pun slightly intended) from both of the societies that should accept him with open arms is as topical as it is poignant. However, the impotent script by BLADE scribe, David S. Goyer, is less philosophical and more like when a little kid asks a randomly insightful question and before you have time to answer is off trying to catch and eat that bug you told him to leave alone. Nonlinear flashbacks full of hamfisted metaphors and inconsistent characterizations kill any momentum that the film gets going and just when it seems like they're ready to delve into those questions and themes that made the trailers so captivating, BOOM!... Literally. Every time MAN OF STEEL starts to go someplace interesting, Zack Synder feels the need for another lengthy and bombastic action scene. Yes, Zack, the way you shoot action is beautiful to the point of being nearly hypnotic. But without letting the audience truly get to know your characters, you can't hope for them to be emotionally invested in anything you're showing them. Sure, when Superman and Zod battle throughout Metropolis it's brutally magnificent. But I don't care why they're battling because the essential relationship between the people of Earth and their savior, Jesus Clark Super-Kent, isn't established properly. What results is a lot of sound and fury signifying nothing. 

Yes, some things in MAN OF STEEL are good, even great. Hans Zimmer's score is easily one of the best of the year. The way Zimmer is able to capture everything that seemed to be promised in those spectacular trailers despite the failings of the rest of the film is stellar. The blending of electronic sounds and a live orchestra perfectly reflects the duality of Clark/Kal's identity and the way Zimmer is able to combine the two into one beautiful whole is an absolutely wonderful representation of what Clark must do to rise to his full potential. Likewise, as I've already touched on, the film is dazzlingly shot and the performances, though admittedly hit and miss, include some amazingly well done work. In particular, though laden with dialogue that sounds more like a fortune cookie than a human being, Kevin Costner delivers a very stirring turn as Jonathan Kent. Amy Adams as Lois Lane and Antje Traue as Faora, one of General Zod's warriors, also present something that is rarely seen in a Zack Synder film - strong women. Whether it's Lois going toe-to-toe with military personnel and aliens alike, taking an active role in figuring out how to help Superman save the world, or Farora  emanating a terrifying aura of invincibility and malice that rivals even the intensity of Zod himself, it's refreshing to see women (and other minorities such as Laurence Fishburne playing Daily Planet Editor in Chief, Perry White) taking such an active role in a Hollywood summer blockbuster. 

All of this, however, is not enough to save the film from it's own austere steeliness and abysmal script. While the chiseled Henry Cavill looks amazing, until the final scenes at the Daily Planet you never get to see any other side of Clark Kent than a tortured outcast. He is quite literally the Man of Steel. That's not to say that that can't work. THE DARK KNIGHT TRILOGY focused on a dark and nihilistic Bruce Wayne and those films (apart from the final piece) were amazing. The difference, however, is MAN OF STEEL has none of the gravitas or dramatic weight to actually make such a dark film viable. We've seen two major ways that superhero movies can be done and done well. Either you take the route mentioned above, or you have a movie like what Marvel is doing with THE AVENGERS and the IRON MAN films which deal with similar themes of world destruction and terrorism but do so in a way that doesn't erase every ounce of joy from the picture. Sure, it doesn't hurt when you have the comedic sensibilities of Joss Whedon or Shane Black or Jon Favreau involved, but Marvel seems to realize that it's hard to have such a big blockbuster and not give the audience a little bit of joy to help them connect with the characters and the actions onscreen. Obviously a film can be as dark as MAN OF STEEL and succeed. However, to do so it has to be truly great. It has to be, dare I say it, SUPER. 

And I think there's a reason that that word is nowhere near the title of MAN OF STEEL. 

5 out of 10

NOW YOU SEE ME, But Maybe You Shouldn't

The opening scene of Louis Leterrier's latest film, NOW YOU SEE ME, is strikingly similar to the beginning of Christopher Nolan's brilliant 2006 film, THE PRESTIGE. Just like Christian Bale and Michael Caine in Nolan's magical, mystery thriller, Jesse Eisenberg asks you watch closely. The difference however is what follows. Bale and Caine in THE PRESTIGE explain that you don't see what's really happening because you don't really want to know; you want to be fooled. What's so great about this line is that it captures not only the spirit of Nolan's film, but the spirit of magic itself. You crave that wonderment. You think you want to know the trick, but in reality you're happier being fooled and holding on to the unknown. On the other hand, Eisenberg and NOW YOU SEE ME explain simply that the closer you look, the less you'll really see. Unlike with THE PRESTIGE, there is no real mystery there. In fact, there's little substance at all. And, like the beginning quote, the closer you look at NOW YOU SEE ME, the clearer it becomes that the reason you'll see less is because there's actually nothing there. 

Okay, saying there's nothing there is a bit extreme. What's there is a lot of "could have been." The premise of the film is actually pretty cool. Four magicians - Daniel Atlas (Jesse Eisenberg), Henley Reeves (Isla Fisher), Jack Wilder (David Franco), and Merritt Osbourne (Woody Harrelson) - are brought together by a mysterious benefactor and one year later they're performing a show in Las Vegas entitled "The Four Horsemen" sponsored by insurance magnate Arthur Tressler (Michael Caine, yes he's in this one too). During one of their performances the team invite an audience member on stage to perform their final trick: robbing a bank. After it appears that the audience member is actually transported to his bank in Paris and that the money has indeed been stolen, the team are put on a crash course with FBI agent Dylan Rhodes (Mark Ruffalo) and INTERPOL agent Alma Vargas (Melanie Laurent) as well as ex-magician Thaddeus Bradley (Morgan Freeman) who are all looking to uncover the group's secrets as their tricks get increasingly daring and more and more life-threatening.

See! That sounds pretty intriguing, right? Obviously there's a very interesting parallel between magic and a film like NOW YOU SEE ME. Both magic shows and caper films require their ticketholders to engage in a certain suspension of disbelief in order to enjoy the wonder unfolding before them without ruining things by asking too many questions. However, when a film like NOW YOU SEE ME gives you so little to work with, it's impossible not to ask too many questions. This questioning doesn't ruin the film. The film does a good enough job of that on it's own - a basic idea that is highly compelling destroyed by so many twists and unexplained plot lines. Why is Melanie Laurent chosen to be INTERPOL's eyes even though she has never worked in the field before this? Why is it that these are the four magicians chosen by this mysterious benefactor? And on that note, who are these people really? 

Basically what I'm getting at is that NOW YOU SEE ME doesn't make any damn sense. It constantly opens up questions (even going so far as to have characters blatantly ask them) only to never actually answer them. The actors do a fine job (except Morgan Freeman and Michael Caine who couldn't be phoning in their performances any harder unless they actually did their lines over the phone and were CGI-ed in later), but their characters are so one-dimensional and lifeless that you never really connect with or feel anything for them. And the magic itself is amazingly even duller. A mix of terrible CGI and the atrocious choice by Leterrier to shoot everything in boring, monotonous steadicam shots don't grab onto that child-like sense of amazement. Instead they ignite the scoffing, cynical adult in you that makes you wonder how anyone ever thought this was a good idea. 

THE PRESTIGE was a film that never made you feel stupid. It showed you everything that was there and if you could figure out what was going on then that was good on you. And if not, when the final scenes pulled back the curtain completely you were left wide-eyed and wanting nothing more than to immediately see the entire thing again. NOW YOU SEE ME, on the other hand, thinks you're an idiot. In fact, it basically says so throughout the entire movie. Seemingly every line out of the magicians' mouths is some variation of, "Wow, are you really that stupid? How dumb can you be? You're fifty steps behind and somehow getting colder. How do you even remember how to breathe?" Not only is this poor writing, it's insulting. We're not fifty steps behind because we're dumb or because your movie is so clever. We're fifty steps behind because the story your creating couldn't make less sense. 

NOW YOU SEE ME tries to be what THE PRESTIGE was, even what OCEAN'S ELEVEN was. From the beginning those films have you wrapped around their finger and the endings become reminiscent of that feeling that magic shows used to give you when you were smaller (and, in my case, even now) - that feeling of being completely awe-struck, unable to believe how fully they had enraptured you. The twist ending of NOW YOU SEE ME is equally unbelievable. Unfortunately, that unbelievability doesn't come from magical story-telling or cinematic sleight-of-hand. It comes from the fact that the final reveal completely undermines EVERY SINGLE THING WE'VE SEEN UP TO THAT POINT. It's doesn't make any sense logistically and it doesn't make any sense in the context of the story. The only thing that doesn't feel out of place about it is Morgan Freeman's character yelling out, "Why?! WHY?!!"

I don't know, Morgan. Maybe we were just watching too closely. 

3 out of 10

STAR TREK BACK INTO STAR TREK

(SPOILERS for STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS)

A while back, in preparation for the release of STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS, I watched J. J. Abrams' first foray into the world of James T. Kirk, Spock and all of Gene Roddenberry's intergalactic creations. I had never watched a single full episode of any of the various television shows and although I knew the characters by name and appearance, I was otherwise clueless. While watching STAR TREK, one of the things that stood out most to me (and one that I had never noticed in other immensely popular "geek/nerd" franchises likes STAR WARS or LORD OF THE RINGS) was the seemingly blatant pandering to fanboys and fangirls. Even some of the most emotionally intense moments were almost ruined from this inexplicable need to appease the die-hards with things that make them say, "Oh, man! He just said 'Live long and prosper!'" Unfortunately what I'm getting at is that this same pandering is seen again pervading STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS. In fact, what's seen pervading STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS makes it basically the exact same movie that I saw in preparation months ago. 

It's hard to lump the portrayal of the characters into the kind of pandering I'm talking about. I mean, who would want to see a really camp Spock prancing around saying things like, "Oooooh, Captain Kirk. Set phasers to stunning!" Actually, okay, that'd would awesome. But you get my point. And thankfully the character work is one of the best things about STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS. The relationship between Chris Pine and Zachary Quinto as Kirk and Spock is spot on. The progression from the last film where the pair were just figuring out how to handle each other feels organic and transitionally appropriate. The pair also bring a much need dose of humanity to a film set primarily in space and one full of various aliens and emotionless killing machines (looking at you, Sherlock). For the most part the supporting cast is equally brilliant and each actor makes his or her character unique and easily identifiable. However, while Zoe Saldana and Simon Pegg (and to a smaller degree John Cho and Anton Yelchin) continue to breathe fresh life into their characters, the same cannot be said for Karl Urban and Benedict Cumberbatch. 

Look, I get that Bones' thing is that he's this hard-nosed doctor full of these terrible sayings. That's who he is. But that kind of character just doesn't fit in these new adaptations. From what I can gather, STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS is being considered one of the funniest STAR TREK films to date. That being said, this type of comic relief just feels old to me. While Simon Pegg nervous energy and wise-cracking feels right at home, Bones McCoy feels like they just cut DeForest Kelley out of the 1960s TV series and hoped no one would notice. It's just a constant reminder of the series' age that simply reminded me of the previous film's shortcomings.

Equally disappointing, Benedict Cumberbatch's John Harrison is another old face that does little for the film. The problem is, unlike Bones, HE'S KHAN! He's the main villain of the film and one of the greatest villains in STAR TREK lore. And he doesn't really do anything new. Is he menacing? Yes. Does Cumberbatch do all he can to make him extremely hate-able and seem practically invincible? Oh, yeah. But he's basically the same villain that Eric Bana played in STAR TREK - an off-kilter outsider, clad in black who will do whatever it takes for his "people." I really enjoyed it the first time around. But this time it just felt lack luster. Maybe it's because I expect so much out of Cumberbatch. Maybe it's because Khan isn't just any old villain. Whatever it is, the more I ruminate on STAR TREK INTO DARKNESSS, the more it seems like a simple re-heating of last night's leftovers rather than a fresh, new summer entree. 

And that's the biggest problem with STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS. The acting is good, the action sequences are extremely well done, Michael Giacchino's score is spot on again, and the film is beautiful. But so was STAR TREK. It's like J. J. Abrams saw how successful the first film was and said, "Listen, I've got EPISODE VII to worry about. Let's just do the same stuff again. They'll love it!" And it seems like people do. And, for what it's worth, I thought it was a perfectly enjoyable and serviceable summer popcorn flick. However, I just kept thinking about how much I liked this movie when I saw it earlier this year. It feels like all they did was put INTO DARKNESS on the end of the title, slap a British accent on Eric Bana and sent it to the theatres. 

We all know how J. J. Abrams works. His films are gorgeous; they have witty writing full of self-referential humor and fanboy lip-service; and there are lots and lots of lens flares. And while he cut back on the lens flares (perhaps a product of all the fan complaints), STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS is simply a standard Abrams film. This is not a bad thing, don't get me wrong. However, it leaves much to be desired. While the first STAR TREK had me itching to watch any of the old series that I could get my hands on, STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS only makes me nervous for the future. 

7 out of 10

A Tribute to Roger Ebert

The balcony is closed.

On April 4, 2013, famed critic from the Chicago Sun Times, Roger Ebert passed away at the age of 70 after a battle with cancer. Ebert reviewed movies for the Chicago Sun Times for 46 years. However, most will remember him for his long-running TV series AT THE MOVIES, with his good friend and oftentimes newspaper rival, Gene Siskel, and then with Richard Roeper after Siskel's death. For the general population, what they'll remember are Ebert's two magical thumbs that could be either be the death knell for a movie, or it's loudest ringing endorsement. For many others, however, Ebert's contributions to the world of film criticism and simple film adoration will be felt and remembered forever. 

I remember watching reruns of AT THE MOVIES on PBS when I was younger, loving when the skinny, bald guy and the jolly, fat guy would argue. As I got older and started to really listen to what they had to say, I was enthralled. I loved watching movies. But the way they talked about them made me want to see what they saw, think like they thought. When I got older still, I sought out Ebert's reviews and devoured them with immense pleasure. I didn't always agree, but they got me thinking. And most of all, they were fun to read. I could feel his love, or his disappointment in a film. It was how I wanted to write. 

Roger Ebert loved movies. Except for the ones he hated. But for a film with an ambitious director, fantastic plot, amazing cast or, if you were lucky, all of the above, there was no greater advocate than Roger Ebert. Ebert passionately and unabashedly championed film excellence more than perhaps any film critic in history. You could tell when Roger Ebert really adored a film because the way he wrote about it was like a love letter to the one girl that has had your heart forever. You could feel the emotion on the page. Every Ebert review was as if he had taken his heart out of his chest and said, "See? This is how I feel about this movie."

Of course, Ebert didn't love every movie. Though, unlike too many critics today, he was never critical to the point of cruelty. "I'm not mad," his reviews would sigh. "I'm just disappointed." Unlike many critics, Ebert also went into every film with the hope that it would blow him away. When it didn't, he would tell you. But he would tell you with such a sharp wit and deep breadth of knowledge, that even when you disagreed with him, you were still entertained. And best of all, he would give you alternatives. "This movie may have been derivative or unsuccessful because x, y and z, but here's a film that gets it all right!" That is what made Ebert truly special.

There was no bigger advocate for films (blockbuster and indie alike) than Roger Ebert. For Ebert saw the value in all things cinema. "Sure, this big Hollywood blockbuster is a mediocre cash-grab, but there's this great indie picture playing at the 2 dollar cinema that's amazing!" Roger Ebert gave indie films popular appeal. And his passion for independent film helped introduce a new generation of filmmakers to the world. But, apart from this, he was also a major champion of African American filmmakers. If not for Ebert, a film like HOOP DREAMS may have never made it past Sundance audiences. While just about every critic in the country was panning Spike Lee's DO THE RIGHT THING, Ebert saw it for the biting social commentary that it was and devoted an entire episode of AT THE MOVIES to talk about Lee, his film and his contribution to filmmaking.

But apart from the films themselves, Roger Ebert was the "Dean of Film Criticism." Through his articles, books and television show, Ebert provided insight into the world of cinema while simultaneously allowing for more scholars and arm-chair critics alike to join in the conversation. When the internet took the world by storm, Ebert was on the forefront. He was one of the first ever major critics to have an online blog dedicated to film criticism. When he felt as though he was trapped in the present, Ebert started revisiting old films and publishing reviews on those. When cancer took his ability to speak, he became an even larger presence online - with an output that would put any 20-something film critic to shame. 

But he loved those 20-something film critics. It is because of Roger Ebert that people even know about most of the online critics they read today. Ebert was one of the biggest proponents for the immense array of talent that was out there in cyber space that no one knew about. Oftentimes one could find Ebert tweeting links to unknown critics whose reviews he found interesting, enlightening, funny or whatever. Through his yearly film festival, Ebertfest, he would also invite countless lesser known film critics to take part in the festivities, giving them a larger audience than they could have ever fathomed. Every film critic today owes something to Roger Ebert. 

During his later years, after a long battle with cancer took his jaw and his ability to speak, Roger Ebert became a renaissance man of sorts. His voracious writing only enhanced as he began to write about things as varied as fast food joints around Chicago, wine and politics. Despite being very sick, Ebert never let his presence stop being felt. Cancer might have taken his physical voice, but Roger Ebert would not be silenced. His continued work at the Chicago Sun Times and on his blog acted then and now as a testament to the human spirit and ability to enjoy life to the fullest extent. 

Through his personable demeanor and unwavering love of film, the Pultizer-prize winning film critic captured the hearts of film-lovers, casual film-goers, and filmmakers alike. Ebert was a film critic you read if you wanted to fall in love with movies. He was passionate, humorous and most of all accessible. A film scholar for the common man. Roger Ebert is one of the biggest influences on my life and what I love to do. Without him, I don't know if I would be the person I am today and have the same immense love that I have for film. Needless to say, his influence on the world of independent filmmaking, film criticism and all-around cinephilia can never be overestimated. Roger Ebert is a shining example of how to live life to the fullest. Most of all, his sincerity, work ethic, even in the face of cancer, and genuine love of life should act as inspirations for not only film critics, but for everyone. 

I never got to meet Roger Ebert. But maybe one day I'll see him at the movies. 

THE (Not So) INCREDIBLE BURT WONDERSTONE

Recently, unless your film is called THE INCREDIBLES, putting the adjective "incredible" in your movie's title has not worked out too well. Both INCREDIBLE HULK movies were either mediocre or frankly terrible (sorry, mutant poodle) and EXTREMELY LOUD AND INCREDIBLY CLOSE was embarrassingly awful. Not only does it make you look foolish, it makes it very easy for critics to take shots at your film. Unfortunately, what I'm getting at is although the magnificent Steves (Carell and Buscemi, though they're sadly not called this in the movie) look beyond fabulous in all their promotional photos, THE INCREDIBLE BURT WONDERSTONE does little too buck the trend of these not-so-incredible, "INCREDIBLE" movies. 

Burt Wonderstone (Carell) and Anton Marvelton (Buscemi) are two wildly successful magicians, friends since grade school, in Las Vegas, performing their show, "A Magical Friendship," for countless audiences over many years. However, the act has become stale and rote and a new, rebellious street magician (a la Criss Angel) named, you guessed it, Steve! Grey (Jim Carrey) has become a looming threat to Burt and Anton's formulaic, though immensely successful show. As audience attendance dwindles, Burt and Anton look for new ways to spice up their act and compete with Grey. This ultimately leads to the pair performing a David Blaine-esque "hot-box" stunt/illusion, which results in a massive flip-out by Wonderstone, a severe injury to Marvelton, and what seems to be the end of the duo's partnership. Alone, and overshadowed by Steve Grey, Wonderstone must find a way to get back on top of the Las Vegas magic world -- a task that will prove neither easy nor pretty.

As a comedy, THE INCREDIBLE BURT WONDERSTONE is, like many of its "incredible" predecessors, mediocre at best. The laughs come few and far between and most of the material feels as old and worn out as Wonderston and Marvelton's act. What the film ultimately boils down to is far too many sex-related jokes and gross-out humor -- which I guess is what is to be expected by a director (Don Scardino) who's, although being a fairly distinguished television director, most noteworthy film prior to this was the 1980 joint CRUISING with Al Pacino which few liked and many gay activists protested. 

What damages  THE INCREDIBLE BURT WONDERSTONE's comedic resonance more than anything is not its direction or script, but its HORRENDOUS casting. Burt Wonderstone is arrogant, self-deluded, and, surprisingly, not the sharpest guillotine cutting a lovely assistant in half. While this role would have been perfect for someone like Will Ferrell who has made a career at playing dim-witted narcissists, for Carell, who's more comfortable playing the clueless guy or the nice guy, it just feels off. Steve Buscemi, who is always awkward (and that's often what I love most about Steve Buscemi), simply feels lost and out of place completely. Jim Carrey is allowed to really air out his insanity and it makes for some of the better bits of the film. Sadly, it's hard to shake the fact that Carrey is 51 years old and, to quote Roger Murtaugh, is "too old for this shit." 

The only truly redeeming feature of the film's atrocious casting is its supporting players. Olivia Wilde, as the beautiful assistant who is treated as little more than a sex object by her male counterparts while being as, if not more talented than any of them, is wonderful in her minuscule amount of screentime. James Gandolfini is also hilarious as ludicrously wealthy and appropriately named casino owner Doug Munny and has an amazing ability to say the most terrible things to people with a smile on his face. But the cream of the crop is the legendary Alan Arkin as the aging inspiration for Burt and Anton's magical careers, Rance Holloway. Where the other cast members have the comedic timing of a pubescent schoolboy trying to make the head cheerleader laugh, Arkin rattles off his hilarious quips and observations with ease. He has this kind of misty-eyed elegance and majesty that prevents you from taking your eyes off of him anytime he's on screen. 

Simply, the THE INCREDIBLE BURT WONDERSTONE, well, just isn't. And I know that's an incredibly trite phrase that I'm sure every critic from here to Las Vegas has used. But when a film calls itself incredible, it better deliver. And although it provides a few laughs, BURT WONDERSTONE does little to distinguish itself as anything new. It's simply the same old story about a delusional, egotistical idiot who has it all, loses it all, then changes and gets it all back. It's basically TALLADEGA NIGHTS with magicians. But whereas Will Ferrell produced the endearing and infinitely quotable Ricky Bobby, Carell struggles to make the transition from obnoxious womanizer to sensitive soul believable. If the film did anything, however, it was reinforce my belief that Alan Arkin is still, and I mean this in every sense of the word, absolutely incredible. 

4 out of 10