Movie Review: The Avengers (2012)

Marvel Studios
Runtime: 142 minutes
Rated: PG-13 (for intense sequences of sci-fi violence and action throughout 
and a mild drug reference)
Director: Joss Whedon
Writers: Zak Penn
Starring: Robert Downey Jr., Chris Evans, Scarlett Johansson, 
Samuel L. Jackson, Gwyneth paltrow
Action | Adventure | Sci-fi

Marvel’s The Avengers comes to us as a welcomed multi-continuation of The Hulk (2008), Iron Man II (2010), Thor (2011), and Captain America: The First Avenger (2011). By this time, the union of super-elite guardians of earth proposed by director of S.H.I.E.L.D “Nick Fury” (Samuel L. Jackson) called The Avengers Initiative has been put on hold. It was dismissed after Fury realized it would be panned by the government due to fears of unrest (same sort of trouble we saw brewing in the last Iron Man).

We are brought up to speed on the lives of Steve “Captain America” Rogers (Chris Evans) after he was revived from the crash and brought back into serving his country in a way he could never have imagined. It’s good to know that 70 years of sleeping in ice didn’t weaken those late-1930s-technology-enhanced super-soldier muscles. Here he is back with us, tearing holes in punching bags with his fits, the one after the other. We find his God-fearing, undying American patriotism as cool as any other hero here or anywhere.

When we catch up to a still arrogant Tony “Ironman” Stark (Robert Downey Jr.) with trusted assistant “Pepper Potts” (Gwyneth Paltrow) and a fresh-out-of-hiding “Bruce Banner” (Mark Ruffalo, who at times sounds a little like Bill Bixby), we have already been introduced to “Agent Romanoff” AKA “The Black Widow” (Scarlett Johansson). Hers is one of the most complex characters here—one that audiences will leave the theaters wishing they’d gone in knowing more about. She deserved a “primer” movie like her co-superheroes. Heads up: anyone out of the loop on the Avengers might well brush up on them before seeing the movie.

And then an unexpected visitor arrives on earth. “Loki” (Tom Hiddleston), the adopted brother to “Thor” (Chris Hemsworth), the dethroned turncoat from Asgård who comes to earth to not only claim the power of the Tesseract – the cube of otherworldly powers from the first Captain America – but to enslave the whole human race. Loki looks like he could be the DNA clone of Peewee Herman and Brent Spiner, as the slightly pale villain with little to say that isn’t ominously embellished for effect.

Soon, the team that would and should have been known to all as The Avengers has been assembled, but they appear to be less organized than their enemy who not only possesses great power from the realm of virtual gods, but has the added advantage of having subdued the minds of those who know the most about how to manipulate the object’s power—a bow-and-arrow-wielding “Clint Barton” known as “Hawkeye” (Jeremy Renner) and the brain behind the object’s handling, “Selvig” (Stellan Skarsgård).

When the plot advances – sometimes threatening to drag its feet by overly-thick prep work for more to come – we are given what we expected, and then a little. But the excitement is almost a teasing kind of thing. And when the fighting starts, things get pleasingly wild, although as with the previous Captain America movie, the fight scenes aren’t always as carefully constructed as they should have been, nor is the timing leading up to confrontations as dramatic as it could have been.

But you can almost forget about that because this changes when we get to the movie’s last half where younger viewers (or otherwise lovers of beautifully extravagant destruction) will be more than gratified with what they see. Michael Bay loves to show off destruction, but director Joss Whedon here shows us how it’s really supposed to be done.

And part of the appeal comes from the fact that we get to see these comic powerhouses go at it verbally and physically. But that is just a bonus. Our superheroes with rather easily bruised egos aren’t the only ones with extremely relevant roles to play. They make and add to an exciting but also virtue-dependent story where true heroes are made by what’s on the inside. This is what the comics have always been about.

It is an ever-so-mild setback that such great efforts are taken to develop the story, and in many ways, it is too developed. Whereas in many comic book movies were stories that so easily came together, this one has some rough edges transitioning to its conclusion, be it changes in how heavy it wants to lay down the drama or the way it incorporates some plot-points. But it is hard to level any complaint against a film that carries with it this much imaginative energy and this many heroes.

The humor is a quality that is taken seriously, but rarely does this rob us of the anxiety we get from anticipating what happens next. But what purpose do the comics serve except to help give us a fantasy platform to turn on the boyish urge to fight? Answer: how about to help us see the pitfalls of our society. Depends on how you look at it, but when clean-burning energy is sported as a running theme in a big-budget action movie, you know it will have relevance in plenty of other areas. Conclusion: The Avengers will justly prove to be the next sensation.

Coolest Lines: 

Loki: “We have an army!”
Tony Stark: “And we have a Hulk!”

Watch Trailer

Movie Review: The Three Stooges (2012)

Wessler Entertainment, C3 Entertainment Inc.
Runtime: 92 minutes
Rated: PG (for some fantasy action and mild rude humor)
Directors: Bobby Farrelly, Peter Farrelly
Writers: Mike Cerrone, Bobby Farrelly
Starring: Sean Hayes, Chris Miamantapoulos, Will Sasso
Comedy

I’m not alone in thinking that no one in their right mind would consider The Three Stooges a viable attempt at a remake for drawing out 2012-relevant humor. But apparently, those in their wrongs minds were in their right minds after all. The idea of a TV-into-movie remake of early 20th century slapstick should seem futile on the face of it (as well as unnecessary), but some thought it needful to resurrect our favorite stooges for a generation of iphone and Facebook users. And I’m so very glad they did!

Directors Bobby Farrelly and Peter Farrelly (Hall Pass, 2011 and Me, Myself & Irene, 2000) selected a fine cast and catapulted them through space-time and into the 2000s with just the right balance of nostalgia and newness. It’s a good thing, too, since any little imbalance would have been like matter mixed with antimatter. Add in the fact that Stooge humor is not for everyone and it’s even more amazing that this film did as well as it did.

We meet the laugh-out-loud litter of three as they are dropped off at a local orphanage and taken in by the lovely sisters who will care for these—the most unwanted of children. We soon find them grown, having spent their childhoods under the nerve-tearing frustration of the staff who look after them, when “Moe” (Chris Diamantopoulos – “Oliver Zarco” from CSI and “Rob Weiss” from 24), “Larry” (Sean Hayes – “Jack McFarland” from Will and Grace), and “Curly” (Will “Mad TV” Sasso) are out on their own in an effort to save the old orphanage. They soon cross paths with old friend and former orphan, “Teddy” (Kirby Heyborne), and from there, manage to walk headlong into a plot involving betrayal and murder.

In an effort to save the orphanage and their friend, the stooges are launched into a generation they know nothing about, but that won’t stop them from proving that even Hollywood execs have something to learn from these most antisocial of head-knockers who know how to stumble onto something good when all is said and done.

Once we accept that the three stooges have indeed been transformed into 2012-worthy material (and in color), it is then that we walk into an old-fashioned good time with just enough of an original likeness to take us back, way back!

The viewing experience may seem brainless, but being able to enjoy this movie wasn’t foolproof. You might think it couldn’t have failed, but of course, it could have by overdoing the slapstick. But instead, the film gets nearly everything right, and with nice character adoption combined with swift pacing to make viewers believe that they are watching the actual stooges (if only for its brief hour-and-a-half).

With as much as the film lacks in all the things good movies are traditionally known for – and as much as it has in terms of unworkable humor from the first half of the last century and typical movie clichés that would normally cause us to draw back in eye-rolling dismissal – it is pushed through by the fact that the film’s simplicity allows it to be taken in by how closely it portrays its original material. Less is more here.

The movie is divided into 3 family-friendly chapters that begin like the old episodes did. And aside from leaving us missing a Shemp, it takes us back to those wonderful Sunday mornings where those of us who are old enough to remember would grab a bowl of Fruit Loops and plop ourselves on the couch for what would become some of the best times of our lives.

And if a 4-year-old with next to no attention span can halfway enjoy this today, you know that those of us who actually remember the stooges and loved their special contribution to slapstick will not be left out.

But reminding us that this is not, in fact, the early 20th century, at the film's end, we are given a courtesy reminder by the Farrelly brothers to avoid hitting one another in the heads with real mallets and hammers because that would hurt people. Well, we had to see the generation gap come in somewhere. Why not here? Nobody wants to be sued.

Watch Trailer

Movie Review: Mirror Mirror (2012)

Relativity Media
Runtime: 106 minutes
Rated: PG (for some fantasy action and mild rude humor)
Director: Tarsem Singh
Writers: Jason Keller, Melisa Wallack
Starring: Lily Collins, Julia Roberts, Armie Hammer
Adventure | Comedy | Drama

Mirror Mirror is a vivaciously new and entertaining take on the old fairy tale of Snow White and the Seven Dwarves, which tries – and succeeds – at taking its plot in an awesomely unprecedented new direction. As such, it will not fail to grab up its share of admirers.

And with as many opportunities as we have to see legs of talent stretched on screen, we aren't disappointed with Julia Roberts who plays the superbly villainous and vain queen and Lily Collins who puts on a formidably innocent (and naturally beautiful) Snow White. But some of the most impressive performances are those by the dwarves who manage to capture our attention more than anyone else anytime they are onscreen.

This well-timed and sprawlingly optimistic display of character-building and charm is met with the grace of “Prince Alcott” (Armie Hammer) and “Brighton” (Nathan Lane) as the queen's personal assistant who all but augment an already funny film that only rarely falls back on comedy that doesn't hit its mark. This should surprise us a little as the film was written and directed by Tarsem Singh who brought us last year's flop, Immortals.

While a few scenes run a bit too long, this doesn't take from the fact that with present-day descriptions to go with old-timey notions and clichés, Mirror Mirror is solid viewing as an equally funny and dramatic (when it wants to be) self-parody that is as visually stimulating as any fairy tale should be.

Watch Trailer

Independent Film Review: Bite Marks (2011)

Blakk Flamingo Pictures
Runtime: 84 minutes
Rated: NO MPAA rating
Director: Mark Bessenger
Writer: Mark Bessenger
Starring: Benjamin Lutz, Windham Beacham, David Alanson
Horror | Comedy

Bite Marks is a horror-comedy about a gay couple, “Cary” (Windham Beachman) and “Vogel” (David Alanson) who take a trip on foot across the country in hopes of patching up their broken relationship. It is at this point that the two run across “Brewster” (Benjamin Lutz), a nice guy who gives them a lift for reasons that even he is not comfortable admitting.

When Brewster's brother, “Walsh” (Stephen Geoffreys) fails to take off for the trip as planned, Brewster is called in to ensure that an 18-wheeler delivery carrying coffins makes it to its destination on time. With the three finally on board and heading out, a breakdown lands them in a junkyard where they soon discover what exactly has been making so much noise inside those coffins. It happens to be hungry for blood.

As a gay-based vampire horror-comedy, Bite Marks just about succeeds. But like so many low-budget movies, the main challenge is being able to afford enough re-shoots to get the delivery of lines right, which this film very often doesn't do. It is the beginning that is so much rougher to endure than the middle or ending portions when it comes to dialog. In fact, the script is a glistening sea of off-timed jokes and improperly primed verbiage, which can make things really difficult to look past at first.

And we're not holding down this rather inglorious production (which could well have been titled “Brokeback 18-Wheeler”), but if you can't get the performances right, you've got a whole lot of nothing. Without prior knowledge of what the film hopes to accomplish, you have no idea it is supposed to be a comedy until you reach a certain point. It is then that the next milestone becomes figuring out that this movie only borders on being as funny as it hoped to be. But despite another effort, the film is in no sense scary at all.

Defying all of its weaknesses is the fact that there is a real story here and it wants to be told. It involves writing that someone put a lot of hard work into with good vision behind it. When it ends, we understand and sympathize with what it tried to do and we almost feel the better for having watched it. It augments any gay comedy expectations in its own peculiar way, but does not self-satirize. The chemistry of Alanson and Beachman is close to undeniable and the character development is approaching excellent with Lutz blending into the mix nicely.

Even the opening credits are an artistic nod to what it hopes to accomplish, followed by great choreography and some well-selected filming sites. By way of gore, it uses its low budget surprisingly well. Comedy-horror fans might just be impressed here, although it is sad that it falls short of its true potential.

Watch Trailer

Movie Review: The Cabin in the Woods (2012)

AFX Studios, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer (MGM)
Runtime: 95 minutes
Rated: R (for strong bloody horror violence and gore, language, drug-use, and some sexuality and nudity)
Director: Drew Goddard
Writers: Joss Whedon, Drew Goddard
Starring: Kristen Connolly, Chris Hemsworth, Anna Hutchison
Horror | Thriller

When free spirit “Jules” (Anna “Go Girls” Hutchison) tells her best friend “Dana” (Kristen “Revolutionary Road” Connolly) what a good time they’ll be having at a cabin in the remote woods, you automatically know and are glad that she has no idea at all what awaits her or her friends, and neither does Jules’ jock boyfriend “Curt” (Chris “Thor” Hemsworth). The same is true of their intellectual friend with his notably piercing gaze, “Holden” (Jesse “Grey’s Anatomy” Williams) and their stoner friend “Marty” (Franz “The Village” Kranz) who seems to have a better grasp of reality, despite himself. Takes all kinds.

After taking off in the RV up the mountain, they stop for gas and run into a weirdly cryptic and confrontational gas station attendant (Tim De Zarn). When they’re back on the road after a near-fight, it isn’t long before they arrive and forget all about it. Following horror movie suit in letting out their whoas about how cool the place is and how much fun they will have losing their inhibitions, it is then that we begin to get to know our five lambs for the slaughter as they begin to know the creepy place they are staying in.

The Cabin in the Woods is about much more than any old cabin in the woods where unsuspecting, sex-having young adults find themselves headed for a very bloody end. The reason for this trip in their minds involves nothing more sophisticated than booz and weed, but on the other side of things, this ill-fated five has an important destiny they are supposed to fulfill. They must die for a grim and grueling purpose, one that extends far beyond those who seem to so callously want them dead.

And the film opens with those who want them dead casually chatting and making office jokes while placing bets on who bites it first while otherwise preparing to make sure everything at the cabin goes as planned. We won’t be able to relate to them until the very end of the movie, but everyone in this film has a reason to be hopelessly depressed.

"Sitterson" (Richard Jenkins) and "Hadley" (Bradley Whitford), two
of the brains behind the scenes. 

And then we get big red letters that flash across the screen as though we are watching some humdrum Halloween movie. The film has this ability to quickly alternate between cheap and classy, between what we expect to see and what we couldn’t see coming. And as it is an example of a very extreme type of parody, this is for sure one of those films that will go over better with critics than audiences in general simply because it dares to call out the stupidity of the masses.

And it’s worth reminding my readers that it takes some steady directing if you are going to marry horror and humor in the same movie and be true to each genre. This one takes the taco, but part of what we are never ready for is how much we start to care about these lambs headed for the slaughter when we find their IQs turned up and get to see sides of them that suddenly make it a tad harder to root against them—especially when we get no answers as to why this is happening and we have to wait until the end of the movie to make sense of anything.

The Cabin in the Woods may not be your traditional carnival ride of carnage (though there is plenty of that, and sometimes too much), but it will indignantly and horrifyingly keep you interested. And in fact, its mainstay is about being just the opposite of what comes from the abandoned mines of bad ideas that we are getting today when we aren’t being bombarded with soulless remakes of earlier horror greats.

The average moviegoer may or may not have plans to add this to their DVD or BluRay collection upon leaving the theater, but it’s not often that a horror movie comes along and turns cheap gore into a uniquely funny and horrifying theme like this. And this is how we describe a movie that so thorough slams the grindhouse gunk and mindlessness of “kill the kids having sex” and makes us ask: Why the hell do we like throwaway carnage anyway? When did we start choosing to watch cardboard-cutout people die as opposed to a story that gets under our skin and makes us feel the despair of contemplating the utter misfortune of its stars?

There is a celebrity appearance at the end, and if you’ve seen Paul (2011), you’ll know who it is. This would have had more affect if this were the first time we’d seen that, but The Cabin in the Woods is never really out of ideas or surprises, big or small. And while we keep waiting for Hemsworth to turn into Thor and trash these ghoulish attackers, we are given no such luxury, just a story that stays confined to the shallow-mindedness that made this wildcard of a movie possible in the first place.

And it may even be a little too much of what is not expected – and may even be hypocritical in what it tries to do by using a parade of orchestrated slaughter to tell us how stupid we are for liking said things – but it will take a seat and sit with arms crossed all the way to its absurdly logical end. And you’ve got to applaud a movie that finds no stopping-place short if its necessary conclusion (audience hopes be damned).

Thank you, Goddard and Whedon, for taking back the horror trophy and setting it up proudly in the camp of those with brains.

Watch Trailer

Robert G. Ingersoll's "The Gods"

At 12:54 am today, I turned 38. In a private celebration at home cleaning, I treated myself to some Robert Ingersoll. I love me some Ingersoll! I found it interesting that despite what I was taught in seminary, few churches really hated Ingersoll or held him in infamy. In fact, he was seen as a scholarly gentleman and great conversationalist who loved to eat and debate with many prominent churchmen and religious figures of his day. His famous lecture - beautifully read by Nick Gisburne - is here for all to enjoy.

(JH)

Movie Review: The Hunger Games (2012)

Lionsgate
Runtime: 142 minutes
Rated: PG-13 (for some graphic violence and disturbing images)
Director: Gary Ross
Writers: Gary Ross, Suzanne Collins
Starring: Jennifer Lawrence, Josh Hutcherson, Liam Hemsworth, Toby Jones
Action | Drama | Sci-fi

The Hunger Games is about future North America where provinces referred to as Districts are under dictatorial rule of the leader of a nation called Panem. The setting is in the Appalachian region in what is now called District 12.

Due to an uprising in an earlier generation, a 13th district was eliminated from the nation, leaving the remaining 12 districts only. As a generational form of penance, the districts are forced to take part in a yearly Hunger Games competition in which one man and one woman are selected from each District to fight to the death against the other selectees over a 4-day period while the nation watches.

This brutal custom is to serve as a reminder against any discontents who might consider rising up against them, but it also is supposed to give hope and serve as a history lesson with the end product being loyalty.

We meet “Katniss Eberdine” (Jennifer Lawrence) going out to hunt in her poverty-stricken coal-mining town just before “the reaping” is called. The Reaping is the yearly gathering in which the Hunger Games gets its contestants. When the drawing is held and Katniss’ young sister, “Primrose Eberdine” (Willow Shields) is selected, she volunteers as a contestant along with a selected male, “Peeta Mellark” (Josh Hutcherson).

As preparation for the games gets under way with the help of their mentor and past game winner, “Haymitch Abernathy” (Woody Harrelson), the two aspiring champions must not only capture the attention of a national audience, but their own feelings for each other while coming to grips with the fact that the odds of survival are not good. Only one can take home the prize.

The Hunger Games provides interesting viewing. Indeed, it cannot fail to do so with its being based on the best-selling book by Suzanne Collins, but its ill-placed-ness on camera becomes very apparent. By all accounts, the movie is a faithful adaptation of the novel series, a trilogy followed by two additional books, and this is why the film employs the exaggerated details that it does.

In a retrofitted future America, we have the look of early 1900s combined with an inner city of contrastingly futuristic technology, like railways and reflective buildings. Remember those brief glimpses of courtrooms after World War Three as portrayed in Star Trek The Next Generation? If you don’t, just know that the outfits are colorful, like weirdly out-of-place props from some fairy tale or a bad dream. The haircuts are goofy, as are most of the styles, but the effect still rings out; we feel like it’s a different time, with chrome, rock-shaped aircrafts and strange metal buildings, some of which still look like manufactured props. And everyone knows that the future just can’t have plain-clothes stars as villains! They have to be dressed up and have odd facial hairstyles to fit the outfits!

Things get off to a good enough start, and then as the plot develops and works its way through the eventual stagnation in the name of teen romance, we get the impression this had to be coming from source material made strictly for kids (in case we didn't know already). And so it was. We are supposed to take home that this cruelly-run society has become brutally indifferent to the meaning of life and liberty. We certainly do get that, but with a plot that does only a halfway decent job at making us overlook its great many oddities.

Quite often, whatever drama is going on is halted and we are given shots of the on-looking cameras. These cameras are everywhere they are supposed to be at just the right moments. So when we see the overdone “I have feelings for you” drama, we are reminded that everyone else sees it, too.

And rather than spend time with dynamic dialog, the villains just repeat: “may the odds be ever in your favor” in a nicely creepy way and go off and do villain-y things. There are nearly no references to things on earth that we can relate to. And in the spirit of attacking human cruelty and humanitarian issues, they threw in swords and bows and arrows on the competition field because, well, because it’s just cooler than guns and people get to grit their teeth and clank swords doing so.

The fight scenes are piss-poor. The racial aggression – and sometimes out-right racist themes like form-fitting expendable blacks and a small black girl whose only skill is climbing trees real fast – are purposely done, so as to make the movie play on civil rights awareness issues to inflame the audience (while taking total advantage of them in an egregiously hypocritical and clichéd way). And even this doesn’t work as expected.

We never feel for the lot of them as much as we’re supposed to. However, the film is carried with bull’s-eye performances from its leads. Hutcherson does a stellar job, and from Lawrence we could not have expected a more invested performance. There are even old pros like Donald Sutherland who can be cool as ever in the same type of “corrupt, high-up official” role he’s had since way back when. None of this changes the fact that the film is highly overrated.

There is really no climactic ease to this film. It gradually evolves its story, running with the drama (at first) beautifully. There are some plot-holes that seem rather odd in a story about people fighting to survive. For instance, there is a scene where Katniss is chased up a tree. What should have been her end is ruined by the fact that these hunters don’t even know how to sleep in shifts, allowing her to eventually outsmart them.

It may become memorable because of the story on which it is based, but this teasing, labored romance in a climactically challenged layout with writing like a low-budgeter becomes more difficult to stay interested in the longer we watch. The ending gives us too much of what we want while failing to say what it needed to say as effectively as it should have.

Watch Trailer

Movie Review: 21 Jump Street (2012)

Columbia Pictures
Runtime: 109 minutes
Rated: R (for violence, language, alcohol and drug-use, and sexual themes)
Directors: Phil Lord, Chris Miller
Writer: Michael Bacall
Starring: Jonah Hill, Channing Tatum, Ice Cube
Comedy

Unlike the 1987 TV drama 21 Jump Street, the movie is not serious—not at all, in fact. It wears its smutty and raunchy double-servings of nastiness smeared on both sleeves and isn’t in the least ready to shy away from these badges of dishonor.

We begin when we meet two still-young-looking newbie cops, “Schmidt” (Jonah Hill) and “Jenko” (Channing Tatum), both of whom struggle with different aspects of the job. Schmidt is the “brains” while Jenko is the meaty “hands-on” jock who has trouble doing such things as reading Miranda Rights.

After one serious screw-up that results in a drug-user getting put back on the street, the two are tossed into the Jump Street division where they are put to work undercover at a high school where a new and dangerous drug called “HFS” is making the rounds and killing teenagers.

While at first you may find it difficult to accept that a 21 Jump Street reboot could be turned into anything actually funny, here we are sitting in front of...this. But it’s honestly the funniest movie of the year thus far, one of those films that actually lives up to how good the trailer makes it seem.

We watch Schmidt and Jenko get back into the high school groove, and of course, not fit in. Then their objective is challenged when the new social lives they’re making begin to threaten their ability to work together. And there’s an inevitable romance, too. Popular or unpopular, going back to school will open some wounds.

So we’re along for the ride, and it’s a comfortable one, although what never escapes the viewer is that no police department would run things this way or have these two clowns doing anything even remotely serious. We know it isn’t believable, but ask me if we care!

Ice Cube is “Captain Dickson.” His is one of the laugh-out-loud funniest performances of the entire presentation. In every single scene he’s in, he threatens to outshine both Hill and Tatum put together. There is one other celebrity appearance toward the film’s end. Those who knew the old show will recognize him when they see him.

21 Jump Street features some awesome character development with not one character being overused. Part of the entertainment value comes from how well these characters work together, as well as how well Tatum and Hill can so naturally offset each other.

And although its story doesn’t offer us anything profound, what it does do is provide some outrageously appealing humor that goes far beyond what would have been expected on the merits of the script by itself. And not all of the laughs are drug-focused teen drivel. There is real humor of varying kinds all over the place.

Watch Trailer

Movie Review: Wrath of the Titans (2012)

Warner Bros.

Runtime: 99 minutes  

Rated: PG-13 (for intense sequences of fantasy violence and action)

Director: Jonathan Liebesman

Writers: Dan Mazeau, David Johnson

Starring: Sam Worthington, Liam Neeson, Rosamund Pike

Action | Adventure | Fantasy

Wrath of the Titans is the second part to the hideous 2010 flop Clash of the Titans, which was deservedly known for its weak special effects, shoddy writing, and terrible performances. But movie number two very pleasingly chooses to step up its game. Sam Worthington reclaims his role as “Perseus,” son of “Zeus” (Liam Neesson), with “Andromeda” (Rosamund Pike) as the Queen of Greece. The two effectively charming leads march ahead with great supporting performances at their sides in a movie that does much better than expected.

The story begins with Perseus having chosen to live life as a fisherman with his young son after the death of his wife. He is visited by his father and informed that due to a lack of prayer and belief in the gods, the walls of Tartarus are crumbling, releasing hellish beings from the underworld to wreak havoc on the earth. A reluctant Perseus is thrown into action when his home is attacked by one of these creatures.

As the gods want for strength, Zeus is kidnapped, leading Perseus to muster his humanity as the greatest asset in seeking out Poseidon’s son, “Agenor” (Toby Kebbell) to locate “Hephaestus” (Bill Nigh), to stop “Aries” and “Hades” (Édgar Ramírez, Ralph Fiennes) from helping Kronos regain his power to break free and consume the world.

No, the film’s very ordinary premise may not sound like much in the realm of mythology, and it doesn’t raise the bar for mythology movies out there either, but it does deliver some wanted goods. What we get from Worthington is a depth-striving intensity that also happens not to lack in credibility (or to have that credibility buried in showiness as with the first film).

There are passable elements of humor here as well—elements with the decency to show us exactly what is relevant while not slowing down the pace in needless character writing. Kebbell carries his own understated effectiveness for his role while Nigh adds an oddly blended personality. Some definite improvements could have been made in Kronos who is lamely presented to us as nothing more than a monster of magma.

The 3D and CGI are nothing short of amazing and the spectacular visuals are spellbinding in a well choreographed and spatially aware presentation that doesn’t leave the audience wondering what is happening in relation to where (a rare quality in visually vibrant action films). The action makes sense, and while not all of it is approaching top-notch, we have a whole lot that is.

The performances, on the other hand, aren’t that memorable, but are to the point and give us just enough to make it through without wincing. The film doesn’t disappoint until the last segment at the beginning of the final battle. Here, the story takes a rather sudden nosedive into melodrama and regurgitated dialog wherein the word brother (or “brotha”) is used to death in sentences and speeches that – along with a dying climax – really kills the ending.

This one for sure doesn’t hit one out of the park. It may actually disappoint viewers looking for too much, but the battle scenes and plot development provide solid entertainment, especially when compared to the previous movie.

Watch Trailer