Romance that happens just once every four years.

Summary: In a genre that brings us the very definition of sappiness, "Leap Year" breaks ranks with a surprising, witty and artfully wholesome film that will absolutely win for a date night. And the biggest surprise will be that the guy will actually enjoy watching this film.

Review: Once upon a time romance movies were a script so predictable, that the price tag at the box office was the only thing to remind us that there was supposed to be value attached to this art form.  In recent years, graphic language and scenes replaced good romantic tension as a crude substitute for the film ethos.

Leap Year crests the new year with a brilliant romantic comedy that will still warm your heart with a slightly predictable story, while riveting your attention with an eclectic and engaging cast.

A number of the "professional" critics dance with their angry hammers on this film- it is just too clean for the Hollywood banter to believe it could relate to "real people"- since the film shows no sex, and has virtually no offensive language.  The story is obvious and clear. You and your date will know what is going to happen, perhaps except for the last 5 minutes. But that is the point- this story was meant to warm and encourage, not be a gritty or esoteric "reality check".  But the couple that discovers one another in this story is the focus of it, not the story.  Two very adept actors here, Amy Adams and Matthew Goode, have genuine spark and nuance to their dialog.  There are some stock laughs, but also enough odd twist humor to keep it fresh.

Guys, you don't have to like romantic comedies to see this film- you will enjoy it anyways. If tonight is a night to escape and enjoy, and cuddle up with your date, then see "Leap Year". You'll enjoy it! The best light hearted, romantic comedy I have seen in a long while.

Review by Kim Gentes.

Boldly go where no prequel has gone before.

Summary: Instead of patronizing us with a film to placate the trekky hordes, this film completely revamps the Star Trek legacy, giving us grit, humanity, plot believability and fantasy in what used to be a one dimensional world of trek-dom; a triumph of what can be possible with a great filmmaker at the helm.

Review: Writing a new movie for a decades old iconic franchise is the pivotal "chance-of-a-lifetime" for any director. And few succeed. But JJ Abrams is no ordinary director. His prestine vision of the ultimate rebirth of the Star Trek universe infuses, above all, a powerful humanity into the long-loved science fiction yarn.

For over 40 years the legacy of Gene Roddenberry's story has conveyed many things- fantasy, fiction, technology, adventure, characature and time travel.  But rarely did you see much more than characature and stereotype in the development of the cast.  This may seem strange given the cast, but we found each member of the Enterprise to ultimately become one dimensional place holders that allowed for a plot driven TV show that lived on twists and technology to keep us interested.  Character development was never a strong suit of the franchise.  It was attempted moreso in the follow-on movies of the last 3 decades, but never ascended to become more than enhancements of the originals: an arrogant Kirk, calculating Spock, acerbic Bones and mindless Checkov (etc).  

Then comes this new Star Trek, told to us this time from the man who brought us the best movie of 2007 (Cloverfield)- a movie he shot (seemingly) entirely through a single camera- and pulls it off with flying colors.  Abrams is always reaching to pull in the viewer, making everything human, flesh-touchable, gritty.  He succeeds in Star Trek (2009).

Kirk becomes pretentious and arrogant, but fraught with that same guise as a mask to his own failure and pain. Bones is acerbic, for sure, but we gain a look at his real life that exposes those origins. Most of all, we see Spock.  A Spock that is far more human than he ever has been.  Strangely, this makes his Vulcan story seem far more believable.  You grasp his story, you believe it, and you love the ride it takes you on.  But let's be clear- this story is about the rise of James T. Kirk.  It's his human path to a starry, almost super-human stature as the pre-eminant character of science fiction lore.

It's perfectly done, very well acted, and a great adventure tale to boot.  There have been rumblings of "true trekkies" that have dissed the film.  I expected as much.  The vitality of the tales have never been more brilliant in this new film for Star Trek, but we have left behind the plastic, inhuman characters that the original series had given us.  A welcome change.  If you even remotely like sci-fi, this film will delight you.  See it in the theatres, as the shots and action are very engaging.

(I have to say it... even if Nemoy won't!)

Live long and prosper!

Review by Kim Gentes.

Summary: Ingenuis story, focused acting, indie grit visuals and daring direction that doesn't falter; content warnings- some offensive language, some violence and drug use. In my opinion, this movie is not for anyone under 15.  Serious emotional and adult concepts that will be too much for any child.  Again, this movie is rated R, and is not for children.
 

We all strive to be something important in life.  To make a mark, to be involved in something significant.  We want to love and ultimately be loved for who we truly are.  We want to be special. To someone.  Les Franken (played by Michael Rapaport) is just just like you and I.  He is looking for that time, place and relationship in which life fits, your contribution counts and things matter.

But like so many of us, the outward signs for Les are not harrowing his uniqueness in the universe.  Quite the opposite. From his job, to his friends, to desolate outlook on his daily existence, Les's life is a deluge of despair all quietly festering in polite secrecy to the rest of world. 

Until today. Les gets a chance to join a study for a final trial on an anti-depressant drug.  In fact, the drug becomes all Les dreams- or more aptly- Les becomes all he dreams.

The story and preview market the movie as though it were some smart-kneck comedy, but it is far from that.  With blisteringly wry pathos "Special" delivers an unnerving look at the human soul.  Simplistic at times and broken, as we all are, it reverts to the disparity between emotional hopes and the blunt force trauma of reality. There are plenty of coy hyperboles here, but all hit you like a sledgehammer instead of a joke.  In the end, the movie watcher feels like the only joke has been in the shallow portrayal that Hollywood film so often (otherwise) makes of real people's problems.

This movie was brilliant, but it is not for everyone.  If want a chuckle, don't go here. If you want an answer, your not looking in the right spot either.  But sometimes to find a crumb of truth, you need to search for something found only in pain and failure.  And into this world you go, with Les as your guide. And if you can handle the journey, you will indeed find something Special.

Review by Kim Gentes.

The real punishment happened to those who bought tickets.

Summary: Average story, bad casting, poor acting, disgustingly poor visuals and a director that fell asleep; content warnings- prolonged scenes of intense violence and B-movie gore.

For this movie, its hard to pick where to start with the review. Out of the gate, I think the casting was the core problem.  Maybe the most effective and believable death blow in the film was dealt by Jennifer Smith and Tricia Wood whose work on casting strung together a group of misfit action and side-line characters that can't play their roles.  It starts with Ray Stevenson who is abysmally cast as Frank Castle, the Punisher.  I rarely compare movies in a series when leads change, but Thomas Jane did a crisp rendition of the Marvel Comic vigilante in the 2004 release of the Punisher.  He was emotive when engaged in human contact and dark and brooding when overtaken by greif and vengence as the story calls for. Stevenson looks thoughtless and dismissive of the role he is given.  When he has a scene to strike the tension of human and vengeful warrior, he plummets into cutesy comments and unconvincing stoic acknowledgement of emotions.  It was lame.

Dominic West who plays the villian, Jigsaw, is given a corny set of lines that don't come close to anything other than a comedic failure of the essense intended for his character.  The normally intensely brilliant Doug Hutchison tries to save the film with his always intense acting, but is given unbelievably over the top dialog and scenes which comprise of him biting a man to death and joking about "axing" someone a question which he chases him down with a tree chopper.  If it was just a action filled movie with reasonable violence that made sense, I'd have chalked it up to a standard Hollywood grab at the "guy movie" for the holidays.  But this was so poorly executed, they saw the writing on the wall.  To rescue it, they threw in way over-the-top gore scenes of just plane stupid violence.  Nothing about the movie made sense.  Stevenson didn't even look fit for the the agile, near super-quick and smart actions scenes of the Punisher.  He was slow, unconvincing and kept looking like he was ready for a latte break.

Honestly, I'd rather have watched the 2004 version of the Punisher again (for the 10th time) than watch this movie.  I wouldn't even recommend you renting it for any reason. There is nothing there to watch, unless maybe you like campy 50's, B-movie gore attempting to be a big time action film.  One has to wonder whether rumors of a dispute with the director, Lexi Alexander, and the movie company Lionsgate didn't have some effect here.  This film looks like Alexander worked for the first 45 minutes, when let chaos reign on the set, not just the story line.

Thoroughly disappointing and disgusting.

Review by Kim Gentes.

In the manner of "The Happening", the latest world catastrophe movie "The Day The Earth Stood Still" becomes an afterthought to geopolitical campaigning, and removes from the equation of science fiction both science and fiction. With a mildly likable character from Jennifer Connelly, this film tried to find a center but feels like no one really steps to the plate. "The Day The Earth Stood Still" is a post-modern remake of the 1951 film with the same name.

The film has relatively unimpressive acting from everyone including Keanu Reeves who adds another deific character to his resume in the human embodied alien of "Klaatu". Cast in the emotionless alien role, Reeves forms a hesitant proxy to which Connelly's character pleads for mercy for the fate of humankind. The story is worthwhile, but after 110 minutes of cliche and vacant stares of emotionless setup for the plot, there is no tension left, nothing to resolve. Just a bit of a pseudo-science conclusion that seems uncontrived, while still being unconvincing.

For those 50's buffs, you will like the retro renderings of special effects, but after that, its just a long series of gun magazines being loaded and stereo-typical stupid leadership decisions being made. It's always nice to watch a movie that shows political figures as even more inanely foolish than their real life counterparts. Thank God we can all recognize Hollywood's relentlessly stupid political bashing, so while its annoying, at least it doesn't completely destroy the movie. But for its part, not much is there to destroy.

As far as content, there is no violence, language, or sexual content that would offend anyone over 11 or 12. The PG-13 rating is a bit cautious in my view, but there may be 8-10 year olds that will find momentary scenes to startle them and stick in their memory. Beyond that, not much is shocking, surprising or even interesting. Likely the biggest draw of this film is its nostalgic connection to sci-fi films golden era. If you can make it that long, at least make sure to get a hot bag of newly popped popcorn before entering the theater. That way at least something will be fresh about your experience.


Review by Kim Gentes

Another good idea beaten with a club.

The idea of prehistoric man has always been intruiging to viewers of movies. It links our imagination with our humanity by placing what looks like regular people (with bad hair and low tech) back in a land of monsterous animals and mystical understanding.  10,000BC is another very good film concept.  But like my last review (Jumper) it turns out to be a good idea that seems to get the Jr. High School treatment from the filmmakers. The setting is the African continent, likely across the mid to northern parts of Africa leading from the Great Rift Valley through the Sahara to the Egyptian outlet of the Nile.  It is not completely clear where the journey begins, but it is possibly somewhere around Mount Kilimanjaro or Mount Kenya, and ends up in the early stages of the Valley of the Kings, where the pyramids are still under construction.

The story starts out being about a small tribe of hunting nomads who survive on herds of migrating mastadons.  As the creatures migrations slow down the tiny tribe is slowly dieing off.  A personal struggle is introduced and our protagonist is a young tribal leader named D'Leh, whose love interest is kidnapped by marauding horse riders.  In his quest to free and regain his love, D'Leh and several of his tribesmen wander through Africa, gaining tribes of men to help them against the mighty armies of the evil Egyptian empire.  What begins as a simple love story tries to end up being the ultimate movie about class struggle.  The movie has just two problems- no acting and no directing.  The story was strong enough it could have held a good script under its premise, but the writing and details here totally make the film fall flat.  This film in the hands of a master (Speilberg, Coen brothers, or even Gibson) would have been fun if nothing else.  But not only was the directing about as inspiring as 3 day old soda left in the sun, but the acting consisted of glistening-eyed-looks with pretty people headshots and not much else.

Every attempt at emotion and engagement with actual human characteristics falls dismally short of plausible.  The one thing that does work is the well done visuals and excellent set work.

If you have big screen HD TV, wait till this film comes out on BluRay DVD.  You may otherwise feel like you have lived through 10,000 years of tired, cold popcorn crumbs before this film is over on the silver screen. The film is PG13, but that may be simply because it was just too bad for kids under 13 to experience.  The rating here could have PG and it would have been fine. There are a couple scenes of battle and people getting killed in epic battle scenes, but nothing grisly, or frightful for children 10 or over.

It was good, until the movie started.

Overall Grade:	C
Story:	C
Acting:	C+
Direction:	C
Visuals:	B

You ever get the feeling that someone handed a great idea over to a bunch of 7th graders? If so, you have probably seen Jumper.  This is the action/sci-fi/adaptation gone awry from author Steven Gould.  The screenplay underwent a couple of revisions and direction landed with Doug Linman.  Perhaps another couple script revisions were in order here.  Jumper has a fun premise- teleportation.  Certainly people are gifted genetically to teleport, or so the story goes.  David Rice (played by Hayden Christensen) is one of those people.  The story follows David as he grows from adolesence to adulthood, though he remains selfishly focused throughout.  The story has a few plot twists, but nothing teleports the audience to a believable or even enjoyable place.  Ultimately, the film ends with less pizzazz than it starts and the audience is left wondering how such a cool idea was maimed into the resulting film.  There are touches of interesting action, but the plot and the characters remain undeveloped.  Christensen has even less acting presence in this film than he did in the Star Wars episodes where we played Anakin Skywalker. In fact, he still continues to brood of seemingly nothing in this film, leaving me to believe that he has about 3 poses and about zero acting ability.

The film would have been a good rental or netflix download, but paying full price was probably leaving us all feeling like someone just teleported off with our hard-earned money.

Funny, Heartwarming and slightly absurd.

Overall Grade:	A
Story:	A
Acting:	A+
Direction:	B+
Visuals:	A

Juno is the story of a teenage pregnancy, where Ellen Page and Michael Cera play the 16-ish unconventional highschool sweethearts who become pregnant.  Page plays the unbelieveably witty Juno, who is way too smart.  But her lines are so funny and so deftly acted, you buy everything and roll on laughing. Cera plays Bleeker, an emotionally in-touch version of Napolean Dynomite, complete with that same nerdish sex-appeal but lacking the absurd SNL-skit oddball family life. JK Simmons, most famous for his roles on prime time dramas like Law & Order, plays the wise and also perfectly cast father.

I admit, I was dragged to this movie, but I ended up laughing my head off. It was probably too funny, actually, especially for people who might have to deal seriously with this topic.  But the movie doesn't take itself too seriously, and the director here is smart enough to stay away from getting preachy about the issues.  This will be a perennial standout movie on the rental market, and it has already raked in $100million in the US theatres.  It has all quirkiness that links a film to our real world, oddball lives, while maintaining enough Hollywood to make it coexist in a realm of ideology that informs us of "how things ought to be".  I know its considered trite to speak of morality and conscience these days, but this is a refreshing, if slightly unrealistic, story that helps us remember what our best intentions should be.  And there is just enough "Cinderella" mixed in that you get that warm fuzzy feeling without having to throw up at the end.

Juno is a perfect "date" movie for any couple, with a likely cautionary repreave to any children under 13 due to language and sexual themes.  It's PG-13 rating is well-placed, in my opinion.

Far and away, the best movie of 2007.

Cloverfield is the story of an attack on New York City.  I won't spoil the movie for you, and if you haven't seen or read other reviews, then GET TO THE MOVIE. Don't try to find out what happens in this movie before you see it.  You will enjoy the movie way more if you discover the story the way it was intended.  The gimmick here is the "Blair Witch" style handicam filming that is the movie goers eyes through which the events unfold.  But this is done with the masterful nuances of JJ Abrams, who lets the story flow through the camera, instead of forcing the camera to see what will neatly present his storyboard.  It's brilliant.  You come in, remain and leave the story like the characters- uninformed, fearful, occasionally heroic and ultimately human.  The same super-realism photo-imagery that was used in Collateral (Tom Cruise/Jamie Foxx) impacts you here, but with a sledgehammer to the head.

The characters are unquestionably just like us- self-centered and unprepared for much more than living their American lives. Part of the grip of this film is its tanacity to reality, while being a wildly science-fiction yarn.  There is one small hickup in the storyline, in which a military trooper sends civilians back into harms way. Without that I would have given this film perfect marks on all fronts.  But this plot twist does propel the story to its effective conclusion and forces the camera back to document this happening.

If you haven't seen this in the theatres, get going before its done its run. Again, this is easily the best film of 2007.  If you don't get the word on Cloverfield quick enough to see it on the big screen, you will want to rent this in HD and see it on the biggest screen you have access to.  Swimming in the visual experience is part of the plummet/rise rollercoaster you take with the characters, and you really don't want to miss that effect.

No child under 15 should see this movie, in my opinion.  Far too much realism and imagery, along with language to keep the kids sleeping soundly after watching this one.

Best gunslinger movie, maybe ever.

Overall Grade:	A-
Story:	A-
Acting:	A+
Direction:	A-
Visuals:	A-

No Country For Old Men  is a modern gunslinger movie (set in the 1970's) that is more fantastic than Tombstone, more gripping than 3:10 to Yuma (which I liked) and has the nastiest villian in any genre of the silver screen since Darth Vader.  What I like about this movie is, well, everything!  The hero is a west Texas local name Llewelyn Moss.  Played by James Brolin, he is a perfect combination of a likeable, but earthy local man, with plenty of street smarts and a gritty scathe to his voice and actions that make him seem just tough enough to "kick butt" when the situation requires.  The local sheriff (played perfectly by Tommy Lee Jones) is a weathered old guy who plods along methodically trying to find answers.  Both the hero and the sheriff play exceptional roles.  This movie belongs to the characters, so much so that you hardly care where the stories goes. You remain entralled with the great performances of the actors. But the show hangs squarely on the shoulders of the assassin with a self-inforced code of honor. His name is Anton Chigurh (played by Javier Bardem).  You really haven't seen a villian like this for a very long time.  He transcends the typical nasty villian or brutal tough guy.  Yet it is his honor that keeps him even more feared.  Whatever he promises will happen- and most of those promises are not nice.

The storyline is simple enough- a case full of money ends up in Llewelyn's hands.  Coming upon the aftermath of a drug deal gone bad, our hero takes a turn to selishly grab the spoils after the conflict leaves everyone else dead. In turn, assassin Anton Chigurh is hired to hunt down Llewelyn and get back the cash.  Once the storyline spins up there are no less than 5 parties in a hunt for each other.  It is a very well written story and the script is simple, pared back for the action to have impact and characters to grip you.  It works and works well.

No child under 15 should see this movie, in my opinion.  There is some language not appropriate, but its the violence and suspense that will prove too much for younger viewers.

Good concept, good suspense, good action. Not a perfect mix.

Overall Grade:	B-
Story:	C
Acting:	B+
Direction:	C
Visuals:	A-

Tired of the same old daily life you've been living in suburban, middle-class America? Maybe you should be happy with what you have. This is the warning detailed in graphic violence of the action/thriller/gangster adapation called Death Sentence. Nick Hume (played by Kevin Bacon) is an upper level manager with a relatively boring career. He has a great family and a fine life. Into this world of safety bursts gang violence that abruptly ends the life of Hume's teenage son. Watching his dieing son, Hume's grief and anger become overwhelming to the point of retribution. In this state, he begins to wage a war on the gang that caused the death of his son.

The story is intriuging enough with the setup, but the action begins to take over the film. Soon the notions of a plot and plausability are left with a spiraling ascension into bullet ridden violence. There are some very good moments here by Kevin Bacon, and his co-star Kelly Preston, who plays his wife. But the escapes and heroics that take over the film become more like James Bond and Jason Stratham, than the "everyman" that Bacon is supposed to be. After the initial setup of about 30 minutes, the film retreats for about an hour into complete violence and action, only returning to a morality lesson for the ending sequence.

The film is definitely worthwhile seeing, and it has good components of human drama, action and suspense. But one is left feeling like these good components just weren't mixed that well. After seeing unbelievable gunfight scenes, and having almost everyone die, it seemed a little trite to conclude with trying to teach us all a good lesson. There are some strong performances by Bacon, Preston and John Goodman (who plays the most sickly vision of a criminal father you can imagine) and these bouy the story and keep you concerned for the characters.

As for the MPAA rating of R, I would say it is too low. The violence and graphic nature of the film is horrific for any child and is likely too much for many adults. The language is pervasive and affronting. I would have set this film at NC-17. Too much for most adults, let alone kids under 17.

Overall Grade:	A-
Story:	B+
Acting:	A
Direction:	A-
Visuals:	A-

Sometimes movies should stop at one sequel. They have a surprising debut with a relatively modest first episode. It grows a nice following in the rental market. Then usually episode 2 of a series is the normal payoff. Steam has built and you have a big box office run for the second installment. By the third revision, the series loses interest and people aren't willing to dump more cash into a one-trick pony (for the third time). As proof of this model, look at Matrix, Shrek (albeit a strong 3rd showing), X-men, etc etc.

Then along came Jason Bourne, Matt Damon's super-ops spy character that gets more and more believably unbelievable with each sequence. Damon is the most convincing actor to do his own stunts in the last 20 years. His choreographed fight sequences are the most interesting and surprising of all the modern age action heroes. He and Damon Caro (Fight Choreographer) have a master synthesis that makes what could be a normal fistfight become a jaw dropping, no-popcorn-eating event for all movie watchers. Taking out an assassin with a regular hard back book doesn't sound too interesting, unless you see it done by Jason Bourne! That scene alone was 100% better than every other action movie I have seen this year, except for maybe 300 (the movie), which was an amazing action feast for a whole other reason.

Anyways, Bourne Ultimatum is all about answers. You find out who Jason Bourne really is, why he was a part of all this stuff, why they are trying to kill, all the secret stuff. And, actually, it all makes sense. I mean none of it is really all that believable, but come on, this is a super spy movie-- 5% believability is all that is needed!

The movie pays off for action freaks and is engaging for people who just like a bit of a tale to unfold. There is a hint of relational drama with the beautiful Julia Styles playing a helpful agent in Morocco, but thankfully the movies stays the course and Bourne has learned that everyone he gets close to gets killed. So he stays clear.

If you can, rent the first two movies (even if you have seen them) to prime you up before going to Ultimatum on the big screen. Then the storyline will fit and you feel like you got a bit more from the movie. Without it, the action moves along so fast, you may not care that the storyline is also advancing.

For those considering ages and appropriateness, I would not recommend this to anyone under 15 years old, but the film is fairly focused just on action, so some might think I am being prudish with that. It has no sexuality and limited language offenses, so its a cleaner film than most of this intensity of violence.

Simply put- go see this film while it is still on the big screen. It isn't the most amazing thing ever, but it is easily the top 2 or 3 action films this year. Well worth the fare for entry, in my opinion.

Warning! Good Movie, Racy Approach

Samuel Jackson, Christina Ricci and Justin Timberlake make serious statements in "Black Snake Moan", a movie too complicated to recite without giving away the reason to go see it in a theatre. But the complication is not the clarity of the plot, it is in the humaness of the lives of the people portrayed. These are real people. Broken people, with pain ridden lives. The events and connection might seem complicated, but the pain is simple- its the devastation of abuse, objectification of women, and sexual dysfunction.

Beyond that, you should see the movie yourself, if you want to learn something. But be warned- this movie is a torrid of language and scenes that will offend. No child at all should see this movie. NC-17 would have been a more appropriate rating.

While the three headliners (Jackson, Ricci and Timberlake) do their acting well, but most surprisingly Timberlake is convincingly human in his role as a dysfunctional, failed military recruit.

But the acting surprises are best left in the supporting actors roles where John Cothran Jr (who plays a forthright preacher) and Michael Raymond-James (who plays a completely despicable friend to Timberlake) each command their parts with perfection. They should be looked at for awards, in my opinion.

Again, only see this movie if you can handle explicit coverage of a tough topic related with sexual pain.

Don't- I repeat don't- bring your non-artsy, straight laced, people who don't understand the ethos of human struggle and pain. They will condemn you and everyone involved with the movie. And they may be right, but they would also miss a movie that actual hits head-on the topic of sexual abuse and lifelong additions and the roots of such behaviors. And how some parts of small-town America uses their attempts at Christian spirituality and "blues" music to face it.

For sure it is worth while; for sure it is interesting; for sure it is riveting. It just isn't for everyone. You've been warned.

X-men Mutate to Final Stage

Overall Grade:	B-
Story:	C+
Acting:	B-
Direction:	C+
Visuals:	B-

X-Men III: "The Last Stand" is a graphically powerful and purposefully driven story of the mutant children and their telepathic teacher, Charles Xavier. But the story is not so much driven by a fine plot as it is by the weight of numerous stories from the comic book series. In an apparent attempt to appease Stan Lee, X-Men III attempts to wrap several X-Men stories into a movie that incorporates many bits and pieces of X-men comic lore. The result is an overly detailed script that leaves far to much to the screen writers and nothing to the audience. While the special effects are impressive, the story drones on and on about mutant rights and political, governmental and societal injustice against them. Unless you are an X-men comic book fan, watching this film still leaves you wondering why all the regular humans would be so adamant on snuffing out the cool guys with all the powers.

The acting is fairly good, along with the effects, and plays an important part in holding the story together. But the movie relies too much on Hugh Jackman's Wolverine character and this ultimately leaves the film wanting for strong lead. Aside from some notably funny lines, Jackman resorts to the angry razor-knuckled freak to try to rage his way through every conflict. It works but only for a while. After a few confrontations, the audience starts to look for intelligence and interest. But what it gets is more and more mutant powers sprayed all over the screen to help make everything better.

Sad as that might be to any other film, it actually works here and the action ultimately is what this film is all about. One wishes the director would have recognized this earlier in the film, though, because much of it is spent building a plot of human interest (ok mutant interest), not super powered show off time. But the culmination ultimately feels contrived and personal connections of this film feel left out there to blow in the storm.

I liked the film, because it represented the powers of the characters well and fed some decent battle scenes. But I lament the loss of focus this movie has with deciding what it is about. It felt like a thoughtful, but drawn out thinking movie for the first 70 minutes. But for the last 30 minutes it goes bonkers with power mongering and special effects. One expects some of this from a comic book series, but it is very plausible as a good fiction movie.

Watching the "Last Stand" of X-men III was a bit like Jean Grey's character- a splintered division of various stories from the X-Men comic book story line. If you are an X-Men fan from the comic book days, you may be in for a complete revisit of the true Jean Grey story and destination of the Phoenix. In the original comic book series, Phoenix becomes so powerful; she is a godlike being able to resurrect herself from death. But in this movie, Jean Grey and her story line is much cohesive, presumably to help save the audience the untenable myriad of plots that can't be understood by anyone without mutant level intelligence (for more info on the real Jean Grey story/ aka comic books, see en. wikipedia. org/ wiki/ Jean_Grey [remove the spaces from that URL] ).

Of notable interest in this film is Ellen Page as Kitty Pride (Sprite for the X-followers), who does a nice job of developing a enjoyable and personal heroine. Kelsey Grammer does very well as Beast making the character real to me, even more so than the comics, and that was refreshing. Rebecca Romin also does very well as the Raven Darkholme / Mystique character, becoming interesting and surprisingly human.

You will find some good acting here, but it's a little hard to like it all. Overall, its a good action movie to fill up your violence dance card. But as a thoughtful film it fails. This would not normally be a problem for an action / superhero movie, but because this film tries to force itself into making social commentary for about 65% of its length, the fact that it never really develops more intellect through its conclusion is disappointing.

The film is not frightening and won't be a problem for children 10 or over, in my opinion. X-Men II suffers from some slight episodic doldrums as well, with everyone waiting around at the end hoping some eerie reference to a next movie might occur and well.... (I won't tell).

My recommendation- go see if it you like X-Men. Go see it if you like superhero movies. Its a fun, if not inconsistent ride into the mutant world. Still it is worth you money in the theatre.