'28 Weeks Later': Now, with gore!

It's not very often that one feels like a sedative after a movie. Watching '28 Weeks Later' (trailer) was great, but not for the weak of heart. It was one of the most thrilling experiences I have had in a theater in a while, and I only kind of mean that as entertaining. The action sequences in this movie were terrifying at time and I began feeling that I, like the characters in the movie, were dreading the possible reappearance of the zombies. Wow, I think I'm getting a bit ahead of myself here.

This movie is one of those rare breeds of sequels that actually aren't crap. A follow-up to 2002's '28 Days Later' (review), the movie follows the results of an evacuation of the UK following an outbreak of the "rage" virus that turns humans into zombie-esque killing machines. By the time of the sequel, the "infected" have all supposedly died and the U.S. military has created a green zone in an effort to rebuild the city. If you're getting shades of Iraq and September 11, well, you're not stupid. The references are supposed to be there (and elsewhere throughout the movie), but the director does not beat you over the head with them. If anything, the similarities come across as being more intrinsic to the situation than simply a carbon copy of current events as, like Iraq, the situation in London gets out of hand and a foe that was thought to be defeated rears it's bloody head. It's more political underlying message differs from the original, which was a more personal story about survival. This movie also differs in its treatment of the zombies/infected: they are actually there. In rewatching the original, I was struck by how little they were in it. For the sequel, they went all out and made a movie that was bloodier and, at times, more terrifying. It was the type of movie that I think could actually give me nightmares.

I was glad to see that Danny Boyle, who directed the first movie, was around for the second, even if only as an executive producer. I imagine that his influence helped keep the movie a more creative flimmaking experience, instead of simply an exploitative followup aimed at capitalizing on the profitability of its predecessor. It was great that they also decided not to just remake the first movie or continue the story but, in a way, sought to reinvent the franchise it had created. A third movie is reportedly in the works and I'm sure it will have just as unoriginal of a title. I'll just have to see what new direction they take with the the third one.

Grade: B+

'Spider-Man 3': With third movie comes..no creativity

This seems to be the summer of the threequel, and 'Spider-Man 3' (trailer) continues the trend set by Pirates of, well, let's just say not living up to the the predecessor. In spidey's case, though, it has two solid movies to contend -- and 'Spider-Man 2' was bigger and better than the first 'Spider-Man'. That left some high hopes for Tobey Maguire's third time stepping into the red and blue tights. But something happened on the way: Even though the same actors and the director were in place, the movie was sapped of the excitement and the resonance that made the previous two memorable. The cast and crew, including director Sam Raimi, are still able to hobble together a more enjoyable movie than, say, a Fantastic Four, but when the previous efforts were among the better comic book movies, it's just sad.

To understand where the third movie went wrong, it is best to look at what worked in the second movie. First step, create some thrilling action and a challenge for spidey to overcome. In the third movie, instead of pairing the reoccurring struggle with with Harry and the Green Goblin with one villain -- Doc Oc -- they chose in the third to bring in two new villians, Sandman and Venom. Because of this, they fail to get me interested in either plotline. Even the parts with Harry seem to just putting him in their because they wanted to bring James Franco back. Anyway, the second step is to create a compelling exploration of Peter Parker as a character. Tobey Maguire has shown he has the chops to explore some of the more serious sides of the character, which in the second one took the form of considering whether the whole thing was worth it and if he should continue. There's a particularly great moment when he saves people on a subway and the all see him for who he is and marvel over how he is just a kid. After what he has done and seeing the looks of sheer exhaustion and fear on his face, they have a moment with him and they promise to keep his secret and then try to stop him from having to face Doc Oc, but he stands up and faces his job. There's not moment like this in the third movie. A few times in the movie I started to get a sense of the overall theme of this movie, but somewhere between a dancing scene and the scenes following Kirstin Dunst as Mary Jane, I lost the elements it. There could have been a movie about the twin dangers of hubris and revenge, but too much was going on to sustain it. Even worse, both Thomas Hayden Church and Topher Grace are brutaly underused as the villians (with many out there especially ticked at the lame use of Grace's Venom) and neither manage to make much of a mark

As a whole, there could have been a lot worse ways to spend a couple of hours. I could have watched one of the many, lesser movies that are made out of comic books lately -- due in a large part to Spider-Man's success. But I expect more from this franchise. That's what left me most disappointed. Despite having read some negative reviews, I was fully prepared to like this movie. I just couldn't. Here's hoping that the next iterations will be better.

Grade: C+

'Pirates': An almost three-hour tour

I should say that I have a bit of a bias toward the 'Pirates' movies, seeing as how I have a cousin named after them. And I saw the latest, 'Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End' (trailer), on opening weekend. That said, what I enjoyed about the third installment was more the idea of the first one than what I was seeing in the third. The original, 'Curse of the Black Pearl', was fantastic -- it was an action movie that dared to care more about being funny and enjoyable than having the best effects. It's star, Johnny Depp, wasn't really a hero; he wore a lot of makeup and acted like Keith Richards before he became a walking corpse. Perhaps its fitting that the third movie features Richards in all his cadaver-like glory. This third film surpassed its predecessor, 'Dead Man's Chest', in that it seemed to recognize the outcry from some over the seeming lack of humor, but it doesn't go far enough. The later two, which are essentially just one extremely long movie (seriously, they're together five hours long) that was split, begin a preposterous and confusing story revolving around a squid-like Davy Jones coming back to claim a debt from Depp's Captain Jack Sparrow. This is mated with the East India Trading Company trying to bring down piracy.

The plot of the first movie was, to me, kind of superfluous. It was there and it kept humming along, but it was the journey more than the destination. There is so much going on and so many plot lines among Depp, Keira Knightley and Orlando Bloom -- not to mention the myriad of supporting players -- that there's not a whole lot of time for the goofiness. Perhaps when the movie starts with long line of men, women and children heading to the gallows for piracy, I should have taken that as a hint. Throughout the movie (in which I was constantly checking my watch), I kept wishing that they would all quit being so serious and have some fun. But they didn't and I felt even the ending was unsatisfying. That said, I thought that this one did make an effort to crack more jokes and for that I've got to give them credit and rank it higher than the last one.

Of course the point of this movie was not to impress sophisticated moviegoers -- it's meant to make a lot of money, which it has, and sell toys. Unlike a lot of blockbuster series, at least this one has a worthy link in its chain. If two unimpressive sequels are part of the deal from which we get one fantastically fun summer movie and one of the great popcorn movie characters of recent years in Captain Jack, I'll take that deal any day.

Grade: (a generous) B-

'The Wind that Shakes the Barley': My kindgdom for a subtitle

It's probably not the best to choose a title line/headline that makes me look stupid. But alas. Watching 'The Wind that Shakes the Barley' (trailer), I found myself wishing that I was at home at could put the captions up because for the first five minutes I understood hardly a word and throughout the film I think I missed things because the accents were so strong that my American ears had a hard time comprehending. Also the fact that I had to pay close attention because I kind of felt like there was going to be an exam at the conclusion. It had the feeling of those type of European films (mostly British, although it would be bad to use to equate an Irish movie to anything British) that American doesn't have which are actual histories and not a sexed-up re -imagining of history.

Where the movie excels is in its deft handling of the complexity of the political situation that forms the backdrop, in which it goes directly from the Irish War of Independence to the Irish civil war as seen through the eyes of two brothers. The movie captures the complexity of this struggle and the moral ambiguity of violence by presenting us with a worthy fight against the Brits and then a more questionable civil war. Although director Ken Loach seems to have more allegiance to one side (I won't bog myself too much in the conflict in this little space), he shows the flaws on both sides and in the end I saw the heroism and the repugnancy of both sides. It also features a pretty spectacular performance by Cillian Murphy, who has finally found a movie where he lives up to his promise. He got rave reviews for his role in Breakfast on Pluto, but I found it gimmicky. Before now his standout role to me was still 28 Days Later, but here he manages to pull of such strength from a less than dominating stature and a character who begins so small. He's really the heart of this movie and we see in him how a smart and compassionate man can be driving to the worst things imaginable because of repression.

My suggestion is to catch it on DVD. You'll miss the lush Irish countryside and the always preferable opportunity to see something on the big screen, but it's the type of movie that would benefit from being able to take a break and perhaps use those subtitles. That way maybe you'll realize who Cillian Murphy's brother is long before I did.

Grade: B+

'Knocked Up': Funniest movie this year?

It's probably too early to make that declaration -- I would have missed Borat if I'd said that this early last year. So far that crown goes to 'Knocked Up' (trailer), which is at its heart a chick flick made by a slightly raunchy guy, Judd Apatow -- the real star of this show. Even though his work as a hired hack shows some rather questionable entries under the writer portion of his IMDb profile, when he sinks his teeth into something enough to direct it as well, he's both funny and deft at mixing the sweet in without creating syrup. Although I found his previous effort, 'The 40-Year-Old Virgin', to be superior, they both share the distinction of not being simply a collection of jokes because they have likable main characters whose stories I care about hearing. And supporting characters who make every scene rich with humor.

The setup is a bit ridiculous but made me chuckle even hearing about it. Seth Rogen (longtime Apatow player) plays a stoner loser who (as the title implies) knocks up a sophisticated, pretty Katherine Heigl, who is celebrating a promotion. It turns into a bit of a chick flick in the romance between the two and the taming of the wild boy at heart. I found it lacking compared to '40YOV' in that Rogen was not as likable as Steve Carell's and the plot a bit too convenient and less organic. What it doesn't miss, though, is that it kept me in stitches the entire time -- a bit about one of the characters shaving just about made my friend Owen fall out of his chair (any thoughts on your favorite part, comment away). Even tiny characters like Kristin Wigg's were worthy additions to the story that made me enjoy a comedy that lasted over 2 hours. Apatow also has a knack for writing some of the best representations of male friendship. His guys play off each other brilliantly and are funny without being dipping to the sitcom level of mocking his guys.

Summertime is not generally known as a time for serious movies -- that's what we have winter for! Instead we should take advantage of the best summer fare we can and by that measure this is a can't miss. It's funny, appeals to just about everyone (except for those who have a low threshold for sex humor) and is better than just about any movie you'll see on a marquee this summer.

Grade: A-