DVD Review: Hugo

Directed by Martin Scorsese. Starring Asa Butterfield, Chloë Grace Moretz, Ben Kingsley, Sacha Baron Cohen, Jude Law, Christopher Lee and Emily Mortimer. 126 minutes. PG

For a while, I didn't really know what Hugo was about. I knew it was a Scorsese movie, I was pretty sure it was kid-friendly and I kept hearing praise about its visuals. But when I heard that it was a movie about movies, I had to see it.

The eponymously-titled Hugo follows the story of a young orphan boy and his journey to finding a purpose. Set in Paris, Hugo (Asa Butterfield) is sent to live with his uncle after this father dies. His alcoholic uncle, who works fixing clocks in a train station, pulls Hugo out of school and sends him to work, also fixing clocks. While working full-time, Hugo's also continuing a project he'd begun with his father before he died, fixing an old, broken automaton, a robot of sorts. It's almost working, save for a heart-shaped key he needs to get it started. Hugo eventually runs into trouble with Georges Méliès (Ben Kingsley) who works in a toyshop in the station and befriends his goddaughter Isabelle (Chloë Grace Moretz), who joins him in uncovering a mystery greater than he ever expected. This movie is one of the most charming I've seen all year (actually, only in competition with the other France-set blockbusters of the year: Midnight in Paris and The Artist).

There's no way to talk about this movie without mentioning its stunning visuals. It's got a seamless, surreal blend of CGI and live action. Costumes are pay homage to their era though are still interestingly anachronistic. The sets are finely detailed and gorgeous to look at. It's just a beautiful movie. Even the peculiar films within the movie are fun to look at, reminiscent of The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus, though this time done right.

The cast is perfect. Butterfield and Moretz are sweet, naive and innocent. The ageless Kingsley (can you believe Gandhi was 30 years ago?!) is more than convincing, whether playing the grumpy, old toyshop owner or his young self, the excited, exuberant filmmaker. However, the most surprising performance comes from Sacha Baron Cohen as the stern station inspector always on Hugo's tail for loitering around. I'm a big Cohen fan and I think that he's brilliant, so it's even more impressive to see him a role that doesn't require him to be one of his absurd politcally-challenging characters and still be funny and captivating.

If I haven't sold you yet, let me just say one more thing: cute dogs. As if Uggie in The Artist and Arthur in Beginners weren't doggy cuteness overload, there are several more in this film. Seriously, the two that become friends in the station, so cute.

Believe me, none of what I'm saying is because of Hugo's Oscars sweep. I saw this movie and I fell in love. It's just so magical. A+

Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows

 Photo: Warner Bros.

Directed by Guy Ritchie. Starring Robert Downey Jr., Jude Law, Jared Harris, Stephen Fry, Rachel McAdams, and Noomi Rapace. 129 minutes. PG-13.

I’ve loved Sherlock Holmes stories since I was a girl. My father read many of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s Holmes stories, and I took up reading them from time to time when I was young. I was a voracious little reader, and although I couldn’t quite keep up with Holmes’ logical reasoning in solving crimes, I did find the tales thrilling. So when Guy Ritchie got into the Sherlock Holmes movie adaptation business, I was very eager to see what he might do with those beloved characters of British literature. The first movie, in 2009, did not disappoint, so I was eagerly anticipating the second film, released December 16th.

Ritchie and Downey’s interpretation of Sherlock Holmes, as a neurotic, childish, paranoid, bare-knuckle fighting (hollaback: Brad Pitt in Snatch), swashbuckling, semi-reclusive genius was fabulous the first time around. The second time, unfortunately, it’s lost a bit of its initial appeal. Holmes has been left to his own devices since the departure of his best friend and collaborator, Jude Law’s Dr. Watson, from their accommodations at 221B Baker Street in the first film. Holmes seems to have gone a bit further down the rabbit hole in Watson’s absence.

The shine has also worn off the relationship between Downey’s Holmes and Law’s Watson. In the first film, they were practically flirting with one another, which made for quite compelling viewing. In this film, the distance between the two men, due to Holmes’ jealousy over Watson’s impending marriage, is difficult for the two actors to bridge, and the movie suffers for it. They rely a bit too much on a shorthand that the characters haven’t quite earned in this film, a personal history that we as the audience are meant to understand exists because the characters and director say it does, but we don’t see so much of for ourselves. In this way, it helps to have seen the first movie and remember the connection between Law and Downey, because you don’t get much of that in this one.

This film sees the real introduction of the villainous Professor Moriarity (Jared Harris of Mad Men fame), Holmes’ arch-nemesis. Moriarity was only featured in two of Doyle’s stories (although he was mentioned in a handful of others). But his description as a criminal master-mind, as well as Holmes’ inability to catch him on the first try, have given him more prominence over the years as Holmes’ truest adversary. Harris does a great job playing the villain here, cold and calculating, always a step ahead. He seems to relish the role. Not to give away the ending, but if you’re familiar with the stories, you know how things turn out here. Some other liberties were taken here—Ritchie’s timeline is all screwed up with respect to global politics and Moriarity is basically a megalomaniac seeking world economic domination. But you know, whatever.

The cinematography is excellent in A Game of Shadows. The grimy, gritty, and grey London of the first movie continues here with great effect, and there is a fantastic scene in the woods (set along the French-German border). A carry-over from the first movie is Holmes’ ability to visualize, in slow-motion and with great predictive acumen, a fight sequence before it happens makes for good entertainment, and kind of makes you wish he could do the same with all his interactions, especially his interpersonal ones. Or maybe that you could.

A sore point for me is the use and presence of female characters in this film. Rachel McAdams, who I have always generally liked, is so great in the role of Irene Adler, Holmes’ elusive true love. She out-foxes Holmes at every turn, always maintains a bit of smug disinterest, and uses wit instead of wiles (ok, maybe in addition to wiles) to get ahead in a man’s world of crime and intrigue. I wanted to see more of her. Her role is, shall we say, limited in this film, and instead “the” female presence in the movie is taken over by Noomi Rapace, of the Swedish-language Millennium series films. Rapace is great here, what little we actually see of her, but she’s no match for Holmes. Guy Ritchie, why oh why can’t we just have two women in a movie? Must we really always use female characters to either mother or motivate male characters? Sigh.

Overall, A Game of Shadows is an enjoyable romp of a movie, with lots of action and some cleverness. It’s just not as good as the first. C+

By: Jennifer Simpson

Films I love: Breakfast at Tiffany's, Fargo, Being John Malkovich, Melancholia, Volver, Juno

Stay Classy: Alice in Wonderland (1903)

Maybe you’ve never heard of it. Maybe you’ve always wanted to see it. Or maybe you’re just tired of the new. Whatever your reason, the classics are always worth a nod. In Stay Classy, we look some of the films that started it all and how they hold up today. So sit back while we reel through the past.

ALICE IN WONDERLAND

Year released: 1903

How it fared back then: The film was originally 12 minutes long. At a time when cinema itself was still very young, a night out at the movies meant viewing a collection of shorts, and a 12-minute film was considered too long. (HA!) So scenes from the film were instead sold separately and thus aired separately.

The making of the film was actually much like you'd imagine the production of a very, very small indie film, so small that the lead actress, Mabel Clark, also doubled as the studio secretary. The film also starred director Cecil Hepworth himself, his wife, his cat and his dog (who would later move onto bigger and better things, i.e. 1905's Rescued by Rover). Based on Lewis Carroll's Alice's Adventures in Wonderland, Hepworth tried to keep the film as tried to keep as much as possible to the likeness of John Tenniel's original illustrations and ended up spending a much longer time than usual pre-production preparing costumes and sets (which was probably a lot of work considering the main set was a small wooden stage). Though I can't say as much attention was paid to the actual story (but maybe more than later adaptations did).

Why it's lasted: It was the first adaptation of the popular children's book, released 38 years after the book. The book itself is a classic in children's literature, which has also developed a devoted cult following of adaptations, the first of which was this version. The film was also noted for its state-of-the-art special effects (see: when Alice shrinks and, in a later scene, disappears). Almost lost forever, film archivists at the BFI National Archive were able to restore 8 minutes of the film and its original colours for the first time in 100 years. So, technically, it hasn't "lasted" but was deemed historically significant enough to be restored and revered.

Classic moment: When Alice shrinks. Then grows. Then shrinks. As I mentioned, it was also very advanced for its time in terms of effects. On a more literary note, it plays a big role in the story's theme as a symbolic entry into a world where nothing really makes sense.

Does it still hold up? For those aforementioned followers of Alice adaptations, this film is a rare gem. For anyone who doesn't fit that description, probably not. Considering the original intended audience of Alice was children, this is definitely not one for them. It's actually kind of creepy. And doesn't stick to the story very well. Though since the film was originally sold by scenes, maybe no one ever cared for the story anyway. But if you're looking for something for the kids, I'd go for Disney. If you're looking for something for yourself, I'd say try Burton's. Both are really good. But if you love the adaptations like I do, go for this one.

Thor

 Photo: allmoviephoto.com

Starring Chris Hemsworth, Natalie Portman and Anthony Hopkins. Directed by Kenneth Branagh. 103 minutes. PG

I don't know much about Thor, neither comic book hero nor mythological god. And I have to admit, although there was a lot of hype about this film, I wasn't looking forward to it much. That being said, this film did pass my expectations. Expectations which weren't too high and not by much.

According to this film, Thor (Chris Hemsworth) is a battle-hungry, trouble-seeking god with competitive brother issues. He's also heir to the throne until his aforementioned traits leads his father, King Odin, to banish him from the heavens, sending him powerless and hammerless to earth. Odin also deems that whoever finds and wields the hammer of Thor shall also inherit his power. Meanwhile, bro Loki (Tom Hiddleston) uncovers a dark family secret and when Odin falls into a sleep, Loki assumes the crown. However, with the discovery of this dark secret, Loki sees his brother in a different light and sets out to kill him. Of course, Thor is now a mere mortal and doesn't stand a chance. Unless he has control of his hammer again.

I didn't see this film in 3D. I'm not a fan of 3D in general, and the fact that this film was only 3D-ized after it was shot makes it even worse. Though I haven't seen the other version, I feel like the non-3D version was a better experience. Imagining this film in 3D seems kind of unnecessary as there weren't many scenes that seemed to call for it. Sure, Thor thrashes his hammer around a lot but there's a lot more to the film than just the hammer. Actually, the majority of the film is about Thor coping without his hammer.

The cast was good. Just good, with the exception of Kat Dennings who was really funny and offbeat, as she's known to be, though exceptionally so. She seems destined for something bigger. Something with a massive cult-following. Hemsworth did well too, bringing an interesting child-like quality to Thor. And yeah, Natalie Portman was in it too, but isn't she in everything these days? (I apologize for any hints of my post-Black Swan grudge.)

Though possibly one of the best parts of the film was the very end. No, I don't mean the fact that it was over, but rather the teaser after the credits. Seriously, it should be a rule for all comic-based films to have some sort of cliffhanger, ie. "In our next issue..." Honestly, I will see The Avengers thanks in huge part to these lead-ins. And because Thor wasn't so bad after all too. B

Stay Classy: Goldfinger

Maybe you’ve never heard of it. Maybe you’ve always wanted to see it. Or maybe you’re just tired of the new. Whatever your reason, the classics are always worth a nod. Every Friday in Stay Classy, we look some of the films that started it all and how they hold up today. So sit back while we reel through the past.

Photo: source unknown

Does anyone really do it classier than Bond? In black tuxes with slicked back hair and timed precision in everything he does, from planting bombs, framing bad guys and opening fire to save the day. Not to mention, he also gets the gal and a shiny, souped-up Aston Martin. That's just Bond for you.

Sean Connery is the original Bond and to many, Goldfinger will forever be untopped. In this film, our hero is on the tail of Auric Goldfinger, trying to figure out and bust his gold smuggling operation. Along the way, he sets off explosives, high-speed chases and love affairs. I mean, come on, he's Bond, James Bond. Supposedly, Goldfinger outsmarts everyone but of course, that's until he's got the smoother spy on his case.

It's a very slow-paced film, definitely one for fans to savour but it can quickly turn off non-Bond aficionados. Dialogue builds slowly and scenes progress in small steps, all in great build up to action that hits hard.

Connery himself is also a compliment to the tone in his calm coolness. He carries a silent you-can't-touch-me attitude, and who wouldn't when it's true. He carries the ideal characteristics of a spy: quick-thinking, collected and always ready. Of course, that is also because he set the precedent for a lot of spy films that followed. He's also got the perfect spy expression, like he always has a secret, and he almost always does.

Another thing Bond films are often noted for are the theme songs and "Goldfinger" sung by Shirley Bassey is a great fit to the intro in her rich, swelling voice over scenes form the film projected onto a woman's body painted in gold, as the sound of violins and brass slither through the hair. It almost feels like contemporary art. It's such a beautiful lead into the film.

Although it was the third film in the series, the film was also a great set-up to the others that would follow, but because it was so successful, some fans say newer additions can never compare. For younger generations, a more relevant comparison would be Goldmember, the Austin Powers series spoof of the film, sort of. Totally different but iconic just the same.

However, if you like Goldmember, there's a good chance that Goldfinger won't be to your taste. Goldfinger is a film that requires patience and an afternoon dedicated solely to relaxing. You won't feel like doing much after this film unwinds your brain into slow-mo world. But if you're looking for something chill and laid-back, this is where it's at.

Terribly Awesome!: Anaconda

Just another Manic Monday? Wish it was Sunday? Nothing beats a case of the Mondays like a camp-out. And we ain't talkin' s'mores, sing-a-longs and psycho killers. We're talking about getting in touch with your guilty pleasure zone. That's right, every Monday we'll be bringing you the best of the worst. It's gonna be awesome - and terrible! - all at the same time.

Photo: movieposter.com

It's clear that Hollywood has no problems cashing in on our fears. I don't just mean fears of vampires, zombies and ax-murderers. I mean spiders and bats and crocodiles and sharks too. So it's no surprise that they took our fears of slithery snakes and amplified them, literally, in 1997's Anaconda. Because, y'know, why not make us fear the waters of the Amazon River? So much more logical than the monster under the bed.

In Anaconda, Terri Flores (Jennifer Lopez) and her camera crew are filming a doc on the river, along with snake hunter Paul Sarone (Jon Voight), pretty much in the middle of Nowheresville, South America. Totally safe and sane, right? It's all fine until one day, filming and wading through the water, cameraman Danny (Ice Cube), Sarone and captain Mateo (Vincent Castellanos) step into viscous snake territory. While Sarone and Danny make it back fine, Mateo gets "held back" along the way and yes, becomes a snake snack. Failing to realize the stupidity of their idea to film a doc stranded in the Amazon, encircled by an man-eating anaconda, they decide to stick around make the snake the star of the doc instead. Smart, right?

It's become a film infamous for its cheesiness and even revered for it. I mean, what could be cheesier than a film crew getting picked off one-by-one in a swampy jungle by a venomous snake as they over-dramatize terror and continue to make stupid, ill-fated decisions? Well, maybe changing the setting to a plane...

DVD: Clash of the Titans (2010)

Photo: amazon.ca

Starring Sam Worthington, Liam Neeson and Ralph Fiennes. Directed by Louis Leterrier. 106 minutes. PG

Judging from the trailer, Clash of the Titans seemed like epic-done-right: the confidence of 300, a thoughtful story like The Lord of the Rings and villains that were actually scary (glow-in-the-dark Liam Neeson excluded). I saw something else though,when I saw the film in theatres. Watching it again, I realized, 3D does make a difference, and in this case, for the worse.

Clash of the Titans is a remake of the 1981 film of the same name, an adaptation of the Greek myth of Perseus (Sam Worthington). Mortals have given up on the gods and therefore, Zeus (Neeson) has given up on mortals, allowing his brother Hades (Ralph Fiennes) to go ahead with destroying their city of Argos, with help from some CGI-fied monsters. Perseus, a demi-god and son of Zeus, declines life as a deity and enlists to help the king in defeating Hades and saving kraken-bait princess, Andromeda.

The movie seemed to whoosh by in theatres, which isn't necessarily a good thing. It ran then it was gone and life indifferently trudged on. Watching it on non-3D DVD later, I realized how unnecessarily distracting 3D can be. I guess that's what happens when at last minute, filmmakers decide to cash in on the craze and self-destroy their own film.

Sadly though, 2D Clash of the Titans still isn't much to marvel at. The story is very basic: destroy all evil to save humanity. You can probably break most epics down to the same premise but it's just boring to meet the hero, find out the task and believe that he will succeed against all. That's why 300 was so awesome for defying this.

Acting was also very formulaic and over-the-top. Of course this is one of the few genres where over-the-top-ness can work to fuel triumph but in this case, it just felt trite. We expected this kind of acting. We expected dirtied, straight faces delivering clichés in their testosteroned righteousness.

Also thanks to some of the preceding epic film brilliance, we expected gruesomely horrifying monsters. At least in this area, the film didn't disappoint (but didn't wow either). Yes, the harpies are scarier than The Wicked Witch of the West's flying monkeys and the kraken is more frightening, well, than the Pirates of the Caribbean kraken, but Orcs and Uruk-hai remain untouchable.

I cannot recommend Clash of the Titans for any logical reason other than to put your faves that much more on a pedestal. It is mediocre at both best and worst. If you're still dying to see it though, the good news is, you can't watch it in 3D. C

EXTRAS: Behind-the-scenes, interviews, deleted scenes and an alternate ending.

The Last Airbender

Photo: allmoviephoto.com

(Not much to see here.)

Starring Noah Ringer, Dev Patel and Nicola Peltz. Directed by M. Night Shyamalan. 103 minutes. PG

You're probably wondering what the hell an airbender is. But don't watch the film to find out; it'll leave you wondering a whole lot more, namely, what the point of it all is.

In The Last Airbender, races are categorized by elements: Air, Water, Earth and Fire. The film begins with brother and sister Sokka (Jackson Rathbone) and Katara (Nicola Peltz), members of the Southern Water Tribe, trekking through an icy passage. Katara is a waterbender, meaning she can manipulate water for use as a weapon. She's practicing her "bending" when she melts a patch of ice, revealing a massive marble-like iceberg. She smashes it, it melts and inside is Aang and his six-legged flying bison.

Aang is the last airbender, but since there are no more existing airbenders, he must be the reincarnation of the Avatar, able to bend all elements. There's also Zuko (Dev Patel), a Fire Nation prince banished by his father and ordered to capture the Avatar. His father, Fire Lord Ozai (Cliff Curtis) is also out to catch the Avatar so that he does not have to redeem his son. Nothing really makes much sense or seems to have a point before the halfway mark.

Patel aside, most of the acting seems out of a low-budget, local television show, adults and children alike. Of course, it is a kids film so they probably didn't pay any attention to it but if you aren't nine years old, it's unbearable at times. On the other hand, Patel plays the role of evil well. Maybe a bit too much in scenes of anger, but his anguish seems genuine. You almost want cold-hearted papa Ozai to ask for forgiveness and hug his poor, abandoned son.

The only other captivating part of this film would have to be the visuals. A glossy, floating orb of water, spilling in small lashes as Katara bends it through the air seems all too real. And creatures like Aang's bison are interesting enough to steal the entire scene. Then again, there's not much to steal from.

If feels as if there's much more the story that we aren't being told, yet at the same time, we are being told so much. Although nothing seems to fit together. It bogs the entire film down. You're too busy trying to piece together the back story that the hollow plot floats on by. D

Stay Classy: The Goonies

Maybe you’ve never heard of it. Maybe you’ve always wanted to see it. Or maybe you’re just tired of the new. Whatever your reason, the classics are always worth a nod. Every Friday in Stay Classy, we look some of the films that started it all and how they hold up today. So sit back while we reel through the past.

Photo: Scifiwire.com

I know what you're thinking. The Goonies is too recent to be a classic. I hate to break it to you, Grandpa, but it's been it's 25 years since the pint-sized pirates first scavenged their way through One-Eyed Willy's creepy trap-filled cave. In my books, once a movie hits it's quarterlife, it's automatically eligible for such grandiose claims. Especially in this priceless gem of a case.

In her theme song for the family-friendly adventure 80s flick, Cyndi Lauper claims that the Goonies are "good enough" for her. She's way underselling them. They're not just good enough. They're great.

The Goonies is essentially every kid's (and grown up, who's a kid at heart's) dream. A gang of misfit kids (who call themselves "The Goonies" as they hail from an area dubbed the Goon Docks) stumble upon a treasure map in an attic and decide to follow it, in hopes of finding some ancient pirate treasure and saving their neighbourhood from being evicted/turned into a ginormous country club. Along the way they meet some similarly off-beat mobsters (the famed Fratelli's), a misunderstood disfigured boy (me love Sloth!) and some really wicked cave challenges (My nails are still throbbing from re-watching that skeleton piano scene).

While the story is undeniably golden (who hasn't wanted to go on an afternoon treasure hunt with their neighbourhood BFFs?), it's the kids themselves who are the real treasure. Each Goonie has uniquely hilarious characteristics which result in too many notable quotables to count. There's Chunk, the overweight kid whose signature move is a fierce belly fat shake entitled "The Truffle Shuffle." There's Mouth, the smart-ass of the group played by the always-awesome Corey Feldman. There's Data, the smart, gadget-y one who you might remember from Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom. And there's Mikey (Lord of the Rings' Sean Astin), the Michael Bluth of these irresistible ragamuffins, or rather, the serious dude with the map and the biggest dreams of all.

The Goonies are all fun in their own little ways and together, they're sublime. They really are an ensemble, playing off each other in awkward tweenage friend harmony. Like when they're all searching for the map, up stairs, and they take turns turning random attic items into inside jokes. From the beginning, we get the feeling these kids actually love hanging out with each other and would do anything, even climb into the cavernous depths of a possibly-abandoned cabin, to stay that close.

Although the whole cast is awesome, it's particularly great to see Josh Brolin (No Country for Old Men, Milk) be a little silly for once in his role as Mikey's sweatband lovin' older bro, "Brand," who will never be as cool as he, and his ego, want him to be. Here's hoping his latest popcorn flick, Jonah Hex is the beginning of a return to knee-slap-happy type roles. Or at least, the jumping off point (sorry, Joshie, not even Megan Fox can save that pseudo-Western style disaster).

Unlike modern day Brolin, The Goonies isn't quite Oscar-worthy. The performances, while awesome to watch, are not life-changing. The visuals are a bit dated (today, I'm sure Sloth's face would be full-out CGI). And the humour is just silly. But that doesn't really matter. The Goonies isn't meant to be serious or award-winning. It's meant to be fun and over-the-top, sending your adventurously campy side into overdrive. And it does all that, and more, making it a definite contender for modern Friday night sleepovers and Sunday afternoon days in.

Many may argue that the cult-classic world's overwhelming love for The Goonies comes from nostalgia, with Gen X and Y and Hot Topic putting it on a campy cult pedestal. But it's not just for 80s babies. Although it's sadly old enough to have fathered him, The Goonies has entranced my 11-year-old bro. So much so that he asks to re-watch it on a monthly basis. They say Goonies never say die, and I guess they'll never have to.

DVD: Book of Eli

Photo: amazon.ca

Starring Denzel Washington, Mila Kunis, Gary Oldman and Jennifer Beals. Directed by Albert Hughes and Allen Hughes. 118 Minutes. R

Did you ever think that the Bible was unfinished? Is it sacrilegious of me to ask? If it is, then it must be sacrilegious to watch this film. Clearly Legion was a blasphemy, that God wanted to kill humanity, but is Book of Eli much better? The man-slaughtering man in a post-apocalyptic world surrounded by prostitution and profanity?

It's a question I keep coming back to watching Book of Eli. It's supposedly the last chapter in the Bible, Eli's chapter. Set a few decades in the future when much of humanity has been destroyed and the remaining have become savages, Eli (Denzel Washington) is carrying the Bible somewhere. He doesn't know where, he only knows it's West because God spoke to him and left this mission with him. Along the way, he passes through a rundown slum where he meets Carnegie (Gary Oldman), the black-hearted town ruler of sorts. Carnegie is looking for a book, a book that is so powerful it will help him maintain power over his shambled town. His thugs can't read yet they scour the scorched earth for it. And wouldn't you know, the book just walks into town. But when Solara (Mila Kunis), Carnegie's slave woman's (Jessica Beals) daughter, finds out that Eli has the book and lets it slip to Carnegie, Eli has already left town. Carnegie and his men are on a ruthless hunt to get that book.

In a way, it's like Inglourious Basterds. This is the righteous story that could happen, in the midst of bloody slaughter. It's positive in a very dark way. It's a film where you cheer for the good guy and to your surprise and hopes, nothing can take him down. He is destined to do this.

While this sounds cheesy at first, when you think about it, it's actually really difficult to write and direct a story that could fit into the Bible. With all the modern Hollywood bittersweet and brutal murder for murder's sake stories, a story about destiny, faith and duty really cut through expectations. After a while, you aren't hoping that Eli will make it; you know he will because he has to.

Washington seems to perfectly express Eli's determination and rationality. Speaking slowly, walking at a steady pace, not straying from his path, Washington has an I'm-doing-this-and-nothing-can-stop-me attitude. It seems that no evil can come within a 10-foot radius while the book is under Eli's guard.

Kunis plays the naive but strong-willed Solara. She's like a child who just wants to tag along, but for the right reasons. It's really sweet.

As much as many of us love Oldman, he's disgusting as evil Carnegie, but he's supposed to be and that only makes us love him more. He's brutal to his men, he's brutal to his woman and he's brutal to Solara. He's selfish, dirty and a total, slithery snake (well, it's Biblical, after all).

With such clear-cut characters, it is a little predictable but its predictability is partly what makes this film work. Predictability, righteousness and saving humanity. It's so un-Hollywood that it's great. B+

Extras: Additional scenes, featurettes, commentary by Washington and directors

The A-Team

Photo: allmoviephoto.com

(Neeson, Cooper, Jackson and Copley make the film worthwhile)

Starring Liam Neeson, Bradley Cooper, Quinton "Rampage" Jackson, Sharlto Copley, Jessica Biel and Patrick Wilson. Directed by Joe Carnahan. 117 Minutes. PG

The A-Team refuses to cross cliché middle-ground. Instead, the film bypasses some action-flick stereotypes - flat characters, pointless sub-plots - and exaggerates others - the explosive-driven storyline, international manhunts and testosterone overdrive.

Based on the popular 80s TV series, The A-Team follows four ex-U.S. soldiers in a wild money-plate chase, as a CIA agent (Patrick Wilson) and DCIS Captain (Jessica Biel) follow them. Of course, it's more complicated than that, involving a sly escapes (by both living and dead), good guys turning bad and a personal journey for B. A. Baracus (Quinton "Rampage" Jackson), but this is all secondary to saving America.

By far, what most brings the film to life are its characters. Jackson plays the iconic B. A. "Bad Attitute" Baracus, the biggest of the four but the softest at heart, with a fear of flying and doubts about personal choices. Bradley Cooper plays Templeton "Faceman" Peck, the clever, sex-crazed, impulsive womanizer. Sharlto Copley plays H. M. "Howling Mad" Murdock, the, well, howling mad doc. And Liam Neeson plays John "Hannibal" Smith, the cigar-smoking leader. Such well-constructed characters are like such a rare find in action flicks that they're reason alone to watch this film.

If that's not enough for you, there's at least one more good reason to watch: director Joe Carnahan's creative scene mash-ups. In one scene, the four are going through their action plan which is mashed-up with the action plan going down. In another, the four are facing their court sentence, mashed-up with funeral that led to their sentencing. It's so much more effective and exciting.

Aside from these, there's not a whole lot more reason to watch, other than the fact that it's one of the better action flicks out there. It just does things right. It's exaggerated and cheesy, in a very acceptable way. Explosions drive the plot but are all legitimate in that action flick world of legitimacy. In other words, a high-speed airplane chase that ends in mid-air fireworks is totally right. And the four good-guys-turned-bad-guys-turned-good-guys are saving the country because if they don't do it, no one can. It's very much an 80s hero-series vibe, and that's because it's supposed to be, but in that, the retro zeitgeist feels new again.

In short, it's a dude-flick that won't bore the ladies - and I didn't even have to mention Cooper. B

DVD: Alice in Wonderland

Photo: amazon.ca

Starring Mia Wasikowska, Johnny Depp, Helena Bonham Carter and Anne Hathaway. Directed by Tim Burton. 108 minutes. PG

When Lewis Carroll's Wonderland works are adapted, we hope to be thrown into a world that's a wild and extravagant as his stories made us imagine. We also hope to be thrown a surprising jolt every so often on the ride. Disney's newest rendition of Alice in Wonderland surpasses these hopes and sends expectations exploding.

Most of us know the gist of the story. Alice (Mia Wasikowska) chases a white rabbit into a rabbit hole, tumbling head-first miles down to Wonderland where she meets a slew of curious and curiouser characters, all the while trying to get back home. In this version, Alice's journey revolves around a feud between sisters (the White Queen (Anne Hathaway) and the Red Queen (Helena Bonham Carter)) and Alice is plunked right into the dramatic mess.

For those of us who've grown up with Disney's original 1951 take on the Carroll stories, there are certain characterizations that we may already be familiar with. The Mad Hatter has a lisp, the caterpillar words are always painted in colourful smoke and the White Rabbit is always frazzled. It's tough to come into Burton's film with these pre-conceptions, but it's even more astonishing when Burton's new characters completely blow them away and create memorable, believable personalities anew.

Johnny Depp as the Mad Hatter is not as scene-hogging and annoying as the trailers and DVD cover stage him to be. He's a sweet and likable aid to Alice. He could be a bit madder though, rather than let his bright eyeshadow and frizzy hair play the madness for him.

Carter as the Red Queen is terrifying, and she should be. Hathaway as the White Queen seems to be inspired by Glinda the Good Witch and is a little awkward, but in Burton's world, it works. However, it was Wasikowska who stole the spotlight.

Wasikowska makes Alice real. When her mind runs, she sends your mind running. When she believes, you believe. As the thread throughout the film, her commitment brings the story to life as she tugs the audience along on her trippy adventure through Underland.

Yes, Underland. It's Burton, what did you expect? It's much darker than Disney's original Wonderland, but not so much that it's frightening. Characters are literally blown out of proportion (Red Queen's bulbous noggin, the Tweedles' egg-like bodies), scenes are hazier, surrounded by fog and smoke, and evil is eviler. But it's all kid-friendly; there is no gore and no sexual innuendo. Can't say much for the drugs though, the film is littered with pot, hash and shrooms, but we already knew that.

Alice in Wonderland is an entertaining, nutty thrill ride that impresses with loops and curves when you're least expecting it. 'Rents and kiddies can both enjoy the whirlwind. A-

EXTRAS: Featurettes with the cast

The Losers

Photo: AllMoviePhoto.com

(Zoe Saldana slings those guns)

Starring Jeffrey Dean Morgan, Zoe Saldana, Chris Evans, Idris Elba, Columbus Short, Oscar Jaenada and Jason Patric. Directed by Sylvain White. 98 minutes. PG-13

Imagine you’re an ex-special ops soldier. You’ve been riding the wild nights of Bolivia, while the rest of the world thinks you’re dead. That is until a dark stranger appears. And just like that, you’re hot on the trail of an evil mastermind so powerful, he runs the CIA and so cold, he’ll pop one in your face if he doesn’t like your shirt. But you’re going to show him that you and your men will take him down. Does it help that your name is Roque or Cougar?

The Losers is so badass it hurts. In a good way. Based on the DC Comics series of the same name, the film follows five U.S. Special Forces combatants who’ve been left for dead in the middle of South America by Max (Jason Patric), a man they once trusted. For years, they try blend in with the locals. But then Aisha al-Fadhil (Zoe Saldana) appears out of the shadows and convinces them to chase down their betrayer. And thus begins the badass-ness.

While the beginning of the film is a little disorienting because the story isn’t clear, it throws you right into the action. We’re immediately introduced to our five soldiers playing poker: Clay (Jeffrey Dean Morgan), Roque (Idris Elba), Jensen (Chris Evans), Pooch (Columbus Short) and Cougar (Oscar Jaenada). Yeah, they’re so tough that they gamble with guns and knives.

While it’s hard to take the VP of Dunder Mifflin as the knife-wielding, almost barbaric Roque, at first, it’s even harder to see ghost Denny as baddest of the bunch and leader of the pack, Clay. But after a while, it begins to work. Now the trouble will be seeing them as anything but vengeful warriors. Evans and Jaenada, however, seem immediately perfect for their roles. Jaenada was made for that cowboy hat and that silent mysteriousness, while Evans is the perfect blend of sweetness, cockiness and quirk.

However what remains unbelievable throughout The Losers is the story. But don’t make the mistake that it’s supposed to be believable. Stirred into big explosions are spies, scheming and super ridiculous stunts. Of course, it’s all very exaggerated and unlikely but if you don’t roll with them, then you won’t like the ride. The entire movie is meant to be wildly surreal and succeeds by not crossing the line into the cheesy category. B