Russell Crowe plays a journalist investigating the death of a woman linked to a Congressman in State of Play. It stands out from most standard political thrillers mainly because of the fantastic ensemble and taut script, although the ending is sort of a cop-out. It makes countless twists and turns and when you think the story’s all wrapped up and done with, it drops another plot line on you. It’s as smart as a thriller can get. Thankfully the twists never get too outlandish, which has been something of a problem with movies recently.

One night two men are murdered under a bridge. The next day, a woman is killed in an apparent accident at a train station. The woman was a chief advisor for an ambitious Congressman named Stephen Collins (Affleck), and was also secretly his mistress. Collins is clearly shaken. His journalist friend Cal McAffrey (Crowe) notes a connection: Collins is currently holding hearings against PointCorp, a corporation which could potentially seize all emails, all phone taps, and even the national defense infrastructure. McAffrey teams up with blogger Della Frye (McAdams) to try to follow the connections, but they stumble upon an even broader and more violent conspiracy than they thought.

Given Russell Crowe’s track record, I was expected a decent movie. But what I got was the most engrossing film so far this year. It unravels a plot twist every 15 minutes, but never feels gimmicky or contrived. It continuously maintains a coherent plot and doesn’t pull a giant, will-destroying twist in the last half-hour. (I’m lookin’ ya dead in the eye, Eagle Eye) Russell Crowe has never really played a hippie-type role before, and it’s interesting to see. He pulls it off well. It seems with his films whatever type of character he plays is expressed in his hairdo. Helen Mirren, in her first actual performance since her Oscar-winning ‘The Queen’, has 10 minutes and 20 lines as the narcissistic newspaper editor and they’re all golden. Ben Affleck is really good as a secretive Congressman. He’s rather somber the whole film, and although some lines are delivered weakly its a strong performance.

The ending is a bit disappointing. I only say that not because it’s bad from a narrative perspective, but that I was so immersed in the plot and so tense by the end that when it ended it somewhat jolts you. In side roles, the normally lovable Jason Bateman is a very convincing hot-shot jerk and Jeff Daniels as a potentially corrupt State Representative is great. He is always very good in these roles as politicians or cops or TV executives, although I wish he’d do another comedy in the vein of ‘Dumb & Dumber’.

In short, ‘State of Play’ is a great surprise. It has an incredibly tense third act, the performances are all great (Jason Bateman & Helen Mirren are notable) and there are twists and turns everywhere. Now why can’t more movies do this? A-

‘X-Men’ has always an entertaining, if inconsistent series. By inconsistent I mean keeping action and backstory balanced in the first two and mindless, relentless, well-orchestrated action running rampant in the third. The newest one, ‘X-Men Origins: Wolverine’, opts to show the backstory and, well, origins of the primary character, Wolverine. Essentially, it’s all there in the title.

The film starts in the Northwest Territories of Canada in 1842 (although the Northwest Territories weren’t claimed in 1842) with a young boy named James confronting an intruder in a cabin. When he intends to punch him in the stomach three spikes randomly pop out of his knuckles and stab the man, killing him. When the man reveals he is his father, James and his similarly-mutated brother Victor go on the run.

Since oddly they stop aging at around 40, James and Victor fight side by side in the Civil War, in both World Wars, and Vietnam. In Vietnam they are recruited by a General Stryker to join a special team of “mutants” (people with extraordinary powers). When James refuses to kill civilians, he resigns. Six years later, James (henceforth called Logan), is living in Canada with his girlfriend. When she is murdered by his brother, alongside other mutants, Logan (henceforth called Wolverine) swears revenge.

Judging from the trailers and TV commercials alone, I thought to myself, “How can they cram so many characters into one little movie?” Well, that’s the thing. One of the problems with Wolverine, and with the whole X-Men series in general, is that it juggles waaayyy too many characters into less than two hours, unsuccessfully so.

The action and special effects are obviously the main draw, and they deliver. They seem a bit forced and artificial at times, but the special effects are much better than the somewhat cartoonish ones of the last film. Particular highlights are the opening credits and the final sequence atop a nuclear plant.

The film wears the influence of The Dark Knight on its sleeve. Naturally, it’s very dark and gritty, and pushes PG-13 a little bit. Beware scenes where Hugh Jackman is injected with several syringes simeltaenously and one half-a-second but still present full-frontal shot of Hugh Jackman.

Oddly, the performances are the strongest part of the film. Hugh Jackman worked out relentlessly for this film, and it shows several times. He rivals Mike Tyson and dare I say, 50 Cent for the title of Biggest. Biceps. Ever. It helps that he’s a fantastic actor as well, he convincingly portrays an enraged, bottled-up man and were his performance not great, the film would fall flat. However, Liev Schrieber steals the show as Logan’s mutant brother, Victor/Sabertooth. He’s clearly having a blast, and he’s probably the most flat-out evil X-Men villain yet.

In very short terms (I have a bedtime, you see). Hugh Jackman = Great. Liev Schrieber = Fantastic. Action = Great, if arbitrary. Result = A good start for summer popcorn flicks. B+

Whatever Zac Efron goes, two things follow: Teenage girls, and big numbers at the box office. While this will no doubt apply to his new comedy, 17 Again, it’s not really deserved in this case. While the actors are all in top shape, especially Thomas Lennon as the nerdy best friend, literally entire scenes are lifted from other movies. Originality is by and far the problem here.

Mike O’Donnell is a thirty-something workaholic who regrets giving up an important basketball game to be with his high-school sweetheart 20 years ago. Present day. He’s been locked out by his wife, his kids are distant from him, and a pending promotion at his 16-year-long job has been given to a 2-month intern.

Suffice to say, he’s regretting his life, but falls into a magical pool of water and comes out as his 17-year old self, looking exactly like Zac Efron. Mike then seizes the opportunity to go back to high school to sort of ‘re-do’ his life, but he realizes helping his kids is more important. Including helping his son, being pushed around by bullies, and his daughter, whose boyfriend is a practically sociopathic jerk.

Efron is fine here. Actually he demonstrates some actual acting-chops in occasional scenes, but mostly he’s almost lampooning his goody-two-shoes ‘High School Musical’ character. A lot of cringe-worthy scenes come of him not realizing he looks 20 years younger than he is, including when he lectures everyone randomly during health class, and tells a fellow student (actually his daughter) that “You will obey me Maggie!”

Thomas Collins is the best part of the movie. He plays Mike’s best friend, who is obsessed with all things science-fiction and has a not-so-subtle crush on the school principal. (The resulting date reveals she, too, is a sci-fi geek, and they engage in a conversation of Elvish.) Collins has been in some other movies recently (I Love You Man, Reno 911) and is sort of a rising star. Leslie Mann, as Mike’s wife, is funny and sweet as she normally is. Mann has been popping up in several comedies lately and it’s nothing but a good thing.

Obviously the performances are not the weakness. The weakness lies in the plot and the script. The story is not new at all, it recalls a mixture of Big, Back to the Future, and 13 Going On 30. Some entire scenes have been lifted from these very films. And the script falls in every possible pratfall and cliche that a teen comedy would present. Now mind you, there are some really great scenes but it’s not enough to save a very tired screenplay. C

Miley Cyrus converts her Disney Channel TV series into a full-length movie with Hannah Montana: The Movie. Last year she released a 3-D concert film as both Miley Cyrus and her pop star alter ego, Hannah Montana. Now she has an actual movie, with all the characters from the show. It’s just exactly the bubbly, squeaky-clean entertainment that the TV show provides, which is actually sort of a good thing. It has cameos all over the place, from Taylor Swift (providing a musical performance) to Tyra Banks (who plays a rather important part in the film).

16-year old Miley Stewart appears to be just a normal teenager, but she has a very big secret: She’s also pop star Hannah Montana by night, and Miley’s hectic scheduele begins to affect her attitude in a bad way. Miley’s dad decides to make her spend two weeks in Crowley Corners, Tennessee to reflect on what’s most important in life. At first, naturally, she maintains a Valley Girl attitude, namely, is rather stuck-up towards the town and her relatives. But then after rekindling a friendship with her first-grade buddy, she becomes adapted to small-town life. But some people intend to take Crowley Corners’ open land and make it into a giant shopping mall. Can Miley stop it?

There’s some very, very, VERY, corny moments and lines of dialogue. For example, “Life’s a climb. But what a great view!”, and the moments where Miley exhibits her stuck-up attitude. The film bears some uncanny resemblances to another popular Disney movie (*cough* CARS!! *cough*) Sitting in the theater with two 7-year olds, my mom and I accurately predicted to ourselves about 10 events in the movie. On the other hand, there’s some really fun scenes. In particular, Hannah’s catfight with Tyra Banks over a pair of shoes, and Hannah teaching some Tennessee citizens the “Hoedown Throwdown”. Also just about any scene with Miley’s brother Jackson is pure gold.

Maybe I enjoyed it because I didn’t expect much, or maybe because of Miley Cyrus’ charms and musical talent. Or maybe because of my initial bitterness (the theater was packed with 7-year old girls, I was likely the only male) Or maybe I was just in the right mood. Either way, Hannah Montana: The Movie is throwaway fun that your little girls will undoubtedly love. B

‘The Fast and the Furious’ is an odd series. Not really exceptional in any way, except in that it started with a mediocre first movie then actually got better throughout. Not because of any good plot or good acting (uhh, Bow Wow?). First off, yes, Fast and Furious is almost identical to all 3 previous ones. Yes, the action is more intense, and yes, the cars are shinier and fast(i)er. The reason it’s so much fun is that it knows and fully accepts that it’s just a popcorn flick, and that plot doesn’t matter at all for the fourth Fast and Furious.

Set five years after the events of the first ‘Fast and the Furious’, former street racer Dom (Diesel) is now an international criminal, hijacking oil tankers for cash. Brian O’Connor (Walker), once a fellow street racer, is now an FBI agent. When Dom’s girlfriend is murdered, Dom links evidence to a man named Arturo Braga. Meanwhile, Brian is investigating a drug ring led by Braga. When they track him Dom and Brian once again cross paths, and team up to take down Braga. The only way they can get to him is via street racing.

Not much of it makes a lick of sense, does anyone actually care? They want some cool action, cool stunts, and cool cars, and this delivers. Fast and Furious is forgettable. I won’t remember much in about a week. It’s kind of like cotton candy – sweet when you eat it, but melts on your tongue. Pretty good cotton candy, I’d say. B+

Monsters vs. Aliens is just one in a seemingly endless cycle of 3-D animated films, and doesn’t really do anything to distinguish itself from any of the others. It reportedly cost about $175 million to make and doesn’t really show, given that it’s 80 minutes and has about 2 or 3 action sequences.

My guess being that the money went to the actors, such as Reese Witherspoon, Seth Rogen and Hugh Laurie. The only ones to show any personality are Seth Rogen as the shapeless, brainless yet charming blue blob B.O.B., and Stephen Colbert as the President. If it sounds like I hated the film I truly didn’t, there just absolutely was nothing that stood out at all.

An ordinary woman named Susan is about to be married to a boring jerk when suddenly an asteriod falls near her and she grows to about 49 feet tall. The US government seizes her and she’s branded a ‘monster’. She is locked inside a top-secret facility with other monsters, including B.O.B., a super-genius called Dr. Cockroach, a fish/ape named The Missing Link, and Insectosaurus, a big dumb adorable insect that’s about 400 feet tall and really really dumb. Suddenly, aliens drop onto the Earth and the government needs help. This is where the title comes in.

Another amusing cast member is Kiefer Sutherland, (Jack Bauer of ’24′) as a Southern, cigar-chomping General. His role is small, but memorable. The best scene is where Susan, adjusting to her new height, decides to use some cars as rollerskates to defeat a mega alien boss.

The animation is somewhat impressive, especially in the last half-hour, which is injected with action. Rather formulaic action sequences, but somewhat impressive.

Monsters vs. Aliens is a likable movie, how much you like it depends on your age. However, at least for me, it was too formulaic and bland. Seth Rogen as B.O.B. as well as Kiefer Sutherland have amusing roles, but it’s not enough. C.

I have a certain liking, and at the same time apprehension when it comes to disaster films. The thought, the idea that the world could end under extraordinarily violent circumstances gives me something of a chill. Nicolas Cage’s new film Knowing is very much a mixed bag in this area.

Nicolas Cage, despite being a fantastic actor, has starred in a whole lotta junk lately. National Treasure 2, Ghost Rider, Next, Bangkok Dangerous…He’s sort of carved out a little niche in Hollywood of starring in bad action movies, which is unfortunate. However, he remains a great actor, and he’s effective in his role here as an MIT professor who realizes the world may end.

In 1959, to celebrate the opening of a new elementary school, a class puts into a time capsule drawings of what they predict 2009 will be like. 50 years later, they open the capsule. One little boy gets not a drawing, but a paper with rows and rows of numbers.

His MIT professor of a father, John Koestler (Cage), sees an eerie pattern in the numbers: They document, in perfect sequence, the days, dates, and coordinates of every major disaster of the last 50 years, with only 3 left. What happens when the numbers run out?

The film has a great first hour. It maintains a tense atmosphere, and sports an incredible, 3-minute long plane crash sequence. But in the end is where it runs awry. The majority of the last hour is exposition, but there’s a GIANT science fiction twist which is completely ridiculous. It destroys all the tensity and believability the film masterfully builds itself up towards. However, the visual effects, although sparsely used, are really incredible, especially the final scene. (which, ironically, is the worst scene in the film) The dialogue is rather underwritten, as well.

Knowing is ambitious, moreso than many recent action films. But it’s incredibly uneven, at that. Although Nicolas Cage is good, the visual effects are great, and it has an excellent first hour, Knowing self-destructs towards the end. What a shame. What a disappointment. C-

Watchmen is an oddity. It partially mocks comic-book films, but at the same time its a landmark for that very genre. Its action sequences are over-the-top and cartoony, deliberately so, but also features some really breathtaking sequences. One moment there’s blood and bullets flying everywhere, another there are moral decisions and actions that will question many. It’s really quite mature, so lets make this clear: This is no Spider-Man 3.

The most interesting aspect of the film is that it basically takes the idea of the perfect superhero and rips it to pieces. It’s set in an alternate 1985. Superheroes are a reality. People indeed have dressed up in costumes and fought crime, calling themselves the Watchmen, until they were outlawed in the 1970s. Richard Nixon, in his fifth term as President, won the Vietnam War many years ago because of these ‘superheroes’.

The film realizes that if people actually fought crime, they’d most likely be crazy. Take The Comedian for an example. He fights crime, sure. He’s also a raging alcoholic. Adrian Veidt is the smartest man on Earth who makes money by selling Watchmen action figures. Rorschach is a man in a mask, who’s also a psycho who kills criminals to justify his tragic childhood.

The opening credits are really unique. They capture the history of these masked crimefighters, set to Bob Dylan’s ‘The Times They’re A-Changing’. It’s an extended 7-minute sequence that cleverly tinkers with how superheroes would affect history. We are immediately drawn into the action, when an ex-vigilante The Comedian is thrown out of a window by a mysterious figure. Immediately, another former crimefighter turned psychopath Rorschach suspects it’s a giant conspiracy to kill costumed heroes…Turns out he may be right.

Some of the greatest strengths and weaknesses lie in the performances. Patrick Wilson as mild-mannered Dan Dreiberg is okay. He gets the ‘aw-shucks’ aspects of the role right, but is still a little wooden on delivery. Matthew Goode as Adrian Veidt tinkers with a German accent and it doesn’t really pay off. Worst of all is Malin Akerman as Silk Spectre, a woman who is only fighting crime because her mother used to. Her delivery is flat and monotonous the entire time, which gets distracting as she has a meaty part of the film.

Luckily, for every mediocre performance in the film, there is a great one. Jeffrey Dean Morgan as The Comedian is fantastic. The true revelation here is Jackie Earle Haley as Rorschach. He’s in an ink-blotted mask almost the whole time, and gives an unforgettable performance. He’s frightening yet funny. Crazy yet sympathetic. He also gets the coolest final scene of any film character in a long time.

Watchmen is based on an epic 400-page graphic novel which, incidentally, is my favorite book. It’s only natural that I felt protective of it. Director Zack Snyder (300, Dawn of the Dead) adapts the graphic novel really faithfully, like almost frame-for-frame faithful. The film never really develops its own personality that differs from the book, which can be frustrating at times.

The visual effects are also a mixed bag. There are moments like the Manhattan sequence towards the end that really push the envelope (heads up fellas – the ONLY way to see this in IMAX!) or it falls flat, like the Mars sequences that look really campy. The set direction, however, is incredibly well-done.

Watchmen does have major flaws. Some of the performances are weak, the visual effects are campy. But most of the time it doesn’t focus on action, but character development. It focuses on the story, not the blood. It’s thought-provoking, but doesn’t forget to blow our minds. My feelings on Watchmen are mixed, and perhaps a second viewing will clarify them. Until then, I remember something of a heavily flawed masterpiece. A-

The Pink Panther 2 is a tragedy of massive proportions. It stars Alfred Molina, Andy Garcia and Jean Reno. These actors are much better than this. It’s a remake of The Pink Panther series, which thanks to Peter Sellers are some of the funniest movies ever. Those movies are better than this. And it stars one of the funniest comedians ever, Steve Martin. He is most definitely better than this.

I think my biggest problem with the film is that in comparison to the original films, or any decent comedy, it’s ridiculously unfunny. Every scene revolves around Steve Martin getting hit with something or a joke about his overdone French accent or Steve Martin accidentally hitting someone or setting something on fire. The plot is the exact same as the film 3 years ago. The Pink Panther diamond is stolen and the bumbling Inspector Clouseau must recover it and through a series of accidents and elaborate sequences of slapstick, he recovers it.

It seems that Steve Martin in recent days has had two personalities. In one, he is subtle, clever, and funnier than ever. See his supporting role in Baby Mama, his presenting speech at the recent Academy Awards, and even his hilarious memoir, Born Standing Up. In his alter ego, he is a fraction of what he once was, resulting to elaborate set pieces and slapstick to garner laughs instead of actual humor. Enter The Pink Panther 2. You’ll be glad to exit. D-

Most of the time, a film has no real plot whatsoever but the film itself ends up being great fun, and a really good movie. Which makes Defiance something of a curiosity. It has the great story and actors. But the execution is where it falls stiff. Defiance has some moments of greatness, but the end result is a colossal disappointment. Which is a shame, because the cast is great and the story is compelling. It’s the true story of a trio of Jewish brothers in 1941 Poland: Tuvia, Asael, and Zus Bielski who narrowly escape the Nazi camps and build a camp of their own: one for Jews hiding in the forest.

Daniel Craig, who we know as James Bond, turns in a rather subtle but effective enough performance as Tuvia. Liev Schrieber isn’t as mind-blowing as I’ve heard, but he still retains the best performance in the film, as the aggressive brother Zus. It’s more of an ensemble film than you would think. The marketing is rather deceptive: It doesn’t focus on the brothers killing the Nazis, but the inner conflicts the group encounters.

Edward Zwick directs, who has done such great movies as The Last Samurai and Blood Diamond. His films tend to be visually stunning, emotionally engaging, but also retain some really great action sequences. Defiance is a step backward. It has really great action sequences, it is definitely visually stunning, but it isn’t emotionally engaging. More specifically, it force-feeds us too much emotion. C