Star Warriors

Star Wars: The Clone Wars

The magical world of "Star Wars" has undergone something of a facelift over the last ten years. Once the preeminent sci-fi/fantasy franchise in the world, "Star Wars" has become a ghost of its former self: associated most recently with money, complicated special effects and amateurish writing; not the sense of wonder, adventure and humanity that characterized the original trilogy. Almost this entire shift in quality corresponds to the three "Star Wars" prequels, released in three-year intervals between 1999 and 2005. Those prequels, which range from passable to lousy, have gone a long way to dehumanize what was a distinctly human franchise. If the original trilogy was vibrant, bustling and full of life, the new trilogy is colorless, plastic and antiseptic.

The latest addition to the "Star Wars" brand is the animated full-length feature film "Star Wars: The Clone Wars," which takes place between "Attack of the Clones" and "Revenge of the Sith," the second and third prequels. "The Clone Wars" is the first installment of an animated "Star Wars" series set to debut on Cartoon Network and TNT this fall.

"The Clone Wars" is the story of the ongoing galactic civil war between the governing Republic and the secessionist Confederacy, played out in battles fought by Confederate droid armies and Republic clone troopers. Leading those troopers are Jedi knights, protectors of peace and justice in the Republic. Two knights in particular, Obi-Wan Kenobi and Anakin Skywalker, are at the center of "The Clone Wars," just as they are at the center of the entire "Star Wars" storyline. New to the mix is Jedi hopeful Ahsoka Tano, a young woman sent by Jedi master Yoda to train under Skywalker.

Early in the film, Skywalker and Tano are called away from the frontlines for a mission with far-reaching consequences: find and rescue the kidnapped son of gangster Jabba the Hutt, whose criminal organization controls important shipping lanes that might swing the war toward one side or the other.

"The Clone Wars" is the most episodic of the seven "Star Wars" films, and tells only a fraction of a story that will no doubt be explored in the upcoming serial. But because its story is so short and diverting, "The Clone Wars" is more lean and Spartan than its three predecessors.

"The Clone Wars" is very much like the final (and most exciting) forty-five minutes of "Attack of the Clones," filled with non-stop action and fireworks. The beginning battle scene, in which rival armies fight ferociously in the streets of an alien city, is particularly compelling. In the second act, a platoon of clone troopers, led by Skywalker and Tano, scale a vertical cliff wall to access a heavily fortified temple.

One of the more surprising and touching elements of "The Clone Wars" is the sense of brotherhood and fraternity among the clone troopers’ ranks, and the strong impression of loyalty between the troopers and the Jedi who command them.

The funny and heartfelt moments in "The Clone Wars" will surely annoy many "Star Wars" fans and others who find them too juvenile. But "The Clone Wars" was made for kids, just as every movie in the franchise was made for kids.

*** out of ****

Also playing:

Brideshead Revisited ***

Dot, Dot, Dot

Mamma Mia!

Film genres previously thought dead keep popping up now and then to remind us of their viability. Movies like “3:10 to Yuma,” “The Proposition” and “Open Range” keep alive the Western; movies like “Chicago,” “Hairspray” and, now, “Mamma Mia!” refuse to let the musical perish without a fight. It’s a losing battle, though, because more powerful genres, like superhero movies and animated films, continue to take up real estate and edge older types of movies out.

The newest movie musical is “Mamma Mia!” based on the stage musical inspired by the songs of the Swedish pop group ABBA. The story of “Mamma Mia!” concerns soon-to-be-married Sophie Sheridan (Amanda Seyfried), a young, vivacious woman living on a Greek island with her mother Donna (Meryl Streep). When Sophie stumbles upon her mother’s diary, she learns she has three possible fathers. She then decides to invite all three to her wedding, under false pretenses, and predicts she will know her father when she sees him.

“Mamma Mia!” is a sweet, good-natured musical with several magnetic personalities and a handful of rousing song and dance numbers, but inconsistency keeps it from realizing its true potential. There is just not enough substance between the songs to keep it afloat.

The biggest treat in “Mamma Mia!” is Streep and her two best friends Tanya (Christine Baranski) and Rosie (Julie Walters). All three have known each other for years and have been there, in the good times and the bad times. They are wise, supportive, salty and sexy, all at once. Their song and dance numbers are especially emotive and dynamic, particularly “Dancing Queen” where Donna, Tanya and Rosie sing so proudly that they recruit a small army of women who leave their posts around the island to sing along.

The single greatest number is Streep’s show-stopping rendition of “The Winner Takes All,” a wounded and devastatingly honest performance by one of the most talented women in the movie business.

Equally fun are the three potential fathers in Sophie’s life, Bill (Stellan Skarsgård), Sam (Pierce Brosnan) and Harry (Colin Firth), all of whom throw themselves completely into the proceedings of “Mamma Mia!” It’s a real joy to see three accomplished actors, who have often played stone-faced serious men, act absolutely goofy, fumbling over their potential fatherhood. For a closer look at their goofiness, stay in the theater once the credits begin to roll.

Seyfried, who plays Sophie, is also compelling, with a huge, bright smile and a beautiful singing voice. Mostly known for her television work, Seyfried should be able to use “Mamma Mia!” as a launching pad for her film career.

The weakest element of “Mamma Mia!” is its direction; not surprising, because the film’s producers hired Phyllida Llyod, who directed the original London stage version of “Mamma Mia!” but who has no background in film. A lot of the awkwardness and uneasy transitions in the movie can be attributed to her lack of experience.

It’s difficult to dislike “Mamma Mia!” because the movie has such an optimistic attitude and relishes the simple, joyful moments in life. However, the movie is such an uncomfortable mix of good and bad that it finally settles on average. It’s a middle-of-the-road kind of musical, but one that has moments that are worth the price of admission.

** 1/2 out of ****

The FBI's Least Wanted

The X-Files: I Want to Believe

Who will like the new "X-Files" movie? Not necessarily diehard fans of the show, who are looking for grand revelations and close encounters. Not necessarily those who never watched the sci-fi series, who are looking for a ghost story without any baggage. Most likely those who appreciate the new "X-Files" movie are people who are familiar with the television series, which ran from 1993 to 2002, but who appreciate the dynamic between its two lead characters more than the demons and monsters which inhabit their world.

"The X-Files: I Want to Believe" is the story of former FBI agents Dana Scully (Gillian Anderson) and Fox Mulder (David Duchovny), once assigned to a series of unexplained, paranormal case records called the X-Files. Now years removed from the agency, Scully is a physician at a Catholic hospital and Mulder, always more willing to believe in supernatural forces and alien life forms, is a recluse.

One day federal agents contact Scully and ask her to recruit Mulder for one last assignment: help the FBI track down a missing special agent who has disappeared from her home in rural Virginia. Their only lead is a self-proclaimed psychic (Billy Connolly) who claims to see visions of the lost agent. Mulder, who is infamous for his ability to work with psychics, grudgingly decides to help the FBI, but only if Scully participates in the investigation.

"I Want to Believe" has almost nothing to do with the "X-Files" mythology; it stands alone as an isolated event in the lives of Mulder and Scully. And although the hunt for the missing agent is thrilling, compelling and sometimes deeply disturbing, it pales in comparison to the drama between former partners Mulder and Scully, who appear as two people genuinely in love with each other.

The writing in "I Want to Believe," is characteristic of the "X-Files" show: intelligent, realistic and provocative. The screenplay was written by series executive producer Frank Spotnitz and series writer and director Chris Carter, who also directed this most recent "X-Files" movie. Dialogue between Mulder and Scully, tender and meaningful, is especially memorable and sounds like the back-and-forth between two people who know each other completely and intimately.

"I Want to Believe" is short on action, but heavy on suspense. With the exception of a harrowing chase scene through a deserted construction site and a violent climax, the movie focuses much more on investigation than violence.

In many ways, "I Want to Believe" is a throw-back, an analog thriller in a cinematic world gone digital. It’s most similar to "The Silence of the Lambs," a thriller about human monsters and human redemption. In 2008, when special effects and gore are the components of successful thrillers, it’s easy to see why "I Want to Believe" can (and has) slipped through the cracks.

*** out of ****

Also playing:

Balls of Fury ** 1/2

South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut ***

A Knight in Polyurethane Armor

The Dark Knight

The story of the comic book hero Batman has been interpreted and reinterpreted many times since Bob Kane created the character in 1939. He’s been a campy 60s punster, a flashy hero in a rubber suit, and, most recently, a dark crusader in a world on fire. This latest incarnation of the Caped Crusader is thanks to Christopher Nolan, who rebooted the “Batman” franchise in 2005 with the wildly popular “Batman Begins.” That movie gave fans what they desperately wanted: a realistic and believable story of Batman. Its sequel, “The Dark Knight,” was released last week.

“The Dark Knight” continues the story established in “Batman Begins.” Billionaire Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale) is secretly the masked vigilante Batman, who apprehends criminals when the regular police force cannot. He has an ex-flame in the District Attorney’s office, Rachel Dawes (Maggie Gyllenhaal), and a friend in the police department, Lieutenant James Gordon (Gary Oldman). We also meet two new faces, newly elected District Attorney Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckhart) and psychopathic bank robber The Joker (Heath Ledger).

As The Joker’s crimes become more and more deadly, Batman, Gordon and Dent struggle to apprehend the criminal mastermind, who always seems one step ahead.

“The Dark Knight” is easily the best movie in the “Batman” franchise and one of the best movies of the year. It has near-perfect direction, acting, writing and production values. In a world packed with so many superhero films, “The Dark Knight” is the first to completely transcend the genre. It no longer belongs to the pages of comic books; it is a sweeping crime drama first, and a superhero movie second.

Much has been written about Ledger’s performance in “The Dark Knight,” in part due to his ferocious acting and in part due to his untimely death several months before the movie premiered. The praise heaped upon him is not an overstatement; his performance is a tour de force, his version of The Joker terrifying, unpredictable and mesmerizing. His death, at age 28, is a significant loss for Hollywood.

The rest of the actors in “The Dark Knight” also give solid performances, especially Michael Caine as Wayne’s butler and confidant Alfred, and Morgan Freeman as Wayne’s business partner Lucius Fox.

One of the most compelling parts of “The Dark Knight” is its screenplay, penned by Nolan and his brother Jonathan. The dialogue is believable and unforced, the situations harrowing and thrilling. Unforgettable are the exchanges between Batman and the Joker, who form philosophical opposites to each other: Batman, believing above all in justice; The Joker, an agent of chaos, and therefore random injustice.

Nolan and company set out three years ago to reinvent the Batman franchise, ground it in reality and make its heroes and villains believable. What they have done is reinvent the superhero genre.

**** out of ****

The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

Hellboy II: The Golden Army

There are few filmmakers in the world who can tap into their subconscious imagination more productively than Guillermo del Toro. His movies, made in Mexico and the United States, are filled with images that could only be discovered in dreams and in nightmares. He is perhaps most famous for “Pan’s Labyrinth,” a horror-fantasy story set in fascist Spain.

Del Toro’s latest movie is “Hellboy II: The Golden Army,” a roaring action-packed sequel to the first “Hellboy,” released in 2004. Like he did in the first installment, del Toro fills “Hellboy II” with inventive and thrilling sights and sounds. The puppetry, animatronics and digital effects are all superior, coming together to create some fantastical and memorable movie monsters.

“Hellboy II” is the story of a demon from another dimension. He was released by the Nazis through an inter-dimensional portal during World War II, rescued and raised by an allied paranormal expert. In the present day, the demon, codename: Hellboy, is a member of an elite squad of heroes who fight against the forces of darkness.

The latest challenge for Hellboy (Ron Perlman) and his friends comes in the form of Prince Nuada (Luke Goss), an exiled Elf prince who is searching for the key to unlock the Golden Army, a legion of indestructible mechanical soldiers. Accompanying Hellboy in his quest to quash Nuada are fish-man Abe Sapien (Doug Jones) and Liz Sherman (Selma Blair), who has pyrokinetic abilities.

“Hellboy II” is absolutely overflowing with action, stunts and monsters, but it retains the sense of romance, humor and gravitas that distinguished its predecessor. In the end, the “Hellboy” series is one of relationships. Del Toro examines the strained romantic connection between Hellboy and Liz, the star-crossed love affair of Abe and the Elf princess Nuala (Anna Walton), the public’s animosity toward Hellboy, and, most relevant, the conflict between men and the natural world.

Mixed among those interactions are thrilling special effects set pieces, which include a scary battle with voracious “tooth fairies” in a New York City high rise and a scene in the subterranean Troll Market, a bazaar filled with goblins, ogres and other enchanting creatures.

Whether the “Hellboy” saga will become a trilogy is uncertain at this point, as del Toro, who also wrote “Hellboy II,” is attached to direct “Doctor Strange” next year. Then, in 2010, del Toro will begin work on a two-film adaptation of J.R.R. Tolkien’s “The Hobbit,” the precursor to “The Lord of the Rings.”

It’s amazing that del Toro, who began his career making low-budget horror movies in his native Mexico, will soon direct a blockbuster adaptation of one of the most famous stories in the world. It’s a testament to his skill behind the camera, his ability to organize and inspire a team of artists, and his raw creative power.

*** out of ****

Also playing:

The Blob (1958) ***

RoboCop 3 ** 1/2

Invisible Ham

Hollow Man

There are many laws that human beings would happily break if it were not for the fear of being caught. Who knows what actions men and women might take if they were confident in their anonymity before and after the fact. That is the vague philosophical foundation of "Hollow Man," a slasher flick masquerading as a thriller.

"Hollow Man" has a story, but its an underdeveloped narrative used mostly to introduce visually stunning special effects and soon-to-be victims. It tells the story of genius scientist Sebastian Caine (Kevin Bacon) and his research team, made up of ex-flame Linda McKay (Elizabeth Shue), Matthew Kensington (Josh Brolin) and several other one-dimensional personalities. They're all working on a top-secret Pentagon project to create a serum which renders its hosts invisible.

When the most believable part of a movie involves a secret government project for an invisibility potion, something is terribly wrong.

We meet Sebastian as he finally, after weeks of frustrating disappointment, develops a serum which returns hosts to a visible spectrum. The research team tries it on an invisible gorilla and she transforms, although with some complications, into a completely visible being. Sebastian then coerces the senior team members to inject him with the invisibility serum, hoping to complete the final phase of the project: human transformation.

For a long time, easily 75 minutes, "Hollow Man" is completely dull. The audience meets the team, none of who are remotely interesting, and Sebastian, who's a run-of-the-mill egomaniac. Most of the action takes place in an underground lab where Sebastian in confined after his injection. It's strange to see Sebastian, who is touted as a genius, use his newfound powers simply to perform practical jokes on his associates.

Finally, when the movie reveals its true identity, bodies begin to pile up. Everything degenerates into a silly cat-and-mouse game with lots of blood and little suspense.

The only thing which separates "Hollow Man" from "Friday the 13th" or "Halloween" are its visual effects, almost all of which are brilliantly conceived. The most amazing effects involve Sebastian's initial transformation, where layers of skin, muscle and bone disappear in stages, leaving him completely invisible. Other neat effects include Sebastian's invisible body submerged in water and in a cloud of carbon dioxide.

"Hollow Man" was directed by Paul Verhoeven, who is famous for his graphically violent and sexually explicit films, including "RoboCop," "Total Recall," and "Basic Instinct." Although those films flirted with NC-17 ratings, they were all intelligently directed and full of suspense. In "Hollow Man," Verhoeven seems like nothing more than a director for hire; he doesn't appear to care for the script, the characters or even the extraordinary special effects.

** out of ****

Whiskey Sour

Hancock

Let's face it: the summer movie season doesn't take many risks. Year after year, the same big-budget blockbusters show up in multiplexes with the same mega-watt stars. Two sequels, one television adaptation and one musical adaptation are due out this month alone. In "Hancock," however, we have a refreshingly original idea; and, although it features one of the biggest names in the movie business, Will Smith, it's still something of a gamble.

"Hancock" is the story of an unconventional superhero, a man who costs Los Angeles millions of dollars in collateral damage in order to apprehend a handful of bad guys. When we first meet Hancock (Smith), he's passed out drunk and needs to be alerted to a high-speed highway chase by a young boy. He saves the day, of course, but earns the contempt of the city once again. They're sick and tired of his drinking, his swearing and his basic contempt for personal and municipal property.

We also meet Ray Embrey (Jason Bateman), a public relations specialist struggling to impress upon executives the importance of charity and altruism. When man and superman encounter each other, Ray decides it would help both men's careers if he repairs Hancock's image.

"Hancock" is brief, only 92 minutes, but packs a load of material in that span. It's got plenty of action and special effects, but those are largely perfunctory. The real treat of "Hancock" are the interactions between Hancock and other people, including Ray, his wife Mary (Charlize Theron), villains and bystanders, most of whom jeer the superhero. The scenes in which Ray tries to make Hancock a softer and more affable superhero are especially funny.

"Hancock" was written by Vincent Ngo and Vince Gilligan, both of whom bring different resumes to the film. Ngo has a background in suspense and action, while Gilligan, who wrote for "The X-Files" and its spin-off "The Lone Gunman," has worked extensively with science fiction and the supernatural. The result is a script full of action and danger, but with a very intriguing mythology.

Stuck in a summer movie season so fascinated by famous superheroes like The Incredible Hulk and Batman, "Hancock" could easily model itself after an established franchise. Instead, the writers and director Peter Berg made Hancock an unorthodox hero in an unorthodox movie. It's one thing to revive a character who's been developed for years in a comic book; it's quite another to develop a new type of hero in a world with so many established archetypes.

*** out of ****