Paranormal Activity 2 - Review

Nothing like a fun scary flick to get you in the mood for the Halloween season. I really enjoyed the first Paranormal Activity. It was gimmicky yes, but it had a suspenseful concept, chilling performances, some great jumps and scares, and is one of the few films to use the "found-footage" concept well. It was the surprise hit of the season, striking a chord with audiences and critics, therefore making a sequel inevitable (A horror sequel??? wow... how original)

Most of Paranormal Activity 2 takes place before the events of the first movie. While the first followed the hauntings of a young dating couple, Micah and Katie, PA2 centers around the family of Katie's sister. The family includes Katie's sister Kristi, her husband Dan, their teenage daughter Ali, and their newborn son Hunter. After a mysterious break-in that left their home trashed, the family installs some security cameras throughout the house. Once the cameras go in, unexplained and seemingly paranormal activity (hey that's the name of the movie) begins to happen with a strange entity pursuing the innocent family.

I could make this the easiest review ever by summing it up like this... Did you like the first one? If you did, then you'll probably enjoy this one too. If not, then I doubt this one will fair any better. And there is where Paranormal Activity 2's biggest fault lies... its more of the same. Aside from having a moderately bigger budget and more camera's at its disposal, there are no major differences. Then again, I suppose if it ain't broke, don't fix it. The story may not be any special and a number of plot holes are pretty distracting but it certainly works in most of the same ways the first one did as well, and it some ways does it a little better.

If there's one thing PA2 does as well as the first, its in building suspense. It does follow a certain pattern and it takes a little while for anything interesting to start happening, but once things get moving, its a fun ride. About halfway through, things really start getting weird, making it easy to forgive the so-so opening. Also like the first, it boasts an eerily effective sound design, utilizing creative sound effects to amazingly creepy and suspenseful results. The visuals and "ghostly effects" are once again used in a minimalistic manner, using little to no cgi but upping the ante from the first. Its definitely best watched in a full theatre, so everyone in the audience will collectively scream at the numerous jump moments. You never know whats around the corner and what's coming next... and that's what makes these movies so fun.

The new characters work well for the most part. The teenage Ali was a welcome addition as an intelligent young individual whose performance was believable and convincing. The mother, Kristi, was somewhat hit and miss. She was the most frequent victim of the entity, and you do have a bit of a connection to her, even if she's not always the smartest. Her husband, Dan, is easily the most unlikeable character in this movie. At first, I didn't have much against the guy, but his actions in the 3rd act are so incredibly stupid, that I couldn't stand him anymore. I won't spoil anything, but when you see the movie, you'll know what I mean. Maybe that was an intentional choice by the filmmakers, but it didn't work for me.

Overall, director Tod Williams gives us a surprisingly enjoyable and suspenseful followup. Its not as good as the first, is quite gimmicky, and it wouldn't be nearly as entertaining without a theatre full of rowdy people. But if you're looking for a fun scary flick to watch with a group of friends this Halloween, this is definitely a good choice.

My Score: 3.5 out of 5!


Happy Halloween Everyone!!!

Red - Review

Seriously??? Its another team-up action movie trying to recapture the campy fun thrills of 80s action! Well, I guess they don't really bother me that much, I just think its kind of funny how 2010 has been the year of action teams, from The Losers, The A-Team, The Expendables, and now Red.

This action/comedy is very loosely based on a DC Comic about a group of former government agents who are forced out of retirement to complete a new mission. Leading the team is retired Black Ops CIA agent Frank Moses (Bruce Willis), living a quiet and lonely life. His only real enjoyment comes from his friendship with Sarah Ross, a young customer service representative from the pension office who craves adventure. After Moses is attacked by a hit squad, he and Sarah take off to get his old Black Ops back together and find out who is behind the attack. He is then joined by aging ladies man Joe Matheson (Morgan Freeman), the mentally unstable Marvin Boggs (John Malkovich), Russian agent Ivan Simanov (Brian Cox), and bad-ass M16 agent Victoria (Helen Mirren).

That cast is enough to catch anyone's attention. Unlike The Expendables, which consisted of veteran action stars, Red features a cast of versatile and mostly Oscar-nominated actors (though Bruce Willis is, of course, the film's main action star). With such seasoned acting veterans, you would expect nothing short of greatness, and for the most part that's true. Bruce Willis has been doing his shtick for almost 30 years now, and it's still really entertaining. Morgan Freeman is great as always too, pulling off the suave old man routine like one would expect. John Malkovich was great as well, doing the insane H.M. Murdock-type role, and looking like he was having a blast while doing it. The show stealer has to been Helen Mirren! Its not often that you see Oscar winning dames using a minigun in a comic book action movie... I think she probably had more fun than anyone. You also get good performances from Brian Cox as a Russian spy, Karl Urban as the CIA agent pursuing the team, and a decent cameo from Richard Dreyfus.

The action scenes are more or less what would expect, but there were a few stand out moments. I already mentioned Helen Mirren's chain gun scene, so I won't talk any more about that. There's also a memorable moment in a shootout with John Malkovich involving a pistol and a rocket launcher, but I won't say any more than. The action is entertaining, the cinematography is very well done, and the editing is quite slick. Not a whole lot to complain about on the action front... it should satisfy.

Of course, with the good does come the bad. As I mentioned, most of the cast pretty much rocks, but Sarah, the only younger member of the team, played by Mary Louise-Parker is easily the weakest actor in the movie. Her performance is awkward, predictable, and painfully unfunny. On top of that, her character contributed so little to the story, that you could have easily taken her out and the main plot would have suffered no loss whatsoever. I guess they felt the need to add in the obligatory action movie love interest... bummer.

The rest of the story is a bit of a mixed bag. The concept is clever and most of Red is able to stay interesting. Some of the jokes are pretty funny and the characters all contribute some good humor to the action-filled plot. Its hard not to love these characters, and you can see why actors of such caliber chose to take these parts. However, aside from a few moments for Karl Urban's CIA agent questioning where his loyalties should like, there's hardly any character development. The plot itself takes way too many predictable turns and a few holes prevent the story from being something truly special. Its not a horrible script, but without the great cast adding their own flair, I would have probably forgotten about it by now.

Overall, a (mostly) good cast and some fun action scenes make Red worth a watch. Its at least worth a matinee price... go check it out.

My Score: 3 out of 5!

The Social Network - Review

You know how you know that a director is talented? Its when he or she can take a movie that consists mainly of a bunch of people doing nothing but talking and typing, yet still making it entertaining. Granted the quality of the dialogue plays a huge role too, but its the director who has to bring it all together. Of course its not like David Fincher had to prove himself for The Social Network. With a resume of quality flicks including Fight Club, Se7en, Zodiac, and The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, Fincher has certainly made a name for himself (so much so that one can easily overlook Alien 3). So with Fincher tackling a movie about the creation of one of the biggest pop culture icons of all time, how does it turn out?

The movie is based on the true story of Facebook creator Mark Zuckerberg, played by Jesse Eisenberg, who would go on to become the world's youngest billionaire. The story starts in 2004, when Zuckerberg was a student at Harvard. Along with his good friend Eduardo Severin (Andrew Garfield) and a few others, Zuckerberg begins development of a Harvard-exclusive social networking site known as TheFacebook. The sites becomes a hit and prompts the team to expand the site to other schools. As the site continues to develop, the team begins to face a number of problems including strained friendships, unstable business partners, and numerous lawsuits.

First off, The Social Network boasts one of the most entertaining scripts of 2010. That's quite a compliment when you consider that the movie is mainly comprised of a bunch of nerds talking to each other and writing computer code. When that said formula consists of interesting and dynamic characters, a flashback story-arc, and some of the best dialogue I've heard in a movie, its easy to see why The Social Network is so entertaining. The way in which the story develops can be a bit predictable at times and there are no huge plot twists, but there were enough surprises along the way to hold my attention. It is an interesting story that happens to be based on fact. With a true story this intriguing, its easy to see why such a seemingly thin premise works so well. Its not so much a movie about Facebook, or even its founder, but rather a character study of greed, power, and betrayal among passionate and intelligent individuals.

Jesse Eisenberg leads in a pool of very talented actors. I was first introduced to Eisenberg in 2009's surprisingly excellent Zombieland. Here, he once again shows some serious acting chops as Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg, bringing what will likely become his trademark eccentricity. He can be hard to read sometimes, but that works to his advantage. Zuckerberg is reported to be a gifted computer whiz and a very peculiar person, something Eisenberg has down to a tee. Andrew Garfield also delivers an excellent performance as Facebook co-founder and Zuckerberg's best friend, Eduardo Severin. He shows some talent as well, which is good to know considering that in two years we'll be seeing him don the red tights of Spider-Man in the 2012 reboot of the series.

The rest of the actors brings their own charms to an enjoyable and entertaining cast, but there's one more actor I need to address. Justin Timberlake... he really surprised me. I remember watching Black Snake Moan a few years back expecting him to be a terrible actor, but I was wrong. Now, with his role as Napster founder, Sean Parker, he's really shown that he has some extremely impressive acting abilities. His charisma, delivery, and overall demeanor made him the perfect choice for the role. Timberlake is a damn-good actor, I would have never guessed that a few years back.

A great script and great talent just isn't enough for a movie like this. The Social Network also boasts some of the most impressive camerawork and editing I've seen in quite some time. In order to make a movie that is essentially nerds writing code, some stellar technical work is crucial. The editing is quick, every shot is perfectly placed, and the great musical score only adds to the enjoyment. It kind of reminded me of the the 90s techno thriller movie Hackers, only not as over-the-top, colorful, forced or silly (despite the fact that Hackers is one of my all time guilty pleasures).

Unfortunately, the movie isn't perfect. As I said, the script is great, but the ending comes off as a bit abrupt. It only barely wraps up the few story without providing all the necessary closure. Not to mention it came off quite over-dramatic, which is a huge red flag that the movie wasn't 100% truthful. A few parts could have been explained a bit better too. For instance, they barely mention exactly how Facebook differed from other social networking sites. Yes, it was the first one made specifically for schools (or rather just Harvard at the beginning) but in a time where Friendster and Myspace were huge, they never really explained why Facebook was so revolutionary.

Most of the complaints I have about The Social Network are very minor. This is easily one of the most entertaining, intelligent, and dynamic movies of the year. If you're on the fence about seeing this, I seriously recommend checking it out. Its definitely worth the price of a movie ticket, and I wouldn't be at all surprised to see this one get some Oscar nominations.

I give The Social Network 4.5 out of 5!

Devil - Review

One of the biggest mysteries in all of Hollywood has to be how such a talented and (seemingly) versatile filmmaker such as M. Night Shyamalan can go from one of the industry's most revered directors to the butt of numerous jokes. He's kind of like to directors what Ben Affleck is to actors, an individual who has shown some great talent on more than one occasion, but a line of stinkers say otherwise (Although Ben Affleck is starting to show some serious skill behind the camera). So now, with M. Night's popularity at an all time low, it seems quite odd that his new film, Devil, is marketed as "From the Mind of M. Night Shyamalan," especially since M. Night didn't even write or direct, but rather produced and came up with the story. So all the hate and jokes aside, does Devil deliver the goods?

Taking influence from Alfred Hitchcock thrillers such Rear Window or Lifeboat, most of Devil takes place in one location, in this case an elevator. 5 strangers enter the elevator when it suddenly comes to an abrupt stop. Maintenance staff struggles to get the doors open, but nothing they do has any effect. Soon, it becomes apparent that one of those people is not who they seem, and that the evil deeds taking place in the elevator may be supernatural.

Well... that plot either sounds interesting or really really stupid. A lot of the times, keeping a story simple is generally the best way to go, especially since Shyamalan's last few big-budget outings have been so lame. Also, the plot sounds less like a Hitchcockian thriller and more like a glorified episode of the Twilight Zone, again not necessarily a bad thing. I personally love The Twilight Zone, it was a show that was way ahead of its time, and the creativity that was employed in its storylines is, in my opinion, something that has been by-in-large lost in modern TV and cinema.

So... what is the problem with the storyline? The problem is how it is executed. The film's so-called "level headed character" is a religious security guard (Jacob Vargas), providing all the exposition in both dialogue and narration. He explains EVERYTHING!!! He feels the need to remind the audience every two seconds that the Devil is afoot, that bad things are about to happen, or give us the details of every single little development. You know why The Twilight Zone usually worked, because it didn't treat the audience like idiots. It showed without telling, kept some plot elements ambiguous, and let the scene speak for itself, rather than uninspired characters.

Granted, Devil had its moments. There were a few points that did keep me on the edge of my seat, it had a few decent scares, and even I will admit there were a couple parts that I didn't entirely see coming. Of course, by the time you realize that bad things only happen when the lights go out and the whodunnit mystery becomes apparent just a tad too soon, it leaves one a bit disappointed. The runtime, however, is quite short, only about 75 minutes. This works to its advantage, as it did not try to stretch out its fairly thin premise any longer than it needed to be.

One really good thing about Devil was the cinematography. The opening credits feature some good city shots from an upside down perspective, creating a unsettling feeling that sets the mood for the film. Once we get into the elevator, we get some nice close ups that help set the claustrophobic tone. Some decent editing and mostly passable performances do give Devil a slight edge.

I went into Devil expecting the movie to suck, but its actually not horrible. Its not very good either, but I didn't feel too ripped off after it ended. You can't put too much blame on M. Night for this one, since his involvement was limited. The movie was directed by John Erick Dowdle and written by Brian Nelson, so they're to blame too. Its just that the whole movie screams Shyamalan, from its Hitchcock rip offs, Shyamalan-esque plot twists, and messages of fate, destiny, and how everything happen for a reason... blah blah blah. The technical filmmaking is decent, but the writing is seriously lacking. Devil is probably worth a rental, but you can probably skip it in theatres.

I give Devil 2.5 out 5!

The Expendables - Review

Can somebody explain to me why most action movies this summer have centered around teams of heroes? First there was The Losers, then we had The A-Team, and now we have The Expendables. Arguably the most hyped of the three, the Sylvester Stallone-directed Expendables features a cast of nearly every everyone recognizable action star of the 80s and 90s. Paying a tribute to the action flicks of the 80s, the cast sure packs a punch, but is it enough to warrant a ticket price?

The movie centers around a team of mercenaries known as The Expendables. Barney Ross (Sylvester Stallone) serves as the team leader with knife specialist Lee Christmas (Jason Statham) and martial arts expert Ying Yang (Jet Li) as his two most trusted soldiers. Also on the team is the unstable sniper Gunner Jensen (Dolph Lundgren), demolitionist Toll Road (Randy Couture), and heavy weapons specialist Hale Caesar (Terry Crews). The team is given an assignment from the mysterious Mr. Church (Bruce Willis) to overthrow a South American dictator. Upon arriving to the foreign land, they discover there might be more behind the merciless government than they originally had thought.

I'll say this, just like a have a bit of a soft spot for corny B-Movies (as I mentioned in my Piranha 3D review), I also get a kick out of cheesy action flicks. Seeing an ensemble cast of such legendary veterans of the action genre is a treat unto itself. Unfortunately, when the novelty of the cast wears off, there really isn't too much left in this film. The two most prominent actors shown in The Expendables are Stallone and Statham, who while fun in their own right, are easily the weakest characters of the team. They have their moments, and do their part when they get their moment to shine in some sweet action scenes. Jet Li, however, gets some decent screen time as well, but is also out-shown by the previous two.

Dolph Lundgren was surprisingly one of the most enjoyable actors in the movie. He brings his unstable charisma to a very fun character, but like most of the cast, is pushed aside for a lot of the run-time. Mickey Rourke has a very small part as a former member of the team. This was one of the most disappointing parts of the film, limiting the screen-time of who is easily the best and most credible actor in the movie. Some choice cameos from Bruce Willis and Arnold Schwarzenegger (seriously, Arnold is in this movie!) were fun but had little impact on the film as a whole.

I don't have much to say about the villains either. David Zayas, Eric Roberts, and Steve Austin portray the Expendables main enemies of the film. Zayas and Roberts do their villainous schtick fairly well, while Austin's tendency to overact hasn't changed since his last few films. Their standard villains for this kind of story, but came off a bit flat. For a movie like this, it would have been fun to see a more over-the-top villain. Watch the movie Commando and you'll know what I'm talking about. For a movie with a concept that is so self-aware and cheesy, a crazier villain would have fit right in.

The writing overall was mixed bag. When the team was all together, the movie was awesome! The intro was great, as was the finale, but whenever it decided to chill out with its individual characters, it lost a lot of zip. There is a mostly pointless subplot involving Lee Christmas and his girlfriend, that adds little to no development for the plot or his character. There were a few other subplots that detracted from the movie's focus and what it represented. Plus, the violence was overall pretty tame for this kind of movie, save for the bloody opening and climax. Any gore looked like it was added in at the last minute, leading me to think that Stallone originally wanted a PG-13 rating, but changed his mind and added some last minute violence in post production to get an R rating. For a premise so thin, its a wonder why it feels so unfocused.

Typically, the movie knows what it is. I could complain about how silly and cliche the plot is, but that would totally defeat the purpose. The Expendables wasn't trying to rewrite the action formula, but rather deliver a nostalgic flick for those who have fond memories of the 80s. Typically it succeeded, but there were times it seemed like it took itself a tad too seriously, therefore killing the mood. Still, for the most part, its good 80s fun.

To no big surprise, the action scenes were pretty awesome... most of the time. There's a bunch of good explosions, some sweet fights (Jet Li always rocks), and a heavy dose of guns and knives. The finale alone delivered some crazy explosions that will likely satisfy anyone with nostalgic feelings for 80s action. Unfortunately, the cinematography was not up to speed. Stallone decided to use the Bourne-style shaky cam technique. When the camera wasn't shaking all over the place, it often used uncomfortable close ups on the actors' faces. Why? I have no idea. I will admit that action films on average have improved since the 80s, I still don't understand why shaky cameras have become so popular. An erratic camera is one thing, but I really prefer to actually see what is happening on screen. Overall, the action is fun when you can see it.

Overall, The Expendables was pretty fun, but with a cast like this, I expected more. Had the team had more screen time together, and the camera not been so erratic, I would have probably rated this higher. Overall, its worth a viewing, but probably only one.

My Score: A 2.5 out of 5!

Piranha 3D - Review

Just so my readers know, Piranha 3D was a movie that was actually made for me. I mean the filmmakers deliberately made this movie for me. They knew I liked cheesy B-Movie plots, that Jaws is one of my favorite movies, that laughably over-the-top casts are a guilty pleasure, and that insane horror movie gore make me giddy. Okay, well they didn't actually make it for me, but HOLY SHIT THIS MOVIE IS AWESOME!!! I have no doubt that I am going be to ostracized from some of my film-savy friends for praising such a cheesy movie, or that my non-horror watching friends are going to think I'm crazy for liking it, but I really don't care! This movie was everything a horror fan or B-Movie enthusiast would love, its an absolute blast!

Piranha 3D is a remake of Piranha, the 1978 Joe Dante-directed Jaws spoof. This movie takes place in the town of Lake Victoria, a small community on the eve of their annual spring break festival. The town is preparing for tens of thousands of young tourists to invade the lake community, leaving the town's Sheriff Julie Forester (Elizabeth Shue), Deputy Fallon (Ving Rhames), and a small ensemble of enforcers in charge of the town's safety. Unfortunately, an earthquake erupts on the eve of tourist season, opening up a cave at the bottom of the lake and releasing a school of vicious prehistoric piranhas. Now, with the lake full of drunk and horny college students, the hungry piranha take to the unsuspecting party-goers, including Sheriff Forester's children.

While I wouldn't call Piranha 3D a parody, it is certainly a self aware send-up of the horror/B-Movie genre. It knows exactly what it is and knows its audience. Its a bloody, sex-ridden, and balls-to-the-wall horror film that pulls absolutely no punches. It takes a special talent to deliver a "so-bad-its-good" kind of movie, and director Alexandre Aja has that ability. It has a good time poking fun at itself, but it doesn't let its sense of humor overshadow the fundamentals of a horror flick. I wouldn't say that a horror film necessarily needs to be bloody or gory, but if one chooses to go in that direction, than it better deliver on some creative death scenes.

So, is Piranha 3D bloody enough... OH GOD! This may very well be the bloodiest, goriest, most graphic movie I have ever seen. The best part about it is that every death and attack sequence is done so tongue in cheek and over-the-top, that it is hard not to laugh. The scenes are graphic (VERY GRAPHIC) but the executions (no pun intended) are so creative. When you consider that there is an approximately 15 minute scene of absolute mayhem, its a celebration of chaos. Of course, those who come to this movie hoping to see some hot naked women... you won't leave disappointed either ;)

One thing that surprised me is that Piranha 3D boasts a very impressive cast for a film of this caliber. As I mentioned before, Elizabeth Shue leads as the heroic Sherrif of Lake Victoria. Its just funny when you consider that such an accomplished (and Oscar-nominated) actress would choose to act in this. Her presence brings some credibility to a genre that is generally pretty lacking in the acting areas. Ving Rhames brings his enjoyable tough guy persona to his role as Deputy Fallon. Probably the most featured actor is the young Steven R. McQueen as Jake Forester, the teenage son of the Sheriff, who finds himself in an unfortunate situation with the carnivorous fish. McQueen is passable I suppose, he certainly brings the needed charisma to his role, but plays it pretty safe. There wasn't too much to his character other than as the reluctant hero persona seen in most teen horror flicks.

Probably the most enjoyable performances come from the supporting cast and a numerous lineup of cameos. One of the more enjoyable supporting roles comes from Jerry O'Connell as Derrick Jones, a drug abusing pervert filming a Girls Gone Wild-esque video. It looked like O'Connell was having a blast with the role, playing an incredible jerk of a character whose memorable fate is arguably the best in the movie. I won't spoil it, but I'll just say that its unforgettable. The cameos, however, are what really brighten up this movie. Richard Dreyfus makes a memorable appearance in the opening scene, unofficially reprising his role as Matt Hooper from Jaws. My personal favorite was Christopher Lloyd as Mr. Goodman, the local fish specialist. Lloyd brings his trademark eccentricity to the role. Fans of Back to the Future will immediately recognize some close similarities to his Doc Brown persona. Another honorable mention needs to go out to Eli Roth's short role as a wet tee-shirt judge... nice! Overall, the cast was fun, energetic, and looked like they were having a blast making this movie. Great choices!

Whats didn't work in Piranha 3D? Well, the film is definitely not for everyone. Anybody with a weak stomach for blood will want to stay as far away from this movie as possible, and I definitely wouldn't suggest bringing the kids to it. It pushes its R-Rating to its limit, with arguably the most blood, sex, and profanity the rating could accept before reaching NC-17 territory. Of course, if those kinds of things are why you are seeing Piranha 3D, that's hardly a bad thing.

One thing that bugged me was the ending. Like many horror movies, the ending is inconclusive and abrupt, leaving it open for a sequel. This has always bothered me when it comes to horror movies. I don't mind leaving a story open for another, but they really should have provided a bit more closure. Another that I wished I saw more of was from the cameos I mentioned earlier. Some of the appearances were so enjoyable, that I felt a bit cheated that we didn't see more of them, especially Christopher Lloyd.

Overall, Piranha 3D is an insanely enjoyable B-Movie throwback. If you're looking for 90 minutes of relentless gore, sex, and thrills than Piranha 3D will do the trick. Its a bloody good time!

My Score: 4 out of 5!

Salt - Review

Salt is an interesting movie. Well, actually the movie itself isn't that interesting but the story behind it is. The script, written by Equilibrium screenwriter, Kurt Wimmer, originally featured a male actor to portay Agent Salt. It was eventually greenlit with Tom Cruise set to star, but problems during production forced Cruise to drop the role, leaving the movie without a suitable male lead. Finding it difficult to find a new lead, the script was rewritten to accommodate a female lead, and Angelina Jolie was chosen as the new Agent Salt.

The movie centers around Evelyn Salt (Angelina Jolie), an elite CIA agent. Salt is a dedicated, respected, and trustworthy agent, until evidence is presented linking her to a group of Russian spies. Now, with her husband's life in danger and her name is question, Salt goes on the run to discover who is behind this.

Let me address what I wrote at the beginning of this review, "actually the movie itself isn't that interesting." That does not mean that I didn't enjoy the movie, on the contrary, I actually loved it! Its just that the plot... yeah its very generic. If my plot description seems lacking, its because I literally could not think of a creative way to describe such a oft-told story. Once you get past that you have a woman playing a character that is typically male, there's not much to else to get by. The premise was basic, characters were typical, and the ending was incredibly predictable. So like I said, the movie may be good, but its not particularly interesting.

The technical execution of the film is what really made Salt entertaining. I've heard a lot of critics dismissing Salt's action sequences as generic and "been-there-done-that." I understand where they are coming from, but after watching the movie, it occurred to me... for the typical summer blockbuster, what is generic action? Blockbusters nowadays are typically cg-laden, comic-bookish, almost fantasy-like over-the-top action. While Salt wasn't particularly realistic, seeing a movie with human characters doing stunt work not aided by heavy and/or obvious cg was actually quite refreshing. It reminded of movies like Die Hard or Speed, movies that used traditional film making to accomplish cool action scenes. Don't get me wrong, cg has become quite impressive, but its become such a staple of modern cinema, that creativity and imagination has been headed downhill for quite some time.

While Salt was occasionally being slowed down by a basic premise, the movie kept a good pace. The cinematography was surprisingly good for this kind of style. It utilizes the sort of Jason Bourne-ish hand held approach, but tones town the shake-factor so you can actually see what's happening. The action was appropriately erratic but not insane, and the less thrilling scenes didn't rely on shaky-cam gimmicks to increase any moods. For once, a cinematographer actually used this style well. The editing was quick and fast-paced as well. Not much of the movie was dragged out, but instead kept a good pace and didn't lose much of an intensity. It was impressive to say the least.

Acting was pretty standard overall. For a part that was originally intended for a guy, Angelina Jolie was the ideal choice. She brings a good charisma to the character without overdoing it. Plus, she avoids the typical movie cliche of a female agent dwelling on her sexual prowess as opposed to her skills. Of course, while saying Jolie isn't sexy in this movie would be a lie (lets be reasonable, its impossible for her not to look good), they don't dwell on it nor do they exploit it... wise move. The other performances were overall good. Nobody else really stood out, though Liev Schreiber did his usual good job.

The ending of Salt was left often for a sequel and possible franchise. If you ask me, they might have been a bit too optimistic to bet on this kind of concept to keep going. It was a fun movie, but the storyline wasn't nearly compelling enough to repeat itself, nor was the action breathtaking enough to leave one wanting more. A solid action movie, but I would be very surprised to see this one continue.

I give Salt 4 out of 5! A bit generous maybe, but it hit most of the right notes.