Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (2009)

O Masterpiece

O Excellent

O Good

X OK

O Mediocrity

O Avoid

Review by Jason Pyles / June 24, 2009

Director Michael Bay’s first “Transformers” movie from 2007 is excellent, as far as shameless action entertainment goes. In fact — though it didn’t win — “Transformers” was nominated for three Academy Awards for visual effects, sound editing and sound mixing.

“Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen” still provides stunning sound and visual effects (hence my “OK” rating), but its atrocious story is utterly ridiculous, even for Michael Bay — and that’s really saying something. Remember “Armageddon?”

Bay is one of those directors whose movies you enjoy, but you’re a little embarrassed to admit it. In planning “Revenge of the Fallen,” it’s as if the three screenwriters jotted down all their ideas during a brainstorming session and Bay decided to use them all.

The first “Transformers” is about an alien race of two feuding robotic clans that seek to obtain a mysterious cube in order to protect or exploit its power, depending on their heroic or villainous dispositions. A fast-talking teenager named Sam Witwicky gets caught in the middle of the transformers’ battle, thanks to one of his ancestors. Sam is played by the hilarious Shia LaBeouf, whose character in “Holes” (2003) also has forbears whose misadventures implicate him.

As for this sequel, “Revenge of the Fallen” begins two years after the first movie, when the malevolent Decepticons want revenge by attempting to destroy the benevolent Autobots, as well as the human inhabitants of the Earth — oh, and also the sun. Yes, this movie is so dire, the villains aren’t satisfied with merely conquering the Earth, they want to destroy the sun, too. The Decepticons’ destructive objectives are all designed to ensure their posterity and redeem “The Fallen.”

It’s no surprise that “Revenge of the Fallen” is nothing more than a summer-blockbuster-popcorn movie aimed at 14-year-old boys, which is fine — especially if you’re a 14-year-old boy. If you’re looking for plenty of pyrotechnics and Megan Fox wearing cut-off jean shorts, a la Catherine Bach, then this your movie. But if you’re looking for a coherent story, you’ll have better luck with “Armageddon.” Again, that’s saying something.

Variety’s film critic Joe Leydon wrote a book called “Guide to Essential Movies You Must See,” in which he suggests that filmmaking pioneer Edwin S. Porter demonstrated how “spectacle is not enough; movies also have to tell compelling stories.” Indeed. Somebody needs to tell Michael Bay that.

Directed by Michael Bay

Shia LaBeouf / Megan Fox / John Turturro

Sci-fi / Action 150 min.

MPAA: PG-13 (for intense sequences of sci-fi action violence, language, some crude and sexual material, and brief drug material)

Year One (2009)

O Masterpiece

O Excellent

O Good

X OK

O Mediocrity

O Avoid

Review by Jason Pyles / June 19, 2009

For many years now, the American cinema has been suffering from a disease I call the genre parody. Cringe-worthy movies like “Meet the Spartans” and “Dance Flick” spoof other films, such as “300” and “Step Up 2: The Streets,” respectively.

Following suit, “Year One” borrows a great deal from “10,000 BC” and “Apocalypto,” but it’s better than the comedies mentioned above, because it’s not so grossly exaggerated — though it is gross.

Michael Cera plays Oh, the smartest member of his caveman tribe, and Jack Black is Zed, the village idiot. Oh is a gatherer and Zed thinks he’s a hunter. When the odd outcasts are banished from their community, they begin to wander (along with the plot), encountering biblical people and places, such as Cain and Abel and Sodom — of Sodom and Gomorrah fame.

And it comes to pass, verily, that these unlikely heroes are given the opportunity to prove their worth to themselves and those who had doubted them.

Pairing Jack Black and Michael Cera together as a comedic duo was a stroke of casting genius. Clashing Black’s overstated overconfidence with Cera’s understated timidity is funnier than a tickle fight at your fourth-grade teacher’s house. In fact, the first 10 minutes of “Year One” feels like the two actors are trading punch lines during a stand-up comedy skit.

“Year One” is not necessarily a family film. Its PG-13 rating includes “crude and sexual content throughout” and some so-called “comic violence” that’s closer to Scorsese than the three stooges. Because of the biblical humor and vaguely philosophical dialogue, some viewers might sense a mean-spirited undertone of contempt for religion.

Even though “Year One” rates above mediocrity, by all means, go to the movies this weekend and consider seeing “The Proposal” instead. And if you’re determined to watch a prehistoric comedy, I’d recommend “Caveman” (1981), starring Ringo Starr and Dennis Quaid. It has one of the best musical sequences in all moviedom.

Directed by Harold Ramis

Jack Black / Michael Cera / Olivia Wilde

Comedy 100 min.

MPAA Rating: PG-13 (for crude and sexual content throughout, brief strong language and comic violence)

The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3 (2009)

O Masterpiece

O Excellent

X Good

O OK

O Mediocrity

O Avoid

Review by Jason Pyles / June 12, 2009

Two-thirds of “The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3” ticks away in approximate real time, which means the time it takes for the events to unfold onscreen equals the time they would take in reality. (The cinema typically condenses time, which is how we’re able to watch stories that span days or years in only a couple of hours.)

Notably, this movie’s real-time portion isn’t depicted through long, unbroken takes, as in Alfred Hitchcock’s “Rope” (1948); instead, the plot is delivered as it is in “High Noon” (1952), with several cuts painstakingly aligned to correspond with the minute-hand of your trusty wristwatch — which amounts to impressive, labor-intensive filmmaking.

Denzel Washington plays Walter Garber, a train dispatcher who works at a rail control center in New York City. He happens to be on duty when a madman who calls himself Ryder (John Travolta) launches a hostage-ransom plot by commandeering Pelham 1 2 3, a subway train filled with passengers. If the city of New York doesn’t deliver $10 million within an hour, Ryder threatens to shoot one passenger for each minute the ransom is late.

Travolta portrays this villain as intelligent and unstable — a loose cannon with the volatility of a Quentin Tarantino henchman. Other actors of note include John Turturro as a would-be hostage negotiator, and James Gandolfini (aka Tony Soprano) as an unpopular New York City mayor.

“Pelham 1 2 3” is a remake of a 1974 movie by the same name. Both films are based John Godey’s novel. Unlike many summer blockbusters, “Pelham 1 2 3” is more than just a big, loud action flick: In one scene, Garber’s worried wife instructs him that he must return home safely, because he needs to buy milk. Another moving moment involves an act of pure heroism by a minor character.

Credible little touches like these engage us in a movie that has many scenes that are merely two actors talking to each other over a radio. But the film’s highlight is Washington’s nuanced performance as a flawed hero and good man. I was reminded of another Washington film — perhaps his best — called “John Q” (2002), where he plays a hostage captor.

By the way, real-time enthusiasts should consider seeing “Timecode” (2000), if only for its quartered screen that reveals four, simultaneously unfolding stories that are uninterrupted by editing. And if you’re fond of hostage movies, I recommend “Hostage” (2005), with Bruce Willis. Remarkably, it’s a hostage film within a hostage film.

Directed by Tony Scott

Denzel Washington / John Travolta / John Turturro

Crime 106 min.

MPAA Rating: R (for violence and pervasive language)

The Hangover (2009)

O Masterpiece

O Excellent

X Good

O OK

O Mediocrity

O Avoid

Review by Jason Pyles / June 5, 2009

Recounting tales of drunkenness or mentioning the expression, “What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas,” always seems to make people laugh — why? I can’t explain their perpetual humorousness, but these two comedic concepts are the foundation for “The Hangover,” and sure enough, they’re still funny in this movie.

Along with being a comedy, “The Hangover” is also a mystery whose plot duration is three days. It begins with a jittery bride receiving the bad news on her wedding day that her groom has gone missing amid the revelry of his Las Vegas bachelor party.

To build the intrigue behind the groom’s whereabouts, “The Hangover” flashes back two days earlier and shows the four friends taking a road trip from Los Angeles to Sin City. As their wild night begins, the film jumps ahead to “the morning after,” where our curiosity is piqued further as we’re shown the bizarre aftermath of their all-night antics.

The previews reveal that the guys somehow acquire a chicken, a police car, a tiger and a baby — all mysteries because none of them remembers what happened. The true fun of “The Hangover” is learning how all this weirdness transpired, as the trio pieces the evening back together throughout the movie, while searching for the groom.

The director, Todd Phillips, is known for other party movies like “Road Trip” (2000) and “Old School” (2003). Justin Bartha plays the groom, but it’s the other three actors who carry this caper: Bradley Cooper is a restless school teacher and good-times instigator; Zach Galifianakis plays the hilarious yet alarming future brother-in-law; and Ed Helms basically reprises his Andy Bernard persona from “The Office.”

Despite its successes, “The Hangover” has one black eye, so to speak, that’s truly tasteless and borderline illegal filmmaking: In this appalling scene, a baby — yes, a baby — is compelled to make sex-related gestures. Multiple children were used to film the baby’s role, so one must wonder how many parents agreed to allow their child to be exploited this way, and how exactly were those babies persuaded to cry hysterically on cue?

Aside from this lapse in judgment, “The Hangover” is entertaining and reminiscent of Peter Berg’s “Very Bad Things” (1998). More than any other movie I can recall, this vulgar film has a surefire method for persuading its viewers stay for the credits. It’s impossible to leave — no matter how much you’ve had to drink.

Directed by Todd Phillips

Bradley Cooper / Zach Galifianakis / Ed Helms

Comedy / Mystery     100 min.

MPAA: R (for pervasive language, sexual content including nudity, and some drug material)

Drag Me to Hell (2009)

O Masterpiece

O Excellent

O Good

O OK

O Mediocrity

X Avoid

Review by Jason Pyles / June 1, 2009

Movies like “Drag Me to Hell” are irrefutable justification for movie critics, as is the misrepresented marketing of such films. This is the kind of movie where spectators leave before it ends (which happened during my screening) and demand refunds. Unless you’re a special kind of movie-lover, I recommend avoiding “Drag Me to Hell,” but probably not for the reasons you suspect.

Sam Raimi directed this movie, and he also co-wrote it with his brother, Ivan. Now, I should note that both Raimis are fairly competent filmmakers. “Spider-Man 3” (2007), which wasn’t as good as its predecessors, was directed by Sam and both brothers were screenwriters. Noting their abilities lends support to what follows.

The problem with “Drag Me to Hell” is its marketing. It has been portrayed as a serious attempt at horror, but actually, it’s a hybrid of horror and comedy-horror, a la “The Evil Dead” (1981) and “Army of Darkness” (1992) — both Raimi products. Are you starting to get the picture?

Yes, “Drag Me to Hell” is obviously meant to achieve two purposes: to get cheap, jumpy scares and to slip a new, laughably bad cult favorite in on unsuspecting moviegoers. Indeed, if this film’s previews had represented it accurately, its box office numbers would be drastically lower. This is not a pay-good-money to see kind of movie. Remember “Blood Diner” (1987)? It’s not quite that bad, but it comes close at times.

Ironically, Christine Brown (Alison Lohman) — the young woman at risk of being dragged to hell — is a good person. As the movie begins, everything in her life is coming into alignment. She’s dating a great guy, and she’s in the running for a position as the assistant bank manager at a California bank.

But while trying to prove that she can make the tough calls, she denies a grotesque gypsy woman an extension on her loan, which means the old lady will be left homeless. The elderly woman begs, causing a scene, and is removed from the premises. To make a long story short, the creepy woman places a curse on Christine that will result in her being terrorized by a demon for three days, after which she’ll literally be dragged to hell to suffer for eternity ... unless she can find a way to escape the curse.

It wouldn’t be right for me to describe the comical ridiculousness that unfolds (in case anyone still plans to see this movie), but let me just say this: “Drag Me to Hell” could have easily been titled “Scary Movie 5.” And if there ever is a “Scary Movie 5,” even though “Drag Me” seems like a good candidate for parodying, it probably wouldn’t work because the source material is already so farcical.

The point is, this film is made just fine for what its devious creators were trying to accomplish — which is horror-movie kitsch. Judging it in those terms (which are lenient), “Drag Me to Hell” isn’t that bad. But judging it against serious horror movies that really try to be scary, such as “The Haunting in Connecticut,” it’s barely mediocrity.

Ultimately, I’ve panned “Drag Me to Hell” because it betrays what the previews have led people to expect. Don’t forget to hug your local movie critic today.

Directed by Sam Raimi

Alison Lohman / Lorna Raver / Justin Long

Horror     99 min.

MPAA Rating: PG-13 (for sequences of horror violence, terror, disturbing images and language)

Up (2009)

O Masterpiece

X Excellent

O Good

O OK

O Mediocrity

O Avoid

Review by Jason Pyles / May 29, 2009

Much like an escaped helium balloon, “Up” climbs quickly, but it only ascends so high before it is blown around by the required winds of action sequences. Even so, Disney-Pixar’s new animated film begins like a masterpiece.

First of all, we meet a boy whose eyeglasses resemble the 3-D glasses we’re wearing as spectators, and we see him sitting in a movie theater, making us immediately identify with his character. We like him because he’s like us.

Next this boy whose name is Carl meets a girl named Ellie. They both want to be adventurer-explorers like their hero, Charles Muntz, whose travels take him to Paradise Falls in South America. From the couple’s childhood meeting, “Up” proceeds with a bittersweet and beautiful passage-of-time montage that highlights their lives together.

The most successful animated films are those that offer something for each member of the family. The less ambitious movies rely on the distasteful practice of including sexual innuendo or suggestive symbolism to keep the adults’ attention, but “Up” provides a touching love story with a potency rarely summoned by animation.

As the movie’s previews reveal, Carl (Ed Asner) is the elderly man who ties hundreds of helium-filled balloons to his house, enabling it to float away with him inside of it. Carl is leaving because he has an old promise to keep. But the aged traveler also has a stowaway onboard his airborne abode — young Russell (Jordan Nagai), a Wilderness Explorer endeavoring to earn his “Assisting the Elderly” badge.

The boy’s unintentional annoyance to the old man who secretly regards the kid fondly calls to mind the strained relationship between “Dennis the Menace” and Mr. Wilson. The discordant duo’s adventures usher in the action scenes and the animals.

Notably, many animated films give animals the ability to speak, usually without explanation. But “Up” gives a reason for granting dogs the gift of tongues. Surely the hilarious canine dialogue is what dogs would say if they were articulate. Having human beings amid a society of talking dogs is reminiscent of “Planet of the Apes.”

As is the Pixar tradition, “Up” is preceded by an exceptional, animated short film titled “Partly Cloudy.” Oh, and there are a few 3-D trailers for upcoming movies, including the teaser for “Toy Story 3,” which is slated for release in 2010.

By the way, moms and dads should note that “Up” is rated PG — not G. The film has some mild violence, including two instances of actual bloodshed and some dog attacks, that might give parents pause.

Directed by Pete Docter and Bob Peterson

Ed Asner / Jordan Nagai / Christopher Plummer

Animation     96 min.

MPAA Rating: PG (for some peril and action)

Terminator Salvation (2009)

O Masterpiece

O Excellent

X Good

O OK

O Mediocrity

O Avoid

Review by Jason Pyles / May 21, 2009

Throughout the “Terminator” movies, our perception of the present is relative, due to the series’ shifting focus on various dates in time. The first three “Terminator” films are mostly set in the past (pre-Judgment Day), with brief glimpses of a nightmarish future, circa 2029. But “Terminator Salvation” primarily takes place in a war-torn 2018, after Judgment Day has occurred and the remnant of humanity is raging against the machines.

John Connor (Christian Bale) is ascending to become the leader of the worldwide resistance, as he carefully listens to his mother’s instructional cassette tapes and prepares for the day when he’ll dispatch Kyle Reese back to 1984. Meanwhile, the machines and the resistance unleash devastating plots in hopes of checkmating their enemies.

Above all, “Terminator Salvation” is a war movie whose dingy, industrial production design echoes Fritz Lang’s “Metropolis” (1927), an early sci-fi film that’s also a futuristic portrayal of human misery borne from technological advancement gone awry.

Those who say “Salvation” is an orphan among its predecessors haven’t seen the trilogy recently. Revisiting the preceding movies will enhance your understanding and appreciation of this new film. Still, some fans will no doubt be disappointed with the new installment, since it’s not a hunt-and-chase movie like the others.

James Cameron — the director of “Aliens,” “The Abyss” and “Titanic” — co-wrote and directed “The Terminator” (1984) and “Terminator 2: Judgment Day” (1991). Without question, those first two films are the best of the series, which attests to Cameron’s filmmaking prowess.

The 1984 film is excellent because a human chases a cyborg 45 years back in time to protect another human. The 1991 film is great because a familiar cyborg follows a more advanced robotic assassin back in time to protect a human.

The third movie is a kitschy rerun of the second film, with two monstrous machines battling over the lives of mortals. “Salvation” is both refreshing and intriguing because we get to see the post-nuclear-war time period, various other terminator models in action, and the unfolding of events we heard about in the previous movies.

The ending is a little unsatisfying, but it’s obvious that “Salvation” is the beginning of another trilogy. (Indeed, a fifth “Terminator” movie is already in development.)

Because of these films’ sparse release dates, they provide a fascinating record of the evolution of special effects, particularly when observing the disparity between the dated, 1984 film and the dazzling CGI of “T2.” With an average of about eight years between films, we might need to time-travel to 2029 to see how this series ends.

Directed by McG

Christian Bale / Sam Worthington / Anton Yelchin

Sci-fi / War     130 min.

MPAA Rating: PG-13 (for intense sequences of sci-fi violence and action, and language)

Angels & Demons (2009)

O Masterpiece

O Excellent

O Good

X OK

O Mediocrity

O Avoid

Review by Jason Pyles / May 15, 2009

Unless you’ve already read Dan Brown’s novel “Angels & Demons,” watching the movie is like playing a new card game — it’s a little confusing, sometimes boring, and it seems like the rules are being made up as it goes along.

Though “Angels & Demons” preceded “The Da Vinci Code” (2006), it is set as a sequel. But the chronology is more or less irrelevant, since Brown unfolds more adventures of symbologist Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks), rather than rehashing his hero’s previous scavenger hunts.

In “Angels & Demons” the pope has died, and it’s time to select a successor. But four cardinals — all prospective papal contenders — have been abducted from the Vatican. When the church discovers that the abductor(s) might be a centuries-old secret society called the Illuminati, it seeks Langdon’s sleuthing expertise.

The professor must do his thing and frantically find clues around Rome before each cardinal is publicly (and thematically) executed an hour apart from one another, until the final hour when a technological terror will be detonated somewhere in Rome.

The misleading trailers for “Angels & Demons” appear to suggest that it will contain encounters with supernatural creatures, but the only angels or demons in this movie are statues and human beings. This is not a horror movie; it’s a “diet” thriller — at best.

Hollywood is sometimes unkind to the Catholic Church or specialty groups like Opus Dei, which associate themselves with the church, or the Illuminati, who openly despise it. With its implications that suggest that the church is politically corrupt and even murderous, some Catholic viewers might be put off by this film.

And at the same time, “Angels & Demons” is also likely to alienate its non-Catholic viewers who might find themselves marooned in the sea of church jargon, some of which is in Italian or Latin.

When judging a film adapted from a book, we commonly say “the book was better,” because we prefer our vision of things over someone else’s conceptualization. Plus, the number of pages between book covers is more generous than the number of minutes between movie credits. Screenwriters are compelled to preserve the original source material while transforming the story from written words to filmic images. Books tell; films show.

But the question is not whether “Angels & Demons” is as good as the novel; the question is, does this adaptation stand on its own? The answer is — it’s OK — but it limps like a monk wearing a cilice.

Directed by Ron Howard

Tom Hanks / Ewan McGregor / Ayelet Zurer

Mystery      138 min.

MPAA Rating: PG-13 (for sequences of violence, disturbing images and thematic material).

Obsessed (2009)

O Masterpiece

O Excellent

O Good

X OK

O Mediocrity

O Avoid

Review by Jason Pyles / May 13, 2009

If nothing else, “Obsessed” is ambitious — or is the right word “brave”? To make a PG-13 movie about this subject matter must have been difficult. Lazier filmmakers would have gone with R-rated content, allowing their project to slip into slinky sleaziness. But “Obsessed” doesn’t take the low road, and as a result, it’s a little more noble, despite the way it appears in its sultry marketing.

In other words, if you’re looking for sex and nudity, this ain’t your movie (and shame on you). If you strive to avoid such explicit content, “Obsessed” is fairly “clean.” Indeed, the PG-13 rating primarily comes from the ideas of lust, temptation and adultery — not the actual depiction of those themes.

Derek (Idris Elba) and Sharon (Beyoncé Knowles) are happily married with one little son, Kyle, who always seems sedated. All is well, but when a new temp (Ali Larter) starts trying to tempt Derek at work, the couple’s idyllic lifestyle crumbles. Lisa, the would-be home-wrecker, is not only attractive and driven, she’s also obsessed with Derek. Her predatory preoccupation with him reveals a darker and darker character whose relentless tactics escalate from appalling to unforgivable.

“Obsessed” is intriguing for two reasons: The first reason is because it inspires us, the viewers, to have different questions throughout the movie. Initially, we are very curious to know whether Derek will succumb to Lisa’s advances. Later in the movie, we have more questions that we’re just as eager to have answered. The other reason “Obsessed” is somewhat fascinating is because we simultaneously cringe and look forward to seeing what the crazy chick will do next.

Unfortunately, the movie grows tiresome, because it’s one of those frustrating plots where everything could be resolved if the victimized protagonist would simply communicate with those around him. 

But the movie’s biggest black eye is its descent into utter ridiculousness, when the inevitable physical confrontation occurs: What is meant to feel like vindication seems more like some Wrestlemania-type brawl between the Fabulous Moolah and Wendy Richter. Though it’s not meant to be funny, it is laughable.

Some people might consider “Obsessed” to be a love story or a drama — or maybe even an action flick (but that’s pushing it). Actually, “Obsessed” is intended to be a thriller, which is immediately evident from its peculiar horror-flick piano on the soundtrack. In fact, the music throughout the film is odd: During the beginning scenes with the blissfully happy couple, we hear that uneasy piano score; then at the end, after we’ve witnessed much unpleasantness, we hear happy music, as if years of therapy won’t be requisite.

I’ve thought about “Obsessed” for a considerable amount of time, and I just can’t pinpoint what it is about the film that relegates it to a rating of merely OK. I keep returning to something The New York Times film critic, Vincent Canby, once wrote in a preface to a “worst movies” list: 

“Actually, most movies, like most anything else, are neither very, very bad nor very, very good. They tend to fall into that vast middle ground of forgettableness ... ” 

Yes, I can say that although “Obsessed” is moderately entertaining, it is unremarkable enough to be easily forgettable.

Directed by Steve Shill

Idris Elba / Beyoncé Knowles / Ali Larter

Thriller     108 min.

MPAA Rating: PG-13 (for sexual material, including some suggestive dialogue, some violence and thematic content).

X-Men Origins: Wolverine (2009)

O Masterpiece

O Excellent

X Good

O OK

O Mediocrity

O Avoid

Review by Jason Pyles / May 10, 2009

Now that the blockbuster season is under way, let’s just call a spade a spade: “X-Men Origins: Wolverine” was designed to draw big box office sales and aimed to entertain boys and young men via lots of special effects and superhero action — that’s it. Mission accomplished.

We all know what to expect from the previews, so why do critics and some moviegoers complain when the movie is composed of bumper-to-bumper action that’s riddled with implausibility? 

Nothing revolutionary is revealed about the cinematic medium or the human condition, but here’s the key: The filmmakers never pursued any such ambitions. To judge fairly, shouldn’t we take into consideration what the filmmakers’ were trying to accomplish? I think so.

“X-Men Origins: Wolverine” is thoroughly entertaining. It rarely slows down. I nearly rated it “Excellent,” but it’s just falls short of the stature of “Iron Man.” Instead, “Wolverine” is “Good” like “The Incredible Hulk,” and probably not quite as good as the “X-Men” trilogy.

The movie opens in 1845, when we see a brief but tragic episode that results in two unusual brothers’ permanent flight from their family. The siblings grow up together, battling back to back in multiple wars throughout the decades. They are mutants whose remarkable gifts lend them incredible resilience against aging, injuries and death. But due to the divergence of their natures, Logan (Hugh Jackman) and Victor (Liev Schreiber) part ways and become fierce enemies.

The plot summary above is quite simplistic and doesn’t begin to span the myriad developments in the movie. However, if you’re schooled in Wolverine’s comic-book history, you won’t need a lengthy explanation, and if you’re altogether ignorant of his story, then it’s better that you’re surprised during the movie.

Typically, origin stories (which are often supplied in a superhero’s first movie) are tiresome. Sure, if a person didn’t have super powers but then obtained them, he or she would have to fumble around with those new abilities for a while. A good example of this is “Spider-Man” (2002). But I’m often irritated by having to sit through the “learning curve,” which is usually intended to be funny and never is. And though Wolverine was born with his “powers,” there is a brief scene of this fumbling sort involving his atomantium (not positive about that spelling) claws.

Film often reflects the anxieties of the day. The sci-fi genre is a good example of this — especially during the 1950s when two of the primary fears were nuclear armageddon (atom bomb) and alien invasion (the Red Scare and McCarthyism). And with respect to all of the dismissive comments I made at the beginning of this review, perhaps there lies beneath “X-Men Origins: Wolverine” a sub-conscious fear of genetic engineering and experimentation. But probably not. It’s probably just action for action’s sake.

Lastly, there is a very small and insignificant morsel at the very end of this film for those who wait until the end-credits are finished rolling. But as my filmmaker friend Joshua Ligairi pointed out to me after reading my “Star Trek” review, those little “Easter eggs” aren’t the only reason to watch the credits.

Directed by Gavin Hood

Hugh Jackman / Liev Schreiber / Remy LeBeau

Action     107 min.

MPAA Rating: PG-13 (for intense sequences of action and violence, and some partial nudity).