The Raid: Redemption is a great example of a minimalist plot. The set-up is simple, you know what's at stake, a good sense of geography, who to root for, and who needs a bullet in the head. Unfortunately, this also means that the film has zero depth and complexity. Thankfully, it means that nothing can get in the way of the thrills, but that doesn't mean that there couldn't have been some depth in other areas, like character development. While lead actor Iko Uwais shows off his incredible talents as a martial artist, he doesn't really give much range other than "subdued rage" and "general kick-assery". The script doesn't really help things much either, trying to tug at heartstrings by showing us his pregnant wife waiting at home, and including a generic subplot about his brother, who also turns out to be one of the gang members. These segments are thankfully brief enough to not be obtrusive enough to ruin the experience, but they're definitely weak and keep the film from being a true action classic like, say, Die Hard.

But you don't watch The Raid for a good script. While The Raid isn't quite an action movie masterpiece, it is a masterpiece of an action "showcase". Really, everything described above is all just one big excuse to have hundreds of guys brutally dispatched in intense hand-to-hand combat. Every time The Raid decides to put its engines on full-throttle and focus largely on the actopm, it's insanely entertaining. From intense shoot-outs to fisticuffs, throat-slitting to machete-swinging, everything feels brutal and director Gareth Evans makes sure that you feel each and every bone-crunching punch of it.

Which leads me to another thing that differentiates The Raid from countless other action schlock fests: Choreography and cinematography. Remember choreography? That bygone art of actors actually knowing what they're doing in a fight and performing stunts and moves that actually looked complex and cool? It almost seems like the last good sequence of choreographed action was iin Kill Bill Vol. 1 (Or all those Tony Jaa movies that I still haven't seen). The Raid, meanwhile, has incredible stuntwork. So incredible, in fact, that I found it hard to believe that all those actors didn't just flat-out die in the process of making this movie. It looks that good.

Gareth Evans also seems to get that the fight choreography is that good, and makes sure to shoot it all as smoothly and crisply as humanly possible. One of the main reasons why I hate so many of today's action movies is that 90% of them are shot in bullsh*t shaky camera to hide the fact that the action just isn't very special and bring a sense of faux-intensity. This is the exact opposite. Shot in just about every cool angle imaginable and edited to perfection, Evans makes sure that the audience has a perfect sense of who's fighting who, what they're doing, and how f*cking awesome it all is.

There isn't really much else to discuss about The Raid: Redemption. Action is really all it has, and as such, is all I really get to talk about. I still think that it was a missed opportunity to put in just a tiny bit more depth into the story and characters; but when I'm watching something this skillfully made, it's hard to really complain.

Watch The Raid: Redemption is a great example of a minimalist plot. The set-up is simple, you know what's at stake, a good sense of geography, who to root for, and who needs a bullet in the head. Unfortunately, this also means that the film has zero depth and complexity. Thankfully, it means that nothing can get in the way of the thrills, but that doesn't mean that there couldn't have been some depth in other areas, like character development. While lead actor Iko Uwais shows off his incredible talents as a martial artist, he doesn't really give much range other than "subdued rage" and "general kick-assery". The script doesn't really help things much either, trying to tug at heartstrings by showing us his pregnant wife waiting at home, and including a generic subplot about his brother, who also turns out to be one of the gang members. These segments are thankfully brief enough to not be obtrusive enough to ruin the experience, but they're definitely weak and keep the film from being a true action classic like, say, Die Hard.

But you don't watch The Raid for a good script. While The Raid isn't quite an action movie masterpiece, it is a masterpiece of an action "showcase". Really, everything described above is all just one big excuse to have hundreds of guys brutally dispatched in intense hand-to-hand combat. Every time The Raid decides to put its engines on full-throttle and focus largely on the actopm, it's insanely entertaining. From intense shoot-outs to fisticuffs, throat-slitting to machete-swinging, everything feels brutal and director Gareth Evans makes sure that you feel each and every bone-crunching punch of it.

Which leads me to another thing that differentiates The Raid from countless other action schlock fests: Choreography and cinematography. Remember choreography? That bygone art of actors actually knowing what they're doing in a fight and performing stunts and moves that actually looked complex and cool? It almost seems like the last good sequence of choreographed action was iin Kill Bill Vol. 1 (Or all those Tony Jaa movies that I still haven't seen). The Raid, meanwhile, has incredible stuntwork. So incredible, in fact, that I found it hard to believe that all those actors didn't just flat-out die in the process of making this movie. It looks that good.

Gareth Evans also seems to get that the fight choreography is that good, and makes sure to shoot it all as smoothly and crisply as humanly possible. One of the main reasons why I hate so many of today's action movies is that 90% of them are shot in bullsh*t shaky camera to hide the fact that the action just isn't very special and bring a sense of faux-intensity. This is the exact opposite. Shot in just about every cool angle imaginable and edited to perfection, Evans makes sure that the audience has a perfect sense of who's fighting who, what they're doing, and how f*cking awesome it all is.

There isn't really much else to discuss about The Raid: Redemption. Action is really all it has, and as such, is all I really get to talk about. I still think that it was a missed opportunity to put in just a tiny bit more depth into the story and characters; but when I'm watching something this skillfully made, it's hard to really complain.

Watch The Raid: Redemption is a great example of a minimalist plot. The set-up is simple, you know what's at stake, a good sense of geography, who to root for, and who needs a bullet in the head. Unfortunately, this also means that the film has zero depth and complexity. Thankfully, it means that nothing can get in the way of the thrills, but that doesn't mean that there couldn't have been some depth in other areas, like character development. While lead actor Iko Uwais shows off his incredible talents as a martial artist, he doesn't really give much range other than "subdued rage" and "general kick-assery". The script doesn't really help things much either, trying to tug at heartstrings by showing us his pregnant wife waiting at home, and including a generic subplot about his brother, who also turns out to be one of the gang members. These segments are thankfully brief enough to not be obtrusive enough to ruin the experience, but they're definitely weak and keep the film from being a true action classic like, say, Die Hard.

But you don't watch The Raid for a good script. While The Raid isn't quite an action movie masterpiece, it is a masterpiece of an action "showcase". Really, everything described above is all just one big excuse to have hundreds of guys brutally dispatched in intense hand-to-hand combat. Every time The Raid decides to put its engines on full-throttle and focus largely on the actopm, it's insanely entertaining. From intense shoot-outs to fisticuffs, throat-slitting to machete-swinging, everything feels brutal and director Gareth Evans makes sure that you feel each and every bone-crunching punch of it.

Which leads me to another thing that differentiates The Raid from countless other action schlock fests: Choreography and cinematography. Remember choreography? That bygone art of actors actually knowing what they're doing in a fight and performing stunts and moves that actually looked complex and cool? It almost seems like the last good sequence of choreographed action was iin Kill Bill Vol. 1 (Or all those Tony Jaa movies that I still haven't seen). The Raid, meanwhile, has incredible stuntwork. So incredible, in fact, that I found it hard to believe that all those actors didn't just flat-out die in the process of making this movie. It looks that good.

Gareth Evans also seems to get that the fight choreography is that good, and makes sure to shoot it all as smoothly and crisply as humanly possible. One of the main reasons why I hate so many of today's action movies is that 90% of them are shot in bullsh*t shaky camera to hide the fact that the action just isn't very special and bring a sense of faux-intensity. This is the exact opposite. Shot in just about every cool angle imaginable and edited to perfection, Evans makes sure that the audience has a perfect sense of who's fighting who, what they're doing, and how f*cking awesome it all is.

There isn't really much else to discuss about The Raid: Redemption. Action is really all it has, and as such, is all I really get to talk about. I still think that it was a missed opportunity to put in just a tiny bit more depth into the story and characters; but when I'm watching something this skillfully made, it's hard to really complain.

The Lorax was Dr. Seuss’ most serious work, as it conveyed an ecological message to youngsters and their parents. The message remains intact in this adaptation, by Ken Daurio and Cinco Paul, but it’s almost smothered by extraneous story material and characters. Directors Chris Renaud and Kyle Balda have filled every scene with funny-looking (or sounding) characters, sight gags, and one-liners to provide constant distraction. This might work as a diversion for younger kids, but there is no sign of the wit or wisdom of Dr. Seuss.

The story, about a boy who lives in a plastic city and goes in search of a genuine tree, meanders far and wide. That’s because, like other Seussian adaptations, this one takes a slender book and arbitrarily expands it to feature length. When the DePatie-Freleng animation studio adapted The Lorax for television forty years ago, it ran just under a half-hour, which didn’t require all that padding.

The songs, by screenwriter Paul and composer John Powell, are odd and unmemorable, except for the summing-up number “Let it Grow,” which ends the picture.

Theodore Geisel counted on the bond of trust he had built with his readers to offer a thoughtful and timely message. The people behind this forgettable film are merely trading on the author’s deep reserve of goodwill.

Production: Infinitum Nihil, GK Films, Zanuck Company

Cast: Johnny Depp, Michelle Pfeiffer, Helena Bonham Carter, Eva Green, Jackie Earle Haley, Jonny Lee Miller, Chloe Grace Moretz, Bella Heathcote, Gully McGrath, Ray Shirley, Christopher Lee, Alice Cooper

The latest '60s/'70s TV show to get all dressed up as a fancy, big-budget feature film, Dark Shadows sinks its teeth half-way into its potentially meaty material but hesitates to go all the way. With an oddball premise that's right up his alley, director Tim Burton has stylish fun with a morally-and-time-warped family visited by an undead 18th century relative, as does Johnny Depp in the role of the antique British-accented vampire. But the humor slithers between the clever and the sophomoric and the film too often seems willing to settle for mild humor at the expense of hippie-era mores instead of pursuing the palpable temptation to become genuinely twisted. Still, with its central bloodsucker vs. witch rivalry and Depp in one of his patented bizarre roles, this has all the ear and tooth marks of an early summer winner for Warner Bros.

Reportedly, as a child Depp's obsession with the elegant, well-spoken, romantically haunted central character, Barnabas Collins, was deep to the point of being all-consuming. Unsurprisingly, the teenaged Burton was also a devotee of Dan Curtis's daily afternoon show, which ran on ABC from 1966-71 and amassed 1,225 individual episodes. This eighth collaboration between the actor and director affords Depp the opportunity to once again don unusual makeup and hair styles to become the white-faced, plaster-maned vampire who rejoins the living in 1972 after having been entombed for nearly 200 years.

Watch Dark Shadows Trailer:

Director: Scott Hicks

Writers: Will Fetters, based on the novel by Nicholas Sparks

Starring: Zac Efron, Taylor Schilling, Blythe Danner, Riley Thomas Stewart, Jay R. Ferguson

Release Date: May 4, 2012

The Lucky One is the latest Nicholas Sparks novel to make it to the big screen, following such heart-tuggers like The Notebook, Message in a Bottle, and most recently, 2010’s Dear John with Channing Tatum and Amanda Seyfried.

Directed by Scott Hicks (Snow Falling on Cedars, No Reservations, Shine), the latest offering fits perfectly into the Sparksian cinematic repertoire: It features a young, good-looking couple—this time played by Zac Efron and Taylor Schilling—who are kept apart by life’s circumstances.

The film opens with Iraqi war scenes that focus on 24-year-old Sgt. Logan Thibault (Efron), who narrowly escapes insurgent attacks, RPG fire and snipers, while others close to him don’t. He ascribes his luck to a photo—of a woman standing in front of a lighthouse—found on the desert floor. He believes that she’s the reason he makes it out of the war alive.

Logan returns stateside after his third tour of duty, but has trouble re-adjusting to civilian life. Rather than seeking help for his PTSD symptoms and depression, he decides to combat the ennui, inner conflict and restlessness by finding the girl in the photo.

Eventually, Logan finds his talis-woman in Hamden, La., but doesn’t tell her why he’s in town, fearing she’ll think him a crazy stalker. (He is, technically, but that’s besides the point.) Beth Green (Schilling) has misgivings about the stranger applying for a job at her family’s dog kennel; it’s her grandmother Ellie (Blythe Danner) that gives the former marine a chance.

Along the way, we meet Beth’s precocious, chess- and violin-playing son, Ben (Riley Thomas Stewart), and her ne’er-do-well ex-husband, who happens to be a good-ole-boy sheriff in town. Guess which of the two doesn’t take a shine to the mysterious stranger?

There are a number of similarities to previous films based on Sparks’ novels. It’s a given that a love story is the heart of his books, but we couldn’t help but think about Dear John and the role the Iraq war plays in each film. As we watch Logan renovate a fixer-upper and tickle the ivories on a neglected piano, we’re reminded of Ryan Gosling’s character in The Notebook. And in Message in a Bottle, Robin Wright’s character finds love letters in bottles washing up on shore and tracks down the author of the notes—without revealing the reason why she’s come to town. Sound familiar?

Efron takes on a role that’s a stretch from his teen heartthrob roles in the High School Musical TV movies. He still looks like a kid, but then again, most of the soldiers fighting our wars are kids. His Logan is stoic, but perhaps too much so, as his acting at times comes off as expressionless and one-dimensional. Schilling fares better, but in key scenes, the chemistry between the two leads feels forced.

The Lucky One’s plot becomes unnecessarily muddled with secondary plot twists and turns. One could rattle off a checklist of clichés found in the script: a best friend and a brother killed in war; parents lost in a car crash; domineering fathers and sons who seek their approval; a rescue in the middle of a raging storm; good-ol’ boy law enforcement; and, of course, lovers who are destined to be together.

Though underutilized, Blythe Danner commands the screen, and her young co-stars would be wise to watch how she does it. We liked the banter in scenes where she teases Beth about her growing attraction to Logan; in some ways, that pairing worked better than the Logan-Beth relationship.

Though we’re loathe to use the term, The Lucky One falls into the “chick flick” category. Efron and Schilling are a toothsome couple to watch, but unfortunately, this film will only appeal to those on date night or diehard Sparks fans.

Story: Mei (Catherine Chan) is wanted by all -- the Triads... The Russian mob... The NYC super and corrupt cops. Why? She has the secret code to the safe. Enter Luke Wright (Jason Statham), her protector... and the one who ultimately gets access to the safe.

Movie Review : It's a Jason Statham movie where the actor is once again seen paving his way to victory while sorting the good from the bad. So no prizes for guessing what lies in store: gun firing in loads and fist fights in aplenty. Add to that some Statham-ism and there's no looking back. Now, how many actors do we have out there who pick up call girls in NYC, pay them plenty of that dollar, get an entry into a sizzling restaurant and ask them to leave immediately. Or for that matter, how many Medowlands (New Jersey) ex-fighters do we have dressed in an executive suit breaking tracheas of the bad guys. Statham fans, there's enough of the suave in here.

But then, Jason Statham has competition in Safe. And this competition is a pretty tough one for it comes from the little Catherine Chan. With hardly any dialogues (in English) to herself, Chan actually keeps you asking for more each time she (or Statham) are missing in action. In fact, it's not just her computerised memory that helps her remember all important bank transactions in the Chinese world, it's her ultimate understanding of the big bad biz world (she excels in distinguishing between good business and the bad one) that takes you by surprise. Make sure you catch Catherine's Mei calling the shots - in every way - in the last sequence.

Of course, the two (Statham and Catherine) together make this gang war for the green bills in the bustling narrow bylanes of New York's China Town worth a watch. The action, on the other hand, is crispy and smart. As for the storyline, guess it was always meant to tread on safe ground... nothing that you have never seen before.

The families we most associate with Martin Scorsese are the five criminal ones that make up the mafia in the United States, and both they and Scorsese's films deal in violence involving pain and death. His new film, however, aims to entrance every member of every family, and it centres on the great art form that over the past century became the great family entertainment: the cinema. A dramatic pursuit many see as essentially violent and once described by the art theorist Herbert Read as "a chisel of light cutting into the reality of objects", it is created with a demand for "Action!" and ends with the order "Cut!". Based on The Invention of Hugo Cabret, a beautiful book, half graphic novel, half prose tale, by Brian Selznick, the movie is a delightful fable. Its various subjects include magic, tradition, respect for the past and affection between generations, all bound up in the history of the cinema and the machinery invented to capture images on strips of film and project them on screens.

Hugo is set in Paris in 1931 and begins with a breathtaking shot of the city, as the camera swoops down on to a busy railway station. It flies along a narrow platform between two steam trains, crosses a busy concourse and ends up on the 12-year-old Hugo, who is peering at the world from behind the figure "4" of a giant clock. Hugo (Asa Butterfield) has inherited a love of tinkering with machinery from his late father, and has quite recently taken over the job of superintending the station's clocks from his drunken uncle. The boy lives in the hidden tunnels and passageways of the building, where he's repairing a 19th-century automaton. He's a crafty Dickensian orphan, a benign phantom of the opera, a blood brother of Quasimodo, a cinematic voyeur looking out on the world like the photographer in Hitchcock's Rear Window. Fate has brought him there, and it then draws him into the orbit of a querulous old man, Georges (Ben Kingsley), who runs an old-fashioned shop on the station selling toys and doing mechanical repairs, assisted by his 12-year-old god-daughter, Isabelle. Hugo becomes involved with the old man when he's accused of theft and has a cherished book of drawings confiscated. He is then assisted by Isabelle in retrieving the book, and in turn, when he discovers she's forbidden to go to the movies, he takes her on a great "adventure", a visit to the lost world of silent movies at a season of old films. She is overwhelmed.

The literate Isabelle is a great admirer of Dickens, and a succession of clever Dickensian twists ensue as the labyrinthine plot takes the pair on a journey into a mysterious past. They discover the origins of the movies in the late-19th-century careers of the Lumière brothers, who put on the first picture show in Paris in 1895, and Georges Méliès, the professional magician, who became obsessed after attending this historical screening. The Lumières photographed the world as it was and didn't believe the cinema had a future. Méliès turned his theatre into a picture palace, built his own studio and became a prolific producer of fantasy films that merged life and dream, before his business tragically collapsed and he disappeared into obscurity.