By Craig Stephens

Tween idol Zac Effron has a stab at serious acting in his new sensitive drama/love story Charlie St Cloud.  Here he hopes to embrace the transition from tween idol to seasoned actor while still managing  to satisfy his target audience, compensating for a slopping script with shirtless scenes

The nautical drama sees Zac play a college-bound sailing star destined for a quality nine to five, cute wife and manicured lawn. Yet Charlie flips out after his kid brother’s tragic death, momentarily derailing his white bread destiny.

Essentially Charlie St. Cloud offers a formulaic soiree of all things expected  from a Universal backed hopeful, exploring some guaranteed  tried and true themes – puritanical  family values, brotherly love  and boating being great for developing ab muscles are explored here .

Kim Bassinger does an effective job as the tortured mother, while the huge romance dimension  via the supreme crafts(woman)ship of Amanda Crew (Tess Carroll) is the  key hook of the film and  destined to fuel eager patronage by Effron’s loyal fan base.

Effron dropped out of his role in Footloose and signed on to play Charlie St. Cloud shortly thereafter. He confirmed his involvement while attending the 2009 Kid’s Choice Awards.

At a recent junket for the film Zac explained. He explained that he wasn’t quite so nice to his real brother, Dylan, as his character Charlie was to brother Sam.

“One of the main reasons I wanted to do Charlie St. Cloud is because it’s a story about brothers and that bond, and that’s something me and my brother have,” Efron says, “but we’re really competitive and Dylan’s a little bit older than Sam was.”

Ironically just hours before the New York premiere of his big earning film Effron and two of his pals reportedly spent more than $2,000 on lap dancers and vodka at a top New York strip club.

According to esteemed gossip bible Page Six, The Disney-produced High School Musical prodigy showed up at Flashdancers Gentlemen’s Club on Broadway on Sunday night and stayed until 3 a.m.

Efron, 22, with another male friend and his former High School Musical castmate Corbin Bleu, 21, took a shine to three pretty brunette dancers, showering them with cash and requests for personal dances, witnesses said.

The strip club source added, “Zac came in Sunday night around midnight with Corbin and one other male friend, who paid for everything. They were seated in the VIP lounge behind the main stage. There was only a rail between them and the girls who were dancing.

“They ordered one bottle of Belvedere vodka and were enthralled with the dancers. They were interacting a lot with the girls and reaching out and showering money on them. There were three girls who Zac and his friends particularly liked and they asked to do personal dances at their table.”

“The girls were all slim pretty brunettes, a bit like Zac’s girlfriend, Vanessa Hudgens. They were two Americans, called Shannon and Brandi, and a gorgeous Brazilian called Raquel. “Zac and the boys had a great time and left around 3 a.m. Monday morning.”

That night, Efron walked the red carpet at the premiere of Charlie St. Cloud. Hudgens was not at his side, although she attended the LA screening last week.

There may be hope for Zac’s legions of fans after all..?

By Adam Spunberg

I left my screening of Brigitte Berman’s Hugh Hefner: Playboy, Activist and Rebel persuaded that Hugh Hefner was one of the most influential figures in American history.  The Playboy Mansion?  Just an erotic sideshow.  Objectifying women?  Irrelevant.  Civil rights advocate?  Nothing short of Martin Luther King.  Perverted sex maniac?  Try editorial workaholic.

Berman’s plan was to gather a slew of recognizable faces – many who had been touched by Hefner’s kindness – and let them campaign on his behalf.  Then the camera would return to Hefner, who would dazzle the audience with sparkling stories of his unusual life (reminiscent of Philippe Petit’s stirring narrations in Man On Wire).  It was a simple formula in theory, but the effect worked extremely well.

If you can accept Berman’s film as an ode to Hefner’s good works, then the documentary will resonate strongly with you.  If you have reservations about Hefner’s exploitation of women (which he denies, and the film lets him get away with it), then you may leave dissatisfied.  Berman fails to challenge Hefner on those gritty issues, partly because she recognizes it has been done numerous times.  This is about Hefner the humanitarian, a title he most certainly deserves.

Among his accomplishments are rebelling against racism, sodomy laws, McCarthyism, and religious fanaticism.  Those stands were often brave, putting his businesses at great risk, and his interests in these matters were highly cultural and intellectual.  In a sense, Hefner was the epitome of anti-prejudice, defending against civil injustices because it seemed the natural thing to do.  He was not a racist because he saw people as people.  He did not judge sexual orientation or political belief.  All he cared about was providing a haven for every kind of person, and there happened to be a bunch of gorgeous naked girls involved to finance the pot, to entertain the guests.

Most people see him now as the old geezer with multiple young girlfriends (how many depends on the year), but don’t discredit his achievements because he turned unconventionally adolescent in his twilight years.  Hugh Hefner may have been a controversial figure, but as Berman’s quality documentary illustrates, he was also a great man.

Perhaps George Lucas summed it up best: “I create fantasies, Hef creates fantasies.”  Hefner’s dream may have been a little different from the norm, but he helped a staggering number of people along the way, and Berman does a solid job of conveying that on screen.

By Phil Wallace

Jay Roach’s new comedy Dinner for Schmucks is meal-ful of fun and probably the funniest movie of the year. A remake of Francis Veber’s French film The Dinner Game (Le diner de cons), Dinner for Schmucks is well cast, has a witty script, and it will keep you entertained.

The film stars Paul Rudd as Tim, a financial analyst at a private equity firm who is in line for a major promotion. In order to make it happen, Rudd must attend a dinner hosted by his boss (Bruce Greenwood) and each executive at the firm is required to bring most idiotic guest they can find.

Despite the protestations of his girlfriend, Tim coincidentally meets Barry (Steve Carell) a ridiculous taxidermist with a fondness for making mice dioramas. Barry is the perfect person to bring to the dinner, and Tim will make sure he’s there, regardless of whether him or his girlfriend think it’s right. From that point on, hilarity ensues, as Barry unwittingly brings chaos to both Tim’s personal and professional life.

Roach paces the film perfectly, as the viewer is entertained with a steady stream of jokes that is neither overwhelming nor boring. Today’s comedies often start with an avalanche of jokes and sophomoric incidents, only to devolve into a schmaltzy story for the last 30-45 minutes. But Roach, who also directed the Austin Powers and Meet the Parents movies, builds the viewer up to the climatic dinner.

Rudd works well as the straight man who finds himself unable to control the hilarious events surrounding him. Carell is on the verge of being too old for these kinds of roles, but he still works as a pathetic loser who is desperate for a best friend.

Dinner for Schmucks also thrives thanks to a host of well-played secondary characters. Zac Galifianakis is always welcome on the screen, and he has a hilarious turn as Barry’s boss who believes he has mind control. Jemaine Clement makes a nice change from Flight of the Conchords to play a wacky artist with a deep love for animals, stealing every scene he’s in. Kristen Schaal also takes a fun turn as Tim’s cranky but witty assistant.

It’s hard to imagine Dinner for Schmucks following in The Hangover’s footsteps as a Golden Globe winner for Best Comedy or Musical. While it has a witty script from David Guion and Michael Handelman, the film is missing the full-throttle punch that some of the greatest comedies possess. But Dinner for Schmucks is still a first-class funny film that you will thoroughly enjoy.

Revenge is sweet, justice is even sweeter, but redemption is sweetest of all.  Classic American themes such as this might not be as American as we’d like to believe, evident by The Concert from French director, Radu Mihaileanu, who defines it through a poignant yet hilarious film.  I’ve often criticized the “Dramedies” for being a tug-of-war between the two, but there are a few films that manage to blend this kind of tragedy with comedy so well.

The story centers on Andrei Filipov (Aleksei Guskov), once a prodigy and prestigious conductor of the world renown Bolshoi orchestra, now a janitor in the same building where they rehearse.  He and his orchestra were victims of anti-semitism after Andrei’s refused to fire the Jewish musicians in his orchestra.  Humiliated and berated during a performance, the orchestra was disbanded 30 years ago, crushing the futures of each musician.  Even Andrei’s wife resorts to rounding up extras to perform as protestors or wedding guests depending on the clients as he watches helplessly and winces at the horrible sounds coming from the current Bolshoi orchestra.

Salvation comes on the fax machine one afternoon, when the Pleyel in Paris requests the Bolshoi perform for them in two weeks time as a last minute replacement for the Los Angeles Philharmonic.  Without so much as a second thought, he confronts his former cellist, Dimitri (Sacha Grossman), and tells him he intends to impersonate the Bolshoi.  Dimitri reluctantly approves but soon finds motivation after manhandling their former manager into working for them again, the same hard line communist supporter who interrupted their performance 30 years ago and one who clearly has ulterior motives in Paris.  Rounding up their former musicians in the most unlikely places by way of Dimitri’s run down ambulance, they manage to bring together most of the old orchestra with a few new and highly questionable choices to fill in the gaps.  Later negotiating a deal for formal wear and instruments through a black market dealer with connections in Paris, the glimmer of hope this might actually work begins to show.

Despite some outrageous demands from their manager (including a meal at a restaurant that no longer exists) and his stubborn approach of doing business, he succeeds in booking lodging, meals, payment, and tourist attractions for the orchestra.  Most impressive is his success in getting a very popular soloist, Anne-Marine Jacquet (Melanie Laurent), to perform with the Bolshoi.  Andrei’s insistence on getting her and no one else along with a shoebox filled with articles and CDs that he seems emotionally attached to worries those around him.  When Dimitri confronts him about it, Andrei reveals some startling secret that we as an audience aren’t made aware of.

Just as the plan seems to come together, the orchestra arrives in Paris and heads off in different directions after getting their per diem money, eager to enjoy the City of Lights and possibly exploit the local economy a bit.  Andrei curses at his manager to do his job and get them to rehearsal, but his frustration disappears as Anne-Marie Jacquet arrives.  Though music is a central part of the film and pieces of it abound throughout the film, there’s probably no better expression of music as tied to kinship between strangers than the scene that follows.  The few musicians that remain begin playing and Anne-Marie instantly seems to know each of them.  She’s amazed by their skill and begins to question her own, particularly for the conductor’s unwavering choice of playing Tchaikovsky’s Concerto for Violin and Orchestra.

As Anne-Marie and Andrei have dinner together, a combination of Andrei’s 30 year old torment and current drinking problem lead to a dramatic retelling of his last attempt to perform the Concerto, but falls short of telling her it was his last.  Concerned with the general instability of the orchestra and it’s conductor, she comes to the bitter conclusion that she nor the orchestra is capable of performing at the level its conductor wants.  With the performance’s future uncertain, Dimitri makes a last desperate effort to convince Anne-Marie to play while the musicians are gathered together.  Dimitri hints at the secret Andrei revealed, which is enough to convince her to rejoin the orchestra.  Her manager, already suspected of some secret history with Andrei, offers Anne-Marie a 30 year old copy of the performance with handwritten notes made by the last musician, Ana.  The words “For Ana” manage to get the musicians together in formal dress just in time, and as the music starts… the outlook is grim.

Notes are both flat and sharp, the audience is already showing signs of disappointment.  Even the conductor winces in much the same way he did when he was watching the real Bolshoi.  But once Anne-Marie begins, it’s as if the orchestra is feeding off her energy.  As they say in jazz, she wakes the band up, and the concert that follows is an amazing medley of not only music, but a montage of that great secret revealed.  Sentimental and possibly far-fetched, the imagery combined with the incredible sound of Tchaikovsky seems to be enough to suspend disbelief and embrace the film for what it is.

Although the film hovers between comedy and drama a bit longer than most, there’s a balance to the film that makes those changes subtlety and takes the chance of doing so in order to remain true to the story.  Although a French film, the opening takes place in Russia and even the French is distinctly Russian in it’s delivery, but this mashing of languages adds to the film’s comedy and is actually translated well through the English subtitles.  Like many films that compare cultures, jabs at the French, Russians, and even the Americans are common.  There are a number of great performances, both from the leads and in moments with the collection of character actors, but it’s the music itself that truly steals the show.

The Concert opens in limited release on July 30.

By Paul Hansen

Films are often interesting because they reflect the cultural currents of their times. Few subjects are as topical or controversial (in some quarters) as the subject of same sex couples who have children.The new film The Kids Are All Right delves directly into the subject. The film stars Annette Bening and Julianne Moore who are a lesbian couple that were both artificially inseminated by the sperm of the same donor. The film opens as their two teenage children track down their biological father (played by Mark Ruffalo) and introduce him into the family fold, creating complex and unpredictable situations.

The Kids Are All Right has the feel of a documentary, accentuated by the occasional use of hand held cameras. In its emphasis on realism, there isn’t a single scene in the film that seems improbable or overly drawn (at least to this reviewer). With the addition of the biological father in the family set-up, all of the characters are venturing into emotional terra incognita. The film realistically depicts the tentative, step by step reactions of the characters to their altered emotional and social landscape.

While there is plenty of humor in The Kids Are All Right, little of it seems forced or artificial. Much of the comedy in current Hollywood films functions on a very adolescent level and it would have been so easy for this film to descend into cheap, sit-com laughs. Fortunately, the movie avoids this trap.

There has been much speculation about a possible Best Actress Academy Award nomination for Annette Bening, who plays the “dominant” partner in her relationship with Julianne Moore. Bening’s performance is impressive because it refuses to play to extremes or rely on clichés or stereotypes. It is a portrayal that does not overtly call attention to itself except through its subtlety and attention to detail. However, the very lack of flamboyance in Bening’s performance and the summer release may cause her portrayal to be overlooked by the Motion Picture Academy, particularly since its nominating process will not occur for some time.

Julianne Moore always has an interesting screen presence. She admirably plays Bening’s somewhat more unfocused partner and there has also been Oscar talk about her performance. Both Moore and Bening demonstrate at discrete moments in the film that emotional pain can take on a virtual physical quality. Ruffalo, Mia Wasikowska and Josh Hutcherson (as the children) demonstrate a sense of proportion in their roles similar to the two female leads. An almost improvisatory atmosphere permeates most of the actors’ performances, heightening the film’s realistic ambiance.

Credit is also due to director and writer Lisa Cholodenko and Stuart Blumberg (additional writer) for their artful restraint. Social films of this type often push a particular agenda. Crude proselytization is avoided. The creators of the film seem comfortable with ambiguity and the relationship between Bening and Moore ultimately takes a surprising, ambivalent turn.

The Kids Are All Right demonstrates that Cupid’s arrows fly in many different directions, causing desire, pain and confusion on a multitude of levels. Regardless of a viewer’s position on same sex relationships, the film at least flatters the human heart by depicting it intelligently and sensitively.

I walked into I Am Love with anticipation, having heard whisperings of beautiful landscapes and superb acting.  The rumors were right on both counts, but visual splendor and a remarkable performance from Tilda Swinton does not complete a picture.  In certain moments, Luca Guadagnino’s film flirted with the word masterpiece, but the chaotic transitions and unintelligible ending leave it slightly short of its potential.

What stood out for me was the unique camerawork and masterful use of minimalist composer John Adams.  You can sense the detail and effort that went into every scene, from frenetic shots of nature to unusual angles.  There is one scene of carnal bliss where Guadignino shifts in and out of flesh and pollination – employing all sorts of lighting – to convey the earthly pleasure of the moment.  That was magnificent.

Even more sensational was Swinton, speaking in fluent Italian (and scooped up from Russia by a wealthy Italian husband).  At times stoic, in other instances swept up by romantic impulse, she dominates the picture with exceptional control.  Her Oscar-worthy portrayal is reason enough to see this picture, and her sudden burst of passion invigorates beyond the screen.

Despite being a tale of an Italian bourgeoisie family facing internal conflict, the movie manages to address a number of wide-ranging subjects.  Tackled are the inevitability of modernization, the loss of innocence, family loyalty, desire, and even lesbianism.  Nothing is front and center, but rather the story evolves with these issues coloring the backdrop.  The central plot develops swiftly and slowly, like an old phonograph that skips through time and then gets stuck in sequences of artistic significance.  On the whole, the pacing is quite stunning, even if it pushes the line on coherence.

I will avoid commenting too directly about the conclusion, but I will say that it has a Bergman-esque quality that may or may not sit well with you.  I found it damaging to the overall work, but I can imagine others who would embrace the quizzical approach.  Either way, I recommend I Am Love for Swinton, the cinematography, and the artistic developments, which stumble a bit but still make for a compelling display.

You’re going to need some serious brain-wrapping skills to fully understand Inception — but you won’t have any trouble being wowed by the certain to-be-Oscar-nominated visuals.

To try and dissect the film’s plot would ruin it for those who should experience Inception with a clean slate, but I’ll just give you the basics. Leonardo DiCaprio plays an entrepreneur named Cobb who operates a small band of consultants, who, for a price, can go into other people’s dreams and “extract” information. There’s the architect (Ellen Page), the forger (Tom Hardy), the kicker (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) and the chemist (Dileep Rao) – all trained to do their jobs well. It’s never quite explained how they are trained (except for newbie Page), but we just assume it’s something they can do. The inception part in Inception is a little trickier, and frankly, more confusing, to explain. Suffice to say, it’s a technique to go deep within the subconscious to plant an idea. To get that deep, however, you’ve gotta be super prepared because you’re going to be knee-deep in some pretty crazy maze-like, dream-within-a-dream-within-a-dream shit — and it isn’t very easy to get out.

Oh, how I love the way writer/director Christopher Nolan brain works. Most audiences know him as the Dark Knight guy, and while I appreciated his take on the Batman series, I remember him for his entirely unique Memento, his mind-twisty brainchild he made in 2000. Honestly, I don’t think I’ve ever seen a movie quite like Memento, in which the story is basically told backwards, from ending to beginning, and Inception comes from THAT Nolan mind set. Except this time, the director has learned a few things about crafting a thrilling actioner as well, and so combines both the head games AND the car chases. I mean, there are some seriously intense action scenes in this film, especially the climactic “kick” sequence.

The Inception performers also fit well within the Nolan milieu. The oh-so-serious DiCaprio is playing a variation of his character in Shutter Island, with the same tragic past. Page continues her streak of picking unique projects, as the studious and eager dream architect trainee. Gordon-Levitt cleans up well, looking dapper as DiCaprio’s No. 2 guy – and he gets to engage in the coolest fight sequence, like, ever. British actor Hardy (RocknRolla) is a refreshing diamond in the rough as the charismatic forger. As for the other key players, Ken Watanabe exudes a regal air as Cobb’s employer; Cillian Murphy plays it straight as the “mark”; and the lovely Marion Cotillard embodies the women who quite literally haunts Cobb’s dreams. A few may see Oscar nominations down the road.

Obviously, when you’re dealing with a film about dreams, anything can and will happen, and Nolan fully embraces that idea with stunning camera angles and special effects. Inception will be viewed as an early Oscar contender, that is a certainty — and at the very least, it should sweep many of the technical nominations come Oscar time, from visual to sound to cinematography.  If there’s only one criticism about Inception, it would be how bleak and nearly soulless it can be at times. You are drawn in by the characters, yet it’s hard to feel for them. I firmly believe that is Nolan’s intentions. He’s not out to make a warm and fuzzy film, and I respect that because the rest of the film is simply a marvel in inventiveness. And the ending will leave you debating in that glass half full, half empty kind of way. Let’s just say, it’s a movie that needs to be seen more than once.

By Rebecca Rose

Usually when I tell my friends I’m going to a movie to do a review, there’s no shortage of volunteers who want to tag along and help me with my “work”. This movie was a hard sell. My boyfriend refused to come with me; my friends made horrified faces like I had asked them to accompany me to a root canal. Another film reviewer colleague even passed in lieu of catching Grown Ups (He claims to have not regretted his decision). There’s something about the name “Joan Rivers” that is just polarizing. Either you’re someone who hears the name and thinks of a grotesquely caricatured plastic surgery addict making bad jokes, or you feel something like awestruck giddiness. I’m of the latter. For a female comic like myself, it’s impossible to discount what she’s meant, not just to women in the industry, but to show business in general. And as a comedian, I just couldn’t turn down the chance to find out what makes her tick.

Spanning a year of her life starting with her birthday in 2008, the film follows Rivers on the road, as she jumps from project to project, gig to gig. Rivers makes no bones about being a shameless self-promoter, and has no qualms about accepting anything that will earn money. After all, she rightly points out, this is exactly how she’s managed to survive for all these years and still be on the pop-culture radar. Films in the past have had great examples of artists/stars coping with aging and fading from their coveted limelight. From My Favorite Year, starring the brilliantly vulnerable Peter O’Toole to the understated heartbreak of The Wrestler, the subject matter has been tackled with more insight and depth before. What makes Rivers’ different is that she’s not waning; she’s not fading out of the limelight, worried about her. She’s kicking and screaming, having a blast, and probably best of all of her, she’s cashing checks. (Now that I realize what a workaholic she is, I could probably have paid her to join me at this screening…she seriously does not turn down any paying gig.)

Filmmakers Ricki Stern and Annie Sundberg treat her as seriously as they treat many of their past subjects (this is the same team that made an acclaimed documentary about the atrocities in Darfur). They strive to capture not so much the glamour of celebrity; but rather, the nuances of maintaining a career that has survived nearly every major social evolution. One of the most mesmerizing things about the film is her unique, mind-boggling filing system; she has saved quite literally every single joke she’s ever written. (Looking for an old Imelda Marcus joke? It’s probably here.) And the movie certainly has no shortage of hilarious moments. Rivers shines when she’s “on”, whether it’s regaling viewers with humorous stories from her legendary past, making cracks at her own expense, or just being on stage, doing what she does best.

If the film has a flaw, it’s that there’s so much left unsaid about what motivates the comedienne. She possesses a raw fire, a rage that fuels her to perform, that many of comics, myself included would no doubt love to tap into. She’s fearless about her material (9/11 jokes are something even today’s most shock-ish comics stay away from; Rivers has tackles them like a linebacker through a field of dandelions).

Much like her heir apparent, Kathy Griffin (who appears in the film), she’s perfected the art of self-effacement on camera. At times it feels a bit forced, almost a hollow effort to bury herself behind the persona she’s crafted so carefully for these many years. She tackles her obvious flaws so fearlessly (of all the Joan Rivers plastic surgery jokes, hers are by far the best), it’s hard to not wonder if she’s not trying to throw us off. There is a real vulnerability underneath her fiery assaults, but unlike other documentaries that tackle stand-up comedy (the inevitable comparisons to Mr. Warmth: The Don Rickles Project will occur), there’s never really an effort to define it. All in all, however, the film is a bright, funny escape into the world of someone who by all accounts, just wants to make you laugh…for a price.

I’ve heard and said this phrase a number of times since the the original 1987 film where the Predator, an aptly named alien race who’s sole purpose in life is to hunt the most dangerous game, first appeared in all of its imposing and technologically-superior glory.  An impressive comic book release where one appears in New York boosted popularity only to have it crushed when a film attempting to place it in the middle of gang territory in Los Angeles failed miserably, Danny Glover and Gary Busey made every effort to share both the spotlight and the responsibility of ruining the film.  It was a painful loss, and if there was one thing even the most die hard fan believed the Predator couldn’t survive, it was the onslaught of scathing reviews that followed.

Comic books managed to keep the Predator alive through a series of appearances, usually in war stories as some inexplicable supernatural phenomenon in much the same way vampires or werewolves have been used as a twist in modern fantasy and science fiction writing.  One series where the Predators faced off against the race of “Aliens” (made famous by the 80s film franchise) inspired crossover films.  Even the video game industry managed to restore credibility to both the Predator series and for games based on films with a series of successful titles that allowed players to become the Predator and join the hunt.

Our latest hunt takes us back to the jungle, where a man awakens only to find himself in freefall, dropped and saved just before impact by some kind of parachute.  Our nameless American mercenary [Adrian Brody] doesn’t have any knowledge of boarding a plane or arming himself to the teeth.  This grim reality is the first of many to be discovered as the mercenary meets other new arrivals and manages to form them into a small group.  The primal instinct of safety in numbers outweighs the fact a mercenary has formed a jagged alliance with an enforcer from a Mexican drug cartel (Danny Trejo) and a Spetsnaz soldier (Oleg Taktarov).  Other characters literally dropped into the plot include a convicted murder, a female sniper, members of the RUF and Yakuza, and Topher Grace as a doctor who “was on his way to work” provides more comic relief than medical care.

The writing and Antal’s direction takes obvious inspiration from the first film’s mood, most notably in regards to suspense.  The Predators aren’t seen at all (at least by the characters), allowing the focus to remain on the group just as the original film does.  The story differs from the original due to the mercenary’s desire to work alone and provides a conflict as the others look to his experience for leadership.  The sniper (played by Alice Braga) manages to gain it by making a compass in the water using a leaf and allows him to witness it spinning in circles.  She then insists they remain together until they know what’s going on. But any hope of functioning as a team is crushed when she also demands they must work together only to hear “Does this look like a team orientated group of individuals to you?”

The instinct of being watched and eventually getting flushed out by a sudden attack from boar-like creatures leads the mercenary to believe they’re on a game preserve and the prey to some unknown enemy.  Such a realization becomes painfully clear as the group reaches higher ground only to see a number of planets in the sky.  With survival being the primary motivation, the group decides to find out what they’re up against rather than wait for it and stops running from conflict.  Once again true to the original, fans of war films and the kind of firepower only soldiers can bring to the big screen will not be disappointed.  The series of battles that follow make for some truly stunning action sequences, whether it be a hail storm of bullets from the Russian’s minigun or the deadly stopping power of a single, well aimed shot from the sniper.  Here we finally see the enemy, but unlike the original film, this one isn’t alone.

“Predators” is actually a double entendre which dates back to the original as there is no defenseless prey in that film or this one.  Blood is spilled on both sides and the group manages to find evidence of alien technology on the planet during their offensive, leading them to another human who’s survived several seasons on the planet after being dropped.  Noland, played in a surprise apperance from Laurence Fishburne, tells the group of a ship that drops off others each season where a group of three Predators engage them in a hunt.

The group decides that gaining control of the ship is the only chance of survival and heads out in a desperate effort to do so.  These climatic battles provide some of the film’s most memorable moments and even manage to pay homage to the original rather than steal from it.  The best example of this is a scene where Hanzo (Louis Ozama Changchien) allows the group to move forward and makes a stand in a clearing with nothing but his katana.  The Predator hunting them shows the honor characteristic of the species by facing off against the Yakuza with nothing but a metal blade extending from its arm.  However, unlike a similar scene from the original where a knife wielding soldier is killed off without a fight, this film gives the viewer a duel that would have made Kirosawa proud thanks to Changchien’s insistence he use kendo in the film.

The best performance undoubtedly comes from Adrian Brody as a mercenary who remains nameless throughout the majority of the film.  Rather than playing a “super soldier” like Schwarzenegger and his cast from the first film, Brody’s acting skills provide a glimpse into the mind of a trained killer whose callous and apathetic demeanor makes for a believable lead and adds some depth to an otherwise basic plot.  His interaction with the number of character actors in the film are usually the best scenes, although the supporting cast manages to have their moments.  The film’s major triumph is bringing back the Predator by sticking to the basics and perfecting them.  With an ending that screams sequel, it’s only a matter of time before we see the Predator decloaking on the big screen again.

It is has been a difficult summer for 20^th Century Fox. Its first three summer releases have had less than stellar performances at the box office.

Marmaduke, based on the long running comic strip about a Great Dane, opened on June 4. The film follows the adventures of a family and their canine as they move from Kansas to Orange County. Marmaduke features Owen Wilson as the voice of the over-sized dog. Also featured are George Lopez, am Elliot and Kiefer Sutherland. In its initial weekend, the film ranked sixth in box office gross behind such titles as Shrek and Sex in the City 2. Executives at Fox could not have been happy to note that the ticket sales for the film declined almost 50% in its second week-end of release. It has been estimated that the budget of the film was $50 million and its current world wide gross is $46 million according to the-numbers.com.

Reviews for Marmaduke appear to be largely tepid. Roger Ebert, in his Chicago Sun-Times piece, gave Marmaduke a middling rating. He asked acidly, “Why am I writing, and why are you reading, a review of a talking animal movie?” Joe Neumaier, for the New York Daily News, wrote,“If Marmaduke achieves anything, it’s that it makes this past spring’s Furry Vengeance look like a masterpiece by comparison.”

Marmaduke was produced by Jim Davis, who also produced 2004’s Garfield, another screen adaption of a furry comic strip character. Davis happens to be the oldest son of the late billionaire Marvin Davis who was a sometime owner of 20th Century Fox.

Fox’s next summer offering was The A-Team which was released on June 11. The film is a re-vamping of the popular television action series of the 1980’s. Ironically, The A-Team opened on the same day as another film based on an iconic 80’s franchise – The Karate Kid. The box office news was far better for The Karate Kid. It grossed $56 million in its first three days to The A-Team’s less than exciting $26 million. The figures are even more stark considering that The Karate Kid reportedly had a budget of $40 million to the A -Team’s $110 million.

Roger Ebert opened his review of the action film by writing, “The A-Team is an incomprehensible mess…” Kirk Honeycutt’s review in the Hollywood Reporter was also brutal, stating that the film would be more aptly named the “D-Minus Team.” Honeycutt further opined, “The film seems nearly writer-free. Absolutely no time gets wasted on story, character development or logic.” Keith Turan in the LA Times referred to the film as “an underwhelming experience…I pity the fool, as TV star Mr. T might say, who mistakes this for genuine entertainment.”

Which brings us to the third Fox offering of the summer, the Tom Cruise spy caper vehicle, Knight and Day, which opened on June 23. The film grossed $20.5 million on its opening weekend which is apparently the poorest opening for a Cruise film in 20 years. For its debut weekend, the film lagged in ticket sales behind Toy Story 3 and Grown Ups. Knight and Day, which also stars Cameron Diaz, was directed by James Mangold whose other films include 3:10 to Yuma and Walk the Line.

Ebert gave Knight and Day a largely positive notice, although he asks several pungent questions: “Have summer audiences been so hammered down by special effects that they require noise and fragmented visuals to hold their interest? Is it still possible to delight in a story unfolding with charm and wit?” Ty Burr of the Boston Globe labeled Knight and Day “a piece of high-octane summer piffle: stylish, funny, brainless without being too obnoxious about it…”

In a recent interview with the Los Angeles Times, Tony Sella, a co-president for marketing at 20th Century Fox, analyzed why the film’s opening did not perform to expectations. Among the possible factors include the movie’s confusing preview trailer, and a poster which featured neither of the two stars. The absence of box-office excitement is also curious considering that the trailer for Knight and Day ran before showings of Avatar, the highest-grossing film of all time. Sella adamantly denied that the films relatively lackluster box office numbers were due to any declining star power on the part of Cruise.

Knight and Day had a reported budget of $117 million and its current worldwide gross according to the-numbers.com is $80 million. The film’s unremarkable box office has fueled speculation that any idea of producing a “Mission Impossible 4” may be abandoned.

Fox’s fourth offering of the summer, Predators, opened on July 9. The film is a continuation of the studios popular Predator series and features Adrien Brody and Laurence Fishburne. It made an estimated $10 million on opening night.