When I finally got to experience Lawrence of Arabia on the big screen a couple of weeks ago (thank you, Arclight), I came to the same realization that many cinephiles do as they walk out of the modern multiplex these days: they just don’t make ‘em like they used to.

While a larger discussion of Lawrence would certainly be worthwhile (although I may not be worthy), what I found to be the biggest topic of the post-viewing discussion was the utterly fearless (and debut) performance by Peter O’Toole in what I can’t imagine can be considered anything less than one of the most powerful, brilliant and iconic performances in film history.

And yet he didn’t win the Oscar.

I couldn’t imagine any performance that could have come anywhere close to what O’Toole delivered, let alone surpass it. I was deathly curious to know who on earth could possibly have won that year, so I looked it up. You know who beat Peter O’Toole for Best Actor in 1963?

Gregory Peck in To Kill a Mockingbird.

Well. There’s just not much you can say about that.

But then, two days later, I was listening to my favorite film critics, Adam Kempenaar and Matty Robinson, the hosts of Filmspotting, and during their podcast they offered up their weekly poll question:

In 1977, Rocky won Best Picture. If you could go back and give Best Picture again that year, with the same nominees, which film would you give the Oscar to?

All the President’s Men
Bound for Glory
Network
Rocky
Taxi Driver

The point of the question was: look at those Best Picture nominees. Four of the five pictures are unquestioned classics and, in any other year would stand out, head and shoulders above every other film. Yet, in 1977, they were all in the same class. I mean, come on. All the President’s Men, Network, Rocky and Taxi Driver in the SAME YEAR? Wow. How do you choose?

And Gregory Peck in To Kill a Mockingbird and Peter O’Toole in Lawrence of Arabia? Two of the finest performances ever put to screen. IN THE SAME YEAR.

It got me to thinking about real quality in movies and how few and far between it seems to come these days. Yes, we do get really terrific performances and we get films that will most certainly hold up and might even one day be considered classics, but, looking back, will there ever be another year like 1977 again?

Or like 1973. Take a look at who was nominated for Best Actor that year:
Jack Lemmon – Save the Tiger
Al Pacino – Serpico
Jack Nicholson – The Last Detail
Robert Redford – The Sting
Marlon Brando – The Last Tango in Paris

Can you even imagine a year when Lemmon, Pacino, Nicholson, Redford and Brando are all nominated in the same category? Talk about star power. (Today, Oscar producers are happy when just Johnny Depp or Brad Pitt get nominated.) But that’s not just star power. That’s legend. Every single one. (By the way, Lemmon won.)

Or try 1981. Best Actor:
Robert De Niro – Raging Bull
Robert Duvall – The Great Santini
John Hurt – The Elephant Man
Jack Lemmon – Tribute
Peter O’Toole – The Stunt Man

This was John Hurt’s second nomination. Duvall’s third. De Niro’s fourth. O’Toole’s sixth. And Lemmon’s seventh. I mean, come ON. (De Niro won)

How about 1968, Best Actor:
Warren Beatty – Bonnie and Clyde
Dustin Hoffman – The Graduate
Paul Newman – Cool Hand Luke
Rod Steiger – In the Heat of the Night
Spencer Tracy – Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner

Yes, look at the names, but also look at the films. When was the last time the top five performances actually came from five FILMS this good? (Steiger won.)

And the most recent example, 1983, Best Actor:
Dustin Hoffman – Tootsie
Ben Kingsley – Gandhi
Jack Lemmon – Missing
Paul Newman – The Verdict
Peter O’Toole – My Favorite Year

At this point, neither Paul Newman nor Peter O’Toole had won (each had 6 nominations). [O’Toole still, to this day, has yet to win a competitive Oscar, after 8 nominations. The Academy gave him an honorary one in 2003.] This was Lemmon’s 8th nomination (he had won twice before), and Hoffman’s 5th (having won once). Of course, Kingsley won, with this, his first nomination.

So not since 1983 has there been, in my opinion, a year to make us go “Wow….how do you choose?”

Are there no more legends? Is the talent just not that good anymore? Is what’s there spread too thin and too far apart?

Will we ever again see a year where Atticus Finch goes head-to-head with T.E. Lawrence? Will we ever again see a REAL Best Picture race where the Academy voters have to choose between Network and Taxi Driver (and choose Rocky instead)?

Maybe not.

But, who knows…. Stranger things have happened. (Right, Marisa?)

p.s. Until then, don’t wait as long as I did to catch a classic. If there’s a performance or a film listed here you haven’t seen yet, do yourself a favor and Netflix it. The Academy may not do it right every time, but sometimes they do it exactly right.

Remember the last time comedies were what we flocked to see at the movies? They say the last great heyday of American comedies was during the early eighties, when Bill Murray and Chevy Chase ruled and films such as Caddyshack (1980), Stripes (1981), Ghost Busters (1984), Vacation (1983) and Fletch (1985) dominated the box office and big laughs meant more to audiences than big explosions. But then the digital age took over and Hollywood—-and audiences—-turned to the hipper, newer advances in technology instead of relatable smartass characters who could deliver a zinger one-liner.

But the American comedy has made a comeback. Thanks largely to Judd Apatow, a genre that once seemed lost forever is now experiencing not only a resurgence, but a true renaissance in Hollywood. And the latest example isn’t even an Apatow product, but surely was not only inspired by Apatow, but seems to be a product of what can arguably be called the new Apatow Hollywood.

The Hangover, directed by Todd Phillips (Old School), is just pure raunchy entertainment. I can’t be any more plain. It is the story of four friends who head to Vegas for a bachelor party one-night blow-out and end up having the most outrageous night of their lives, one so outrageous that they cannot even remember what happened, nor can they find the groom-to-be, who is missing. The rest of the movie is spent with the remaining three guys trying to piece together the details of their lost night and trying to find their missing buddy. Hilarity ensues, but never once in any contrived, forced or expected ways. In fact, The Hangover is so perfectly crafted, from start to finish, and never bogs down, slows down or loses its pace that you are literally sitting back and enjoying every minute of the most insane joyride you can imagine, while grinning from ear to ear.

No, The Hangover isn’t as laugh-out-loud funny as I expected it to be. But it doesn’t have to be. It is riddled with lines and situations that are so memorable and outrageous that they are comic genius without forcing you into a belly laugh. While I love physical comedy just as much as the next guy (which you do get a good share of), it takes more skill to sustain quality comedy throughout a scene without resorting to stunts just to get a cheap laugh. And you would have thought this film would have taken so many opportunities for the quick, cheap laugh and instead it chooses the sustained comic effect. And it works.

Almost everything in this movie works because it just stays relaxed and doesn’t try to do too much. Even though this is another in the Apatow-birthed “bro-mance” genre, there are none of those annoying “I love you, man” scenes, and whatever philosophizing is left to the story, not to the dialogue. Yes, there are a ton of clichés (this is a Vegas movie, after all), but it is all done in fun and none are cheap or wasted.

Mostly, what I appreciated most from The Hangover was that I never once felt cheap or wasted. Most of these crazy frat-boy comedies can insult your intelligence so deeply that you feel like you flushed your self-respect down the toilet an hour before walking into the theatre. Instead, The Hangover brings you in, crafts a story that I have to say is not predictable or expected, and you have fun every step of the way.

The only thing missing here is a terrific ensemble cast. Most of the performances, including Bradley Cooper and Ed Helms are just ok, but they are nothing to write home about. The performance that really stands out is Zach Galifianakis, whose performance here will most certainly prove to be his breakout role as he is absolutely hilarious in a role that is as hard to define as this movie will be to forget.

And what a way to end a movie. If you thought the closing credits of Slumdog Millionaire were cool, you ain’t seen nothin’ yet.

OK kids, time to put on the Coldplay and get in touch with your sensitive side. Emo rock is all the rage now (don’t ask me what it is, I only report the facts), non-threatening Zac Efron and the Jonas Brothers are who the tween girls adore and don’t ask me what anyone finds sexy about John Mayer, but apparently lots of women do. And it seems that every time I turn on Ellen’s talk show, there’s another incredibly famous movie star going on and on about being a new father and he’s turned into a giant ball of goo. Yes, America, it seems we have found our softer, more sensitive and emotional side and we are not afraid to show it.

Well, maybe this is a reflection of the times we’re living in. Things are uncertain, so we cling to the things and people we love and we try to make the most of the things we have. Yet, on the flipside, these times make it all too easy to look into the abyss and make us question our existence, where we’ve been and where we’re going and what it all means. And for those who are sensitive, these questions can be consuming and can sometimes be overwhelming. And the thought of bringing a new life into this world must be doubly overwhelming, when you are so unsure of it yourself——or so you would think for our two soon-to-be parents who are the main characters of the new Sam Mendes film, Away We Go. However, these two soon-to-be parents find a way to look into the abyss while holding onto their optimism and love of life and, more important than that, their love for each other, to create a grounded, realistic and ultra-sensitive launching pad for the little life they are about to welcome. Too bad the film isn’t as well-rounded as their intentions.

Away We Go is exactly what I was expecting Juno to be two years ago. And everything that’s wrong with Away We Go explains why Juno is so great. Juno was completely unexpected, from dialogue to character choices to plot turns to final destinations to character arcs, whereas Away We Go colors by numbers and does everything that’s expected of it. If you are expecting a standard thirty-something indie movie, you’ve come to the right place. Away We Go is harmless, it’s cute, it tries really hard to say something, as it tells the story of a young couple who are traveling around looking for a place to settle down and live so they can raise their new baby and establish their home. They are scared, as every set of new parents I imagine are, and wondering what kind of parents they will be. So, as the screenwriters (Dave Eggers & Vendela Vida, married themselves) craft a quite unimaginative journey for them through a series of “what if” scenarios to test their parental mettle, we watch these two travel their own emotional journey, one I imagine every new or recently new parent can relate to. That would all be fine if we haven’t all seen it a million times before and we didn’t all know exactly where it was going and how it was going to end.

But, thankfully, it doesn’t really matter. What makes Away We Go so watchable isn’t the plot or the story, it’s the characters. John Krasinski and Maya Rudolph are unexpectedly well-cast as the soon-to-be parents and I so enjoyed spending time with them that I didn’t want the movie to end. Unlike other screen couples, you actually believe that these two are married and that they genuinely like each other. What feels the most real here is the way they relate to each other. You can tell a married couple wrote the screenplay because this relationship is the one part of the film that feels the most honest and unforced. And Krasinski and Rudolph are each so relaxed and seem so comfortable with each other, it’s really nice to see. I’m a fan of each of them, especially Rudolph, and it’s nice to see her come into her own in a semi-dramatic role.

But Away We Go is a comedy and, like a Christopher Guest movie, even ones that don’t work, it’s the ensemble that steals the show, and the supporting characters steal their scenes in Away We Go as well. Of course whenever you have Catherine O’Hara or Allison Janney, you know you’ve got two of the finest character actresses in your midst. And they don’t disappoint. I have come to accept there isn’t anything Allison Janney can’t do.

Even Maggie Gyllenhaal bounces back from a truly embarrassing performance in The Dark Knight and delivers a surprisingly hilarious performance here as a mother who engages in “alternative” parenting techniques. For an actress who has bonafide dramatic indie cred, it’s really cool to see Gyllenhaal stretch herself with this goofy and almost self-mocking performance.

Director Sam Mendes won Best Director (and Best Picture) for his directorial debut (American Beauty in 1999). He has only made 3 films since then, Road to Perdition, Jarhead and Revolutionary Road, all three major studio releases starring major A-list stars. It seems somewhat bizarre for such a hot, A-list director to be making a small independent film written by two first-time screenwriters starring two television actors while at the peak of his career. Whatever the reason he chose to make Away We Go, it’s disappointing that the film itself doesn’t make more of the chemistry it has in its two leads and the terrific ensemble it has surrounding them. Sometimes when you look into the abyss, there just isn’t anything there.

We have come to expect a lot from Pixar movies. Rightfully so. Take a look at the 9 films the little-studio-that-could has produced in its short existence:

Toy Story
a bug’s life
Toy Story 2
Monsters, Inc.
Finding Nemo
The Incredibles
Cars
Ratatouille
WALL-E

That’s quite a list. With the exception of Cars, I consider every one of those an exceptional film, with three (Toy Story 2, Monsters, Inc. and WALL-E) bonafide masterpieces. That is quite a success rate. And Pixar’s most recent film, last year’s WALL-E, proved the limitless magic that cinema can offer, raising the high bar even higher for the studio that had already existed in its own elite realm, so much so that all you had to do was say “it’s a Pixar movie” and you would buy a ticket, without knowing anything else about it (at least I would) and their box office numbers prove it. I don’t think there is a single director or star who is that much of a sure thing.

So it was with great anticipation and expectation that I booked my ticket for Pixar’s latest feature film, Up, on opening weekend (on a Saturday matinee, no less, putting me in the full line of fire of this film’s target audience), and I skipped to the theatre, heady with delight awaiting yet another exhilerating Pixar experience.

You know what they say about high expectations.

In the time since I’ve seen it, and, in fact, since the first moment that I realized that Up was not going to be the monumental time in the theatre I was hoping for and, in fact, was just going to be an average film, I had to keep reminding myself to STOP comparing it to other Pixar films. I thought that maybe I would find more ways to enjoy it if I just sat back and appreciated it for what it was, for the unique, sweet and special touches that made it its own, that made it stand apart. Maybe WALL-E was just too fresh in my mind. Maybe Monsters, Inc is too close to my heart. Maybe Ratatouille was just too sophisticated, maybe Incredibles was just too clever, maybe Finding Nemo was just too smart…but wait. Each and every one of those films were able to stand on their own. Each and every one of those films were able to find new ground to break, new things to say and new ways to say them. Each of the previous Pixar films took us to a different world that we’d never seen before, no two the same (not counting the Toy Story sequel) and give us characters with dimension and personality and heart. But, most of all, they each told a story that was beyond a children’s movie and never insulted the intelligence of their audience, no matter the age, combining theme with plot, giving us exactly what we wanted in the end but never being transparent along the way. They were, each one, finely tuned and original, full of character, heart and soul. The more I thought about it, the more I realized it….Up just can’t compare.

That’s not to say, however, that there aren’t moments in Up that are wonderful. It is, still, a Pixar movie. The opening twenty minutes or so are truly heartwarming and heartbreaking and if it doesn’t get a little misty where you are, then you should really check your pulse. We are introduced to the main characters and the main plot and story is set up, but, more than that, we are given a reason to root for this adventure our character is about to embark upon, which is essential in a movie like this. The audience must be on board if the stakes are high or you might as well give up. So we are right there, in the movie’s back pocket and everything is going great, until it all goes sour once the real “adventure” starts. After a really great start, it’s as if the screenwriter runs out of ideas and is forced to vamp for the rest of the movie, because this great “adventure” feels more like a romp through Central Park that ends up taking f-o-r-e-v-e-r. And the bad guys? I NEVER thought I’d roll my eyes during a Pixar movie but that’s just what I did as soon as I laid eyes on the villainous creatures. OK, so Pixar is owned by Disney, so they can flat-out steal from them now?

Maybe my expectations were too high, maybe I do hold Pixar films to a higher standard, but Up just took way too many shortcuts. Yes, it does have a wonderful theme, but unfortunately, that theme gets lost in among the recycled villains, boring adventure, and transparent storyline. I know, I know….everyone wants to root for this film and it seems to be uplifting and it’s what we need right now, but I’m telling you….it may have a ton of heart, but it just has no soul.

The Terminator series is one of those few sagas whose second installment actually surpassed the original, but then, sadly, suffered a massive letdown with the third (sound familiar, “Dad?”). (Sofia, stick to directing.)

The Terminator and its sequel, Terminator 2: Judgment Day, were pure examples of what the science fiction action genre can be, when done right. Along with The Matrix, The Terminator and its sequel blended amazing futuristic concepts with modern-day settings, state-of-the-art special effects and action sequences to keep you on the edge of your seat. When done right, the science fiction action film can bend your mind, expand your consciousness, challenge your conventional views of everything from physics to space-time continuum to gravity while taking you on a white-knuckle ride with stunts, action sequences and mind-blowing special effects.

But for all Terminator and Matrix are, they are nothing without concept. And for all the fantastic action sequences and special effects that made Terminator 1 and 2 so great (and The Matrix for that matter), it is the concept that makes them work. And, for the Terminator series, it is the story that continues to make it work. The first and second in the series, especially the second, managed to perfectly blend concept and story with action and special effects, but when they lost their way with Terminator 3, which seemed to be simply about marketing Arnold than about furthering the story of John Connor, the wheels were coming off the franchise’s once-impressive machine. So the question now is, does the fourth in the series, Terminator Salvation, bring back the story-telling with the killer effects or is it just another assembly-line knock-off of a once-proud brand name with nothing of any substance behind it?

A little of both.

Terminator Salvation does tell the part of the story that needed to be told. Set after Judgment Day (the day when the machines destroy the world and take over, nearly eliminating the human race, save for a few human survivors), Terminator Salvation now brings us face-to-face with the John Connor we have been watching grow up in the previous three installments, the prophesized leader of the resistance, now a full-fledged rebel warrior, rough and tough and seemingly ok with the knowledge of his destiny of carrying the future of the human race on his shoulders. Of course, this does make for one really serious dude, and there’s probably no actor in Hollywood, other than Sean Penn, more serious than Christian Bale, so he is perfect to play the adult John Connor, and now with the Batman success under his belt, Bale is the ideal choice to play this dark and brooding action hero. Unfortunately, he doesn’t do much here other than shoot things (there’s a lot of shooting things), but he does a good job and his gravitas certainly plays well for the character.

As for the story, we’ve pretty much had three movies of exposition all leading up to this: we (the human race) are at war with the machines. That’s it. So if you don’t want to see a movie about humans at war with machines in a post-apocalyptic world, this isn’t your flick (imagine an updated Mad Max and you get the idea). BUT, if you really really really love cool flying and moving machines, great—-I mean REALLY great—-action sequences (there is a truck chase scene that is just as good as the one from T2 and I didn’t think I’d ever see a truck chase scene that good) and you like your movies LOUD, well, this one’s for you. Director McG (yeah, he’s 41 and he has a name that sounds like a Happy Meal) actually does some amazing things with the camera and proves that you can seamlessly blend CGI with some really stellar back-to-the-basics stunt camera work.

Oh, the story? Yeah, they do get to that. About twenty minutes from the end. But it is important and it does matter. And it does circle back around to the first film. And there is a story element throughout the film that will play with your mind just enough to keep you going through all the explosions, gunfire and crashing helicopters.

OK, so Terminator Salvation is nowhere near the as-close-to-perfect-science-fiction-action-film-as-you’re-gonna-get that Terminator 2 was. But it’s also nowhere near as bad as the you-know-Arnold-is-just-making-this-to-get-elected Terminator 3 was. There are some laughable moments and one truly insulting storyline (a strong woman still needs to be rescued by the guy? In 2009? Really?!?), but, overall, Terminator Salvation is a rollicking great action flick that serves its genre and its legacy well. And it will be back.

So I never read reviews of movies before I go see them, and I especially don’t read them after I see them, because I want my reviews to be my own ideas, uninfluenced by anyone else’s opinions, views or perspectives. But, with Star Trek, I was so staggered by what I had been hearing about the through-the-roof stellar reviews that I just had to see them for myself after seeing the movie this afternoon.

It seems the good reviews are all based on one thing: comparisons to the previous 10 Star Trek movies (if, like me, you are actually stunned that there are TEN Star Trek movies, you can look them up and be totally floored, like I was. Makes me wonder what I’ve been doing all these years.) Words like “reimagining,” “reinvention,” and “brings a fatigued franchise back to life” say to me that critics aren’t looking at Star Trek (2009) on its own, as a stand-alone piece of cinema, but, instead, are grading it as another in a series, just the latest installment and its value is merely being weighed by how it holds up to its predecessors. Of course, Bond films are like that too I suppose, the only franchise that actually has more in its series than Star Trek, so I guess I can’t say I blame them. But I just can’t relate. Unlike the Bond films, I have never seen one of the previous 10 Star Trek films, so this current one had only itself to compare itself to, and that may explain why I am seemingly standing alone on this side of the critical divide.

Now don’t get me wrong, Star Trek is a fine summer movie. And, after seeing the previews for a couple other summer action films that are rapidly bearing down on us (Transformers and G.I. Joe), Star Trek is certainly a far cry from the disasters, jokes and complete wastes of time and space those surely look to be. However, what I feel makes Star Trek work is also what really holds it back. Star Trek, like X-Men Origins: Wolverine, is about beginnings. It is about the evolution of Captain James T. Kirk from a feisty kid to a feisty commander. And it is about how the crew of the Starship Enterprise comes together for the famous ship’s maiden voyage. And all of this is well and good. There are, as we know, many fans, both die-hard and casual, of the 1960’s television series, and it would be hard to be versed in popular entertainment and not know the characters of Kirk and Spock, and, to lesser degrees, the rest of the crew: Bones, Sulu, Scotty, Chekov and Uhura. They are all here and we get to meet them and see how they meet each other, and that is fun. Obviously, the main character is Captain Kirk, but, unfortunately, as played by Chris Pine, this Kirk doesn’t have the depth of character as was played by William Shatner in the television series and the earlier movies, and this Kirk comes off as an arrogant, bombastic jerk who you never really warm up to.

But the rest of the crew is great and full of character, as much as they can be, especially Dr. “Bones” McCoy, played wonderfully by Karl Urban. But, that’s just it. The characters, and the whole rest of the movie itself, are hamstrung by their own limitations. They can only go so far and can only do so much to stay within the bounds of what Star Trek is and what Star Trek fans want to see. So, as a result, there is emotional detachment and a lack of depth to all of these characters, because they are each drawn simply, although, together, they form a more perfect union, as was originally intended. They are intended to be seen as a sum of the parts, not as individuals.

But let’s not kid ourselves. There was one star. It was and still is Spock. That truth is so evident, in fact, that most of this movie is about Spock. And, on the surface, that’s not such a bad thing. Spock certainly is an interesting character—- more interesting than Kirk (at least in this movie)—- and he is certainly played by a more interesting actor, Zachary Quinto. Here, we get to see Spock’s evolution from child to adult, from student to cadet and, eventually, to a member of the Starfleet command. And, certainly, the relationship between Kirk and Spock is one of the most interesting and complicated fictional male friendships in pop culture history. I wouldn’t have had a problem with Spock being such a focus here if I felt it was purely for any or all of these valid reasons. But there is a plot device that comes about two thirds of the way through the film that makes me realize that the entire plot has simply been a device to set up something else and it ends up being so transparent almost to the point of being ridiculous. It is clear that the writers wanted Leonard Nimoy, the actor who played the original Spock, to be in this film, so they did what they had to do to make that happen. And that, for me, is where what had the potential to be a good movie went completely south and it lost me.

I am telling you, there is no way George Lucas would have brought back Harrison Ford or Mark Hamill into his Star Wars prequel films just to pander to the audience. This stunt, and I perceive it purely as a stunt, says to me that the producers didn’t have the confidence in their material to stand on its own, without Nimoy’s presence to carry it to the real fans. If I were a fan, I’d be insulted by that. And, for those of who aren’t fans, I feel cheated. People can justify it all they want by claiming the storyline reflects a legitimate plotline from a real Star Trek episode, blah blah blah. It is a gimmick, through and through, designed to make the Trekkers giddy as schoolgirls and make lots of money. Let’s call a spade a spade.

So…..what? A big summer action adventure movie with a gimmick? No surprise there. Of course, this gimmick turns into one of the stupidest and hardest-to-follow plots in recent memory, but that can all be accepted in the realm of Star Trek and their wild and wacky plots and themes. So you go with it. And there still is a great villain, played wickedly well by Eric Bana, and all the production elements are first-rate. In fact, the best part about Star Trek is it looks absolutely amazing. I’m assuming almost everything was digital, but you certainly wouldn’t know it or be able to tell what was or what wasn’t, it all is so seamlessly done. The spaceships, the effects, the details, everything is so vivid and spectacular, crisp and defined. You really get what you pay for.

Unfortunately, what you also pay for is a story somewhere in amongst the cool spaceships and familiar characters and, unfortunately, once we’ve met everyone and they’ve gotten the Enterprise off into hyperspace, the wrong turn it takes makes us almost regret we went along for the ride.

Or-i-gin. noun. Definition: 1. Ancestry, parentage. 2. a: rise, beginning, or derivation from a source b: the point at which something begins or rises or from which it derives; also : something that creates, causes, or gives rise to another

The X-Men franchise relies heavily on Wolverine, both the mythology of his character and the star power of the actor who plays him, Hugh Jackman. Twentieth Century Fox decided to get a jump on the prequel battle of the summer by releasing X-Men Origins: Wolverine a couple weeks before Paramount’s Star Trek, hoping to catch all the fanboys early and bring in a few of the girls too with a few bonus shots of Body Jackman along the way. While this film is certainly nowhere near as deep, textured or layered as its predecessors, Wolverine kicks off the summer in fine form and serves the franchise well.

That being said, all the meat is certainly on the screen and not in any of the dialogue or the plot. But that’s ok. Hugh Jackman won our hearts and became a star as Wolverine because he scowls with the best of them and has a physique that would make James Bond envious. Unfortunately, we’ve forgotten lately that Jackman can actually act (his last picture, Australia, was so bad the country is thinking about changing its name). [Side note: If you only know Jackman as Wolverine (or as an Oscar host), I urge you to rent The Prestige, which is an amazing film which will make you see and appreciate him as an actor, not just a pretty hunk.] But, unfortunately, much like Australia, Jackman isn’t given much to do here, acting-wise (he certainly masters Wolverine’s three emotions of angry, angrier and REALLY angry) and, like Al Pacino in the disasterous 88 Minutes, the performance almost becomes more about the hair than anything else.

And yet, I still liked it. Yes, the script is riddled with clichés. Yes, it’s predictable and yes, the dialogue is often silly, but again, it stays true to its origins and tells the story of who Wolverine is, where he comes from and how he arrives at the point where we first met him in the original X-Men movie. No, it may not be a great, dark, complicated and textured story like Batman Begins, but, to be honest, they can’t all be, and they don’t all have to be. Because, to be honest, with Hugh Jackman, you can do a lot of bluffing.

The rest of the actors are also top-rate, especially Liev Schreiber and Danny Huston and the production values are solid. There’s nothing truly eye-popping about any of the stunts or the action sequences, but there’s nothing eye-rolling either. This is a solid effort and a worthwhile way to spend a summer afternoon, especially if you are a fan of Wolverine, the X-Men franchise, Hugh Jackman, or tanktops.