Author: BRWC

  • Swimming Home: Review

    Swimming Home: Review

    Swimming Home: Review. By Joe Muldoon.

    Baking orange sun, sculpted bronze torsos, and aquamarine pool water; I could be referring to any of the films that likely came to mind upon reading that. And just as in La Piscine and The Swimmer, there’s plenty of each of those. Based upon Deborah Levy’s novel of the same name, directorial debutant Justin Anderson’s surreal Swimming Home is a meandering, confusing, and ultimately difficult watch.

    In this picture, Isabel (Mackenzie Davis) and Joe (Christopher Abbott) arrive home to find a naked woman (Kitti, played by Ariane Labed) floating in their holiday villa’s swimming pool. Not to be too alarmed by such an everyday occurrence, upon being informed that she’s a friend of a friend (Vito, played by Anastasios Alexandropoulos), Isabel invites the woman to stay.

    Kitti’s presence in the villa brings strain for some and comfort for others. Joe is a poet whose work draws from vaguely alluded-to memories of the Bosnian war, and Kitti begins to read his work and cite it back to him. Despite his history of infidelity, the poet finds himself oddly repelled by the attractive and flirtatious visitor, unnerved by her behaviour. Joe and Isabel’s 15-year-old daughter Nina (Freya Hannan-Mills, whose performance is a highlight despite her being underutilised), however, spends much time with the newcomer, compelled by her oddness.

    Tension gradually sets in between the holidaying family, their friends, and Kitti, and relationship cracks show and strains tighten painfully. Visually, Swimming Home is delightful. Simos Sarketzis’ cinematography captures the warmth of a Greek summer day beautifully, the sun-kissed hues and rays of light giving an almost dreamlike quality to the film. Interspersed throughout are mysterious shots of contemporary avant-garde dances, all watched over by Isabel.

    Their eroticism is matched by the shots of nude men and women dotted around, yet despite their overt sensual nature, they scarcely feel sexy as they should. But it’s not with the visual landscape that this falls short – it’s the writing. To be sure, there are moments of intrigue –its ending being the most notable– but they’re sadly not enough to save the day. Davis, Abbott, Labed, and Hannan-Mills are all accomplished performers, but their abilities are somewhat restrained by the lacklustre material.

    By the time the credits roll, you’ll probably be wondering what Swimming Home is really about. And I’m not particularly left caring enough to find out.

    By Joe Muldoon

  • Jules Dassin: Blacklisted, Overlooked And Unsung

    Jules Dassin: Blacklisted, Overlooked And Unsung

    Jules Dassin: Blacklisted, Overlooked And Unsung. By Simon Thompson

    Jules Dassin is a true example of a great filmmaker whose work in multiple genres goes strangely unsung. 

    Like his contemporary Howard Hawks, Dassin was a director who could be tasked to make a movie within any genre, yet could still find a way to put his own personal touch on it. From romances to comedies to war films, within the confines of the studio system before his blacklisting, Dassin was a director who could do it all. But if there is one particular genre of which Dassin was an indisputable master, it was film noir

    Through a run of classics beginning with Brute Force in 1947 all the way up until Rififi in 1955, Dassin, alongside the likes of Billy Wilder, Fritz Lang, Howard Hawks, John Huston, and Otto Preminger helped to pioneer so many of the idiosyncratic aesthetic and narrative traits which have come to define film noir.

    Due to his blacklisting, a move to Europe, and then largely working in experimental and independent film for the last half of his life Dassin’s work has become forgotten over time.

    Early Life and Career

    Born in 1911 to immigrant parents from Ukraine, Dassin was surrounded by the arts from an early age. The young Dassin learnt to play the piano and acted in school plays throughout his teenage years. Left wing politics were something that Dassin was introduced to very early on, when he was sent to a left-wing Jewish summer camp named Camp Kinderland, an organisation which seeks to promote various progressive political values. Dassin’s experience of attending Camp Kinderland throughout his childhood until his mid-teens would completely form the director’s world view and the tone of many of his key films. 

    Dassin’s route into Hollywood greatly differed from that of many of his peers (with the exception of Orson Welles) in the sense that, unlike other directors of that era who learnt their trade within the confines of the old studio system, Dassin came into Hollywood through having been a successful radio and stage play director/ sketch writer. 

    Dassin had spent two years in Europe studying new developments in dramatic technique which wasn’t being as widely taught in the United States, foregoing college to do so. Aged 25 he returned to America with what he had learnt, adapting Nikolai Gogol’s The Overcoat for CBS radio and directing a critically acclaimed yet short lived play entitled The Medicine Show. This, amongst other projects, was enough to get him recognised as a top talent by RKO who gave him a professional contract to work for them as a director in 1940.  

    The first six years of Dassin’s Hollywood career weren’t exactly anything to write home about. Shuffled around as a contract director by RKO, Dassin showed up, directed what he was told, and then rinsed and repeated the cycle. The highlight of Dassin’s early years in Hollywood was an adaptation of Oscar Wilde’s famous short story The Canterville Ghost starring Charles Laughton. It wouldn’t be until 1947, with his prison drama Brute Force, that Dassin would begin to show his true talent. 

    Brute Force was a gritty prison drama which, thanks to a relaxation of censorship from the Hays Code due to World War II ( and continuing in the post war period up until the mid-1950s), was made in a style and tradition which has come to be called film noir. This can be summed up as a style of crime movies from the 1940s-mid 1950s shot in atmospheric black and white and revolving around morally ambiguous characters in dangerous situations. The public appetite for these kinds of stories, given the socio-political backdrop, was at an all time high and it allowed filmmakers within something as constrictive and censorious as the American studio system to truly experiment. 

    Told from the point of view of Joe Collins (Burt Lancaster), an inmate at the fictional Westgate Prison whose constant escape attempts land him in conflict with the prison’s sadistic warden, Brute Force,in keeping with Dassin’s political views, took a humanistic, compassionate, yet uncompromising look at prison life, that cinema audiences at that point were not fully accustomed to. 

    After an early career within the confines of the studio system, Brute Force represented Dassin’s first true auteur work with its themes of sympathy for the underdog, a need for reform, and the brutal nature of institutions and the men that govern them, all being ideas that he would return to in various ways in his career. 

    Mid-Career Masterpieces and Blacklisting

    Dassin’s first true noir (in the sense of him presenting all of the genre staples), came in the shape of The Naked City (1948). The film tells the story of two police detectives named Muldoon and Halloran (played by Barry Fitzgerald and Don Taylor) as they investigate the murder of a model. This investigation starts out as being simple enough, yet eventually drags the two detectives all around the vast New York City landscape in search of the killer. 

    What made The Naked City stand out from other noir films being released at the time more than anything else was its shooting style. While other key works in the classic noir era were shot on location, for example Billy Wilder’s Double Indemnity, Dassin brought a level of documentary-like realism that hadn’t been done before in American filmmaking. This documentarian quality was achieved through Mark Hellinger’s narration, Dassin’s use of intimate camera angles and natural lighting, which, when combined with making New York a character in itself, presented the audience with a vision that was decades ahead of its time. Simply put, there is no Bullitt, Dirty Harry, or The French Connection without Dassin’s The Naked City

    Dassin’s two subsequent films Thieves’ Highway (1949)and Night And The City (1950)would each foreshadow both a key event and the resulting fallout of the said key event in Dassin’s life. Thieves’ Highway was a movie which tested the limits of Hays Code censorship to an even larger extent than The Naked City. The plot, focusing on a newly returned World War II veteran named Nick (Richard Conte) who, after finding out that his immigrant father has been badly beaten to the point of being paralysed, decides to go looking for the gangster (played by Lee J Cobb) responsible. Looking for a way into the criminal underworld, Nick eventually partners with a prostitute called Rica (Valentina Cortese) who Nick believes can help him effectively search for the perpetrator. 

    With a socialistic message of rooting for the underdog above anything else, Thieves’ Highway was a narrative that featured both the place of immigrants within American society and the nature of prostitution as central themes within the story. This gave Dassin’s work a Jean Renoir style quality that would ultimately make him a target. 

    Thieves’ Highway represented the first time that Dassin had truly expressed his political views upfront with one of his movies. As such, Thieves Highway is seen as being an example of crime cinema called Film Gris, a term coined by director Thom Andersen, meaning grey film in French, referring to a body of politically left wing in nature crime movies in which Dassin’s work played a major role. 

    Because the politics of Dassin’s work and the work of other filmmakers such as Nicolas Ray and Joseph Losey weren’t exactly subtle, to say the least, their films put them in the firing line of The House of Un-American Activities committee ( HUAC for short) headed by Senator Joseph McCarthy. 

    Dassin first came to the attention of HUAC in 1947 during the production of The Naked City through testimony provided by James Kevin McGuinness. McGuinness claimed to HUAC that when Dassin was first hired by MGM  in the earlier part of the decade  he and a group of fellow filmmakers of similar political views tried to halt the production of a movie called Tennessee Johnson, a biopic about Andrew Johnson the 17th president of the United States. McGuinness testified that when he took over the executive producer role due to the death of the previous producer J Walter Ruben, he was presented with a petition by Dassin and four other screenwriters demanding production be scrapped. 

    Dassin, his fellow screenwriters, and others who protested Tennessee Johnson such as the NAACP, The Communist Party of the USA, Vincent Price, and Zero Mostel did so on the grounds that the film completely omitted Andrew Johnson’s well documented vicious racism. Given that the film was intended as piece of propaganda to boost the American war effort, many conservative commentators accused Dassin and others of the same opinion of trying to undermine national unity.

    McGuinness’s testimony would prove to be the first blow in the carefully coordinated destruction of Dassin’s ability to work in Hollywood. From 1948-1949 Dassin’s name would be connected to multiple communist organisations, and while he was still on the verge of being blacklisted he moved to the UK temporarily to work on one of his strongest films, Night and The City

    Night and The City would prove to be another example of how forward thinking Dassin truly was. The story focuses upon a conniving American hustler named Harry Fabian (played to perfection by Richard Widmark), based in London, who treats the bombed out remains of post-war London as his own personal hunting grounds for easy targets. 

    Eventually Harry’s scheming, through a variety of factors, goes awry and he is forced into a corner entirely through his own hubris. Its on location shooting style, use of long takes, themes of existential despair, Carol Reed/ Orson Welles style use of shadow, as well as its anti-hero protagonist and realistic portrayal of London’s criminal underworld, combined to make Night and The City  stand out from other films in the same genre in a way which critics and audiences didn’t quite appreciate at the time. 

    Although informally blacklisted in 1949 to the extent that he couldn’t enter studio property to edit Night and The City, Dassin’s ostracisation rapidly sped up from 1950 onwards. First he was slated to direct a film called Half Angel only to be replaced by Richard Sale, but it would be in 1951 when the director would truly find himself in hot water. 

    In April 1947 filmmaker Edward Dymtryk, who had been blacklisted during the first wave of HUAC hearings in 1947, decided out of self-preservation to cooperate with the HUAC and give names to the committee. Dymtryk testified that the Screen Director’s guild included seven known communists including Dassin. Just one month later, another director, Frank Tuttle, who also found himself in trouble with the HUAC, corroborated Dymtryk’s testimony implicating Dassin, and through further hearings such as the ones for actor Jose Ferrer and director Michael Gordon Dassin was outed as a member of the Communist Party of the USA. 

    The only work Dassin could get in the United States after 1951 was on Broadway, thanks to the kindness of Bette Davis, who bravely risked her own career to help Dassin. After the show was cut short after 90 performances due to Davis’s poor health, Dassin was offered a directing job in France which he grabbed with both hands – both for the chance at steady employment but also so he wouldn’t have to testify in front of the HUAC. 

    Work in Europe and later career

    In 1955, after five years out of work Dassin made the movie that is widely considered his masterpiece, Rififi. An adaptation of Auguste Le Breton’s novel of the same name, Rififi is the story of an aging gangster named le Stéphanois (Jean Marais) who, after being released from prison having served a five year sentence for jewel theft, is down on his luck and struggling to re-adjust to life back out on the street. Le Stéphanois  decides to team up with a group of gangsters to commit a daring robbery of a luxury jewellery shop in Paris’s Rue De La Paix, the city’s most exclusive shopping district. Made on a tiny budget, and with an unstarry cast Rififi allowed Dassin the most creative freedom he had experienced in his filmmaking career to date. 

    Rififi,alongside the likes of John Huston’s The Asphalt Jungle, Jean Pierre Melville’s Bob The Gambler, and Stanley Kubrick’s The Killing is considered by the majority of film critics and historians as being one of the key building blocks in the creation of the heist genre. 

    Dassin used long uninterrupted takes, most famously culminating in a half hour scene of the heist itself that contains no dialogue, music, or cuts of any kind. In keeping with a tradition he started with Night and The City Dassin shot the entirety of the film in the winter streets of Paris, which steeps the visuals in a unique moody atmosphere that many other heist films, such as Jean Pierre Melville’s Le Cercle Rouge, have tried to recapture in some ways. 

    Riiffi alsorepresented the first time in Dassin’s career where he had experienced unanimous critical acclaim. Nominated for a best director award at the Cannes film festival, and receiving praise from none other than future filmmaking legend Francois Truffaut, who heralded Dassin by saying that “out of the worst crime novel I’ve ever read, Jules Dassin has made the best crime film I’ve ever seen.” 

    Dassin’s post Rififi work represented a culmination of everything that he wanted to be in America but couldn’t. Working in France, and eventually Greece due to his marriage to actress Melina Mercouri, Dassin’s later career represents an era of bold experimentation that simply wouldn’t have been available to him in Hollywood. European critics and audiences appreciated his vision far more than their American counterparts did. 

    As the new-wave of Cinema gained momentum Dassin, despite being much older than leading lights of new wave cinema such as Truffaut, Jean Luc Godard, Michelangelo Antonioni and Eric Rohmer, like his contemporary Federico Fellini, found himself aligned with European new wave filmmaking rather than being left behind by it. Dassin’s boundary-pushing romantic comedy Never On Sunday and his spiritual successor to RififititledTopkapi, showed that the director hadn’t been shipwrecked by the sweeping tidal wave that was leaving even the likes of Alfred Hitchcock all at sea. 

    Despite receiving far more praise in the second half of his career than the first, Dassin is not a household name of a great filmmaker in the manner of a Stanley Kubrick or an Orson Welles or a Billy Wilder. Dassin is far better known in Europe, than in his home country of the United States because following his blacklisting for the last half of his career, he took a far more experimental route, eschewing big studio work for the most part to make more stridently political smaller films which wouldn’t be widely distributed. Like Jean Pierre Melville before him, he’s somebody whose pioneering accomplishments have become so widespread that audiences have lost sight of the original source of them.

    Through the quality film preservation available today, Dassin is a filmmaker that isn’t going to go as continually unheralded for long. The vast majority of his work is a part of The Criterion Collection and through inspiring countless people including directors such as Martin Scorsese, Michael Mann, Quentin Tarantino, and Brian De Palma even if many people don’t know his name his fingerprints are scattered all over film history both in the USA and Europe. 

  • Curiouser And Curiouser: Was Your Favourite Classic Always A Classic?

    Curiouser And Curiouser: Was Your Favourite Classic Always A Classic?

    Curiouser and Curiouser: A New Series. By Christopher Patterson.

    Welcome to: It actually wasn’t hated upon release. Or was it?

    You might have come across a Wiki page that said your favorite novel wasn’t actually liked upon release. But, thankfully, this new, smarter generation set things right and noticed the clear disrespect. Usually, you’ll see this shameless sentiment applied to The Great Gatsby or Wuthering Heights. Of course, when you look into contemporary opinions, it’s a more complex story. No, people in the 20s’ weren’t unable to catch the blatant message of The American Dream, rather, they transcribed their visus in different forms. Reading is an experience best served refreshed, so the critic’s job is to find a sui generis pathway to the gallery. Not to address what modern reviewers so cheaply do (‘it was great’ or ‘I really liked’), but rather:

    “The Great Gatsby” is bedewed with rainbow drops sprayed from an atomizer of scented sentimentality.” – Helen E. Haines

    Haines, like the best of her field, lacks a critic’s extraordinary passion for extraction of personality and instead leashes herself on the page, by beginning the review with modern violations. Will and unlikeable honor. Our heroine doesn’t value being universally read, having evoked that rare quality of a singular mind and aesthetic. Helen E. Haines is not an excruciating guide, hence a player for the page. She quotes generously, and puts her encapsulations with playful dictation. Haines initially informs the common reader that she is, in fact, possibly plain (In response to crystal clear and vomiting superlatives: ‘I don’t exactly understand what that means, but I refuse to be hypnotized by this verbal mesmerism’). Yet she at once refutes this by the mention of Gatsby through review of reviews, distinguishing herself and the criticism.

    “The common reader, as Dr. Johnson implies, differs from the critic and the scholar. He is worse educated, and nature has not gifted him so generously. He reads for his own pleasure rather than to impart knowledge or correct the opinions of others.” – Virginia Woolf

    A common reader would suck up the superlatives given with no push back. Haines review is mandatory reading for someone who is not a freelance writer. But I am starting to look like one.

    If you read any modern review, you see the usual problem: lack of critical prose and the disregard of the power of strong medicine. Read any review dated 1760 to 1887 and you will find a treasure trove of eloquent quotes and proper phrasing not present anymore. And when you read a review dated 1920 to 2025, you’re sure to find plenty of reviews sounding like synonyms of the next. This is not a case of idolizing older English, rather it’s due to the lack of honesty and harshness I see now. When you see the past, the common difference is ethics and violation. Many opinionators had no agreement. The laws they governed, their place of critiquing, was their own individualized playing field. They did not think ‘I enjoy, so it is good’ or ‘the characters are well drawn.’ If they felt a work went too far, they shamed it. Nowadays, anything goes and the people humiliating normally second-class art are brought down a notch in favor of suck-up applause. But you soon realize, with this treatment, nothing is provocative nor very interesting. And those who bullied works against their values shouldn’t be debased, rather they should be promoted and inspected. It’s more amusing to scrutinize a soul than to write it off.

    People of the past frequently used the aspect of their modern sensibilities combined with genuine well-educated thinking to find a wholly unique mindset. If one was to discuss a simple tale of the day, the reviewer’s job would be to obviously reinvent the novel with their words on the page. Transform the text and recontextualise it, and furthermore, make the reader know the criticism their hearing is from Tristram Shandy, an opinion maker not ‘just some guy’. You may not always agree with the reviewer, but that’s not their job. Their mind should not be a respectable one, rather an interesting one. Of course, the writers weren’t selected for poor manners, but if they stood out and stood on their word. This could mean, to modern sensibilities, the review is erroneous because the writer is not socially respectable.

    Instead, it should mean it’s a review by a Doris Lessing not a Victoria Lucas. If you can agree with everyone in a room, then nobody in that room deserves a voice. They’re all dead and soulless, and don’t deserve the right to make a word on the page. I am not suggesting being provocative should be the new thing, rather, being a polished thinker. The cult-like structures 20th century criticism established, should be burned alive in replace of a wild, wild west type of criticism that made 19th century literary criticism so reviving. Anything goes, meaning you’re constantly hit with new minds that challenge you. This reminds me of the introduction by Mark Twain:

    Persons attempting to find a motive in this narrative will be prosecuted; persons attempting to find a moral in it will be banished; persons attempting to find a plot in it will be shot.

    This quote can be read by two different minds. One thinks it shows the constitution and order of the human soul. The writer has a motive, and you may like it or not, but respect must be placed on the bareness to which the opinion was stated. Another thinks there is now no plot of Huckleberry Finn, because you must respect the author’s wishes. And your mind and its narcissism must be extinguished in favour of ‘fair-criticism,’ without realizing all criticism is fair and not fair.

    But this meandry introduction has been prolonged enough. Each post on this topic will be exceedingly in depth, relying on scholars, personal research, and dozens of citations from multiple languages (translations will be provided). If you are ready for the ride, follow along. But beware, those who join might not have “a second opportunity on earth.” 

  • Clown In A Cornfield: Review

    Clown In A Cornfield: Review

    Clown In A Cornfield: Review. By Jake Peffer.

    Clown in a Cornfield marks the return of director/writer Eli Craig. In 2010, Craig struck gold with the cult classic Tucker and Dale vs. Evil. After doing only a handful of projects since then, Craig returns with this which is based on a novel of the same name. Leaning in heavily to the dark comedy and horror elements, Clown in a Cornfield ends up being a surprisingly fun movie that subverts your expectations.

    The movie follows Quinn (Katie Douglas), as her and her dad (Aaron Abrams) move to a small town called Kettle Springs to find a fresh start. Kettle Springs has seen some recent issues since the town’s corn syrup factory closed after a fire, things just haven’t been the same. Adults in the town are trying to make their once great town like it used to be while the kids in the town just want to party, make prank videos and get out of the town as quickly as they can. There’s a strong back and forth between everyone in the town. That is, until Friendo, the mascot of the former corn syrup factory, a creepy clown who decides that the only way the town will get back to its ways it to get rid of the rotten kids who now inhabit the town.

    In the beginning, Clown in a Cornfield feels like a typical slasher movie. There’s the set up with the new kid in town that starts hanging out with a bad crowd and then eventually the kids start to get picked off one by one. It all feels generic but there’s nothing particularly bad about it either. Once the story gets into the second half of the movie is where things change, and the story decides to go in another direction. This bodes well for the movie as it gets to a point where the audience doesn’t know what will happen next. It’s a perfect way of subverting the audience’s expectations and when a movie does that, especially a horror movie, that will always bump up the excitement.

    There are several fun moments here. Eli Craig knows how to perfectly balance the horror and comedy. The jokes are usually quite funny, but they never overdo it with the comedy and know when to play things just right in the more serious parts. When the horror elements are in play, they work well including lots of, mostly, practical effects for the blood and gore. Friendo the Clown is a great new character to add to the never-ending list of good horror movie villains. The character is creepy, but the movie does some fun things with him to make him a more known presence.

    Katie Douglas does a great job as the lead. Her character has the perfect personality of being a final girl and Douglas’ performance adds a lot of charm to the character. Character actor Kevin Durand is a lot of fun here as he is getting to do what he does best with this character. Will Sasso is an interesting choice to play the town sheriff but he’s quite funny in the role, doing his best southern bumpkin accent. The rest of the cast here is fine but there aren’t really any standouts besides Douglas. A lot of the teenage characters are mostly just playing stereotypes but there are a couple that they end up doing some interesting things with and that was not expected.

    Overall, Clown in a Cornfield is a bloody good time. It is able to mix horror and comedy together well without one overshadowing the other. Once things get going and the movie starts to subvert your expectations is when things really start to get fun. This is a worthwhile horror/comedy that works more than it doesn’t.

    Grade: B

  • Thunderbolts*: The BRWC Review

    Thunderbolts*: The BRWC Review

    Thunderbolts*: The BRWC Review. By Jake Peffer.

    Thunderbolts* is the latest movie in the Marvel Cinematic Universe and one of the first in a while that feels unique and tries to do its own thing. When Valentina Allegra de Fontaine (Julia Louis-Dreyfus) hires Yelena (Florence Pugh) for a mission where she must take down a new threat, she arrives to complete her mission and is met by four foes, all of whom are now trapped.

    Once they realize they were all hired to take each other out, they decide to work together to escape their current situation. Along with Yelena there’s John Walker (Wyatt Russell), Ghost (Hannah John-Kamen), Taskmaster (Olga Kurylenko) and Bob (Lewis Pullman). They are joined by Yelena’s dad Alexei (David Harbour) and Bucky (Sebastian Stan) as they embark on a new mission that will force them to confront the darkest corners of their past.

    The team assembled here is an interesting one. Taking a bunch of secondary characters in the MCU, all of whom are anti-heroes, and throwing them all together seems like it shouldn’t work all that well. Director Jake Schreier is able to make you really care about these characters, some of which felt like one off characters in previous movies and TV shows. There’s a certain chemistry here that is something a Marvel movie hasn’t pulled off in a couple of years. 

    As with most of these movies, the action sequences here are top notch. There are clear uses of several practical effects which is always a pleasure to see. A lot of the hand-to-hand combat is some of the best that’s been in a comic book movie. The biggest surprise is how genuinely funny the movie ends up being. In the beginning it felt like they might try and overdue things with the comedy, but they are able to walk a fine line between the comedy and the more serious moments. Speaking of which, the movie deals a lot with depression, and it does a good job in showing how the characters cope with it.

    There isn’t much to complain or dislike about Thunderbolts*. The final act, while doing some interesting things, feels like it overstays its welcome and doesn’t stack up as well to the first two acts. While it is very funny, the comedy doesn’t always land and there are a few scenes that feel like there’s just one too many jokes. Aside from those gripes there is a lot to enjoy here, especially the cast. Everybody in the cast gets their moment to shine but Florence Pugh is the one who shines the most. She effortlessly leads this cast and really shows off how good of a leading actress she can be.

    Overall, Thunderbolts* does things differently than your typical Marvel movie but that’s all for the better. Featuring a great cast of characters with perfect chemistry, some fun and intense action sequences and a solid ending that leads to a great after credits sequence, this has all the markings of the perfect way to start off the summer movie season.

    Grade: B+