Jet Li and Jackie Chan are two of the greatest martial artists to come out of China - however, they have never been in a film together and certainly not “fought” in any film or show. That changes in The Forbidden Kingdom, a film they have been promising their fans since 2001. Kung Fu fans have been buzzing about this event since the first trailer, their enthusiasm reminding me of seeing Star Wars III in a packed theater. The moment Yoda took light saber in hand to duel Christopher Lee the entire theatre let out a thundering cheer of dreams come true. Seven years after the Li/Chan promise, kung-fu dreams are coming true.

If that isn’t sufficient reason to see this film, consider that The Forbidden Kingdom has reinvented The Karate Kid for a new generation. Michael Angarano (Sky High’s charming hero returns to play another charming hero) is Jason, a kung-fu movie fan from Boston. His friendship with an old Chinese pawnshop owner means he gets classic martial arts films cheap, a peek at an authentic battle staff, and a beating from the neighborhood thugs. The thugs use Jason to rob the pawnshop, where one thief shoots the resisting owner. Helplessly overpowered, Jason grabs the staff and runs for his life. Thugs on his heels, he gains the roof only to fall over the edge. He lands – or wakes – in medieval China, wearing monk’s robes, staff still in hand.

It turns out Jason is ‘the seeker’ destined to return the staff to the Monkey King’s immortal hands. This will free the King from imprisonment as a stone statue and send Jason home. Jason encounters a drunken kung-fu master (Jackie Chan), a beautiful girl, and a silent monk (Jet Li); together they teach Jason kung-fu, bravery, self-sacrifice and discernment, especially as the group fights and avoids the minions of the evil Jade Warlord.

I preferred this movie to Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. I liked the complex yet clear plot, the humor, the duel between Chan and Li, and particularly liked Jason’s journey from a decent but scared young man to a heroic protector of others. The film is rated PG-13 for violent kung-fu fights.

Nim (Abigail Breslin) and her father Jack (Gerard Butler) live alone on an uncharted island. Secure from the world, Jack focuses on science while Nim makes friends with animals and reads Alex Rover adventure stories with such enthusiasm that she brings them to life.

Unknown to Nim, the woman who writes the Alex Rover books is as isolated from the world as she is. In San Francisco, Alexandra Rover (Jodie Foster) uses her adventurous alter ego to overcome her fear of the world. One day, as she looks for inspiration for a new novel, Alexandra discovers one of Jack’s scientific articles and emails him. Jack, meanwhile, confident Nim will be fine by herself for two days, has sailed off to discover a new life form. Nim answers the email from her hero and a friendship forms between them.

A storm comes tearing through their lives and the real adventure begins: Jack is lost at sea, Nim is alone and wounded, and Alexandra realizes Nim is a child. Having lost the comforts of isolation, these three discover that people have more value than science or books or safety, and they risk their lives to reach each other.

Casting Gerard Butler to play both Jack and Alex unites the plot. As father and character, he inspires both women to brave adventures. His failure to resolve their dilemmas (let alone his own) forces them to leave the safety of dream worlds to help someone real. They learn to treasure people over isolation and relationships over dreams.

Although many critics have panned the movie for being a failed adventure story, I found the story to be a good lesson and a good movie. Life-in-peril situations earn the PG rating, but the film is suitable for young children. If this movie appeals, I highly recommend the even better Dear Frankie (a smaller, quieter, and more grown-up story now available on DVD).

In 1533, King Henry VIII (Eric Bana) divorced his wife, Queen Catherine, and married a young girl in his court named Anne Boleyn (Natalie Portman). Historians still debate the influence Anne and her family had in the king’s decision… did they orchestrate the divorce? Was the King of England a pawn to Boleyn ambition, or was Anne attempting to gain some control over a situation that had been disastrous for so many girls before her?

One girl in particular served as example of the fate a monarchical mistress could expect: Mary, Anne’s sister, The Other Boleyn Girl. In most Henry VIII biographies, Mary (Scarlett Johansson) gets little more than a line designating her the sexual conquest who came after Bessie Blount and before her sister. Phillipa Gregory, however, uses Mary as a character study, exploring these historical proceedings through the lens of this forgotten sister.

The movie dramatizes Phillipa Gregory’s bestselling novel, adhering to the plot admirably considering the reduction of a 600 page novel to a 2 hour movie. Mary’s perspective affords a fascinating glimpse into the sexual politics surrounding Tudor women, but this necessarily truncates the larger historical perspective. The dissolution of the Catholic Church in favor of the Church of England (the largest outcome of the divorce) occurs so swiftly that the audience may miss it altogether.

A warning: while rated PG-13, the subject matter of this film is entirely adult in nature. These historical figures exemplify the dark nature of passion. Expect prostitution, adultery, rape and incest, not romance. The cinematography reflects the subject matter, showing us historical events through a dim, often obscured lens. Expect a film dark in subject and color, reflective of the history it portrays. Want more history? Try two film classics: Anne of the Thousand Days and A Man for All Seasons.

The political thriller Vantage Point explores a terrorist attack in Salamanca, Spain through the unfolding perspectives of witnesses, accomplices, and victims. Upon first observation, the President of the United States (William Hurt) is assassinated when opening an international summit on terrorism… or is he?

We quickly learn that the man shot in the public square doubles for the President; additionally, the terrorists who shot the presidential double set off two bombs. Is this public destruction or do they have a subtler plan?

Dennis Quaid plays the heroic Secret Service agent who spearheads the discovery of the truth, but he by no means carries the film. Instead, the film retells the first twenty minutes of action five times, each from one individual’s ‘vantage point’ that provides new information. Multiple retellings of a narrative are always difficult to execute, requiring the viewer to wade through previously-told, superfluous information in order to discover those moments that propel the plot. This movie increases the audience’s frustration in the narrative by visually rewinding each perspective before moving on to a new analysis. By the second rewind the audience sounded restless, and by the fifth I heard laughs of annoyance.

Free of sex and surprisingly tasteful in its depiction of violence (rated PG-13 for the violent subject matter and some language), Vantage Point nevertheless fails to thrill. Plot holes abound, driven by inconsistencies of character and action. The movie asks us to believe that every president has a double but that no Secret Service agent wears a bullet proof vest, that a special services officer is more intimidated by five lone terrorists than he is by the collected forces of the President’s security guards. Ultimately the array of illogical plot points overpowers the film, making more of a comedy than a thriller.

I went to see Fool’s Gold with low expectations. In the month of February, one can hardly expect many new releases, and those have to compete with re-releases of estimable films hoping for an Oscar. In February, Hollywood turns a serious face to the public, demanding of us a sober reflection of our times and their art in portraying them. It is not the best time to be entertained.

Then too, the previews for Fool’s Gold inspired little confidence. They advertised an incredibly silly film, showing again that Matthew McConaughey’s screen persona becomes more juvenile as he ages. Thus, I was surprised when the opening credits declared this to be an Andy Tennant film. Hope arose; I like Andy Tennant movies.

Matthew McConaughey plays Finn, a treasure hunter in desperate need of a haircut and some money. Kate Hudson is his ex-wife Tess, still in love with him and the history of sunken treasure but tired of being with a financial child. Treasure lures the wealthy Nigel (Donald Sutherland) and a murderous rapper named Bigg Bunny into the hunt, with Ray Winstone appearing all-too-briefly as treasure-hunter for the rapper. The history behind the treasure they hunt is cleverly plotted, the script giving characters an intelligence that saves them from being laughable.

The movie has not been getting good press, but I enjoy a movie that doesn’t make me squirm with embarrassment, offend my sensibilities, preach to me, or otherwise inspire regret for parting with my money. Though not a kid’s movie (the PG-13 alerts to some language, sex scenes that take place off-screen, nudity limited to one flash of breasts, and violence used more for comedic effect than to horrify), Fool’s Gold shot for entertainment, and I’d say it hit its mark.

Today, weddings are expensive obsessions. One afternoon’s flip through the cable stations—to shows like Platinum Weddings and Bridezilla–reveals our fascination with these lavish performances. Thus 27 Dresses arrives at a perfect time but with a surprising message. Television suggests we tend to get married for the wedding; 27 Dresses reminds us that we have a wedding in order to get married.

Katherine Heigl plays Jane, a woman more obsessed with weddings than the average American girl. The obsession developed as a salve against the loss of her mother. She becomes an amateur wedding planner/bridesmaid by night, while by day she is an executive assistant in love with her boss. Drama follows when Jane’s sister comes for a visit and steals every one of Jane’s wedding dreams, from the boss to the dress. Comedy and romance arrive with Kevin (James Marsden). He invades her busy universe as a wedding columnist who finds weddings ridiculous and thinks her obsession will inspire an article that will advance him towards more serious journalism.

The appeal of 27 Dresses rests in the forced association between Jane and Kevin, their conflict and friendship. The dialogue has the wit of classic comedies from the 30s and 40s; the montage where she walks him through the 27 weddings for which she has bridesmaid dresses makes the movie. There are sexual references and a sex scene more implied than seen (which earns the PG-13 rating), but neither Jane nor Kevin advocate the casual sex their friends look for at weddings. For them, weddings are commitment not entertainment.

The Water Horse: Legend of the Deep, a good movie that needs a new title, dreams up a “real” story to explain the Loch Ness monster. Brian Cox plays the modern day narrator who takes two American tourists back in time to WWII, telling them about a young boy, Angus. We meet Angus wandering the beach while missing his father (who was drafted into the navy several years earlier). There alone, he finds an egg. The egg hatches to reveal a mischievous, mythical creature: the water horse. The boy befriends and raises the creature, aided by his sister and a mysterious caretaker (Ben Chaplin). Together, they hide it from Angus’s mother (Emily Watson) and the troop of British soldiers who have been billeted in their home.

The surprise of the story, not hinted at in the trailers, is this subplot about British soldiers. In Scotland to protect the loch from the danger of German submarines, they succeed more in endangering the lives of the boy, the caretaker, and the creature. These scenes of violence and danger earn the PG rating. This side of the story rang, not altogether subtly, with anti-war sentiment, typical of movies today but surprising in a children’s film. This sentiment and much of the military plot was lost on my 11-year old niece.

I enjoyed the film. The story was well told and well acted, the scenery of Scotland enchanting, and the CGI water horse so well executed that its artificiality never stood out. However, my niece found it sad (the theme is learning how to deal with loss) and my 14-year-old nephew was bored. Neither wanted to see it twice, and movies they love get multiple viewings, even a second trip to the theatre.

Marc Forster seemingly designed his movie, The Kite Runner, for those who read the book. I confess to not being one of them. Considering the number of people who have recommended this novel, I feel the odd-man-out; the movie exaggerated this sensation.

Not that I found the story complex. The tale begins in San Francisco, where Amir gets a call from an old friend asking him to come home and to “be good again.” This quest is the heart of the story. With the phone call, we journey back with Amir to his childhood in Kabul, playing with his best friend Hassan, whom Amir betrays.

As we see the betrayal and its ramifications on the friendship, we also see the Russian invasion of Afghanistan, Amir and his father’s flight to America, and Amir’s path to manhood, marriage, and peace with his dying father. All these details, book readers assure me, carefully follow the novel’s structure.

This was precisely the problem with the film. Watching The Kite Runner resembled reading a book report, all details and little emotion. I tired quickly of Amir’s exile in America… the community of Afghans, the wedding ceremony, the father’s illness… because it seemed unrelated to Amir’s betrayal of Hassan and his need for redemption. Having been given the thesis and argument, I failed to see the significance of these details, feeling that they interfered with the film’s heart. As for Hassan, I choose to be vague because his story (he is the title character) carries the emotional weight of the film and thus the reason to see it. It is also his story that earns the movie its “PG-13” rating. These scenes include violent assaults upon children and are not suitable for the young.

Atonement, like its central character, wastes a lot of time and as a result accomplishes little. It is rated “R” for sex and violence. It is a visually stunning film and well acted – particularly by James McAvoy as Robbie.

Nevertheless it seems like a ten page script stretched to fill two hours. Endless shots of people on a beach, in a chair, or marching through corridors fill this film, time that could have been more effectively used to develop a coherent plot.

The story concerns a girl, Briony (played at various ages by ­­­­Saoirse Ronan, Romola Garai, and Vanessa Redgrave), upset by her sister Cecilia’s (Kiera Knightley) attraction to the housekeeper’s son, Robbie, which leads her to falsely accuse him of a crime. This action destroys all their lives; most of the film focuses on the characters’ efforts to recover what was lost by her act, but virtually ignores the actual crime.

However, we aren’t given enough backstory to care what happens to these people. We are told, for example, that Robbie and Cecilia have long been falling in love, but in all the film’s flashbacks none show this development. Thus, when Robbie asks Cecilia how he can hope their love will survive , and all we’ve seen is a three minute tryst in the library, we echo his doubt rather than affirm her hope. However, the plot’s biggest betrayal comes with its conclusion, asking us to be content with a Dallasesque “Bobby Ewing in the shower” ending. If you can only dream about making atonement, make your dream better than this one.

Of the films inspired by video games, Hitman far surpasses most of its predecessors. Most game-inspired movies lack plot, character development, and anything resembling decent dialogue – good movies require these details, good games find them superfluous. The director of Hitman overcame this difficulty by remaking The Bourne Identity, cleverly changing the names of the characters and the super-secret-assassin organization to disguise the lift.

Like Jason Bourne, the Hitman has been trained from a nebulous past to be the ultimate killing machine, yet becomes a pawn abused by his own company. He is hired to kill a Russian diplomat only to be hunted by his own agency for failing to kill the Russian diplomat. To save his life and exonerate his name, he must team up with a European girl who willingly helps even though she fails to fully understand their dilemma. She finds herself increasingly attracted to him even though she fears his murderous nature. Sound familiar?

As for the changes, well… the super-secret-assassin organization is a religious order that marks and numbers its operatives, making them clone-like. It begs the question: If you have trained an army of super-secret-assassins, why tattoo a barcode on their heads and then shave their heads? It looks cool, but nothing gives away a super-secret-assassin as readily as a completely visible barcode on a Yul Brenner level of baldness. Interpol could track these guys on satellite if Interpol had satellite. (In the movie, the Interpol agents, while clever, lack this advantage).

The R is for violence and excessive, pointless, frontal nudity—the last a shame as it keeps this film from being a Bourne Identity knockoff that could make a good movie night for a couple, relegating it to a better-than-average game-inspired movie, which isn’t much of a recommendation.