When a bad guy gets gunned down by another bad guy in the movies, it’s usually high fives all around.  But not for poor little Cataleya Restrepo, left to fend for herself after the death of her parents by a Columbian drug lord her father had just broken ties with.  The rest of Colombiana is grownup Cataleya mowing down everyone who had ever known said drug lord.  What, you were expecting more?

Sadly, Colombiana feels like Luc Besson ripped off Luc Besson.  He’s taken this scenario — a girl itching to get even — and worked wonders with it in Leon: The Professional and La Femme Nikita.  This film required a firm, steady hand in order to balance characters and action, so pairing a story by Besson with director Olivier Megaton (Transporter 3) might have been a bad idea; the subtlety of Besson’s storytelling got lost in Megaton’s wham-bam action. In Colombiana, we get no sense of who Cat is, except an extremely emotionally damaged young woman with a serious axe to grind.  She spends her days gunning down bad guys for pay — hey, somebody has to shell out so she can afford those Christian Louboutin heels — and her off-hours picking off the guys responsible for the death of her parents.  Cat is supposed to be an anti-hero, a woman you root for as she gets closer and closer to the goal of wiping those scumbags off the face of the earth.  But since her dad was a bad guy too — he was the cartel leader’s guy for “wet work” — Cat didn’t draw me in to her vendetta.  And with no time spent on developing her as a character, I wasn’t rooting for Cataleya to beat the bad guys, I was more an impartial observer watching to see if she’d complete her task.

Meanwhile, “Boyfriend” (or in this case, “guy she pops in on for the occasional boink”) Danny obviously has issues of his own; he knows nothing about this woman except that she’s able to sneak into his loft at any time, and that she’s smokin’ hot.  But hey, he loves her.  Guess it really does do all the thinking for a guy sometimes.  As far as the bad guys go, they’re interchangeable bowling pins Cataleya knocks down one by one.  But watching her wrap up her body-count to-do list is a whole lot of fun.  Cat obviously orders her unitards from Mission Impossible ‘R Us, all the better to remind everyone that Zoe Saldana is a hot chick.

The times that drew me in were when real action took center stage.  The fight choreography is beautiful, as you’d expect from Besson.  Explosions are beautiful fire art, guns rip chunks out of the walls and leave smoking after-effects, and the hand-to-hand combat?  Amazing.  I thought I noticed a move or two from the Brazilian martial art capoeira, but the action moves so quickly it was hard to tell.  Whatever it was, it was brilliantly paced and the actors do a great job of it.  If this movie had inserted a bit of real connection to Cat and her parents, something that would have made me want to see her happy and her parents avenged, Colombiana would have been something special.  Instead, it’s a popcorn movie with great action sequences that teaches the audience that you can never move past your past.  Kind of a bummer.

You can save yourself the $10.50 and just watch the trailer over and over again.  You’ll get all the beauty of the stunts, explosions and fight choreography and none of the emotional connection to the characters.  Which you won’t get watching the entire film either, so you won’t lose anything but seeing that dude two aisles ahead of you text during the whole film.  No great loss.

Look! Up in the sky! It’s a bird, it’s a plane it’s…something that’s distracting you from the fanged dude right next to you. Oops, too late. If you liked the original Fright Night, this new re-telling should have you jumping for joy. This is a remake that isn’t fresh and original, but it does hit all the right notes and should have horror fans happily shrieking with delight, and even jumping at a scare or two. Who’d thought a gal would want to stay away from Colin Farrell?

Welcome to your everyday, average suburb of Las Vegas. It’s plopped in the middle of nowhere, a  microcosm all to itself. The fact that it looks like it’s been built by the same guys that put up the Poltergeist subdivision doesn’t exactly bode well for our hero. That’d be Charley Brewester, a guy that has moved up the high school ranks from nobody to stud, with all the trappings, including a super-hot girlfriend and a group of broad-shouldered jockmeat pals. Charley’s former BFF Ed seems to think there’s something wrong with Charley’s new next-door neighbor, Jerry. But Jerry is a stay-at-home kinda guy who loves just about everything your usual adult dude living in a subdivision loves. Fixing up the house, painting all the windows black, and eating folks that won’t be missed. When homeroom roll-call is a pause-a-thon of missing kids, Ed stumbles on to something. But when Charley finally puts two and two together and comes up with vampire, there’s precious little to do except head to Vegas and beg a flashy “Fright Night” magician to help him out. This should go well.

The original Fright Night was a big hit back in 1985, and started up the careers of stars William Ragsdale (Justified) and Amanda Bearse (Married With Children). Not to mention the boost it gave to Chris Sarandon and Roddy McDowall. (The less said about Stephen Geoffreys’ post-Evil Ed career the better. Oh, okay; Butt Blazer.) This time around Anton Yelchin (Star Trek) plays Charley, Imogen “Please Change Your Last Name I Can’t Stop Giggling” Poots plays Charley’s girlfriend Amy, and Colin Farrell plays the vampire stud/neighbor Jerry. Toni Collette (The United States of Tara) brings her considerable talent to the table as Charley’s mom Jane. Amping up the acting ability in this remake was a wise decision. Though the original is still a horror fan favorite, being able to keep up with today’s tv and movie characters, whose quick thinking and uber-cool banter requires decent actors to make it not sound like another cable-ready sitcom. By casting actors that have experience with well-made tv and indie films, you get a better flow, even when they’re playing it strictly tongue-in-cheek. Add David Tennant (Doctor Who) who plays magician Peter Vincent (yes, he’s a magician here, not a late-night monster movie host) as the bastard love child of Criss Angel and Russell Brand, and the stage is set for one helluva ride. Tennant and Collette do such a great job playing it up for the cameras that it’s a shame they didn’t have a real scene working off each other, that’da been amazing.

Heeeeey, this cool back-and-forth banter between all these characters sounds an awful lot like Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Well duh; Fright Night was written by Marti Noxon (Buffy, Angel, Private Practice, Mad Men). She’s the master of the hip conversation, so it’s no surprise that the characters here are just as hep as the one’s you’re more familiar with. What’s great about this film is the choice of setting. In a Las Vegas suburb, apparently there are tons of folks that work strange hours, and that come and go based on availability of work. So someone who sleeps all day, and folks that disappear? Not really an issue. People react as you’d expect them to in real life; he’s a bit of a nutter, maybe a little psycho, but nothing supernatural is going on. But when Vampire Jerry starts eating on the street, things start to get all sortsa nasty. All props to the filmmakers for keeping standard vampire lore intact, which makes the story more fun to follow with that bit of the familiar around.

The effects in Fright Night are well done, from vampire fangs to re-healing to the poof of a dead vamp to the “no vamp on camera” shots. One scene, where a vamp almost gets beheaded and you can see behind the neck to the wall felt straight out of  Death Becomes Her, and it’s an amazing piece of work. Points deducted for the Monty Python-esque one-armed vampire in one scene though. I just wanted to tell the poor vamp to look under his shirt. The 3D works well here, giving you ashes of dead vamps floating all over the theater, and claws grabbing for you when you least expect it. It feels like old black-and-white B-movie 3D, and I mean that in the very best way. All cheese, no filler. Though gotta say I think it would have been better if Farrell had been allowed to keep his usual speaking voice, as the American accent he uses here seems put on and in some scenes he looks frankly uncomfortable speaking that way. But he looks like he’s enjoying himself playing a really, really bad guy. Unlike the original Fright Night, once people start to figure him out, this Jerry doens’t give a rat’s ass who knows what’s going on. He’ll attack anybody, anywhere, and if you don’t let him in? He’ll blow up your house. Like David Tennant’s rolickin’ Peter Vincent, Vegas Showgirl, watching Farrell/Jerry strut his stuff might be just as much fun as he had doin’ it.

There are a few tip-of-the-hat moments to fans of the original in this remake. Chris Sarandon has a thoroughly enjoyable cameo. Amy still wears a white dress at the big climax. The freaky teeth you see on the original are still around. Colin’s Jerry is just as suave as Chris Sarandon’s. But a few of the new twists to the movie, especially the hurry-up-and-wait reveal of Jerry and the undoing of Evil Ed, sucked a bit of life out of the picture. It’s hard to root for the good guys if we haven’t been given enough time to really like them. I felt a pull to root for them, but that’s because I’m a big fan of the original, not because there was any believable character development. There wasn’t time. I also fear the use of current pop hits like Foster the People’s “Pumped Up Kicks” will leave the movie feeling dated.

So what did I learn watching this remake? Anton Yelchin makes a badass Ghostbuster. A bottle of Midori fits perfectly in the pocket of a black satin robe. Stupid people still run upstairs to get away from bad guys. Peter Vincent is still a pussy. And if you put it all together, it makes for one enjoyable, if not exactly lingering, experience.

Secretariat follows a specific formula, but in the process creates a surprisingly good film. It is simple to predict what will happen, especially considering the real-life origin of the story, but keeps your interest through great acting and direction.

Secretariat is the story of, you guessed it, Secretariat, arguably the greatest racehorse in history. and how the persistence of one Penny Chenery (Diane Lane) and the passion of an eccentric trainer (John Malkovich) enabled a down-and-out horse farm to raise a Triple Crown-winner.

Secretariat contains all the typical elements of a Disney-produced biopic: a traditional hero, a family drama, an underdog, and a feel-good conclusion. And although there has been fervent backlash against “formula films” like this one, there’s a reason they work. For some reason, we respond very well to a three-act structure with an established hero and easy-to-grasp conflict and although many avant-garde filmmakers may experiment with different narrative techniques, all with varying degrees of success, this traditional story-telling device will always connect with audience if done right.

And Secretariat is definitely done right. The film is a great mix of drama, sports action, as well as some good humor running throughout. The script establishes characters that we care for very quickly and efficiently, setting up the story in a way that prevents it from ever losing our interest.

The movie is supported by fantastic performances all-around, especially from the two leads. Diane Lane provides a fantastic heroine that we can not only cheer for but also feel for her struggles. It is always nice to see a truly powerful female lead who doesn’t feel the need to act like a man to show her authority. Mrs. Chenery takes control of the situation and champions the underdog horse when no one else will. As always, John Malkovich is great in a slightly off-kilter role.

Secretariat is well-directed, especially during the race sequences. You can really feel the speed and power of these majestic animals as the director opts for a noticeably cheaper camera in exchange for getting much closer to the action. The cameras zoom right alongside the horses as they jostle for position in the track. Horse-racing is an exciting sport that loses its excitement on TV most of the time but the movie avoids that by showing those key scenes in a great style.

So although Secretariat is at its core a simple Disney film, it was definitely not rushed. The production value is very high, the direction is good, and the acting extremely solid, which is necessary for such a drama. And although the script is predictable, that never hurts the emotional impact of the movie because we really care about the outcome.

Secretariat becomes much better than the idea behind it would suggest, thanks primarily to its excellent performances. Secretariat is a rare, good sports film that gives you the chance to root for the little guy, which I know we all love to do.

Rating: ★★★★☆ 

Let Me In may star two extremely talented child actors, but it is definitely not a movie for kids. Director Matt Reeves doesn’t pull any punches in this violent remake of the acclaimed Swedish vampire film, Let the Right One In.

Let Me In delves deep into the somewhat troubled psyches of two young people in New Mexico during the early 80′s. The boy, Owen, is severly bullied at school and spends most of his time by himself. Then he meets Abby, a mysterious girl who moves into his apartment building. They gradually become friends, but the fact that she’s a vampire severely complicates the whole situation.

Keep in mind that this is a review of Let Me In alone. I intentionally avoided seeing Let the Right One In in order to go into the remake completely fresh.

The core of the film is the relationship between Abby and Owen. Despite all the supernatural events that surround them, the film focuses solely on this pivotal relationship. The entire movie is shot from the kids’ perspectives, which really makes you identify with them and their feelings. The adults, save for an important few, have little impact on the story, leaving the entire film resting on the two young actors’ shoulders. And up to the task they are. Although we’ve seen Chloe Moretz break out in (500) Days of Summer and get violent in Kick-Ass, she continues her upward climb with another solid outing as the young vampire. The stand-out here, however, is Kodi Smit-McPhee, whose fantastic performance really makes the film. Although we had previous seen him in The Road, this film gives him a chance to really have an entire two hours to showcase his acting chops. Earlier this year, The Last Airbender almost killed all of my hope in child actors but Let Me In shows how a skilled director can get magnificent performances from his entire cast.

Director Matt Reeves, who helmed the 1996 independent film The Pallbearer starring David Schwimmer, co-created Felicity with J.J. Abrams, and most recently helmed the hand-held monster film Cloverfield, is quickly establishing himself as an extremely talented filmmaker. In addition to extracting brilliant performances all-around, he also showcases a great eye for beautiful composition that he couldn’t showcase with Cloverfield. Beginning with the opening long shot of the ambulance traveling through the snow, the entire film is shot mainly in whites and reds, all with a certain melancholy aspect. The low camera angles are essential in keeping the movie told from the kids’ point-of-view. Each and every scene is imbued with a certain ambiance that creates a wonderful, coherently creepy feel throughout the film.

The director also shows how to create an extremely suspenseful film. From the first scene of the movie, the audience knows they are in for a really scary film. Don’t misunderstand, Let Me In is definitely more a horror film than a thriller. Produced by Hammer Films (who produced many classic horror films during the 30′s, 40′s, and 50′s), this movie is filled with blood and gore and it doesn’t shy away from showing everything. However, it doesn’t rely on cheap scares but rather each scene slowly builds to create excellent suspense. Add to this the eerie atmosphere that pervades the entire story and you have yourself one terrifying film.

Still, what really shines through are the characters of Owen and Abby, the choices they make, and their relationship with each other. The film is unflinching in its presentation of a very dark childhood that these kids go through. Owen and Abby are presented as much too psychologically burdened than kids of their age should be. In addition, the message that the film’s conclusion presents is troubling and thought-provoking. I can’t discuss specifics without delving into spoiler territory, but know that the themes of revenge, trust, and love are very adult. The way the movie makes you think well after you’ve seen it is a mark of how good it is.

Let Me In takes an intriguing premise and delivers a great film that makes you really think while providing a solid vampire horror film all driven by brilliant performances and great direction. If you’re looking for a good scare this weekend and you want to be engrossed in a fantastic love story devoid of romantic tropes, definitely go see Matt Reeves’ Let Me In (or Let the Right One In if you have Netflix and want to save some cash).

Rating: ★★★★½ 

Although hindered significantly by a mediocre-at-best script and poor acting, Takers somehow manages to be a decently entertaining film.

Takers is an ensemble heist film that features Hayden Christensen, Paul Walker, Idris Elba, Chris Brown, and Michael Ealy as a group of high-class thieves who are dragged into a job by their recently released ex-member Ghost (T. I.) just as two detectives (Matt Dillon and Jay Hernandez) are hot on their tail. Marianne Jean-Baptiste and Zoë Saldaña co-star.

Going into the movie, I did not expect much. I had only seen a poster for it that had been collecting dust in the theater for a while and it looked absolutely terrible. I mean, the cast consists of a few actors, rappers, and Hayden Christensen. Really? Hayden Christensen? There’s just something about the way they marketed this movie that cast away any hope for this movie. At least that’s what I thought. Now let’s forget my preconceptions and focus on the film.

As you may have guessed, Takers does not provide a spectacular narrative. Not only have we seen this story many times before, nothing special or new is added this go-around. The script is extremely formulaic so if you’ve seen a heist movie before, you’ll be able to predict everything that happens. Still, genre films can be fun even if we’ve seen them before.

If you look at it that way, Takers is quite an enjoyable film. It’s a fun, simple story that showcases some fun sequences. Specifically, the chases stick out as especially exciting. From a few car chases to Chris Brown’s impressive parkour escape from the cops, there’s a lot of good action. What’s also impressive is how you can root for both the thieves and the cops in this film. It’s also a rare treat to see a movie where there are good guys and bad guys both that you can root for almost equally.

But even with these enjoyable aspects, Takers has too many flaws that cannot go ignored. The acting is very weak. Michael Ealy is the definite stand-out with his well-rounded performance as a man worried about his stance in life while at the same time facing the consequences for his choices. The rest of the cast, even those who normally give much better performances, are hindered by the poor script. As mentioned before, this movie is full of cliches. Not only is the general premise familiar, but the dialogue is bland and not delivered well to boot. I think this is characteristic of inexperienced writers. Sure, the formula works to provide a decent narrative, but much more is needed to make this into a great film.

The direction is also not great. Although the chase scenes and some of the action is great fun, most of the film is shot in this confusing, zoomed-in, shaky cam style that doesn’t work here. In an action scene, it is obviously important to convey a sense of kinetic energy and motion but randomly shaking the camera about is just annoying. Towards the end of the film, there are several scenes that show promise, including a near-silent shootout throw-back to Bonnie and Clyde, but these interesting shots are not enough to really provide anything special.

The most unfortunate thing is that Takers sets up some interesting topics that go unexplored. Some of the characters show some depth, but that is passed over in the long run. Also, storylines that were only hinted at could have served as full-fledged side-plots to complement the main story. However, in the end Takers is a simple heist film that delivers some good sequences, but fails overall.

All in all, I enjoyed Takers much more than I was expecting to. I’m a sucker for heist films, and it is definitely a fun, simple action movie that has some good humor and exciting action. That being said, the film lacks any core to really drive it so if you’re in the mood for a crime film this week, definitely check out Animal Kingdom instead.

Rating: ★★½☆☆ 

With Inception, Christopher Nolan delivers the perfect blend of action and intelligence. The precisely constructed script is told through striking visuals set to a superb score. The film is massively original, complex yet easy to follow, and wildly entertaining. This magnificent mix of elements makes for the ultimate summer movie, and without-a-doubt the best film of the year so far.

In the world of Inception, technology has been developed that allows dream-sharing, a technique through which which multiple people can inhabit one dream world. Many problems stem from this new technology, including the possibility of idea theft, but I’ll stop before I give too much away. The film utilizes these unique sci-fi elements to create an elaborate heist adventure, but everything is centered upon an emotional core. The real heart of the film is DiCaprio’s performance as Dom Cobb. In another amazing performance, DiCaprio portrays his character in all his shades, including the suave professional thief as well as the heartbroken man he is on the inside. The only reason the audience cares about the conclusion of the story is because we empathize with the leading man.

Inception asks, ”Is there a difference between the real world and the dream world?” By exploring the dream world, the line between reality and imaginary is blurred, causing not only the characters in the movie, but the audience themselves to question what is real and what is imaginary. The powerful ending of the movie puts forth this question very clearly, but the answer is left up for discussion. I was literally left speechless after seeing this film. There are so many aspects of this movie that could be discussed at length, but I am going to hold back for now in order to avoid spoilers. In any case, Inception is the most recent entry in a series of films in which Chris Nolan explores the nature of reality (Memento and The Prestige being the first two) and is the culmination of both those films and his more mainstream fare (Batman Begins and The Dark Knight).

However thought-provoking the film may be, the fact that it works on so many levels at once makes Inception a truly amazing film. Not only does Nolan present another intelligent, mind-bending mystery like Memento, Inception is also wildly entertaining. From the opening scene all the way until the stunning conclusion, you are taken on an awesome ride. The action set pieces are great, including a fight in a zero-gravity hotel, a very James Bond-esque snow fortification assault, along with a few others. Still, your attention is only held so well because you are invested in the characters. The best action comes during the extended finale, which takes up a majority of the film. The players get deeper and deeper into this multi-layered heist which provides suspense that is heightened by the fictional dream technology. As the movie concludes, this intricate set-up pays off as each layer is unpeeled perfectly. The entire story is so tautly written that each and every piece fits perfectly together to provide for a very satisfying tale.

Another key to the movie is also in its script. At the beginning of the film, the viewer has no idea what is going on, which is to be expected. However soon afterwards the ground rules are laid and the dream technology is explained. Rather than have several confusing pieces which fuse only in retrospect as in Memento, the plot here is much more straightforward. At first this seems like a weakness, the one flaw that holds the movie back from becoming a classic piece of cinema. There is a trade-off, however. In laying the foundation early, Nolan was able to take his idea a lot farther, and really explore the entire realm of possibility of this dream-exploring concept. Inception is much more accessible to a wider audience then, say, 2001 is. This makes for a very entertaining summer movie, while at the same time hardly sacrificing any of the intellectual or emotional weight of the film.

The screenplay is only one aspect, however, of an entirely magnificent film. The acting is excellent all-around. Inception’s ensemble cast is one of the most impressive ever put together. In addition to DiCaprio’s usually impressive performance, the other players are fantastic as well. Joseph Gordon-Levitt is great as Arthur, Cobb’s straight-laced assistant who takes part in one of the most interestingly staged fight scenes in a long time. Ellen Page plays Ariadne, the new member of the team, and while she doesn’t show anything spectacular, she holds her own very well for a young actress. The rest of the star-studded cast also give great performances. Another integral part of the film is the sound. Both Hans Zimmer’s amazing, non-traditional score, as well as the sound design in general, play a huge part in generating the mood for the movie. Different sounds represent different things, including some that are very memorable such as the sound that tubes of the dream-sharing machine make and the crunching of the glass from the apartment where Cobb’s life was altered forever.

The visuals are also impressive, as the various dreams are portrayed through unique, surrealist images. This feeling of unease is essential to the film, as the dreams serve as allegory for what the characters are doing. From one point of view, nothing in the dream world is actually happening, but the intent are there. For example, when Cobb and Arthur must get a piece of information from someone this is visualized in the movie by an attempt to break into a vault in order to get some trivial item. The information isn’t on the item itself, the item itself is the idea. This is where the intriguing concept that forms the basis of the film really pays off. This visualization of dreaming is so key to the movie, that if it didn’t work as well as it does, the entire story would fall apart.

There are so many areas of this movie that could have gone wrong, but they didn’t. Everything just clicks on every level. From an intellectual standpoint, Nolan has once again challenged his audience to think about their own reality. At the same time, the action and adventure also satisfies the needs of anyone who simply wants to be entertained. Finally, from an emotional level, the film deals with Cobb’s inability to let go, and the ultimate consequences of his actions. Many movies attempt to accomplish one thing well, but Inception succeeds on every level, placing it among the only a handful of other films in recent years that can claim as much originality, intelligence, or entertainment value as this extraordinary film. I think we’re going to be talking about this movie for long time to come.

Rating: ★★★★★ 

When Albert C. Barnes died in 1951, he left behind an extraordinary collection of almost 800 paintings, including 181 Renoirs, 69 Cézannes, 59 Matisses, as well as several Van Goghs. Today, the collection is valued in the billions, as many of the paintings are invaluable pieces of modern art. During his lifetime, the Barnes Collection rested in a building in Lower Merion, PA. However, after his death the art has been mired in controversy.

The Art of the Steal, which plays this weekend at Theatre N in Wilmington (click here for showtimes), is a documentary about the fight to prevent the Barnes from being transported to Center City, Philadelphia, a mere 15-minute drive away.

The film touches on the politics, corruption, and greed which accompanied the move. The problem is that in Mr. Barnes’ will he expressly forbade his collection from moving from where he placed it. He had carefully constructed an intimate place for his art to reside and wished to preserve that aspect of learning and culture which he had established. However, in the 1990s, many powerful people desired to move the precious artwork into Philadelphia.

Going into more detail would only diminish the film’s effect. The Art of the Steal is an extremely well-crafted documentary. It takes a seemingly dull, legally confusing tale and engages the audience by telling a story.

That is the heart of filmmaking – storytelling. Although traditionally documentaries have remained dull and purely informative, they can also become great films by telling a story. We have seen this more and more often in recent years, with movies such as An Inconvenient Truth and this year’s The Cove.

Director Don Argott skillfully tells a story through old-fashioned ways (interviews, archival pictures, you know – typical documentary fare) but his skill really shines through. Rather than being dull talking heads, the interviews are framed excellently, but it isn’t distracting, and other visual cues (such as scene titles every once-in-a-while) pull you into the story.

Now, some have argued that the film is too subjective, including Bernard C. Watson, head of the Barnes Foundation, who wrote a scathing editorial on the film. The film definitely has a stance, but the facts are represented truthfully, and much effort was made to keep the movie from becoming too one-sided. The fact remains that most of the opposition to the film declined to be interviewed for it.

As a film, The Art of the Steal succeeds both in telling a story and defending an argument. I had never heard of the Barnes Collection, but I came out of the film with strong feelings about the film’s subject matter. Whether you have a personal investment in the story or not, this is a fantastic documentary.

Rating: ★★★★☆ 

Without a doubt, a woman who can handle a sword is a true woman in my mind. With the list put together by a buddy Ken, we really can’t do anything but look. Below is a small excerpt from my favorites.

13. Milla Jovovich

Looks:
Acting:
Swordplay:

Milla Jovovich is gorgeous. She’s been a supermodel, gracing the covers of over 100 magazines as well as earning over $10 million dollars from her modelling in 2004 alone.

She can certainly handle her sword too. She wields it threateningly and convincingly in “Messenger: Story of Joan of Arc”, “Ultraviolet” as well as in all of the “Resident Evil” series.

And her acting? Well… Did I mention that she was gorgeous?

11. Jennifer Garner

Looks:
Acting:
Swordplay:

Jennifer Garner first got everyone’s attention in “Alias”. I can’t recall if she ever used a sword in that TV series, but she made up for it in “Daredevil” and “Elektra”.

She’s held her own in some non-action movies as well, which means she’ll likely be moving away from the swordplay as she gets older. That’s a real shame for us blade fans.

9. Lucy Liu

Looks:
Acting:
Swordplay:

In some Bizarro universe, O-Ren Ishii takes down Beatrix Kiddo in “Kill Bill, Volume I” and then things start to really get interesting.

In that world, we get to see Lucy Liu hack her way through four hours of sword-fighting mayhem instead of Uma Thurman. Whaddya think, should we lobby Quentin Tarantino for a “Kill Beatrix, Volume I”? I say Lucy could pull it off.

Lucy’s acting has come a long way from her “Ally McBeal” days. She hangs tough in the other categories as well, which is why she’s near the top of this list.