With The Dark Knight, Lightning Strikes Twice

At the end of 2005's Batman Begins, Captain Gordon asks Batman, "What about escalation?" Relevant to the story in reference to Batman opening the door to vigilantes and the inevitable response of criminals to heighten their methods, the question is also relevant to the state of comic book movies. Batman Begins unquestioningly raised the bar for the genre and now in 2008, The Dark Knight demonstrates exactly what escalation means for the genre. Comic books are often gritty, dark and uncompromising and so too is The Dark Knight. Chris Nolan's sequel is thrilling and proves that lightning really can strike twice; the benchmark for the genre has once again been raised.

The Dark Knight is a film that touches on many different themes, specifically focused on personal morals and limitations, asking the question "what is justice?" Bruce Wayne's crusade to clean up Gotham has been joined and the DA's office lead by the recently elected Harvey Dent is putting large numbers of criminals behind bars. The mob is on the defensive and its beginning to look as though Gotham no longer needs a masked avenger. Dent is the new "white knight". But as is so often true, things are too good to be true.

At the end of Batman Begins, Gordon hints at the arrival of the Joker, Batman's traditional arch-nemesis. In The Dark Knight he arrives and his brand of chaos, violence and anarchy that are almost incomprehensible. When Bruce trained under Ra's Al Ghul, the rift appeared between them because unlike Ra's, Bruce refused to execute justice through killing. Ra's warned him that his enemies would not share his mercy and it would be his undoing. The Joker is that enemy - he operates without grand scheme, hesitation or remorse. He is chaos personified and he represents the ultimate test for Batman. The only way to stop him will be to kill him. The question is, will Batman do it?

Dent is Gotham's new public face of justice. While his methods are not nearly the same as Batman's, they both appear to be incorruptible men. The Joker is not content to only test Batman and quickly brings Dent into his diabolical game to prove a point that no one is incorruptible. The tragedy for Dent is that in his case that turns out to be true. After being maimed at the hands of the Joker, Dent, now physically embodying his police force nickname "Two-Face", embarks on a crusade of personal revenge, hunting down and killing those who the Joker convinces him put him in the position to take the fall.

The Joker is mad in every sense of the clinical definition. He is unlike any other criminal in that he doesn't share their motivations (money) or their methods (he is much more sinister and extreme). As he states at one point, "Its not about the money. It's about sending a message." Not only is Joker fighting the police, Dent and Batman, but he is also fighting the traditional criminal leadership of Gotham for control. He kills some of the leaders and grabs the reigns without any measure of compromise. That's not his style. He is chaos and anarchy and it is up the heroes of Gotham to figure out how to overcome it.

The story of Batman, at its core, has always been a dark story of good vs. evil and one man's tormented crusade to save his city and with this sequel to Batman Begins, director Christoper Nolan truly takes us to that dark place. Kudos to him because in doing so he has created a thrilling, visceral crime drama that doesn't pull any of the punches. Its completely immersing and Nolan tells the story in the way it ought to be told. Gone are the days of Burton's Batman replaced with a much darker and serious version. As for Jack Nicholson's Joker... there is a new definitive version of the Joker and it is Heath Ledger's.

Simply put, Ledger's Joker is one of the most twisted villains in film history. As a villain he is a conundrum because to know his motivation is to know insanity. He is nihilistic, thrives on chaos and there are seemingly no limits to the vileness and brutality of his methods. He isn't self-serving but only wishes to sow terror. And yet, there are scenes where he seems to demonstrate a sense of civility, like the eye of a hurricane.

Ledger's portrayal is extremely nuanced and his presence immense as a result. His shifty eyes, assortment of ticks along with his slumping posture and slight limp go hand in hand with his creepy voice to create a character not easily forgotten. He is creepy! Not to mention his face. His sloppy clown makeup and scarred cheeks manifest just how unhinged he is and reflect his constant state of disorder. I'm not going to engage in the whole Oscar-worthy discussion, but I will say that his performance was simply amazing and completely unforgettable. He steals the show and the critical acclaim he has received is all completely warranted.

Bale once again excels in the role of Bruce Wayne/Batman. He is my favorite Batman and I especially like his demeanor as Bruce Wayne. He has a billionaire-playboy swagger in his performance that fits perfectly. Aaron Eckhart also had a good turn as Harvey Dent/Two-Face. He played the good guy Dent very well and an equally good tortured soul as Two-Face. Maggie Gyllenhaal was fine as Rachel Dawes and it helped that she looks somewhat like Katie Holmes to cover the fact that the actress changed. It could have been annoying and thankfully wasn't.

I think the under-the-radar performance still belongs to Gary Oldman as Gordon. The guy simply is Jim Gordon! I've gone on and on before about how I like Oldman for his range in roles and I honestly believe you could cast him in a woman's role and he could pull it off. The guy is immensely talented and a total chameleon when it comes to his roles.

The action in The Dark Knight was great! It was more visible this time around which I'm sure most people appreciate and is probably due to Nolan's improvement in that area as well as being intentional (Batman is phantom-like and getting only glimpses of him in Batman Begins worked as a device). Once again, the story was fantastic! Nolan didn't pull any punches and the scope of the action was grand and the impact hard hitting, the way it should be.

The Dark Knight is unquestioningly the best comic book adaptation to date. Along with Batman Begins and Iron Man, the comic book genre has a much higher benchmark to aim for now. As a film, The Dark Knight is one for the ages. It may be awhile before we have another comic adaptation as this level (or until Nolan makes another Batman film), but the fact that we've gotten to this level is heartening to me as a fan. Comics aren't just kid's stuff, they are very much adult and Nolan's vision of Batman demonstrates this in an entertaining and utterly thrilling way! 10/10

Wanted Is a Waste of Time

I have a pet peeve when it comes to films. I absolutely HATE when a film introduces elements that are completely incongruent and out of place based on the presented setting. It has a lot to due with the suspension of disbelief, which admittedly is very important when it comes to films, but its not that I cannot suspend disbelief. Rather it is essentially that there are bounds to the suspension of disbelief, and when a story is presented correctly, that suspension is warranted and I can have a great time watching. Other times it is not and when that happens, I shut off to a film.

Take for example The Matrix. Crazy stuff happens in that movie - normal humans leap from building to building, dodge bullets, etc. And it was all completely awesome! I didn't ask any questions. You know why? Because it was quickly established that they were in the matrix and within the confines of the matrix the "rules" (namely those of physics) could be bent and broken. Fine. Its well explained and it makes sense. Great movie!

The same is true for every superhero movie. Going in you understand that it is a superhero movie and normal rules do not apply (although I argue that there rules with superhero films too, just a different set of rules) and that crazy, spectacular, epic stuff is going to happen. Its justified. Superheroes aren't interesting if they don't do those sorts of things. (An exception to this rule would be Spiderman stopping a tram with his feet breaking through railroad ties and not getting ripped apart. He is Spiderman after all, not Superman. That was retarded.) The same is also true for Bond movies. They have a different set of limits because you understand that he is a super spy and the franchise has always carried its own aura of suspended disbelief.

Then there are films like Wanted. In the very first scene of the film, a man leaps out the windows of a tall building, flies across the street, pulls out his guns mid-jump and shoots three armed men on a rooftop, then safely lands in the building. Is he a superhero? No. Is this supposedly the real world? Yes. Does that make any fucking sense at all? No. We have a serious problem. And yes, I have the same issue with Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. People literally fly through the air and and it makes no sense. Granted, we're given the setting of Asian mythology which gives some justification which I understand, but I still didn't like it.

Now back up a minute. Some people would point out that essentially the same type of stuff happens in Shoot Em Up (a film I own and enjoy immensely) and also point out that I have no problems with that movie. I would respond by saying that Shoot Em Up quickly establishes itself as an over-the-top dark comedy. Had it taken itself seriously, it would have been a problem for me.

Wanted takes itself very seriously, immediately establishing the existence of an ancient fraternity of assassins who, while possessing no supernatural abilities, can apparently do whatever the hell they want with a gun so long as they put in enough hours at the range. And aside from a guy leaping building, these folks can bend bullets around objects to hit obstructed targets or better yet, hit targets from obscene distances through dozens of obstacles including windows, moving trains, etc. And we are supposed to take this seriously. They are assassins and this is serious business- they are trying to maintain a balance between order and chaos in the world. The real world. The world you and I live in. You know, the world governed by a things called the laws of physics.

Okay, so we have this guy named Wesley Gibson (James McAvoy) who is a real loser, hates his job and suffers from panic attacks. It turns out that his estranged father was the worlds greatest assassin, and he has been killed. So the fraternity of assassins (aptly named The Fraternity) lead by a guy named Sloan (Morgan Freeman) come looking for him so that they can whisk him away from the boring life he has and train him to be an assassin like his father. Most importantly he is the only guy capable of killing his father's killer, so they say.

Fast forward. So Wesley is introduced to the "Frat" and begins his training under the tutelage of Fox (Angelina Jolie) who is supposed to be the ultra-sexy master assassin who throws glances that say "I'm super cool because I'm an assassin". Apparently she got paid big bucks to stand around looking smug throughout the movie. I'm sorry but Angelina Jolie is annoying to begin with and she really lame in this movie. Anyway, we go through the obligatory training stuff where the guy just isn't getting it until he pushed to his limit and suddenly everything is hunky dory. Oh yeah, and we are also given this whole explanation of the frat's mission and whatnot and this back story of how the "loom of fate" (the assassins were started from weavers?) that contains a secret binary language that spells out those persons who need to be killed. In short, it was not very intricate but apparently served to advance the plot.

Basically, the latter half of the film serves as one long, drawn out climax sequence involving bullets bouncing off bullets (a reference to sword-fighting maybe?), Wesley and Fox surviving an absolutely ridiculous train wreck and eventually Wesley discovering the truth about his father and bringing down the Fraternity. Oh and Fox shoots a bullet in a complete circle at the end.

Obviously I didn't like this film and for reasons I have already spelled out. Had this movie introduced some element justifying the bullet magic (like being superheroes or a la The Matrix), it might have worked. Had this movie not taken itself so seriously (like Shoot Em Up), it probably would have worked. Instead, it just shovels out the craziness because Hollywood isn't stupid. They know that the crowds will eat it up because its packed with action and it has Angelina Jolie standing around looking smug, and teenage boys can't take their eyes off her. It fills seats, but it does nothing to help foster the production of better quality movies.

So call me a hater. Call me jaded. Call me elitist if you must, but I'm calling Wanted garbage. 4/10

Crystal Skulls is Unnecessary Chapter of Indiana Jones Franchise

There is an old film standby where at the end of the film the hero rides off into the sunset. It conveys a sense of conclusion without necessarily writing off the character. And while it may be seen nowadays as being a bit cliche, it is tried and true, but most importantly it works.

The Indiana Jones movies of the 1980s are adventure classics. Hailing back to the days of the old action serials of the 1930 and 40s, they are a great time at the movies with broad appeal. Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade was the final installment of the trilogy for nearly two decades and it very appropriately ended with Indiana Jones, his father and two good friends Marcus Brody and Sallah riding off into the sunset. It is a great trilogy with a great ending, not to mention that "The Last Crusade" is a fitting title for a final movie.

A few years back the rumblings really started to gain strength that creators George Lucas and Steven Spielberg, along with star Harrison Ford, were interested in revisiting the series. As soon as I heard the idea, I didn't want it to happen. Why? Because I new that after nearly 20 years, the magic would not be recaptured. Besides, the series had a nice tidy trilogy package with a fitting end. Nothing more was needed. Even so, the aforementioned trio pressed on and made a fourth installment.

What the hell is wrong with Hollywood?! Why do they suddenly feel the need to go back and revisit franchises from 20 plus years ago? Rocky Balboa (VI), Rambo IV, Terminator 3 (and now 4, 5 and 6 on the way)... they don't really need to be revisited and what we ultimately end up with are movies that don't live up, feel unnecessary and stories that feel tired. Apparently the aging baby-boomer generations obsession with nostalgia combined with a lack of originality in Hollywood is destined to flood us with these types of films... and for no good reason at all it would seem. I knew Indiana Jones 4 was a bad idea... and it turns out I was right.

Leading up to the release of Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skulls, much speculation centered around Harrison Ford (now 62) and his ability to reprise his role as Indy, the globetrotting archaeologist who found the lost Ark of the Covenant, defeated the Thuggee cult in India, recovering the Shakra Stones and found the legendary Holy Grail. Countless jokes about his age were made, but I figured Ford would pull it off and he did. Ford was not the problem with this film.

The problem with this film is that it was unnecessary, wholly and completely. Fast forward about twenty years from Indy's last adventure in the 1930s (fighting Nazis) and we find Indy in the 1950s fighting Cold War Russians. Like the Nazis before them, they are interested in finding an item that will provide them with an unbeatable weapon - a mind weapon. A small team of Russians has captured Indy and WWII buddy "Mac" and infiltrated a secret government facility in the New Mexico desert. The facility as it turns out is a nod to the final shot of the first film, when we saw the Ark of the Covenant being put into storage in a vast, anonymous warehouse. We know this because during the warehouse we catch a glimpse of the ark in a crate that has been broken open. But the Russians are there not for the Ark, but for a highly magnetic artifact... a skull of unknown origin.

The Russians get the skull but Indy manages a dramatic escape into the desert. Shortly thereafter he finds himself wandering into a town which it turns out is a set for an atomic test site. He hears the countdown and quite alertly jumps into a lead lined refrigerator in one of the fake homes and rides out the atomic blast, escaping to live another day. I could go on and on about why that is quite possibly the single most ridiculous scene in film history, but I will refrain and simply say that it unquestionably defied the suspension of disbelief and was completely absurd in ever way imaginable.

Perhaps the only high point for me in the film was the next scene wherein Indy is debriefed by government agents and we learn that he was an OSS operative during WWII and rose to the rank of Colonel. I thought that was nice touch and fitting seeing as he had already fought plenty of Nazis in the 1930s. In fact, a film about his time in the war probably would have been a hell of a lot more interesting and rewarding than what we got.

Indy returns to his teaching at Marshall college only to find out that he has been fired due to political pressures. We also learn that his father Henry Jones, Sr. and close friend Marcus Brody have both recently died. Indy finds himself in a dark, lonely place. Soon, however, he is approached by a rebellious young man named "Mutt" Williams (Shia LaBeouf) who tells Indy that he knows his mother from years before and he needs his help in South America. With nowhere else to go and the Russians once again hot on his tail, Indy joins Mutt and they head to Peru.

In a nutshell here is what happens. Indy learns that the Russians have captured an old friend of his (Henry "Ox" Oxley) in the hopes that he will lead them to a lost temple housing Crystal Skulls that will give them the power to control the minds of their Western enemies in America and Europe. It turns out that Mutt's mother is none other than Marion Ravenwood from Raiders of the Lost Ark (Karen Allen). Its a game of cat and mouse with the Russians in the thick jungle and eventually they come across a long lost temple which houses the other crystal skulls, which it turns out are of extra-terrestrial origin.

Ok, not just extra-terrestrial origin, but inter-dimensional origin and the aliens are themselves archaeologists who came to Earth to study ancient human civilizations. And after swinging through the jungle canopy a la Tarzan, riding over waterfalls, racing through the jungle on military equipment and escaping giant man-eating ants, the gang finds themselves in this alien temple only to escape as it collapses around them revealing a giant flying saucer that flies off with the aliens inside. None of this felt like Indiana Jones, hold the chase scene, and the Tarzan sequence (along with the nuke sequence) felt completely uninspired and lame. Even the Russians prove to be completely unremarkable and totally forgettable bad guys (and gal). But on top of all that, this film made me feel like George Lucas, much like his reasoning for going back and altering the original Star Wars films, felt that Indiana Jones required closure with regards to Marion and finding out he has a son. Honestly, it was all unnecessary. We didn't need it at all. As a result, this film felt forced, clumsy and uninspired... and quite frankly out of its element.

Jacob, occasional contributor to this site, shared with me some thoughts that I find insightful. He felt that at least some of the purpose behind this film was to show Indiana Jones as a man out of his time; a relic that was no longer necessary in the new Cold War world. I think that is a very valid point. He also noted that during the wedding scene at the end of the film, Ox makes a comment that might be directed more to the audience. He says, "So much of life is lost in waiting" in reference to Indy and Marion finally tying the knot after so many years apart.... but it also accurately speaks to Lucas/Spielberg/Ford's return to the franchise after being away for far too long. Again, I think the point is very well made.

Another thing that really didn't work with me is the alien stuff. Indiana Jones has always been about searching for historical and religious artifacts and putting some interesting twist on those items rather than straight up science fiction. The plots were always more mystical and mythical than the science of A-Bombs and little green men. Frankly, it didn't work. I recall from a few years back reading a rumor that Frank Darabont had written and submitted a script that dealt with aliens and it had been rejected because of it. If that was indeed true then, what the hell changed with the script that George Lucas and Jeff Nathanson wrote?

The bottom line with Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skulls is that it doesn't work as a stand alone film because it makes far too many references tying it to its predecessors from the 1980s but it also doesn't work within the framework established by those films, on top of the fact that it is a completely unnecessary installment. A more appropriate title would be Indiana Jones and the Reunion Tour, because that's exactly what it is, for Lucas/Spielberg/Ford, for Indy and Marion and for Indy and the audience. And while this film is getting generally favorable reviews, I think that it is mostly due to the same phenomenon that had people excited for Star Wars: The Phantom Menace in 1999. They are excited because Indiana Jones is back, but with time the excitement will fade and people will see the film for what it really is - mediocre at best. 5/10

Marvel's Iron Man Right on Target

The 2008 summer blockbuster season is now officially underway. Leading the charge this year is Marvel's Iron Man, starring Robert Downey, Jr., Jeff Bridges, Terrance Howard and Gwyneth Paltrow. If Iron Man is any indication, we're in for a great summer!

Okay... so lets forget those other non-super hero/comic book films soon to be be released. Even if they aren't that good, if Iron Man is any indication, we're in for a great future of comic book movies! You see, ever since the summer of 2000 when X-Men landed in theaters and kicked off the new generation of super hero/comic book movies, the genre has slowly been trying to find its way, suffering some serious blows along the way.

Officially, we've had 3 X-Men movies, 3 Spiderman, 2 Fantastic Four, Superman, Batman, Daredevil, Hulk, Punisher, Catwoman, Elektra, and Ghost Rider. If I have missed some, forgive me. The point is that out of all of these, roughly half were generally considered good with Elektra, Catwoman, Hulk, Daredevil (which I like), Ghost Rider and both Fantastic Four movies generally being considered not very good at all. Catwoman and The Fantastic Four are outright garbage! While the special effects and computer graphics have certainly dazzled, actually producing a quality super hero movie has proven to be a somewhat difficult task, the problem being how to make a movie that is faithful to the source material and accessible to general audiences. Even X-Men and Spiderman have some rough patches. Batman Begins (a complete reset of the franchise) stands out from that list as being the first one that really REALLY worked, both as a super hero movie and as a movie in general. It undoubtedly took the genre to the next level.

So now we have Iron Man and I'll admit that I wasn't all that psyched leading up to it, largely because I'm not a big Iron Man reader. But I went with some friends on opening night and what a breath of fresh air it was! Following the success of Batman Begins, it seems that the producers (now the comic book companies themselves) have finally figured out to do it right. Top to bottom, Iron Man was nearly flawless combining excellent casting, great effects, good direction and great story. I honestly don't have a single bone to pick with the movie and the overwhelming amount of positive press for the film would seem to support my position.

Lets start with the casting. Robert Downey, Jr. plays an excellent Tony Stark. He captures the carefree, billionaire playboy persona to a T. And when things get real in the story, he plays an excellent serious Tony Stark persona to a T. Right up there with Christian Bale's Bruce Wayne, we now have two "real" super hero characters. They feel believable and they stay very true to source comic book material.

Jeff Bridges turned in a surprisingly good portrayal of Obidiah Stane. Bridges usually plays the good guy or the lovable character in his movies. This time he played the villain and he played it very well! Again, the character was cast well and good casting combined with good direction is a recipe for a good movie. Terrance Howard and Gwyneth Paltrow also fit well with their roles as Colonel Rhodes and "Pepper" Potts. Chemistry was evident throughout the cast.

As for the story, Jon Favreau kept it moving along. I didn't note any portion of the movie that moved particularly slow or that seemed to drag or just plain didn't contribute to the overall story. It started immediately, forgoing the usual elaborate opening title sequence, jumping right into the story and it kept chugging along through to the end. No complaints from me there. The dialog was superb! Downey, Jr. delivered Stark's lines very well and the humor was refreshingly relevant and appropriate. Some jokes were silly, but none of them I would categorize as cheap.

Another credit to this movie, again similar to Batman Begins, was that the process of becoming the hero was not abridged but rather explored at length. Like Bruce Wayne, we see Tony Stark building his power armor, running his trials and working out the kinks... once again lending an appropriate sense of realism and legitimacy. Yes, this is fiction and we're talking about a super hero, but through the comic book lens, super hero stories have their own sense of "real" and this movie captured it. So when Stark finally perfects his Mark III suit, we know how he got there and understand his super hero persona all the more.

As I've said, I really don't have any beefs with this movie, surprising since I wasn't drooling over it going in. I fully appreciate the amazing job they did making a comic-book movie. The fact that Marvel has created their own studio production company to make their own adaptations is definitely a good development and Iron Man is proof that comic book movies are on the right track.

With The Dark Knight only 8 weeks away, the summer is looking very bright indeed! 10/10

There Will Be Blood an Unforgettable Film - Best of 2007

It’s not often that I state something with absolute certainly when it comes to film. But with Paul Thomas Anderson’s There Will Be Blood I can tell you without any hesitation at all that it was THE best film of 2007, Oscars be damned. It is truly a unique viewing experience, totally engrossing and curiously so. Based on the novel Oil by Upton Sinclair, There Will Be Blood carries its storytelling with an ambitious intensity that mirrors that of its central character – Daniel Plainview (Daniel Day-Lewis).

In the very first scene we are witness to the almost inhuman drive of Plainview, a self-made oilman operating at the turn of the 20^th century in the desert wastes of the southwest United States. At the opening we see Plainview working alone in a deep shaft, speculating for oil. The scene introduces a bit of the process to us but also clearly shows the labor involved and the exhausting nature of the work. That Plainview is alone is impressive. He sets a charge at the bottom, climbs out and waits. The charge detonates and upon his re-entry into the shaft, the ladder breaks and he falls uncontrollably to the bottom breaking one of his legs. But despite the severity of his injury and the fact that he is alone, he manages to climb out of the shaft and somehow drag himself back to civilization to gather a team. Plainview has discovered an oil deposit.

Such is the nature of the beast within Daniel Plainview. Driven by unbridled ambition and an unquenchable thirst for success, there is nothing he will not do attain his goals and be the best. He will not be beaten, by nature or man. As far as Plainview is concerned people are an inconvenience only useful for helping him to make his profits, and nature is nothing more than an obstacle to be tamed… by him. He is proud, conceited, violent and remorseless. Daniel Plainview is a very dangerous man.

Fast forward a few years and we see that his operation has grown. He, as he so proclaims to groups of gathered townspeople, is an oilman. When he finds oil (or hears rumors of fields) he immediately moves in for the deal; he must buy the land and he will say and do anything to get it quickly and cheaply. The consummate salesman, Plainview knows all the right moves and words, speaking of his workmen as a “family”, playing up the benefits to befall the local residents and land-owners and even parading his son, H.W. Plainview, to help sell his image. But the words are just words and the actions just actions, for Plainview sees only the money to made, the victory to be won.

When a young man by the name of Paul (Paul Dano) shows up looking to speak with Mr. Plainview the story really picks up. Paul offers the notion of cheap, oil-rich land to Plainview and before long they are discussing location, but all the while both men are careful dancing around each other, evading questions and never answering the specifics of questions posed. With the news fresh in his ears, Plainview scouts the land, finds oil and quickly makes his move, buying all of the land but one holding.

Soon we learn that Paul is really named Eli and Eli, it turns out, is the leader of a local religious group. Plainview is not one for God and Eli is not really one for Plainview, but Eli knows that the profits from his promised share of the oil revenue will help grow his church. He is attempting to use Plainview’s ambition as an oilman as a way to fund his church.

While the themes of ambition and greed underscore the story of the film, the central conflict is a battle of wills – Eli versus Daniel, a player trying to play the player. It plays out in grand fashion and I loved every minute of it. Eli believes that he can hoodwink and control Daniel because he is blinded by his own greed, but he never truly understands what Daniel is – a deranged man who will not be made to serve the ends of another and certainly not be the pawn of Eli and his church. For a time Eli is able to obtain and maintain control… or at least convince himself and his church that it is so. Ironically, it is Eli’s own ambition that blinds him to reality. Where the path he is on leads only one man knows for sure.

There Will Be Blood is truly an epic tale played out in a classic setting that might easily be described as Legendary America. The characters are larger than life and the fortunes to be made enormous; the American dream of a man building his empire shines brightly, whether it be a business empire or a church. Both are prominent in America’s history.

Paul Thomas Anderson’s effort is phenomenal! He crafts the story so as to never let up in its intensity from beginning to end. It pulled me in and didn’t let go until the credits rolled. Even then it still had my attention. Days later I find myself continuing to think about it - Daniel Plainview and his maniacal quest for personal fortune and glory no matter what the cost.

Daniel Day-Lewis’ (Last of the Mohicans, The Boxer, Gangs of New York) performance was the best of his career I would say. Known for living out his roles for the duration of filming, he truly became Daniel Plainview. His character was real and strangely magnetic. Watching him I knew he was scum and legitimately mad but I couldn’t help but watch with intense interest. Like a train wreck or some kind of sick carnival act, he was fascinating and demanded my attention. Paul Dano (Little Miss Sunshine), too, gave an excellent performance as Plainview’s adversary. Playing the humble and righteous religious leader, watching Eli play out his scheme was pure entertainment.

Viewing There Will Be Blood exactly one week after seeing No Country For Old Men, I can easily say that this film was the best of 2007 and deserved the Oscar for Best Picture. Both are excellent films and rightly deserved nomination, but even with No Country fresh in my mind, it blew me away on a level I did not expect. It’s an instant classic! If you haven’t yet seen it, do yourself a favor and clear an evening (its 160 minutes long) and watch it. Every aspect of this film impressed me and I am confident that it will be a long while before I see another film like There Will Be Blood. It's cinema at its best. It’s absolutely riveting! 10/10

No Country For Old Men an Outstanding Film

Is there really such a thing as fate? If you are to take No Country For Old Men as an example then, yes, there is. Set in the wide open spaces of southern Texas, No Country For Old Men is the story of one man’s chance discovery and the harrowing string of events that play out as a result.

Llewelyn Moss (Josh Brolin) is hunting out in the rugged back county of Texas when he comes across a gruesome discovery – a massacre in the middle of nowhere. As he quietly inspects the bodies and the abandoned pickups at the site, he runs across a truckload of heroine, a satchel full of money and one Mexican survivor, barely clinging to life. Uncertain what to do, Moss takes the money and a pistol and leaves the site and returns home. It would seem he just had a very lucky find with a clean getaway to boot. But in the middle of the night compassion gets the best of him and he decides to return to the site to help the survivor. He returns under cover of darkness only to find that the man has been finished off and Moss quickly discovers he is not alone. Chased by gunman, a dog and suffering a glancing gunshot during the chase, Moss barely makes an escape, but he knows it is already too late – his getaway is no longer clean.

Anton Chigurh (Javier Bardem), a ruthless killer to whom we are introduced to in one of the first scenes, is hot on the trail of the two million dollars Moss found. Armed with a compressed air gun that he uses to shoot unsuspecting victims in the head with, he calmly and coolly hunts down Moss, who to his credit, is already two steps ahead on his way out of town. But what Moss does not and can not know is how ruthless, cunning and remorseless Chigurh is and that it is not dependent on what he (Moss) does as much as it is a battle of wills. Fate, it would seem, stands against Moss.

Chigurh, an emotionless man who spouts bizarre pseudo-philosophical banter, will do absolutely anything to achieve his goal of recovering the money. It wouldn’t be unwarranted to expect every person he encounters to be fall by his hand – he wouldn’t think twice of it. His ruthless efficiency in tracking Moss seems impossible until it is discovered that he is tracking a homing beacon in the satchel. But even after it is removed, Moss has his hands more than full. The question is can he survive?

A remarkable film for its ability to set the tone and build suspense with nothing more than silence itself, No Country masterfully sets its events against the reminiscence of the retiring county sheriff Ed Tom Bell (Tommy Lee Jones) who tells us (the audience) how it used to be in the old days of Texas law enforcement… a time, he says, when many of the law men he knew growing up didn’t even carry guns. The mysterious string of murders and the drug runner massacre in the desert only serve to dishearten Bell as he suddenly finds himself part of a world he can’t even fathom to explain; a world without moral or remorse. He knows Moss is in trouble, but he is shaken to think that he may not be able to save him from the fate that is chasing him down.

No Country is methodical in its storytelling, rushing nothing and certainly not afraid of the silence, an aspect I found particularly impressive and integral to the film. The Coen Brothers made the most of every piece of dialog, every shot and every bit of natural sound. It felt absolutely real. And at times it was totally unnerving.

Deserving of all the praise and accolades it received (except perhaps its Best Picture win), No Country received marvelous performances from Bardem (Best Supporting Actor Winner), Brolin and Jones, although Jones took on a role that was more supporting that central. Bardem sold his character as being truly unhitched. Everything about his performance, from his walk to his talk, sent the signal that he was truly mad. He even managed to capture an empty, soul-less look in his eyes. No small feat!

No Country For Old Men gets my full recommendation. It fully entertained telling an intense story often through the sounds of silence. Fate, it would seem, need not make a sound. 10/10

Southland Tales Star-Studded, Poorly Constructed

Richard Kelly's alternate history, dark-comedy/drama Southland Tales is a big film with a lot of ambition. In fact, its too big for its own good. Full of edgy concepts and mind-bending plot, it plays out like a weird dream more than an actual coherent film.

In a nutshell, Kelly mixes science fiction, political commentary and dark comedy in a story that takes place in southern California in an alternate universe where America suffered a nuclear attack and has quickly become a government-run police state.

Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson stars in the lead role as Boxer Santos, the son of a prominent politician. He has recently gone missing only to find himself in Los Angeles, his mind blank from a case of amnesia. Now he finds himself living with pornstar Krysta Now (Sarah Michelle Gellar) who is reinventing herself as a television pundit. Together they are working on a screenplay. Boxer is busy researching the title character, Jericho Kane, which finds him teaming up with a policeman named Roland Taverner (Sean William Scott) and this is where things take a serious turn for the decidedly weird and confusing.

It is a point of fact that Southland Tales becomes so confusing that it is virtually impossible to know what is really happening until its final act, where finally the audience is able to glean that Boxer's amnesia is the result of a time travel phenomenon that also happened to involve Taverner (which explains why there are two of him running around). But in the meantime the film has also brought a second storyline into play that involves a company on the verge of a technological breakthrough that will break America's energy dependence on oil once and for all. It seems that a scientist has found a way to harness the energy of ocean waves. It all sounds too good to be true (it is) and for some reason the demonstration of this technology will usher in the apocalypse. It is up to Boxer to stop it.

Back up. Apparently the events of Boxer's screenplay are mirroring reality and now he is really IS the hero, not simply researching the role of one. The only problem is that none of this actually makes any sense at all! And in getting to this point we have encountered a cast that includes Justin Timberlake, Mandy Moore, John Larroquette, Kevin Smith and roughly half of Saturday Night Live's alumni (Cheri Oteri, Amy Poehler, Jon Lovitz, Ganeane Garafalo, etc). There are so many characters and so much going on that Southland Tales comes across as little more that schizophrenic. It is a mess.

Richard Kelly was the mind behind Donnie Darko, so the fact that this film was trying to be heady and think outside the box is not surprising. Watching it I got the feeling that I should somehow be taking more away from it, but the presentation just flat out didn't work and instead of thinking outside the box, Kelly simply over-filled it. As a result, the film never achieves focus and everything becomes irrelevant.

Kelly has said that this was intended as a dark comedy. With all of the obvious political commentary that permeates the film, that at least comes through loud and clear. Even so, I really wasn't entertained.

This film is completely confusing. Some films confuse but are still enjoyable despite that fact. Southland Tales is not and I recommend that you avoid it. You can easily find something more worthwhile to fill two hours. 3/10

Rescue Dawn Features Brilliant Performances

Why settle for reviewing just one Werner Herzog film when you can review two Herzog films in one evening? A reasonable answer does not present itself and so I shall commence with my review of 2006's Rescue Dawn.

Rescue Dawn flew under my radar (no pun intended) until just recently when I started seeing television ads for it, seeing it in stores and hearing some very favorable comments about it word of mouth. The fact that it also stars Christian Bale also peaked my interest as I have become a real Christian Bale fan. (Batman Begins, The Prestige, American Psycho, 3:10 to Yuma)

Based on the true story of Vietnam POW Dieter Dengler (how loosely I don't know), Rescue Dawn follows him through his experience in a POW camp, subsequent escape and ultimate rescue.

A pilot flying his very first raid against Viet-Cong targets, Dengler gets shot down and manages to survive the crash landing. For a short while he even manages to evade capture, but eventually makes a wrong move and is discovered, apprehended and imprisoned in a small POW camp with 6 other men, but only after refusing an offer for freedom that would have had him denounce the United States.

Deiter's back story is that he is a German immigrant, a child during World War II that upon seeing US fighter planes fly over his village harbored the dream to one day be a pilot himself. His determination to realize his dream as an immigrant translates into his iron-will and mental discipline that enables him to escape his captors and flee to freedom.

He quickly befriends the other POWs, among them a two Americans, one named Duane (Steve Zahn) and another named Eugene (Jeremy Davies, reminiscent of his role as Charles Manson in 2004's Helter Skelter). They have all but given up hope and it falls to Dieter to lead and inspire them to find hope again.

The focus of the movie is on the minutia - those small bits of humanity and routine that keep these men sane. While the others are more or less resigned to their fate, Dieter focuses his mind to stay sharp, always looking for opportunities to exploit his captors' mistakes and escape. His planning eventually pays off and the men escape, but ultimately going off on their own, except for Duane who accompanies Dieter into the thick jungle.

Duane is a truly broken man, physically and mentally. Reduced to a shell of his former self, Steve Zahn's portrayal is one that is far more deserving of attention and acclaim than it received. He surprised me and brought to life a genuinely sympathetic character who had absolutely nothing left. Despite all his effort to help his fellow prisoner and comrade, Dieter is unable to reach freedom with Duane who is forever lost in the jungle. His loss begins to haunt Dieter and he continues on alone to his eventual rescue.

Unlike most war films, Rescue Dawn is very quiet and introspective, examining the nature of will and hope rather than more common aspects of war like the actual combat. In so doing, I think Herzog stays true to what kind of story this is. He doesn't sensationalize it or overproduce it. Instead it is more an intimate journey that demonstrates how a man can defy overwhelming obstacles and odds. It is a story of survival, physically and spiritually.

The highlights of this film were unquestionably the performances of Bale and Zahn, who gave everything they could to their roles and it was clearly evident. Its unfortunate that they didn't receive more acclaim, especially Zahn who showed his range with the character of Duane.

The film is a bit slow and methodical at times and as I've said it isn't flashy or sensational, but I did appreciate it. However, it's probably not for everyone so I'll throw that right out there for those who haven't seen it. If you don't like introspective films or stories without a lot of action that quickly advances the story, you'll probably want to stay away. For those of you who appreciate details and great performances, Rescue Dawn gets a strong recommendation. 9/10

Grizzly Man - Best Unintentional Comedy. EVER!

Call this old news. Call me late to the party (I am). Just don't call me late for dinner.

Yes, over a year after its release I finally got around to viewing the now notorious Grizzly Man, Werner Herzog's documentary following the exploits of one Timothy Treadwell, aka the "Grizzly Man".

If you've already seen it, I beg your patience with this post. Please allow me the pleasure of indulging in this review. If you've seen it, you already know where this is heading and it isn't flattery for Mr. Treadwell or his cohorts. They are crazy. The whole lot of them. They are full-blown GONE! Over the rainbow. They have punched their tickets to La-La Land.

Timothy Treadwell spent the last 13 years of his life living in the remote wilds of the Alaskan Peninsula for reasons only God knows. Timothy, in his many monologue-filled recordings, would tell you he was there to save the bears. From who or what I cannot tell you. It's a federally protected wildlife reserve, a little fact like that wouldn't stop Timothy from saving them anyway. As I see it, he basically despised humanity, was a social outcast to begin with and this drove him into the Alaskan Wild where, for better or worse, he mingled with the bears and foxes and the glorious splendor of nature. I don't hold that against him. Its a free country and he can do what he liked as far as I'm concerned. He wasn't hurting anyone. In fact, he wasn't even in their way. He couldn't have been farther from it.

He also couldn't have been father from sanity. His exploits, and all their intimate details, would have been lost forever if it weren't for Werner Herzog deciding to take Timothy's over 100 hours of self-shot video footage and making it into a documentary of his life with the bears. Only God knows why he decided to do so, but luckily it turned out to be worthwhile. Wholly unintentional, Grizzly Man is a first rate riot!

I had heard so many stories of this film from people who had seen it that I fully expected it not to live up to my high expectations. Even so, it surpassed all my expectations! I couldn't believe what I was seeing! Herzog, for all his good intentions, only served to expose Treadwell for the nutcase he was.

Sequences such as one where Herzog is describing Treadwell's childhood saying quote, "He was blossoming into an all-American boy"... meant to be a play on an image of truck from a flower business where he worked as a teenager. Only it didn't help that the truck read "Nick's Pansy Farm", immediately cutting to Timothy making diving motions through the air. It was probably just unfortunate editing. But of course then there is the whole side exposition of his sexuality (how it was relevant to the film I don't know) that included a fairly lengthy segment of Tim talking about how being gay would be so much easier than being straight. Not only was his reasoning just a little insensitive to the gay community at large (apparently all gay relationships are casual and without emotional consequence to paraphrase Treadwell), the whole sequence was obviously one of Treadwell trying to convince himself that he wasn't. Truth be told, there was really no real reason, as far as bears were concerned, to even capture that on film. Awkward.

But that was Treadwell and this film as a whole. When Herzog interviews one of Treadwell's close friends and ex-girlfriend he asks her if she feels like his "widow". She responds by laughing at the very notion... only to then stop suddenly and earnestly reply, "Yeah, I think so." What?!! Then there is the coroner who performed the autopsy of Treadwell's bear digested remains. Cause of death - eaten by bear. However, the ridiculous notion of performing an autopsy on a person eaten by a bear takes a back seat to how truly weird the coroner is, all of his descriptions overly dramatic and assisted with full-on gesturing.

Then there was the "actor" friend from California who talked about Timothy and his Australian accent... which I'm pretty sure he didn't have (never in the film). Then when admitting that Timothy was mostly a fake in such regards, this "friend" casually shook it off as if the fact that everything about the guy he knew was more or less under suspicion was trivial. Okay, buddy.

And of course we get back to Treadwell himself who diatribes against the government (on pace to out-"f**k" The Big Lebowski), punches bears in the face to show his "dominance", revels in touching fresh bear dung (because it was inside the bear!!!) and literally scolds flies for feeding on rotting fox corpses. For a guy who loves nature, he sure didn't seem to understand natural law... or the role of predators... or life and death for that matter. In the end, for all its seriousness, Grizzly Man only comes across as bizarre, awkward and unintentionally hilarious as we see scenes and meet people that, not knowing better, we may have though was nothing more than a lampoon of nature documentaries to get some laughs. It is that ridiculous!

Watching this film, I literally could not believe what I was seeing most of the time. If you want to see genuine craziness, watch Grizzly Man. If you've already seen it, you know exactly what I mean. If you haven't, gather up some friends and take an evening to watch it. It won't disappoint. Honestly, where else will you ever hear serious dialogue the likes of, "Here we see Mickey versus Sgt. Brown for the right to court Jupiter, Queen of the Bears!" All this and more in Grizzly Man. 8/10

Perfect Blue A Very Different Anime Experience

My tour of Satoshi Kon's filmography eventually had me sitting down to watch Perfect Blue. I had first heard about it a couple years back when I first started getting into anime with Miyazaki films. Notably different from other Kon films, Perfect Blue is far removed from the more fantastic themes of his other films and carries a much darker, mysterious feel.

A psychological thriller, Blue has drawn comparison to Hitchcock for its style, which includes a slower methodical pace and unnerving, suspense-filled aesthetic designed to keep the viewer guessing what it real and what is not.

The story centers around pop icon Mima Kirigoe, who at the height of her popularity in the band Cham decides to call it quits and pursue an acting career. A nerve-racking transition in its own right, Mima finds herself quickly losing her sense of security when show business isn't all she thought it would be. But her world is slowly torn apart when she begins encountering malicious content aimed at her on the internet. Someone is out to destroy her and she knows neither who is behind these acts or how to stop them. Suddenly isolated, personally and professionally, Mima is completely vulnerable.

Paranoia soon overtakes Mima as she loses all sense of what is reality and what is only in her imagination. While others begin to question her wellness, the danger to Mima's life intensifies and culminates in a brutal attack by a deranged, obsessed fan.

I have yet to watch Perfect Blue a second time, but I really feel I need to re-watch it. I didn't dislike the film, but I found myself really struggling to get into it for the duration. The suspense did not grab my attention and pull me in like the mind-bending story of Paprika or the life reminiscing journey of Millenium Actress. However, true to high visual quality of Kon's films, Perfect Blue features great animation.

Going back to the earlier Hitchcock comparison, I think that perhaps my reaction to the film is less about the film itself and more to the genre. I've enjoyed Hitchcock films in the past (Vertigo, North By Northwest, Psycho) but by no means consider myself big a Hitchcock fan. I've never really gotten into those films as a genre. I think that a bigger suspense fan might have a more enjoyable experience with Perfect Blue. Until I am able to give it a second viewing, I'd say that Perfect Blue is the Kon film that I have enjoyed the least to date. That said, it is by no means a bad film. 7/10

The King of Controversy - The Onion AV Scores Interview with Kong's Billy Mitchell

Firstly, I'd like to thank Jacob (Rosdail) for bringing to my attention a very interesting interview that The Onion AV Club scored with Billy Mitchell, legendary arcade gamer and record holder featured in the documentary The King of Kong: A Fistful of Quarters. If you've seen the film, then reading the interview is a "MUST READ" follow-up. Admittedly, I would have missed it entirely, so thanks to Jacob for mentioning it.

Now, what better way to follow up my recent review of The King of Kong than to post a link to the interview in question. You can read it here. Watching the film is quite the experience and for something so obscure (competitive arcade gaming) it sure seems to strike a chord and get people talking. Luckily for us, Billy Mitchell decided to do some talking of his own and we are now afforded the opportunity to get the rest of the story. So check out the film and then check out the interview!

Public Service Announcement: Avoid The Brothers Solomon

This is not an official review as I didn't even make it through 30 minutes of the movie, but avoid The Brothers Solomon. Written by SNL's Will Forte and also starring Will Arnett (Arrested Development), it was completely devoid of any interesting or even worthwhile plot. The "jokes" fell completely flat. I would liken the experience drinking water - completely bland, only you receive absolutely no refreshment from doing so. This movie defines terrible and makes films like Battlefield Earth look decent, although it does nothing to help fellow trash like Date Movie. Rest assured that if I took the time to do a fleshed out review it would score a solid 0/10.

As for Will Forte, I wouldn't take writing credit if I were him. Frankly, I'm surprised to hear that there was actual writing involved. Utter crap.

The King of Kong One of the Best of 2007

I'm certain that there is a large portion of the population that would roll their eyes and scoff at hearing the words "competitive arcade gaming". It might easily conjure up a mental image of kids with thick glasses and ratty clothes huddled over arcade game cabinets, their faces silhouetted by the flashing glow of the video screen. They may be mall rats, nerds and uncool. But despite all that, one thing is for sure - The King of Kong: A Fistful of Quarters will suck you in and keep you entertained from beginning to end. Of that I am absolutely sure.

The King of Kong is a documentary film which debuted in 2007 and has begun to grow a cult following. As you may have guess from the introduction, its subject matter is competitive arcade gaming. Don't be fooled by how it sounds, because all I can say is that I was shown a world of competition beyond anything I could have fathomed. Those childhood sentimental favorite games from the 1980's (Pac-Man, Q-Bert, Donkey Kong, etc.) are a bigger deal that we all might have thought. Holding ownership over high scores is a big enough deal that there is an official record-keeping organization that acts as referee (Twin Galaxies) and there are officially sanctioned methods by which to challenge an official high score. Still think it is a farce? Well, when the Guinness Book of World Records gets involved, let me assure you that egos reign supreme and the competition is cut-throat, maniacal and borderline mafia-esque!

This film documents just such a challenge to the 20 year old high score to arcade classic Donkey Kong while also chronicling the history of organized arcade gaming. Billy Mitchell is a gaming master and officially laid claim to the Donkey Kong high score in 1982 after another kid, Steve Sanders, claimed to have topped his score. After a live head-to-head challenge, Steve was shown to be a fraud and was blown out of the water by Billy. Competitive arcade gaming was born.

Fast forward to 2005. Steve Wiebe (wee-bee) was out of work and looking for direction. In the meantime he bought a classic Donkey Kong arcade cabinet for his garage to help take his mind off things. Soon he found that he was really pretty skilled at Donkey Kong and wondered what the all-time high score was. He came across Twin Galaxies and Billy's high score, proceeded to video tape himself breaking the score and sent the tape in to be viewed, logged and awarded the new high score title! Instead of that being the end of the story, it turns out to only be the beginning of a very wild, intense, mind-blowing ride that sees Steve travel across the country from his home in Washington state to New Hampshire to the mecca of arcade gaming known as FunSpot.

This film is totally engrossing and slowly, but methodically, pulls you into the world of competitive arcade gaming. Before you know it, you find yourself chomping at the bit to see what will happen next! Who will be the official record holder? Will David beat Goliath? What will it take to be the best? It truly is a entertaining match-up of wills and personalities in what Twin-Galaxies co-founder and referee Walter Day describes as "one of the greatest rivalries of all time!"

The King of Kong was a truly unexpected gem of a film and the most entertaining documentary I have ever seen, bar none! In some ways, it mirrored the comedy of the competitive dodgeball world as parodied in Dodgeball: A True Underdog Story, but was also completely engaging being the true story that it is from a world mostly hidden from public view. It's an instant classic that can appeal to everyone and earns the label "MUST SEE". Do yourself a favor and check this one out. 10/10

Vantage Point Not What You Expect, Packs Surprises

Having expectations can sometimes prove to be unfortunate, especially with films. When you expect one thing and get another, it can either be pleasantly surprising and enhance a viewing experience or it can hinder than experience. While Vantage Point is a worthwhile and entertaining film, I found that I was a slight bit disappointed due to my own expectations. The film probably isn't exactly what you expect going and it certainly is not predictable. But don't let my experience fool you - its an entertaining film that puts an original story on the screen.

Featuring a star-studded cast including Dennis Quaid, Matthew Fox, Forest Whitaker, Sigourney Weaver and William Hurt as President Ashton, Vantage Point does stay true to its title. It presents us with a modern day scenario - an international anti-terrorism summit where the president of the United States is attacked by terrorists and we witness the alarming events that unfold through eight different perspectives of people who are at the scene.

Where my expectations went wrong is that I was expecting more of a mystery thriller where multiple perspectives would play together to solve the puzzle, perhaps almost JFK-ish. What Vantage Point turned out to be was more of an action thriller that was built less on hiding clues that could actually allow the viewer to solve the puzzle and more of an event dissection that, once at full steam, simply presented the actuality of it all. In fact, Vantage Point turned out to be much more of character-matrix film that showed how every character tied together despite their diverse positions and perspectives. While the ultimate plot turned out to be well devised and entertaining, I found myself a bit disappointed with the character-matrix vehicle because I'm beginning to see it becoming more of a Hollywood fad following in the wake of acclaimed films like 21 Grams, Crash and Babel. The style makes for an intriguing story once in a while, but I fear that if it becomes over-used it will become tired. Frankly, I'm already weary.

Beefs aside, Vantage Point wasn't a bad film. Dennis Quaid's character, rattled Secret Service Agent Thomas Barnes, was interesting and made for an enjoyable protagonist. The action also wasn't bad, featuring a wild car chase through the busy streets of a Spanish city as well as some gun-play throughout. And there are definitely surprises! If you think you know what is really up, don't kid yourself - I'm fairly confident that you will be caught by surprise if you are truly spoiler free.

I have no doubt that Vantage Point will post a successful opening weekend at the box office and if you're looking for an intriguing thriller, you'll most likely be satisfied. Just don't be shocked if it isn't exactly what you expect it to be. 7/10

Millennium Actress A Unique and Beautiful Anime

Right around Christmas this past year I finally had the opportunity to dig into the filmography of anime director Satoshi Kon. Readers of the blog probably recall my high praise for Paprika, the film that really got me interested in his stuff. All of his films are very independent of each other and bring their own unique offering to the mix and it goes without saying that the second film I viewed, Millennium Actress, is extremely different from Paprika.

Millennium Actress is a story told through flashback. It is present day and a historical Japanese movie studio is being torn down and TV personality Genya Tochinaba decides to seek out and interview the studio's most legendary actress Chiyoko Fujiwara. Now a recluse, Chiyoko is an old woman living in modest home in the mountains and she hasn't made a public appearance since suddenly vanishing from the public eye some 30 years before. His visit re-unites her with a long lost item - a key given to her by a stranger when she was a girl.

During the course of the interview we follow the life of Chiyoko through the films she made during her illustrious career and we are witness through the eyes of Genya and his cameraman. What we learn is that the key was given to her by a mysterious stranger (an artist and political dissident) that she helped escape from state police during pre-war Japan in the 1930s. Having developed a love for him and always wanting to find and re-unite with him, her roles became a metaphorical representation for her search as her career takes her around the world as well as her own personal development and growth. I suppose, too, that the key could be seen as symbolic of personal freedom... something that the stranger represented and something Chiyoko feels she loses or cannot find with her career. Even so, her search never ends.

The approach Millennium Actress takes to storytelling is probably not new or groundbreaking, but it is nonetheless interesting, albeit a bit confusing at times as reality and fantasy tend to blur, a hallmark of Kon's style. Another similarity to other Kon works is the emphasis on the art of film itself. Actress is no doubt a tribute by Kon to filmmaking itself as evidenced by the subject matter of the film and the care with which it is handled. We see similar thematic elements in Paprika with Detective Kogawa's storyline.

Despite being a bit hard to follow at times, Millennium Actress is a worthwhile title for anime fans to check out. It is a love story of, both of its characters and for filmmaking, and definitely possesses universal elements to appeal to film aficionados. A Kon production, it is beautifully animated with careful attention to detail and a fantastical element that taps into the imagination. I didn't like it as much as Paprika, but it is a great film in it's own right and I can easily recommend it. You probably won't find it at your local movie rental place, but it is available through Amazon and NetFlix. 8/10

The Right Way to See JUMPER - For Free

I freely admit that I had wanted to see Jumper for awhile, since I first saw the trailer. The premise looked intriguing but I fully expected mediocre at best. Turns out that it hit a bit south of mediocre, and that is not good news for star Hayden Christenson, who desperately needs a hit if he is to ever break the Star Wars stigma, you know, the one that relegated Mark Hamil to voice acting (where he does an admittedly super job!), Carrie Fisher to bit roles (Drop Dead Fred, Austin Powers, Charlie's Angels) and Anthony Daniels to a career as a gay robot. Only Harrison Ford emerged from the trilogy a star.

Jumper's problems can be blamed on any number of culprits (bad writing, paper-thin plot, Sam Jackson not dropping a single f-bomb, even for good measure) but bad acting never helps. Christenson, while always trying to sound cool with his awkward delivery, just cannot seem to break out of a very wooden style of "acting". It plagued two Star Wars films (a follow-up to Jake Lloyd's debacle in "the Menace") and now has carried over into his non-Star Wars work. Shattered Glass aside, Hayden is not getting it done. I do not see this changing any time soon.

To be fair, you cannot solely blame Christenson, however. Director Doug Liman should know better - the man directed the first Bourne film and produced the sequels for Pete's sake!!! For him not to realize how poor the writing, casting and plot to Jumper were is irresponsible at best and shameful at worst. This movie is nothing less than an interesting concept handled in the poorest manner possible. And while it wasn't a complete catastrophe, it certainly wasn't good and it certainly wasn't worth paying for. As luck would have it, I didn't. Complimentary theater passes are truly a great thing.

So back to the basics - the central character David (Christenson) discovers he has the ability to "jump" from location to location by sheer force of will. Being a teen with a drunkard father and no mother, he decided to "jump" away from home and start robbing banks so that he can live it up by traveling the globe. Years later he returns home to find his childhood crush (Rachel Bilson) so that he can wisk her off to Rome and win her heart. However, things soon go bad as he runs into other jumpers and "paladins" (led by Jackson), those whose sole reason for existence is to hunt down and kill jumpers, because apparently only God can have the ability to be anywhere at anytime... or so says Sam Jackson, who apparently wanted to take some time off from serious roles... or at least entertaining ones. For a bad-ass, he sure wasn't; at least this time he didn't get his ass killed by Hayden (see Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith).

Granted Jumper had some interesting sequences, but as I've already said it really was a good concept wasted due to complete incompetence, or in the case of Liman and writer David Goyer, dereliction of duty, but we'll get to that later. For example, the jumper power is never explained even a little bit- they have apparently always existed and their war with the paladins has raged just as long (since when did this become Highlander?). I also have to take away points due to a really lame attempt to play the "historical conspiracy" card when one of the characters tells David that the witch hunts and Inquisition were actually the paladins executing their brand of justice on the jumpers. Please.... But apparently jumpers are inherently evil despite the fact that, aside from bank robbing, jumpers don't appear to be serial killers or bent on global domination of any sort. They have the ability to teleport. Ooooohhhh..... EVIL!!!

I must also subtract points because Rachel Bilson's character is perhaps the weakest female lead of a very young 2008 and quite possibly 2009 and 2010 to boot. She seriously needs to pick better roles and David Goyer certainly knows how to write better material. I seem to recall an amazing film from 2005 that he worked on called BATMAN BEGINS! Bilson's character, Millie, was one of the most ignorant, naive and shallow characters I've seen in a long time. At times I just wanted to punch her in the face as she continued to follow and trust a blatantly shady and dishonest David. I guess we can just write her indiscretions off due to be being smitten and besot by a handsome young man who has whisked her off to Rome, the city of her dreams. Hello? McFly?! Anybody home?!!! But it can't be all Bilson's fault. I mean she can only read the lines that are written for her.

Ultimately, nothing is really revealed in Jumper and also nothing is really resolved. In fact, the door was left wide open for a sequel. Anyone stupid enough to pick this up where it left off deserves a flop. As for Hayden Christenson... he is about ready to jump into unemployment and obscurity. 3/10

Before I wrap this review up, I cannot help but wonder aloud how Liman and Goyer could cook up such a piece of garbage, especially in collaboration. As already noted, they have Batman Begins, the Bourne films and Dark City in their combined resume, so how did they go so wrong? I mean, I think the concept of Jumper had potential which is why I was originally interested. But it was a disaster with only fleeting moments of entertainment sprinkled throughout. What a joke!

New Indiana Jones 4 Trailer Is 'OK', Doesn't Thrill

It debuted on the net a few days ago and I watched almost immediately. If you frequent this blog, no doubt you've already seen it. To me it was just "OK", and as someone who has been wary of a 4th Indiana Jones from the get go, this trailer really doesn't excite.

The Good

- Ford doesn't look half as old as I expected which is good. I no longer doubt his viability to reprise his role as Indy. That's good, or this affair might have been painful and awkward.

-The exchange: Kid: "You're a teacher?!" ... Indy: "Part time." A sign that the type humor present in the previous installments has survived. This exchange reminded me of the joke in Last Crusade where Indy (in the classroom) exclaims "... and X never EVER marks the spot" only to exclaim later on in Venice "X marks the spot!" The humor in the fact that Indy is not an orthodox archeologist is one of the most fun aspects of his character. To exclaim that he is a part-time teacher, to me, is comical.

-The warehouse from Raiders revisited. Long shrouded in mystery from its single, brief appearance at the end of the first film, if there was anything that was worthy of exploring further, this was it.

The Bad

- The age jokes. Perhaps not explicit in the trailer, you know they are coming. "Not as easy as it used to be." One or two is all fine and good, but if this becomes a running gag throughout... Ford may as well look old to boot.

- Aliens. This has been rumored to be a central plot point for a long time and I recently ran across a toy advertisement that seemed to substantiate the rumors about the skulls themselves. Maybe its just me, but when I think Indiana Jones, I don't think aliens. The stories have always focused more on myth, historical religious artifacts, etc. From the trailer it would appear that aliens may be tied to some kind of Mayan or Aztec religion element in the film, and it may work, but I remain very skeptical. We'll see. "Aliens. Why did it have to be aliens."


Come May we'll find out everything. Hopefully it will be an enjoyable movie, because I'll be really disappointed if its an epic mess. Ever since the Phantom Menace trailer, I remain skeptical. Even the worst films can look good in trailer form.

2007's Dragon Wars: "Terribly" Entertaining

Every now and then a movie comes along that seemingly defies description; a movie that is really bad, but is so entertaining because of it that in the end you aren't even sure if you liked or disliked it. 2007's Dragon Wars is just such a beast and while I recommend it to movie buffs, let me be perfectly clear - this movie IS TERRIBLE!

And how! Where to begin? Well, first off, Dragon Wars (or D-War as it also called because I assume it sounds edgy and cool!) is a Korean sequel movie... set in America... starring Americans... apparently doing American things. They even speak English (no dubbing here) and, despite all that, I still had no clue what the hell was happening. But one thing was absolutely clear and that was the fact that this movie was EPIC! (Factoid: D-War set a record of grossing $20.3 million in South Korea in its first five days in theaters.) Seriously, D-War practically reaches out of the television and slaps you in the face just to let you know. It basically just lets you know that its bad. Really bad.

The plot's confusion starts immediately, reinforced with an immediate 10 year flashback by a character we have not been formally introduced to. It also doesn't help one iota that during said flashback there is another 1000 year flashback that attempts to set the stage for EPIC dragon battle in the here and now. Let me attempt to paint the picture.

There are these dragon gods of which one is good and one is evil (Buraki), hell bent on attaining possession of some spirit-thingy called the Yeo-ui-ju (pronounced YOO-EE-JOO) which will allow it to rule the world forever. Its celestial army was thwarted 1000 years ago and now it has another chance to possess the Yeo-ui-ju. The catch is that Yeo-ui-ju inhabits a beautiful girl at birth and she just happens to be the star-crossed lover of the main character to whom we are never formally introduced. In fact, they loved each other 1000 years ago too! Except back then they were Korean living in ancient Korea and the whole setting seemed better suited for all this dragon nonsense. (For a complete summation of this plot, go here)

Ok, so now that we've finished the crazy marathon of flashbacks, we learn that this mysterious mentor-guide guy (who reminded me of Mortal Kombat's Chang Tsung and played by an obviously desperate for work Robert Forester) has survived 1000 years and is now ready to help our hero defeat the evil dragon in Los Angeles where the new Yeo-ui-ju infested girl lives. And cue the chaos!

This might be one of the highest production value pieces of movie garbage I have ever seen! Seriously, it looks as if they spared no expense as the movie looks fantastic (especially the dragons and the battle sequences) but it is completely counter-balanced by a paper-thin and incomprehensible plot, oddly stereotyped characters that make you wonder how Koreans really perceive Americans and finally just plain bad acting. Watching this movie, it was amazing to me that Michael Bay had absolutely no involvement whatsoever. How could it be so terrible when its production value was pretty high? (Factoid: Dragon Wars or D-Wars was the highest budgeted film in Korea for 2007 with a final budget of $75 million) They made a really expensive comedy and I have to admit that I laughed the whole way through. It was a riot!

If you're looking for a good, non-serious flick to watch on a Saturday night while drinking with your friends, this IS the movie you want. Do not buy it. Do not rent it. Find a way to obtain it free of charge and enjoy watching an example of what the end of the Hollywood writer's strike has spared us from in an alternate future. I'd rate this movie but I have to agree with Korean critic Kim Bong-sok who apparently said that this movie is "below criticism". Well said, good sir. Well said.

Y: The Last Man - A Must Read!

The journey has finally come to an end. Brian K. Vaughan's apocalyptic epic Y: The Last Man ended last month capping a 60 issue run. Riveting from the very first page to the very last, the conclusion of the series ends my journey as a faithful reader. And boy, what a ride!

Way back when I first started blogging (back on MySpace) I wrote up a fairly lengthy introductory blog about Y, laying out it's seemingly absurd premise for those unfamiliar and describing what an intelligent, witty and uncompromising comic it was. So now it seems fitting that I sit down and write once more about it as a complete work. And for those unfamiliar I can only say you really need to give this title a try, comic book reader or not, because what Mr. Vaughan (Ex Machina, Runaways, tv's Lost) has done is set a very high bar with a very non-traditional type of comic book story. Its contemporary, compelling and skillfully written. In short, its worth your time.

Not so much with the audience that reads this blog, but in general, when a comic book fan starts talking about said material, the reaction from non-comic readers involves the "look", perhaps a scoff and often times a chuckle. Yeah, yeah... comics are kid's stuff, we know... except that they aren't so much. Let me just say that if I were a parent with a kid reading today's comics, rest assured I'd be monitoring, not necessarily to censor, but certainly to better understand and guide my child. Bottom line, if you have read a comic book (and I'm not talking Archie) you know that they are really aimed at a mature audience. With Y, and Vaughan's work in general, this is absolutely true as it deals with a ton of social issues, most prominently gender and sexuality, human nature and psychology.

I like Vaughan's description of Y best: it is a serious take on that common teenage boy fantasy of being the last man on Earth (so that you could have all the women to yourself, of course) and exploring the consequences of such a situation. When a worldwide "plague" strikes dead every single male in the animal world at the very same moment, amateur escape-artist Yorick Brown and his pet monkey Ampersand discover that, somehow, they are the only remaining males on the planet. And thats bad... more than you know! Once you get past the obvious dilemma effectively preventing further propagation of the human race, you start to realize that the majority of factory work is done by men, the transportation industry is predominantly men, etc, etc, etc. The very structure of our modern society is brought into focus and the tough question is posed - could our society, left with only women to run it, function? It's not a dig at women, but rather a legitimate, well explored question.

Yorick thus becomes the eyes through which we explore this extreme scenario. Accompanied by a body guard, a mysterious Culper Ring agent known only as 355, and geneticist Dr. Allison Mann, he sets off on a worldwide quest to find his girlfriend Beth (literally a world away in Australia doing anthropological studies) and help find the means to restore humanity's future. No, it does not involve "making it" with every woman he encounters. Quite the opposite. As the last man on Earth, he is a target of those who would use him for their own desires and those who would see him dead with the rest of the men.

Through his journey's we explore the politics of gender and gender roles, identity and purpose, religion, philosophy, relationships and, most importantly, human nature. Even in the absence of men, some things never change. However, there are a LOT more deadbeats. *wink* All the while Vaughan keeps us wondering what caused all the men to die. It obviously wasn't war or global warming, so we realize that something really big is at work and its the anticipation and speculation that keep you coming back for more. You want to know, but as was my experience, eventually the answer to that question seems to take a back seat. How would this all end up? Humanity is pretty much staring its extincting square in the face.

Vaughan weaves together a hell of a story that, for me, even challenged my hopes for how it would resolve itself. In the end you suddenly realize that there is so much more to Y than is immediately apparent. It is those deeper aspects to the story that really makes it great. He is also a very enjoyable writer. I appreciated his wit, pop-culture references and especially his off-the-cuff, non-apologetic approach to his story; political correctness is a waste of time and Vaughan pays it no mind... and its great!

There are more mysteries to Y than simply what caused all the men to die. They, too, come into much clearer focus as the story moves along, one prominent example is the true name of Agent 355, to which Vaughan has admitted that clues are spread throughout the series. It is up to the reader to piece it all together. And absolutely everything in the plot has meaning, often not spelled out in clear terms. How does it all turn out in the end? I will never tell. You absolutely have to read it for yourself. The good news is this - of all the people I have introduced to Y over these past 5 years, both men and women, not one of them has had anything bad to say about it. It's universally accessible in my opinion.

As a complete work, Y: The Last Man stands alone for me and challenges the most renowned titles in the comic world, past and present. Honestly, its on par with the best novels, television and film have to offer and better than 95% of it. It has it all - action, romance, adventure, science, religion, politics, history, emotional highs and lows. It's thoroughly entertaining and brings with it a refreshing level of intelligence that sets a very high bar for future writers. Hopefully it is a sign of things to come for new titles in the future. I sincerely hope Y is not the last of its kind.