I Have No Idea What Just Happened... And That's Bad

There are a lot of movies out there. Some are great, many are good, a great many are bad and some just leave you wondering what the heck you just saw. Such is the case with my recent (chance) viewing of Valhalla Rising via Netflix On-Demand.

Written and directed by Danish filmmaker Nicolas Winding Refn, Valhalla Rising stars Mads Mikkelsen (Casino Royale) in a quiet role. Literally – his character never utters a word. This is problematic because I, and the audience I viewed it with, still have no idea what the character's motivations were or why any of the events of the film actually happened. An important aspect of storytelling is the part wherein the audience is made aware of certain plot elements that serve to connect us with the characters and engage us with the story. This never happened in Valhalla Rising, replacing interest with confusion. In that sense, this film is sort of like those magic eye picture where if you stare at it long enough (or figure out how to relax your eyes' focus properly) you discover an image hidden within a seemingly meaningless swath of patterns and colors. The problem here is we saw the picture and don't know what it is.

The film's “setting” visuals are good, comprised of an endless stream of sweeping shots of what one might reasonably assume is a Nordic landscape; the cinematography gives it a very epic feel. Still, I am unsure as to where it actually takes place as that wasn't very clearly conveyed along with everything else. There are some brutal, but short, fight sequences and the rest is mostly a collection of close-up shots of weathered men staring off into the distance, pondering God-only-knows what. They do A LOT of that. Perhaps they too were wondering what was going on.

Here is what can easily be discerned from the film:

1. One-Eye (Mikkelsen) starts out as a slave who is forced to fight other slaves to the death. Is he really fueled by hate or just a will to escape his bondage? It remains uncertain, but a vision leads him to find an arrowhead which he uses to brutally kill his captors.

2. One-Eye and his boy companion come across a band of Christian crusaders who are headed to Jerusalem to fight for Christ. This is where you might think that this film might become like 13^th Warrior, and you would be wrong.

3. One-Eye, having joined this literal ship of fools, sets out with them for Jerusalem only to end up lost in a thick fog for an unspecified amount of time. It is during this time that one of the group, believing them to be cursed by One-Eye's companion, attempts to throw him overboard only to be brutally killed by One-Eye. No one else seems to bat an eye to this development and they continue.

4. They end up somewhere that is definitely not Jerusalem that we can only assume is North America due to the natives, collectively go crazy (one man rapes another in the mud) with the story (if you can call it that) culminating in One-Eye ultimately sacrificing himself to the natives in a beating that goes so smoothly it can be assume to have been pre-arranged. Why? I have no idea.

It is absolutely confounding how little information is actually conveyed, using motion picture no less! Is their journey supposed to be a metaphor for hell (juxtaposed against their intended quest for God?) Is is supposed to be a metaphor for life's journey? Is is a metaphor for self-discovery? One might easily assume that the meaning bestowed is entirely unique to the viewer, but there just aren't enough concrete bits of information to go on to even begin to form a reasonable assumption. Maybe if One-Eye would open his mouth even once and share at least some of his thoughts, we'd know. He does appear to be the only character who knows what is actually going on at any given time. But he never does. He only speaks with his eye and we are as lost as what can only be described as the most incompetent group of crusaders ever. EVER! Perhaps the audience is supposed to share somewhat in their madness, but that is total speculation on my part.

Equally frustrating is the Wikipedia entry for Valhalla Rising which offers no additional explanation whatsoever, but merely serves as a recap of the scenes of the film. Very insightful!

I will give credit to the film for being a (relatively) short 90 minutes. They could have dragged it on and on very easily I'm sure. Yet, how this film manages a 70% Fresh rating on RottenTomatoes is a true spectacle of wonderment to me and those I viewed it with.

In reflecting on Valhalla Rising, I conclude that as a film it is either the result of inadequate narrative style or extremely pretentious on the part of Refn. If the intent is to be an art film, maybe pretentious is the right word. If the intent is to be an interesting and engaging story, it is as incompetent as its character's, save One-Eye. Actual silent films communicate more than this one. I'd rate it, but I still don't know what I'm judging. ???

Reporting For Duty, Captain America Delivers

The parade of superhero movies rolls on in 2011 and now we have Captain America reporting for duty. Much like the first Iron Man, I found myself really having a good time at the movies. What can I say – Captain America does a lot of things right and it just didn't feel as “weighted” as say an X-Men movie where there is a lot of politics built in (mutants vs human, prejudice, etc.). The premise is simple, the effort solid and the result is fun.

Captain America is more or less a World War II movie with the comic book treatment and it works surprisingly well. I think it does work because the premise is not convoluted – America is at war and Steve Rodgers (Chris Evans), a young, scrawny, but well-intentioned man, wants to do his part. Unfortunately for Steve, he just isn't fit for duty as a soldier physically. However, that doesn't keep him to trying to enlist over and over again with different names and addresses. It also eats at him that his best friend is shipping out to fight in Europe without him.

Luckily for Steve, a government scientist happens to pick up on his zeal and realizes that he is an ideal candidate for testing a new top secret super-soldier serum because he respects power and is less prone to abuse it. Suddenly, and much to his surprise, Steve is accepted into the Army. Before long he finds himself in the lab ready for the experiment. They run the test and bam its work! Just like that, Steve is suddenly the perfect physical specimen of a soldier with superior speed, strength, agility and mental facets. However, the Germans (or more specifically their secret science division codenamed “Hydra”) had spies among them and in an attempt to sabotage the program and steal the formula, the serum's creator is shot dead leaving Steve as the only American super soldier. Feeling him too valuable to risk in combat, the Army decides to use him as a war bond pitchman and once again Steve finds himself on the sidelines much to his chagrin.

Meanwhile, Hydra, run by a Nazi scientist Dr. Schmidt (Hugo Weaving) has discovered the power of the gods hidden away in Norway (think Thor tie-in here) and are planning to use it against all nations who oppose them, including their bosses, the Nazis. So as it turns out, the super-soldier serum was the Allies' counter-punch and Schmidt himself was the recipient of an earlier, less stable version of the serum.

Long story short, it isn't long until Steve with the help of Agent Peggy Carter (Hayley Atwell) and Dr. Howard Stark (father of Iron Man, Tony Stark) that Steve sneaks out to conduct a rescue mission behind enemy lines without authorization in order to do his part in the war and prove his usefulness to his commander (Tommy Lee Jones). The mission is a rousing success and Steve quickly finds himself where he wanted to be all along - on the front lines. I won't spoil any more from here.

As I said, Captain America does a lot of things right. Director Joe Johnston was clearly the right choice for the job. The story is immediately accessible to a general audiences because the premise is simple and because they did a fantastic job presenting Steve Rodgers a relate-able everyman who is genuinely charismatic. They don't have to waste any time or effort driving home the point that “you need to like this guy.”

Now to the points of execution. The film is paced very well and doesn't have any segments that bog it down in needless exposition. It clocks in at a tidy 2 hours, 5 minutes. The editing room was used and in an era of seemingly longer and longer “blockbusters,” it was welcome relief. The casting was also superb! Evans is a good fit for Cap (and this role allows him to escape the Human Torch stigma from the Fantastic Four) and Hugo Weaving always make for an excellent villain. Atwell is paired well with Evans in the role of Peggy Carter as a romantic interest that isn't overplayed. Had it been played too heavy, it would have bogged down the story. Additionally, the movie uses comedy well, not using too much and timing it well and never coming across as overly cheesy (when it isn't intended).

The bottom line is this - Captain America is a solid comic book adaptation that is fun, lighthearted at times, action packed and never devolving into an unintended parody of itself. The latest addition to the superhero movie pantheon is a winner! 8/10

Reel Quick Review - The Social Network

I was in Duluth this past weekend to visit a buddy of mine. During my visit we watched The Social Network. I'm a little surprised that I hadn't gotten around to seeing it sooner consider all the praise and positive buzz I had heard in my social circles, but better late than never.

If nothing else, the one thing that The Social Network has going for it is an undeniably interesting story - the origins of Facebook, the madly successful social networking site. Mark Zuckerberg, portrayed by Jesse Eisenberg in the film, is one hell of a character study - brilliantly gifted with computers, but socially inept, at least in the sense of understanding the workings and nuances of interpersonal relationships. He created one of the world's most successful internet websites and it has brought him both fame and infamy!

Based on actual events, the film, penned by Aaron Sorkin (The West Wing) and directed by David Fincher (Seven, Fight Club) is fast moving and filled with sharp dialogue that actually made me laugh out loud a few times, not necessarily because the situations were funny, but because the one-liners were superbly executed. Zuckerberg, by all accounts, is not likable for reasons made very obvious in the film - he says exactly what is on his mind, seemingly without any filtering whatsoever, and he just doesn't understand social moires. It's hard to know if he is actually as saavy as circumstances would have you believe or if much of his success is due to outside influences such as Napster founder Sean Parker (Justin Timberlake).

As I said, the story is engaging and engrossing and Fincher does an excellent job of melding the present (legal depositions from Zuckerberg's lawsuits) with the past (flashbacks to what actually transpired) as the method of storytelling. No doubt Eisenberg was tested in his role as the laconic Zuckerberg and it all shines on screen as watch the story of the destroyed friendships behind the world's biggest "friend" driven network. 9/10

Rating Adjustments Vol. 1 - Judgments Revisited with the Passage of Time

So now and then I go back and peruse the history of the Film Lounge's reviews and reader comments. It's interesting for me, especially with the really old posts, to revisit them and check out my initial thoughts of a film a few years removed. Quite frequently I'll go back and read a review and worry that I no longer would rate it the same, but then I get to the end and see the rating and breath a sigh of relief because I feel that I did get it right and I would still give it the same rating.

But not always.

First, I feel its important that we be able to admit when we are wrong; we cannot be afraid to do so. And second, I think that it helps me to be a better reviewer and viewer in general to be able to, with the passage of time, be able to go back, think it through again and re-rate a movie if I can find justification. Quite often people tend to overreact (both positively and negatively) right out of the gates and I am no exception to that. I am, after all, only human.

During a recent trip back through the blog I ran across three entries that, as I read them and then saw the rating I gave the movies, I argued with my judgment at the time. So now I will address them and hopefully the record will be set straight.

Spiderman 3 (was rated 8/10) – Oh superhero movies.... My recent viewing and review of Green Lantern has really had me mulling things over during the past week. I've done a lot of thinking on the genre and looking back at all of them through the lens of full decade, I've had a lot of interesting thoughts, some of them expressed in my Green Lantern review.

One of the things that didn't make it into my final draft of the Green Lantern review was a portion where I put my feelings about GL into perspective by listing which superhero movies I felt were worse than GL. After much contemplation I feel Spiderman 3 is one of them. Many people will call me crazy, but I can't help my feelings. Agree or disagree, one thing is certain – Spiderman 3 is not 8/10 material.

First, it is the weakest of the trilogy - by far. Second, when I talk about Spiderman 3 with people it is never fondly. We all seem to complain about the “emo” sequence and how Tobey Maguire's Spiderman, while not terrible, is not really true to the comics. He isn't enough of a wise-cracker and is way too pathetic. Don't get me wrong, Peter Parker often battles with his self-image in the comics, but Maguire's version just doesn't get it right. Finally, Sandman, while the effects were well done, was under-utilized as a villain and we really didn't care about his story. It's largely forgettable as a movie. If you were going to sit down with friends and watch a Spiderman movie, it would either be 1 or 2, not 3.

The passage of time has only magnified Spiderman 3's flaws and the flaws of the trilogy as a whole, but 3's most of all. Therefore I am adjusting it's rating to 6/10.

Transformers (2007) (was rated 9/10) – Here is another film that has lost some luster. Perhaps not a lot, but some and more because of the second installment than anything else. Looking back, 9/10 seems a tad high to me. The visuals, which carried the movie, were great then and still are now, but Michael Bay's name is uttered in jest these days and he consistently puts out summer cash-cows with little, if any, substance. Let's face it, Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen was not good, and by not good I mean irritatingly bad! (Don't make me invoke the twins!) That said, Transformers did meet my expectations in 2007 and didn't do anything to offend its in own right and did genuinely entertain. However, thanks to number two (A PUN!) I won't be seeing Transformers: Dark of the Moon. New rating – 8/10

Next (was rated 7/10) – Here is a movie that is largely forgettable to me. In fact, the only thing I really recall about Next is that the concept was really cool and I feel like I gave it an extra point for having an interesting concept. Now, I still think the concept is interesting, but I can't justify a 7/10 rating as it definitely is not as good or entertaining as some of the other 7/10 movies I've reviewed on this site. So, to make myself feel more at ease, this movie is getting adjusted down to 6/10. Sorry Nick Cage – Kick Ass is still awesome!

Green Lantern May Not Shine, But It Definitely Glows

After a full decade of the comic book movie wave coming out of Hollywood, it appears, at least to this reviewer, that the honeymoon with audiences is over. After X-Men, Spiderman, Hulk, Batman, Superman, Fantastic Four, DareDevil, Ironman, Thor, etc, etc, etc., people are starting to get bored. How do I know? I went to go see Green Lantern and was shocked.... shocked that is wasn't nearly as bad as the swath of reviews would have you believe. Admittedly, Green Lantern (henceforth GL) has its share of flaws and areas that could have been stronger, but the majority of reviews out there would have you believe this movie carries the plague. It doesn't. It's very run-of-the-mill, formulaic and isn't as easily accessible to those unfamiliar with its mythology as say Spiderman or Batman, thus slowing it down with explanations. However, if those are its sins, then I think a lot of people giving it bad press have overreacted.

Admittedly, as a fan and reader of the comics, I've been looking forward to GL for months now, albeit with great trepidation and concern. Then as we got close to release and the reviews started coming in, I got really disheartened. RottenTomatoes has it hovering between 22% and 25%, but I told myself I would see it and so I did.

First let me talk about the movie itself. Having read plenty of reviews beforehand, I lowered my expectations. It's an origin story and it stayed pretty faithful to the source material. Ryan Reynolds did a fine job as Hal Jordan and while he didn't always have the strongest script to work with, his charismatic charms went a long way. There was also a lot going on for a movie on the shorter end of the run-time spectrum. They had to explain a lot of back story quickly to set up Hal's being chosen by Abin Sur's ring to join the GL Corps. (If you are getting lost just reading this synopsis, then we're hitting one of the major hurdles facing GL as a movie.)

Aside from the back story, the movie crammed in Sinestro and his role, the Guardians of the Universe and two separate villains – Hector Hammond and Parallax. To put it into perspective, that is like cramming Joker, Catwoman and the Penguin all into one Batman movie. (They came close, but never got that crowded).

The quality of the CG effects were one thing that really had me concerned going in, but they actually turned out pretty good and I never found myself distracted. The script was weak at times, but for a writing committee that included three novices, it wasn't as bad as I was expecting either. Interestingly enough, the action was less than I was expecting, but again, there was much to explain and the movie was fairly short.

Lower expectations aside, GL is nowhere near 25% territory. It simply isn't. I've been to movies in the last couple of years that made me wince (Sucker Punch), groan (Transformers 2) and keep checking my watch (Harry Potter 7, Pt. 1) and I did none of those things with GL. The movie has it's problem, but not all of them are the movie's fault. As an origin story it is derivative, and that is the term that many reviews are invoking as they pan the movie.

Guilty.

Here is one of the problems – many superhero stories have the same basic formula. Take Spiderman for instance. You have a normal kid and one day he gets bitten by a radioactive spider. The next thing he knows BANG he has super spider powers. At first he is overwhelmed and doesn't know what to make of it. Then he begins to harness and control the abilities and starts “strutting” and showing off. Finally, he must decide if he will act using those powers. Now take away “Spiderman” and the radioactive spider and you have a template for a sequence of events that is used, more or less, by Ironman, DareDevil, the Fantastic Four, the X-Men and, yes, GL. Hell, even Hulk to a certain extent! That is the nature of a lot of superhero stories, folks. Now, once you get past the origin phase, then each character's adventures go off in their own unique direction. It is because of this that I would argue that this movie would have had a much better reception, say, five years ago when comic book movies were still relatively new. People complain that it is derivative because it is.

Another problem is that GL isn't as well known to general audiences as say Spiderman, Superman or Batman, thus making it a bit harder to just sit down and immediately understand the premise if you haven't read the source material. GL spends a bit of time explaining and for those unfamiliar it really needs to. The story isn't primarily set on Earth, the powers aren't “physical” in nature and there is a lot of back story. GL packed a lot of stuff into a movie that doesn't even run two hours; I would say a little too much. People are saying that they had a hard time following the story and I don't doubt it or fault them for that. Again, it goes back to the accessibility problem.

I've also read reviews that criticize elements that are innately part of the story, things like Hal's “daddy issues”. Look, if that bothers you or seems contrived, then GL probably isn't for you because Hal Jordan has “daddy issues” and family issues to boot. It's actually a big part of who he is and why he is special as a lantern. Remember, even Spiderman has “uncle issues” and Batman has “parents issues”.

Some are blasting the child-like sense of wonder the movie plays up, saying it will play better to kids. I won't take issue with that observation, but I will tell you that there were elements that conjured up memories of Spiderman's rooftop sequence for me. Again, derivative.

One comment I've read that I think is fair compared GL to the 1980's The Last Starfighter (one of my childhood faves and now a sentimental favorite). The similarities abound and that doesn't necessarily make it a bad movie.

Ultimately my initial reaction is that I was entertained, but I think the fact that I am a GL fan helped for reasons already stated. As a comic book movie it didn't bring anything revolutionary to the table which seems to be trying the patience of many reviewers. Yes, it could have been better and stronger in some areas, but as a whole it isn't terrible, just generic. Again, five years ago, this wouldn't have been as much an issue as it is in 2011.

I don't think it is fair to call GL a disaster. It could have been stronger, but its not a failure. It's is admittedly harder to get into than other superhero flicks and probably better suited to the readers and fans than for general audiences. While it didn't blow me away, I was entertained and not disappointed. For its problems, Green Lantern may not shine, but it definitely glows. 6/10

Only One Part, Deathly Hallows, Part 1 Needs Editing

(My apologies to any of you out there who read this blog and have been waiting for this review to actually appear for months and months. For whatever reason, I just haven't gotten around to this review sooner. Finally, I have sat down and written it. Better do it before the final film is released, no?)

Let me preface this review with a warning that this review is probably less about Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 1 than it is as a sounding board for me concerning the one issues with today's films in general, of which this film just happens to be an example - length, and more specifically editing and pacing.

First, the vitals about the film itself. One thing is for sure – the Harry Potter franchise of films has been pretty darn entertaining stuff from the get go. There have a been a few different directors who have helmed, two Dumbledores in Richard Harris and Michael Gambon and a excellently cast group of young actors who have grown up with their characters on screen. OK, maybe a little faster in the case of Rupert Grint. Despite the scope of the franchise and the fact that a key character has been portrayed by two different actors, as a whole the series is very entertaining! There has been ample opportunity for things to really go awry, but it hasn't, and despite some stylistic differences from film to film, with this series you basically have a seamless “whole”. It is an impressive feat!

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 1 represents the first part of the final chapter of the story of young wizard Harry Potter and his companions at Hogwarts. Much like the children who grew up with the books, the films have also matured over the past decade, getting more serious and certainly darker in tone. Never has it been darker than in this, the final chapter. For Harry and his cohorts, the situation certainly is bleak and often seems to be without any hope at all.

This film see Harry (Daniel Radcliffe), Harmione (Emma Watson) and Ron (Rupert Grint) on the run and on their own. Voldemort's agents are everywhere and have infiltrated even the inner workings of the Ministry of Magic. Our heroic trio must prepare themselves for the final showdown with the forces of evil and in doing so must face their own doubts and fears. Needless to say, the tone is heavy and dark.

Did I mention that Harry, Harmione and Ron are on the run? They are... for the whole movie. And while that is in keeping with the story, with the film clocking in at 146 minutes, by the end I couldn't wait to get out of the theater. It felt like an eternity had passed!

The film itself is fine. Radcliffe, Watson and Grint once again do a great job with their performances and the action that there is was good stuff. Without a doubt it is another solid entry in the franchise, if only the first part of the final chapter.

And that is where my beef comes in. Why was this movie 146 minutes long when a solid third of it was nothing more than Harry, Harmione and Ron sulking amongst themselves and wallowing in their own self-pity and loneliness? How much can they possibly drive home the point that, yes, they are on the run, they are on their own and they are riddled with their own doubts? If I had to spend one more minute at their makeshift camp in the wilderness I might have had to slit my wrists. GET ON WITH IT!

What is even worse is that you can pretty much rest assured that the final film will be nothing but action from the open frame to the rolling of the credits, so why did we have to endure a two and a half hour precursor wherein very little of anything with any real substance actually happened? To make more more money with two films? (BINGO!) Because they thought it was necessary to tell the story? Both?

I have the same beef with the Lord of the Rings films. With every subsequent viewing they just seem to get longer and longer. I actually have trouble sitting down and watching them now (definitely require a break in the middle) and I don't own them. Don't get me wrong, that trilogy is great, but they are really long, arguably too long. Yes, they have great action sequences and are epic stories, but other movies like Clerks II make great fun of them by accurately pointing out how much filler they actually contain that contributes nothing substantial to the end product. (Randall: "The first film - walking. The second film - walking. The third film - walking... toss the ring into the volcano. Hell, even the trees walked!")

I tend to give the Lord of the Rings films a pass because they were the first of this current generation of film making to really push the two and a half hour mark. They are that long without the “extended edition” cuts and with the fact that they cut a lot out from the books. But that is the difference – the source material is a book and these are films. Practically speaking, the film medium demands more editing, because in a theater you cannot just put down the film and pick it back up at your leisure like you can with a book. Hell, as much as I love it, even The Dark Knight is probably a tad bit too long.

So there I was sitting in the theater, watching Deathly Hallows, Part 1 and wondering when the hell it was going to end, knowing that this wasn't even the final film. The film needed to cut down because they definitely could have conveyed the despair of Harry, Harmione and Ron in much less time than they took.

I could even understand if they wanted to do one three hour final film to wrap up the series. Yes, it would have been VERY long, but it would have been a grand finale and the action heavy story would have made it bearable. You could also save substantial running time by making use of the editing that should have happened with Part 1. However, by having two films as they are and dragging the first one out as long as they did just seems excessive to me. Needless to say, regardless of the fact that this was not a bad film, I won't be watching it on DVD very often (or any time soon) because it is just too long for what it is. It isn't the book. If you want the book, then read the book. It's a matter of knowing how to use the medium.

So the bottom line from me is this – the Harry Potter franchise has another solid entry to it, but it is just too damn long and for that I must dock it a few points. 7/10

Living Up to Its Name, X-Men: First Class Delivers

Summer 2011 is one filled with heavily anticipated super-hero movies – Thor, X-Men: First Class, Captain America and Green Lantern. Just like the last few “comic book” summers, this one has plenty of hype and scrutiny headed its way, perhaps even a little more than before. You could say that 2011 is the first summer of the second decade of the comic book movie era, an era that began with X-Men way back in 2000. In its wake we've received a pantheon of comic book movies – both good and bad – that have seen the successes and failures of the genre discussed, debated and dissected ad nauseum, with many comic and film fans growing weary of what they see as sub-standard realizations of comics, especially super-heroes on screen. So with X-Men: First Class going back to the beginning (both literally and figuratively), how does it play? Well, let me give you my take.

I've never been a big reader of the X-Men comics, but I've more or less enjoyed the films to date, although X3 didn't do much of anything for me. X-Men was OK, especially considering it was the first of its kind (I do personally find it a bit boring), but X2: X-Men United was great! My initial reaction to First Class is that I enjoyed it more than X-Men and certainly X3, but maybe not quite as much as X2. And who know, maybe my impression will change with time.

First Class is a prequel and takes us back to the beginning of the mutant story which is in the 1960s (or 1940's if we're being very precise). This movie feels like it's own story in almost every way which I really appreciated. I never felt like the creators were going out of their way to setup something specifically for the movies that already exist, so it was free to be its own story. That said, I also never felt like this story created any conflict with the existing installments either, so kudos to director Matthew Vaughn and the writers.

The stage for the story is the Cuban Missile Crisis, wherein the United States and Soviet Union stood on the brink of all-out nuclear war. According to this story, history was not all it seemed. A powerful mutant named Sebastian Shaw (Kevin Bacon) was actually manipulating the situation with the help of his beautiful femme fatale Emma Frost (January Jones) and associated mutants known collectively as the Hellfire Club. Shaw wants nuclear exchange because his mutation allows him to absorb kinetic energy and thus grow more powerful. You guessed it – Shaw wants to rule the world.

The CIA is onto to Shaw and his gang (somewhat) but they don't fully understand what is going on until agent Moira MacTaggert (Rose Byrne) observes the mutants using their powers while spying on them. Feeling they have no choice but to fight fire with fire, the CIA seeks out a mutant expert. Enter newly-titled "professor" Charles Xavier (a powerful telepath) (James McAvoy) and his longtime childhood friend Raven Darkholme (a shapeshifter) (Jennifer Lawrence) who join with the CIA to locate mutants and help stop the Hellfire Club.

In the meantime, Erik Lensherr (Michael Fassbender) is on a personal mission of vengeance against Shaw because it turns out that Shaw was helping the Nazis at the concentration camp Erik and his family were imprisoned at during the Holocaust. Erik uses his power (magnetism) to aid him in his quest. Both hot on Shaw's tail, Erik and Charles run into each other and Charles convinces Erik to join them. The problem is that Charles and Erik have very different views on mutants – Charles wants peaceful co-existence with humans and Erik wants humans to take their place beneath mutants, aka homo-superior.

Long story short, the two do become friends and work together to locate and train mutants but ultimately take different paths during the final confrontation with Shaw, thus setting the stage for all X-Men stories to follow, including the movies we already know. Again, I appreciated that First Class never felt tied-down by the existing movies and yet didn't conflict with them either.

As an origin story I thought the story worked quite well. The audience gets the origins of Professor X and Magneto in entertaining fashion and those of the greater collection of X-Men without all the “teenaged angst” as other reviews have pointed out. The characters weren't whiny and self-loathing as the younger mutants seemed to be in the other films, but rather more conflicted as to what their place in the world was, especially Raven/Mystique and Hank/Beast (Nicholas Hoult) who are on a journey of self-acceptance, more-so than Charles and Erik because their mutations are visible to the naked eye.

The movie also presented a good balance between action, drama and humor, preventing it from being just a slap-stick affair, a CGI expo or just plain boring. Additionally, I felt the film was well cast top to bottom. McAvoy and Fassbender make the characters their own but they don't conflict with the characters as we already know them. They also gave some depth to the Professor X/Magneto relationship without getting bogged down and slowing the overall pace of the movie.

Some reviews have taken issue with Kevin Bacon's “over-acting”, but let's keep perspective here – Kevin Bacon has a game named after him and is partly famous just for being himself. Considering that he in no way distracted from the film, you'll get no complaints from me.

After the disappointment of X3, the X-Men franchise had a lot to lose with X-Men: First Class. Thankfully Vaughn and his talented cast delivered a well-made and entertaining installment to the franchise which has me on board for future installments. Have no fear - X-Men: First Class lives up to its name. 8/10

Black Swan is a Top-Notch Psychological Thriller

Darren Aronofsky doesn't do normal. In the span of his career as a director, he has distinguished himself as a creator of controlled chaos. With Black Swan, he one again demonstrates that he has mastered his craft.

Often times with films, the credit for success tends to be thrown in one direction or the other; the director was a visionary or the actors were at the top of their game or the cinematography was revolutionary. Taking time to step back and reflect on Black Swan, it strikes me that this film was the sum of its parts – Aronofsky knew what he wanted and lucky for him he had the cast and crew that could deliver his vision to its full potential!

The film explores the world of the ballet, but more to the heart, it explores ambition and obsession, forces for both creation and destruction. The main character Nina Sayers (Natalie Portman) is a ballet dancer who, despite being a dedicated and talented ballerina with her company, has never taken that next step to true stardom. She wants to ascend to the top, that place of prominence, but can she step beyond the technical and truly become her craft? It is the challenge her director (Vincent Cassel) issues to her, but the pressures of the profession take their heavy toll on Nina. Cast as the “swan queen” for the a re-envisioned Swan Lake, Nina is forced to push herself beyond her limits to realize her full potential at the risk of losing herself.

Aronofsky's skill is on full display as he presents the audience with a reality that we aren't quite sure of from the very first scene. As a psychological thriller, Black Swan works through subtlety. We are constantly fed little hints of paranoia and dreamlike segments of incongruity so that, like Nina, we are never sure what is entirely real. Those elements of herself that Nina is required to use to allow her to give the performance she wants and that her director demands are creative forces that eat away at her psyche. Nina is told from the beginning that she is the white swan but that she needs to channel the black swan within herself. In this way, the story of Swan Lake mirrors Nina's own journey – both the themes of transformation and ultimate self destruction.

Very often psychological thrillers spend at least some time trying to examine those elements which seem out of place as a way to help make sense of what is happening. With Black Swan, Aronofsky doesn't give the audience the luxury of those moments to help us stop and catch our breath. He used this to excellent effect! The film is relatively short with a run time of only 108 minutes. The pace of the story is brisk and somewhat frantic, mirroring the hectic pace with which Nina must prepare for the role she has always wanted. This heightens the effects of the paranoia she experiences – there is no time to stop and try to make sense of anything. As a result there is seemingly no line between what is real and what is not giving the film an added punch and genuinely frightened (Nina) feel. It is like watching self-destruction at break neck speed!

This film also benefits from the excellent performances from Portman, Mila Kunis and Vincent Cassel as Nina's director. Even Winona Ryder gave a good supporting performance as the jilted and discarded lead ballerina. For her performance as the tormented Nina, Portman won the Academy Award for Best Actress.

Black Swan is yet another excellent film from Aronofsky (Pi, Requiem for a Dream, The Fountain, The Wrestler) and a must see for any fan of the psychological thriller genre. It doesn't disappoint. 10/10

Your Highness is a Satisfying, Silly Romp

Some movies are low brow. When you see the trailers for these movies online or during a trip to the theater you laugh and probably groan a little, and sometimes you still want to see them anyway because all it will be is dumb, mindless humor or mindless, eye popping action. Your Highness is one of these movies. I wanted to see it because I thought it looked like a fun time at the movies. Good news – I was right!

I don't have to tell you that some movies are great because they aren't heavy or serious. Hell, I'll never stop loving Baseketball (a high school favorite) and it is gutter humor and cheap gags all the way! I can confidently say the same for Your Highness. It is exactly what you would expect from the trailer – an age-old premise populated by cheap gags and dick jokes that didn't try to be anything more. The end result was a great time at the movies! If only more movies could understand this principle – just be what you are, because sometimes that all we want and nothing more.

Your Highness is a movie that you can tell everyone involved was just having a good time. James Franco (Prince Fabious) and Danny McBride (Prince Thadeous) team up once again with Pineapple Express director David Gordon Green for a very silly affair that involves an evil warlock, a mysterious warrior-woman (Natalie Portman) and an epic quest to rescue a maiden in distress (Zooey Deschanel). Oh, and a ton of sex jokes! For Franco and Portman, who were an Oscar nominee and Oscar winner respectively in 2011, they don't have anything to prove, so this was probably a nice “fluff” picture to work on following their efforts in 127 Hours and Black Swan.

Even so this movie is not high art, that is not to say it wasn't handled well. It was. The story was well done and even the CG wasn't bad. When the end credits rolled, I didn't feel like I wanted my money back. I paid for a fun time at the movies and it delivered. It certainly isn't for everyone, but if you like the swords and spells genre and are in the mood for a silly, albeit juvenile romp, you need only call for Your Highness. 7/10

Latest Green Lantern Footage

Obviously with every new comic book movie there is a ton of skepticism and it very much deserved given a lot of the absolute garbage that has come out. I really enjoy the Green Lantern and even after watching this latest footage, I am still very wary. Still, there is a bit of promise to it. Anyway, I thought I would share it.

PS - I'm still not sold on the CG costume, and more specifically the mask. It just doesn't look completely passable as "real".

Extras Is Solid Gold Comedy

I realize that I am late to the scene (once again), but I recently took in the entire run of Ricky Gervais' critically-acclaimed comedy series Extras. By now I'm sure that anyone who comes upon this blog knows that Gervais is the creative mind behind the immensely successful series The Office and have probably heard about, if not seen, his “controversial” hosting of the 2011 Golden Globes. Controversial or not, it was hilarious and so is Extras!

To put is succinctly, Extras is both a pleasure to watch and, quite frequently, very difficult to watch. I say difficult because some of the situations that the characters find themselves in are so uncomfortable and awkward it is almost unbearable... and therein lies the delightfully twisted beauty of it. What co-creators Ricky Gervais and Stephen Merchant have come up with in nothing short of comedy gold!

Extras follows the professional lives of three primary characters: struggling film/TV extras Andy Millman (Gervais) and Maggie Jacobs (Ashley Jensen) and Millman's utterly incompetent agent Darren Lamb (Merchant). Millman is the every man – easily overlooked, but with huge ambitions for himself. As he and best friend Maggie bounce from job to job Andy continually tries to rub shoulders with the celebrities that they happen to cross paths with (the series' guest stars) but he finds himself not getting anywhere.

His failure to advance professionally is due in large part to his worthless agent Darren, who in addition to not really trying to help Andy, doesn't actually think very much of him as an actor, which in a twisted way serves as a reality check for Andy.

However, despite all of the problems Andy faces, he writes a pilot for an semi-autobiographical sitcom which manages to get picked up by the BBC. Suddenly Andy's life changes but he quickly learns the high price (and dark side) of success. He quickly discovers he is going places that he doesn't want to be and yet they seem to be the only way he can taste the fame and fortune he so desperately wants for himself. He becomes famous but despises the keys to his own success. In essence, Andy has to sell out and he hates every bloody minute of it. His reality, it seems, is not compatible with his dreams. It may not sound funny, but believe me, it is.

As I've said, the journey we are taken on in Extras is simultaneously hilarious and painful; it contains some of the funniest and most awkward scenes I have ever seen! Equally entertaining is the high profile list of celebrity guest stars that join the fray, a list that includes Sir Ian McKellen, Patrick Stewart, Kate Winslet, Ben Stiller, Daniel Radcliffe, Clive Owen, Orlando Bloom and David Bowie to name a few. (just do a YouTube search for Extras + any of the aforementioned celebs for a taste if you haven't seen the show)

Unlike the original British version of The Office (Gervais and Merchant's earlier collaboration), Extras is not done in the “mockumentary” style, but it definitely pokes fun at the world of show business. It's often dry and deadpan, but it scores with every episode! Gervais and Merchant put their comedy genius on full display and keep you laughing and cringing the whole way through. If you haven't already checked it out, definitely add it your queue!

Sucker Punch Is an Identity Crisis on Screen

I'll keep this as brief as I can – Sucker Punch is a terrible film! Zach Snyder's latest is an action-packed identity crisis, marketing itself with the eye candy and CGI battle sequences (to draw the guys to the theater) and then, not so subtly, trying to pass it off a something more substantial - a movie with a message. Well, it didn't work. At all. (PS - I went with a group of guys.... the target demographic, and we didn't expect fine art)

It's hard to know where to start. My first reaction is that Snyder has moved on from scantily clad men (300) to scantily clad women with Sucker Punch. I'm not going to lie – eye candy is eye candy and being a guy I appreciated that for what it is. But then to try and sell these insane action sequences as being a metaphor these young womens' struggle to liberate themselves from sex slavery? I'm not buying it. And neither did anyone who was in the theater with me.

The characters in Sucker Punch are paper thin as far as development. They come across as little more than the vehicles to drive the action, and yet, they are supposed to be driving the bigger, important message. Didn't work. The story of these girls banding together to escape their situation is cliché and really does little more than serve as a pause to catch your breath from the action.

And what of the action? I'm confused. I thought this movie was supposed to be about ass-kicking and violence at the hands of hot chicks? So why then, did this movie even try for the PG-13 rating it received? And the way they did it is even more dumbfounding. So here our heroines are, in the midst of an epic World War I-esque battlefield, and in order to make the killing “ok” for the rating, we establish that the German soldiers are already dead and are nothing more than clockwork, steam-punk zombies. What?! It's ok though, we have a “mech” for the asian girl to pilot. Oh man.... what has happened here?

Then for the next epic encounter they take our girls to Isengard! (for your enjoyment) Yes, flying around in a hybrid B-17, the girls somehow end up in Middle Earth where they fight orcs and dragons with samurai swords, assualt rifles and a .50 cal. Oh yeah, and for the sake of that rating thing - “You're one ugly mother....” blam blam blam blam Again, just take the “R” rating and save some shred of dignity.

However, what made this movie truly awful in my opinion is the end, wherein Snyder's story gets sappy and preachy – the message. Seeing as this adventure has already lifted from 95% of animes, The Matrix' wardrobe, Lord of the Rings' locales, Kill Bill's Pei Me sequence and Sky Captain's aesthetic, why not try to shove a message in there too? “You have the tools. Use them.” Cue the eye roll.

If this was supposed to be a movie about female empowerment, which I've read thing that hint that it partially is, it failed. Why? Because this film probably only served to make every teenaged boy (target demographic) in the audience drool. Believe me, they didn't appreciate the “social message” nearly as much as the hot chicks in skimpy outfits kicking ass. If this was supposed to be just a action-packed romp through pop culture, it failed. Drop the pretense! Lose the message, take the “R” rating and just embrace what it is – mindless entertainment, good or bad.

One final thought. This rating thing bothers me on another level too. It managed to snag a PG-13 rating. Why, because it didn't kill “people” en mass or use the word “fuck” in the action sequences? Um.... a fair amount of time is spent in a 40-50s era brothel where the women are abused (verbally and physically) on screen, manipulated, SHOT IN COLD BLOOD and totally objectified (like in the movie itself) and that isn't viewed as violence worthy of “R”? There is nothing wrong with “R” if you understand what it signifies. Gee... I think this movie missed its own contrived message. Sadly, so did the ratings board. Congratulations - you now own the lowest rating ever* for The Film Lounge! 2/10

*Actually tied for the lowest rating ever with a couple other "winners" (Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer, Shrek the Third). The Brothers Solomon, while given a 0/10, was not an official review, just a public service announcement, as stated.

Looks Like Transformers 3 Isn't the Only Film Dabbling in the 1960s

I'll be honest - the jury is very much still out on this film, given the trailer. X-Men: First Class certainly looks full of potential, but so have a lot of films over the last decade that turned out to underwhelm. Time will tell.

"Howling For You" Music Video is.... Interesting

Independent Star Wars Documentary Worth a View

IO9 showcased a very interesting and well made independent Star Wars documentary called Star Wars Begins. It is the first in a set of three documentaries covering the original trilogy films hosted via YouTube. I have to give serious props to the creator Jambe Davdar for doing a great job of collecting set footage, deleted and alternate scenes along with a ton of cast and crew interviews. I've done a lot of reading and research into Star Wars over the years and I learned a lot of interesting tidbits watching this! If you're a fan, it is definitely worth watching!

You can check it out over at the creator's YouTube channel where all 14 segments are collected.

Enjoy!

Inception Dares To Dream

Christopher Nolan's Inception is a movie that fully embraces the definition of “ambition”. The concept, the story, the visuals... everything dreams big and not only succeeds, but soars! Great film making is nothing new from Nolan, who in my opinion has to make a bad film or even a sub-par movie for that matter. He knows his craft, but more than that, he truly understands how to tell a story and connect to his audience.

Inception especially connects with me because its subject matter, dream, is something I truly find fascinating in my own life. I don't know if I would classify myself as a true “lucid” dreamer, but every night I enjoy very vivid dreaming and more often than am somewhat or fully conscious of the fact that I am indeed dreaming. My dream reality is surprisingly consistent and coherent as far as its structure (locations, themes, even continuity... I can recall countless dreams) and so dreaming for me is really like an awesome sandbox. So as I learned more and more about Inception leading up to its release, I was really excited to see it!

It didn't disappoint.

Inception, while relatively simple in its concept, features a very complex plot. It is a myriad of interconnections, character study, layers, mystery and action. Take all that, weave it together with the power of the mind and imagination and you have a very ambitious mix indeed. There is no doubt that Inception demands more than a single viewing to pick up all the details and fully appreciate the nuance throughout. Not only the plot, but the film itself is layer upon layer. It should come as no surprise then that Nolan had been working on Inception on and off for more than a decade. Thankfully, he took his time to realize it, because the film lacks absolutely nothing as a result.

The story is set in modern day (near future?) and assumes that humans have developed technology that allows them to tap into the dream state, even allowing multiple dreamers to share a single dream and fully interact with each other. The mind is the ultimate sanctuary, and with this dream technology comes the ability to steal information right out from someone's mind. This is where our protagonist Dom Cobb (Leonardo DiCaprio) comes in.

Dom is an architect, someone imaginative and skilled enough to literally create the architecture of someone's dream. He is the best in the world and specializes in dream security – he teaches clients how to proactively protect information and the secrets they posses from the would be thief even while asleep. It's a fine job, but Dom has another problem – he is wanted for the murder of his wife and cannot return home to the United States lest he be arrested.

The technology of induced dreaming is not without its risks. Normally, a person hooked up to a dream machine dreams (experiencing accelerated time because of increased brain activity, the brain can process faster while asleep) and then wake up to a “kick”, some sort of signal or physical trigger to wake them up or if they die in the dream. But that is only single level dreaming. It is also possible to create a dream inside a dream where time is accelerated even further and the risks become deadly real because the mind can become lost if the dreamer becomes untethered from reality. If they die in a dream within a dream, they become lost in “limbo” or unstructured dreaming and live a lifetime in the dream before actually dying. They can't wake up because they don't realize they are still dreaming unless they have a totem, a personalized item that acts as a test to let them know when they are dreaming or not.

Dom and his wife explored dreams together and lived a lifetime together in a dreamworld they constructed before ultimately waking up. Only once they returned to reality, Dom's wife Mol became haunted with the notion that she was still dreaming and eventually killed herself in an attempt to wake up. As a result, Mol's memory now haunts Dom's dreams along with the fact that he cannot prove that she killed herself.

However, one man, an energy baron named Saito (Ken Watanabe) has the connections that can wipe Cobb's slate clean and allow him to return home to his two children. All he requires from Dom is the seemingly impossible – inception, or the planting of a foreign idea into someone else' mind all the while making them believe it is their own idea. Allegedly it has never been successfully accomplished and despite the risks, Cobb is certain he can pull it off. You see, he did it to Mol.

Saito's target is a competing business empire that is about to pass from father to son, Maurice Fischer to Robert Fischer (Cillian Murphy). He wants Cobb and his team to plant the idea to break up the business in Robert Fischer's head in order to save his own business from collapsing. At this, Cobb recruits his team: his partner Arthur (Joesph Gorden-Levitt), protogé architect Ariadne (Ellen Page) and associates Eames (Tom Hardy) and Yusuf.

The team develops an intricate plan to put Fischer to sleep on an overseas flight and then infiltrate his dreams... three levels in, an extremely dangerous task. Long story short, they run into serious snags once into the dreaming and the mission suddenly becomes a challenge to survive in addition to achieving inception with Fischer. If they fail, Saito doesn't pull strings and Cobb is arrested upon landing in the US. But what poses the bigger threat – Fischer's mental defenses or Cobb's personal demons?

As previously alluded to, Inception works exceptionally well as an action thriller. Once in the dreamworld, the story keeps a frenetic pace and genuinely keeps the audience guessing what will happen next. There is even a nice homage by Nolan to the ski chase scene in the Bond film On Her Majesty's Secret Service. The visual effects of the film are also beautifully realized, creating a stunning world of the dream and seemingly endless imagination. The film's ability to convey the imagined reality of a dreamscape so successfully is truly an impressive accomplishment! Nolan's talented cast turns in a strong performance to boot.

Inception also features Nolan's signatures of theatrics and diversion. He loves to keep you guessing and second guessing, which I do believe is a key to fully understanding this film. Everyone has their theory as to what really happens and, naturally, after a few viewings and some contemplation, I have my own.

Ultimately, Inception is another hugely successful addition to Nolan's impressive body of work that already includes Memento, Insomnia, Batman Begins, The Prestige, and The Dark Knight. I thoroughly enjoyed this film and it gets my highest recommendation! 10/10

H-DoGG's Theory – SPOILERS

To me, what puts Inception way over the top is what I have come to describe as it's self-manifestation – the film IS a working example of inception for the audience.

The film's final shot with Mol's spinning totem seems to be the focal point for viewer debate and what I see Nolan's final wink. The audience's doubt lingers throughout the film as to whether Cobb is really awake or still stuck inside a dream. We are given little bits of nuance or doubt inducing information that constantly keep us unsure of what actually is real in the back of our mind. So the story plays out and once it reaches the end we want to think Cobb actually made it home, but there is that final shot. Did the totem tip over or spin indefinitely?

How does the notion of inception figure in? Well, we like to pride ourselves the perceptive audience, having picked up all the little clues the film gave us, and ultimately we aren't fooled by the happy ending. And that is just it – we are sure we arrived at that truth all by ourselves – Cobb is still dreaming. We believe it be our own original deduction and idea based on evidence. But it isn't. Nolan planted the idea through the story. Inception. The story actually was a happy ending with Cobb making it home to his children.

Granted this is just my theory, but what cemented it for me was a quote from Nolan I read in a magazine awhile back after seeing the film. To paraphrase, Nolan was asked about the abundant fan theories and notably the ones that say Cobb was still dreaming. His response, “In watching the movie, I didn't take that away from it at all.”

Scott Pilgrim vs. the World is a Solid 10

I cannot remember the last time I had as much fun at the movie theater as I did with Scott Pilgrim vs. The World. Venturing a guess, I'd probably have to say it was watching Hot Fuzz, which was a riot! What do both film have in common, aside from being absolutely hilarious? Well, they are both directed by Edgar Wright, for one. They are also both quickly climbing up my list of favorite films.

Scott Pilgrim vs. The World is a great film on so many levels, but the one thing that strikes me every time I watch it is how much it resonates with my generation, which makes sense since creator Bryan Lee O'Malley was is only two years older than myself. The world he created and that Wright brought to life on the big screen is permeated with so many cultural references and overtones that it fits like a custom made shoe.

Without a doubt the biggest motif is the gamer (Nintendo) motif, which you can easily say is part of the frame to the Scott Pilgrim world. The film (and comic) are chuck full of Nintendo references, from the name of the band that Scott plays is (the Sex Bob Oms) to the coins Scott collects when he wins a fight. Yes, there was Atari and CalecoVision before Nintendo, but my generation literally grew up side-by-side with the home gaming system – Nintendo (NES) debuted in 1985/1986. Then right around middle school came the Super Nintendo (still awesome by the way), followed by the N64 my freshman year of high school and Goldeneye parties ruled the day. Then during college game the Nintendo GameCube and once firmly into adulthood came the Nintendo Wii. All those countless hours of game playing growing up pretty much assure that my my peers and I have a much greater appreciation for the video game references that litter the film's landscape that other demographics. In that sense, watching the film is liking hanging out with an old friend and the laughs come easily.

The story follows unemployed 22 year old Toronto native Scott Pilgrim (Michael Cera), who is getting plenty of grief from his band mates, roommate and sister about the fact that he is dating a 17 year old, Asian, Catholic high school girl named Knives Chau (Ellen Wong). Of course, they attribute this to him still not having gotten over being dumped by his ex-girlfriend who is now a hugely successful rock star. Then, quite suddenly, Scott runs into what he believes is the girl of his dreams, the enigmatic American Ramona Flowers (Mary Elizabeth Winstead). As Scott is warned early on, “She's got some battle scars, dude!”

Quite rashly (and with little thought for Knives) Scott relentlessly pursues Ramona only to discover that if he wants to be with her, he must defeat all of her seven evil exes, aka the “League of Evil Exes”, in mortal combat. Plenty of action and hilarity ensue. Will Scott be able to defeat them all? Will Scott learn some important life lessons about relationships? You'll have to watch.

Not only is Scott Pilgrim vs. the World a homerun for nostalgia, but as a comedy it is fast paced and sharp as hell! Just about every scene has a great line or bit of physical humor and the excellent casting only amplifies it. Unlike so many cheap comedies of today, the jokes hold up to repeat viewing because they are clever, well timed and well delivered, not cheap and predictable. I've seen it five times now and I find myself laughing every time. When it comes to comedy, when it is done well, it is timeless and that's how feel about this film.

Along with the comedy, this film also meshes in plenty of action seemingly without effort. Of course, nothing could be further from the truth. The action is excellent, but once I watched the “Making Of” documentary on the DVD, I really gained a better appreciation for it. The actors did most of their own stunt work and the prep work that went into this film was serious, top notch stuff! As a final product, it's pretty evident that a lot of love went into making it, something that you only get when the cast and crew really care about what they are doing; that they weren't treating it as just another job. It was a job well done.

So we have an action comedy that plays to the Nintendo motif and that is entertaining. As great as all that is, I think perhaps the most impressive element to this film is the cinematography, visual effects and editing. The editing in Scott Pilgrim vs. the World is phenomenal! I really cannot overstate how well it flows visually – it is a visual feast! It is beautifully imagined and richly populated, drawing you in almost immediately and never letting up until the credits roll. The action scenes are fast, furious and as much fun as any film you'll find. The color palettes make expert use of both subdued and vibrant tones creating an awesome hybrid of reality and fantasy, and it all works together flawlessly! The locations feel authentic and yet larger than life at the same time, very much like the comic book world on which it is based.

Ultimately the film comes across on the screen as hugely entertaining ride that you want to go on again very soon. Not surprisingly, I give Scott Pilgrim vs. the World 10/10!

Paging Dr. Bishop - You Need to Be Watching Fringe

Something awesome is happening on Friday nights on Fox. How much longer that will be the case is anyone's guess, but one thing is for sure – if you're a science fiction fan and you haven't been watching Fringe, you've been doing yourself a huge disservice! Fringe might be best described as the second coming of the X-Files, minus the space aliens and plus one enormously entertaining mad scientist in the form of Dr. Walter Bishop. It is an hour a week well spent!

The show deals with an FBI teams' struggle to contain the damage done by Dr. Bishop's scientific endeavors some three decades ago when he was working as part of a highly classified government program run out of a Harvard University basement. By damage we're talking about altered reality, polluted time line and inter-dimensional deterioration. Just the small stuff. Nothing that some serious sleuthing, suspension of disbelief and mind-altering drugs can't fix. Or so one would hope.

Pseudo or “fringe” science may be the plot vehicle for Fringe, but the story is really that of the personal struggle of Dr. Walter Bishop, brilliantly played by John Noble, to mend the damage his own pride, hubris and ambition has caused. However, there is one slight problem standing in the way of Walter simply cleaning up his mess – after 17 years of being institutionalized (following an accident involving the death of a test subject), he is damaged goods. Oh yeah and he has had large chunks of his memory stolen by his former lab partner, billionaire entrepreneur William Bell. Bell, unfortunately, is “out of the country”.

As everyone involved learns, it is hard to fix a problem when you can't recall all the elements to the cause. It also doesn't help when your best resource is so eccentric that only his estranged son can translate his ramblings. Walter's son Peter (Joshua Jackson) is called upon to accompany his father following his release from St. Claire's Mental Institution and suddenly finds himself in the middle of a very bizarre ride that is Walter.

Throughout all “the pattern” investigations and laboratory adventures, a real, if not somewhat dysfunctional, family is born that includes Walter, Peter and FBI agents Olivia Dunham (Anna Torv) and Astrid Farnsworth (Jasika Nicole). Naturally there is sexual tension between Peter and Olivia, but also the caring friendship that develops between Walter and Astrid is genuinely touching and well executed and the strained father-son relationship between Walter and Peter provides for excellent drama week in and week out. And this is just the tip of the iceberg. Everything appears to be intertwined.

Getting back to why you should be watching, John Noble's turn as Walter is brilliant! He delivers a nuanced performance that jumps between confident, frightened, silly, frustrated and remorseful at the drop of a hat... or in the case of events in Fringe, the other shoe. But above all, Walter's character is fun throughout. No wonder he is a fan favorite. I also give lots of credit to Joshua Jackson who does a great job as Peter in his dealings with both Walter and Olivia. Anna Torv has continually gotten stronger as Olivia throughout.

Now in it's third, very strong season, Fringe finds itself relegated to Fox's notorious Friday night “death slot”, faced with the threat of imminent cancellation. In response, Fringe has been getting lots of positive buzz from a grassroots effort being put forth by the fan base in an attempt to save it and gain in renewal for a fourth season. What I can say is that everyone I have introduced to the show enjoys it. This includes my sister (not your usual viewer of this genre) and my mother!

Beyond the threat of losing a high quality show, some industry experts also argue that the death of Fringe may indeed be the death of the science fiction genre on network television, as it would be just the latest victim in a litany of genre shows canceled during the past decade. So as a science fiction fan, you really do owe it to yourself to get involved with a great show and help preserve the genre for the future.

If we end up losing Fringe this spring, it will be a truly unfortunate loss but I will be happy to have enjoyed the ride from the very first episode. It is certainly a show I will never forget.

Tune in Friday nights at 8pm (Central) on Fox!!!

Matrix 4 and 5 Hoax A Close Call... TOO Close

So the story reported first at AICN and then over at IO9 today that Keanu Reeves said he was working with the Wachowskis on scripts for Matrix 4 and 5 films was quickly given the hoax tag. Apparently, someone with connections to the story did some follow-up only to be told that the alleged speech Keanu gave never happened at all. WHEW!

It is fairly amusing that someone would so quickly dig around to confirm/deny this story, but I think their motivations are perfectly understandable, since they reflect what a lot of other film-goers were collectively thinking - PLEASE, DEAR GOD, NO!

Quite frankly, the scenario in which the Wachowskis go back and make additional sequels just seems too plausible with today's Hollywood... you know, the one where anything is fair game for the sequel treatment? Let's put it this way - if George Lucas can go back and make a fourth Indiana Jones outing with a 60-something Harrison Ford, Shia LeBouf and space aliens, you know that anything is possible. And it isn't for the best. Hell, even Tron got the sequel treatment 30 years on and people aren't exactly singing its praises.

I am of the opinion that The Matrix didn't need sequels to begin with; it stood very well on its own. The Matrix Reloaded was "ok" but then came The Matrix Revolutions and any goodness of Reloaded was flushed away into a sea of convoluted, confusing and unnecessary plot. Maybe that is why RottenTomatoes had it rated at 36%. Most people I talk to don't have much positive to say about the sequels and even the steadfast fans need to work harder than they should to put a positive spin to them. So when rumors fly that more installments are coming to a theater near you, possibly in 3D, people cringe because the precedent certainly is there for serious disappointment.

Well, for now, crisis is averted! Audiences want more new, good ideas for movies and not necessarily more sequels and expensive 3D romps. If we're all good boys and girls, maybe that's what we'll get.

True Grit Surprisingly Unimpressive

Maybe it was inevitable. After absolutely loving No Country For Old Men, perhaps there was no avoiding a letdown with my next Coen Brothers film viewing. It really doesn't matter wondering in the end. The simple fact is that I was unimpressed. It may even be safe to say that I was almost uninterested as well.

I was interested in seeing True Grit. The early buzz I heard was positive, with plenty of praise for Jeff Bridges' turn as Rooster Cogburn; there is no denying that he was entertaining as the eccentric US Marshall. I was even pleasantly surprised by Hailee Steinfeld's performance as the young, yet determined Mattie Ross! I think that is why it was so surprising to me that with two strong leads, great directors and an intriguing premise it just felt so bland as a final product. It just didn't deliver for me.

Now I must admit that I have not seen the original version starring John Wayne, so it isn't that I am comparing it to that. No, the Coen's version just felt hollow somehow, as if the recipe of great ingredients just didn't gel. The tense moments never really felt tense, the punch was missing from dramatic moments and the action didn't stir any bit of excitement in me. To be perfectly honest, I found the final confrontation to be rather boring. I just didn't connect with these characters, despite the capable performances that were delivered (except for Matt Damon whom I just found distracting somehow).

Even as I write this review I keep wanting to like this film more, but I can't. Normally if I don't rate a film high I will really delve into the things that I didn't like and flesh them out and explain why I didn't care for it. With True Grit I can't really do it because there wasn't any one thing was technically bad. It just wasn't fun and at the end of the day, that counts for as much as anything. The phrase I keep using to describe this film to friends is "filmmaking by numbers". If you have a coloring book and you stay inside all the lines and the colors are well chosen, the final product may be technically well done, but it still isn't true art. In the case of True Grit, I think it was the "grit" that was missing. 6/10

System Back Online!

Ok. So I'm going to start doing movie reviews again. I realize that I have left this blog to wither and rot for quite a long time now, which is unfortunate because apparently comments came in after I took my leave. Turns out at least some people were reading this (and apparently enjoying it) and I left you with nothing. Dick move on my part. I got busy with other things, got apathetic towards it and, quite frankly, hit a lull in my movie watching. Well, stuff like that happens I guess, but I've had this nagging thought in the back of my mind for awhile now to start it up again. And since I have quit Facebook I suppose I need a new online activity. Writing like this is probably healthier anyway. It is fortunate, then, that this page still exists and I don't have to start over from scratch.

Hopefully, if you are reading this, you have also returned. I cannot make any statement at this time as to how frequently I'll post or even the format I'll use. I'm planning on continuing my standard reviews, but I'll probably also have more shorter posts that talk about various subjects in tidbits rather than entrees. It's probably easier that way and will help me better keep this thing current.

So, welcome back and I hope you enjoy the posts to come.