The Film Lounge

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

2011-07-26T18:39:00.000-07:00

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:

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.
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.
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.
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

2011-07-23T14:10:00.001-07:00

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

2011-06-27T16:24:00.000-07:00

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

2011-06-23T20:22:00.000-07:00

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

2011-06-18T18:01:00.000-07:00

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

2011-06-05T19:21:00.000-07:00

(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

2011-06-05T13:02:00.000-07:00

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

2011-04-23T11:58:00.000-07:00

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

2011-04-16T15:06:00.000-07:00

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

2011-04-02T22:37:00.000-07:00

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

2011-03-29T20:48:00.001-07:00

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

2011-03-27T11:52:00.000-07:00

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

2011-02-12T18:14:00.000-08:00

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

2011-02-12T18:08:00.000-08:00

Independent Star Wars Documentary Worth a View

2011-02-05T19:53:00.000-08:00

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

2011-02-01T20:05:00.000-08:00

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

2011-01-30T21:21:00.000-08:00

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

2011-01-24T20:14:00.000-08:00

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

2011-01-24T17:12:00.000-08:00

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

2011-01-19T19:23:00.001-08:00

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!

2011-01-18T17:36:00.000-08:00

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.

With The Dark Knight, Lightning Strikes Twice

2008-07-19T18:17:00.000-07:00

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

2008-07-08T19:12:00.000-07:00

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

2008-06-08T14:50:00.001-07:00

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

2008-05-04T11:58:00.000-07:00

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

2008-04-30T20:18:00.000-07:00

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

2008-04-28T17:41:00.000-07:00

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

2008-04-27T15:29:00.000-07:00

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

2008-04-23T19:56:00.000-07:00

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!

2008-04-23T19:00:00.000-07:00

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

2008-04-03T19:33:00.000-07:00

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

2008-03-05T10:26:00.001-08:00

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

2008-03-02T14:15:00.001-08:00

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

2008-03-02T13:32:00.000-08:00

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

2008-02-22T22:45:00.000-08:00

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

2008-02-20T19:27:00.000-08:00

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

2008-02-18T19:45:00.000-08:00

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

2008-02-16T16:37:00.000-08:00

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

2008-02-14T20:43:00.000-08:00

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!

2008-02-07T18:18:00.000-08:00

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.

Two Reasons I'm Psyched for DOOMSDAY

2008-02-04T09:05:00.000-08:00

1. It's from Neil Marshall, director of the excellent The Descent.

2. The trailer makes it look like a chick-powered Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome.

Watch the trailer here.

Crystal Clear: AMC's Breaking Bad is Addictive and Daring

2008-01-28T14:32:00.000-08:00

In these troubled times in the world of entertainment, it’s more important than ever to appreciate quality original programming while we can. That’s why I’m hoping that, during this ongoing writer’s strike, you might find the time to check out the new original show from cable network AMC, Breaking Bad. AMC is fast establishing itself as a haven for daring, innovative television---if not for, well, classic American films. Heh.
Breaking Bad isn’t as impressive as this summer’s Mad Men, but this pitch-black comedy is as dangerous and addicting as its subject matter.

Created by former X-Files writer Vince Gilligan (he scripted personal favorite Bad Blood), Bad stars former Malcolm in the Middle father figure Bryan Cranston as a chemistry teacher and family man whose midlife crisis finds him using his science knowledge to cook methamphetamine. That’s simplifying it quite a bit—I assure you there are plenty more twists and turns involved that I want any potential viewer to experience themselves. The conceit of a middle class parent resorting to selling drugs to provide for their family may remind some of Showtime’s hit show Weeds, and on paper those comparisons are understandable. In practice, however, Breaking Bad is even more twisted in its humor and its unexpected twists.

It may be a little too early to tell if Bad can keep the pace of its first two offerings. In all honesty, its strange tone-which I'm currently enamored with-could grow grating as early as the next episode. Still, even if it were to dip quality significantly--I'll take merely good scripted television over the deluge of reality and game shows the networks are offering.

The first two episodes of Breaking Bad are available for download on iTunes and on demand through various cable systems. My recommendation would be to tune into AMC this Sunday night (Feb 3) after the Super Bowl when the network will repeat the first couple of episodes before resuming with a new episode the following Sunday. Follow this recommendation ONLY if you’re looking for a show that will get under you skin and keep you itching until your next fix.

There Will Be Lists: Personal Reflections on the Year in Film, 2007

2008-01-27T14:17:00.000-08:00

Faithful readers of the site (all three of you) will no doubt recall that it took me until June of 2007 to post my Top 10 of 2006. This was due to the fact that, living in rural IA, I don’t often have the opportunity to see all the films that I would like to in order to make a definitive list until all potential films are out on DVD. Here’s the thing---I really wanted to try this year to get a list out earlier. I held out for a couple weeks in the year, holding out for one specific film before I would write what would have been known as “The Scheduled-to-Change Best Films of 2007.” However, that film (There Will Be Blood which I’ve been psyched about for months) has yet to arrive in my neck of the woods and I just couldn’t wait any longer. Hence, this self-indulgent post.

In lieu of making a temporary list, I’ve opted to take inventory of what my personal film-going experience was like in the year ending 2007. I’m playing a little loose with this because many films that belong to the past year I wasn't able to attend until January---but you get the idea. I will try and get back into contributing more, so I can give regular updates on films I’m checking out on DVD as well as the prestige films that trickle down to Waterloo-town.

With the films I’ve seen so far from 2007, there’s no doubt in my mind that it’s been an extraordinary year in the cinema. Frustration about availability aside, I’m actually excited that there are a number of films yet to be discovered from this great year. Here’s a listing (in order of how badly I want to see them) of the films I’ve yet to watch from 2007 that I feel I need to see before compiling my list:

In Theatres/Not on DVD Yet:
There Will Be Blood
The Diving Bell and the Butterfly
Before the Devil Knows You’re Dead
I’m Not There
Margot and the Wedding
The Savages
Into The Wild (To be honest, this one came to my area, but I never found time to get to it. I sort of counted on it being recognized come Oscar time and to get a re-release-a la Michael Clayton-but that never happened)
Persepolis
The Kite Runner
On DVD-Just Haven’t Watched Yet
Paprika (read H-Dogg’s review here)
The Wind that Shakes the Barley (Like Paprika and many of the foreign films I’ve seen this year, this was released in 2006 but didn’t hit US theatres until 07)
The King of Kong (out on DVD January 29^th)
Rescue Dawn
Waitress
Bug
Sicko
A Mighty Heart

Here is a list of films that I found to be especially excellent and are definitely in consideration to be in my top 10:
No Country For Old Men
Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street
Atonement
The Lives of Others
The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford
Ratatouille
Once
Michael Clayton
Zodiac
Gone Baby Gone
Across the Universe
Juno
Eastern Promises
The Lookout
Charlie Wilson’s War
American Gangster
In The Valley of Elah
The Darjeeling Limited
Sunshine

Already I don’t know how the hell I’m going to pick just ten out of that lot (if you look at the seemingly random order I have the films listed, you can see where I’m currently standing). Looking at the above list of movies, with which I could almost make two complete lists that I would be perfectly happy with---confirms that this has been my favorite year at the movies since 1999 (that would be the year of Election, Being John Malkovich, Three Kings, Fight Club, Toy Story 2 & The Matrix—among many others).

Trends I enjoyed this year:
Directorial Debuts
Three established talents tried out the director’s chair this year and the results were three exciting films that were among the best of the year.
Screenwriter Scott Frank (Minority Report, Out of Sight) helmed the overlooked bank-robbery thriller The Lookout. In Frank’s hands, a film that could have come off as Memento-lite (the protagonist, played by Joseph Gordon Levitt, suffers from a brain injury that forces him to write everything down in a notebook) into a nuanced character study about living with a disability-as well as an exciting pot-boiler.
After playing with spy-genre conventions as the screenwriter of the Bourne trilogy, Tony Gilroy turned the legal drama on its ear with the morally gray world of Michael Clayton. The great performances and deliberate pace indicate an uncompromised vision of a director to look out for.
Following the media frenzy that was Bennifer I & II, I feel I could happily go the rest of my life without seeing Ben Affleck in front of the camera again. As a director, though, I’m excited to see where he goes next after his debut with Gone Baby Gone. Based on the Dennis Lehane novel of the same name, Baby stars Affleck sibling Casey as a PI trying to find a missing girl and finds himself having to make a very tough decision. It is a film that has haunted me since I saw it back in October, and a lot of that credit goes to Ben Affleck.

Musicals
I’m not ashamed to say I’m a fan of musicals, especially in a year that turned out so many good ones. Tim Burton’s Sweeney Todd is one of my favorite films of the year and was a perfect match of director and subject. The Beatles-centric Across the Universe is a flawed film, but over time those flaws have endeared themselves to me as interesting quirks. For those who don’t like musicals, the indie hit Once integrates its music so seamlessly to its subject matter-two street musicians who form a bond over their shared talent-that it would take a heart of stone to deny its charms. Also, I’d be lying if I said I didn’t enjoy the potential disaster turned feel-good hit Hairspray as well as Disney’s live-action fairy tale Enchanted.

Comedies
Most moviegoers would often list Comedy as their favorite movie genre. Well, not me—in fact, it’s probably pretty low on my list. I love humor, but most modern comedies…well, suck. I’m looking at you Chuck and Larry. Well, this year there was berth of great comedies that I can’t deny my love for: The Seth Rogen two-fer of Knocked Up and Superbad, the glorious animated highs of Ratatouille and The Simpsons Movie, Juno (where’s the Oscar love for JK Simmons, Allison Janney, and Jennifer Garner? Where? I’d gladly give-up the Best Picture nom -which, to be honest, I think is pushing it a bit- for a single nod for the supporting cast), the dry wit of The Darjeeling Limited and The TV Set, and my personal guilty pleasure of the year Hot Rod. I laughed a lot this year.

Foreign Films
My subscription to Netflix has allowed me to check out foreign films that I normally would have passed on—and this was a great year to jump in. Paris Je T’aime is a collection of 18 short films, a third of which I loved, a third of which I tolerated, and a third of which…well…let’s just say if the film was around thirty minutes long it would be a shoo-in for my best of the year. The Lives of Others won the best foreign language Oscar last year and was one of my favorite films that I saw in 07. Fans of Cloverfield or Little Miss Sunshine might want to check out the Korean offering The Host, which combines elements of both for a film that---well, it’s certainly not dull. Another flawed film that is anything from dull is Black Book from the Netherlands. Director Paul (Robocop) Verhoeven’s film about a Jewish woman who will do anything to survive the horrors of the holocaust is more of a popcorn film than any film about the holocaust has any right to be-it’s gripping for it’s entire two-and-a-half hour running time. Now is not the time to let subtitles scare you away from great cinema.

Well, as you can see---I’ve written quite a lot. And I still have a lot of thoughts about the year that has passed to go. Maybe I’ll get to them soon…or maybe you’ll have to wait until June.

So What's The Deal with Cloverfield? ... You Decide

2008-01-19T21:18:00.001-08:00

For many months leading up to its Friday release, Internet message boards and movie sites have been rampant with speculation surrounding the specifics of JJ Abrams monster flick Cloverfield. Its not surprising given the nature of its bizarre title and super vague trailer - Abrams and his team went to great lengths to keep the plot shrouded in mystery and build up the suspense. Only, if you went into the theater expecting answers, guess again.

The plot is as follows - the film is apparently home video evidence retrieved by the military of some kind of large scale attack on New York City. By means of said video, we experience everything from the POV of the group of friends caught up in the chaos, desperately trying to escape the city. It all starts with a tremor around midnight during a going-away party for one of the friends. Shortly thereafter, complete panic ensues when a large explosion erupts in midtown Manhatten. Is it an earthquake? Terrorist attack? Something else? Well, whatever it is, we know it roars because the sounds menacingly echoes through the streets. Soon sirens are sounding, military vehicles are racing through the streets and jets and helicopters fly by overhead while the frightened masses run wildly for safety... which, of course, is nowhere to be found. During all of this we only catch fleeting glimpses of what IT is while catching vague descriptions from panicked witnesses.

And so it is throughout - lots of shaky home video, screaming, running, explosions, flickering lights and intermittent roaring.

Eventually the movie ends as it must, where the video ends. Literally. This film takes a minimalist approach leaving the source material (the video) as the only plot device. When it ends, the credits roll. No explanation. No details. Little doubt this will leave many folks sitting in their seat scratching their heads wondering why not a single damn question they had going in was answered. Then there will be those who revel in what they just experienced. Trust me when I tell you that there is a certain element of brilliance to Cloverfield.

It is fairly clear to me that JJ Abrams understands what drives good suspense. In what I see as an enlightened approach to storytelling, Abrams and his team give the audience just enough to let them start filling in the details for themselves and, in doing so, avoid a pitfall that is all too common - the audience disagrees with the creator's vision of what happened or should happen. The audience had a ton of questions going in (ie: what the monster looks like) and probably just as many expectations, but in holding true to real life, every person who views Cloverfield will have their own interpretation of events. What exactly was attacking New York and what did it look it? You saw something, but let your imagination fill in the specifics. Where did it come from? You heard a few ideas suggested during the film, let your imagination decide. How does the story end? Does the military ultimately win out? You decide. And it is precisely the details that we do not know concretely that makes the events scary. People find themselves the most frightened when their imaginations run wild. Cloverfield fuels the fire.

This approach to storytelling is fast becoming Abrams' MO. His television project Lost has garnered a huge following and remains engaging because viewers find themselves speculating as to the true nature of the island, the "Others" and the lives of the castaways. Again, concrete details are few, just enough to get you thinking, yet the series is entertaining. Its what has made books so successful since for centuries - the reader's imagination. Abrams just knows how to tap it.

Also true to the home video vehicle, the film features absolutely no score. You're just there... in the thick of things and the chaos provides your imagination with the only score you need.

While watching, I couldn't help but think what a great idea it would be to create a companion film presented from another perspective like the military. We do get somewhat of a feel for what the military is up against during the film, but given just how entertaining the whole premise and experience was, I think another perspective could be just as fun.

Cloverfield isn't high brow cinema, but it is clever in presentation and wildly entertaining as a new-age monster flick. While the main characters' sub-plot is a bit lame, the point remains that they had to fill the movie with something and it works as well as anything they might have used. You have to get the characters from Point A to Point B somehow. The shaky camera-work might get annoying (and even nauseating at times) but overall it serves its purpose and adds to the aesthetic of the film. ITS PANDELERIUM BABY!!!

So what is the story on Cloverfield? I don't know, you tell me. 8/10

I Am Legend Starts Strong, Doesn't Close the Deal

2008-01-16T19:38:00.000-08:00

Will Smith delivered once again. I Am Legend looked intriguing from the first trailers and when you saw that Will Smith was in the leading role, well, at least for me, much doubt was cast aside. He can apparently do it all - comedy, action, drama - so why not add suspense to the resume? Exactly. Check that one off of the list.

Far removed from his posh throne in Bel Air (yes, I just made that reference), Smith now finds himself as military scientist Robert Neville, apparently the last man on Earth. How did we get there? Well, ironically, and I really appreciated this plot element, the alleged cure for cancer went haywire and killed everyone... except Neville who after some 5 years now spends his solitary days roaming a deserted New York City with his loyal canine companion looking for answers. He spends his night hunkered down in a house-turned panic room, complete with his own medical bat-cave.

Okay, so Neville isn't really the last person on Earth. Those not killed by the so-named "Kryppen virus" have basically become a hybrid of zombie-vampire, feeding on flesh and having to avoid daylight.

Neville hunts them in order to run tests in the lab in order to find a cure. They hunt him in order to eat.

Kudos go out to this film for many different reasons. First, as any good "last man" story does, it spends much time exploring how Neville, deprived of any human interaction, copes and combats the onset of insanity. He talks to his dog, go shopping in the overgrown remains of New York and interacts with manikins that he has cleverly placed in stores and shops, rents movies from the video store and hunts wild game in the streets. However, despite his best efforts, he is slowly slipping into madness as his desperation for a cure grows.

Second, the post-apocalyptic presentation of an abandoned metropolis was very well done. As previously mentioned, wild game roam the overgrown boulevards and thoroughfares. Escaped zoo animals (like lions) also roam the "urban jungle". There seems to be an innate fascination with people to see what would happen to the monuments of our civilization if humans suddenly ceased to exist and we get a fully imagines front row seat in this film.

Finally, the suspense aspect of this film was handled expertly in my opinion. Yes, we get to see the "monsters", but context is always appropriate. They creep out at dusk, loom large but out of sight during the day and they are mostly silent. Silence is frightening. They are also fast (like in 28 Days Later) which makes them all the more formidable that your classic zombie arch-type. But they are also smart. They set traps and stalk. In a "Most Dangerous Game" type of way, that is very frightening!

Two scenes really got to me. The first was when Neville ventures into a pitch-black building searching for his dog. Armed with a flashlight and his rifle, he ventures silently through stairwells and hallways knowing that the infected are hiding all around. When we see a group silently huddled in a corner breathing heavily... creepy. It reminded me of the game Half-Life when the aesthetics simply overwhelm and the panic portion of your brain reminds you that you shouldn't be where you are.

I also very much appreciated the scene where Neville notices that some of his manikins are out of place. He doesn't have to speak for you to understand - manikins don't move on their own. Its just an unsettling notion and it alludes to so much more than what is shown on screen.

After such a strong first two-thirds of the film, it was disappointing to me how the film plays out in the final act. Without spoiling its events, I can say that what transpired seemed to diffuse the panic and desperation that permeated the rest of film. And just when I came to terms with that, the film concluded in the manner that seemed totally unnecessary. It went out not with a bang, but a fizzle. While questions were apparently answered, I left the theater scratching my head. Why? Its a difference of opinion between the creators and the audience I suppose, but it damn ruined the whole experience.

You can't like every film I suppose. And while I don't hate I Am Legend, its simply disappointing that a film that could have been great turned out in the end to only be merely "ok" as a whole. If you haven't seen I Am Legend, its worth viewing. I just hope it doesn't disappoint for you as it did for me. 7/10

H-DoGG's Anime Hit Parade Continues with Paprika

2008-01-06T20:46:00.001-08:00

As I indicated with my last post, my last month and a half has been filled with some excellent DVD viewing experiences. (I also learned that when you move and decide to forgo cable television, you watch a LOT of movies!) Most notably, these past couple of months have seen me really delve into anime as a new, serious interest. And yes, I can already sense some of your eyes rolling at the thought. Let me assure you, I have not lost my sanity.

Those who know me fairly well know that I am a huge fan of the anime series and film Cowboy Bebop, the ultra-cool, stylish series from the mind of director/creator Shinichiro Watanabe. What most people do not know, however, is that was the first anime I truly appreciated and gave any serious attention. Having grown up in a time when my friends watched Dragon Ball Z, I had absolutely no desire to watch it, any of it because quite frankly I found it to be utter garbage. Despite my recent interest in anime, my opinion remains steadfast. Most of it (anime) is just that - garbage! Derivative drivel best suited for pre-teens lit up on sugar buzz.

My opinion did, however, become less broadly-stroked when I experienced Cowboy Bebop (one of the best series ever in my opinion) and also when I subsequently viewed Hayao Miyazaki's masterpiece Spirited Away. The truth is animes can be just as good as regular films and drama or better when they are handled more seriously and carefully, avoiding the stereotypical trappings of mass-marketed, hyperactive, uber-action anime, consisting almost entirely of repeating frame sequences mixed with mind-numbing tracks of endless screaming, spraying blood and unnecessarily heavy breathing.

My introduction to the works of director Satoshi Kon further serves to demonstrate this point, first and foremost with his latest film Paprika. Paprika first grabbed my attention almost exactly a year ago when I ran across the trailer online. It looked to be an amazingly animated feature with compelling and mind-bending sequences that pushed the limits of animation. My first viewing would confirm this impression. Visually, Paprika is nothing short of a delight!

Most satisfying for me and the friend I viewed Paprika with was the fact that the story was equally compelling. The subject matter resonated with me and held my interest on a level with films such as Primer (H-DoGG Top 10). The subject: dreams, nightmares and the ability to physically share those of others through computer assisted dream reconstruction.

In Paprika, a psychological research team develops a device known as the "DC Mini" that, when worn while sleeping, allows a computer to visually record a person's dreams so that they can go back when awake, watch the dreams (or nightmares) and try to make sense of it. The purpose of the technology is to serve as an aid to psychologists with the treatment of their patients. However, the technology also allows those wearing the device to experience the dreamer's dreams firsthand.

The problem is that the technology is not entirely benign. In fact, prolonged exposure allows dreams to be projected directly into the minds of users, even while not connected! When a few of the experimental units go missing, unusual episodes begin to wreak havoc with team members around the labs leading to a series of accidents. The race is on to find out who stole the DC Minis and what exactly it is they intend to gain from abusing the power - the unabated intrusion into the subconscious. The only hope of getting control of the dreamworld lies in the abilities of a somewhat mysterious young woman named Paprika, who also happens to be a powerful lucid dreamer, an ability that in the world of dreams translates into a superpower. But who is she?

The ride through the crime scene of nightmares is somewhat "trippy" at times, but still coherent enough to advance the plot skillfully and is beautifully translated to the screen. The attention to detail is of the highest caliber and easily lends Paprika to repeat viewings.

While the premise seems overtly "techy" in nature, Kon weaves together elements of romance, relationships and also a taught crime thriller as a detective, who has been a test subject for the minis with Paprika, fights through his own nightmares to get the bottom of a murder case that has been haunting him, as well as bringing the dream-thief to justice. This side-story also serves as a device that demonstrates Kon's own love for the art of cinema.

Overall, Paprika is a superb anime (and feature in general) that entertains, engages and puts together a thought-provoking story. It also demonstrates how far behind American animated cinema has fallen with respect to quality. Films like Paprika put American studios to shame, proving to not only be visually superior, but in a whole other league when it comes to high concept. It also shows that animation can be more than run-of-the-mill kiddy fare bloated with throw-away pop culture references and lacking any real substance. In the right hands, animation is on par with (or beyond) what traditional film has to offer. Paprika is a film you'd be doing yourself a service to check out. 10/10

New Posts Coming Soon!

2007-12-22T16:24:00.000-08:00

My sincerest apologies to anyone who has visited the Film Lounge over the past two months looking for new content. I have not posted since early November and it is certainly not due to lack of interest on my part. It is entirely due to my lack of regular Internet access since my recent move.

During this "forced hiatus" I have watched plenty of films and am really excited to share some under-the-radar titles with you readers. I recently was able to pick up and watch some animated features that I have been anticipating for some time now.

I plan to start posting again within the next few weeks with some fresh reviews, so please continue to be patient and check in again soon to see whats happening here at the Lounge.

Merry Christmas everyone!!!

Cowboys, Blogs, and Bees...More Mini Reviews!!!

2007-11-29T15:54:00.000-08:00

Alright, I’m back for some more mini-reviews. I’ve noticed that so far all of the reviews have been positive with the grading easily all being in the 7-9 range. At first this concerned me as it felt I may be just too generous of a reviewer---However, I’m now convinced that I’ve just been lucky enough to find films over the past month that really appeal to me and have managed to avoid those that didn’t.

The Darjeeling Limited
After the mis-step of The Life Aquatic (which, admittedly, greatly improves with subsequent viewing) Wes Anderson is back in my good graces with his latest, a colorful road movie that adheres to his strange-family-dynamics mixed with quirky humor/art direction formula.

Anderson alumni Owen Wilson and Jason Schwartzman, and newb Adrien Brody are well cast as a trio of estranged brothers who meet up on a train in India for a deliberate soul-searching journey. The film manages to be funny, touching, and surprising through its course—with Anderson’s usual flair for colorful visuals and exquisite musical choices.

However, I think it may be time for the director ...(read more)to retire the slow-motion walk signature shot before it degrades into self-parody---since I believe his next film is a stop-motion adaptation of The Fabulous Mr. Fox, that shouldn't be a problem.
9/10

The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford
Here is a film that has actually benefited greatly from the 20+ day separation of my viewing of the film and blogging about it.

Here is a note I wrote on Facebook immediately after returning from the theater:

“The first and last half hours of this revisionist western (aren't they all nowadays) are some of the best you're likely to ever see in the cinema. The other hour and a half, while absolutely gorgeous, suffers whenever the electric Pitt and Affleck a...(read more)ren't sharing the screen.”

I gave it a rating of 4.5/5 stars and with the added distance of time, I’m willing to concede the final half star and give it the highest rating. The pace and additional side-journeys the film decided to take have only endeared it to me in retrospect and I wouldn’t be surprised if this film is sitting near the top of my Top 10 of 2007 list (in six months, when I finally get to catch the films I’m going to miss due to my Eastern Iowaness on DVD).
10/10

American Gangster
When I did the list of ten films I was psyched for earlier this year, I mentioned that the marketing for this garnered the reaction 'Now THAT looks like a movie..." out of me. I’m glad to say the film wasn’t a disappointment and Washington, Crowe, and Scott all delivered the goods that are now expected from them.

Denzel is such a likeable actor the film really has to choice but to, in a way, glorify the drug trade, reminding me of Brian DePalma’s Scarface at times (a film I’m admittedly not a fan of). A few shots addressing the sickly effects of drug use are probably meant to counter this, but I still got the bad feeling that 15 years from now the fashion of choice for aspiring rapper wanna-bees will be three-piece suits. Well, at least they’ll look presentable.

With its populist appeal and big-names, I wouldn’t be surprised if American Gangster was this year’s The Departed come Oscar time.
8/10

Bee Movie
As a fan of Jerry Seinfeld’s stand-up and sitcom, I was really hoping Bee Movie would prove to be a true classic of the talking-animal CGI animation genre. Instead, it’s a likeable enough entry that will probably appeal to adults a bit more than it will their children. There are a handful of good laughs and the character designs are cute, but ultimately it suffers from a bit of identity crisis regarding who its target audience should be. The humor is at its best when it’s slightly dark (which is surprisingly often) and the plot, centering on one bee’s quest for legal compensation for the human race’s use of beekind’s honey, will probably go over most kids’ head.
6.5/10

There are a couple of other recent movies I’ve seen that I wish to write about, but those will have to wait for another day. Is there any film that you’ve enjoyed in the theater lately? Please share in the Comments section!!!

Such a Bad Blogger….

2007-11-28T16:58:00.000-08:00

So I haven’t been contributing to the blog very much for the past month or two, and I apologize for that. I had some good excuses ready to write down for this entry, but I’ve since forgotten them. Even if you, gentle reader, are not disappointed in me and my failure to contribute even weekly to this endeavor—I assure you that I have disappointed myself.

For one thing, I went to many movies over the past number of weeks with expressed interest to rant about them in this forum and get other people to rush out and see them in the theater. At this point most of those films have since disappeared from all but the most-behind second run movie house. Still, I hope you seek some of the movies I feature in these mini-reviews on DVD when they eventually become available. This entry will feature solely recent theatrical releases---I hope to address my TV and DVD viewing habits in future upcoming entries.

Rendition
While I wasn’t as ecstatic over this film as H-Dogg was in his recent review, I did enjoy this film quite a bit. While it appeared to be a quite straight-forward message movie for the first hour, it managed to surprise in the second half and left me quite impressed.

This film was in the theatre at the same time as the dreadful-looking sports movie parody The Comebacks which, among it’s assumingly numerous crimes against the cinema, featured a parody of the sports movie parody Dodgeball.
This is far from relevant other than that I had the million dollar idea while watching Rendition that the next dumb parody movie needs to actually parody things that aren’t funny in the first place. How great would it be to create a farce involving several self-righteous mouthpieces for issues such as racism, drug trafficking, the lack of human communication, etc. whose stories entwine and intersect in contrived and interesting ways. The jokes would be the most obvious, ham-fisted form of comedy since the Naked Gun series: pies in the face, characters with big butts, and lame celebrity impersonations of topical figures/easy targets like Michael Vick and Kevin Ferderline.
From 0 of the 12 writers of Epic Movie I bring you Important Movie.
8/10

Gone Baby Gone
A great noir thriller that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the Affleck Bros actually have talent, Gone Baby Gone follows two detectives (Casey Affleck and -Iowa-Represent!- Michelle Monaghan) who are hired to track down the missing daughter of a dead-beat druggie mother. The key to the film is that our two lead characters are far from cool gumshoes—they’re young and, while street smart, relatively inexperienced. This leads to some butting heads with the local authorities, portrayed in the film by the Ed Harris and Morgan Freeman.

The film offers some pretty good twists (some of which sat better with me immediately after seeing the film than they do now, a month later) and great performances from Affleck and Amy Ryan as the self-destructive mother. Expect a best-supporting actress nomination for Ryan’s memorable turn.

After what could only be considered media overexposure, I could honestly care less if I ever see Ben in front of the camera again. However, after this strong debut outing, I'm excited to see what his next project is behind it.
8.5/10

30 Days of Night
One of the ten films I was most excited to see for this last quarter of the year, this graphic novel adaptation more or less lived up to my expectations for being a fine-enough time waster. To stand out in this current horror-movie market, a film needs to have a pretty good high-concept. In this case, vampires take over a town in northern Alaska where the sun doesn’t shine for the entirety of thirty days. Josh Hartnett and Alias’ Melissa George play the chief run-away-ers.

By applying a lot of the recent zombie movie characteristics to vampires (who, as much as I love zombies-make better monsters because they can, well, think) 30 Days helps make this the best vampire movie of recent memory. The movie remains faithful to the source material while not being hampered to the comic’s two main faults—interesting, but hard to follow art and a rushed story.
7/10

Michael Clayton
Tony Gilroy, the writer of the three Bourne films makes his directorial debut with Michael Clayton, an intelligent legal thriller that-much like the Bourne series-refuses to play by (most) of the rules inherent in its chosen genre.

George Clooney is the title character, an attorney who plays a ‘fixer’ role with his law-firm: someone who works to resolve problems while working out of ‘the system.’ When a personal friend of Clayton’s has a mental breakdown in the middle of a deposition, he finds himself in both physical danger and moral uncertainty.

For those in the market for an intelligent, adult film that doesn’t spoon-feed its audience, Michael Clayton will be a rewarding movie-going experience. The fact that it did so poorly at the box office says more about the American movie-going public than it does about the film’s quality.
The film is deliberately paced (the critic’s code for ‘a bit slow in places’), but the performances are great and the dramatic pay-off much worth the wait.
9/10

That took longer than I thought, more films to be reviewed soon.

Rendition One of 2007's Best

2007-11-03T18:29:00.001-07:00

In the turbulent post-9/11 world we live in it is not surprising that so many films speak the issues and problems of our time, including terrorism, torture, war, etc. The list gets longer and longer with each passing year and 2007 is no different with films such as The Kingdom, Rendition and Lambs For Lions all hitting theaters this Fall.

To date I have seen two of these three films (with Lambs releasing next week) and they could not have been more different. The Kingdom was an action driven film that felt very heavy handed, yet "pop culture" with its presentation. (see review here) Directed by Gavin Hood, Rendition is a wholly different viewing experience that presents a stellar cast who deliver excellent performances all around and makes for an engaging, thought-provoking drama.

Jake Gyllenhaal stars as Douglas Freeman, a junior CIA officer assigned to a North African post (Egypt). When his bureau director dies in his arms after a suicide bombing, Freeman is given a field promotion taking over the post and because a US government official was killed, an investigation is launched. At the same time Anwar El-Ibrahimi (Omar Metwally), an Egyptian national and chemical engineering specialist, is concluding a business trip to South Africa. He is headed home to his family... but he doesn't arrive sending his wife Isabella (Reese Witherspoon) into a panic.

The question for Isabella is "what happened"? People simply don't vanish on an overseas flight and the records show he boarded the plane home. The truth - he did board a plane, but he ended up in Egypt at a secret CIA interrogation facility run by an Egyptian official named Abasi Fawal (Yigal Naor). Ibrahimi was on a terrorist watch-list because of his background and profession and Corrine Whitman (Meryl Streep), a high up in the CIA, gave the order to nab him for questioning or "extraordinary rendition"... something the government patently denies.

Freeman, now in his new position in Egypt is allowed to observe the interrogation, personally handled by Fawal. It soon becomes clear to him that Ibrahimi is simply a victim of torture and knows nothing about the bombing or anyone involved even though everyone around him, so long a part of the "system", disagree and believe Ibrahimi should be held indefinitely until he gives the answers they wish to hear. Ironically, the answers they seek are to be found in the least expected place. And while a determined Isabella does an investigation of her own back in Washington using a college friend (Peter Sarsgaard) who is an aide within prominent senator's office, Freeman begins working out a plan to free Ibrahimi and return him home.

This story examines so many themes central to current world affairs (radical Islam, terrorism, torture, civil liberties, CIA tactics and family) and expertly weaves them together in a taught drama that drew me in from the first scene and held my attention until the credits rolled. Hood does a masterful job directing and his cast gives performances of the highest caliber! For me, the most noteworthy performance came from Yigal Naor as Abasi Fawal and I can very easily see him as a Best Supporting Actor nominee come Oscar time. Gyllenhaal may also be in the awards picture for his performance as well.

In stark contrast to The Kingdom, Rendition is a much slower paced film that is more thoughtful, dramatic and far less self-conscious, something I appreciate. It is less showy and more substantive resulting in a film that has more impact, feels more relevant and entertains on a higher level. This film is certainly one of the year's best! 10/10

"Next" Not Strong, But Concept Thrills

2007-11-03T11:58:00.000-07:00

In a movie world where the sea of DVDs is growing larger by the minute, and where most of the titles are throw-a-way fare, it grows increasingly difficult for movies to stand out on the shelf. This was true for Next as a few friends and I wandered through the video store. In fact, it was our complete state of indecision that forced us to pick up Next out of complete desperation and morbid curiosity; it looked laughably bad. It didn't help that my recent viewing of the second half of The Wicker Man didn't have me excited to watch Nick Cage either. That movie is terrible! (see the laughably bad, yet accurate YouTube summary here)

It wasn't far into Next when I realized that, despite its obvious deficiencies, it was surprisingly compelling in its concept. The plot centers around "Frank Cadillac" (Cage), a Las Vegas magician who possesses the ability to see two minutes into the future, thus allowing him to alter the outcome. His unique ability is more or less unknown, but the FBI catches on to him after a strange security incident at a casino. As it would turn out, he is the man they need to help them in a matter of national security. It's getting to him that poses the problem - how do you get to a man who knows when you're coming two minutes in advance?

The national security problem is the matter of a small nuclear device that has been smuggled into the US by Russian terrorists (who speak French?). The FBI has no idea when or where it will be detonated and they want Frank (actual name Cris) to help them find the device before it is. Of course, two minutes doesn't really seem all that helpful when dealing with nukes, but I suppose you'll take anything you can get.

Enter Liz (Jessica Biel), a woman who for reasons unknown allows Cris to see even farther into the future. He knows this because he has foreseen his first encounter with her an extremely long time in advance, but he doesn't know why. Evidently they are linked somehow, but it is never explained. The compelling aspect of Cris's ability is demonstrated when we see him play out various scenarios in his mind of how to introduce himself to Liz and impress her. Six or seven hypothetical versions are played out on screen before we see the final, correct rendition take place.

From this point on Next is a high energy, mind-bending chase as we watch Cris play out scenario after scenario as he first avoids the FBI and then frantically helps them search for the nuke in order to save Liz. We are never sure what is real and what is merely possibility and he uses his ability at every turn. It is, however, really fun to watch play out.

Next is the latest in a series of Phillip K. Dick stories to be adapted to the big screen, following the likes of Total Recall, Minority Report, Paycheck and Through a Scanner Darkly. As usual, his concept is entertaining even if the rest of the adaptation leaves a lot to be desired. The performances in Next are nothing special from stars Cage, Biel and Julianne Moore. With a two minute lead on the world, Cris is virtually invincible and can only really be caught when he allows himself to be. This is one of the most powerful abilities I have ever come across! Combine that with the ability in the upcoming Hayden Christiansen film Jumper and you have an unstoppable human being!

Next isn't an incredible film, but it was a surprise on par with Deja Vu. Science fiction fans should consider this film if you have an evening to kill or if you appreciate Phillip K. Dick. It was entertaining, if only for the concept. 7/10

Shoot Em Up is Unbelievable Fun

2007-10-24T19:11:00.001-07:00

What is there to say about Shoot Em Up? Watching it you are witness to a seemingly never-ending parade of unbelievable scenes - one after another after another. For those easily offended, you might wish to stay home, but for the rest of us it is definitely game on!

I went into the theater with an idea of what to expect, but of course it wasn't enough to prepare me because right out of the gates Shoot Em Up goes into action-overdrive and lets up for maybe a grand total of 10 minutes for the whole affair. It was so over-the-top I laughed through whole movie and I'd argue that it gives Planet Terror a run for it's money as far as the extent of its presentation. I mean, really, who thinks this stuff up?! It was a world of fun but you really have to scratch your head. Someone was a neglected child. I think it was writer/director Michael Davis.

Clive Owen strikes again (see Inside Man review here) and stars as the mysterious Mr. Smith. All you really need to know is that he is a bad-ass AND probably the best gunslinger ever.... at least so far as the 21st century is concerned. Smith's skills defy belief and beguile the mind; there are more than a few instances where instant replay would have been nice and you think to yourself, "did that really just happen?" Yes, Virginia, it did. I saw stuff I have never imagined before including a man firing bullets with his bare hand! (don't wait for explanation, just see the movie) His BARE HAND. That's NOT RIGHT!

Shoot Em Up is sort of like that episode of the Simpsons where Homer buys a handgun and uses it for everything, including normal everyday actions like opening beer cans. You get a high body count to go with the gunplay but the violence in this film didn't irk me like with Kill Bill: Vol. I.

For some reason that I have yet to discern, there is a fairly knotted plot to Shoot Em Up that actually ends up carrying an anti-gun message??? That I'm not entirely sure about, though I have heard it stated as such. If anything I think the depth to which they took the plot bogged down the action and frantic pace of the film. It wasn't necessary to the crazy, fun mood of the film.

Paul Giamatti stars as Smith's nemesis Mr. Hertz, who is obsessed with eliminating Smith and what he has in his possession. He is a family man and a contract gun for hire. An ironic, comical marriage, it was easy to see that Giamatti really ate up this role and had fun with the character. Monica Bellucci also starred as the eye candy, lady of the night Donna Quintano.

Honestly, Shoot Em Up is exactly what its name suggests and nothing more. If you take this film at all serious, you have done yourself a huge disservice and ruined the experience. Get a bunch of friends together, have a few brews and watch this film and you will have a great time. I guarantee it! 8/10

Iwo Jima Saga is Excellent Cinema

2007-10-23T17:20:00.000-07:00

Clint Eastwood has done anything but be lazy in recent years. Coming on the heels of critically acclaimed films Mystic River (2003) and Million Dollar Baby (Best Picture - 2004), Eastwood took on a project of epic proportions - tell a story in two parts from two differing perspectives about a major historical event. The event was the Battle of Iwo Jima during World War II which saw intense and bloody combat between the Japanese and American militaries during the Pacific campaign. The Iwo Jima saga is unique because it takes a new road with war movies in that we don't simply see the American perspective, but also that of the enemy which I believe made for a very complete and compelling storytelling experience.

Flags Of Our Fathers

Flags Of Our Fathers was released first to theaters in 2006. Serving as the American perspective it follows the story of three US soldiers who participated in the battle of Iwo Jima and, more importantly to the story, their participation in raising the flag on Mt. Suribachi which is captured in a famous photograph. The focal point of the film is their struggle with being lauded as heroes upon returning stateside to help promote the purchase of war bonds to fund the war through to victory.

When you fight along side men who become like brothers and they die while you survive, being called a hero is the last thing soldiers want. These men just wanted to honor their fallen friends and they resented the fact that the government simply wanted to use them as salesmen for the war effort. No one could truly understand what really happened unless they were there at Iwo Jima, but all the people back home had was the picture of the flag being raised. They thought it was when the battle was over. It wasn't; good men died shortly after it was raised (for the second time) and the battle raged for another 35 grueling days. People were so obsessed with the details that they overlooked the truth of the situation. No one really seemed to care about the men lost, the friend these soldiers had lost. They only wanted their heroes.

As the American perspective, Flags is a mix of both brutal war scenes and the story of the war bond effort back home. While the battle itself serves as more of a set piece for the men's feelings back home, it is intense, graphic and important. Eastwood does a fabulous job handling the battle aspect with some help from co-producer Steven Spielberg (Saving Private Ryan, Band of Brothers). However, the film does feel uneven at times as it bounces back and forth from flashbacks of the battle to the bond campaign.

Ryan Phillipe, Jesse Bradford and Adam Beach all turn in fine performances as the three main characters of the story and Eastwood does a fine job directing. Despite the uneven aspects of the storytelling, Flags is worth viewing and is a fine addition to the new generation of war film. 8/10

Letters From Iwo Jima

Letters From Iwo Jima is an amazing film! The second half of the Iwo Jima saga offers an engrossing glimpse at the lives of the Japanese soldiers who fought to the death on Iwo Jima, something that I am fairly certain American audiences have never been given before. Certainly there is a novelty in that fact alone, but it is a film done extremely well and handled with great care and respect.

In the last year if the war, the Japanese military was slowly being pushed across the Pacific back to Japan. Iwo Jima was a critical island for both sides as it was capable of serving as a strategic airfield for fighters and bombers. The men of the island knew the Americans were coming and they waiting with anxious anticipation for the battle to arrive. General Tadamichi Kuribayashi (Ken Watanabe) was dispatched to take command of the island and take charge of its defense, a task he knows in his heart is all but impossible. However, he does what he must to prepare his men, but the task is made all the more difficult when he clashes with his subordinate officers concerning strategy for defending the island.

We also view the events through the eyes of a soldier by the name of Saigo, a young man who was pressed into service by the Empire leaving his his pregnant wife and job as a baker far behind. He is a soldier, but he doesn't have the heart to fight. He is a peaceful man who simply wants to return home alive. We are witness to the horrors that he experiences as he tries to survive the battle.

Letters is a powerful film, expertly done and beautifully presented. The cinematography is superb and the performance given by Ken Watanabe is powerful as he truly leads the film. It is jarring at times and totally engrossing as we are shown a side of the war we might never ourselves have imagined. It is definitely the stronger of the two films.

Letters was nominated for the Academy Award for Best Picture (2006). It was totally deserving in my opinion. This is probably one of the best war films I have ever seen. It brings the human element to the tragedy of war through a lens that we have rarely seen before, if ever - the eyes of the enemy. This is a must see film that I am glad I finally saw. 10/10

What Built My Road 10/14-10/20/07

2007-10-23T15:44:00.000-07:00

This is running a little late this week. Not that the blog actually has deadlines or anything, but I try to keep a regular schedule on these things. Anyways, I’m tremendously sorry about that. I had a crazy fun weekend during Wartburg’s homecoming and was left with no time to really write a proper entry this weekend. Thus, I’ll keep this short.

Mad Men Season Finale (Television)
While I would say that there was one subplot in the episode that rang slightly false (I won’t go into details, as I’m hoping any readers who didn’t catch this show will do so as soon as it hits DVD), the Carousel scene---watch it here, it’s worth the three-and-a-half minutes and will be a fine gauge as to whether this show is for you---makes me forgive any and all flaws this show had this season or may ever have. While the previous episode answered more questions and was, all and all, more ‘explosive’---the melancholy nature of the finale has my dying to know where this show is going to go. Too bad I have to wait until Summer 2008 for my next fix.

Across the Universe (Film)
In Roger Ebert’s positive review for Across the Universe he mentioned that the Beatles’ songs were already movies in their own right. He couldn’t be more right---all the emotions and imagery you get from a classic film are right there. Actually putting a story and visuals to them, while unnecessary, in the right hands of the makers of ATU proved to be far from redundant. Director Julie Taymor is second only to Michel Gondry when it comes to stunning visuals and that alone would make the film worth seeing. The film is able to capture the manic energy of the Beatles in their youth as well as the psychedelia of their Sgt. Pepper days as it follows the lives of several young people (named after Beatles songs, of course) as they fall in love, go to war, and other typical 60s things.

The plot is secondary, of course, to the music and the visuals--so if you’re not a fan of Mummenschantz-style visual art or the music of the Fab Four, the film may be off-putting. While I adored most of it, some scenes are absolutely terrible (I’m thinking of Eddie Izzard’s rendition of For The Benefit of Mr. Kite) and the film could stand to lose about fifteen minutes. If you’re a Beatles fan, you need to check it out—but if you find the idea of people covering the Beatles blasphemous or are not a fan of musicals (especially meta-musicals that incorporate pop songs), leave it alone.

The fact that the film allowed me to mention the Mummenschantz in a review makes me like the film all the more.

Carcassonne (Game—Xbox Live Arcade version)

My former roommates and I played a lot of this board-game turned Xbox Arcade video game this weekend. The goal of the game is to build cities and roads while placing your ‘followers’ on the tiles where you will most benefit from the completed structures. It’s quite a fun mix of luck, co-operation (turned to trickery far too often), and Sim/God role-playing. The Xbox version keeps the players from doing the unenviable job of scoring while perpetuating repeat play.

Too Many Damn Movies!

2007-10-19T09:52:00.000-07:00

After a September where I found myself going to the movies out of pure habit instead of an actual desire to see any of the films showing, the tables have now turned where there are a ton of movies I want to get around to---but no time to see them!

While I have made plans to see the promisingly psychedelic Across the Universe tonight, there are still a handful of films I’ll have to catch before they disappear from my local cineplex (which in a world where Saw IV will more than likely take up multiple screens is a very small window.)

I’ll have to pull a Hermione Granger if I want to catch comic book adaptation 30 Days of Night, well-reviewed box-office underperformer Micheal Clayton, political thriller Rendition, early Oscar favorite Into the Wild, poorly-reviewed-but-I-want-to-see-it-anyway-sequel Elizabeth: The Golden Age, and the buzzworthy Affleckfest Gone Baby Gone before they’re replaced with Jigsaw’s latest masterpiece(s) (If that tagline gets used for Saw V, I’ll sue) and the generic looking Steve Carell Is In A Movie (oops, I mean Dan in Real Life).

Not to mention that I’m still hoping that Sleuth, The Darjeeling Limited, and The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford still make it into the area.

Also, November brings it’s own onslaught of intriguing looking (if not guilty pleasure teasing) films: American Gangster, Bee Movie, Lions for Lambs, No Country for Old Men, Southland Tales, Beowulf, Love in the Time of Cholera, Mr. Magorium’s Wonder Emporium, Margot at the Wedding, Enchanted, Hitman (yeah, I’ll probably go to those two), The Mist, I’m Not There, and Teeth. If you want to see a premise that’s due to send shivers down your spine check out that last one.

It’s certainly an exciting time to be a movie-goer: for your eyes and ears, if not your wallet.

What Hauled My Gravel...10/7-10/14/07

2007-10-15T13:31:00.001-07:00

Here’s this week’s batch of things I found good enough to blog about:

Radiohead- In Rainbows (music)
Not only is Radiohead’s new album a pretty good one, but the inventive nature of its distribution (pay what you want---including $0.00 for the entire album in digital download form) makes it historical. Go here and see for yourself. Play it loud or with headphones for maximum effect.

30 Rock (television)
This show is probably my favorite comedy currently on the air and this week’s episode had the show in top form. Don’t believe me? Watch this scene.

In the Valley of Elah (film)
I never thought that Paul Haggis’ directorial debut Crash was a horrible movie. I never thought it was a particularly good movie either—and it certainly wasn’t the best film of 2005 (that would have been The Constant Gardener), despite it winning the Best Picture Oscar. Where Crash suffered from a heavy-handed approach to the messages it was trying to share and a seeming attempt to work every flashy director trick into one film, Haggis’ sophomore effort In the Valley of Elah benefits from much-needed restraint.

Part family drama, part crime procedural, Elah follows Tommy Lee Jones’ Hank Deerfield: a former MP officer and current gravel hauler who after receiving a call telling him that his son has gone AWOL, decides to visit his son’s military base. As Detective Arbogast said in Psycho: “If it doesn’t gel, it’s not aspic.” Since Deerfield didn’t even know his son had returned from Iraq, the AWOL thing doesn’t sit right with him- he decides to take manners in his own hands and find his son.

He’s assisted in his pursuits by a police detective played by Charlize Theron (glammed down again for Oscar season). The relationship between the two characters works because they don’t develop a trust immediately and are constantly questioning each other’s competence. In a supporting turn, Susan Sarandon appears as Hank’s wife. Sarandon is only in a handful of scenes, but is perfect in all of them.

Tommy Lee Jones is a fine actor, but he almost doesn’t need to be. His face says everything you need to know about his character---but it’s the same face he wears in all of his movies. It’s a role built around the Tommy Lee Jones persona, and for the first time in a long while, that’s a good thing.

Elah is not a perfect movie. While it’s not as preachy as Crash, it has its moments. I will warn you that the very last scene in the movie and the scene in the first act that sets it up are the two worst scenes in the film. While a pretentious air of importance may have been barely palpable through the rest of the film, for those two scenes it was choking.

Still, In the Valley of Elah is a good film that manages to be both patriotic and a polemic. Is it anti-war or just anti-this-war? If it wasn’t for the two scenes mentioned earlier, I wouldn’t have an answer---and I would have preferred it that way.
8/1

Kristen Wiig (television)
I just love Kristen Wiig, currently the second best thing about the current incarnation of Saturday Night Live (the first being The Digital Shorts). My absolute favorite of her sketches (her carpooling w/ Alec Baldwin) has been pulled from YouTube and unavailable on NBC.com due to (my guess is) music rights issues, but this week’s SNL featured Wiig doing a definitive Björk impression. I fell in love all over again. Watch it here.

Pushing Daisies (television)
I’ve been holding off on mentioning this show, hoping that the pilot wasn’t just a fluke. Well, after the second brilliant episode I’m still holding my breath, praying that it can keep this up. Bryan (Wonderfalls) Fuller‘s new creation is a combination of that show’s whimsy and the visual flair of Tim Burton circa Big Fish. It’s full of black humor (the main protagonist can resurrect the dead with one touch, but kills them again with a second) and pie---two of my absolute favorite things.

A murder procedural fairy tale, the pie maker with the magic touch (Lee Pace) uses his powers to solve crimes (with the assistance of a private investigator/gun cozy knitter played by Chi McBride). After awakening his recently deceased childhood sweetheart, his life becomes more complicated since the slightest touch will cause him to lose her a second time. I’m also a fan of pie shop waitress Kristin Chenowith (known to break out into a random musical number) and narrator Jim Dale (of the Harry Potter audiobooks).
This show isn’t for everyone—if you can’t accept the premise of, say, a car that runs on dandelions for fuel, then I suggest you skip this one.

Bummer of the Week:
Smallville’s new cast members
OK, so Laura Vandervoort’s Supergirl Kara is growing on me…slowly, but the actor who is playing the new Daily Planet editor Grant Gabriel, Michael Cassidy, sucks sucks sucks. I believe when I started blogging on this site I made an oath to accent the positive and these ‘Bummers of the Week,’ seem to go against that. That said, I’ll try and only point out truly egregious affronts to my pop-culture intake. Cassidy’s lame delivery—or maybe it’s just the sucky character he plays---is one of those affronts.

HDoGG's Movie Bonanza!!

2007-10-09T17:45:00.000-07:00

Ok, so lately it just seems like I don't have enough hours in the day to make sure and get the blogging in as much as I'd like. This is readily apparent as Live Free or Die Hard has been on the upcoming review list going on forever! What can I say? A lot of other interesting material kept popping up that I wanted to review more than it, so it got the back shelf. Not any longer, though, as now I kill four birds with one post. Here it is - HDoGG's movie bonanza!

Live Free or Die Hard - I've never been much into the whole Die Hard thing, but for some reason I wanted to see this one. Not entirely sure why, but I did and ended up catching it back in June with some buddies. When the hiatus is as long as it was for Bruce Willis and this franchise, one went in wondering if there was possibly anything left in the tank? I don't know about the rest of you, but I for one was pleasantly surprised and entertained to boot. McClane is back and this time he is fighting techno terrorists determined to bring America to its knees by essentially pulling "the plug" on the Internet, banks, the power grid... everything! So while McClane is busy snooping on his teenage daughter in the wee hours, he gets pulled into the fray once again, this time trying anything and everything to keep good hacker Justin Long alive.

What a ride! In the summer when its hot and you just want to sit in the air conditioning and watch some good action its films like this that deliver. Willis proved that he still has it and I felt that he and Long had a pretty darn good "buddy" chemistry going as the odd couple (action hero cop/computer geek). There were some good laughs, great chases, outlandish moments (most notably involving a super jet and a semi trailer) and a satisfying end, even if we didn't actually get to hear McClane's signature catch-phrase in full. It was all good... and it didn't suck like 1408. 8/10

Superbad - Seth Rogan certainly had a good summer. First we were treated to Judd Apatow's Knocked Up starring Rogan and then we got his own film Superbad, starring Jonah Hill and Michael Serra (Arrested Development). This film pretty much defines juvenile, but with the right crowd it was a great time! I laughed pretty much the whole time. And the part about the right crowd is absolutely true. I went with a high school buddy and we were in a half full theatre with nothing but other adults in their 20s, so we didn't have annoying packs of high schoolers to ruin the atmosphere. Nothing against teenagers, but I've reached that age where I'd prefer not to watch this type of comedy surrounded by them because, honestly, I can't relate with the kids anymore.

This coming of age buddy flick was pretty much one crazy gag after another as two friends try to score before they part ways for college after high school. Naturally they are losers who never get chicks and it just so happens that they have a good chance now, but everything hinges on getting booze for a party which of course involves the use of a fake ID. One thing leads to another and before they know it things have gone terribly wrong and they are in the middle of the craziest night of their young lives. Crude doesn't even begin to describe this movie, but nevertheless it is funny and elicits its fair share of yuck-yucks. If you haven't seen, have a strong stomach and are in the mood for a really stupid but entertaining comedy, check out Superbad. 8/10

Inside Man - A Spike Lee Joint, you say? Yes sir, and it stars my boy Denzel (Crimson Tide, Training Day). It also stars Clive Owen, whose star is rising faster than Lindsey Lohan's rehab bill. I mean, what the hell is up with Cliver Owen?! Sin City, Children of Men, Shoot 'Em Up... this guy is kicking ass and taking names at a theater near you like every other Friday it seems. He is a damn good actor, so keep it coming Clive.

Inside Man is a pretty good heist movie that breaks the mold and goes about things in its own way; a standoff film that is three parts cerebral and one part action, like The Score only actually worth your time. You are never really certain what is going on in the film until the very end when all the pieces come together. And I won't call the ending brilliant, but it was very satisfying. Ok, so maybe a bunch of hints were laid out that maybe you could have figured out what was coming, but it was still good. Denzel and Clive were on their respective games and that is always fun to watch.

This film also featured Jodi Foster (in a non-victim role), Willem Defoe (in a non-creepy role) and Christopher Plummer (in a non-Klingon role). I didn't much care for Foster. Don't have any specific reason for this, but I just didn't. Plummer was practically a bit player, which is ironic seeing as his character is essentially the reason for the plot of the film, but who cares? Christopher Plummer is still getting work and I respect that. Oh yes, and it also featured Chiwetel Ejiofor (Serenity) who did a fine job in a supporting role.

All in all I blind bought this film based on lots of good buzz and I enjoyed it. Check it out. 9/10

The Kingdom - Premise: a terrorist attack on US nationals within Saudi Arabia gets the attention of the FBI. They killed Jennifer Garner's friend and now she wants blood. So she, Jamie Foxx, Chris Cooper and Jason Bateman??? saddle up and head to Saudi Arabia despite objections of the state department to get to the bottom of who pulled off the brutal attack. And it was pretty brutal!

They aren't welcome in the Kingdom, but they are guests of the Prince so they are allowed to do their work under very heavy supervision and with a laundry list of restrictions. Oh and they also don't like Garner because she is a woman. They have 3 days to do what they want to do.

The Kingdom comes at the audience marinated in the years of stereotypes and bitter resentment that have built up between the Muslim world and the West, especially since 9/11. And while I don't doubt the realism of any of the situations in the film, it does come across as being very heavy handed. Still, the central message of the film that I took away was the importance of building bridges and finding common ground which takes place between the Americans and the Saudi agents they are working very closely with. It is a cold reception at first, but eventually both sides start to understand each other. The film culminates with a chaotic third act involving abduction, street combat, and rescue within a very hostile environment. For all real purposes, Saudi Arabia might as well be on another planet because it is shown as a very different world that what you and I are are used to. Its intense.

I couldn't get over what I perceived as an air of pretentiousness from this film. As I said before, it felt very heavy handed and overly dramatic at times, almost as if to scream out "look at how important and relevant this film is!" It was good but I take away points because it was a little too self important for me. 7/10

What Fought My Foo...9/30-10/6/07

2007-10-07T09:45:00.000-07:00

I may have been over-writing these in the past couple entries, so I’ll keep this week nice and short.

Erase/Replace from Echoes, Silence, Patience, Grace - Foo Fighters (music)
ESPG is another solid album for the reliably good Foo Fighters. It may not be their best release, but it’s more focused than the filler-filled In Your Honor double album. The stand out song from the album, Erase/Replace, combines singer/guitarist Dave Grohl’s whiplash-causing vocal dexterity from quiet whisper-singing to full on scream with some speed-metal drumming for what is certainly the Fighters’ most rocking song in years.

The Balcony Archive (web)
I could spend hours watching the archived reviews of all incarnations of the Siskel & Ebert/Ebert & Roeper television programs…and now I can. Thousands and thousands of reviews have now been posted online so everyone can watch the infamous Blue Velvet disagreement or Ebert’s Hated-Hated-Hated review of North.

The Perry Bible Fellowship (web comic)
I would argue that most web comics have about the same ‘funny’:’huh?’ ratio, and The Perry Bible Fellowship is no exception. Some of the strips are either unfunny or confusing, but when it hits the sweet spot of perversion and humor, its brilliance.

Bummer of the Week:
Seth Rogen on Saturday Night Live
Rogen wasn’t really that bad of host—he was game for whatever they threw at him and didn’t look like he was reading off cue cards (most of the time), but the sketches he starred in were underwhelming and too often fell back on a stoner/crude persona. The 2007 Douchebag Awards was an alright sketch and I laughed at Rowlf and the Swedish Chef—even when I knew it wasn’t funny, but I was left disappointed by Stonetown and the increasingly unfunny MacGruber. Musical guest Spoon, on the other hand, were excellent and I quite enjoyed Chevy Chase’s appearance.

What Flipped My Channels...9/23-29/07

2007-09-30T11:00:00.000-07:00

This week my pop-culture explorations mostly kept me glued to the tube, but between the various cliff-hanger resolutions and clunky character introductions of the Fall TV season, I was able to stumble on a few items of interest:

Hotel Chevalier (Film/web)
This short film/prequel to the upcoming The Darjeeling Limited is teeming with writer/director Wes Anderson’s unique visual style, musical tastes, and humor. Giving us a brief peek into the life of Jason Schwartzman’s Darjeeling character as he is paid a surprise visit in the title hotel by his estranged girlfriend (Natalie Portman), this twelve-minute appendix has got me more excited for TDL than any of the trailers or pre-release press has been able to do. Hotel Chevalier is available as a free download on iTunes.

Southland Tales Trailer (Film/web)
The follow-up film from Donnie Darko writer/director Richard Kelley looks like such a train wreck, it will be impossible for me to not go see it if it, in fact, gets any form of wide release. If not, it’s a definite Netflix rental. From the look of this trailer, this post-apocalyptic musical starring The Rock, Justin Timberlake, Bai Ling, and Seann William Scott could be the next Tank Girl. OK, that’s not really a good thing---but sometimes the promise of a flat-out fiasco can be more interesting than a mild success.

Eastern Promises (Film)
Director David Cronenberg must have been aware that the advertising for his last film, the excellent A History of Violence, gave away all of that film’s surprises. The trailer and ads for his follow-up offered up little of the plot and for this I am very grateful. Promises offers many surprises in it’s tale of the Russian mafia in modern day London. Along with Cronenberg’s signature sins and desecrations of the flesh, we’re treating with the best performance of Viggo Mortenson’s career. Working his way up the criminal ladder and getting involved with an in-over-her-head nurse played by Naomi Watts, Mortenson disappears in the body language and speech-patterns of his character-never letting us out of his power for a moment.

TV Series Premieres
Below are the series I decided to check out in order of my preference/eagerness to check out a second episode:

Reaper
Watching this pilot, I was thinking to myself “Damn. I’ve been telling everyone for weeks to watch Chuck and now this show is twice as good and I’m going to be the only one watching it.” Sharing a somewhat similar premise (working class young slacker is imbued with new abilities), Reaper is the funnier and therefore more entertaining of the two shows. A young man discovers that his parents sold his soul to the devil (Ray Wise) and now has to send rogue demons back to Hell (“That’s cool, huh?”) CW currently does not have the Kevin Smith directed pilot for view online, but if that changes—I will post an update. I seriously recommend it. 9/10

Journeyman
I was totally won over by this time-travel series starring Dylan McKidd as a man forced to relive parts of his own life and also solve other people’s problems. Everybody is comparing the series to Quantum Leap and yeah, he travels in time without a machine, but the personal ramifications of this man being unstuck in time are going to be what makes this show ultimately unique. My only hope is that they keep doling out the hints as to the cause of his condition. 8/10

Chuck
The last few television seasons have featured shows (The Nine, Kidnapped) that felt like they were better suited to a mini-series format than an ongoing television program. Thankfully, this season’s premieres more-or-less feel like they have the gas to go on for multiple seasons right out of the gate. Chuck’s slacker-with-a-computer-brain spy-comedy hybrid has the potential to entertain for years. Given that they stop trying so hard---watching the pilot for a second time the jokes felt more strained than I had remembered. Still, I’ll be checking this out for a few weeks at least. 7/10

Bionic Woman
This re-imagining of the 1970s series from Battlestar Galactica producer David Eick shows a lot of promise, even with if the pilot moved too fast-- trying to introduce too much in the first hour. Lead Michelle Ryan seems capable of filling Lindsay Wagner’s shoes and the more Katee Sachoff (as prototype bionic woman Sara Corvis) the series can provide, the better. 7/10

Cane
Well-produced and filled with a great cast, this rich drama about a family-owned rum empire and their long-lasting feud with a rival sugar business will keep me tuned in to see if the show can keep forward story momentum. In America first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women. 7/10

Dirty Sexy Money
This soapy dramedy is not really my cup of tea—the cast is great and the premise (a sort of more-seriousish Arrested Development with Peter Krause’s family lawyer playing the Michael Bluth role) holds promise and lives up to the title—but ABCs brand of nighttime tongue-and-cheek soap operas seem to fail to hold my interest for more than a couple of episodes. I might tune in again and test that theory. 6/10

Moonlight
This vampire drama felt like any other CBS mystery show, just that the protagonist has fangs. It reminded me of SciFi’s recently canceled The Dresden Files in that it had a lot of elements that should have held my interest, but a palpable lack of urgency left me wanting. On the plus side, Alex O’Laughlin is a fine leading man while Jason Dohring (Veronica Mars) and Sophia Myles (Doctor Who’s Girl in the Fireplace) are a fine supporting cast. If the series decides to take some chances, it could be worth watching---but if it continues to be a by-the-book private eye drama (with vampire powers to help solve the mysteries—an element that actually makes the detective work less interesting) it’ll be just another show on the Tiffany Network that I don’t watch. 5/10

Big Shots
Dear God, this show sucked. I decided to watch the pilot, despite bad buzz, because of affection I have toward Alias’ Micheal Vartan and Sport Night’s Joshua Malina and the knowledge that Veronica Mars creator/show runner Rob Thomas was coming on board in a few episodes time. The show’s basic premise is ‘aren’t men cads?’ The characters are unlikable chauvinists (as opposed to the Entourage likeable kind, I guess) and instead of ‘aren’t these guys pathetic?’ we get the feeling that the show is glorifying them, a form or writer’s dream-fulfillment. Maybe it got better after the first ten minutes, but I doubt it. 0/10

Bummer of the week (Well, besides Big Shots):
Grey’s Anatomy (Season 4 Premiere)
Cloying narration. Whine Whine Whine. Speech. Whine. Medical cases that coincidentally mirror the life-struggles of our whiny doctors. Whine. Cloying narration.
I’m bored now and done with the show (though I said that after the season 3 finale).

Did you catch any of the new Fall shows? What did you think? Post in the Comments section.

What Tripped My Trigger…9/16-22/07

2007-09-23T16:12:00.001-07:00

I’m going to attempt something new with my contributions to The Film Lounge. Each week I’ll present a number of film/geek-related items that I enjoyed over the course of the week. It’s a way for me to share whatever I’m getting my kicks from while still being too lazy to write full reviews.

Russell Crowe and Ben Foster in 3:10 to Yuma (Film)
While 3:10 to Yuma is a good film, it wouldn’t be half of what it is without the star presence of Crowe (in full bad-assery mode) and Foster. Crowe exudes the charisma that made his roles in Gladiator and LA Confidential so memorable and propelled him to the A-list, pre-phone bashing. However, Foster still manages to upstage Crowe whenever he’s on the screen proving that he’s a young actor to keep an eye on. To label him something as obvious as ‘The Next Sean Penn’ seems natural, given his similarities in the looks and scenery-chewing ability departments, but it would do Foster a disservice---he’s a true original.

Doctor Who Series 3 (Television)
I feel like I slip more and more into inescapable geekdom everytime I even think the words ‘Doctor Who’, but I can’t deny that the last few episodes aired on the Sci-Fi Channel have been some of the most well-crafted science fiction tales I’ve seen on television. David Tennant continues to cement his place as the best actor to take the role. Note: My Doctor experience consists solely of Tennant, Chris Eccleston, and Paul McGann’s one TV-movie stint, so my opinion in that matter probably isn’t weighted all that much. Nevertheless, he’s fantastic. Let’s hope he and companion Freema Agyemon stick around for a while.

Shoot Em Up (Film)
The movie is stupid, stupid, stupid. And awesome. As well as hilarious, dirty-minded, exploitive, and over-the-top. If you’re a fan of slapstick and violence (the closest comparison I can come to is Stephen Chow’s Kung Fu Hustle) it’s a must-see. If any of these things are a turn-off: bad physics, Paul Giamatti making his Planet of the Apes performance look subtle, using vegetables as weapons, breasts, and using guns for things guns shouldn’t be used for---it’s an avoid-at-all-costs picture. Did I mention how stupid it was? Or how awesome?

New Beowulf Trailer (Film/web)
The new trailer for the upcoming motion-capture animated fantasy film loads up on the action, rock music, and screaming. Watching it in high def may cause your eyes to pop out of their sockets. See it here—It’s #2.

X-Men: First Class Mini-Series (Comic)
Taking place in established Marvel continuity and following Professor Xavier’s original five X-Men (Cyclops, Marvel Girl, Beast, Angel, and Iceman), First Class is a fun read that forms fully-developed characters out of the X-Men that were later overshadowed by the likes of the more brooding and dynamic Wolverine and the lot. It’s an X-book that forgoes the existential angst and whining that often weighs down the other titles. Hopefully, the ongoing series will be able to introduce more of Stan Lee’s original social commentary while maintaining the level of amusement.

Annie Hall (DVD)
There’s not much I can say about this classic film that hasn’t been said better by hundreds of people. While re-watching it again on DVD, I was reminded by how touching the journey is---one feel like they’ve been through the entire relationship themselves by the time the credits roll. By addressing the camera at the beginning of the film, Allen lets the audience know how it’s going to turn out---but we watch with the same optimism mixed with affection and dread that the characters experience. It’s a masterpiece.

Superman-Doomsday (DVD)
A direct-to-DVD animated film that re-tells the famous Death of Superman story, Superman-Doomsday puts Marvel’s attempts at DVD movies to shame. The writing staff of the Batman/Superman/Justice League series created a stand-alone universe for the PG-13 story and that meant an all new voice-cast and character designs. Most of the design work is good, but Superman has unnecessary lines added to the face to prevent him from looking like his previous animated incarnation. He looks craggily and, frankly, less than super. It’s with Superman’s voice casting that the film missteps as well, while Anne Heche does a more than adequate job as Lois Lane and Smallville’s Braniac James Marsters is a great Lex Luthor, Adam Baldwin (an actor I normally love) just doesn’t have the vocal presence to do Superman justice. The story, while not perfect, still manages to make up for these problems and the deviations from the comic are necessary improvements. Fans of Superman should definitely check it out.

Amazon Unbox (Web/Television)
Amazon’s new television download service allows you to get some of the hottest shows sent straight to your TiVo in DVD quality. Since I don’t have a TiVo, my laptop will have to suffice as I watch the available free downloads of Chuck, Journeyman (both really good), Bionic Woman, and Life (yet to watch).

What tripped YOUR trigger this week? Sound off in the comments section.

H-DoGG's Surprise of 2007: Breach

2007-09-19T19:18:00.001-07:00

It's not often that I go into a movie or buy a film completely blind. Most of the time I've gotten a bit of background, watched the trailer and probably read some press. So it is extremely rare that a blind film really knocks my socks off.

Such is the case with Breach. I bought it knowing little more than the name and solely on the indirect recommendation of the The Film Lounge's very own Jacob Rosdail, who very rarely makes a recommendation that doesn't pan out. He spoke. I bought. It impressed!

Breach is a spy movie. However, it isn't Bourne and it certainly isn't Bond. In fact, it isn't even Spy Game. It's based on a true story of very recent history involving the single-most damaging domestic spy ever to infiltrate the United States intelligence community - ex-FBI and Russian spy Robert Hansson.

To tell the details of the story would be to basically teach a history lesson so I forgo that route and tell you why this film impressed me so much. Two things: the performances and the style of the film. First, in my opinion Chris Cooper gave an award-worthy performance in his turn as Robert Hansson. Hansson is a riddle inside of a puzzle and somewhere buried behind his stone-faced exterior and very vocal opinion of the FBI he is a truly strange, lonely and egotistical man whose motives in life were perhaps ultimately unknown. Even though he was caught in the act of espionage, it would be an error to call him stupid and unintelligent; he knew how to play the game, manipulate the system and play both sides without either side knowing the truth. Cooper embodied this all in his portrayal, so well in fact that I found myself both despising him and pitying him (Hansson) at the same time. In short, it was simply one of the most engaging and entertaining performances I have seen in awhile, and I watched The Good Shepherd.

The same was true for Ryan Phillipe who portrayed FBI specialist Eric O'Neill. O'Neill was the man hand-picked to spy on Hansson and the one who ultimately facilitated his capture. An aspiring agent-in-waiting, O'Neill was thrown into the operation not fully understanding what it was he was doing or what the FBI was trying to accomplish. His confusion, conflicted feelings and personal stress were brought to life by Phillipe and made real and believable. His performance matched up well with Cooper's. Ultimately, when it mattered most, Phillipe delivered a solid dramatic turn.

Finally, in what was a strong support role, Laura Linney played O'Neill's superior to whom he directly reported. Her character was a no-nonsense, veteran but tested agent. Her inner struggle was the realization that everything she had spent her career working to accomplish had been systematically undone by Hansson, leaving her and her colleagues to wonder what their work had even been for. If Hansson wasn't caught, the answer would be a disheartening and depressing "nothing". Linney brought a sense of strength to her character but with enough emotion to let you know that she was a real person, not just a another suit. That latter element was crucially important to the story because her ability to help O'Neill stay the course is what allowed him to complete his job in a situation that seemed to him to be far beyond his grasp.

Breach was directed by Billy Ray, the writer and director of 2003's Shattered Glass, also based on a true story. I didn't realize Breach was done by the same director until after the film was over, but I kept thinking of Shattered Glass while watching it. The reason is Ray's distinct style to approaching his films. It boarders on documentary while keeping one foot firmly planted in the realm of dramatic cinema. His ability to capture the most pedestrian details as they actually are in the real world as opposed to a fictional rendition creates an absorbing sense of authenticity. That, coupled with his excellent ability to get the most out of his actors, creates film experiences that are totally unique and completely engrossing. (In Shattered Glass, Peter Sarsgaard gave an amazing supporting performance which garnered him much critical acclaim.)

Ray has only directed two films. I own them both. His work is most definitely quality and too overlooked. So I'll give him the plug here - check out these two films, especially Breach. It was a very pleasant surprise and a happy addition to my library. 9/10

10ish Films I’m Psyched for in 2007

2007-09-15T17:50:00.000-07:00

Reading about the Toronto Film Festival this past week got me psyched to go to the movies. Unfortunately, the Cedar Falls/Waterloo IA isn’t really the best place to catch limited release films (at least for the first month or so) so I ended up going to a couple of films that I wasn’t DYING to see instead.

Yeah, it’s that post-Summer, pre-prestige time of the B-Grade and Middlebrow Film. The stars don’t shine quite as bright, the cuts don’t cut quite as deep, and the CGI isn’t half as expensive.
It’s the time where I begin to look forward to the coming months for films that I am actually PSYCHED (!!!) for:

Juno:
Trailer
If you can watch this trailer and NOT want to see this movie, I pity you.
An indie comedy regarding an unplanned teen pregnancy and the couple who wish to adopt the child, this film features a cast full of 27%ers (actors who make a movie 27% better just by their presence). Counting Jason Bateman, Michael Cera (The 27% rule applies to any of the principal cast of Arrested Development), JK Simmons, Allison Janney, and Ellen Page make this film 135% better than it would be otherwise.

This looks like the film I’ve been wishing Wes Anderson would’ve made his last couple times at bat.

Across The Universe:
Trailer
Looks to be the bastard child of the Fab Four and Moulin Rouge,which may only make the film sound appealing to me. But hell, they used I’ve Just Seen a Face in their marketing, so I’m already a fan sight unseen. I imagine plot is very much a secondary thought when it comes to this, but the visuals will most assuredly make this popular among those who, let’s say, don’t prefer their movie experiences sober.

30 Days of Night:
Trailer
This film could very well suck (pun not intended), but the premise---a group of vampires take over an Alaskan town where a month goes by without sunlight, is a great twist on a genre that seems to have had all the life drained out of it (sorry). And it’s based on a comic book (excuse me, graphic novel), so I’m obligated by geek-cred to go.

No Country For Old Men:
Trailer
The Coen Brothers are back in Fargo/Blood Simple territory for this crime drama that Roger Ebert describes as a perfect film. I haven’t loved a Coen Brothers movie since The Man Who Wasn’t There, so I’m hoping this as much of a slam dunk as it looks to be. The trailer shows Javier Bardem using compressed air as a weapon. I don’t know if that’s from the book it’s based on or a Coen idea, but either way, it’s genius.

There Will Be Blood:
Trailer
Based loosely on Upton Sinclair’s novel Oil!, TWBB casts Daniel Day-Lewis as a turn-of-the-centuty oil prospector at the turn-of-the-century. I don’t really know much more than that other than that it’s directed by the talented Paul Thomas Anderson and…did I mention Daniel Day-Lewis is in it? Daniel Day-Lewis is awesome.

Bee Movie:
Trailer
I’m a Seinfeld fan and the last half of the latest trailer has me cracking up. Hopefully this film, about a bee who sues mankind over honey rights, strikes the right balance of family-friendly and Seinfeld’s observational (darkish) humor.

Sweeney Todd:
Official Site
Tim Burton. Johnny Depp. Musical.

Beowulf:
Trailer
We’re in serious uncanny valley territory in this motion-captured production of the oldest story known to man, but it has the potential to be absolutely groundbreaking. The talent behind the…uh, can it still be called a camera, is encouraging: the experimental director Robert Zemeckis and famed (graphic) novelist turned scriptwriter Neil Gaiman.

American Gangster:
Official Site/Trailer
I saw this trailer in the theater and thought to myself “Now that’s a movie…”

Alien Vs Predator 2: Requiem
Trailer
OK, the first one was kind of awful, but color me optimistic for this R-rated clash of the franchises that maybe…mayyyyybbeeee…might take place, in part, somewhere that’s not Earth (rhymes with Creditor Comb Granite?).

Other Films I’m Looking Forward to: The Mist, I Am Legend, Eastern Promises, Rendition, The Assassination of Jesse James…, Into the Wild, Elizabeth: The Golden Age, The Darjeeling Limited, Michael Clayton, Sleuth, I’m Not There, Lions for Lambs, Margot at the Wedding, Charlie Wilson’s War, Youth Without Youth

Any of these films have you psyched? Did I miss anything? Let me know in the COMMENTS section…

1408 is Lackluster Fare

2007-09-13T18:53:00.000-07:00

1408 turned out to nothing like what I expected. All the promotions played it up to be a real spooky film and coming from the work of Stephen King, why would you doubt it? I saw no reason going into the theater. By the end, when I awoke, I could think of no good reason why I ever went into the theater! What a borefest!

Starring John Cusak, 1408 focuses on one supposedly haunted room in the upscale Dolphin Hotel, managed by none other than Samuel L. Jackson. Cusak's character Michael Enslin is an author of paranormal phenomenon and man of lost faith, obsessed with debunking the paranormal ever since the death of his young daughter. He travels the country visiting haunted locations in order to rate them, but mostly discredit them. Next on his list is the Dolphin's 1408, a room filled with mystery and naturally off limits to guests.

The hotel manager (Jackson) is aware that Enslin is coming and greets him upon his arrival. After exchanging pleasantries, he does his best to persuade Enslin to stay out of 1408, but ultimately to no avail. We come to find out that a crap ton of people have ended up dead in the room and no one has lasted more than one hour behind its door. Enslin, unconvinced and certainly not spooked manages to get the key and find himself quickly within the walls of the room. Soon enough odd things begin to happen but Enslin remains skeptical, dutifully recording notes into his tape recorder. Eventually things get really crazy and he is genuinely freaked (apparently trapped in the room). His ordeal culminated with an encounter with his dead daughter before he escapes the room. No shock there.

Unlike most horror and suspense films coming out these days, 1408 is an introspective work that attempts to scare the audience by letting their own imaginations do the work. For that I do give it credit, its a commendable effort in an era of flashy movie making. While the movie does its best to create an uneasy ambiance in order to create its spooky moments, I'll be honest and tell you that it came across as nothing more than a bore to me. In fact, I faded in and out of consciousness. Yes, I fell asleep. It simply couldn't hold my interest and it was anything but scary, mostly just a slow paced psychological piece. Even so, at the few points where it tried for the cheap scare, I didn't even flinch. I was able to slumber in relative peace.

When the credits finally rolled I thought that perhaps I was the only one who found it be a complete waste of time, but nearly everyone in the theater complained as they walked out. No sir, I was not alone in my assessment - 1408 pretty much sucked.

Cusak did fine in his role; I had no problems with his performance. However, it was Samual L. Jackson with his limited screen time that was the most fun to watch. You could tell that he enjoyed his supporting role and, wouldn't you know, he delivered the best line of the film. So I guess if you're a huge John Cusak fan or for some reason absolutely must watch every film in Jackson's filmography, then see 1408. Otherwise don't bother. 3/10

Bourne Series Cements Its Place as Spy Classic

2007-09-12T19:43:00.001-07:00

When The Bourne Identity hit theaters in 2002 it was well received as an entertaining and smart action/thriller. Five years and two films later, the Bourne legacy is the new standard for spy films, a domain once owned almost entirely by one man - Bond. James Bond.

Unfortunately it is a virtually impossible task to review and discuss the Bourne films without also discussing the Bond franchise. They represent two very opposite ends of the spy movie spectrum and Bourne seems to gain a lot of praise as a result of people voicing a growing disdain and boredom with the Bond franchise. So let me start there.

A product of the Cold War era, and many would argue prisoner to it as well, Bond has come to embody what people think of when they think spy or spy movie. Almost everyone you know can recite the famous lines ("Martini. Shaken, not stirred.", etc, etc.) can hum the tune of the James Bond theme and have seen the famous Ursula Andress beach scene from Dr. No. He's 007, has a license to kill, drives fast cars and loves beautiful women... all of them. Literally! He kills without remorse, never mouses his hair or creases the suit. He's Bond.

By the late 1990s and early 21st century movie-goers had started to tire somewhat of the predictable, formulaic Bond claiming the whole franchise is a relic of the Cold War era from which it came. The world was different now and they wanted something different. In short, Bond was no longer "smart".

Along comes Jason Bourne, a man without a memory of his past but all the skills to be one of the most lethal men on the planet. He is no James Bond. Suddenly we are presented with a spy who is only concerned with learning his past, regrets/laments his actions when he is forced to kill and falls in love and is totally committed to one woman whom he mourns when she is killed. He is anything but high society and Jason Bourne definitely gets beat up on the job. Not only is Bourne noticeably more "human" in his character, the whole premise of his story is more realistic and believable in its concept and execution. He isn't fighting super villains with outlandish "toys" or sleeping around with every attractive woman he comes across; he is a highly trained agent determined to find himself and bring down the people who have stolen his life. Unlike Bond, his is a personal war. There is one enemy, one ultimate goal and not the episodic villain.

Bourne is grounded in the real world with its pedestrian weapons, no real high-tech gadgets to speak of and situations that are plausible or, at the very least, conceivable. Picking locks, hacking computers or using advanced evasion techniques are the tools employed by Jason Bourne and it creates a realism that you never get in a Bond film. I would agree that the films are better for it because they feel gritty and edgy. It is wholly different, and in this case, different is good and welcome.

Through the Bourne trilogy we get plenty of action, drama and good old fashioned espionage that thrills! The pace is often frantic and break-neck and it serves to keep you the viewer engaged, interested and entertained. Matt Damon is solid leading man and damn fine action hero, if you consider Bourne to be an action hero. Perhaps he is more the victim, but the final chapter of The Bourne Ultimatum certainly leave that open for debate. Without question the Bourne Trilogy has opened the door to a new era of spy films and set a high bar in the process. The spy movie is back with a vengeance and it is good to see that the genre is anything but stale.

Now before I conclude this post, let me back up and address the Bond franchise from a different angle. It might seem that I just slammed the Bond series as a worn out bag of tricks, a hold-over from previous decades. After recent installments such as The World is Not Enough and Die Another Day, I would have agreed. They did nothing for me, which was too bad since I really enjoyed Tomorrow Never Dies and love Goldeneye.

The latest installment of Bond, Casino Royale, however, is amazing! The film definitely recaptured the excitement of Bond and did so through a markedly revamped approach that employed more realism, far fewer fantastical elements and a more human portrayal of Bond with Daniel Craig. It did everything right and hopefully has rejuvenated the franchise. Even so, with all the criticism of Bond films, I defend them for the fact that they have always been pure escapism, whether tied to the Cold War or not. People watch Bond films knowing exactly what they'll get and they eat it up. That isn't to say that the formula hasn't gotten stale over time, but the purpose of a Bond film should never be forgotten.

The Bourne series is the new gold standard for spy films and I loved it from beginning to end. If more films follow this example, I look forward to what the future has to offer, especially if we get more Casino Royales as well. Bourne was a wild ride, it had heart and connected with the 21st century world we live in. If you haven't yet seen these films, do yourself a favor and check them out. If you like spy films, you won't be disappointed.

Bourne Ultimatum - 9/10
The Bourne Series - 9/10

Harry Potter Still Strong With "Phoenix"

2007-09-11T17:01:00.000-07:00

What an anticipated summer of blockbusters it was in 2007 (especially three-quels)! We had Transformers, Pirates of the Caribbean 3, Spiderman 3, Shrek 3, Rush Hour 3, Die Hard 4 and Harry Potter 5. *Whew* It took awhile, but I finally saw all of them that I wanted to see ending with Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix.

I've never read the books but I've been entertained by the films from the beginning. One aspect of these films continues to pay in spades - the casting. Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson and Rupert Grint have turned out to be excellent casts for their respective roles as the franchise progresses. In this latest installment Radcliffe put on a show demonstrating that he could pull off teenage angst in a manner that wasn't simply a cliched bratish and whiny fashion. As a wizard with his back increasingly up against the wall during the ever awkward time of his teen-aged years, Harry Potter holds his own and so does Radcliffe.

For nearly everyone who has read these books, it is seemingly unnecessary to lay out the plot. So let me instead focus on why this installment was entertaining. For me personally, the themes are becoming more interesting. Phoenix was markedly darker overall and I appreciated that and that is credit due for Rowling's writing. The story is now past Malfoy being a bully or the Dursleys being cruel to Harry during summer break and we are headlong into real serious conflict that carries with it real serious consequences. The stakes are raised and that's when I really take interest.

Something is rotten in Denmark, or in this case Hogwarts, and with Delores Umbridge's arrival the school has become a virtual prison. Who doesn't like rebellion in these kinds of circumstances? So when the students we've come to know through four films start to take a stand on a serious issue, its a great story made all the better through superb performances all around, especially Imelda Staunton as Umbridge who I wanted to reach out and sucker punch. She played the role of evil, self-righteous bitch to a T!

The cast is also starting to gain mass as more and more bit players from previous films are starting to take on bigger roles. I know readers complain that not enough time is spent on some character development and I understand their feelings, but for a film of over two hours, I felt it did ok. Cho Chang really didn't get much screen time, nor did Luna Lovegood, but in the case of Chang she really was this film's Lando Calrissian, right? Besides, by this point we all know that Harry will end up with...... anyway. Find out here

Another strong point for this film for me was the higher caliber fighting, especially at the end. The spells were interesting, the action intense and overall engaging. The films (and I'm assuming here the books as well) steadily build up in this regard which is to be expected.

So was it the best yet? I can't say for sure not having gone back and re-watched the others in a long while, but I venture to say it is in my top two. I really did appreciate the more mature feel and darker tone and the acting was top notch. Oh and did I mention that Gary Oldman as Sirius Black is awesome? He's awesome! But that's just who Gary Oldman is and is a topic that deserves its own entry.

This judge finds in favor of Potter. 9/10

H-DoGG is BACK!!! ... Smokin' Aces Sputters

2007-09-11T15:25:00.000-07:00

Let me begin by saying that I hope during the drought of '07 most of you have continued to check in now and then on the off chance that Jacob may have provided some TV previews and reviews. My thanks to him for holding the line during my extended absence. I had family from overseas living with me for two months, so I was busy doing many many things with them, as I don't get to see them except every so many years. Needless to say it was a fun two months, but I was eager to get back to the blog.

So here I am once again and I return with the rundown of my most recently viewed: Smokin' Aces.

I remember seeing a ton of online advertisements for this flick last winter; I couldn't go anywhere on the net without seeing some mention of Smokin' Aces. It was apparent then that it was trying to sell itself on the good looks of Alicia Keys and low and behold that's about all it had going for it.

The back of the DVD labels this film an "action comedy". For a "comedy" it was way too serious. For an "action" film it was way too tame and slow. So what does this film have going for it? You may not believe it to be the case, but a surprisingly impressive (perhaps more so because it was a surprise) dramatic performance by none other than Ryan Reynolds of Van Wilder fame. If I had to pick a bright spot of this film, it was him. And it got me thinking that I wouldn't mind seeing him in some other straight roles.

Ray Liotta and Andy Garcia basically phoned their roles in; they were nothing special but were the biggest names in the film. The cover and commercials tout Ben Affleck and Jason Bateman, but they were almost entirely wasted. You need more than five minutes of screen time to warrant a marquee billing in my opinion.

The biggest problems with this film are that it tried to cram way too much in as far as outlandish characters and also that it was a jumbled mess of a film as far as plot. Apparently all you really need to know is that all these assassins are gunning for Buddy "Aces" Israel, a mob wanna-be who is going to turn state witness for a mafia investigation. They are all cooky, quirky and "cool" in some way, but ultimately all the guns and gadgets are for nothing because, aside from one gunfight involving a .50 cal sniper rifle, none of them really get any flashy screen time that's worth a damn. And all of it so you get a twist that really neither shocked nor awed in its Usual Suspects type revelation. The lead up to the big twist is so slow, uninteresting and drawn out that the plot does little more than fizzle at the end.

I had heard good things and I was really hoping to enjoy this movie, but I'd be lying if I said that it did anything for me. It was no Slevin. 4/10

Pilot Review: K-Ville

2007-09-02T09:17:00.000-07:00

The best thing that FOX’s K-Ville (debuting September 17^th and streaming now for free at Fox.com) has going for it is its setting. Through the course of the pilot, post-Katrina New Orleans develops as the most interesting character in this buddy-cop show that follows two mismatched NOPD detectives (Anthony Anderson and Cole Hauser). Shot on location and employing NO film crews, the production’s good intentions pay back dividends in that the show is given a sense of realism and weight that it wouldn’t have in any other place in the US.

That sense of realism only lasts, however, when the show isn’t in action-mode. A series that would work best as a gritty earth-bound cop show, K-Ville begins to feel phony when the car chases/shoot-outs/explosions feel like something more out of Miami Vice than The Shield.

It’s obvious that FOX wants this to be a companion piece to its action shows Prison Break and 24, but it challenges the integrity of a potentially important program to have the cops behave as Lethal Weapon superheroes as opposed to Hill Street Blues policemen.

The pilot introduces to veteran NOPD officer Marlin Boulet (Anderson) who after going through the nightmare of Katrina is dead set on rebuilding his neighborhood and re-establishing his family in the city he loves. Those who know Anthony Anderson from his performances in such films as Kangaroo Jack and not from his work on The Shield will be surprised to find out that this. guy. can. act. Anderson was the chief reason I decided to check K-Ville out and will be the reason that, despite some reservations I have about the pilot, I’ll be tuning in for at least a couple of weeks.

Boulet is paired with recent NO arrival Trevor Cobb (Hauser), a US marine just returned from Iraq and desperate to earn Boulet‘s trust. It’s obvious from the start that Cobb is hiding some skeletons in his closet and there’s a twist in the end involving Hauser’s character that again stretches the show’s credibility to a dangerous point.

The pilot’s central mystery surrounds a series of shootings at neighborhood fundraisers. It’s a plot that utilizes the unique situation of the citizens of NO (and features cameos from Lost’s Sam Anderson and William Mapother ), but by the episode’s end the viewer will see every beat coming. This is what will make or break K-Ville—a show set in New Orleans, even post-Katrina, runs the risk of turning into the Chief Wiggum P.I. segment from the The Simpsons Spin-Off Showcase. If the pilot is any indication, the second episode could very well involve a hovercraft chase through the bayou with Hauser and Anderson using crocodiles as water-skis. Hopefully, the show can stay away from cliché’s and notch up the realism a bit. If so, it could be a keeper.

Though that water-ski scene might be kind of fun to watch.

Additionally-on the subject of those scaly critters, anyone want to put up a guess as to how long the show takes until it uses crocodiles to dispose of a body? I’m going to guess Episode 3.

K-Ville (Pilot): 6/10