Critical Mass Media

Sucker Punch

2011-03-29T21:04:00.000-07:00

Where do I begin where Sucker Punch is concerned? I remember hearing the first rumblings of Sucker Punch sometime before or during the road to Watchmen. At the time the premise sounded like a descent into madness, reality bending fantasy extravaganza. By the time the first trailer hit, I became suspicious. Believe me, the parts of the whole of what this teaser promised me were the things of nerdy wet dreams. However, as we've all learned at one time or another (most likely after an early life binge on Halloween chocolate) too much of a good thing can indeed become a bad thing.

I'll admit right out the gate that I haven't been the best supporter of Zack Snyder's feature film career. I absolutely loved his remake of Dawn of the Dead. 300 was a fun theater experience with diminishing effect on home video and Watchmen was a valiant effort to finally do Alan Moore some cinematic justice, but ultimately focused too much on stylistics and glitzy showmanship than the overall tone and thematic bigger picture. Visionary director he may be, his insistance on staccato slo-mo action sequences and the polished, misty lens filters have become a signature of his, albeit in some cases a movie-goers deterrent.

The plot is relatively simple. Emily Browning (Lemony Snicket and the recent horror dud, The Uninvited) plays the aptly named Babydoll, as she looks more plastic than human, accidentally murders her sister while trying to defend her from their molesty step-father. He sends her to an institution and organizes a wholly unnecessary lobotomy, due in the next five days as the lobotomist (an unfortunate turn for Mad Men's Jon Hamm, who knocked it out of the park in The Town last year...) isn't immediately on hand. So Babydoll meets the other crazy girls with equally inexplicable monikers (Abby Cornish as Sweet Pea, Jena Malone as her sister Rocket and an thankfully underused Vanessa Hudgens as Blondie... yep, she's not blond either...) and suddenly *FLASH* the mental institution is now a strip club/brothel. Why is Babydoll's initial escape fantasy a brothel? Your guess is as good as mine, but I'd bet it's just a cheap excuse to dress them all as school girls for 90 minutes.

Male Nerds - 1

Female Empowerment - 0

So the institution is now a whorehouse where the orderlies and employees are represented by other whorehouse workers and patrons. Carla Gugino puts on a clearly super-real Polish accent as Madam Gorski the matron of the whorehouse/dance instructor/head therapist in the "real" world institution. Now comes the fun part. Babydoll finds that when she dances, everyone (and I mean everyone) who witnesses it is so entirely captivated that no one can do anything else BUT watch her dance. Funny, because as an audience we NEVER see it. You see, every time she dances, she goes into a trance like state and enters yet another perception ofreality making up the marketing campaign that has deceived us all. You've got everything nerds wet their pants for from Steampunk Nazi Germany to a Total Recall Robot Train, all of which makes no symbolic or allegorical sense in regard to what might be happening in the second level of fantasy, and even less sense in the ultimate real world which we still haven't seen since the first time Babydoll set foot in the asylum. But hey, all of the (still scantily clad) patients are wielding guns, swords, knives and are kicking major ass. Nothing spells empowerment like wanton violence in pig-tails, amIright?

To its credit (of the few there are) Sucker Punch finally utilizes the slo-mo technique much more organically and in a way that's not poking you in the forehead every time it's going on. The CG environments, makeup and costuming are all top notch. No two ways about it, Snyder knows how to utilize a budget to make a movie look pretty. Though, as so many Disney movies have taught us, it's what's on the inside that counts and Sucker Punch is like that head cheerleader in high school, expecting to coast along on her good looks for the rest of her life.

As it stands, pretty much everything that's wrong with Sucker Punch is script and story centric. This stands as Snyder's first movie where the story was 100% his own (with script co-written by Steve Shibuya.) Dawn being a remake of the 70's classic mall zombie flick, as adapted by cult hero James Gunn and 300 and Watchmen being the page-turning brainchildren of Frank Miller and Alan Moore, respectively. Snyder understands the structure and the pacing, but any form of subtext seems to be beyond his capacity as a storyteller. The distinct disconnect and subsequent disregard to other levels of reality is where Sucker Punch really gets hurt. It feels as if there could be more potential for thematic discovery without resorting to literal Dragon-slaying and in the end just feels like empty fan service.

The soundtrack is another conundrum. It's a known fact that there actually were dance numbers committed to film, but were cut due to time constraints for release. So when Emily Browning was tapped to provide her own vocals for covers of songs like "Sweet Dreams" and "Where is My Mind?" (I know, right?) all signs pointed to a Moulin Rouge meets Fantasy CosPlay session style musical. Which would've made more of the movie work as a whole. Instead what we get are pop-song overtures played overtop dialog free vignettes which melt into score-pieces styled after said pop-songs and then a prolonged music video-esque action sequence. I feel like if Snyder had just gone all out and made it an operatic full-on musical it would have been much more engaging as an experimental nerdish amalgam. However, there are already rumblings of a director's cut which will re-insert the previously cut dance sequences.

So what now? We could consider this a win for the creative community since Snyder was able to take a wholly original idea and have it financed and released by a major studio. Though it's box office draw (a mere $19 million and losing to Diary of a Wimpy Kid 2) and critical reception (currently 20% on Rottentomatoes.com) could make Warners and other major studios wary of original concepts in the future. Which leaves the future of the Superman franchise in question as well. Did Christopher Nolan make the right decision choosing Snyder to direct the much needed reboot of the Man of Steel? As casting is still underway and the script has yet to be finished (with Snyder nowhere near it, thankfully) more remains to be seen. Unfortunately Sucker Punch is not so much an utter failure, but a great disappointment for the nerd community.

Shrek Forever After (or The Final Chapter)

2010-05-28T12:51:00.000-07:00

I'm not sure what the real subtitle for the new Shrek movie really is. Is it Forever After? Is it the Final Chapter? The inconsistency with the ad campaign is confusing enough, but when it comes down to it, Shrek 4 (of which I will be referring to it for this review) does not at all contain any semblance of finality.

Considering the success of the franchise, the sad true nature of a Shrek movie is that it's a one-and-done affair. Even in the good entries to the series (1 and 2, admittedly I've never seen 3, but word of mouth confirms my suspicions) slide off the brain almost immediately like water off a duck's back. There was nothing considerably memorable about the series as a whole and this is doubly true for Shrek 4. It's because of its forgettable nature that there can't really be a definitive "end" to this "series." Each one pretty much wraps itself up before the ending montage (which usually features a modern cover of a "classic" tune while all the characters dance and act happy) the only thing defining each film is the threat to Shrek's supposed comfort zone.

Though, this time around they've gone the extra step to create a sort of pre-existing dilemma for Shrek, Fiona, Donkey and whoever else is a major player in this franchise at this point, but again, this is just shoehorned into the story for "closure" effect. Apparently, around the time Shrek was rescuing Fiona from the Tower (see: Shrek 1, actually don't...) her troubled parents went to see the Goblin/Trickster Rumpelstiltskin to garner a deal to free their daughter from her curse without having to be troubled with finding a hero to do so. The deal was almost penned when Shrek saved the day and the contract was no longer needed. Fastforward to after the 3rd installment (where I believe they have babies??) and Shrek is bored with his family life and wishes to be the formidable ogre he once was, though with that lovable green mug and Mike Meyers Irish accent this concept is still as foreign as it was when we were introduced almost 10 years ago... Long intro, short, Shrek pens a deal with a now homeless Rumpelstiltskin which erases the day Shrek was born and gives way to an alternate reality where everything kind of sucks and "Rumpel" (as he's called by everyone) is King of Far Far Away.

There is a modicum of cleverness about Shrek 4, namely the disparity between Far Far Aways and the explanation to why everyone knows Rumpelstiltskin's name (if you're not familiar with the fairy tale, your parents have failed.) However, most of the reason why Shrek 4 fails on so many levels is the feeble and stumbling attempts at comedy. There didn't seem to be a single successful joke throughout the entire film, the only scenes that evoked even a mild chuckle had already been played out in the trailers and TV spots. This may also be due to the fact that Eddie Murphy isn't anywhere near funny anymore and Donkey might just be the most annoying animated character this side of Stewie Griffin.

Even the pop-culture references seem uninspired and relatively dated. When the most recent thing for the Pied Piper to belt out is the flute riff from "Sure Shot" (the Beastie Boys single from their 1994 record "Ill Communication") you'll be lucky if any of the parents remember the tune, let alone the children that no doubt dragged them there.

Such is the nature of the beast (ogre in this case) that it will make millions upon millions of dollars during its theater run (mostly thanks to inflated 3D prices) and sell more than a handful of DVDs when the time comes, but like all three of its predecessors, will fade from memory as if it never even happened. I'm going to call bullshit now and there WILL be another chapter on the horizon (my tentative title, Shrek's 5th of Vodka, which will be required to endure it) but if Shrek Forever After/The Final Chapter truely IS the swan song for the franchise, we really are living in a fairy tale.

Iron Man 2

2010-05-13T07:16:00.000-07:00

It seems that Iron Man 2 has come under a good amount of unfair criticism following its release a couple weeks ago. The word was relatively positive at first, but then the box office intake took a dive in its second week and then the backlash began. Admittedly, comic book movies are now held to a higher standard thanks to Christpher Nolan's Batman epic The Dark Knight, which in this case is wholly uncalled for. On their first outing (also born in the looming Shadow of the Bat) director Jon Favreau and star Robert Downey, Jr. proved that you could have a hero grounded (relatively) in reality and still have fun with it. The same rings true for it's sequel.

This time out Tony Stark, now completely outed as Iron Man, finds himself poisoned by the arc reactor he'd originally streamlined to keep him alive after his Middle Eastern run in with his own weaponized shrapnel. Enter the new flies in Stark's respective ointment, Justin Hammer, a fellow merchant of destruction (who just so happens to be a funhouse mirror reflection of a first act Tony Stark from the original film, played brilliantly by Sam Rockwell) and Ivan Vanko, Russian son of a former Stark associate, Anton Vanko who was ousted and deported for allegedly selling secret tech to the USSR. Vanko has sworn his revenge on the Stark legacy and Hammer is determined to one-up the Iron Man model in one form or another and the two forge an unlikely and ill-advised union for their respective personal gains.

And this is just the main narrative through-line. On the outskirts of this plot is the quickly developing "Avengers" movie which involves Samuel L. Jackson's Nick Fury (agent of S.H.I.E.L.D.) and Scarlet Johannsen's Black Widow, and for a set of characters and structural threads that won't come into play until well after next summer they are surprisingly well balanced with the core of the film. It sets the stage for something much larger, but doesn't demand more attention than is required to thoroughly enjoy the story at hand.

While Downey, Jr. took the cake and devoured it whole in the first film, he's found a worthy acting adversary in Sam Rockwell. Taking a break from his indie success for a moment to cavort with the A-Listers, you'd be surprised that Rockwell hasn't broken in to a more mainstream market when you see him acting circles around 90% of the Iron Man cast. His portrayal of Hammer as the cocky weapons entrepreneur is pure gold, every line of dialog smarms its way out of his mouth with an unadulterated zeal that shows that he's the kind of actor that digs in to the character, finds what makes them tick and drives it straight home. Which isn't to say that Mickey Rourke's turn as the Russian powerhouse (and apparent amalgam of 2 classic Iron Man villains, Whiplash and Crimson Dynamo) isn't as awesome as it sounds. The extended version of the drag race fight featured in most of the coming attractions is one of the more awesome spectacles in recent comic book movie memory. Though similar to Jeff Bridges' Iron Monger finale beat-down, Vanko's last hurrah seemed a little bit rushed.

The recasting of Terrence Howard for Don Cheadle in the role of James Rhodes (read: War Machine) was probably the smartest recasting move this side of replacing Katie Holmes with Maggie Gyllenhaal. Howard's cocksure version of Rhodes didn't curb the Stark persona the way their relationship requires. Cheadle, a more accomodating dramatic actor, provides a more believable voice of reason to Tony's playboy mentality and their dynamic as Iron Man and War Machine, respectively, is better for their individual talents as actors.

Iron Man 2 isn't the perfect comic book movie, or even the perfect sequel, however it IS the perfect follow up to the already established cinematic canon presented in the first film. If all the pieces of continuation mythology pan out as well as their predecessors, the upcoming Thor and Avengers movies could prove to set a new standard for adapted cinema. Then again, there is still another Christopher Nolan helmed Batman on the horizon, so anything is possible.

Editorial: What Went Wrong in Happy Town?

2010-05-11T17:41:00.000-07:00

Happy Town hasn't even been on ABC for a month yet and already the axe has come down. Is this an irrational move on ABC's part? Some might say yes, as similar fates have met more recent shows like Life on Mars (with whom Happy Town shares its showrunners,) The Unusuals and Pushing Daisies. However, this time around something tells me that there will be few fan campaigns to urge the continuance of the mystery of the Magic Man (statistics based solely on the dwindling numbers of the Facebook Fan page.) So who is to blame here? Did ABC mismarket the show? Not when there was a strategically placed extended TV spot during the last five weeks worth of Lost, the key demographic for a show like Happy Town during the network's highest rated scripted hour. The show was relatively well advertised, playing up its shock horror and mystery aspects, so where did Happy Town take a wrong turn?

The Track Record Stands
As it stands, showrunners Josh Appelbaum, Andre Nemec and Scott Rosenberg don't have the best televised track record (October Road, Life on Mars both short lived and canceled early.) The pattern should tell you something. These guys can't handle their ideas. The audience either isn't getting what they want or being given a reason to continue watching. Even within the first two episodes of Lost or even Heroes there were more questions than answers but there was still a general consensus of what the main idea of the show was (Lost - why have these seemingly interconnected individuals landed on this mysteriously uninhabited yet thoroughly dangerous island, and Heroes - While people around the world are discovering abilities, how do they converge into the destruction of an entire city, though this idea was quickly run into the ground and mishandled in its own special way.) Two episodes in to Happy Town, there is very little that holds any of the plethora of ideas together. There's the enigmatic "Magic Man" of which people in town either don't know anything or are unwilling to talk about (yet the audience would benefit from even the slightest hint as to why this figure is such a local taboo,) the new girl with an ulterior motive, the batshit crazy, self-surgical sheriff and a bread factory. But what does all this have to do with anything on the show? Is the sluggish pacing and overtly precarious mystery placement the culprit for cancellation? There's also the instances of poorly written dialog and inherently illogical character behavior. Whether or not the town of Haplin is a beacon of darkness in a more or less chipper Northern MidWest, you'd be hard pressed to find police procedures that would think it a good idea to inform the next of kin in front of a room full of co-workers and visiting school children. When it comes down to it, a scene like this only serves for an over the top dramatic effect. It's not creepy, it's just stupid. Then there's the over-explanatory dialog to characters that probably already know the details, creating a roundabout break in the fourth wall while the characters all but look out toward the audience to catch them up to speed. A cardinal rule in most writing is "show don't tell." From the starting block, Happy Town has been all tell and no show and what they do decide to show makes little to no sense in context. Are these problems fixable? Perhaps, but then there are the characteres.

Who Are These People?
There are well over twelve major characters in Happy Town. Juggling an ensemble cast like this is no easy task, something J.J. Abrams and Joss Whedon can attest to on more than one occasion. Why do you think police and medical procedural shows stick to a main cast of two or three and a supporting cast of another three or four. So you do the math, two episodes come in at around an hour and a half which is not nearly enough time to set up motivations, back stories, or even the rudimentary sense of who any of these characters are, given the depth of "mystery" that is attempted in this series thus far. Needless to say, delegating the wooden Geoff Stults as the paper thin lead character is a mistake in and of itself. As an "everyman" with a chiseled jaw and strep throat-raspy drawl, this is the character that will usher us through the town of Haplin and crack the inexplicible mystery of "The Magic Man" and that weird supernatural CG hawk. Brawny physical CW appearance aside, Stults just doesn't have the acting chops of a leading man. He reads the lines and delivers the dialog, but we get no sense of character or purpose, and the real shame is that he's surrounded by A-list veterans that can and have held their own on the big and small screens. Which brings me to...

A Star is Boring
I've always said that even the strongest of casts can't save shoddy writing. It takes a lot to make performances from Frances Conroy (Six Feet Under), Sam Neill (Jurassic Park) and Stephen Weber (Wings, Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip) seem second rate and forgettable. Dropping them into uninspired, underdeveloped side characters is likely the biggest mistake the show has made. Granted these aren't the easy on the eyes, gorgeously chiseled starlets that make the visual draw (though arguably Amy Acker IS and is still left to the side as the ho-hum housewife to mannequin husband Geoff Stults) but these thesps CAN act and carry a scene. However, these scenes are too short lived and too inconsequential to really matter in the long run.

The Lynch Derivative
Of course there were comparisons to Twin Peaks from the get go, and you'd be hard pressed not to make the parallel between the two. Each involved a small, seemingly normal town with very mysterious and clandestine goings on. The difference with Twin Peaks being that David Lynch operates on an entirely different wavelength than mainstream network television (and most human beings in general.) Even when things in town are supposed to be normal there's something inherently off kilter about everything and when things are getting increasingly strange, the reactions are oddly unsuspicious. It's these disparities from what we see as the norm that made Twin Peaks the suspenseful cult hit that is was. The more normal things seemed, the more impactful the strangeness became when it presented itself. We're not in Haplin for more than a couple of minutes when people start acting suspiciously bizarre and dropping hints that "Happy Town ain't all that Happy." Everyone is aware they're on a strange show so that when something strange happens, it's expected and falls flat as a thematic device. It could have been presented as a normal mystery series, but goes out of its way to be bizarre just for the sake of using wacky imagery and including pseudo-poetic musings from the mentally unstable trough of characters. Even still, despite Peaks' current status as a cult legacy, it was canceled after only 2 seasons. Long story short, don't attempt to emulate David Lynch unless your name is David Lynch.

In the End
So do I think ABC pulled the plug prematurely? Yes, in a way. Though, did Happy Town really stand a fighting chance in today's scripted TV economy? No, there was almost no way the show would've succeeded beyond the initial 8 episode order, especially with a pilot as uneven and hackneyed as "In This Home on Ice." Two episodes isn't nearly enough for a cult following so it's not likely too many tears will be shed at the demise of yet another Lost-Replacement-Contender. After tonight's episode, the remaining 5 episodes will burn off in the summer and the town of Haplin will quietly fade into the forgotten realms of the TV archives alongside the likes of Point Pleasant and Wonderfalls.

From Paris with Love

2010-03-29T19:23:00.000-07:00

And so the theatrical drought months continue. This week's victim... From Paris with Love. A title that makes about as little sense as the film itself. Being the second joint venture from latter day action guru Luc Besson and director Pierre Morel, a better title for this cinematic mess would have been "Cluster-frak to the Plot Device."

The plot, near as I can tell, follows James Reese played by Tudors star Jonathan Rhys Meyers, an aspiring US ambassador's assistant stationed in Paris. Days before a US official arrives for a summit meeting, Reese is unwittingly planted alongside American wild-card hit-guy Charlie Wax, a terribly miscast and silly looking John Travolta, and the two stumble upon some, well, terrorist stuff somehow.

Luc Besson can still function as a producer and Morel's visual style is tailor made for the action genre, however the script by Adi Hasak is as frustratingly pedestrian as it is blatantly immature. Travolta's role sounds specifically written for Wesley Snipes and when he either declined or wasn't available, nobody bothered to adjust it for Travolta and his doughy physique. Whether it's his overuse of MF-bombs or the idiotic bald head/goatee combo, the outcome is unintentional comedy. And while it takes a great deal of finesse and planning to cut those action scenes around a middle aged chubster dressed like a Tusken Raider from Star Wars: A New Hope, you can't help but laugh at the fact that this is the guy who was in Old Dogs not two months ago. As a conglomerate of fifteen years of better action films, From Paris with Love contains enough laughs to warrant a Red Box rental if nothing else, but just know you'll be laughing AT it, not WITH it.

Legion

2010-03-29T19:21:00.000-07:00

(Transcribed from 91.9FM's 91 Seconds on Film segment)

It's January and the cinematic dumping ground is officially upon us. If Moses had access to the movie Legion, the Jews would have been freed from Egypt in just under two hours without the hassle of plagues or sea parting. By all logic, Legion shouldn't be a movie. This means that a script was written, someone okayed the script, found financing and budget, A-list actors, crew, cooks, carpenters and a studio willing to put their name on it before it comes even close to a theatrical release. How any of these parties got involved beyond the scripting point can only be deduced to an inexplicably large sum of money.

So Legion gives us the Paul Bettany as the Archangel Michael who has come to 21st century earth to save humanity from a vengeful God by preserving the life of a baby that is apparently important to this scenario for reasons we never find out. So he holes up in a middle of nowhere desert diner with a band of red-shirts that are either wholly unlikable or terribly dull. So instead of applying anything from the book or revelations, God decides he's an Evil Dead fan and possesses humans to serve as an easily disposable army against Bettany and his sharpshooting stowaways. For a director with a background firmly rooted in special effects work, the visual effects in Legion are laughable and frequently edited around with more shots of blazing gun barrels and bouncing machine gun shells. It's hard to tell if the actors were in on a joke the director wasn't aware of because Dennis Quaid and Charles S. Dutton phone in the best performances of their latter day careers, unfortunately through characters that have either no thematic relevance or real narrative purpose beyond demon fodder. I'd say that Legion is to the point of "so bad it's funny" but after a certain point even the unintentional laughs become predictable creating a misfire of truly biblical proportions.

Tales from the Back-Log

2010-02-26T07:08:00.000-08:00

So everything's been pretty hectic over the last few months. I've been able to maintain my reviews for the radio, but haven't been able to transcribe them onto the net in a timely manner, so the next 3 reviews will be a little dated. Now that everything is relatively settled, I should be able to keep everything posting at a normal rate again.

Thanks for reading!

Up in the Air

2010-02-25T13:51:00.000-08:00

For a film primarily about air travel, allow me to open with a stupid joke. Jason Reitman totally nails the landing! As far as his directorial career, he's shooting three for three. 2004's Thank You for Smoking was a solid first feature endeavor and despite the problems I had with Juno on a screenwriting level, it was a very well put together movie, as far as teen romance/thinking outside the box comedies are concerned. Up in the Air looks and feels like the perfect tonal follow up to TYfS.

Clooney plays Ryan Bingham, a "miles" obsessed travel addict who takes on the seemingly difficult task of laying off individuals when the company they work for is too chickenshit to do it themselves. Though Bingham handles his job with poise and confidence, granting words of wisdom tinged with a poetic grace as he ushers the newly terminated into their new life of future employment. Enter two drastically opposite, though equally valuable females into Ryan's life. Alex, a fellow travel-phile and sometime bed-fellow with which he shares a profound connection in their respective philosophies about life and Veronica, the company's new upstart determined to outsource Ryan's job with the advent of internet video chat.

Interspersed amid the narrative are actual personal accounts of people who have been "let go" of their corporate livelihood. A gutsy move considering the economic climate and massive layoffs taking place in the country. Though it's not a downer by any means, but more of an uplifting snapshot of the human spirit in the face of one of the most devastating experiences we can have in life next to breakups and the death of a loved one. Accenting these asides are brief yet excellent performances by Zach Galifianakis and JK Simmons to anchor these vignettes to the narrative. Jason Bateman also puts in a markedly off typecast role as Bingham's cutthroat boss. If nothing else, this film is the reason why George Clooney is a leading man in the film industry, completely deserving of any nominations that are coming his way. Vera Farmiga (The Departed) does a bang-up (no pun intended) job as Alex, branching out as a newly christened A-lister. The most notable impressive casting choice was Anna Kendrick as Veronica. Best known for her barely supporting role in the Twilight films, she shows range and skill in this emotional roller coaster of a role.

Stepping back into the writer's room adapting the novel by Walter Kirn, Jason Reitman is quickly becoming the voice of his disembodied generation. He doesn't seem at all intimidated by either his father, Ivan's the cultural footprint or extensive catalog of producing and directing credits. The junior Reitman exudes a very plain honesty about character and interpersonal relationships that many modern dramas overlook. Where most films will polish their themes with flashy dialog, and while Bingham is a big talker, Up in the Air's most poignant moments often don't include any dialog at all. It takes a talented director to connect with an audience in these quiet moments onscreen, and is likely by Up in the Air is one of the best movies you're likely to see this year (2010 included.)

Percy Jackson and the Olympians: The Lightning Thief

2010-02-24T20:09:00.000-08:00

They say lightning never strikes twice. In regard to Percy Jackson and the Olympians colon The Lightning Thief, the true thief is, in fact, Harry Potter himself. It seems the studios have been churning out countless one off duds since Pottermania turned a decent profit almost ten years ago. However Young Adult fantasy franchises seem to hit the big screen and fail to draw an audience, the inexplicable phenomenon that is Twilight notwithstanding. So after star studded failures like The Spiderwick Chronicles, The Golden Compass and Eragon, it's no surprise that Percy Danger and the High Voltage Squad colon Electric Boogaloo fails to gain a foothold in the niche that Potter is so close to vacating.

Percy Daggett and the Olympic Medalists colon Thunderstruck brings absolutely nothing new to the table as far as teen fantasy is concerned. Percy is your run of the mill teen that likes to sit at the bottom of the school pool for drowningly extensive periods of time. He soon finds out he's the cross breeded offspring of the Greek God Poseidon. It turns out Zeus' lightning bolt has been stolen and he blames Percy because… well… Why not? This will cause a war among the gods for an unforeseen and never mentioned reason. Percy gets attacked and is sent to Hogwarts… I mean… God Camp to learn how to be a warrior, since that's what gods do. Pierce Brosnan makes a literal horses ass of himself as his Centaur teacher before Percy and his resident Ron and Hermione clones run off to save his mother from Hades, against Camp Rules, of course. There is a stellar cast, the likes of Uma Thurman, Catherine Keener, Rosario Dawson and UK funnyman Steve Coogan tossed in amid the tepid performances of the three lead adolescent characters who meander through their dialog and character arc cliches. Occasionally, a cleverly re-imagined piece of Greek Mythology will surface, but Potter director Chris Columbus gives it so little attention, it's poignancy is lost to make way for the next pratfall or sight gag. With Potter ending within the following year, the Young Adult fantasy market is due for its next moneymaker, though chances are Perry Nuggets and the Neanderthal Clan colon Storm Chasers is not going to be it.

Where the Wild Things Are

2009-10-19T10:08:00.000-07:00

It's a book with 40 pages and 10 sentences. Maurice Sendak wrote it in the 60's to a heavily mixed reception until it eventually became an established classic and a hallmark of childrens literature. Given the brevity of the material and the state of basically all film adaptations of storybook classics it's amazing that a workable 90 minute movie could be lifted from "Where the Wild Things Are." Lucky for us, Maurice Sendak isn't your normal kids author and Spike Jonze isn't your normal film director.

Aside from the animated version from the 70's (which clocked in at a staggering seven minutes) a full length feature seemed not only a generally bad idea, but seemingly implausible without the contrivances of "back story" and inflated, heavy handed thematics (Ron Howard's The Grinch comes to mind...) Then in steps independent visionary director, Spike Jonze (Being John Malkovich and Adaptation,) having struck up a genuine friendship with Maurice, took the project in an unexpected and daring direction. With Sendak's blessing to "do whatever you want with it," Jonze teamed up with author Dave Eggers (A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius and this year's indie hit Away We Go) to bring out the thematic importance of not only what the book is about, but what it truly means to those that have enjoyed it for generations.

As the story goes, Max, adorned in his wolf costume, is an unruly child that is sent to bed without any supper after causing more mischief than his mother is willing to deal with. Max creates a fantasy world in his bedroom and sails to the land of the "Wild Things" and becomes their king. All the elements of the book are prominently featured (even down the the opening, pre-credits sequence in which a rambunctious Max chases his pet dog with a fork.) The expansions on the material consist of exploring the reasoning for Max's behavior. What causes him to act out? Why does he feel the need to escape? What ARE the Wild Things, realistically and to Max? The film meets Max as a normal kid with an overactive imagination. His parents are divorced and his sister is too old to be his friend any more. This is a child dealing with feelings and emotions he doesn't even understand yet, let alone knows how to deal with on any real level. Therein, whether his trip to the land of the Wild Things is real or not, it's an internalization and a personal mirror for Max to work through his feelings.

Each of the Wild Things represents a piece of Max and at the same time, pieces of the opening 1o minutes are either revisited or presented in a new light during Max's visit. The lead creature, Carol (voiced amazingly by Tony Soprano himself, James Gandolfini) is the closest representation of Max, and ultimately becomes his best friend. Ira (Forrest Whitaker) plays to Max's creative side and his island partner, Judith (Catherine O'Hara) sometimes represents Max's feelings on his older sister. KW (Six Feet Under's Lauren Ambrose) is the closest creature to representing the mother figure and the catalyst for many of the emotional squabbles. There are no heavy handed morals, or extensive speeches that come out and say all the lessons presented in the contained material, these are left for interpretation by the viewer.

Max Records, the breakout star as the aptly named Max, puts on the most genuine and honest performance of any child character ever seen on film. When I say Max is a genuine little kid, he IS a REAL little kid. He's not the wise-beyond-his-years, prodigal child that speaks like an adult that we see in every other kids movie. He thinks and speaks like a REAL little kid. He moves like a REAL little kid. His logic is mired in the trappings of a REAL kid's imagination and that's why it works so well. While some of the more intricate ideals in Where the Wild Things Are may not be apparent to some children, they should be able to at least relate to Max on a fairly personal level (given they've got the capacity for at least some imagination.) Catherine Keener makes a brief but notable appearance as Max's tired and exasperated mother. She does a wonderful job of evoking sympathy while standing in the way of Max's journey.

Where the Wild Things Are sets the bar pretty high for a family film. It doesn't talk down to the audience, but operates on the fact that while you may not know what you're feeling during or afterward, you genuinely felt something. It's there to let us know, it's ok to feel scared and sad sometimes, even if we don't know why or how to fix it. These are the things that make us human and these are the things we need to come to understand when it comes to growing up. And growing up is ok, but it's also ok to keep that inner child on standby because you should never have to take everything so seriously.

Inglourious Basterds

2009-10-16T12:09:00.000-07:00

Quentin Tarantino likes to take his time between films. He'd originally announced the concept for Inglorious Bastards shortly after Jackie Brown (and the advent of the World Wide Web) though details were sparse, set to star then Tarantino favorite Michael Madsen and citing World War II and French Jewish Nazi Killers, the project was seemingly forgotten in the wake of the looming Kill Bill rumor mill. Now, 10 years later, Inglourious Basterds (misspelling intentional) finally sees the light of day.

The first thing to be aware of going in is that this is a Quentin Tarantino movie. There will be lots of dialog. Excessive amounts of it, actually, but this has always been Tarantino's strong suit. Each series of dialogs and monologues has such a specific tone and pace that the building tension is impossible to look away from. Not to mention that every payoff is exhiliratingly poignant (and inexcusably bad ass in only a way Quentin can sell it.) His structure is set up like a more deeply connected Pulp Fiction. Each act serving as a specific chapter (with chapter titles preceding each) that all collide into a beautifully chaotic final sequence that will get the vengeance blood pumping straight through your cerebral cortex.

Using his multiple narrative style, "Basterds" bounces from Lt. Aldo Raine and his band of merry nazi scalpers to the plight of a Jewish refugee operating an independent movie theater in German occupied France and ties them all together with a British top secret operation set on turning the tables of WWII. On the other side of the fence is S.S. Col. Hans Landa and Pvt. turned actor Frederick Zoller in their attempts to promote the Third Reich and defuse the Basterds proverbial death march.

Though the cast went through a roller coaster of changes up until filming began, Tarantino couldn't have assembled a better set of actors for his latest work. Leading the pack of "Basterds," as they're christened, is of course Brad Pitt. While Lt. Aldo Raine may not necessarily be the best performance of his career, it is definitely one of the most entertaining. His thick southern Tennessee accent provides hearty laughs in between nazi (pronounced crude, yet delightfully as "gnat see") killings. Eli Roth (Cabin Fever and Hostel director turned Tarantino protege) heads up second in command to the "Basterds" as Donnie Donowitz, aka "The Bear Jew," the most feared nazi killer of the lot (and for good reason, we see in detail.) Though the Basterds themselves only make up a mere 30% of the two plus hour film, the real stars of the film are Christophe Waltz as the menacingly lighthearted villain, Col. Hans Landa and the vengeful, Jewish refugee, Shoshanna Dreyfus played pitch perfectly by French actress Mélanie Laurent. Shoshanna, being the only surviving member of her slaughtered family carries a quiet rage and an inherent sense of melancholy. Landa on the other hand, is a truly terrifying villain. Not only does he outwardly love his job, but takes a certain pleasure in playing a game of verbal cat and mouse before going in for the kill (literally, most times.) Other notable players include The Office's writer/actor/favorite temp, BJ Novak, Mike Meyers in an unexpected cameo, Diane Kruger (National Treasure 1 and 2) as German actress Bridget Von Hammersmark and Til Schweiger's nazi killing psychopath, Sgt. Hugo Stiglitz.

Combining his affections for vintage exploitation films of the 60's and 70's and his pop sensibilities as a product of the 90's, Tarantino's latest sets his watermark to a new high. The quality of performance and narrative styling is easily on par with his latter day success, Pulp Fiction. Despite its almost 10 year gestation period, Inglourious Basterds was indeed worth the wait.

District 9

2009-10-14T12:27:00.000-07:00

Nobody saw it coming. A small scale internet teaser subtly reworked and released to theaters two months prior to wide release and no one had heard a thing (unless you were REALLY looking for it.) Even after the full on trailer hit screens with three weeks to go, no one knew quite what to expect. All they had was a name and a relatively disturbing alien interrogation. Luckily, that name happened to be Peter Jackson.

Peter Jackson requisitioned special effects man Neill Blomkamp to direct what was going to be the Halo movie. Having made a series of high quality, low budget Halo short films based on the popular X-Box video game series, it wasn't a surprise that Jackson saw promise in Blomkamp's early work. Unfortunately, the Halo financial negotiations fell through causing the project to derail rather quickly, though Jackson, being a man of his word still insisted that he produce a project with Neill. This project would become what was lauded as one of the best sci-fi pictures of the year, and it's not an incorrect assessment.

Based on Blomkamp's earlier short film, Alive in Joburg, District 9 exists as a proverbial genre-mash of epic proportions. Part documentary, part metamorphosis/body horror and part action film, it all serves as an alternate universe dissection of apartheid and racism in South Africa. Which isn't to say it's overtly "messagey," these undertones are noticable but never crammed down your throat. In the District 9 universe, an alien ship landed (though it remains hovering in the atmosphere) some 20 years ago in Johannesburg, South Africa. After finding starving and frightened bug-like creatures on board, they are given refuge in the slummy District 9, segregated from the human population and slangly referred to as "Prawns."

The story essentially follows Wikus Van Der Merwe, a dim executive who works for MNU (Multinational United,) a private military corporation in charge of relocating the increasing Prawn population to the even slummier District 10. Wikus is documented as he enters District 9 to have relocation papers signed off on by the interstellar residents. Wikus is inadvertently exposed to an alien toxin and suddenly becomes the expendable top secret project of the MNU.

The visual effects in District 9 are nothing short of amazing. Of the hundreds of Prawns that are featured prominently in the film, not a single one was created using makeup or animatronics (even for close ups) but rendered entirely digitally. The alien tech and weapons (which only function when used by Prawns due to DNA compatibility) is very reminiscent of the Halo series and even it's bitter rival PC series, Half Life. Other genre classic comparisons can be drawn from films like Enemy Mine, David Cronenberg's The Fly, Aliens and even more recent blockbusters like Iron Man (actually, I'm hoping IM director Jon Favreau was taking notes during the last act for next summers Iron Man 2.) Lead actor Sharlto Copley (at the time unknown, but now rumored to be cast in the upcoming A Team movie) completely sells this film. At first coming off ultimately unlikable, his path to redemption and sympathy is indeed a compelling one and wouldn't have translated were it not for his genuine performance. He appears to be an actor that gives 110% and may prove to be in high demand in years to come.

Despite having no Hollywood stars and a minimal budget (at least by Tinseltown standards) District 9 really comes out on top. Peter Jackson knows talent when he sees it and not only am I looking forward to more up and coming talents he may find, but any further projects by director Neill Blomkamp, whether it's the proposed sequel/prequel, Halo (if it gets off the ground) or any other original concept.

(500) Days of Summer

2009-09-14T09:33:00.001-07:00

Romantic comedies have been on a steady decline. Unless you're Judd Apatow, you're lucky to balance the gender ratio to a scant 30/70. Luckily movies like (500) Days of Summer come around to prove that you can maintain the footholds of a love story (or "not a love story" as it's advertised) without completely alienating the manlier of the theater-fill.

Summer tells the story from the male point of view, but conveys a tale that we've all been a part of. Joseph Gordon-Levitt plays Tom Hansen, an architecture graduate that's settled for a job as a greeting card writer. Opposite him, Zooey Deschanel plays Summer Finn, the temp that he inexplicably falls for. The film flip-flops through the 500 day timeline that is the beginnings and endings of their togetherness. The feelings on both sides of the narrative (Tom's and Summer's) resonate with anyone who's ever been in or on the verge of a serious relationship.

Writer Scott Neustadter used two failed relationships as the template for Summer (both in story and character) and it's plainly obvious that this is a quasi-autobiographical account as soon as the opening, pre-credits titles fade their way onto the screen. The unconventional use of a non-linear timeline ensures that the roller coaster of Tom's emotions never becomes stale or uninteresting. Summer's wardrobe dressed her in a very nouveau-classic attire that recalls a modernized version of classic 50's era looks, coupled with some brilliant IKEA scenes creating the ideal marriage fantasy in Tom's mind. Each scene plays out to just the right length, neither cut too short or outstaying its welcome. Director Marc Webb, who boasts an astounding number of music video credits, transitions seamlessly into the world of feature length film. Though, music is clearly an integral part of the story and pace set to (500) Days. With a soundtrack laced with the now legendary tunes of The Smiths and more contemporary indie rock acts like Wolfmother and The Doves, Summer manages to steer clear of being too "hipster" by being utterly genuine in its execution.

The cast glides through the film with ease. Never once is anyone's performance unbelievable or insincere. Joseph Gordon-Levitt proves yet again that this is the genre that he flourishes in, as the latter day Rob Gordon (of High Fidelity notoriety, Rob Fleming if you're going by the novel and really the only major difference is the shift from London to Chicago.) His previous endeavors as the down and out high school "private eye" Brendan in Rian Johnson's debut film, Brick and the mentally damaged patsy Chris Pratt in the underappreciated psychological heist picture, The Lookout reintroduced him as the familiar face (from 3rd Rock from the Sun, 10 Things I Hate About You) with an astounding range, but seeing a smile cross his face recalls that his comedic roots are still intact. Zooey Deschanel finally works her way out of the slump of her preceding films, The Happening and Yes Man, with a character with some... well, character.

Having wowed audiences at both Sundance and Cannes this year and seeing a decently expanded theatrical run, (500) Days of Summer should pose as the template for any and all future comedy projects that hope to exude some form of romantic sentimentality, whether that romance is long term or not. Thematically poignant and genuinely relatable and humorous, this is likely the best anti-romantic comedy since 2000's High Fidelity or at least the best representation of how romance has changed for the hipster generation.

True Blood, Season Two

2009-09-14T07:32:00.000-07:00

Following the finale of season 2, I realized that, despite it's shortcomings (and Oh, there are many,) True Blood hasn't quite reached Heroes caliber Shark Jumping territory yet. However, for a show with a premise as compelling as this, I've found myself only compelled to change the channel due to the overwhelming sense of boredom I feel during at least 50% of each episode. If it weren't followed by a better show (Hung,) I may not have tuned in at all after the first 3 or 4 episodes of its sophomore season.

The plot lines are consistent, if not begrudgingly slow. This is an hour long show that would benefit greatly from a run-time reduction to a 30 minute drama. All that would be lost is extended scenes of Sookie and Bill cooing at each other. Though these doldrums are thankfully offset by the meat and potatoes of the second season arcs involving the Fellowship of the Sun (sadly concluding at the halfway point,) and the gradual moral degradation of the citizens of Bon Temps by the Maenad, Maryann.

Alan Ball knocked it out of the park with Six Feet Under, though I feel that he's either only partially invested in True Blood or is terribly misinterpreting the material. The real world gravity that gave SFU poignancy and grace comes across clumsily and silly in the supernatural realm of Bon Temps. The romance is utterly tepid, stagnant and uninteresting. You'd think that an oiled up Fabio graced the paperback covers of the source material. To its credit there are a fair amount of truly frightening scenes, mostly brought about by Maryann's brainwashed orgy-victims toward the latter half of the season.

The over-romanticizing of the Vampire seems to be the point in which the fan-base has flourished. Whatever happened to the ruthless, bloodthirsty, carnivorous and ultimately EVIL vampires of last century like Nosferatu, Chris Sarandon from Fright Night and the gangs from both Near Dark and The Lost Boys? We could trace this trend all the way back to Buffy the Vampire Slayer, introducing the concept of tamable bloodsuckers, but even Angel/Angelus and Spike maintained a certain amount of viscera amid their broody heroism, or were at least several steps beyond one-dimensional. Bill Compton remains the chivilrous goody-goody (a hornier version of the despicable Twilight character, Edward Cullen *gag*) while Sookie Stackhouse reacts to him about as realistically as an oversexed teenager. Their relationship has no real weight, I don't believe for a second that either of them is actually in love with the other. Bill's affections for Sookie seem little more than an overly manipulative several-night-stand and Sookie buys completely into his act based solely on hormones and little else. Also, Anna Paquin's underwhelming performance creates an all around unlikable heroine (and all-around world's worst psychic) and if it weren't for supporting cast members (the likes of Eric Northman, Sam Merlotte and Lafayette Reynolds) the show would likely be a wash.

The world in itself is interesting enough without having to resort to trashy romance novel camp, hopefully the writing staff will realize this come season 3 next year. Needless to say, if there's nothing better on, I'll keep watching.

Funny People

2009-09-12T21:59:00.000-07:00

Judd Apatow returns for his 3rd writer/directorial expedition into comedic humanity. The thing about his latest feature, Funny People, is that there is surprisingly little that's actually funny about it. The material is likely his darkest to date.

Coupling with his former roomate and friend, Apatow deconstructs Adam Sandler's 15 year ascent to Hollywood success through the persona of George Simmons. It's good to see that Sandler has a sense of humor and self awareness to the endless slew of cinematic terribleness he's been unleashing on the public since the early 00's. Basically, Simmons is informed that he has a rare blood disease (a fictional form of leukemia, we're told) that may very well take his life. On a gloomily nostalgic trip to a comedy club, he is introduced to Ira Wright (Apatow regular, Seth Rogen.) Simmons takes the budding comedian under his wing as his new joke writer and sort of legacy-holder while he undergoes an experimental treatment.

For the first hour and a half, Apatow has spun a truly honest tale of our own mortality and the disassociative effects of long term fame. Simmons is portrayed as an almost soulless being, every scrap of true humanity stripped away by a lifestyle that's become too easy, while Ira is struggling desperately to break in to the lifestyle that's broken down Simmons. However, this in depth dissection is interrupted by an all but unnecessary 3rd act involving a now married former flame of George's that really only serves as a showcase for Judd's admittedly adorable, though narratively irrelevant daughters. This segment meanders on for a bit too long and only manages to further de-humanize Simmons, making him even less relatable or even remotely likable.

Sandler finally makes use of the talent most people had forgotten he actually has (last seen displayed in Paul Thomas Anderson's Punch-Drunk Love.) Seth Rogen shows more range than we've ever seen from him this time around. Paired with Jason Schwartzman and Jonah Hill as his fame-bound roommates, Rogen sells his morose ambition to a tee. Eric Bana (in an attempt to remind people that he was in something other than The Time Traveler's Wife this summer) goes out on a limb as the aussie husband to Leslie Mann (Apatow's real life wife and mother of his 2 soon-to-be starlet kids, playing the object of Simmons' misguided affections) and really hits some funny notes before anyone can notice that his scenes aren't very useful at all.

At the heart of Funny People is a good story. Unfortunately that good story is hidden inside the trappings of a self indulgent filmmaker that doesn't have anyone who's willing to tell him that a 35 minute tangent about an ex-fiance is a bad idea. The DVD will be worth the time, with the veritable goldmine of extras including uncut comedy performances, outtakes, alternate improvs and deleted material (I'd be surprised if there is any, the movie is so long as it is.) An unfortunate misfire for Apatow after the promise that Knocked Up showed, but even a not-so-great Judd Apatow movie is a pretty decent movie, overall.

Public Enemies

2009-08-18T09:56:00.000-07:00

Michael Mann has had an overall impressive career. There have been the missteps along the way, like the over-inflated Ali and the nigh irrelevant revisiting of his 80's TV property Miami Vice, but movies like Heat, The Insider and Collateral maintain the balance. Now as the pioneer of the Digital Cinema age, Mann's Public Enemies ushers in the new era of filmic storytelling.

Enemies takes an interesting look at the life of John Dillinger. Instead of focusing on his rise to gangster infamy as the most renown bank robber this side of the Great Depression, we see the quieter portion of his downfall leading up to his assassination outside the Biograph Theater. Also interspersed through the tale is the birth of J. Edgar Hoover's Bureau of Investigation through the machinations of G-Man Melvin Purvis.

The way Mann has utilized the digital video technology is definitely unconventional. There are a number of scenes with sparse lighting that gives the image a grainy appearance, which at first appears to be amateur but slips into an almost documentary feel at times. And yet, Mann still proves that no one can film a gun fight quite like he can. He displays some of the most sleek and dynamic camera moves of his career during the bank heist and prison break scenes.

Depp's portrayal of Dillinger is one of his most understated performances in quite some time. While his physical likeness isn't necessarily uncanny, his mannerisms and overall persona convey such a staggering amount of charisma he sells himself to the role in spades. Christian Bale finally edges his way out of his gruff, gravelly voiced typecast as Melvin Purvis, which couldn't be further from his roles as either Batman or John Connor. He constructs an interesting anti-villain, while we're set to rooting for Dillinger for the most part, Purvis' transcends the typical "lawman" archetype, making himself sympathetic and noble at the same time. Those performances aside, the show is all but stolen by recent Oscar winner Marion Cotillard. Playing Dillinger's girl, Billie Frechette, Cotillard refuses to fall victim to the award winner's follow up film curse (see: Halle Barry.) The strength her character exudes, despite the gender role trappings of the era, is undeniably powerful.

Michael Mann only graces the big screen every 3 years or so. Public Enemies proves yet again that it's worth the trip to the theater when it happens.

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince

2009-08-17T23:13:00.000-07:00

And so, 2009 brings us the penultimate installment of the Harry Potter franchise. While the Half-Blood Prince may be one of the most loosely adapted of the novels thus far, it stands as one of the most emotionally resonant and significant films in the series.

If you stepped into the theater expecting a beat for beat interpretation of the 600+ page novel, I'm sorry to say, you are sorely mistaken. The laborious exposition and episodic structure of the book has been simplified to the core theme of the 6th installment's story, which is the blooming emotional maturity of the main characters. This comes out in the form of fleeting and slowly growing romances among the students, apt considering at this point they are 16 years old and at the peak of their volatile hormones. Apparently, wizard or not, the birds and the bees still apply in full force.

Mostly grown by now, the Potter kids finally put on their acting pants an do a markedly admirable job. The chemistry between Rupert Grint and Emma Watson is as genuine as it is heart-breaking. Daniel Radcliffe steps up his game and transcends the huffy-puffy adolescent of previous incarnations to achieve a true emotional depth(perhaps his stage presence in Equus helped nurture this game-changing feat.) Most impressive of the young cast this time around is Tom Felton as Harry's would-be advesary Draco Malfoy. As the beleaguered almost-villain the weight of his moral dilemma is etched into his face with true professionalism. Downplayed, but still omnipresent are the cadre of seasoned actors as the Hogwarts teachers. Michael Gambon, Maggie Smith and Alan Rickman hold steady for newcomer to the series Jim Broadbent as the new Potions teacher. His portrayal of Professor Slughorn carries a whimsically drunk, though inherently melancholy tone and is likely one of the most memorable one-off characters of the series.

Second time Potter director and series finisher David Yates also proves that, while this is essentially a childrens franchise, it's also an actual film as well. The visual effects, while frequent, take a back seat to the cinematography and shot composure creating a more immersive atmosphere than in previous installments. Unfortunately, screenwriter Michael Goldenberg (who penned the impressive 5th film, The Order of the Phoenix) will remain a single chapter writer as series alum Steve Kloves re-assumes his post behind the keyboard. The adaptation is fair, but to his credit the relevance of the piece falls on the shoulders of Yates, who accomplishes it easily enough.

As the veritable "Empire Strikes Back" of the Potter catalog, The Half-Blood Prince is the opportune film to lead in the two part finale The Deathly Hallows, though we'll have to wait until winter 2010 and summer 2011, respectively.

Moon

2009-08-17T13:47:00.001-07:00

After receiving a vast amount of critical acclaim at the Sundance and Cannes festivals, the Sam Rockwell powered one-man psychological sci-fi thriller show begins to worm its way into more theaters on its steadily expanding limited theatrical run. Directed by Duncan Jones, the real life son of Ziggy Stardust himself (David Bowie) Moon takes many of its cues from classic fare like 2001: A Space Odyssey, Alien, Solaris and Silent Running.

Rockwell plays Sam Bell, an astronaut finishing the last two weeks of his three year contract in an energy harvesting base on the far side of the moon. Kevin Spacey lends his voice to the robotic service assistant, GERTY, that mills about the station on a ceiling rail. His dulcet tones haunting the hollow compartments that Sam inhabits. As his contract end date approaches, his mental state begins to wane and he is involved in a moon rover accident following a hallucination. Sam awakens back in the station to find that there is another Sam Bell on the station who claims to be there on the same three-year contract.

Jones exploration into the nature of the human condition when faced with bleak and undeniable solitude is nothing short of mind blowing at times. The atmosphere is set perfectly in the cramped confines of the Sarang station's set design. The dim neon lights reassert the artificiality of Sam's surroundings. The choice to use miniatures instead of straight up CG adds a veritable amount of believability to the isolated locale of the moon's surface. The haunting score by Clint Mansell (best known for his work with Darren Aronofsky, namely Requiem for a Dream) seems to reverberates off the station walls, becoming a living attribute to Sam's plight.

Of course, it's impossible to leave the theater and not commend Rockwell for the daunting task of being the sole human character(s,) especially after the performance he's thrown together. While known for more eccentric characters like Billy the Kid from The Green Mile, Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy's two headed, partially retarded ambassador Zaphod Beeblebrox and most recently the sex-addicted con-artist, Victor Mancini the adaptation of Chuck Palahniuk's Choke, Rockwell employs a staggering range of emotion, especially when acting against only himself. It's almost convincing enough to assume that Rockwell has a true life twin to act off of, though it's all camera tricks and simplistic duplication effects.

Though a great deal of Moon's moral and ethical themes are unpleasant to ponder, what comes off the screen sticks with you. As a freshman effort from Duncan Jones, the end product is astounding to say the least. This is a director to keep an eye on in the coming years.

Rest in Peace, John Hughes

2009-08-06T19:43:00.000-07:00

It's not surprising how affected I feel as I write that John Hughes has passed away. This is the man who essentially introduced me to comedy, let alone cinema.

If it weren't for Hughes, I may not be writing the way I am today (prose, comic, screenplay or critical essays) and he will always stand as an inspiration to myself and anyone else with a pen (or word processor) in hand.

Speaking for the past, present and future scribes of the world... We'll miss you, John.

Whatever Works

2009-07-31T09:01:00.001-07:00

Woody Allen has been in the business so long, it seems he tried just about every genre. His latest venture, Whatever Works, is ultimately more of a throwback. Most likely since the script was penned back in the 70's. Aside from adjusting the socio-political references to be more modern and relevant the film works remarkably well.

Casting Larry David in the lead role as aging cynical genius, Boris Yelnikof is a veritable stroke of genius on Allen's part, and any fan of Curb Your Enthusiasm will agree. Utilizing an Annie Hall style 4th Wall Breaking Narration, David sets the tone for this sarcastic, delightfully misanthropic love story. Despite all his harsh criticisms on the state of human affairs in this day and age, that's what this movie ultimately is. A love story.

Following Boris' divorce and his failed (yet comedic) suicide attempt, he spends his days with a bum ankle, teaching chess to grade-school children (just as harshly as he'd teach adults, plus physical abuse to boot) and waxing intellectual with his diner buddies (including a criminally underused Michael McKean.) On the way home to his dingy NYC apartment he stumbles upon (or over, as it were) the homeless deep south runaway, Melodie St. Ann Celestine (played remarkably well by Evan Rachel Wood.) Surprisingly The two form a twisted sort of bond, but a bond nonetheless, before her bible-thumping parents (Patricia Clarkson and Ed Begley, Jr.) swoop in to rescue her, or so they think.

Despite the abrasively negative disposition of the protagonist, Whatever Works has a very light heart at its core. Allen's return to the states after a bout of films across the pond gives the material a lived in feel. He truly is at home here. Though, it's very apparent that he has much more to say than what is expressed by the end of the film. An unfortunate side effect is the limiting scope of Begley, Jr's performance. His character arc is almost a footnote to the development and growth his fledgling big city newcomers make. All things considered, Whatever Works is a no nonsense, nonsensical, ugly yet cute look at fictional love in the real world, as only Woody Allen can spell it out.

Primer

2009-07-10T08:46:00.000-07:00

Primer caught my eye when it was released quietly on DVD in 2004. I didn't read the premise on the back of the box and I didn't recognize either of the actors on the front cover. What pulled me in aside from the Sundance Grand Jury award was mostly the tagline. "What Happens if it Actually Works?" Intriguing to say the least. If WHAT actually works, I wondered? I took the 77 minute super-independent film home and my mind proceeded to implode in on itself.

As it turned out, Primer is about time-travel, though not in the easy to follow terms of, say, Back to the Future or The Terminator series. The two lead characters, Aaron (played by producer, writer and director Shane Carruth) and Abe (played by David Sullivan in a noteworthy performance) run a small time software business out of Aaron's garage. While attempting to produce a superconductor the two friends accidentally create a low grade, small scale time machine. The physics are a bit complex, but go something like so. This isn't a simple temporal jaunt, not as simple as flipping a switch or getting the Delorean up to 88 mph. One can only go backwards in time, and you are only able to go back as much time as you're willing to spend the real time in the machine, which is displayed as an aluminum lined makeshift coffin.

Once inside the machine, time moves in a loop from the point in time when it is turned on. If you turn the machine on at noon and set it for 6 hours, inside the machine once it reaches 6pm, time will move backwards to noon again. This is described as A-in, B-out. Therein, if one enters at the B point in time, after staying in the machine 6 hours they will emerge at the A point, having traveled 6 hours back in time. Confused yet? Good.

Needless to say, Aaron and Abe's first attempts to play the stock market need meticulous planning and preparation, ensuring that no outside interference will take place and the possibility of running into their future selves is out of the question.

The first 40 minutes or so is relatively easy to follow, aside from the technical physics laden dialog (Carruth refused to simplify the script for the sake of the audience, to better execute his vision) though shortly after the halfway point, the film turns on its ear and takes a sharp right into massively confusing territory. As the friends become more unwound by stress, lack of sleep (referenced by a line regarding "working 36 hour days") and the adverse affects of continued use of backward time travel, the trust between Abe and Aaron deteriorates. Their reality becomes unhinged as paradoxes begin to pile on top of each other. So many details are scattered about, conveyed through a hauntingly cryptic voice over from an answering machine message that at this point, the film demands your complete attention. Even then, it is likely some detail will be missed.

Through simple cinematography and a hauntingly simplistic score, the latter half of the film plays almost like a psychological film noir. Who's playing against who. What is really to be gained from all of this. What actually went wrong in the first place. The film almost demands multiple viewings to put it's abstract puzzle pieces together. Still, the final product may indeed be incomprehensible, which is to say, the human mind cannot yet comprehend the cataclysmic effects of time travel.

For a production budget of only $7000 the effectiveness of this film is astounding. No A-list stars or name recognition, extremely limited effects and a limited amount of locations. The story is what drives this film to success, whether it's understood by the viewer or not. It may take several days to untangle the knot it will make of your brain functions, but at a 77 minute run time the end result is well worth it.

For those still confused by my feeble attempt to explain the physics of Primer's time travel, here's a handy diagram:

Still can't read it? Click to ReBigulate!

Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen

2009-07-09T20:27:00.001-07:00

A lot of people try to put "critical reception" out of their minds when considering movies on which to spend their hard-earned dollars. Normally, I'd agree with this practice, but as a warning I will say that all the negative buzz you've heard about Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen is true. The problems with this film are as overwhelming and frequent as the ocean is deep, or in this case, as the robots are large and the blame can rest solely on the shoulders of actioneer/Hollywood pariah, Michael Bay.

Admittedly, the first Transformers despite its problems, was a relatively watchable film. Granted the action was a bit muddled due to Bourne-esque cinematography and the ending seemed to... well, not END, but it was far from the worst movie to come out in the summer of 2007. As of now, Transformers 2 stands as the worst theatrical movie I've seen in the summer of 2009.

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but based on the cartoon series and toy line from the 80's, Transformers is a story about otherworldly robots that have the ability to turn into various vehicles and mechanical devices on Earth. Both the predecessor and it's sequel are rated PG-13, understandable if the action violence contains more explosions than the cartoon series (or any other movie this summer, considering the helmer is Michael freakin' Bay.) However, overtly harsh language, super-sexual overtones, abstract drug references, abject racism, and hateful stereotypes have no place in the childrens target market, summer blockbuster giant robot movie.
It's surprising the MPAA didn't mark this an R, considering the hoops certain movies have to jump through just to reach any audience. The sexism is blatant as Megan Fox dolls herself up for the boyfriend she has no real interest in (action everyman-boy Shia LaBoeff returns as overactive protag Sam Witwicky) and does little else but act as errant screen-candy. Every female at the university is supermodel hot, yet drool at the feet of their astronomy professor (wasted talent epitomized in The Office's Rainn Wilson) who just degrades them further without their knowing. Sam's mother stupidly ingests some pot-brownies and acts like she's on crystal-meth ("but HEY she's a woman, what does she know? Right?" I assume was Bay's justification.)

By now you've most likely heard of the two Autobots, Skids and Mudflap (charming names, but that's just the tip of the iceberg) who are most commonly referred to as the Sambots or the Minstrel Twins. That's right, they've got googley eyes, giant robot lips, simian-like ears and what the hell, a GOLD TOOTH for good measure. They speak in broken street jive, the kind of which you've only heard in the movie Airplane, and basically beat on each other (you know, since they're "brothers.") But when fate calls on them to help Witwicky decode an ancient prophecy it turns out they CAN'T READ! Yes, it's THAT bad. There's also a miniature remote control truck Decepticon that is essentially a robotic Joe Pesci, slinging all our favorite Soprano-isms before he humps Megan Fox's leg, and I didn't just make that up. It happens. Spoiler alert.

The film creates its own logic rules, then immediately breaks them, such as Megan Fox's midday 30 second flight from LA to NYC and miraculously shows up while it's still light outside. There's a Decepticon that can disguise itself as a human, which begs the question, if they can do THIS then why bother with cars, trucks and other clunky machinery? Michael Bay has presented a level of cinematic self indulgence that transcends even the likes of George Lucas and M. Night Shayamalan. He aims to make things look cool in slow motion with no concern as to HOW or WHY. There's a story worth telling in there somewhere, it rears its head occasionally only to be submerged in a sea of nonsensical college humor and exploding mechanical debris. Whatever story-arc presented in the shooting draft of Star Trek scribes Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orci has been warped, misinterpreted and overshadowed in the final product.

The sound effects are grating and trauma-inducing. The score sounds to have been lifted directly from either Armageddon or Bad Boys 2. Admittedly, the forest fight scene between Optimus Prime and something like 4 other Decepticons was pretty cool, which I was able to discern what was going on. Though this still makes the film 2 hours and 15 minutes too long for its own good. Perhaps what was missing this time around was the guiding hand of first installment producer Steven Spielberg to rein in the superfluous elements. With its opening weekend draw, a sequel is imminent, but as a final warning, this is what you get when you give a child with no supervision $2oo million to play with his toys on camera.

The Hangover

2009-07-07T11:58:00.000-07:00

The Hangover is possibly the best comedy to hit theaters in about two years. There I said it. To draw a comparison to this statement, the last movie to keep me as thoroughly engrossed and laughing consistently was Knocked Up. Skepticism was my first thought. When a movie is so widely acclaimed as this, especially a comedy about being blackout drunk, someone is wrong(examples of this phenomenon are Austin Powers and There's Something About Mary, both funny, but highly overrated.) Fortunately, the rule doesn't come close to applying to The Hangover.

Previously acclaimed for both Road Trip and Old School (we can ignore the missteps that were Starsky and Hutch and School for Scoundrels,) director Todd Philips has a knack for "it list" casting. Previously utilizing Seann William "Steve Stiffler" Scott, Will Ferrell and Vince Vaughn, Philips now ushers in the next generation of comedic talent in Zach Galifianakis, Ed Helms and Bradley Cooper.

The lead in this ensemble is actually Helms (The Office's rage-oholic Andy Bernard) as Stu, the resident pushover with the uber-controlling girlfriend. Cooper (departing from the role of "evil boyfriend" from Wedding Crashers) plays Phil, the fun loving friend that puts the "buddy" in "buddy-comedy." Then there's Zach Galifianakis as the bride-to-be's black sheep older brother, Alan. He's essentially the creepy guy that has very few friends because he's just so strange, but never really got a handle on how strange he really is because he didn't have any friends to tell him so. Justin Bartha (Riley Poole from both National Treasures) brings up the rear as the MIA groom. Throw in some guest appearances by Heather Graham (who is surprisingly not horrible in this, in the same way she wasn't horrible on Scrubs,) Mike Tyson (proving that he's still the champ, albiet a champ with a really weird facial tattoo,) Rob Riggle (regular Daily Show correspondent/loudmouth,) an small appearance by director Todd Philips himself and The Dan Band (previously seen at the wedding from Old School) and the absurdity abounds for at least 2 hours.

Putting a new twist on the classic "Bachelor Party in Vegas" gig, The Hangover blacks out all the drunken debaucherie from our "heroes" and we are left with the aftermath of a night that went wrong on so many levels. Missing tooth? Check. Tiger in bathroom? Check. Baby in the closet? Check. Zach Galifianakis without pants? Check. From this point out it's almost as if the movie doesn't stop to catch its breath until well after the credits have started rolling (you'll see what I mean) presenting a comedic momentum that's been unmatched in cinema for a long time. Most comedies either start strong and lose steam halfway through or keep the strength up but get caught up in the heavy handed moral tale at the core of the narrative. The Hangover manages to mix in the morality and message while keeping the funny at a constant peak level.

After some thought, this film sort of rounds out Todd Phillips' trilogy of successful comedies. A trilogy I will call, the Man/Boy Trilogy. They all include a similar set of characters enduring comedic circumstances.

Breckin Meyer/Luke Wilson/Ed Helms - Straight man, emotional lead.
Seann William Scott/Vince Vaughn/Bradley Cooper - Irrational shoulder angel to the straight man. Id.
D.J. Qualls/Will Ferrell/Zach Galifianakis - Oddball, uncomfortable comic relief.

All three films encompass some sort of brotherly bond among close friends. The films progress and mature in an almost Apatowian fashion (from 40 Year Old Virgin to Knocked Up to this year's Funny People.) Road Trip features immature college kids acting like immature college kids. Old School has adult men reliving their glory days as immature college kids and The Hangover follows up with adult men acting like immature adult men. Rumors of a sequel are already milling around the studio with Phillips possibly at the helm. If that's the case, I can only hope that it's as hilarious as its predecessor.

Year One

2009-07-06T08:20:00.000-07:00

When you first hear about the bible era comedy from former Ghostbuster turned director Harold Ramis, you'd think it has the makings of a comedy goldmine. Conceived as a sort of Superbad meets History of the World Part I, I was hoping for laughs in the vein of Monty Python's Life of Brian. Unfortunately, Year One slides by as a merely passable parody of Roland Emmerich's prehistoric disasterpiece 10,000 B.C. which was funny enough on its own.

Jack Black and Michael Cera play opposing cavemen versions of their type-cast character models and the two bumbling cro-mags proceed to Mr. Magoo their way through the Genesis portions of the Old Testament. While the "greatest story ever told" is indeed overflowing with opportune parody, Year One takes the low road and equates everything down to genital and poop humor. Unfortunately, the laughs that aren't cheap aren't frequent enough to maintain interest for the duration of this film's 90 minutes. Also, it's painfully obvious that much of the adhesive humor was left on the cutting room floor to garner a PG-13 rating by the MPAA. Perhaps an unrated DVD will work better, but I wouldn't put money on it.

The guest stars shine a dim light on much of the latter half. Paul Rudd is criminally underused as Abel and David Cross's Cain quickly loses his charm after the inevitable fratricide occurs (spoiler alert?) Harold Ramis appears himself as Adam, but doesn't offer much beyond a cursory "Hey, look who it is!" Hank Azaria and Superbad's own McLovin, Christopher Mintz-Plasse (Yeah, I'm tired of the while McLovin shtik too...) show up as Abraham and Isaac and Oliver Platt arrives toward the beginning of the 3rd act to encompass the world's first gay joke.

It's not that Year One isn't kind of funny. Though, that's the problem. It's only KIND OF funny. Like so many Saturday Night Live skits, it begins strong and peters out somewhere in the middle of the second act. The cinematography is relatively stale, mostly consisting of close up shots making up the dialog, presumed to splice out R-rated quips or off color improvs. This is particularly upsetting considering Ramis has put out quality material, and fairly recently to boot. Not only was he responsible for the Bill Murray vehicle Groundhog Day, but 2005's overshadowed and under appreciated dark comedy The Ice Harvest with John Cusack, Billy Bob Thornton, Oliver Platt and Randy Quaid. With those projects in mind, Year One just comes across as a lazy attempt at comedy.

At the end of the day, Year One is worth a rental. There are laughs to be had, but the pause button will come in very handy on this one. Though, in this economy ten bucks a ticket is just too much to see Jack Black eat poop and Michael Cera pee on himself.

Up!

2009-06-19T09:46:00.000-07:00

The Pixar team has made a habit out consistency. I've pretty much loved every Pixar film I've seen (and I only missed out on one of them voluntarily) and UP is no exception. From Monster's Inc. director Pete Doctor and regular all around staffer Bob Peterson, Up is possibly their most emotionally charged, labor of love project to date.

Featuring the voice talents of Ed Asner and Christopher Plummer, Up chronicles the latter day adventure of Carl Fredricksen, a crotchety septuagenarian determined to fulfill his lifelong ambitions after the passing of his wife. It sounds sad, indeed, but Up refuses to wallow in it's own self pity in the face of its own tragedy and the lighthearted humor surfaces almost immediately following each tearjerking vignette (of which there are at least two.) When faced with the threat of assisted living, Carl hoists his home into the air on thousands of helium balloons, inadvertently taking with him the well intentioned, over achieving Wilderness Explorer, Russell, who is determined to achieve his "Assisting the Elderly" badge. What follows is a heartwarming adventure of self realization the likes of which only Pixar could communicate with the world.

The look and feel of the film is very throwback to adventure pictures from the 30's, which stylistically makes sense as these are the big screen adventures that fed the imagination of young Carl in the first frames of the film. The setting resonates with echoes of Skull Island from the 1933 version of King Kong and Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's The Lost World (not the Jurassic Park sequel...) while the house traveling sequences feel reminiscent of the first scenes of 1939's The Wizard of Oz. The perils that ensue are truly edge of your seat adventures, so much so that the mere popping of a balloon is cringe worthy.

The character work in this film is amazing. Normally when there's a young sidekick in a children's movie they tend to almost demand the most attention through forced comedy. The "funny character" goes a bit over the top, begging for laughs. Russell never crosses this line. His naivety is genuine to his age and while he's a glaring contrast to Carl, their bonding becomes one of the most heartfelt character passages in recent filmic history. Dug the talking dog is handled similarly as well, to equal or better comedic effect. Asner's voice talent for Carl could not be more perfectly matched to the boxy cartoon visage inspired by a cross between Spencer Tracy and Walter Matthau. His counterpart, Charles Muntz, voiced by Christopher Plummer is a kind of menacing cross between Vincent Price and Jack Palance.

While some of the themes may be heavy handed for young children, Up delivers in ways that only Pixar has been capable of for the past 14 years. The 3D aspect, while not as "in your face" as other recent releases (Monsters Vs. Aliens, Beowulf) assists in creating a more immersive experience. Mainly because it doesn't NEED to be 3D, but the fact that it is makes it that much more real. And while Pixar is still on top of its game, get ready for Toy Story 3 next summer.

S. Darko - A Donnie Darko Tale

2009-05-26T15:00:00.000-07:00

A shiver went down my spine when I first heard the news. Donnie Darko, the long standing cult classic from (at the time) first time director Richard Kelly was getting a sequel. Without Kelly's say so, blessing or even remote involvement. They say lightning doesn't strike twice, but the executives over at FOX don't believe that, so they took it upon themselves to MAKE lightning strike twice. The result is a Frankenstein monster of tragically banal proportions. The idea in itself to try to capitalize on the initially ill received cult classic is insulting enough, but to attempt such a feat with only one member of the original production (and a markedly minor character at that) is a recipe for disaster. As you would imagine, S. Darko is a complete and utter failure as both a film and a follow up.

Yielding lackluster reviews at Sundance and an even less impressive limited theatrical run, Donnie Darko, the brainchild of directorial newcomer Richard Kelly, found its audience quickly on DVD. A hardcore fanbase was built in the years following its release in 2001 and Kelly went on to other projects (namely the script for the flashy actioneer Domino and the critically reviled Southland Tales.)

Since the rights to Darko belonged solely to FOX, the sequel was greenlit from right under Kelly and he adamantly proclaimed to have no involvement in any aspect of it's production. Chris Fisher wound up directing the script by Nathan Atkins, both of whom have a relatively small and unimpressive catalog of previous work. The only returning character is Samantha Darko (hence the title, played unimpressively by original actress Daveigh Chase) whose role in the original was so slight you have to wonder what kind of premise could've been fashioned from following up with her character six years later. Samantha and her friend Corey are on a road trip from Virginia to California for a reason that is never really explained. Their car breaks down and they are taxied to a small unassuming town in the middle of the desert to get it fixed. What follows is a barrage of shamelessly heisted images and scenes from the first film, redistributed into the new setting to make what barely passes for watchable. None of what happens ever remotely makes any sense. Each character is a haphazard clone of an archetype from the previous installment and carries neither weight or significance.

The reason why Donnie Darko worked the way it did is because, for starters, it was an original concept and a relatively new approach to untapped ideas (tangent universes, time-travel, mental instability and ghostly intervention.) Also, each piece of the puzzle that unravels is specifically placed to create the larger narrative, connecting the story together. S. Darko seems to have been laid out on an almost identical structure with each new piece and character plugged in with the hopes that it will cohere into some kind of relatable story, which ultimately never happens. While the characters in DD had an instictive suspicion that something terribly wrong was happening, the characters in SD are given one line of dialog to create a miniscule and uninteresting back story and then are left alone for the remainder of the film. Possibly the worst scene translation from the original is the awakening realization sequence. In DD, each of the characters we've followed in the month-long journey to the course correction of the Darko timeline has some sort of spiritual or moral subconscious reaction. This would lead you to believe that what happens after the credits roll will be significantly different than the events that took place. By the end of SD, none of the characters are any better off or more informed than they were when the whole incident started. Not to mention the doomsday countdown in SD is significantly shorter (4 days, instead of an entire month) leaving very little time for our heroine (?) to come to terms with the sacrifice she may have to make.

S. Darko is utterly forgetable and inherently avoidable. There is literally no reason to watch it if you've seen Donnie Darko and if you haven't, S. Darko is not the place to start. New audience or not, some movies just don't need a sequel.

Transsiberian

2009-05-26T12:10:00.002-07:00

It's fun to watch a director grow. One of the most promising filmic evolutions in modern cinema has been that of Brad Anderson. Not familiar with the name? It's not surprising as his three most notable feature films barely scraped by on a limited theatrical release (which is both astonishing and tragic, considering that material.) Even from Session 9 to The Machinist, his craft improved dramatically. After contributing two films to some TV projects (Masters of Horror and Fear Itself) he went on to direct several key episodes of Fringe (including the season 1 finale) and eventually wound up as a producer on the show. In the middle of all this, he somehow found the time to make the brilliantly understated thriller, Transsiberian.

Starring Emily Mortimer, Woody Harrelson and Ben Kingsley, Transsiberian is a testament to suspense. Brad Anderson has achieved levels of the genre that were previously only reachable by Alfred Hitchcock himself. The suspense is paramount in this picture, throughout. It achieves the highest levels of tension without ever resorting to excessive gore like the similarly themed Hostel films. The twists in the narrative are all organic and never feel trite or contrived. The onset of fear in the characters is entirely natural and believable so much so that the audience never doubts the choices made out of necessity of the situation. Anderson has become skillfully proficient in removing the "comfort zone" for an audience, which is integral when tackling the thriller genre. In Session 9, the setting of the dilapidated, dark and crumbling closed down mental institution did the trick, as did Christian Bale's emaciated figure in his follow up, The Machinist. Trannsiberian transcends his previous efforts by removing not one, but multiple comfort zones. Stripping them away from the protagonists, one by one until complete and utter hopelessness is imminent.

Though the true thematic core of Trannsiberian is honesty and truth. It's about the lies we tell our loved ones and the lies we tell ourselves just to get by from day to day. Emily Mortimer sells this idea almost perfectly. As an audience, we understand and sympathize with her need to lie, not out of spite or cruelty, but self preservation as she is the constant victim of circumstance as well as her own past personal demons. Woody Harrelson plays the supportive husband with a hint of a passive aggressive hero complex (manifested in the form of semi-altruistic Christianity,) a departure from most of the roles he's taken recently, but he executes it with style and ease. Ben Kingsley adds yet another nationality to his ever expanding repertoire as the Russian detective that's sniffing about the traveling couple (so far we've seen Kingsley chameleonize to Hindu, Middle Eastern, Brooklyn and Slavic to scratch the surface of his talent.) Also some markedly admirable performances by Eduardo Noriega (last year's lackluster Vantage Point and Abre Los Ojos, the Spanish original upon which the Cameron Crowe film Vanilla Sky is based) and up-and-comer Kate Mara (most notably seen in 24's fifth season) as the mysteriously friendly yet sketchy couple.

Trannsiberian is possibly the best thriller in the past five years. With Anderson's new and increased duties on Fringe (as he will be returning as producer for the 22 episode second season in the fall,) I hope he still finds the time to put together more theatrical work. Each of his projects to date has been exponentially better than the last and each one markedly different in vision and scope. As long as he remains out of the eye of the major studios, where creative tinkering is at its worst, we can look forward to more top of the line material from Brad Anderson.

Terminator: Salvation

2009-05-26T12:10:00.001-07:00

My love affair with Terminator began with the second installment. It hit theaters when I was about 10 or 11 and had not been permitted to see the first one (for obvious reasons, I was 4 when it hit theaters.) Taunted by the coming attractions, magazine covers boasting top of the line special effects and a theater run that outdid everything else that summer, I absolutely had to see it. Luckily, conceding to my pleas, my father took me to see T2 on my birthday that year. And so, Terminator became the summer fling that I always fondly remembered, by constantly forgot about.

Terminator: Salvation comes to us from questionable Hollywood director, Joseph McGinty Nichol (AKA McG.) I have trouble taking anyone seriously whose preferred nomenclature is not only a single name (i.e. Madonna, Cher, Seal,) but an abbreviation at that (see also: DMX.) This is also the person who gave us not one, but two Charlies Angels movies.

That being said, the movie looks good. The effects are top notch. The setting is dim, gritty and dark. Everything needed to create the Terminator experience that follows where the last Terminator experience left off is in the right place. However, the plot doesn't really make much sense.

We've jumped ahead 15 years since we last saw John Connor in Rise of the Machines (then played by the underappreciated Nick Stahl,) who has hence become a Batman-voiced soldier in the human resistance as well as a shadow-messiah to a select few that still believe he will redeem mankind from the clutches of the oppressive cybernetic organisms that bombed us halfway to hell and back in 2003. Problem is, the machines have an ace up their circuits. They're gunning for Connor's future/past father Kyle Reese (now only a teenager, played by Star Trek's Anton Yelchin in what might be the movie's best performance.)

Now, time travel is a tricky plot device and this is where the narrative gets sloppy. Given what we know from the past films, Future John Connor sends back an adult Kyle Reese (from the age difference, I'll say about 15 years after T:Salvation) to protect his mother Sarah in 1984. Reese and Sarah get cozy while hiding out and produce a baby John embryo. Reese dies at the hands of the first Arnold Terminator and Sarah destroys it. Lead in to T2. The only people with the knowledge of John Connor's paradoxical father is John himself (who I believe doesn't know him by name yet,) Sarah and the Good Arnold Terminator(GAT for short.) GAT is melted in the molten steel (as is the T-1000, who probably didn't have this information anyways, but for the sake of loose ends...) Assuming that the original Terminator somehow knew that Kyle and Sarah had shacked up and produced John, the chip that stored said information was also dissolved by Edward Furlong John Connor. Sarah Connor dies of leukemia somewhere between T2 and T3 leaving the John as the sole guardian of his familial secret.

History lesson over. Now, somehow all the machines in this post-apocalyptic world know who birthed John Connor and are gunning to have him erased from history (instead of just killing him like normal human-killing robots.) Added to the mix is unknown fugitive Marcus Wright (played by Sam Worthington who I've seen in absolutely nothing, but will be in James Cameron's crazy-future-scifi-epic Avatar) who, if you've seen any previews for this movie, is all or mostly robot. All this makes for about 2 full hours of chase scenes, shoot-outs, screaming matches and explosions. Everything you need for a summer blockbuster, though, as absurd as the plot to Terminator:Salvation is I can guarantee that it's going to be better than Transformers 2:Revenge of the Fallen.

The thing that worked for me about T4 was that it had echoes of previous installments scattered throughout. Every scene seemed like an updated or more futuristic version of an iconic moment in any one of it's three predecessors (and that's not including the recycled lines like "Come with me if you want to live.") Christian Bale functions as John Connor, but never really sells it. Honestly if he'd pulled more from his character in Reign of Fire it would've been better, though he is rather upstaged by Sam Worthington. As stated before, Anton Yelchin is probably the best actor in the film, easily. If the franchise takes off (despite mostly negative reviews) he'll be the one to make it worth the time. Bryce Dallas Howard is plainly underused, as is Moon Bloodgood, whose scenes border on significance but never really reach it. Common had absolutely no place in this film whatsoever. His lines (mostly delivered in ADR {Additional Dialogue Recording} while he's out of frame) are laughable and cheap.

While Terminator:Salvation didn't turn out to be the reinvigorating installment to the franchise they'd hoped for (in comparison to the staggering success of the Star Trek reboot,) we can only hope that McG and company (with new writers next go-round, let's hope) take a note from the page of George Lucas and make an attempt to fix the mistakes presented in this chapter. If not, we could see another proposed trilogy fall flat on it's face with Matrix-like proportions.

Dollhouse - Season One

2009-05-08T09:58:00.000-07:00

WARNING: This season recap/assessment will contain some major spoilers for the entirety of Dollhouse's 12 Episode run.

It was late in the throes of the 2007-2008 WGA/AMPTP Strike that sci-fi guru Joss Whedon (Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Firefly/Serenity) announced that he would be reteaming with BtVS alum Eliza Dushku to create a new series for broadcast television. On the outside this sounds like a brilliant prospect, however there was a catch. He'd be helming the project on FOX, the same network that gave Firefly a snowball's chance in hell when it premiered back in 2002. Despite the bad vibes on the initial outset of the project, it seemed Whedon had another ace up his sleeve. While the strike was going full steam, an independent internet exclusive project was conceived with friends, series alums and family. That project was Dr. Horrible's Sing-a-Long Blog, which evidently blew the top off of the internet when it premiered in mid July.

Then the bad news started to filter in, sometime in early fall. The internet promos for the show had just started to pop up on FOX's website when it was revealed that FOX was not a fan of the pilot episode Whedon had produced for the series. The episode, entitled "Echo," was ultimately scrapped (though I've read a draft of the original script and cannot wait to see it and the yet unaired 13th episode "Epitaph One" on the full season DVD that's due out this July) and key elements were cannibalized and put to use in the newly structured early season episodes. This is about when the "Save Dollhouse" campaigns started up. A full 6 months before the new pilot episode (now entitled "Ghost") hit the airwaves. Another punch to the gut arrived when it was announced that the series would air on Friday nights at 9pm. Otherwise known as the "Death Slot" in TV terms.

So the bloggers blogged and the nay-sayers continued to nay-say and the premiere date approached rapidly. February 13th (yes, Friday the 13th, ominous) arrived and "Ghost" premiered. I'll have to say, it was better than a great deal of other television shows on the air at the time and DID contain a fair amount of Whedonism to it, but it also had the stink of network intervention all over it. The first five episodes really only held a handful of series mythology about them though they did assist in laying the groundwork for the final seven episodes where it became blatantly obvious that Whedon regained full control of his pet-project.

The premise for Dollhouse is not simple and is honestly a little off-putting at first glance. The Dollhouse is an underground organization that commissions "volunteers" to have their memories completely erased so that they can be uploaded with a new set of memories and skill-sets to carry out "engagements" with high paying clients. Between "engagements" the "Actives," as they're referred to, exist in the Dollhouse's facility as blank slates. They have no emotion and no personality whatsoever. Eliza Dushku plays Echo (all the Actives are named after the NATO military alphabet, other regularly featured actives include Sierra, Victor and November,) who starts off the series in the early stages of her 5 year contract with the Dollhouse. Within the first 5 episodes (which played like "engagement of the week" television) it becomes clear that Echo is somehow maintaining small bits of each downloaded personality. Along with Echo's glitching brain is FBI agent Paul Ballard who is determined to expose the Dollhouse despite not having anyone even believe it exists, let alone help him bring it down. There's also the resident Dollhouse Boogeyman, otherwise known as the rogue Active named Alpha, who murdered several Actives and Staffers before he was supposedly "killed." Though he manages to shake things up early in the season from behind the scenes before making his grand re-entrance at season's end.

The season seemed to make a full U-turn at episode six, "Man on the Street," which was written by Joss Whedon himself. It shook up the previous format of "engagement of the week" and focused more on Ballard's solo-investigation of the Dollhouse and explored the morally gray organization that IS The Dollhouse. Who pays for this service and ultimately WHY they pay for it. It was also revealed this episode (after a killer fight between an imprinted Echo and Paul Ballard) that there was a mole in the Dollhouse willing to help Paul, as long as he doesn't get himself killed sticking his nose too far where it doesn't belong.

From this episode forward, we were delivered heavy doses of mythology, character development and ultimately, Alpha's return (played by Whedon's Firefly alum, Alan Tudyk.) The theme for the season (and possibly the series, should it get renewed or not... fingers crossed) is, are the memories that make us up all that we are? Are our minds and bodies one or separate? Should one lose the other are we not still the same person, or just the empty shell of that person? In short, the existence of the soul, or the ultimate act of self-realization. Based on the chilling final moments of the 12th episode (entitled "Omega,") the human spirit will overcome the obstacles that are placed in front of it, despite that which makes up the person being forcefully taken away.

Unfortunately from the outset, Dollhouse found itself in a ratings spiral. It's live audience dwindled as the weeks progressed (though the Nielsen rating system is so outdated, it pains me to think that it's still being used successfully) though it's DVR/TiVo bump and hits on Hulu have been substantial enough to point out a niche audience that's developed. The initial lead in my dying-on-its-feet series Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles didn't seem to do Dollhouse any favors and after that ended as abruptly as it began, the death-rattle episodes of canceled series Prison Break seemed to eradicate any carry-over viewers that might've been. FOX announces their 2009-2010 schedule on May 18th and the odds are stacked against Joss Whedon and company. Through a small miracle, there may yet be another season of Dollhouse (the first season is available for pre-order on Amazon.com, releasing on July 28th) and the crew is remaining hopeful.

UPDATE 5-16-09: While FOX will unveil this on 5-18, Dollhouse has been picked up for 13 more episodes in the fall. Welcome, Season 2!

Star Trek

2009-05-07T08:55:00.000-07:00

I'll start this off by listing some things I know about Star Trek. Chekov pronounces the word "missile" like "wessel." Vulcans have pointy ears. Klingons are bad (except for Worf.) Tribbles are all fur. The Next Generation was pretty good for a long time. Enterprise was not. In short. I really know next to nothing about Star Trek in it's 40-some odd year existence in pop-culture, enough to get the in-jokes on Futurama, but that's about it. The thing is, I've never really felt compelled to get to know Star Trek. It's the kid in school that you knew you had things in common with, but the nagging feeling that there was enough contrast in your shared commonality to disuade from actually gearing up a conversation. And it never gave me a reason to BE compelled.

That is, until it was announced that the series was to be rebooted by none other than Geek-Media Guru, J.J. Abrams.

I've been a fan of Abrams' work since just before the second season of Lost hit the airwaves. Hell, I even enjoyed Mission: Impossible III (despite the presence of a certain Scientologist that will remain named Tom Cruise,) but taking on a property that I'd had no prior relationship with seemed intriguing. Re-teaming with his Alias alums and current Fringe show-runners Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orci (who were also responsible for the disastrous Transformers movie at the hands of pompous actioneer Michael Bay,) and casting relative unknowns in the lead roles, the new Trek seemed to be a mixed bag before any actual footage was even released. My skepticism was proven wrong at the release of the first trailer and again after seeing the film in it's entirety. This movie is awesome. Plain and simple and I'll go as far as to say that it's better than The Wrath of Khan, and THAT's saying something.

Now, this is far from both your typical Star Trek film and franchise reboot (Batman Begins, Casino Royale to name the good ones.) The script functions in a way that allows us to see the beginnings of James T. Kirk's command of Starship Enterprise without overwriting the tales that preceded when William Shatner was still sporting the mustard yellow StarFleet Captain's tunic. Which is to say, it doesn't steamroll the canon of the original series (television or film.) The core plot essentially involves the formation of the classic enterprise crew through the vengeful machinations of Romulan enemy, Nero (played by a nearly unrecognizable, Eric Bana.) Each crew member is given their character defining moment, with more emphasis on Kirk and Spock (naturally, as they are the focal point of the series with vastly deeper motivations in this new chapter.)

The casting was impressive, pulling in relatively unknown actors with fairly impressive resumes to boot. Newcomer Chris Pine delivers an angstier version of Kirk, as a "wrong side of the tracks" kid who makes good in the Star Fleet, whether they'd like him to or not. Heroes alum Zachary Quinto is a dead ringer for Spock with his silly bowl haircut and upturned eyebrows (which was funny in light of his typical "Sylar" uni-brow.) Zoe Saldana takes on Uhura who manages to transcend the title of lowly "communications officer." Anton Yelchin is a young Pavel Chekov, complete with silly accent, and Simon Pegg (of Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz fame) returns to the arms of an Abrams project (we last say them together on M:I3) as Montgomery "Scotty" Scott and John Cho (Harold of Harold and Kumar) plays a pretty convincing Sulu (and not just because he's Asian... However, my favorite character in the ensemble was Karl Urban's Leonard "Bones" McCoy. While not as crotchety as DeForest Kelley, Urban gives "Bones" an air of hypochondrial pragmatism, which makes for a certain type of cynical comic relief at times.

One of the major detractors from the original series for me had always been the static space battle sequences that always took place on the bridge of the Enterprise. Kirk shouts "Fire the proton torpedoes," everyone stares, someone shouts out "Incoming," the entire room shakes and a few people fall down. Granted, this format of space action is still present in the new Trek, but the way it's written, blocked and directed it seems much more dire and immersive than it was in previous incarnations. The inner layout of the Enterprise is still as confusing as ever, though as large a scale vessel as it's supposed to be, I'm not sure the navigability is of the highest priority. Turn right at the red corridor and enter the big double sliding doors to get to the bridge. Done. Next scene.

Beaming technology is given a slightly more advanced explanation or at least a more technical approach beyond the traditional "Beam me up, Scotty" as well as an updated special effects treatment. There's also a fair amount of off-ship action too, and Abrams has both the scope and the budget to make it look nothing short of awesome (the skydiving and atmospheric platform fight come to mind.) Last but not least, Nero's Romulan ship design was unrequited amounts of awesome.

I truly hope this paves the way for more chapters in this new era of Star Trek and if J.J. and company are involved, even better. There's a shortage of decent "Space Sci-Fi" out there these days and it makes me feel good to see someone do it right for a change (I'm NOT looking at you, George Lucas!) And before you step onto the Starship's Molecular Transporter, you might want to re-think that red shirt you're wearing...

The Wrestler

2009-04-29T11:47:00.000-07:00

Though Darren Aronofsky's career hasn't been that of commercial successes, his short but powerful resume has mustered a hefty amount of critical acclaim. Beginning with the quirky math-thriller Pi and his painfully honest adaptation of Hubert Selby Jr's novel Requiem for a Dream. After a long and troubled production on his 3rd film, the fantasy parable The Fountain, which was ultimately panned by critics, Aronofsky stepped back to the small scale character drama The Wrestler featuring the comeback of former Hollywood heartthrob turned hulking behemoth, Mickey Rourke.

Adorned with flowing blond locks and about 35 extra pounds of muscle-mass, Rourke re-emerges on the big screen (small screen if you missed the theatrical release like me) as the washed up pro-wrestler Randy "The Ram" Robinson. We only get a glimpse of his former glory in the opening credits, awash with main event posters set to the various over-enthusiastic announcers and Quiet Riot's "Bang Your Head" (which also doubles as The Ram's entrance music in later scenes,) but any pro-wrestler that has his own action figure (sadly displayed on the dash of his beat up van) and Nintendo Game representation was a big deal in his glory days.

Aronofsky's work is no stranger to personal tragedy and "The Ram" is no exception. Immediately following the credits we're greeted with a "20 Years Later" title matched with a shot of Rourke sitting in a locker room with his back to us. And the sadness begins. The tale of Randy "The Ram" Robinson is that of a man who never created a coping mechanism for the real world, having spent the majority of his adult life in the pro-wrestling circuit (so we're led to believe) in front of the camera as an entertainer. In essense, he's a horse put out to pasture with no intention of dying on someone elses terms. Trying desperately to hang on to who he once was by partaking in small circuit matches and conventions on the weekends, a day job is seemingly out of the question. Though maintaining said lifestyle (heavy training, enhancement drugs, booze and strippers) without the benefit of the big WWE bucks presents a challange in and of itself. And then his heart gives out.

A large portion of the film (including the first 10 minutes of so before we even see Randy's face) is shot handheld, following behind the character. It wasn't until a key moment that I realized exactly what the purpose was. Having seen a handful of WWE shows on television, the camera will follow a given opponent through the green-rooms and back hallways on their way to a match. This aspect of Randy's former lifestyle was seamlessly applied to his everyday life, adding more weight to the tragic narrative that is The Ballad of Randy "The Ram" Robinson.

Of course all the "Resurrection of Mickey Rourke" talk is completely true. Since he re-emerged from his bare-knuckle boxing days looking less Rocky Balboa more Rocky Dennis, he's knocked out a few roles here and there (the most memorable being the oafish hard-luck Marv from Sin City, less so was his hard-ass mercenary from Domino) but nothing with the dramatic weight that he displays in The Wrestler. It's one thing to be able to spout one-liners and act thuggish, but it's another kind of talent to make an audience feel sympathy for someone who, at the end of the day, really deserves none. Marisa Tomei reins in a performance infinitely more deserving of the Oscar she claimed back in '93 (granted the competition was tighter this year) and Evan Rachel Wood pulls off some of the most heart-wrenching verbal fights I've seen onscreen in recent years (granted I haven't seen Revolutionary Road yet.) Stepping the realism up a few more notches are the actual indie-circuit wrestlers that make up "The Ram's" opponents throughout the story, some of the stunts (staples, barbed wire, hidden razors for impromptu bleeding in the ring) I am still not certain were "effects" or not.

After seeing this (and subsequently seeing it performed live not long ago,) I think it's an outright travesty that Bruce Springsteen's song of the same title as the film wasn't even nominated for an award by the Academy this year. I mean, I'm glad Slumdog Millionaire swept the way it did, but this song is nothing short of epic. And it's The Boss. I mean, come on.

Darren Aronofsky has proven himself to be not just a good filmmaker, but an exceptional one. In a way, I almost prefer that he maintains his footing on the edge of the mainstream industry, shepherding in new talent the likes of Rian Johnson (Brick and the upcoming Brothers Bloom) and Brad Anderson (The Machinist and Transiberian.) With four wildly diverse films under his belt, I'm eagerly anticipating whatever comes next in Mr. Aronofsky's expanding resume.

Crank: High Voltage

2009-04-19T23:29:00.000-07:00

WARNING: EXPLICIT LANGUAGE CONTAINED IN THE FOLLOWING REVIEW...

Ok. Since the movie in question is hands down the most ridiculous thing I've seen onscreen since Shoot 'Em Up (and Crank 1 before that,) I'm going to dispense with the formalities and make this review as crass as the movie itself. Also... Spoiler Warning. Just putting it out there.

Holy shit! You knew after seeing the end of Crank that somehow, some way they'd bring back errant bad ass, Jason Statham, for a follow up, and boy did they ever deliver. The answer? Robot Heart. That's right. They gave Chev fuckin' Chelios a goddamn robot heart.

Now the premise of Crank was that his bloodstream was toxified with an agent that required him to maintain a constant release of adrenaline. This made for all kinds of absurd behavior, ranging from racial slurs in a gang bar to coke snorting all the way to sex in public. This time, with said robot heart dependent on an electrical charge every... let's say five minutes (as it were in the movie, at least) this allows for even more absurd behavior, ranging from (but not limited to) jumper-cables on the nipple and tongue (see complementary poster above...) tazers, car cigarette lighters and yet another foray into PDA.

So far, the Crank series is the stupidest set of movies I'm not afraid to admit I absolutely love. It's probably because the movie is operating on a level of self-awareness that most actioneers should be striving for (take notes Michael Bay...) Crank 2 doesn't just wink at the camera, it laughs at it and outright gives it the finger (literally.) Most of what goes on in Crank 2 happens, quite simply, because it can. Godzilla homage? Sure. Genital mutilation? Why not.

Predecessor alums Amy Smart, Dwight Yoakam and Efren Ramirez return for the craziness (and honestly, who wouldn't?) while adding some new (yet familiar) faces including Clifton Collins Jr. (Capote,) Corey Haim (rehab), and Bai Ling (who is eccentric enough as it is, when added to the Crank recipe, is all but unbearably obnoxious.) Not to mention a slew of pseudo-celebrity cameos (David Carradine, Geri Halliwell and Lloyd Kaufman among others) that you'll likely not even notice unless you scour the imdb.com page.

Though, for me, one of the higher points of praise for Crank: High Voltage was the score by none other than alternative-noise rock-savant, Mike Patton. Less influenced by his tenure in Faith No More and more by projects like Mr. Bungle and his solo material, the accompanying soundtrack compliments the frenetic attitude the film sets out on within the first 10 seconds. What ensues is the audible equivilent of a schizophrenic's crack nightmare that takes place at a circus freakshow from hell. You'll know what I'm talking about when you hear it.

Crank: High Voltage is not to be taken seriously. It exists simply because it can and succeeds at pushing the envelope as far as it can go, and then gives it one last shove off the cliff (or out of the plane, if we're taking the first film into consideration.)

Let the Right One In

2009-04-13T06:23:00.000-07:00

From every critic and friend I know that's seen this movie, they've all said about the same thing. "This is probably the best horror movie I've seen this year." Whether they're referring to 2008 or 2009, it's still a valid statement. And, yes, it was unnecessarily cock-blocked for a nomination in Best Foreign Film by the Academy. It's movies like this and The Strangers that remind me what it is I love about horror movies. You can assault my visual senses with gore and violence all you want, but you'll be hard pressed to actually scare me with any of it. The creepy-factor comes from atmosphere and tone (see also, The Strangers, Session 9, Jacob's Ladder, etc.) Something that makes me feel as uncomfortable as the characters do.

Let the Right One In is a Swedish film based on a book of the same nationality and title (soon to be remade here in the states, and we all know how those end up, so don't get me started...) With the unfortunate timing to be released the same year as the trainwreck of a blockbuster Twilight, Let the Right One In almost serves as the soon-to-be franchises evil (read: cooler) twin. Both involve vampires (Twilight uses the term vampire as loosely as can allow,) a feeling of loneliness and a forbidden love. The major difference is that the latter of the two actually manages to succeed at all three. So let's just forget that Twilight doesn't exist for the duration of the review, shall we?

The subtlety of Let the Right One In is what makes it effectively scary. A major sin in the American horror industry is that spectacles of violence and gore are amped up and overblown with flashy close ups and anticipatory swells in the accompanying musical score. LtROI doesn't rely on such visual trickery to be effective. The fact that the despicable acts are treated as equally to the rest of the film (and at times underplayed) make them harder to stomach, comparatively. The gore and violence is far from excessive, which actually makes it feel that much more disturbing when it does come up.

Almost immediately after the DVD release, there were complaints and rants circulating the internet regarding the English subtitles for the US release being abbreviated and "dumbed down." I've seen the comparisons and there is a substantial chunk that was omitted (for no other reason, assuming, than to cater to a DVD audience that doesn't like reading,) though having seen the edited subs, it really doesn't affect the overall experience of the film. While the dialog IS an important aspect of any movie, Let the Right One In relies more on tone in the end.

Sadly, with any successful overseas genre piece, Hollywood has already bought the rights to the source material (novel) and greenlit the American remake, which will no doubt age the characters up to acceptable social standards and spell out every implied nuance in the story. Before this (expected) attrocity hits the theaters (in a wider release than it's predecessor,) do yourself a favor and see the Swedish version.

Watchmen

2009-03-29T23:07:00.000-07:00

March 6th, 2009 (3-6-9, get it?) is the date when this years films actually take off. Alan Moore's epic satirical, socio-political opus hits the big screen after more than ten years of production hell. Even with the preview out the gate, the legal mishaps with FOX made it seem like we'd never really get to see Watchmen come to life the way it was really meant to. I could go on and on about all the inconsistencies from the graphic novel and all the bits and pieces they left out and switched around, but when it comes down to it, I really did like Watchmen. Quite a bit. Was it perfect? No. Was it worth watching? Of course.

It's been a long hard road from the graphic novel to the big screen for Watchmen. Being passed between studios. Getting the green light only to get almost immediately yanked from the "in production" list. In a way, Robert Rodriguez's almost too faithful (and not in a bad way) adaptation of Frank Miller's Sin City that paved the way for Watchmen's success as a film. Director Zack Snyder's previous engagement (Frank Miller's Spartan swords and sandals epic 300) proved that even without a decent narrative behind it, his visual style was well suited for the comic book movie medium. The adaptation is ultimately faithful to the source material, the only exceptions being the exclusion of a vast amount of subsidiary character material (Rorschach's therapist is a footnote in the film and the newsstand owner and the comic book reading kid are only seen once with no dialog and never expounded upon) and some of the narrative structure at the end is rearranged, I would assume to add more cinematic and dramatic weight (even though the understated subtlety was what sold the finale graphic novel, in my opinion.) Also (spoiler alert) no giant squid monster...

Visually, the movie was gorgeous. With only a slight redesign to some of the outfits (especially Night Owl II's) the characters were spot on, though Patrick Wilson (Hard Candy) could've afforded to add a few more pounds of pudge to his Dan Dreiberg, the rest of his look as the sullen ex-masked vigilante was great. Possibly the most challenging part of Watchmen to sell on the big screen is, of course, Doctor Manhattan. There are only so many ways you can handle a blue, muscle-bound demi-god (one of the earliest casting rumors from the 90's was Arnold Schwarzenegger and thank god that one never happened,) and Snyder and crew opted for a full CG-MoCap paired with the voice of a soft spoken Billy Crudup. His gentle tone conveys both a sense of all-knowing bewilderment and omniscient curiosity. Casting win on that one, for sure.

Really, my only other grievance with the film was Snyder's penchant for this whole slo-mo thing. Don't get me wrong, it has it's time and place (namely in 1999 when The Matrix came out, but that's just me.) For a film that ran over normal run-time expectations outside a rebooted Batman sequel, for the amount of material that was partitioned out of the story, the action sure took it's sweet time. If they'd run them all in real time, I may have been more impressed with it and there might've been an extra 15 minutes or so for those peripheral characters I was talking about a few paragraphs back. While I'm on the subject of the slo-mo... the sex scene was a bit much. It reminded me almost shot for shot of the sex scene between King Leonidas (Gerard Butler) and Queen Gorgo (Lena Headey) in 300. While the scene is a necessary step for the characters in question, what ensued was borderline Cinemax late night material.

All in all, this is the best adaptation of Watchmen that we'll get this decade. They've taken a graphic novel that was described as "unfilmable" (and honestly, some parts of it ARE just that) and kept it as faithful to the source material as a Hollywood superhero vehicle would allow and kudos to Zack Snyder for that one. Then again, there's always the inevitable (and already announced) director's cut sporting an additional 35 minutes and the Tales of the Black Freighter/Under the Hood DVDs on the way.

Repo! The Genetic Opera

2009-03-12T11:52:00.000-07:00

This movie tears me apart because a month and a half after the fact, I still don't have a clear opinion on it. And the sad thing about it is that I really really wanted to like it. For all intents and purposes the odds were stacked against it from the start. It comes from the guy (Darren Lynn Bousman) who directed Saw 2-4, which I did not like. At all. Also the cast was made up of actors I love, respect, couldn't care less about and downright loath.

My dissension may come from the venue in which I viewed the movie. Since the studio gave Repo! such a miniscule release, the writer and director took the movie on tour to small theaters across America in order to garner a fanbase. That said, this required a drive to Maryland and a stay in a hotel, so I'm already invested in this movie whether I wanted to be or not. Once at the theater there are about 20 or so people decked out in costume. There was a brief intro by the theater owner and Darren the director before then the lights went down and the movie started. First things first, apparently we'd decided to attend the showing with a theater full of would-be Mike Nelsons (MST3K) who instead of tossing clever witticisms at a movie deserving of ridicule, shouted mindless brain-vomit at the screen presenting a movie I'd paid money (and gas money and hotel stay) to view with little to no interruption. That being said, here is my assessment of the film itself.

Repo! The Genetic Opera is better in idea than execution, in fact, the trailer was more enticing and well put together than the final product. Budgetary restrictions aside (made for only $8.5 million) the script seemed a bit sophomoric and underdeveloped and the musical numbers, while diverse enough, just didn't hold together. There was a vast amount of backstory that was glossed over in illustrated comic book panel interludes that felt more like an interruption to the story than a relevant insertion of important character material. Overall, I really felt that when everything was said and done, nothing ultimately got accomplished.

On the opposite spectrum, the acting was pretty good (with the exception of Paris Hilton, but her character was meant to be obnoxious and snobby, so not a huge stretch.) Buffy the Vampire Slayer alum Anthony Stewart Head always impresses, especially when singing (see "Once More With Feeling.") One thing this movie has going for it is diversity. You've got Sarah Brightman and Paul Sorvino, both accomplished opera professionals and then Ogre, best known for his post-industrial act Skinny Puppy. Throw in Bill Mosely and the kid from Spy Kids (Alexa Vega, she pushed me out of the way after the screening and Q&A, she is short) and you've got the weirdest ensemble I've seen since Southland Tales.

While not great, I'm sure I'd be up for watching it again in a full room if the right amount of drinks were involved. Though, it's good to see movies like this are still being made. Whether it was well received or not, this is a labor of love on the filmmaker's parts and for better or worse, they got it done the way they wanted it to be. It's just not the cup of tea I ordered.

My Bloody Valentine 3-D

2009-03-12T10:59:00.000-07:00

So it appears that kitschy cinema fad, 3-D has reared it's head to the moviegoing public yet again, and this time with a vengeance. Not since the early 1980's have there been this many flinch-inducing, headache machines being released in such a rapid succession. Starting with last year's Beowulf, this summer's line-up looks to be packed with image-poppery (Dreamworks' Monsters vs. Aliens and Disney/Pixar's Up leading the charge,) though the most successful projects seem to only be animated. Thus far, I've only seen one of the two live-action 3-D movies to come out, and that movie was My Bloody Valentine.

Now, I must warn you. This movie is absolutely terrible. Possibly one of the worst movies I've ever seen. But I'll be damned if I didn't have the best time ever while hating this movie. There is absolutely no reason to see this movie unless you're in a theater with those ridiculously awkward glasses draped across your nose. The acting is shoddy, the plot is practically non-existent, the dialog is laughable, etc. etc. ad nauseum. While this makes for a terrible horror movie (or movie in general) this is almost the perfect comedy. Probably because no one knew they were making a comedy. It's quite possible I laughed harder at this movie than during Tropic Thunder or Pineapple Express (key word, laugh AT, not WITH.) Jason Friedberg and Aaron Seltzer should take notes from this MBV because this is what true parody looks like.

The plot is inconsequential, really. A bunch of teens get murdered at a party at a local mine (apparently, that's the only place to party in the middle of nowhere town that this takes place in.) Murderer wears a mining suit and mask, uses a pick-axe, we've seen it all before. Flashforward ten years or so, the "friends" that survived find themselves being stalked and murdered by a similar killer. Yes, it's THAT original (after all, this IS a remake, kind of.) The kills are many, the ending is cheap but let me tell you why this is so awesome.

Aside from the veritable buffet of laughs this flick serves up, the 3-D was absolutely awesome. There were several points where I found myself actually ducking in my seat to avoid being hit in the face by whatever the character just hurled toward the screen (eyeball, pistol, tiny yapping dog...) In addition to that kind of awesomeness, the scenes that did absolutely NOTHING for the 3-D aspect became that much more funny due to the fact that it makes you feel as if you're ACTUALLY a part of the mundane, contrived BS conversations and arguments the characters are laboriously trudging through.

Again, there is absolutely no reason to see this movie unless it's huge and 3-D. And two months after the fact, I say, good luck. Does Blu-Ray have 3-D capability? Let's hope so. And it might be cheaper than a movie theater considering they charge something like $2 for those stupidly clunky glasses.

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button

2009-01-07T13:53:00.000-08:00

In development for years from a director that is shrouded in controversy and frustration, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button stumbled out from behind the curtain during the holiday season. Sadly, it just could not compete with the box-office draw of a yellow-lab puppy (if that's in fact the correct breed...) and was welcomed with lukewarm reception. Regardless, Benny Buttons managed to eke its way into my list of top films of the year on principle alone. Of everything I've seen in 2008 only this film and two others (Slumdog Millionaire, previously reviewed and Milk, review coming soon) evoked a purely visceral emotional response from me.

Using more of the lengthy narrative structure used in his 2006 sleeper hit Zodiac (a frustratingly brilliant film, I might add) Fincher captures the tragic futility and inherent beauty of the human lifespan, skewed from the eyes of a man who experiences it all backwards, and in a lot of ways more forward than anyone ever has. Drawing comparisons from screenwriter Eric Roth's previous work on Forrest Gump, which told the extraordinary story of a simple man, Button tells a similarly parallel tale of an extraordinary man who led a, more or less, simple life. The events in his life aren't groundbreaking moments in American history, but significant moments that make a person who they are, and Fincher captures it with heartbreakingly detailed precision. Drawing the parallels between childhood and old age, the similarities in mentality and the tragic contrast in seeing an old man with the curiousity and wonderment of a 6 year old and the sorrowful depiction of a small child grappling with all the fading memories that once made up who he once was.

A plethora of characters weave their way through Button's life. Benjamin's adoptive black mother, Queenie and her lover (though never husband) Tizzy. The swarthy tattooed sailor Captain Mike (executed brilliantly by Jared Harris, seen on recent episodes of FOX's sci-fi drama Fringe and 2002's Igby Goes Down) and the first person to take hold of Benjamin's heart, Elizabeth Abbott (his Burn After Reading co-star Tilda Swinton) to name a few.

Most notably in the film is Brad Pitt's transformation from a crippled and broken "old" man to the Pitt we've seen in such early 90's films as Thelma and Louise and Cool World (avoid the latter, for your own sake.) The early portion of the film achieving it's effects through the use of body actors and superimposing Pitt's face onto it (there may have been some CG tweaking to make him look extra geriatric.) After the CG scenes had run their course, the makeup for his 70's to late 30's was very well done. However, less talked about is the aging makeup and effects used on Cate Blanchett, who plays Button's lifelong love. Cast as Dakota Fanning's younger sister Elle in the first act, my only major complaint came from the fact that Blanchett's voice was used to overdub Elle's lines. Probably only executed to maintain some sort of familiarity with her later self, it came off as more distracting than anything else.

It's hard to tell what sort of moral Fincher (or adapted author F. Scott Fitzgerald) is trying to convey with this film. It can be taken a series of different ways. Most prominent are these two (a friend of mine read this somewhere, told me and I'm going to rehash it here.) This is a portrait of how beautiful life is when viewed from a different angle, or it is a testament to how tragic life can be, no matter which direction you live it.

Slumdog Millionaire

2008-12-31T09:41:00.000-08:00

Unfortunately, I missed the advance screening of Danny Boyle's (Trainspotting, The Beach, 28 Days Later, Millions) latest pet project when it screened at the Virginia Film Festival back in October. Three months later it got a limited release and I was able to catch it at our local avant garde theater wishing I'd had a chance to see it on a bigger screen. Here is the conundrum that breaks my heart. How does a movie this well put together, poignantly delivered and even socially relevant get released on as few theaters as possible to the tiniest audience bracket when a blatant Hollywood pocket liner like "What Happens in Vegas," "Four Christmases" and whatever bullshit Larry the Cable Guy comes up with will release to scathing reviews and still take #1 at the box office? End Rant...

Slumdog Millionaire is a veritable art museum of cinematography and editing. Of course, this comes as no surprise as this tends to be one of veteran director Danny Boyle's trademarks. Genre experimentation has also been his strong suit during the course of his career. Adding his signature visual aesthetic to such genre pieces like 1999's underdog rom-com A Life Less Ordinary, the zombie-esque apocalypse horror film 28 Days Later (which he is currently rumored to be revisiting for the franchises 3rd outing 28 Months Later) and sci-fi mood epic Sunshine. This time he takes on Bollywood and nails it with seeming ease and precision.

Again rooting for the underdog (or Slumdog in this case,) Millionaire follows the extraordinary life of Jamal Malik. Orphaned at an extremely young age, the course of his life is established through a set of flashbacks incited by the trivia questions on the Indian version of "Who Wants to be a Millionaire," on which he has been accused of cheating. After all, who would expect a formerly homeless orphan to know the increasingly difficult answers on the widely popular gameshow. And since this is Mumbai we're talking about, the treatment of the perpetrator is less than pleasant at times, so be ready for that, at least. Luckily, for the films benefit, it doesn't fall into a predictable pattern (question, flashback, question, flashback, etc. etc.) It sets the stage this way and then finds it's own growth and narrative structure, all the while making sure to leave no question unanswered (so to speak.)

Hopefully, Slumdog Millionaire will be able to walk away with an award or two this season. An admirable feat considering there's not a single recognizable face in the film (all Indian cast, completely unknown within the US filmgoing community.) So whether you're able to see it in a theater this winter, or have to hold off until it's domestic DVD release, be sure that this film is on your "to see..." list as soon as possible, it's worth the time/wait/whatever might be holding you back.

RockNRolla

2008-12-31T07:07:00.000-08:00

There was a time when Guy Richie was on top of the world. He'd had a breakthrough success with his two bit petty thug crime comedy called Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels and the even more successful pseudo-follow up Snatch (you know, the one with Brad Pitt.) He even went as far as marrying Madonna. It was about this time that he and fellow producer Matthew Vaughn parted ways. Vaughn pursuing projects like Layer Cake (starring a pre-Bond Daniel Craig and the Neil Gaiman adaptation Stardust) and Richie going on to release Swept Away, starring his wife and Revolver, which was delayed for about 3 years and to this date, you'll be hard pressed to find anyone who's actually seen it.

Returning to the well from which spawned his first two successes, RockNRolla, after much deliberation, is a particularly unfortunate spectacle. It seems Guy has come down with what I like to call "George Lucas Syndrome." A small amount of large scale success and the ego is inflated to elephantine proportions wherein a story editor or second or third draft are no longer necessary to efficiently tell a compelling story, resulting in sloppy narrative and self indulgent exposition. In short, I was BORED. That's right, bored. At a Guy Richie movie! In what kind of Bizarro universe does this happen? Though with an impending divorce, I may not be the only one to notice Richie is slipping.

First off is the pacing issue. Now, I'm all for building the mood and character in lieu of dispensing the action for the sake of the audience attention span, but the first hour of RockNRolla is convoluted at best and the exposition does little to move forward or even explain the plot. This would seem formulaic for a Guy Richie film, but his priors (Lock,Stock and Snatch) did it with a more endearing and entertaining quality that culminated in a 3rd act that revealed all loose ends to be lit fuses connected to the same stick of dynamite, which would promptly explode some time before the credits rolled. In RockNRolla, the seemingly unrelated characters and incidents remain unrelated and the plot threads never really mesh for the better part of an hour and a half and then they all get shoehorned into a finale showdown that seems forced and comes off uninteresting and kind of predictable. By the time anything really started to happen, I was more preoccupied with how hungry I was than what was happening onscreen. Either I should eat more often or I was a victim of bad storytelling.

The cast with impressive credentials does very little to impress here. They also have the trademark weirdo gang names. Gerard Butler (making yet another attempt to break into the mainstream without resorting to chick flicks) is a thug that might be gay. Tom Wilkinson has a thick accent and a bald head. Thandie Newton proves once again that she IS in fact British, and Jeremy Piven and Chris Bridges (aka Ludacris) play a couple of record producers with very little to do (apparently the tour was over and Entourage was between seasons.) Relative newcomer Toby Kebbell plays drug addled rocker Johnny Quid who also narrates the tale, for no other good reason than his thick accent, rippling abs on an emaciated skeleton and his pointless contribution to the 3rd act showdown.

I'd hate to think that Guy Richie's career was a fluke at best, but he's done nothing to prove otherwise in the last 8 years since Snatch hit the screen (though his former cohort Jason Statham has proven he can maintain muscletone and be smarmy in EVERYTHING.) With a new twist on the classic Sherlock Holmes on the way starring new fan favorite Robert Downey, Jr. and Jude Law we'll see if Guy Richie still has what it takes to be the cutting edge director he once was or if his ship has indeed sailed. However, the Ninja Sherlock Holmes he's been pitching sure doesn't bode well. At least RDJr's got another Iron Man in the works to soften the blow.

Quantum of Solace

2008-12-29T12:57:00.000-08:00

2006 saw the rebirth of a classic franchise that had been molested repeatedly for close to ten years. The James Bond name became an eye-rolling Disney ride of a cartoon by the time it reached Pierce Brosnan's final chapter (and not a moment too soon, either.) Casino Royale came out the gates with not only a new face to the unmistakable name, but an entirely new feel. Gone were the gadgetry, hokey dialog and world-domination-bent mastermind super villains that have haunted Ian Fleming's slicker-than-thou spy. In it's place was a well put together adaptation of the original novel, updated to make sense in the 21st century and grounding our hero back to a more human playing field.

Since *spoiler warning* Casino ends on a relatively cliff-hangery moment, the sequel was more or less imminent (also taking into consideration the box office intake, it was damn near guaranteed.) Does Quantum of Solace live up to the standard re-set by Casino Royale? Yes and no. It really depends on what you're looking for. The casual aesthetic of Casino is absent in lieu of a more action oriented pace, as the central plot involves Bond carrying out a personal vendetta.

New 007 director Marc Forster (acclaimed director of Monster's Ball, Finding Neverland and Stranger Than Fiction) gives the film a certain Bourne quality with some excessively kinetic action sequences (I'm still not sure if my confusion came from our unfortunate vicinity to the screen or just extremely shaky camerawork,) though what can be made out is some rather impressive and entertaining spy-violence. Basically picking up mere minutes where Casino left us ("Bond, James Bond..." Bad-ass...) Quantum carves the path of an agent on the verge of going rogue, torn between his loyalty to his country and his desire for a bloody revenge. And, of course, no 007 adventure is complete without the signature "Bond Girl," which even in this case moves away from type and instead of a strict love-interest/sidekick, Camille (played passably by the lovely Olga Kurylenko) acts as more of a skewed mirror image of Bond. Sometimes working together out of happenstance, though never actually working toward the same goal. Two opposing though similar means to an end, which is to say, there are technically two villains to dispatch (one with considerably more screen time than the other, for obvious reasons.) Dominic Greene (The Diving Bell and the Butterfly's Frenchman, Mathieu Amalric) is Bond's central target, a third world exploiting businessman with the temperment of a rabid hyena. Jeffrey Wright returns as American CIA agent Felix Leiter and 007's side source and of course, Dame Judy Dench as the cold, yet matronly M.

While sometimes a little confusing and a bit hard to piece together at times, Quantum of Solace is an ample follow up to a series reboot of Casino's magnitude (which was somewhere in the Batman Begins radius, though Quantum doesn't come close to The Dark Knight's sequel appeal, it does it's best.) There are some well placed and tasteful tributes to Ghosts Bond's Past, you may know them when you see them. While it's already debunked that the next installment will not be a further continuation of the Casino/Quantum arc, it's not a huge concern. If Casino Royale reinvented the Bond-Wheel, Quantum puts those wheels on a car, places an angry man behind the wheel and drives it through your living room wall.

Fringe - Season 1 Holiday Break Assessment

2008-12-02T20:32:00.000-08:00

It's not surprising that the new J.J. Abrams series Fringe is doing as well as it is. With hits like Alias (first two seasons anyways) and LOST under his belt, this new age horror/sci-fi/mystery hybrid with the dynamic sensibilities of the X-Files of yesteryear has become the mainstay in my Fall season primetime TV watching routine; and not a moment too soon with the slipping integrity of former prodigal series Heroes.

While the similarities to X-Files are present (and sometimes just plain rampant) within each episode, Fringe manages to serve as more of an homage than a rip-off or clone. Replacing the aliens and unexplainable monsters is the seemingly untapped realm of "fringe science" (keep a record, how many times will I say Fringe in this whole thing? Four so far) or more appropriately "theoretical science," yet unproven phenomena such as ESP, cloning, teleportation, etc. There's the FBI, the interdepartmental division involved with the "out there" cases, and a company called Massive Dynamic which may or may not be involved in (wait for it...) a series of bizarre occurances being refered to as "the Pattern." In comparison to the inner workings of the island on LOST this sounds pretty simplistic, but with each new episode the mysteries seem to connect in the least likely of places creating a dark, mysterious and ominous atmosphere that's been missing from serialized drama over the last six or seven years.

Olivia Dunham, FBI (Aussie blonde newcomer Anna Torv) is called in on a case where a terrorist attack has just taken place on an incoming flight to Boston (no, not Oceanic flight 815, Glatterflug flight 627 to be exact but just for fun, Glatterflug is German for "Smooth Flight.") As it appears, all the passengers, including the terrorist, have seemingly melted. The big boss Agent Broyles (Lance Reddick, aka LOST's mystery man, Matthew Abadon) warns that this is part of something bigger and of course she doesn't believe him (but we all know that it's true.) However, in the midst of the case, Agent Dunham's boytoy/work partner, Agent John Scott is pretty much blown up and infected with the contagion from the Hamburg flight. This leads Dunham to her series cohorts Dr. Walter Bishop (John Noble, Return of the King's evil madman Denethor) and his wanderlusting, arms dealing, swindler of an estranged son, Peter (Joshua Jackson, in a significant departure from Dawson's Creek's resident whatever-guy, Pacey.) Walter, having experienced a psychotic break in an undisclosed, work related accident alongside Massive Dynamic's founder Dr. William Bell, has spent the past 17 years in a mental institution. Dunham tracks down Peter and with his reluctant help, Walter is released to find a cure for Agent Scott's condition as he may have been familiar with the contagion. And this is just the first 20 minutes of a two hour pilot episode.

This week's episode, entitled "Safe" marks the last episode before the holiday break (not returning until late January, as most shows do in the winter months) leaving us with a pretty hefty cliffhanger. While some smaller questions were answered, like most of Abram's series, these just led to even larger, more prominent questions. Questions I don't think I can wait to be answered (but wait, I will.) I am also predicting some substantially cliffhanging season finales in the coming years.

Thanks to the nice timeslot, following House M.D, enough viewership warranted a full season order from cancellation mongers FOX and it continues to receive positive reviews from those who choose to write-up every week (ahem, Jeff Jensen... where's my Fringe TV Watch on EW already?) While it's proven to be a much more new-viewer friendly series for the most part, keeping the mythology heavy episodes fewer and farther between, I wouldn't be surprised if
the over-arcing storyline takes the lead should the show manage to stay on the air for more than two or three seasons.

Until its return I will likely be rewatching all 10 episodes, not to catch up per se, simply because the show is so damned fun to experience. If you haven't seen it yet, do yourself a favor.

Zack and Miri Make a Porno

2008-11-06T12:51:00.000-08:00

Kevin Smith is one of those directors that I'm so mindlessly faithful to he could put out a movie like Jersey Girl and I'd still pay to see it, and even kind of like it. While he's had trouble distancing himself from his roots in Jersey post-Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back, the summer vacation of a movie that was supposed to "tie off" the loose ends of the original series of preceding films (Clerks, MallRats, Chasing Amy and Dogma,) Jersey Girl rang a bit too sappy and sentimental for die-hard Smith fans and everyone else just plain hates Ben Affleck. So it was back to the watering hole for a final farewell to Red Bank with Clerks II (which underwent about 3 or 4 subtitles ranging from "Hardly Clerkin'" to "Passion of the Clerks.") This time, he's finally put these characters to rest, peacefully and respectfully with his new film Zack and Miri Make a Porno.

Zack and Miri puts Kevin back in the seat where he's best. Writing for twenty-somethings. His eloquence and predilection for ten dollar words combined with lewd humor and sex jokes have and always will be his strongest suit and it is back in full force with this outing. Now, Smith is no stranger to controversy. Having previously fended off GLAAD and the Christian Coalition (receiving actual death threats from the latter...) he had to take on the industry's own MPAA this time around. Now it is literally impossible to make a movie entitled "Zack and Miri Make a Porno" without a moderate amount of onscreen sex, whether there's any nudity to go with it or not and while there IS full frontal on both male and female (in a brief comedic context and never onscreen together at the same time) the MPAA saw fit to slap an NC-17 rating across the little film. This is what could be the cinematic equivalent of the Motaba virus and Smith was not about to stand for it. Luckily, through several cuts and pleading his case to the board, he was able to squeeze an R rating before release.

Prerelease drama aside, Zack and Miri is a thoroughly enjoyable film if not a bit uneven at times. A staple of Smith's writing is one or two extended monologues purveying the thematic weight of the piece. Jeff Anderson as Randal Graves did this in Clerks, Jeremy London's T.S. Quint was responsible in MallRats, Ben Affleck's Holden McNeil piggybacked by an opposing Joey Lauren Adams as Alyssa Jones followed in Chasing Amy and so on. Seth Rogen's Zack Brown pulls it off well in this outing, unfortunately it's at this point where the movie loses focus. Now, I'm all about emotional depth and building believable characters, but this should not come at the expense of the narrative story-arc. Without spoiling too much, if the title of the movie states that two people are setting out to do a particular thing, it's probably a good idea to ensure that A) they do just that and B) if said objective is not completed, give us a plausible explanation why. While it's definitely not my least favorite of Smith's filmography, it is far from the best. In truth, it almost seems like a less genuine younger brother to '96's Chasing Amy.

Casting-wise, the only returning Jersey Alums are Jeff Anderson (Randal Graves of Clerks fame) and Jason Mewes (actually NOT playing Jay) who do their thing passably, Mewes actually coming off slightly nerdier than his previous alter ego. Seth Rogen and Elizabeth Banks (having worked together on Judd Apatow's 40 Year-Old Virgin) have a chemistry that is both obviously awkward and sweetly endearing. Rogen, apt at playing the stocky blockhead since his debut in Judd's one-season series Freaks & Geeks is pretty much perfect for Smith's brash loudmouth character (he's always got at least one of them, except it's usually Jason Lee.) Though this time, the sensitive guy and the loudmouth are rolled into one person which added a strange sense of inner conflict that seemed like relatively new territory, though it was left mostly unexplored by the film's end. Elizabeth Banks' Miriam Linky is just plain adorable, as most of her characters are. The Office warehouse worker Craig Robinson steps in as Zack's coffee shop work-buddy (we get the idea they would be closer friends if he weren't married) and makes for some particularly funny exchanges. Porn-heir Tracy Lords also makes an appearance (after all, you can't make a movie about porn without a veteran, thankfully this time it wasn't Ron Jeremy) and shows some actual acting chops. However, the show stealer comes and goes within the first 20 minutes. Justin Long (Jeepers Creepers and last summer's Die Hard 4, possibly cast due to his on set friendship with Kevin) displays some character acting beyond compare in a Kevin Smith film as a west-coast gay porn actor with a ironic connection to Zack and Miri's graduating class. Complete with gravelly voice, slicked back hair and what just might have been some well placed ad libs, I was in stitches for the depressingly short duration of his presence on-screen.

While not quite as funny as some of the other comedies of '08 (more laughs per capita are present in Tropic Thunder and Pineapple Express) it's still well worth a trip to the theater now that we can all put gas in our cars without breaking the bank. And though it gets a little lost in the message, it is a message that we can all aspire to in one way or another. I'm interested to see where Kevin Smith goes from here, having recently announced a horror film (Red State) and a yet untitled sci-fi picture.

The Strangers

2008-10-27T06:29:00.000-07:00

It's the end of October and Halloween is in the air again. The temperature drops, the leaves start to fall and it's the perfect time to shut off the lights, curl up on the couch with a plate full of pumpkin seeds and hot cider and settle in for a marathon of good old fashioned horror movies. Sadly, "good old fashioned horror movies" are in short order these days, as the industry seems to have forgotten what truly makes a movie scary anymore. Then I watched The Strangers.

On the surface, it's easy to pass this movie off as "just another horror movie," but upon closer inspection, it's so much more than that. Produced on what looks like a shoestring budget with only six characters to speak of, The Strangers relies almost solely on mood and atmosphere as opposed to flashy special effects and excessively gory deaths. From the outset, the movie is an uncomfortable journey into fear. The main characters Jamie (Scott Speedman) and Kristen (Liv Tyler) share an inordinate amount of uncomfortable silences before the story actually begins to unfold, setting a sort of base coat of tension in preparation for what's to come.

High marks go to first time writer/director Bryan Bertino on a number of levels. The actors (especially Liv Tyler, who spends a large portion of the movie in front of the camera by herself) handle themselves admirably, reining in more than believable performances. Tactfully placed reveal shots combined with sparse lighting and a very red heavy color palette add to the mood. The fluid narrative and depth of character help to raise The Strangers above typical "torture porn" and transcend the horror genre to an almost psychological level. The violence is sparse and blood kept to a minimum and yet, the film pulls off what gorier incarnations have failed to achieve.

It's obvious that Bertino understands the basic principles of genre film-making (or any kind, for that matter.) In order to create a truly visceral, real and terrifying experience you have to place to viewer in the mindset of the characters, make them feel the tension of the moment as if it were happening to them. This is something that's been missing from horror movies for as long as I've been watching them, and that's the problem. I've only been watching them and not experiencing them as the genre begs them to be. The Strangers is as effective today as John Carpenter's Halloween was in 1978, all the while never bothering itself with cliched serial killer stereotypes. So I welcome the fall season with a shiver in my spine and and a paranoid glance over my shoulder. The Strangers has succeeded where so many others have failed.

Burn After Reading

2008-10-17T07:35:00.000-07:00

If you've ever seen a Coen Brothers film, you know just how abstract and disjointed a cohesive narrative can get, in fact, I've come to expect it from them. Even their more mainstream films like Intolerable Cruelty displayed wildly erratic behaviour and character traits commonplace to any typical psyche ward. If this is what you're expecting, Burn After Reading will not disappoint by any means.

Burn combines the more ridiculous aspects of the CIA, online dating, paranoia and the workout culture into a mystery of absurd proportions (in the same narrative confusion that made The Big Lebowski such a cult phenomenon.) Everything about the story is closely hinged on the idea that nobody has a clue what anyone else is really up to causing a ripple effect of idiocy and overreaction that ends up having some very entertaining (if not morbidly violent) repercussions.

The show stealer this time around is Brad Pitt (tactfully credited last) as the flamboyantly energetic and charmingly dim gym instructor. His interplay with co-worker Frances McDormand (who, unfortunately hasn't had a notable role since 2001's Cameron Crowe film Almost Famous) is brilliantly hilarious. Coming in second is George Clooney as the paranoid, womanizing, sexual deviant. John Malkovich drops almost as many eff-bombs as John Goodman in Lebowski. Richard Jenkins takes a turn for the morose (opposite his excitable and furious role in Step Brothers.) Tilda Swinton is a smarmy bitch and J.K. Simmons provides a confused objective commentary from his office in the CIA.

The culmination of the film is a whirlwind of bizarre incidents that would be classified as "wacky" if it weren't a Coen Brothers film, instead they can be chalked up as poignant absurdity. While not their best film of late, it is a fun ride that rises out of the shadows of last years dark award winner No Country for Old Men.

Baby Mama

2008-09-26T09:55:00.000-07:00

I'll be the first to say that 30 Rock is one of the best sitcoms on TV right now. I'll also be the first to say that Amy Poehler is still one of the funniest members of SNL (a torch that's soon to be passed to newcomer Kristen Wiig, but that's another story.) The casting decision to put both Tina Fey and Amy Poehler opposite each other is always a smart one since they work so well together. Unfortunately, this was probably the only smart decision encompassing the entirety of production on the film Baby Mama.

Though not without it's charm, Baby Mama can be summed up as the uglier younger sister to last year's Knocked Up. Written and directed by SNL writing alum Michael McCullers, this outing's disappointment doesn't come as a surprise when his resume includes such "hits" as Undercover Brother and the second and third Austin Powers films. The plot is pretty formulaic and the gags are moderately underwhelming, though it's impossible to hate the movie for its shortcomings when the two main characters are as damned cute as Tina and Amy.

The final ace up Baby Mama's respective sleeve is the supporting cast. I found myself saying "Holy crap, *insert celebrity name here* is in this?" at least four times, and these aren't mild mannered cameos either. Among the star studded day players are Sigourney Weaver, Greg Kinnear, Maura Tierney and (most surprising of all) Steve Martin all providing a handful of laughs a piece to prevent any unnecessary gut-busting.

Overall is was considerably endearing and pretty funny for the most part, though I'm glad I didn't end up paying $9 to see it in a theater. Worth at least a rental if all your other options have been exhausted.

Tropic Thunder

2008-09-25T22:18:00.000-07:00

Though Ben Stiller has had about as many career misses as Nicholas Cage in recent years, the only difference is that Ben Stiller manages to climb out of the hole he's dug himself every once in a while and make something worth paying ten bucks to sit in a crowded theater. Even then, he usually has to make the movie himself to give himself any credit (excluding The Royal Tanenbaums of course) because lord knows, no one else will until they shovel out the next in the Focker series (and you know it's coming so buck up and deal with it already.) But all bitchery aside, Stiller knows his satire as proven by The Cable Guy, Zoolander and the latest and most likely to offend just about anybody, Tropic Thunder.

When early promotion for the film first popped up I had just about no interest in it because I failed to notice two things. 1) The film was co-written by Stiller himself, which I'm more likened to give a fair shot and 2) The black guy in the background on the first promo shot was freaking Robert Downey Jr, and while this was impressive and altogether ballsy, I still wasn't completely sold until the first red-band trailer was downloaded onto my computer. Yes, the movie was rated R and a hard R at that. Now, I'm not one to sing the praises of a movie just because it's garnering a MPAA tag that promises at least a handful of F-bombs and some morally questionable material, but when you're aiming for the level of comedic satire that this movie was advertising, it's kind of a must.

Now that you've got the backstory, now about the movie itself. Like Zoolander, it doesn't take it's material seriously enough to get lost in the actual "plot" at hand but rather revels in it's own absurdity while it takes merciless pot-shots at Hollywood and the entertainment industry as a whole. I'd never have left it to Ben Stiller to blatantly point out how ridiculous the idea of being a celebrity is, but he did an admirable job. Kicking off with a fake energy drink commercial followed by three trailers for movies featuring each of the "lead stars" previous films set the tone for the 2 hours that followed. Stiller the action star that's literally made the same movie six times (via the Hollywood sequel machine,) Jack Black the slapstick comedy genius with a drug problem (with some low blows to Eddie Murphy and Young Hollywood in general,) and Robert Downey Jr the method actor who literally becomes every character he's ever played, dying his skin brown the play an african-american in the film within the film "Tropic Thunder." And what surprises me was the lack of offense to a white actor in blackface for almost two hours in lieu of several minutes of dialog involving the word "retard." They're making fun of actors (Tom Hanks, Sean Penn and Dustin Hoffman come to mind... they're also mentioned in said dialog) not the handicapped.

Stiller handles his character well, though his screen presence can be a bit cumbersome at times. Jack Black serves up his best performance since High Fidelity. Robert Downey Jr goes without saying, but I'll say it anyways, is a brilliant performer and provides the most quotable performance of the summer (I found myself saying the "I know who I am!" speech at least 10 times the week after viewing.) Though the most surprising cast member was the underplayed but genuinely funny Jay Baruchel (Knocked Up, TV's canceled UnDeclared and Million Dollar Baby) as rookie actor Kevin Sandusky. The kid's got promise and I look forward to more of his work. Danny McBride's (The Foot Fist Way and Pineapple Express) gung ho pyrotechnic specialist was well played and Nick Nolte was in it, so there's that. More surprising were the unexpected appearances by both Matthew McConaughey and Tom Cruise (the latter almost unrecognizable.)

Overall, Tropic Thunder was one of the better comedies I saw this summer and I didn't feel bad that it knocked The Dark Knight out of the number one slot the week it came out. If you're looking for a good laugh and you don't get offended too easily, go ahead and give Stiller one more chance.

Pineapple Express

2008-09-24T19:31:00.000-07:00

It's come to my attention lately that there are very few mainstream comedies worth seeing lately. Maybe it's due to a maturing sense of cinematic awareness on my part or it could be that studios don't know what's funny anymore. Either way, there are few names left in the comedy game that I can trust anymore, luckily one of those names is still Judd Apatow. Following the success of last years breakout comedy Superbad, which thrust the uber-talented Michael Cera and Jonah Hill into the public eye and unleashed the writing styles of Apatow alum Seth Rogen and Evan Goldberg on an unsuspecting world (both with writing credits on the underappreciated TV series Undeclared.) Now comes their sophomore feature length Pineapple Express.

I’ll go ahead and say right now that Pineapple Express is the type of movie that I’m normally likened to hate at first glance and without Seth Rogen and Judd Apatow’s names involved I may not have stepped into the theater in the first place. If it’s one sub-genre that I don’t find entertaining, it’s “stoner comedy.” I have trouble laughing at what is generally two guys sitting in a room bantering about how high they are, and unless there’s a pretty engrossing plot going on (a la Dazed and Confused ) I can usually find better things to be doing with my time. While marijuana is a prominent factor in Pineapple, the usual stoner mechanics takes a backseat to the actual story. The thing that proved funniest was that while they never draw attention to how much pot they’re smoking, what you realize is that 90% of everything they do is motivated by how high they are. This way, when either of the characters do something outlandish or unrealistic when faced with a situation, you don’t have to suspend your disbelief that far at all.

The script is consistently solid. Rogen and Goldberg have proven that Superbad, their 10 year pet project, was not just a fluke. Instead of injecting the mainstream with yet another in a long line of teen-comedy clones (College, The Rocker, the umpteenth American Pie sequel, etc. etc.) they’ve concocted a well timed action-comedy satire. Playing up the ridiculousness of most action movies (the never-ending ammunition, the conveniently placed and accessible firearms, the over the top splatter-gore) definitely kept the laughs coming.

It was good to see Seth Rogen and James Franco side by side again after eight or so years (since the disintegration of Freaks & Geeks, one of the most promising shows that never got a chance) and their chemistry is still right on. I've been defending Franco for years, in light of his role choices in a flurry of inspirational military academy flicks and the Spider Man franchise, and I was happy to see him knock this role out of the park. Rogen was good as usual, I'm curious as to how much was actually ad libbed and how much was scripted. There were some nice "guest" appearances, most notably Ed Begley Jr. ,Nora Dunn and the surprising return of Rosie Perez. I was also very impressed by newcomer Danny McBride (the new recruit in the Apatow Army after his breakthrough mockumentary The Foot Fist Way, of which I have yet to see.)

All in all, Pineapple Express is not just a Pot Comedy. It's a well developed action-comedy-satire that happens to have a fair amount of pot smoking in it. Needless to say I'm looking forward to Seth Rogen's take on the classic character The Green Hornet.

Charlie Bartlett

2008-07-30T11:22:00.000-07:00

Films about high school have been a mainstay in the halls of cinema for as long as it's been able to be captured on film. From American Graffiti to American Pie, these movies generally represent the way we wish high school could've been for us ideally, in a comedic background. Then there are the high school "issue" movies like Pump Up the Volume and Heathers that aim for the societal issue. Charlie Bartlett steps up to the plate with the intent to have its cake and eat it too by cramming a comedy with a message.

The most salvageable thing about Charlie Bartlett are the actors. Grade-A performances are shelled out by Robert Downey, Jr. (of course,) Hope Davis, Anton Yelchin (Hearts in Atlantis) and Kat Dennings (40 Year Old Virgin.) Yelchin especially, playing the neurotic outcast, Ferris Bueller clone that becomes the high school's impromptu bathroom therapist, I can tell this kid has a healthy career ahead of him. Hope Davis as the prescription drug addled mother was wonderful and of course RD Jr. never lets me down. The dialog is witty and convincing, charming and alarmingly funny, though this is where the problems begin.

Charlie Bartlett is a film that suffers from cinematic schizophrenia. I assume in an attempt to emulate a certain kind of high school movie, it decided to emulate ALL of them. There are scenes that I was sure I'd viewed before, and then I realized that I had. I'd like to say that this is all homage, but I can only picture the writer sitting down at his computer after enduring a 48 hour educational system movie marathon, becoming the proverbial Victor Frankenstein of the screenwriting trade. A little bit of Mean Girls meets a little bit of Thumbsucker meets a little bit of Rushmore thrown in for good measure. All in all, there was the central character arc involving Charlie, but then that was diluted with about ten other thematic elements. It seemed that the movie stumbled over all of these elements in an attempt to find its own footing and make its own point, but in the end it outstayed its welcome and ran about thirty minutes too long. Then in a freak occurrence of meta-screenwriting, the movie seemed to notice its unnecessary longevity and ended so abruptly that it felt as if nothing was actually resolved. Also, my biggest beef was with a scene late in the second act that would've held a fair amount of gravity had it not been abruptly killed by a raucous punk song and a rather pointless riot.

Now don't get me wrong. Charlie Bartlett is not a bad movie. It's a fair movie with a problematic script that was overshadowed by the talent of the actors involved, which is similar to the stance I have on Juno. I'd definitely recommend seeing this movie, but here's a list of movies to see first.

Rushmore
Thumbsucker
Heathers
Pump Up the Volume
The TV series Freaks & Geeks
Fast Times at Ridgemont High
Mean Girls
The Chumscrubber
Sixteen Candles
Ferris Bueller's Day Off
Grosse Pointe Blank (whatever, there's a high school in it…)

Step Brothers

2008-07-30T11:21:00.000-07:00

If anything, you can't deny that Will Ferrell does his job well. Whether the result is funny or not is up to opinion, but chances are, you've all laughed at SOMETHING the man's done over the course of his career. Once Ferrell teamed up with director Adam McKay (Anchorman – The Legend of Ron Burgundy) and producer Judd Apatow (Knocked Up and TV's erroneously canceled shows Freaks & Geeks and Undeclared) we got to finally see what kind of comedy Will Ferrell goes for and has since given us a plethora of hedonistic man-children. What surprised me about this routine was the introduction of veteran character actor John C. Reilly. Having appeared in high grade films such as Gangs of New York, Boogie Nights and The Thin Red Line it never occurred to me that this man was absurdly funny. It also helps that Ferrell and Reilly have possibly the best onscreen chemistry of any comedy team since Abbott and Costello, except with more swearing and genitalia.

The concept of Step Brothers is basically a close cousin to 2004's The 40 Year Old Virgin. Ferrell is Brennan Huff and Reilly is Dale Doback. Both are in their late 30's and live with their parents and act like a finicky pre-teen. Their respective parents Robert Doback (Richard Jenkins of the late series Six Feet Under) and Nancy Huff (Mary Steenburgen of Back to the Future III fame) fall in love and get married forcing Brennan and Dale into each other's presence. What results is a particularly hilarious clash of dominant personalities. Dale portrays the more dominant bully type and Brennan is the uber-defensive, passive aggressive side of the coin. As their antics progress, it devolves so far into absurdist immaturity at certain points it actually becomes relatively predictable. This can also be attributed to the trailers and promotional materials that usually divulge the funnier moments, which isn't to say Step Brothers doesn't have its fair share of gags up its proverbial pant leg. Some of the funnier moments were brought about by Richard Jenkins exasperation with the "boys" which thrust him into fits of swearing and vulgarity, usually uncharacteristic of a man of his age and profession.

Unfortunately, the film suffers from some pacing issues at the midway point. It shifted from being genuinely funny to TRYING to be genuinely funny. Though, this is only for about 20 minutes in the middle-end and it gets back on track nicely in time for the finale. While not the crowning glory of the summer movie season, Step Brothers is a thoroughly entertaining 90 minutes of raucous, vulgar and absurd humor for the immature kid in all of us.

But it's no Superbad.

The Dark Knight

2008-07-18T10:42:00.000-07:00

Christpher Nolan waltzed onto the film scene in early 2000 with his (purposely) muddled psychological character drama Memento (based on a short story by his brother Jonathan) and it seems that he’s since made a career out of the dissection and analysis of the human psyche. In the age of the Comic Book Movie, no hero is better suited for Nolan than the Batman. After the franchise took a turn for the worse in the late 90’s, making Batman appear more like a member of the Pussycat Dolls than the fearsome Caped Crusader, it seems the character was shelved in Hollywood. However, a plethora of comic books took a turn for the dark side (The Long Halloween, Dark Victory and Hush, all compliments of senior scribe Jeph Loeb) and thus was the basis for the relaunch in 2005. Originally handled by Darren Aranofsky as an adaptation of Frank Miller’s Batman: Year One, the project was halted after the script was deemed “too violent” (ironic, really…) and was then handed off to Chris Nolan and writer David S. Goyer (Dark City and the Blade trilogy), which became what was to be Batman Begins. Now in 2008, Nolan returns to continue the saga with The Dark Knight.

Batman Begins was the unexpected kick in the teeth that the franchise needed out of a re-boot. Finally fleshing out Bruce Wayne’s transformation into the intimidating force we’ve all come to know and love, Nolan’s desire to ground the material in the “real world” as much as possible lent to the film’s staggering success. It’s just as important to understand where your character came from as to where they’re going, and Begins paved the way or at least laid the groundwork for what will become the standard for the Batman mythos on film. That being said, The Dark Knight does everything the perfect sequel should do. It’s bigger, darker, heavier and faster and it barely slows down at all before the final credits roll.

The only words I can think of to describe the story are Sprawling Epic. The scale of the film is monumental, and the comparisons you’ve been hearing in all the other reviews (Heat, The Departed, Godfather II) are all completely accurate and relevant. It seems the superhero element was lightly dusted around the Gotham City crime saga, whereas you can omit Batman and Joker and still have the makings of brilliance all around. Now that we’ve got the origin story out of the way, it’s time to take on the big guns, and as promised, those big guns are manifested in Bruce Wayne’s arch-enemy and eternal tormentor, The Joker. The story takes so many twists and turns, it feels as if you’re trapped in the backseat as the Clown Prince of Crime drives headlong off a cliff, laughing manically all the way down. Once it starts, there is very little time to catch your breath.

Now, without question, the late Heath Ledger took the Joker and knocked it out of the goddamn park. Watching him onscreen, he was nearly unrecognizable; disappearing into the character completely in what will likely be the quintessential Joker from this day forward. Joker has been somewhat of a wild card (both in character and portrayal) over the years. Cesar Romero’s depiction in the 1960’s camp-fest TV series was rather silly, with the white makeup encrusted in his moustache while just kind of laughing at everything. Jack Nicholson’s performance in Tim Burton’s 1989 film was good, but still didn’t bring anything new to the character. The Dark Knight gives us a Joker that we’ve never seen before, or even dreamed of. The result is actually quite frightening. With his scarred visage, psychotic laughter and sadistic temperament, Chris Nolan and Heath Ledger have given us a villain that is so maniacally unpredictable, you wouldn’t want to be in the same room as him, let alone try and stop his criminal rampage. His actions teeter on the brink of hilarious and terrifying, more than a few times I found myself laughing and cringing at the same time. In doing so, the Joker has become what his namesake represents; the wild card. He leaves a path of destruction in his wake and lets the pieces fall where they may, whether they serve his intentions or not. And it’s extremely tragic that we’ll likely never see a performance of that caliber again.

As far as the rest of the cast, each one knocks out a solidly comparable performance alongside their fallen cast-mate. Christian Bale has finally gotten comfortable in the skin of millionaire playboy Bruce Wayne. In this chapter, it becomes apparent that Batman is the driving force in his existence and Bruce Wayne is just a circumstantial passenger to his dark alter ego. Michael Caine’s Alfred the Butler is spot on, as expected. Gary Oldman returns as police lieutenant Jim Gordon, his character played up this time around, as he represents the dichotomy between the police force (order) and Batman’s vigilantism (chaos.) Lucius Fox (Morgan Freeman) is back, serving up more Bat Gadgets and also flexing his Wayne Corp muscles, keeping Bruce afloat and under-wraps. One of the ballsiest moves was the recasting of assistant D.A. Rachel Dawes. Replacing Katie Holmes is Maggie Gyllenhaal who truly takes the character to its depth, caught between her deepset emotions for Wayne and her current love interest; which brings us to Gotham’s “White Knight” District Attorney Harvey Dent (Thank You for Smoking’s Aaron Eckhart.) Polarizing the Batman dichotomy as the city’s hope for sanity, he represents one of the key themes in The Dark Knight. There are two sides to every coin. Right, wrong, order, chaos, due process, vigilantism, life and death are all represented and flipped on their sides, crossing lines that should not be crossed and thrusting characters into moral dilemma’s from which the results could be catastrophic.

Improving upon its predecessor by leaps and bounds, yet still remembering where it came from, The Dark Knight is essentially the perfect sequel. It has transcended the comic book/superhero movie genre into something else entirely; something truly epic.

The Incredible Hulk

2008-07-17T07:30:00.001-07:00

2003 marked the year that Marvel first stumbled over it's own ambitions before sprawling flat on it's face by over saturating the movie-going community with poor adaptation after poor adaptation. One of the first of these missteps was Ang Lee's version of The Hulk. Too much stylization, not enough character or plot and portraying Hulk as a giant half naked emo-kid with daddy issues combined with an incoherently confusing and frustrating ending made for the flop of the century. Even solid casting choices like Jennifer Connelly weren't enough to save this mess. With Batman getting the reboot in 2005 after an eight year break from the multiplexes, I wasn't expecting another Hulk attempt for at least another four to five years. But lo and behold, 2008 has brought us The Incredible Hulk, oven fresh with a new cast and director. And believe me when I tell you, it's better for it… by leaps and bounds.

From the start, this movie paves right over top it's predecessor by re-establishing the origin story WITHIN the opening credits (and let me tell you, there is absolutely NO recycled footage from the first film, if anything it's a giant homage to the 70's television series.) Replacing Eric Bana as the internally tormented scientist Bruce Banner is Edward Norton, who falls into the role as if it were second nature. And quite honestly, it kind of is, with psychologically split roles in Fight Club and Primal Fear under his belt, this over exemplified Jekyll and Hyde persona is right up his alley. William Hurt plays the dodgy General Ross who is tracking Banner as best he can along with the aid of the war ravaged foot soldier Emil Blonsky (renowned Brit badass Tim Roth.) Both with ulterior motives of their own design, their dynamic performances reflecting and refracting each other every step of the way, not a beat is wasted on these two. My only qualm is that William Hurt's moustache will never live up to the epic proportional standards of previous Ross portrayer Sam Elliott (but then again, whose moustache ever will?) Dr. Betty Ross, the resident lost-love interest, returns to the scene at the hands of Liv Tyler who handles the emotional beats surprisingly well. If there's a movie for her to re-prove her worth since her role in Lord of the Rings, this one is it. Another notable appearance is that of character actor Tim Blake Nelson (O, Brother Where Art Thou? as well as bit parts in Minority Report and Syriana) whose role will remain nameless for the sake of possible spoilers.

One of the major improvements on the relaunch was the focus on Bruce Banner as a character, not just as the seed for that which is The Hulk. With little dialog up until the first actual "Hulk Out," we're given the portrait of a desperate man on the run. A man willing to do whatever is necessary to find a cure for his wrecking ball of an alter ego. Norton embodies this entirely, providing what could be the quintessential Banner for the first time onscreen since Bill Bixby's television portrayal. Possibly even moreso.

Throughout the film, there are nods to every medium that Hulk has been represented in. References to the television show are as subtle as a flannel shirt or as simple as a brief onscreen appearance by the original Green Monster, Lou Ferrigno (he's even given a couple lines this time, as opposed to his literal "walk by" in the 2003 edition.) I was particularly taken by the representation of Hulk's mental evolution, from haphazardly picking up and tossing whatever may do the most damage to protecting himself or developing crude weapons out of whatever is available and may do the most damage. Yet, he remains a creature (literally) of pure instinct, and it doesn't let you forget that, even at his most human of moments. Also fun is the incorporation of a few of the trademark "abilities" that he's demonstrated in the comics over the years (I won't ruin them for you, but if you know them, you'll be giddy when you see it happen.)

All in all, I'd say this movie was almost, if not just as enjoyable as Iron Man (there's even a slight tie in, for the Avengers' sake. Also keep your ears open for a Captain America reference.) And if you're not as compelled by the story elements as I was, then just revel in the blatant bad-assery that this film provides in it's plentiful action sequences. There's just something ridiculously awesome about an Abomination being bashed repeatedly in the face with the front end of a police cruiser.

Hellboy II - The Golden Army

2008-07-17T07:24:00.002-07:00

It seems that director Guillermo Del Toro has been one of the most renown hot/cold directors to emerge from the Hollywood fantasy scene in the last eight years or so. Gaining critical acclaim for his early Spanish language work Cronos and The Devil's Backbone and then being panned across the board for the commercial flop Blade 2, Del Toro seemed to bridge the gap with the mostly ignored HellBoy. Based on the Dark Horse comic book of the same name, created by Mike Mignola, HellBoy was released to a lukewarm reception just prior to the comic-book-movie explosion (Thanks, Marvel…) alongside blockbusters like Spiderman 2, Punisher and (ironically enough) Blade: Trinity. While not an amazing film, I found the original HellBoy to be a decent starting point for what will turn out to be a trilogy (as is the thing to do these days.)

Though it wasn't until Del Toro released Pan's Labyrinth that he started to become a household name (whether you can pronounce Guillermo or not…) Now four years after the first HellBoy outing comes the long anticipated and budget inflated sequel HellBoy II - The Golden Army. Now I'll give a fair warning, I'm a pretty big fan of the source material and I may find it necessary to point out the differences and therein the flaws of the film franchise compared to the printed medium. That being said, this movie was considerably better than its predecessor.

One of the noticeable differences from the first film is the production design. Now working with the special effects team behind Pan's Labyrinth, HellBoy II's creatures were much more intricate and bizarre than the first outing, ranging from whimsically dangerous to gut wrenchingly twisted. I was also surprised at the amount of puppetry was used in lieu of CGI. Unfortunately, this is one of the areas that strayed from the comics, but not in a bad way. Golden Army's monsters looked more like a mishmash of Final Fantasy bosses than long dead mythological deities, though I've always been a fan of the FF monster design, so the eye-candy was a treat for me.

Performance-wise, David Hyde-Pierce (Niles Crane from TV's Frasier) ducks out on Abe Sapien's voice duties, leaving body actor Doug Jones to fend for himself. Admittedly, he's a bit shaky on the outset, but eventually filled the Fish-Man shoes well enough for me not to have noticed a difference. One of my biggest qualms with the films in comparison to the comics is HellBoy's portrayal. In the comics, he doesn't say much and when he does, it's rather inconsequential, however in the movies, he is basically a Duke Nukem/Ash from Evil Dead/John McClane one liner machine. Which is unfortunate, because I'd like to think the Seed of Destruction, our proverbial Left Hand of Doom has more depth than "Now you've pissed me off!" But I digress. Ron Perlman looks and plays the part to a tee as per usual and Selma Blair manages her way out of the paper bag she's been stuck in since the last HellBoy. The new addition to the BPRD (Bureau for Paranormal Research and Development) Johann Krauss is entertaining for a while and serves his purpose in the end, at least for some rock'em sock'em, popcorn action. Sadly, Jeffrey Tambor's character, BPRD chief Tom Manning, is horridly underplayed (as an Arrested Development fan, it always pains me when any member of the Bluth family is cast and then ultimately cast aside) but then again, there's a consumer friendly run-time to keep in mind.

The story this time around is yet another classic "bad seed seeks revenge on the world and family that shunned him" which would seem redundant if not for the plethora of character involved. It was pretty apparent that there was likely a good 30 minutes of footage cut from the final film as some of the overlaying themes were cut short in the last act, but in today's "unrated director's cut" DVD market, I can see these words on the box art following it's home video release.

Overall, the movie should keep you entertained for it's almost two hours and as usual, it caps itself off while leaving room for the imminent sequel. Mostly, I see this movie as decent filler to bridge the gap until The Dark Knight comes out.

The Happening

2008-07-17T07:24:00.001-07:00

Ever since his major debut in '99 with The Sixth Sense, director/writer/whatever M. Night Shayamalan has cornered himself as a proverbial one trick pony. It seems that everyone will go into one of his films asking themselves "What's the twist going to be?" and spend most of the film trying to think far enough ahead of the story in order to beat it to the punch. Admittedly, The Sixth Sense was effective (if not fairly predictable to some) and Unbreakable was very well done, though the twist in this case was particularly unnecessary, it still worked for all intents and purposes of the film. It wasn't until Signs that I started to see a flaw in the designs and the dangers of clichéd repetition. I was onboard Signs the whole way (an alien apocalypse seen from one small household) until the last five minutes when we were bashed over the head (almost literally) with that trademark twist. A twist that singlehandedly ruined the previous 103 minutes. I'll admit, it was after this mess that I washed my hands of the Shayamalan name altogether as I haven't yet bothered to see either The Village or Lady in the Water.

However, The Happening intrigued me. It seems in an attempt to distance himself from his "twist of fate" as it were, M. Night has left the 3^rd act reversal behind in lieu of something else entirely. The previews for The Happening looked especially intriguing and featured something yet uncharted for the director, an MPAA rating of R. Unfortunately, as it turns out, you can't substitute one gimmick for another and expect anything of substance to come of it.

The story (if one can even really call it that) follows Elliot Moore, played by Mark Wahlberg and his wife Alma, a particularly unemotive Zooey Deschanel in their attempts to outrun and ultimately survive an outbreak of a toxin that causes the survival instinct in humans to be repressed, resulting in mass suicide. Therein lies your R-rating. The first 15 minutes or so are fairly effective, though it's all downhill from there, right about the time Mark delivers his first line. Now, I'll be the first to say Wahlberg is a pretty accomplished actor at this point (with roles like The Departed, Boogie Nights and I Heart Huckabees under his belt) but he phones in the worst performance of his career, either through terrible dialog or bad directing. The only performance that was passable is John Leguizamo who is underplayed to the point of insignificance.

It is explained very early on (and repeatedly thereafter) that the toxin that is affecting the eastern seaboard is the result of a rapidly evolved defense mechanism in plants and it's being set off by smaller and smaller groups of people. Starting in Central Park, New York and eventually "chasing" groups of five or six people across small county Pennsylvania, the toxin is only ever displayed by heavy winds, which makes absolutely no sense at all. Granted, there isn't really a way to SHOW that a plant originating toxin is after you, but this method implies that either the plants are causing the wind or the toxin evokes strange and unusual weather patterns. Good for the cast, bad for the picky (or even rational) viewer. And of course there is the obligatory message about global warming, mass-media sensationalism, gun control and (for no apparent reason) religious zealotry.

I was hoping this would be the film to take M. Night Shayamalan out of the "do not watch" column, but alas, it just doesn't seem like he really cares about his art or his audience anymore. A promo on the Sci-fi channel quoted him as saying "Whatever… it's rated R…" It just goes to show, if you don't have a story worth telling, it doesn't matter what it's rated. It's still garbage.

Wall-E

2008-07-17T07:23:00.002-07:00

The budding animation studio Pixar spread it's wings in 1995 with their flagship pet project Toy Story, the company has, in a mere 13 years, literally gone "To Infinity and Beyond." And their latest masterpiece Wall-E is definitely a testament to their company's limitless potential.

Marking the third directorial outing for executive Pixar head John Lasseter's right-hand man Andrew Stanton (Bug's Life, and Finding Nemo,) the company does not seem intent to break it's stride any time soon. As you may or may not know, Wall-E stands for Waste Allocation Load Lifter Earth-Class, which brings us to Earth in the distant future. Humans have left and Wall-E is the sole surviving unit left to "clean up the planet" to make it habitable again. Though, one thing went wrong. He developed a personality, which is brilliantly characterized in the films opening scene. There is approximately 30 or so minutes that are literally devoid of any dialog (and honestly there doesn't need to be) as we learn more about Wall-E and how he's adapted to "life" on his abandoned planet (his predilection for the film "Hello, Dolly" is particularly adorable.)

Pixar has always prided itself on it's attention to detail and Wall-E is no exception. In fact, Wall-E has gone ahead and set a new bar for digital animation. From the dirt encrusted on his outer casing right down to the lovable robot's collection of knick knacks, no stone was left unturned. At times, I was almost certain someone had hand placed actual props into the film, it was that realistic.

I was also surprised to see that there were some pretty heavy themes at play in what will likely by 2009's Best Animated Feature Oscar Winner (just my bid, I could be wrong, but unless somebody releases an animated version of Citizen Kane, good luck!) Ranging from anti-big business (Wal-Mart, I'm looking and you) and human over-dependence on computers and machinery (as I review this movie on my laptop, preparing to post it on the internet...) there is also the glimmer of a "greener" message under the beeps and blips that everyone can take to heart in this resource diminishing age.

Another aspect that caught me by surprise (and it really shouldn't have) was the film's score by Thomas Newman (best known for the award winning theme to HBO's Six Feet Under.) It carried the film where it needed to and gently supported it when otherwise necessary. And I'm not one to rush out and buy the score to just any movie, but this may be the next iTunes download I invest in.

As I've learned over the last ten years, Pixar has rarely let me down (their only misstep being Cars, which admittedly, I haven't seen if only for the presence of Larry the Cable Guy) but Wall-E exceeded all of my expectations and then some. It's cute, thought provoking, visually gorgeous and overall (and most importantly) just plain fun.

Across the Universe

2008-07-17T07:23:00.001-07:00

Thus far people may think that I'm one of those reviewers that loves everything. I've posted three write-ups for movies I liked. True enough, but this will not be one of them.

When I first caught wind of this phenomenon called Across the Universe, I was pretty excited at the prospect of a musical using only songs by the Beatles that was also a visual interpretation of their existence in their musical, social and politically tumultuous era of American History. Even the trailers made it look like the makings of a modern classic.

Now it all sounds good in theory, and I'm sure had someone else been at the helm, a salvageable film would've been possible, however, I don't know what kind of bad drugs Julie Taymor (Titus) was doing while consuming mass amounts of High School Musical Disney Channel drivel to come up with this incoherently predictable mess. And I'll be the first to admit that I'm not a huge fan of the musical (Sweeney Todd was great and admittedly Moulin Rouge was amazing) but I know how they're supposed to work. The songs being sung should have some significance to what is going on in the scene. That being said, the song choices and placement were horrendous. Someone needs to explain to Miss Taymor the definition of the term "subtlety." When the artistic license of these classic tunes wasn't wrenched so unforgivingly out of proportion that the meaning is lost in a sea of confusing and homoerotic imagery (army recruitment dance numbers) it was crammed so blatantly down our throats that it seemed these scenes were thrown together by a 3rd grade remedial music class (think of singing the song "Blackbird" as a blackbird flies by, with no real association with what's going on in the scene.)

Then there were the one dimensional characters. Each persons motivation was so one sided and boring that by the end of the movie, I really didn't care what they'd accomplished so long as I got out of the theater with my brain safely in my skull and not dripping out my ears and on to the floor. Jude (yes, they named all the characters after significant Beatles nomenclature) comes to the Americas in search of his "war hero" dad. He falls in love with (you guessed it) Lucy who's brother happens to be Jude's new stateside buddy Max (Maxwell's Silver Hammer, for those keeping track.) The boys get the hairbrained idea to move to the "big city" and go nuts. They line up a dumpy apartment from Sadie (should I really even bother anymore?) who happens to be the resident Janis Joplin ripoff and soon they're all rooming together along with fellow Jimi Hendrix ripoff, JoJo and lesbian former cheerleader Prudence. Sound lame? It is.

What ensues is to be expected. No surprises, except that the talent of the Beatles is wasted on a story this pointless. For a more pleasant experience, drop some acid and pop in "Magical Mystery Tour" and call it a night.

Southland Tales

2008-07-17T07:22:00.000-07:00

Southland Tales, the follow up to 2001's cult phenomenon Donnie Darko by writer/director Richard Kelly, will likely not fall into the same status it's predecessor did. While Darko remains to this day one of my favorite films in recent years, Southland Tales may have been too big of an idea to sell this early in a budding film career. One can go into this film expecting anything and there is a 99% chance that what you get will not be remotely close. Even after reading the adjoining prequel graphic novels (Two Roads Diverge, Fingerprints and The Mechanicals) the conclusion encompassing parts 4,5, and 6 (Temptation Waits, Memory Gospel, and Wave of Mutilation) takes so many turns that it will take you by surprise whether you want it to or not.

Now those of you who have seen it, prepare your biting remarks and fresh produce for the flailing when I say I really enjoyed this movie. Overall, one can describe it as a "Pop Culture and Political Satire in the Apocalypse Blender on High Speed." The film in itself is basically commenting on the state of affairs, ALL affairs that we as Americans are dealing with in this day and age. We worship false gods on the silver screen, we're running out of fuel resources and our personal freedoms are being infringed upon more and more each day. These are all issues represented in Southland Tales that come to an absurdly chaotic conclusion that I found both whimsically odd and poignantly tragic.

One of my main concerns and points of confusion with the film was it's overabundance of characters. The central three (or four) are Boxer Santaros (Dwayne "the Rock" Johnson) the amnesiac movie star who is sleeping with Krysta Now (Sarah Michelle Gellar,) the porn star with her own reality show and hit single and Ronald Taverner (Seann William Scott,) amnesiac Iraqi war vet posing as his kidnapped twin brother Roland Taverner for an extremist group's publicity stunt/sting operation. Confused yet? That's just the beginning, and a laundry list of characters follow, weaving together a tapestry of conspiracy, revelation and ultimately, destruction. We have Zora Carmichaels (SNL's Cherie Oteri) a head of the upstart radical group, the Neo Marxists, Republican Senator Bobby Frost (played by Mr. Darko himself, Homes Osborne, the character's name being one of the two poets who inspired the film,) war draftee Martin Kefauver (Thumbsucker's Lou Taylor Pucci,) rogue cop Bart Bookman (John Lovitz,) the ice cream truck driving arms dealer Walter Mung (Highlander's Christopher Lambert,) Military Research specialist Simon Theory (a heavily made up and aged Kevin Smith,) and the war torn, drug addicted vet and narrator Pilot Abilene (a surprising casting choice of Justin Timberlake, who plays it surprisingly well.) The ever growing list of names and motives admittedly make for a particularly frustrating and confusing viewing experience, though for me, this adds to the replay value. Creating a puzzle that may or may not come together into a solid image. Though, to it's benefit, there are some really awesome scenes and imagery going for it, even if they never really meld into a coherent story. Some of the visuals in the last 20 minutes are impressive to say the least.

After rereading the graphic novels and giving the movie a few watches, I can surmise this. The moviegoing public or the public in general is not now, nor will it be ready for a movie that crosses so many genres while commenting on the current state of affairs and ultimately doesn't take itself seriously enough. But when it comes down to it, that is precisely the point Kelly was trying to make from the get go. Whether you loved it, hated it or couldn't care less, maybe it struck a chord somewhere and got you thinking.

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull

2008-07-17T07:21:00.000-07:00

As a long time fan of the series, dating back to the tender age of six when I witnessed the nazi's melting faces with awestruck amazement and genuine horror, I was particularly excited for Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. Now here's the thing. When you're anticipating a new Indiana Jones movie, what is it you're really looking for? Anthropological facts? Historical accuracy? Shia LaBeouf's naked ass? Of course not! Indiana Jones is the quintessensial thrill per minute adventure formula, so to expect any more or less would just be foolish. That being said, allow me to continue.

I'll start by saying I absolutely loved this movie. It harkened back a time when I gaped at movies in wide eye'd hypnosis and just let the ridiculousness ensue. By and large, this is possibly the largest scale Indy adventure thus far. While not spanning the globe to the extent of The Last Crusade or Raiders of the Lost Ark, the perilous obstacles are grander in scale by leaps and bounds, yet it still doesn't feel like it's too much. Once you've seen Indy outrun a giant boulder or gracelessly leap out of the way of the Breath of God-Death Scythes, it's not hard to believe anything he pulls off in Kingdom, even at his progressed age.

I admit, at first I was kind of distracted by Ford's weathered facade, but as soon as he started bounding across the rafters of the government "relic warehouse" I was sold. Ford's still got it and he ain't losing it anytime soon (I think after this we can forgive Hollywood Homicide.) Cate Blanchett fairs well playing Russian dominatrix/telepath (I know, right?) Irina Spalko and is relatively unrecogizable with her Louise Brooks haircut. Shia LaBeouf welcomes himself to the series as Mutt Williams, Indy's supposed son with Raiders alum Karen Allen, who returns as Marion Ravenwood (now Marion Williams, naturally.) John Hurt fills the absent shoes of Sean Connery as Jones's former mentor and colleague Oxley. Another welcome newcomer is Ray Winstone (Nicholson's left hand in The Departed and of Beowulf fame) as Mack, a cockney Brit who seems to have been through a war or two at Indy's side.

Granted this day in age the overuse of CG effects is a concern to everybody not in line to see Pixar's next instant classic (Wall-E, June 27th!) and of course Spielburg is going to use it. However, he DID use it sparingly, like he said he would, but when you've got a nuclear explosion, giant fire ants and a jungle-buggy swordfight it's kind of hard NOT to use it a little bit. Now I've been hearing a plethora of complaints about this movie and I can understand them to a point, but at the same time, I can't help but think that people didn't know or remember what kind of movie they'd paid to see. Anything in this movie is not more or less believeable than jumping from a crashing plane using nothing more than an oversized life-raft as a makeshift parachute or downing a Nazi fighter plane with a parasol and a flock of seagulls.

All in all, if your expectations are in the right place you should thoroughly enjoy Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. While not as good as Raiders or Crusade, it is much more enjoyable than Temple. Good cast, good adventure, good fun. Buy some popcorn and just remember to have fun.

Iron Man

2008-07-17T07:16:00.000-07:00

In what can be called the "official kick off to the summer movie season," Iron Man definitely opens up with a bang. Literally. One of the many downfalls or weak points in comic book movies of late has been what I refer to as "Origin Story Syndrome." With results ranging from a tedious 30 to 40 minutes of a nerdy Peter Parker coming into his new powers in Sam Raimi's Spider-Man to the heavily character driven vision-quest of Bruce Wayne that took up more than half of in Christopher Nolan's Batman Begins (the latter succeeding by leaps and bounds in my book.) When we are introduced to Tony Stark (played perfectly to a tee by my favorite revolving door rehab client, Robert Downey, Jr) we're barely given enough time to get comfortable in our squeaky theater seats before the first explosion is set off, thrusting our protagonist into the birthing process of a hero in the making. The different in this origin story is the way in which it's developed inside the over-arcing storyline within the film. At no point did I find myself thinking, "Well, ok, when the hell is he going to become Iron Man, already?" mainly because I was so enthralled with Tony Stark as a character. Whereas most comic book adaptations are all about the hero and the villain and overcoming the evil plot, these elements are melded perfectly within the story of a man coming to terms with his personal and moral obligations after becoming a victim of his own naivety and carelessness.

As I said before Robert Downey, Jr personifies Tony Stark completely. From his performances in Zodiac and Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang the choice was golden from the start. Jeff Bridges plays a perfect villain as Obadiah Stane and Terrence Howard plays a decent best friend/sidekick (or future War Machine.) The only character I felt was a bit of a misstep was Pepper Potts, played by a whimsically vacant Gwenyth Paltrow. It's not that she's untalented, I just don't think she really knew what to take from the character, resulting in a clicheic and sort of blank character that really doesn't do a whole lot for the film. Also, just for fun, look for Peter Billingsly's cameo (Ralphie from 'A Christmas Story,' yeah, he's in there.)

Overall, a good start for Marvel's independent production studio (now their own entity.) Jon Favreau (director and actor protraying Stark's chauffeur) obviously has a love for the character and the genre and let's it show onscreen without regret. With the sequel greenlit and rumored to be in early development already, let's hope that Marvel doesn't let old habits die hard and ruin it the way that X-Men 3 and Spider-Man 3 flew the coop and kicked it's entire audience in the teeth.