Ciné Critique Américain

Closed

2010-08-21T21:45:00.000-05:00

While I enjoyed writing these reviews, I have discovered that doing them well simply requires too much time, and I don't want to do them poorly, therefore, I quit.

Clash of the Titans (2010) (Review)

2010-04-05T20:58:00.000-05:00

     I knew I shouldn't have gone, but somehow, I couldn't resist. I knew it was going to suck, but I had to find out, for myself, just how badly.

     "Clash of the Titans" is loosely based on the Ray Harryhausen, stop motion effects film by the same name and even more loosely on Greek mythology. The Olympian gods are beginning to grow weak as humanity grow beyond their need for gods and stops worshiping them. Actually, one kingdom, Argos, is waging war on the gods by destroying their temples and statues, thereby weakening them by depriving them of human prayers. How they know this works is a mystery, but it does. Hades hatches a plan to scare humanity back into worshiping them by destroying the city of Argos, but he is really trying to destroy the other gods and rule for himself. Meanwhile, Perseus, son of Zeus, half god, half man, grows up knowing nothing of his true nature, loses his family to Hades, and broods throughout half of the movie. The other half he spends letting people die because he doesn't like his god half and refuses to use it until everyone else is dead and he absolutely has to. (Spoiled ingrate.) There are lots of amped up, CGI battle scenes, some for no reason whatsoever, Perseus has to be practically carried on most of the journey because he'd rather brood over his dead family and his origin than do anything about it, and Zeus gives Perseus all the help he could ever need despite the fact that Zeus doesn't know there is a plot against him and he, himself, ordered Argos to be destroyed, the very event Perseus (or the people dying around him) is trying to prevent. (Huh?)

     There is absolutely no reason for this movie to exist except to show epic battle scenes between Perseus and various mythological creatures and the gods, and those scenes are all sadly less than epic due to Perseus' whining insistence to not unleash his inner god. The plot is full of holes and rushes along as it tries to get just enough story in to justify the next CGI, action sequence. Sam Worthington, as Perseus, is lifeless and bland. His character displays no emotion and he couldn't act his way out of a wet paper bag. The love story between Perseus and the other demi-god Io (wasn't it supposed to be the princess Andromeda?) is equally emotionless and must be spelled out for anyone to know it exists. They did eliminate the corny mechanical owl as comic relief, but replaced it with two awkward hunters who stumble over each other and, somehow, manage to not die. (The owl would have been preferable.) The music is reminiscent of every factory or conveyor belt scene from any Looney Tunes cartoon.1 There are a few attempts at morals for the story, like ruling with love is better than ruling with fear or it's better to be a man than a god, but these attempts to inject meaning or substance into the story are clumsy executed and quickly become tiresome.

     I watched the 2-D version, so I can't intelligently comment on the 3-D elements, but no theaters in the intimidate area were showing the 3-D version, despite available screens, and I think I know why. I have read that the movie was originally not shot or rendered in 3-D, so it had to be converted, which lead to blurry action and odd, floating body parts.2 Whatever the case, I wouldn't recommend this movie in 2-D, much less paying extra for 3-D.

1 http://raymondscott.com/MENsndf.html
2 http://www.boston.com/ae/movies/articles/2010/04/02/crash_of_the_titans/

How to Train Your Dragon (Review)

2010-04-04T21:54:00.000-05:00

     Slim picking at the theater this weekend. I almost didn't go to see anything, but then I started to read things about DreamWorks' new offering. Things like, it's darker than you'd think and you shouldn't take small children. With nothing else playing locally and boredom setting in, that was enough to get me into a theater, and it was an enjoyable enough afternoon.

     Based on children's books by Cressida Cowell, "How to Train Your Dragon" is about Hiccup, (yes, Hiccup, it is a kids story,) a young Viking who isn't exactly like his Viking brethren. He's not strong, he's smart, and he lacks a lust for battle and death, though he does try to fit in. He also lives on an island frequented by swarms of dragons. Our young hero, through brains and determination, manages to down and cripple a dragon, but he does not have the heart to kill the beast. Rather, he builds a prosthetic tail fin for the dragon, which allows the dragon to fly again, so long as Hiccup is riding and working the tail fin. In the end, the village is saved, the dragons become welcome, and everyone learns a lesson about not killing stuff. Oh, and there is some rather dark symmetry between Hiccup and his dragon.

     Yes, this is, at heart, a kids movie, but it is not one that panders to children and throws in the occasional double entendre to keep parents awake. The dragons aren't anthropomorphic and they don't talk. They are animals. Some are more intelligent than others, but they act like animals should. The same goes for the people. Adults act as adults should and so do the younger characters. The story is, generally, predictable, but there are some surprising, and sometimes shocking, moments you won't see coming. There are a few, intense battle sequences, but despite talk of people and dragons dying, you don't actual see any dead dragons or people, though some older Vikings do bear the marks of past battles, including missing limbs. That is where the movie might not really be appropriate for younger children. (That, and the ending!) The 3-D isn't bad or distracting, but it is also useless. It's noticeable in some of the flying scenes, but that's about it.

     I don't normally go for this type of movie, children's films or anything about dragons, but "How to Train Your Dragon" has a real human side to it. The story was predictable, but it wasn't boring and was just different enough to keep me interested through to the final, climactic, battle scene and it's dark, yet feel good epilogue. There's no reason to rush out and see it in theaters, but, with what's in theaters now, you could do worse.

The Ghost Writer (Review)

2010-04-04T00:51:00.001-05:00

     Other than "Rosemary's Baby" and "Chinatown," I knew nothing of Roman Polanski's work, and the truly odd collection of Polanski films that the Alamo Drafthouse was using as its pre-movie entertainment was beginning to make me nervous. I had nothing to be nervous about though. Polanski is obviously a master and "The Ghost Writer" is proof.

     "The Ghost Writer" is about, well, a ghost writer (they never say his name!) played by Ewan McGregor. He is contracted to finish the memoir of fictional British Prime Minister, Adam Lang, played by Pierce Brosnan. The memoir is unfinished because the previous ghost writer is now a ghost, and the circumstances of his death become increasingly intriguing the deeper McGregor's character gets into the life of Brosnan's Blair/Bush like Prime Minister. There is an incredible amount of intrigue and mystery and just when you think you know where everything is going, the rug gets pulled out from under you.

     Everything about this film is absolutely brilliant. Polanski's writing and directing are amazing, Ewan McGregor, Pierce Brosnan, and Olivia Williams, as Lang's wife, are all thoroughly engaging and convincing, the story is all intrigue and mystery, the ending is surprising, shocking, and coldly morbid, yet all too real, and the entire movie mirrors real life almost too accurately. I'm sorry if I'm being a bit general, but I don't want to ruin a moment of this suspense masterpiece.

     "The Ghost Writer" is a thoroughly engaging and masterfully executed suspense thriller and well worth seeing again and again.

The Runaways (Review)

2010-04-04T00:30:00.000-05:00

A true story, an indie film, chicks that rock, sex, drugs, and rock and roll. I couldn't wait.

     "The Runaways" is the true story of one of Rock's first all female bands, The Runaways. Based on the memoir by former band member Cherie Currie, the film chronicles the rise and fall of The Runaways, focusing on two of its founding members, Joan Jett and Cherie Currie. The story is one very familiar to Rock, a meteoric rise followed by a drug induced crash back to reality, but it's told in a way that's empowering without preaching and captures the intoxicating excitement of being a rock star.

     I thoroughly enjoyed "The Runaways." Kristen Stewart is amazing as Joan Jett and she shows that she can play something more than just twilight style teen angst. (This was the 70's. No teen angst. You just got pissed and rebelled!) Even more stunning is Dakota Fanning as Cherie Currie. Fanning is absolutely brilliant as she sheds her child star mantel and takes her rightful place in the adult acting world, despite the fact that both she, and her character, are under-aged. Rounding out the cast is Michael Shannon, who plays the band's promoter and manager, the insanely manic Kim Fowley. Shannon absolutely nails the self centered narcissism, and possible genius, of Fowley. Plus there's plenty of sex, drugs, and rock and roll. (Did I mention that already?)

     Missing from this adaptation are some of the darker aspects of Joan Jett's and Cherie Currie's early lives. There is no real mention of rape or abuse. The worst we see is the effects of the Currie's parent's divorce and Currie's father's crippling alcoholism. This movie is dark enough without them and would likely be in danger of becoming a made for Lifetime movie if it delved any deeper into Jett and Currie's troubled pasts.

     "The Runaways" balances the extreme ecstasy of Rock stardom with the harsh realities of fame while telling the bitter, true story of a group of girls who made rock history. Watch it for the sex and drugs and love it for the rock and roll!

Repo Men (Review)

2010-03-21T21:26:00.000-05:00

     The previews and hype for "Repo Men" screamed stay away but the concept and Jude Law gave me some hope. Maybe there's something more to this movie. Maybe it's not just an over-hyped, action filled, excuse for bloody violence. Maybe, just maybe, it's worth seeing. Then again, maybe not.

     "Repo Men" stars Jude Law and Forest Whitaker as a pair of repo men who come to repossess very expensive artificial organs from people who have fallen behind on their loan payments. It is somehow legal for them to incapacitate and slice people open, wherever they just happen to be, (after breaking into their homes, in public, whatever) remove organs by hand, and leave people lying in pools of blood, dead or dying. It is also, somehow, permitted for these organs to be reclaimed, cleaned, and resold, which, amazingly, is more profitable for the company than selling organs on credit and having the entire loan repaid. Jude Law's character ends up needing an artificial heart and, rather than opening up the door for some deep, soul-searching analysis of what he does for a living, it simply puts him on the other side of the equation, where he and his former partner can have several over extended and unrealistic fight scenes. There's also a very convenient and under developed love story between Jude Law's character and, basically, Melina from Total Recall, played by Alice Braga. Also, Jude Law's character is trying to get his wife and son back, but that gets in the way of the first love story, so that just kind of evaporates. Oh, and I almost forgot to mention the incredible twist ending that is heavily foreshadowed and can be seen coming from a mile away.

     What a muddled mess. "Repo Men" tries desperately to be a science fiction morality tale, but has no moral and makes no statement about society. It tries to have a love story, but can't seem to decide if Jude Law's character loves his wife and son or the club singer he found in a gutter, strung out on futuristic looking, red cocaine who suddenly becomes perfectly healthy and fights like a seasoned professional after two days straight of being unconscious because she was strung out and coming down. (What??!) It desperately tries to be an action movie, but the action is over stylized, unbelievable, over extended, full of MTV style quick cuts, and tries to be a substitute for a real plot or an actual ending. In the end, (which couldn't have come soon enough,) "Repo Men" tries to blow your mind by being a psychological thriller with a twist ending, but the possibility of the twist is given away far too early and too often and hinted at more than once during the ending, so, unless you were texting during the movie and not paying attention, there is no surprise twist, just a feeling of being thoroughly let down as the inevitable happens.

     The premise had some promise, but there is absolutely no analysis or explanation of the social situation. We are not sure what 'The Union' is or what role it plays in society. The absolute first thing you hear is a staticky news item about the U.S. government going bankrupt, but there is absolutely no further mention of the social or political situation. The repossession and resale (Resale? Really?!) of artificial organs is rationalized by some quick exposition at the beginning of the film and there is no other mention of why or how this can possibly be legal or socially acceptable. I might be able to swallow such a illogical and flawed premise if there was some kind of pay off, but all it leads up to is action, violence, and insulting my intelligence. (And shouldn't the people who work for the artificial organ company have better health insurance??!)

     Don't buy into the hype. "Repo Men" isn't worth a matinee ticket price, much less waiting in lines and sitting in a crowded theater full of kids texting. If you must see for yourself, do yourself a favor and wait for "Repo Men" to hit the dollar theaters or Netflix. It'll be there faster than you think.

Green Zone (Review)

2010-03-21T21:12:00.000-05:00

     I had low expectations for "Green Zone." I thought that Paul Greengrass' direction of "The Bourne Supremacy" and "The Bourne Ultimatum" got progressively worse one film to the next and this was being billed as the next Greengrass/Damon action movie. Surprisingly, it is more than that. Not too much more, but Greengrass seems to be getting better.

     "Green Zone" takes place not long after the US invasion of Iraq. Matt Damon plays Chief Warrant Officer Roy Miller, assigned to investigate suspected hiding places of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. (Big surprise, he isn't finding any!) Miller soon begins to suspect that the intelligence they are using is unreliable (another shocker) but his superiors don't believe (or don't want to believe) that the intelligence is to blame. Enter Brendan Gleeson as CIA operative Martin Brown. Brown is at odds with his superiors about the post invasion strategy (because there wasn't one) and recruits Miller to help him find the source of the faulty intelligence. After that there's more 'plot' than an action movie should have, a lot of fast action, explosions, chase scenes and a heavy handed attempt at a moral.

     Greengrass' style of shaky camera action actually works for most of the combat scenes, and the editing is not so fast that it makes the action sequences unintelligible; the chase scenes, however, are another matter. There is an attempt to build suspense or turn "Green Zone" into some kind Bourne style mystery/thriller, but there really is no mystery. (Unless, of course, you haven't paid any attention to the news for the past seven years.) There are no weapons of mass destruction, the intelligence is faulty, and it is quite obvious who, in the movie, is to blame for that, and you spend half of the movie, literally, chasing that answer. Top all that off with a less than satisfactory ending (we are STILL there, after all) and a very heavy handed 'moral,' and you've got something in between a passable action movie or a laughable suspense/thriller/spy/Bourne/whatever flick.

     "Green Zone" is pure popcorn fodder. If you can turn off your brain for a while, you might enjoy the explosions. If not, then don't bother.

P.S. A few real people and companies who appear in "Green Zone" have had their names changed so this can be a work of fiction. The basic premise, however, is not fiction. We went into a sovereign nation on bad intelligence and had a poor plan for after the war. If you can't bring yourself to admit that by now, just go back and watch Fox News. They'll protect you from the scary truth (with their scary distortions.) On the other hand, simply pointing out the reality of a seven year old situation is not enough reason to like a movie.

An Education (Review)

2010-03-21T20:50:00.001-05:00

     I wasn't in the mood to see Disney re-bastardize two classic pieces of literature and I had seen everything else playing locally that was worth seeing, so it was time to drive a little and catch up on some limited release films.

     "An Education" is based on the memoir of Lynn Barber, a British journalist who, when she was sixteen in the early 1960s, was seduced by an older man. I want to tread lightly here because it is very easy to give away too much and ruin this movie, but there are a few things that an American audience should know before seeing "An Education." 'A-levels' are sort of like British college entrance exams, 'sixth form' is a school or institution where students, usually sixteen to eighteen years old, take their last two, optional, years of school in order to study for their A-levels ~~'sixth form' is a student, usually sixteen to eighteen years old, who is taking their last two, optional, years of school in order to study for their A-levels~~, and Peter Rachman, the man at the dog track, is infamous for buying slums and moving in immigrants from the West Indies, who could live no where else, and extorting excessive rent from them. Forgive me if that was over simplified, but it should get someone who didn't know through the movie. (It would have helped me!)

     Still trying to tread lightly, Carey Mulligan is brilliant and convincing, as Jenny, an intelligent, charming, and beautiful sixteen year old girl who's just a bit too mature for her age. She is seduced by David, played almost too well, by Peter Sarsgaard, a seemingly, wealthy, worldly, and very charming, older man. He is also more than he appears to be and, in the end, so much less. Before meeting David, everyone in Jenny's life knows her intelligence and potential, so they drive her toward the best formal education she can get, but once a man comes into her life, someone who can give her everything she would ever want, her teachers try to keep Jenny on course and her father, played notably by Alfred Molina, tries to steer her away from expensive Oxford and toward a life more exciting and charmed than his working class existence, and Jenny, ultimately, gets a far greater education than she had ever wanted.

     "An Education" is a well acted, well directed, and is a truly charming coming of age story as well as a true story. It was well worth the wait and deserves every one of the awards it won, and maybe some of the ones it didn't.

Black Dynamite (Review)

2010-03-11T15:53:00.000-06:00

      Somehow, I missed "Black Dynamite" when it was in theaters. Now, finally, thanks to Netflix, I get to see it. (Can you dig it?)

     "Black Dynamite" is pure spoof. It parodies the classic Blaxploitation films of the early 1970s, making fun of films like "Shaft," "Dolemite," and many others in the short lived, but prolific, genre, mocking their low budget production values, kung fu prostitutes, and the unending battle against The Man. Black Dynamite, played by Michael Jai White, is a former CIA operative and bad ass pimp, who is training his prostitutes in kung fu so they can fight The Man in the coming revolution. When The Man kills his brother, Black Dynamite comes out of retirement to avenge his brother's death and uncover an evil plot by The Man to destroy the black community.

     ...And that's about as much sense as the plot will ever make. Most Blaxploitation films have continuity errors and plot holes so big you could drive a mac truck through them, and so does "Black Dynamite," but it's meant to. Being a genre spoof, there isn't much to say about "Black Dynamite," except that it's an intelligently done spoof of Blaxploitation films that just gets better and funnier the more you know about the genre but is likely to confuse those with no knowledge of Blaxploitation. Michael Jai White is dead on, and drop dead funny, as stone cold (I am smiling,) yet righteous, cultural warrior, Black Dynamite, fighting in the revolution against The Man. Numerous other supporting roles, like Arsenio Hall as Tasty Freeze and Tommy Davidson as Cream Corn, are just as funny and accurate to the genre.

     "Black Dynamite" is a must see for anyone who's ever seen a Blaxploitation film. Can you dig it?

P.S. If you're looking into the genre for the first time, start with "Shaft" and work your way down. "Dolemite" is kinda rough, as in, you might not ever try the genre again.

From Paris with Love (Review)

2010-02-28T14:07:00.000-06:00

    The critics thought very little of "From Paris with Love" and I didn't think I wanted to watch John Travolta act like an idiot for an hour and a half, but I was bored and I didn't want to drive very far, so, it was "From Paris with Love," a couple of chick flicks, a couple of kiddie movies, or an idiotic comedy. As it turns out, the least of all evils was actually not bad at all.

     "From Paris with Love" is an action/spy flick starring John Travolta (and his royale with cheese) as bulletproof, super spy Charlie Wax and Jonathan Rhys Meyers as wanna be spy James Reece. Wax is trying to take out terrorists and the drug ring supporting them and Reece is just along for the ride, desperately trying to get home to his hot, French girlfriend played by Kasia Smutniak. Along the way, Reece, ever so slowly, learns to trust Wax, and just shut up and do what he says. This is an action movie, so the plot isn't all that important, but it does take a few, nice twists here and there. (Don't try to solve the mystery, there isn't one! Travolta tells you that.)

     Travolta is really the only reason to see this movie. If your not a fan, don't bother. Meyers plays his character well, but his character isn't exactly likable until near the end. The action sequences are not too fast to follow or done in annoying, shaky cam, but they do paint Travolta's character as an invincible, super spy who can kill a room full of bad guys while sliding, upside down, down a fireman's pole. Despite this, you don't have to suspend disbelief as much as one might think, because Meyers' character can't believe it either and he's in the film. There's a decidedly dark turn toward the end, but the drama doesn't take over, and it all makes for a satisfying and solid, action movie, ending.

     If you're looking for an Oscar worthy story or an all out action blockbuster, "From Paris with Love" isn't it, but if you're looking for a solid action movie with a story that's better than most action movies, this is it, plus John Travolta.

The Crazies (Review)

2010-02-28T12:08:00.000-06:00

     Crazed, bio-warfare zombies in a small town quarantined by the government; so much promise and so little delivery.

     "The Crazies," a remake of George Romero 1973 film by the same name, is about a small Iowa farming community where residents are going insane. Very slowly and calmly they become homicidal, bloody, and then dead. Sheriff Dutton, played by Timothy Olyphant, who, surprisingly, is not a former police officer from 'the big city' who's come to a small town to get away from city crime and police drama, (everything else about the film was completely cliche, why shouldn't that be?) begins to piece together why townsfolk are ever so slowly going nuts, and figures it out, all too conveniently, just in time for the government to show up, quarantine the area, and evacuate everyone who isn't a bio-zombie. Sheriff Dutton must, of course, escape from the government quarantine, to find his pregnant wife who has been falsely identified as being one of the crazies. They then proceed to hook up with a couple of other survivors and wander around Iowa, trying to find a car and escape government quarantine.

     This film has so many failings. Where to begin? Let's start with the fact that there is no tension. Every time they try to build tension, it's obvious what's going to happen next, so there is no tension, just a long, boring moment where you wait for the bio-zombie to pop out, the gunshot that will save someone at the last second, or nothing at all. (Ha ha, fooled you. Not really.) It got tedious quickly. Also tedious was all the walking. Most of this movie is people walking, or taking very short lived trips in vehicles, that they walked miles and miles to get to. Some of this walking is supposed to be character development, but the characters are extremely cliche, so you know where all that's going as well. The plot, if you can call it that, wanders around as much as the four main characters. They are trying to escape, they are trying to find people, they are trying to escape, they are trying to find the military, they are trying to avoid the military, they are heading for the military, they are hiding from the military, and then they are trying to escape yet again. Once you get the basics, bio-zombies, government quarantine, and a small group of survivors, all the characters in this movie do is slowly walk from one place to another, hoping to find a vehicle, and then they lose it really quickly. Most of their wandering is pointless as well. Why get a car when black hawk helicopters are constantly patrolling and killing anything that moves? Why walk along the highway when black hawk helicopters are constantly patrolling and killing anything that moves? Why head for the largest known concentration of military forces in the area if all you are going to do is try to sneak past them? Worse than the lack of direction is the 'plot convenience theater' happening throughout the movie. More than once, people outside or in other rooms, who don't have a clear view of what is happening, take miracle gun shots that take out bio-zombies and save their comrades in the nick of time. Need to set a bio-zombie on fire? Good thing you just happened to grab a lighter about five minutes ago. Bio-zombies want to attack you while you're in the car? Good thing it suddenly develops engine trouble and won't start. All the convenient coincidences only make the predictability of the film worse because, now, you know exactly what's going to happen and it's highly unlikely.

     There isn't nearly enough action or bio-zombie attacks to make this film likable to action or horror movie fans and the complete lack of plot, character development, pacing, and just about everything else that goes into making a movie makes it unenjoyable to anyone else. (Except maybe the kid two seats over texting non stop.) Skip this hack of a remake and go rent (illegally download) the George Romero version. I haven't seen it and have no idea how good it is, but it has to be better than watching four people wander aimlessly through empty fields in Iowa.

P.S.

     The only moment that actually took me by surprise is when the sheriff gets stabbed through the hand, but that was it and definitely not worth the ticket price. Good thing Abby bought the tickets. Hopefully he'll forget I owe him on this one.

Shutter Island (Review)

2010-02-21T21:02:00.000-06:00

     I couldn't wait for "Shutter Island." Martin Scorsese, Leonardo DiCaprio, and a creepy, psychological thriller; what could possibly go wrong? Well, not much, but the end was a bit of a let down.

     "Shutter Island," as I said before, is a creepy, psychological thriller directed by film legend Martin Scorsese and starring Leonardo DiCaprio as federal marshal Teddy Daniels, who's investigating the apparent disappearance of a 'patient' from the asylum for the criminally insane on Shutter island, where nothing is as it seems and everyone's motives are in question.

     Just about everything in "Shutter Island" is dead on. Martin Scorsese knows how to make a movie. The actors give great performances, the cinematography is breathtaking, frightening, shocking, or whatever else Scorsese wants it to be, the story is suspenseful yet reveals its self at a good pace, and the pace keeps your attention through all two hours and eighteen minutes of film. For me, though, the twist ending was a bit of a disappointment. (This is where you stop reading if you don't want to know too much!)
I enjoyed most of the movie because it was a true psychological thriller, but felt a bit let down when I realized I had sat through all of that and most of it was not real. I think I would have preferred to have the true nature of federal marshal Teddy Daniels hinted at sooner. Having it all spelled out at the end, and not even knowing the absolute truth of it until the very end, just seems to bring all the momentum the story has built to that point to a screeching halt and was more of a disappointment than a shock.

      It's hard to miss with Martin Scorsese and Leonardo DiCaprio, and Scorsese doesn't miss, but for me, "Shutter Island" wasn't the psychological thriller I had hoped it would be.

Undead (Review)

2010-02-21T21:01:00.000-06:00

     After watching "Daybreakers," I was somewhat impressed with the Spierig Brothers. I wondered if they had done anything else, and they had. In 2003, they had made a zombie movie called "Undead." What luck. I love zombie movies and these two seem like promising new film makers. "Undead" went right to the top of my Netflix queue. Turns out that was a bad call.

     "Undead" is a (comedy?) zombie movie about a small Australian town that gets pelted by a meteor shower which quickly turns the residents of the town into zombies. A small handful of survivors huddle together to fight off the zombie hordes, but that's only part of the story; there's also mysterious acid rain, alien abduction, and a huge spiked wall now surrounding the town and our heroes are slowly getting eaten, infected, abducted, or otherwise picked off.

     I couldn't really tell if the Spierig Brothers had meant to make a zombie comedy, a spoof of horror movies, or just a B movie, but whatever their intent, they failed. If "Undead" is meant to be funny, it's not. Cliches, bad acting, stereotypical plots, and overkill gore are not funny on their own; they're just boring and tedious. The story was original, but that only makes "Undead" seem more like a genuine attempt at a movie, and if that's the case, B movie would be a compliment. I understand that this is a low budget film that was written, directed, produced, and edited by two people, but it still falls short by any standard. (I suppose it could gain a cult following.)

     I look forward to the Spierig Brothers' future projects, but I am now weary of their other past works.   (All one of them.)

The Wolfman (Review)

2010-02-14T21:57:00.000-06:00

     I had a weary feeling going into "The Wolfman." The same sort of feeling I had going into the recent "Sherlock Holmes." Both films tread on the hallowed ground of classic material. You must tread lightly there and show proper respect. "The Wolfman" fails to do either.

     "The Wolfman" is based on the original 1941 film "The Wolf Man." In the modern adaptation, Lawrence Talbot, played lifelessly by Benicio Del Toro, is mauled by an enormous, man like wolf creature (...a werewolf) and, at the next full moon, the curse of the werewolf causes him to also become a werewolf, and the only one who can free him from this curse (kill him) is one who loves him.

     There isn't a lot to the plot that you haven't see before, but if the story is done well and the characters are people we can empathize with, that shouldn't matter. In "The Wolfman," it matters. Let's start with the action sequences. They are far too graphic, fast, and unbelievable. It seems like the plot and story are just a contrivance to get us to the action sequences where body parts fly, shredded corpses litter the ground, and werewolves move like actors in a kung-fu movie, defying the laws of physics to put on a show which happens far too quickly and that is far beyond any suspension of disbelief. The basics of a great story are there. Lawrence Talbot and Gwen Conliffe, played here by Emily Blunt, fall in love and Gwen must kill Lawrence to set him free and end the curse. We even get an a new twist on the story with Sir Anthony Hopkins, who plays Lawrence Talbot's father, also being a werewolf. Now the son must kill his beloved father to free him from the curse. None of this potential is realized, however, because all three actors give us wooden, emotionless, and absolutely dead performances. Lawrence Talbot has no love for his father, and the love story between Lawrence Gwen is never developed. Rather, it's quickly and awkwardly established in ten second of exposition. You are never allowed to develop any empathy or feeling for any of these characters. They just stare at the camera and deliver lines flatly so we an all get on to the next, unbelievably gruesome scene of werewolf carnage. While we can blame writers Andrew Kevin Walker and David Self for the lack of story, ultimately, blame rests with director Joe Johnston. Anyone who can't get a decent performance out of Sir Anthony Hopkins doesn't need to be directing.

     "The Wolfman" doesn't have enough action for fans of action films, the gore happens to quickly for fans of splatter flicks, and is awful even for a monster movie. I wouldn't recommend wasting your time on it, or its inevitable sequel. (Yes, sadly, the ending set up a sequel.)

Death Bed: The Bed That Eats (Review)

2010-02-14T21:56:00.000-06:00

     I suppose I have Ray to thank for reminding me about the Patton Oswalt bit where Patton talks about how much harder screenwriting is now that they have actually released, on DVD, Death Bed: The Bed That Eats (People. And apples and chicken and flowers, ect...)

     Death Bed: The Bed That Eats (People or whatever) is about an evil bed borne from demon blood that eats whoever or whatever get near it. There's also an artist who is trapped in one of his paintings who narrates most of the story (if you can call it that) and talks to the bed... (What am I writing??!) We slowly get the history of bed kills played out in flashback as the current crop of victims is slowly devoured by the bed. It all ends (spoiler alert!) in the bed's demon curse being broken and the bed going up in flames. It stars people who you have never heard of and who would do gratuitous nude scenes in a indie film shot on 35mm film in the 70's. There is no acting in this movie, just people calmly reading off lines. There is, however, more inner dialogue than "Dune." (I made that statistic up.) There's also scenes of a man with skeletal, lots of 'blood,' and toes that bleed for no reason, the bed eats an apple and spits out the core, ect... You get the idea.

      Death Bed: The Bed That Eats (People or Pepto-Bismol or whatever) is awful, even for an indie, 1970's self written, directed, and produced project, but it is just tolerable enough, just bad enough, to be funny. Well, you might need some friends to watch it with and some mind altering substances (kids, just say no) to actually make it funny, otherwise, just go find (legally obtain a copy of) the Patton Oswalt bit where he talks about the movie and watch that. It's funnier and about seventy minutes shorter.

     Thanks Ray.

Crazy Heart (Review)

2010-02-10T20:33:00.000-06:00

     Growing up in small (extremely small) town Texas, I have a healthy dislike for Country music. So does "Crazy Heart." It might seem like a meaningless distinction, but "Crazy Heart" is more about the very old school Country/Western/West Texas kind of not quite Country, not quite Rock, not quite Folk music that has a real authenticity to it without being pretentious or superior about exactly how authentic it is the way modern Country music tends to be. The kind musical background that gives us artists ranging from Willie Nelson to Janis Joplin. This may make this review a bit biased, but the characters and situations in this film are real (to me, anyway.) I've known them and people like them all my life. "Crazy Heart" is a real, down to earth drama that doesn't claim that down to earth is somehow superior like so much commercialized, so called, Country music does today.

     "Crazy Heart" is about aging Country and Western star Bad Blake, played Jeff Bridges. Bad Blake is fifty-seven, broke, alcoholic, and is now consigned to playing gigs in small bars in the middle of nowhere and bowling alleys. On one of these gigs he meets small town reporter and hopeful writer Jean Craddock, played by Maggie Gyllenhaal. She has a bit of an infatuation for this aging music icon and the has been Country and Western star is drawn to the occasional glimpses of family life he gets from Jean and her 4 year old son. Add to this Tommy Sweet, played by Colin Farrell, a former member of Bad Blake's band in Blake's glory days and a current Country/Pop star who has reverence for his former mentor for teaching him everything he knows about music and resentment about his fallen idol's alcohol soaked condition. Eventually, Bad Blake finds redemption in these two and the strength to crawl out of the bottle and write new music, even if he's not the star who's playing it anymore.

     "Crazy Heart" is an almost shockingly realistic drama and story of redemption that really lets you get to know the best and worst of its characters without getting preachy or saccharine. Bridges' Bad Blake has a realistic, hard edge to him that isn't endearing but is very human and allows you to connect with his character and his character's situation in a very real and meaningful way. As I said before, I may be biased because of this, but I have known people like Bad Blake all my life, and Bridges Blake was hauntingly familiar to me as were some of the other supporting characters. Gyllenhaal is similarly authentic as the single mother who, rightfully, fears Bad Blake's alcoholic exterior but loves his warm and caring inner self. She makes it easy to both empathize with her need to feel some kind of love and painful to watch her making the same mistakes over and over again. The story may not be overly surprising, but it is realistic and it seems, even the characters themselves can see most of what's coming, but, just like real life, they allow themselves to be pulled into all to familiar and destructive paths until something or someone comes along to pull them out or remind them about the things in life that are worth living for.

     Despite my extreme aversion to Country music, I thoroughly enjoyed "Crazy Heart," and I hope its Western flavor doesn't stop others from enjoying this well acted, well written, drama about some very flawed, but very real characters.

P.S.
     Seeing it at the Alamo Drafthouse and having their "Crazy Heart" themed Biscuit-Battered Bourbon Steak Fingers, made with Bad Blake's three favorite foods, buttermilk biscuits, steak, and bourbon, didn't hurt the experience either. If you are ever in Austin, go to the Drafthouse. You won't regret it.

Edge of Darkness (Review)

2010-01-31T23:46:00.000-06:00

     Going into the theater, I was optimistic about "Edge of Darkness." It seemed to have a lot going for it; Mel Gibson in an angry, emotional role, Ray Winstone in a shadowy, mysterious role, a dark story, and director Martin Campbell, who also directed the BBC mini series that the movie is based on. Happily, it all comes together well. Well, it comes together well if you like dark and violent. (I do!)

     "Edge of Darkness" is a dramatic tale of mystery and vengeance starring Mel Gibson as Thomas Craven, a Boston police detective who's daughter is shot and killed just as she is trying to reveal to him the real reason for her sudden visit. Craven begins to investigate his daughter's murder and becomes increasingly motivated by revenge as he descends into a complex web of corporate conspiracy and government cover-ups. He is aided (or is he?) by a shadowy NSA agent named Jedburgh, played Ray Winstone. Both characters are searching for a kind of redemption and, in the end, both receive some measure of it.

     "Edge of Darkness" has a gripping, dramatic, story that keeps you engaged and resolves all the mysterious elements, but only in due course. The drama and mystery are punctuated by scenes of sudden and intense violence, all of which are done very realistically and are not over stylized or completely unbelievable or unintelligible like a lot of action movies seem to be today. The violence is also not inappropriately bloody or gory, but, again, is realistic and believable, though some scenes are appropriately bloody and intense. Gibson is quite convincing, almost frighteningly so, as a bereaved father who will stop at nothing to avenge his daughter's death because he has nothing else left to lose, and Winstone, in some ways, outshines Gibson in his stone cold portrayal of a NSA fixer who may, or may not, be tired of cleaning up other people's messes. The thick, Boston accents didn't distract form the film and seem, to me anyway, to be authentic, but, then again, I can't really tell (y'all.)

     I always enjoy realistic action dramas or thrillers. "Michael Clayton" comes to mind. "Edge of Darkness" is a bit more intense than "Michael Clayton," and a lot more violent, but all the same basic elements are there, good actors, good characters, good writing, good drama, and a realistic execution. All of it makes for a well done drama that one can enjoy without having to suspend disbelief.

Extraordinary Measures (Review)

2010-01-31T20:30:00.000-06:00

     I almost didn't see "Extraordinary Measures." I almost allowed a lot of poor critical reviews stop me from going to see a well done story of courage, hope, human drama, and just the right amount of some very heartwarming humor. I'm glad I don't always listen to the critics.

     "Extraordinary Measures," based on a book and actual events, is the story of a father, John Crowley, played by Brendan Fraser, who is desperate to find a cure for two of his children who are dying of Pompe disease. He finds Dr. Robert Stonehill, played by Harrison Ford, an eccentric researcher whose work is radically different and advanced. Crowley begins to raise money for Stonehill's research and eventually gets the good doctor in a position where he can make real progress on an actual treatment before Crowley's children die.

     I've heard that the book "Extraordinary Measures" is based on, as well as the movie its self, doesn't quite stick to the facts and gives too much credit to John Crowley and not enough to Dr. William Canfield, the real life researcher that Ford's character is based on. I don't know how true this is or exactly how accurate or skewed the facts are, but that doesn't really matter. "Extraordinary Measures" is a story based on true events, not a historical bio pic. Even though the character of John Crowley is supposed to be the hero, and he is in some very important ways, when he is not being a loving, dedicated father who will do anything to save his children, he's still a corporate executive, a stuffed suit, and not all that likable, and despite the fact that the character of Dr. Stonehill seems to have to be pushed to overcome himself in order to do the right thing, his character seems far more human than Crowley and, ultimately, is the real hero. It likely doesn't help each of these characters much that Brendan Fraser, who is a fine actor, pales next to the incredible acting talent of seasoned veteran Harrison Ford. I do sympathize with a father trying to save the lives of his children, but that doesn't make him, or his character a likable person. Perhaps these actors do a better job in their respective roles than they are given credit for. In any case, the story is supposed to be about how a father's determination saved his children, but what comes through is that large pharmaceutical companies are heartless and driven solely by profit, a father will be as much of a jerk as he has to be in order to save his children, and a brilliant and kind-hearted, yet odd, doctor did everything he could to save one man's children, and many others, from death at the hands of a terrible disease. (That and Meredith Droeger is absolutely adorable as a sick little girl who won't give up.)

     "Extraordinary Measures" may not exactly be the truth, but is makes for a good story and a bittersweet, good time. Besides, I'm sure The History Channel will come out with a more accurate account, and we can all watch that and be informed. Until then, just feel good that there's one less disease killing children.

Legion (Review)

2010-01-25T21:10:00.000-06:00

     I didn't really know what to think about "Legion" going into it. The previews had a lot of fast action and and one, mean grandma. I was hoping that the action was all in the trailer and there was a lot more of grandma or her ilk. I wasn't too disappointed.

     "Legion" is an action/thriller about a coming apocalypse and a renegade angel who it trying to save humanity from it. Paul Bettany plays the fallen Archangel Michael, who has come to protect Adrianne Palicki's character, Charlie, and her soon to be born (on Christmas!) baby from the Archangel Gabriel, played by Kevin Durand, who is now leading heaven's armies aganist humanity, Michael, Charlie, and her soon to be born, savior child. Dennis Quaid, Charles S. Dutton, and a few others round out the cast as well written, pretty well acted supporting characters and cannon fodder.

     "Legion" does a good job at building suspense, developing its characters, and moving the story along while still giving you plenty of action, explosions, and angel fights. Much of the movie has a nice, trapped in a house/zombie movie feel to it as the main characters barricade themselves in a diner and fend off waves of angel possessed humans. Bettany and Durandis both do well as frighteningly dedicated angels, both hellbent on carrying out their respective missions, but it really is Quaid, Dutton, and some of the other supporting characters who make this film as good and enjoyable as it is. This shows in the ending, which is satisfying enough and appropiate for a movie like this, but is also a little dry with the majority of the supporting characters gone and is a bit too action oriented.

     "Legion" isn't going to be a classic or win any Oscars, but it is an enjoyable time in the theater and is worth, at least, a matinee ticket price.

   P.S. "The Prophecy" is still the reigning champ for creepy angel movies. You just can't beat Christopher Walken and Viggo Mortensen.

And Now for Something Completely Different (Review)

2010-01-24T19:41:00.000-06:00

     This is sort of a movie so I guess this is sort of a review. "And Now for Something Completely Different" isn't really a movie as much as it is a collection of skits from the first two seasons of "Monty Python's Flying Circus" redone for the movie screen. It was shown in theaters around the US in the early 70's, so technically, I suppose, it qualifies as a movie. It was originally intended to introduce American audiences to Monty Python (no YouTube or Hulu back then) and is the first of the Python's films.

     Just in case you don't know what "Monty Python's Flying Circus" was, they were a comedy troupe out of Great Brittan in the early 1970's. Their comedy was so unique that dictionaries had to invent the word Pythonesque just to describe it. Their skits are often ridiculous in premise, go in completely unexpected directions, and have no ending or punchline, but rather, they just bleed into the next skit or end suddenly or they get interrupted by another skit or a bit of some of the oddest animation anyone had seen at the time, and that's exactly what you can expect from "And Now for Something Completely Different;" oddities like a pet shop owner who can't be convinced that a parrot he sold is actually dead, a mountaineer with double vision who wants to go up the twin peaks of Mount Kilimanjaro, (there's only one!) and, my personal favorite, an instructional video on how not to be seen. (Don't stand up!)

     Of all the Python's movie's, "And Now for Something Completely Different" is the least movie like and, really, exactly like watching an hour and a half of their TV show. If you like Monty Python, then you'll like this, if you don't, you won't, and if you've never seen them, well, this will give you a really good idea of what you're missing. You'll also learn how to defend yourself when your attacker is armed with fresh fruit. (Eat the banana, thus disarming your attacker.)

The Book of Eli (Review)

2010-01-24T18:30:00.000-06:00

     Denzel Washington and a gritty, realistic, post apocalyptic Hellscape; how can you go wrong? Well,sadly, it's quite easy; lousy story.

     "The Book of Eli" features Denzel Washington as Eli, former K-Mart employee who is now 30 years into a post apocalyptic journey to get a book of great importance somewhere in the West. We pick up his journey near its end as he comes across a small group of people living in the rubble of a former town and being led by a tyrannical dictator named Carnegie, played by Gary Oldman. Oldman's character wants the book as well. Mila Kunis plays Solara, who is either fleeing the tyranny of the town or working against our hero to steal his all important book.

     "The Book of Eli" manages to do almost everything right, the casting is very good, Denzel Washington does a good job as a hardened man on a mission, the landscape and special effects are superb, the directing and pace of the film are just right for an action/thriller, and the action scenes are almost over the top, but not too bad and they aren't too numerous or drawn out. (Except for the opening, arrow shot sequence.) So, what kills this movie, really? (I'm completely giving the ending away here.)
What kills "The Book of Eli" is the book. What is it? Why are people willing to kill for it? The implication in the trailers is that it's a Bible, but surely, there is more to the story than that, right? Wrong. It's a King James version of the Bible. Survivors of the war which brought on this apocalypse blamed religions and tried to destroy all copies of religious texts. Oldman's character is after what is believed to be the last, remaining copy of the Bible because he believes it will allow him to control more people over a greater area. Maybe it will, but you can always just make up a new religion. Most of the people alive grew up after the war and can't read anyway. Denzel's character is taking the Bible west because God speaks to him. Also, God is protecting him on his journey, as in bullets seem to miraculously miss or bounce off of him and he can easily slaughter people who try to take his Bible away. (Very Christian.) It is at this point that the movie loses me completely. I can take that it's a Bible and people are willing to kill for its potential power over the masses, but Denzel's character is being guided by the inner voice of God, he is actively being protected by the hand of God, and, in the end, we discover (twist ending!) that he is blind, so he is actually being guided by God. Where's the suspense in that? This movie's ending is (forgive me for this one) preordained once we discover that God is actively involved. It ends with Denzel's character getting to Alcatraz Island, where a group of people have been preserving books and are beginning to reprint them. Denzel's character dies, because any Christan prophet also had to be a martyr, the King James version of the Bible (how many versions of the Bible are there?) is placed on a shelf next to other religious texts, so as to be politically correct, and Mila Kunis' character inherits Denzel's hardened look and starts her journey back to her home town; apparently a new prophet.

     What an incredible waste of a stunningly well done post apocalyptic Hellscape. This could have been a really good movie too, if they had only left the religious aspects a mystery. Give Denzel's character a bit of faith as motivation and don't have bullets bouncing off of him. Keep it a mystery if he is just a lone nut or being guided by a higher power. Or better yet, forget the religion all together and have the book contain the cure to a plague, the location of underground bunkers full of everything a new civilization needs, or the science needed to rebuild civilization. I'm sorry, but as soon as bullets started bouncing off of him and Denzel said he was guided by the voice of God, I knew everything that was going to happen and was just bored waiting for the inevitable end. The shocking, twist endings of Denzel's character being blind and the Bible being written in Braille only manage to hammer home the now undeniable fact that, for this movie anyway, yes, there is a God and he wants, specifically, the King James version of the Bible to survive. (Sorry Greek Orthodox Catholics and most non-European Christian sects.) How this movie went from post apocalyptic action/thriller to dogma of certain Christian sects, I'm really not sure, but it was a wrong turn.

Daybreakers (Review)

2010-01-12T23:09:00.000-06:00

     When you push to far to one extreme, there is always a backlash; disco brought on punk, Bush brought on Obama, and now, thankfully, romanticized, teen angst laden vampires bring on "Daybreakers." The previews made it look like a typical, fast action, slick, special effects laden bowl of Hollywood tripe. Little did I know that nothing could have been farther from the truth.

     "Daybreakers" is not your typical vampire movie. Here, a virus, spread by a bat, began infecting people and turning them into vampires. It seems that most of the classic vampire lore applies; sunlight kills, as does a stake through the heart and decapitation, and you become a vampire when one feeds on you. With people becoming vampires at a rapid pace, ordinary human beings soon become a minority and the world is now run by vampires. These vampires need human blood or they devolve into a nasty, more bat like, mindless, vampire creature, so, human beings are now captured and farmed for blood, however, ten years into Vampireland, there are not enough humans left to sustain the vampire population and blood supplies are beginning to run short. Enter our hero, Edward Dalton, played by Ethan Hawke, who is a vampire doing research on a blood substitute. He meets up with former vampire Lionel 'Elvis' Cormac, played Willem Dafoe, and a small group of human resisters. They have a cure, of sorts, that DaFoe's character accidentally discovered, and they need Hawke's character to develop it.

     "Daybreakers" is a bit of an action movie and a bit of a gruesome monster movie with some well thought out social analysis as a backdrop. The action sequences are well done and appropriate, lacking the current Hollywood penchant for slow motion CGI closeups. They are fast, shocking, and often gruesome, but not overly so, and appropriate for an adult oriented monster movie. The visual effects are quite good and are used when necessary rather than the overkill we are used to. There is even quite a bit of development of what a vampire lead society would be like, complete with social divisions, an underclass, (quite literally under the city) a human hunting vampire army, and coffee. (Now with 20% blood!) There could be more development of the culture, but not without sacrificing the action/monster movie core. The rest is good execution of story and character. "Daybreakers" isn't a character based drama by any stretch of the imagination, but it does pay enough attention to both character and story to keep both interesting and believable while advancing the plot of a action/monster movie, making it a far better than your typical, shallow, action or monster movie. The ending is satisfying enough, though we are left in sequel or franchise territory, which I think wouldn't be such a bad idea as long as newcomer writer/directors Michael and Peter Spierig can remain in Australia and away from the influence of major motion picture studios.

     I was pleasantly surprised at "Daybreakers," and if you are sick and tired of wimpy, teen aged vampires bemoaning their feelings, I think you will be too.

Up in the Air (Review)

2010-01-12T22:47:00.000-06:00

     I hate watching modern romance films. They are all the same. People who shouldn't be together and will make each other miserable if they try to spend the rest of their lives together spend the entire movie realizing that fact, until, in the end, there is a romantic moment, which somehow makes up for everything else that has transpired, and the couple that shouldn't be has a long, romantic kiss, and the movie ends. The really sad fact is that some of these movies are actually pretty good, up until the third act, where it all falls apart because the doomed couple has to get together in the end. "Up in the Air" looked like it might be different, and it was, but not enough.

     "Up in the Air" stars George Clooney as Ryan Bingham, a man who works for a company that sends him around the country to fire people during large lay offs or whatever and help counsel them with their severance packages, finding a new job, ect... He has spent his life doing this, he is very good at it, he spends more than three hundred days a year on the road, has little connection to friend or family, and is quite happy and successful. In his off time, he does speaking engagements, most of the time to promote his book on how movement is life and relationships only weigh you down. Clooney's character meets Alex Goran, played by Vera Farmiga, a business woman who also spends a lot of time on the road and they begin a physical relationship which they consummate whenever their busy itineraries happen to bring them near one another. Then we get the younger woman, Natalie Keener, played by Anna Kendrick. Kendrick's character is a recent college graduate who is there to innovate the way Clooney's character does his job. She proposes ending the traveling and wants to start firing people via video phone. Before this plan is implemented, she spends some time traveling with Clooney's character to see what it is he actually does.

     The first two acts of "Up in the Air" are very good. You've got some really good writing and some great actors. It was very enjoyable and gave me hope that this movie might not be your typical romance film, and it wasn't. It was far worse. (Sorry, but I'm going to give away the end here.)
Clooney's character is happy and successful. In the second act, all the women in his life, his sisters, his lover, and his co worker, convince him that, without relationships, he is actually miserable, and he buys into it. So, in the modern romance film, he has to fall for one of them (not his sisters) and they must kiss. Well, turns out that his lover is married with children and the co-worker is way too young and leaves the job after her breakup. On top of that, the company that Clooney's character works for finally realizes that firing someone over video phone using a script and an untrained, poorly paid, drone, is a terrible idea, so they put him back on the road, where he is now completely miserable. The end. Roll credits. If this had been a modern romance film, I would have hated it, but at least there would have been some kind of pay off in the end. Instead, I'm left wondering why. Why did I just spent a little over an hour and a half of my life watching a movie about a man who starts out happy and turns out miserable. There was no reason to make or watch this movie.

     I'm sorry if this is turning into more of a rant and less of a review, but at the end of this movie, I was angry. Did I really just blow of one my free passes and pay eight dollars for popcorn and a drink so I could watch a happy and successful man slowly realize that his life is meaningless and he is, in fact, miserable and now powerless to change it? Really!? I don't demand an Disney-esque ending, but come on, give me a reason to watch.

Sherlock Holmes (Review)

2010-01-12T22:31:00.000-06:00

     Holiday blockbusters are always so dicey. They seem to want to include something for everyone (so everyone will pay to see them) but satisfy almost no one. "Sherlock Holmes" does this and still manages to pull off something that's enjoyable, even if it's not on par with the classic source material.

     In this latest tale of these iconic characters, Jude Law plays Dr Watson, who is finally giving up mysteries and murders so he can get married. Holmes, played rather realistically and convincingly by Robert Downey Jr, isn't ready to call it quits, and isn't above trying to ruin Watson's marriage to satisfy his own need for intellectual stimulation. Holmes and Watson are soon pulled into a mystery that threatens the very foundations of British government and are compelled to solve it. (So, what else is new?)

     Robert Downey Jr. does a great job as a troubled and driven Holmes. The story is fairly intricate, as it should be, yet remains believable. (Some parts more than others.) It should be difficult to go wrong with good actors and legendary characters, you don't even need that great of a story, and this story isn't half bad, however, this movie tries to pack in way too much for the sake of drawing a large, holiday movie audience, and it suffers for it. The pace is broken up by too many action points and unnecessary special effects sequences. At two hours and eight minutes, you can afford to lose some of the slow motion explosions and fight scenes. The poor pace also makes it difficult to connect to the characters, which is a real shame with these actors and characters.

     "Sherlock Holmes" wastes a lot of potential in order to draw a large, holiday audience, but it does manage to make an enjoyable movie, even if it could have been much, much better.

Avatar (Review)

2010-01-12T21:55:00.000-06:00

     I had been seeing the previews for months, as I'm sure a lot of you have, and I was worried. James Cameron knows how to make a movie, and I'm willing to give (almost) anything he makes a chance, but "Avatar" seemed unnecessarily over the top. The more I heard about the truly amazing, new techniques and technologies being used, the more I worried about more basic story elements being overlooked. The more hyped the movie was, the more I worried that anything less than an absolute masterpiece was going to be a complete letdown. In many ways, my fears were realized.

      "Avatar" is about a planet of primitive, alien natives who just happen to be living directly on top of their planet's largest concentration of valuable ore. (Upsidasium) A corporate mining operation wants the natives to relocate and the space marines protecting the mining operation are all too happy to blow the indigenous population up if they resist. At the same time you've got xeno-anthropologists, led by Sigourney Weaver, studying the aliens, trying to teach them English, (and the American way) and, supposedly, trying to convince them to leave their scared tree and move so the Marines won't blow them up. Enter our hero, played by Sam Worthington, a former Marine who is now confined to a wheelchair. (Yes, we have intergalactic space ships but are still using wheelchairs!) His job is to use a genetically engineered alien body, that he controls with his mind, to help the xeno-anthropologists study the natives and secretly gather intelligence for the military so they can either convince the natives to leave or have an easier time blowing them up. Of course, after spending three months living as an alien, he forms attachments, loyalties are called into question, and inner conflict arises.

     The story is an old one, even if it is significantly modernized. Do you remain loyal when loyalty means injustice, or do you betray everything you know to defend the helpless? (Or, at least, the seriously outgunned?) With that kind of a story, you pretty much know exactly what's going to happen, and this isn't necessarily a bad thing, as long as you develop the story and characters well, move the plot along, and keep the audience emotionally invested; in short, you tell a good story. Cameron does this, somewhat, but but he also sacrifices these basic story elements to showcase his new special effects techniques. To be fair, the special effects are, for the most part, amazing. The 3-D, however, was, at best, unnecessary and at worst, distracting. During the CGI sequences, the 3-D is, of course, faked by computers, so it isn't all that amazing, during the parts that are shot on set, the 3-D is real, but useless as the sets are not that large, and anytime they mixed CGI with actual sets, the 3-D actually makes the computer graphics stand out and look less real. The plot plods along at a terrible pace and is broken up by far too many extended CGI action sequences that do little or nothing to advance the story or develop the characters. At two hours and forty-two minutes, you can afford to cut out a lot of the action sequences and add some character development. The love story between Worthington's character and the alien 'princess' seems to simply pop into being rather than being developed over the course of the movie in a believable fashion. Similarly, so does his character's detachment from reality and his native culture. Both are spilled out quickly in awkward exposition. We are never really given the opportunity to empathize or develop any real feelings for any of the characters. Additionally, the CGI character's lack of facial expressions makes them seem emotionless and almost cartoon like. Despite Cameron's new CGI techniques, which were meant to capture actor's facial expressions and transfer them to their computer generated characters, the CGI aliens still seem rather flat in most of their expressions. We spend quite a bit of time with these aliens and not having the subtlety of realistic facial expressions makes it quite difficult to get a sense of their feelings or to form any real emotional bond with them.

     "Avatar" isn't a bad movie, but it is far too long for an action movie and it doesn't have nearly enough character or story development for a sci/fi morality tale. It feels more like an extended ride at a studio theme park; lots of eye candy but not a lot of substance. I think Cameron shot way too high on this one and missed.

Invictus (Review)

2009-12-13T20:15:00.000-06:00

     I was anxiously awaiting this one. It had all the right elements to be great: a truly incredible, true story, Clint Eastwood directing, and Morgan Freeman and Matt Damon starring. It's also a sports story about rugby, but, nothing's perfect.

     "Invictus" is the true story about how a newly elected Nelson Mandela tried to bring some unity to a fractured South Africa by promoting the national rugby team, who were hated by native Africans and loved by the white Afrikaners, and pushing them to win the World Cup. Morgan Freeman delivers a stellar and convincing performance as Mandela. Matt Damon co stars as the captain of the South African Springboks, (Spring Buck) François Pienaar, a man who realizes that his team can overcome its image of a hated symbol of apartheid and can help to unite and build a new South Africa.

     I think Eastwood milked the ending tension a bit with the slow motion grunting and multiple cutaways, but other than that, "Invictus" is a truly great film. It manages to tell a story happening amidst great social turmoil and in a land of incredible racial hatred and injustice without bludgeoning you to death that fact. Instead, "Invictus" is about finding the inner strength to accomplish what must be done, no matter how difficult the task, its about being the 'captain of' your 'unconquerable soul,' it's about what motivates people to achieve greatness and where leaders find the inspiration to lead. Mandela manages to find strength in a poem, and he instills that strength in François who leads him team to greatness and inspires them to achieve for a greater cause than just rugby.

     Even if you don't like sports movies, and I generally don't, "Invictus" is an inspirational true story that is well worth seeing.

Brothers (Review)

2009-12-13T20:14:00.000-06:00

     The previews do not do this film justice. I did not expect such depth or power from what seemed like a fairly simple tale of war and family. Unfortunately, I did expect better character development and more closure from this, or any, film, and I was disappointed there.

     The storyline for "Brothers," even without giving away too much, is difficult to sum up in one or two sentences. Tobey Maguire, who gets to really show his range as an actor, plays a marine who is shot down and captured in Afghanistan. He spends months as a captive before American forces find him. Meanwhile, back home, his wife, played by Natalie Portman, his two young daughters, his ex con brother, played by Jake Gyllenhaal, and his parents, all believe that he died in the crash and life goes on, as much as it can. Portman grieves, the girls get to know their 'uncle Tommy,' Gyllenhaal's character, better, and Gyllenhaal (seems to) grow and mature as he and his father reconcile somewhat. Maguire's character eventually returns home and can not come to terms with what happened while he was being help captive. This, of course, effects his relationship with his wife, daughters, parents, and his brother and life slowly begins to break down.

     This all seems rather standard and predictable, I know, however, the characters, who are not what you would expect from this kind of story, make "Brothers" compelling and engaging, right up until the end, which happens far too suddenly and lacks the closure necessary for a story with this much emotional investment. Gyllenhaal's character self destructs just before the end and foreshadows the less than satisfying ending to come. 'Uncle Tommy' seemed to be developing quite well for most of the movie, then, just before the end, we discover that his character hasn't really grown or learned anything at all, and all the emotional investment we had in him is wasted. Shortly after that, the film builds to a climax, and then fails to deliver and we are left wondering, 'So, what's next?' There was a moment very near the end where I though we were going to get the point of the film, which was something about brotherhood, but it's a fleeting moment and far too much of the movie is concerned with Maguire's character's dark secret for this to simply be about the bond between brothers.

     "Brothers" had a lot of potential and came very close to being a powerful and poignant film, but falls apart in the end leaving far too many loose ends and abandoning it's characters to an almost obsessive quest for an answer to the question, 'What happened in Afghanistan?' The revelation of which is not a surprise to the audience and fails to resolve anything. It actually makes you feel that an ending is coming, but the only thing after that is darkness and credits.

P.S. I'd also like to say that I don't know what a good ending for "Brothers" might have been. Everything I can think of is either cliche or undeserving of the rest of the film, and maybe that's why it seems to fall apart.

Everybody's Fine (Review)

2009-12-12T16:32:00.000-06:00

     Despite a weeks worth of less than stellar reviews, I still wanted to see "Everybody's Fine." I'm glad I did.

     "Everybody's Fine" is a family drama starring Robert De Niro as a recent widower who's looking forward to all four of his adult children coming home to visit. When they all cancel on him, he, being retired and having nothing better to do, decides to go see them. From there, we see three out of his four children and their perfect, or less than perfect, lives, and De Niro's character begins to piece together that everybody is not fine, despite his children's best efforts to hide the truth from him. Drew Barrymore, Kate Beckinsale, and Sam Rockwell all deliver good performances as the family hiding something from dad and De Niro delivers his usual best. (De Niro is a legend for a reason and shines in just about anything.)

     One might expect a lot of teary eyed melodrama or each member of the family to be picture perfect on the outside but hide dark and terrible secrets in a drama like this, and I am pleased to say that this is not the case. Sure, the kids are not telling dad everything, but this is part of the tension. They've spent their lives trying to make dad proud and confiding in mom, and that's gone now, but that's the story; a much more true to life drama about a family finding a new dynamic to exist in when the old one is gone. De Niro's character isn't fine either, nobody's fine, but, by the end, we discover that, while nobody's perfect, everybody actually is, fine. (More or less.)

     I enjoyed "Everybody's Fine" for the same reason I enjoyed "The Big Chill;" it's a slice of life, something that is rooted in reality and is not over dramatized. I can see this happening. It happens everyday. Life goes on, you can't achieve perfection, but you can be happy, and that's, ultimately, what's important.

The Blind Side (Review)

2009-12-11T03:56:00.000-06:00

     Once the crowds cleared a bit and I didn't have to stand in line just to see a story I already knew, I went to go see "The Blind Side," and I must say, I was pleasantly surprised.

Please note that because this is a true story, I may give away more of the story than I normally would. I feel that it shouldn't be too much of a surprise that Amelia doesn't quite make it all the way around or that the boat hit an iceberg and sinks in the end, so I tend to take a few more liberties with the review than I normally would.

     "The Blind Side" is the true story of NFL left tackle Michael Oher, and how a kind family was willing to take him in when he had almost nothing, provided him a home, and allowed him to become a member of their family. Oher is played by relative newcomer Quinton Aaron, whose subtle and withdrawn manner capture perfectly the slowly unfolding layers of Oher as he starts to become less of a stranger and more a part of a family. Sandra Bullock and Tim McGraw play Leigh Anne and Sean Tuohy, the eventual parents to Oher. Sandra Bullock has a bit of trouble pulling off a convincing, southern accent, but still does a great job as a powerful and headstrong mother to her family, Oher included. She reminds me a bit of Julia Roberts in "Charlie Wilson's War," but not nearly as bad. (Sorry Julia, but that was a poor rendition of an aging, Texas debutant.) McGraw plays a much more convincing, let's say, resident of Mississippi, (redneck!) but he is playing to his strengths.(I should talk) All kidding aside, McGraw does deliver a strong performance, but the show is stolen by Jae Head, who plays the Touhy's youngest son, S.J. Head lends a much needed comic relief to what could have been a far too intense movie.

     There isn't a lot more to say about "The Blind Side." It's an incredible true story and a feel good movie, so you'll pretty much know what to expect going into it even if you don't know Michael Oher. What surprised me about the movie was the way it didn't stoop to a lot of sappy, saccharine moments or try to pound you with a message or a moral. It simply tells the true story of a good person, who needed help, and some other good people who were willing to help. From that, a young man, practically homeless, became one of the NFL's most promising left tackles. The cynic in me didn't want to see this film, for fear of it being a boring, pandering, morality tale. It wasn't and I'm glad I saw it. You'll be glad you saw it too.

Rustlers' Rhapsody (Review)

2009-12-02T01:35:00.000-06:00

     "Rustlers' Rhapsody" is one of those forgotten gems from the 80's. A western spoof that doesn't take its self too seriously and is completely conscious of its self, but, at the same time, still works as a movie and manages to be very funny.

     The concept here is simple, and is spelled out in narration at the beginning of the film. What if all those serial westerns of the 40's and 50's were done today. (And by 'today,' I mean the mid 80's.) After a quick shift from black and white to color, we get a spoof of those old westerns, and the later spaghetti westerns, with some classic elements, like the good guy always wins, he never draws first, and he never kills anyone, he just disarms them, and a modern look at a lot of those old western cliches, like the way the good guy dressed, and how every single western was, pretty much, identical, (which is why they're called cliches) plus some added modern elements, like a bit of sex and drug (root) use. The characters are all western cliches as well. Tom Berenger plays Rex O'Herlihan, The Singing Cowboy, (the what?) G.W. Bailey is the town drunk and Rex's sidekick, Marilu Henner is the prostitute with a heart of gold, (who doesn't actually sleep with her clients) Andy Griffith is the cattle baron (bad guy), and Fernando Rey is a spaghetti western-esque railroad tycoon. (Another bad guy!) There's even a second good guy, played by Patrick Wayne, leaving everyone to wonder, what happens when two good guys fight each other.

     Berenger and Bailey compliment each other well and Bailey's character provides some great comic relief to the stiff and proper Rex O'Herlihan, stereotypical western good guy, but the real star of this movie is the screenplay. Every western movie cliche is picked out and dissected. Nothing is left unexamined and every one is turned on it's ear in ways that should have been obvious while we were all watching those old westerns. Maybe they were a bit obvious, but we were able to forgive them because the good guy always won and we always knew where we stood with them.

     "Rustlers' Rhapsody" may not be as well known or have the star power "Blazing Saddles," but it is a unique and very funny western comedy/spoof. I can safely recommend it to anyone, but especially to anyone who fondly remembers a time when movies cost a nickle, Hopalong Cassidy always got his man, and you could sit through both showings of a double feature, twice.

Fantastic Mr. Fox (Review)

2009-12-02T00:12:00.002-06:00

   If you've seen one Wes Anderson's movie, you've basically seen them all, and "Fantastic Mr. Fox" is no different. I already knew this about Anderson's movies, and I wasn't going to bother with "Fantastic Mr. Fox," but I finally saw one too many reviews and articles lauding Anderson for his genius and wonderful, quirky style and claiming "Fantastic Mr. Fox" to be Oscar worthy material; I had to see the obvious for myself and write an honest review.

     "Fantastic Mr. Fox" is a stop motion animation film by director and writer Wes Anderson, based loosely on one of Roald Dahl's lesser known children's books by the same title. Mr. Fox, voiced by George Clooney, is a former chicken thief, who gave it up for his family, but yearns to steal again. He plots against three of the meanest farmers (who didn't do anything to him before this) and their large farms. Ultimately, he brings the wrath of these three farmers down upon himself, his family, and the entire forest, and yet, he's somehow still considered a good guy in all of this. (I'm sorry, but that's as far as I could go before I begin dogging this thing.)

     Like all Wes Anderson films, "Fantastic Mr. Fox" features people, or, in this case, anthropomorphic animals, mumbling rather than having good dialogue or wit of any kind, very little attention to realistic character development, an incredible, yet inane, plot, uncomfortable situations rather than humor, no real flow to the story line, a very poorly constructed story, and Wes Anderson trying to work out whatever issues he has with his father on the screen. The animation is mediocre at best. Some of it looks like Anderson is going for a very retro kind of feel, about the quality of early Wallace and Gromit, but other parts, like the way that fur on the animal puppets tends to move about in random directions (even during still shots) because the people moving the puppets for each shot are sloppy and not minding their fingers, make everything feel fake and takes you out of the movie. The puppets are almost expressionless. Facial expressions are limited to movement of the mouth, eyes, and an occasional tear in the eye, so their faces seem rather dead and doll like most of the time. The walking, especially, and movement, in general, is very sketchy and doesn't help to create any illusion of reality or help you immersion in the film. Much of the dialogue seems either improvised or just poorly thought out. (Or just the typical Wes Anderson aimless rambling.) Characters engage in meaningless banter that goes nowhere and often trails off into mumbling. This tends to break up any kind of flow or rhythm the film might (or might not) have and takes you right out of the moment. There is a brief first and second act, sort of, then the bulk of the movie is third act resolution that tends to wander back into second act territory, as if Wes Anderson can't decide how he wants the movie to turn out, but isn't going to take any writing back. Ultimately, there is sort of an ending, but not a very good one.

     Am I being too harsh? After all, this is a kid's movie, right? Actually, I'm not sure if it is. Sure, it was based on a book intended for children, but this really isn't a movie for kids. This is just an animated version of the same movie that Wes Anderson does every time. Children may find something enjoyable in it, but it wasn't made for them. The humor, if you can call it that, will, mostly, go right over their heads. Children are likely to get bored with such a poorly paced story. There's plenty of smoking and drinking, foxes kill chickens, which seem to be the only animals that are not anthropomorphized, Mr. Fox's tail is dismembered by gunfire, a rat dies in a knife fight and Mr. Fox delivers an incredibly cynical eulogy that is bound to disillusion most children watching. Wes Anderson can't even try to make a movie without profanity. He didn't actually use any profane language in "Fantastic Mr. Fox," but he also didn't write a movie without it. He just replaces the amply amount of profane language with the word 'cuss,' as in, 'What the cuss?' (We all know what you fraking mean.) This is distracting at best and makes you feel like you're watching an episode of the "Smurfs" at worst. It's also not very original. (Curses, foiled again!) I'm all for making more realistic and challenging movies for kids. If you challenge children, they will rise to the occasion, and if you pander to them, they don't grow, but this material is neither realistic nor challenging to children. "Fantastic Mr. Fox" feels like Wes Anderson is making a movie for adults that spoofs or feels like a kid's movie, but children watching it is definitely an afterthought.

     Eighty-seven minutes has never felt so long and I am really tired of Anderson trying to work out his 'daddy issues' on the big screen. Wes Anderson is not a great writer or director. He once made a movie that connected with a small number of people and has been rehashing the same old tricks ever sense. Having visible titles all over your movie and a, so called, quirky style does not make you a great director or writer. It's poor storytelling and is alienating to audiences in general. If one is going to make movies that pander to small, specific audiences, and lack the basic story structure to make that movie enjoyable to anyone outside of that small group, you might as well just keep those films in limited release, or better yet, straight to DVD. Also, Wes Anderson might want to think about not phoning in the entire directing job from another country when he makes his next, inevitable, film, like he did with "Fantastic Mr. Fox." It shows.

     I don't recommend "Fantastic Mr. Fox" to anyone who doesn't already have a deep love of Wes Anderson's other films and I would strongly caution parents from letting their children see this movie. My best advice to parents is to see it yourself first and see if it is what you want your children watching.

P.S.

     On a more personal note, (more personal than that??!) I would like to address the recent talk about "Fantastic Mr. Fox" being nominated for one or multiple Academy Awards. If there is any justice in this world and if the Academy members are sane and rational people, any category that "Fantastic Mr. Fox" could possibly be nominated for should already be occupied by Henry Selick's "Coraline," a truly great stop motion animation children's movie, and any category that Anderson himself could be nominated for should, similarly, be already occupied by Henry Selick, a talented and deserving director who personally oversaw every detail that went into the making of "Coraline;" all three years of it. The Academy should not reward sloppy and lazy work by chalking it up to personal style.

     I would also like to take this opportunity to personally apologize to Henry Selick on Wes Anderson's behalf. Wes Anderson should be ashamed that he couldn't even bother to be in the same country where his movie was being filmed, for phoning in his directions by taking videos of himself and sending them to the set, for trying to cover up all the obvious flaws in this film by casting George Clooney in the lead role, and for personally putting the genera of stop motion animation back 40 years.   Mr. Selick, I am so sorry that a shiny piece of excrement steals the light from the truly magnificent piece of art you created early this year and I sincerely hope that the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences does not fail to recognize yours as the greater talent and achievement when it hands out awards this March.

A Serious Man (Review)

2009-11-21T23:17:00.001-06:00

     I may just be done with the Coen brothers after this. I don't care how brilliant your symbolism is, poor story telling makes for an unenjoyable movie. I may be being a bit harsh. I'll give the Coen brothers this. They do seem to be able to capture the essence of a person or people. Perhaps if I knew more about Midwestern Jews in the 1960s I would have found parts of "A Serious Man" more interesting or amusing. I did, after all, love "Raising Arizona," but, then again, I have a lot of experience with, shall we say, people who prefer to live in trailer houses. That having been said, making a movie inaccessible to everyone but a specific group is also bad storytelling.

     "A Serious Man" is the Coen brothers attempt to tell the biblical story of Job, in which, Satan contends that, to a man who has everything in life, like Job does, faith comes easily, so, to prove a point, God allows Satan to do all sorts of terrible things to Job, but Job's faith remains unshaken, so God gives him back everything he had, plus more. In the Coen brothers version, a very sad and pathetic individual, has some bad things happen to him and he gives into temptation. Along the way, there is a lot of symbolic imagery, including a tornado, and a lot of loose ends don't get tied up. (Also, I was bored for 105 minutes!)

     This wasn't all that bad of an idea for a film, but the story was executed very poorly. It's impossible to feel anything for our main character, with the exception of maybe contempt. Without empathy for the characters, you are simply left to sit in the dark watching sad, pathetic people fail miserably at life until the end, where they fail the final, biblically inspired, test. (I understood the ending, the tornado is God, but that doesn't mean that I liked the ending, or any other part of it!) People who are not familiar with the biblical story, or who fail to make the connection to it, will simply be bored by this movie and completely confused by the ending. It's the job of the storyteller to make their story accessible to as many as possible, not just a few. (Unless your goal is to make your movie inaccessible and pompous.) Again, that's bad story telling. Just as surly as making a movie with nothing but overblown special effects and no plot makes for a poor movie, so does nailing the symbolism you are trying to get across, but failing to make any other part of the movie engaging.

     If your passions lie in picking a movie apart to find more and more layers of (what you think are) symbolic meaning so that others will marvel at your (apparent) perception, you'll love this one. As for me, well, I know when, as an audience member, I'm not wanted.

Planet 51 (Review)

2009-11-21T22:56:00.000-06:00

     I don't usually go to see CGI kids movies unless I think there is going to be something special about it. I didn't know what to expect with "Planet 51." It's the first offering from Madrid based Ilion Animation Studios. I'm disappointed that it isn't anything too special, but I'm also pleased that it deviates from the typical route taken by a lot of Hollywood's CGI 'extravaganzas.' (Also pleased that it isn't unnecessarily 3-D!)

     The story here is extremely stereotypical and well worn. An alien lands in the 1950's. Everyone is scared. The military is mobilized. Local kids help the alien, who is actually peaceful and just wants to get back home. In the end, everyone learns a lesson about prejudice and the alien is allowed to leave. The twist, which is no secret, is that the alien is a human astronaut landing on an alien planet. That, and a pretty good time, is what kids can expect to get out of "Planet 51." Adults, well, luckily, this film doesn't feature the usual, occasional off color joke to keep the parents paying attention. It does, however, feature a lot of spoofs, parody, and in jokes, which I found to be a lot more entertaining than the usual schlock. The entire movie is, basically, a parody of 1950's alien/horror movies, right down to the extremely 1950's look and feel of the town and aliens. There's other humor as well, like a rover probe, sent in first by NASA, that is so obsessed with gathering rock samples that it completely misses an entire alien civilization and an alien dog, that looks like the aliens from the movie "Alien", named, Ripley. Unfortunately, much of this is forced to take a back seat to the plot in the third act. Happily, there is a story, plot, and character development. Oh sure, I saw it all coming, but it managed to keep me interested. Voice talents include Dwayne Johnson, Jessica Biel, John Cleese, and Justin Long as the alien Lem. (LEM, pronounced exactly the same way as they do in the movie, is also what NASA called the Lunar Excursion Module used during the moon landings. I love nerd humor!) Thankfully, Long acts, rather than attempting to inject his SNL persona into the film, like too many comedians tend to do in these types of movies. Although, I wouldn't have minded if Cleese had injected a bit of Cleese into his part, but I can't blame the director for wanting to make a movie and not a vehicle for comedians.

     "Planet 51" definitely isn't the next "Shrek," but I laughed a lot more than the kids in the audience did.

The Big Chill (Review)

2009-11-19T18:12:00.000-06:00

     "The Big Chill" is one of my favorite movies and tonight, I was feeling nostalgic. I didn't even make popcorn. I didn't want anything anything between me and the screen.

   "The Big Chill" is about seven old college friends, 60's radicals and revolutionaries all, who are brought back together to attend the funeral of one of their own, who committed suicide for, seemingly, no reason. They all spend the weekend together, remembering old times, catching up on where they are now, wondering how they got there, testing the bonds of their friendship, and wondering if those times, not so long ago, were really as deep and meaningful as they seemed or as shallow and naive as they now appear.

     That doesn't sound like much of a plot, I know, but "The Big Chill" is an extraordinarily well written and well acted psychological analysis of the Woodstock generation and their seemingly inexplicable transformation into the yuppies of the 1980s. It mixes subtle humor with dark subject matter and creates a web of complex and dynamic relationships that feels as genuine and natural as life its self. (Real friends and relationships. Not the kind on Twitter and Facebook.) Add to that a talented, ensemble cast, (Glenn Close, Jeff Goldblum, Kevin Kline, William Hurt, Tom Berenger, Mary Kay Place, JoBeth Williams, and a young Meg Tilly) and an incredible soundtrack of 60's classics and you've got a cult hit that gets deeper and ever more meaningful with each viewing.

     "The Big Chill" isn't for everyone. There are no explosions or special effects. The humor is subdued and mixed with emotional subtext. The details of each characters relationships to one another unfold slowly and are revealed in meaningful glances and quick comments that only close friends would understand. This film is an exceptionally well portrayed slice of life. In the end, people have grown or changed or have begun to heal longstanding and painful issues in their lives. We get to see the 60's through the cynical eyes of the 80's and regain a bit of of the 'lost hope' from that rose colored, bygone era.

Amelia (Review)

2009-11-19T00:32:00.000-06:00

     The main problem with true stories or biographical films is that you are limited to what actually happened. Embellish too much and your story can be unbelievable or cliche. Stick to the facts and you risk being dry and sounding like a textbook. "Amelia" leans slightly toward the dry side yet manages to be a not unenjoyably portrait of a unique woman and how she lived a unique life.

     "Amelia" is, of course, the story of legendary pilot Amelia Earhart. Hilary Swank plays Earhart and Richard Gere plays here husband and publicist George Putnam. The movie begins, more or less, with their meeting and is, really, more the story of their life together, mainly from Earhart's point of view, making this less a full fledged biography and more a tragic love story.

     Swank and Gere's performances are believable enough, but there really isn't anything special about either. The story is, as far as I know, historically accurate, but there really isn't any tension and not nearly enough emotion. This is the life of an American hero, a truly unique and special woman who inspired generations of women to pursue their dreams and believe in themselves, a woman who refused to live by the rules of a society that told her she couldn't, or shouldn't even try, to be whatever she wanted to be, and it has all the feeling of a made for T.V. movie.

     "Amelia" isn't not worth seeing, but it also isn't likely to inspire any future generations.

P.S.

     While standing in line to see "Titanic," which I was tricked into seeing, I upset a few of people by repeatedly saying, 'In the end, the boat sinks.' (Sad, really.) So, on that note, she doesn't quite make it all the way around. Sorry if I spoiled it for you.

The Box (Review)

2009-11-14T23:53:00.000-06:00

     I have never seen any of Richard Kelly's other movies and I am not that familiar with the play "No Exit," however, I am very doubtful that my enjoyment of "The Box" will increase any if I were better versed in these works. I understand stories that are supposed to raise moral and metaphysical questions and make you ponder these types of things for yourself rather than making conclusions for you, however, "The Box" fails to do either.

     "The Box" stars Cameron Diaz and James Marsden as a couple who get presented with a choice; they can press a button on a box and they will get a million dollars and someone they don't know, will die, or, they don't press the button and well, this eventuality isn't discussed, but you are meant to assume that nothing will happen. This choice is presented to them by a mysterious and deformed man played by Frank Langella. From there, the movie devolves into a messy mix of conspiracy/mystery movie and not quite metaphysical and almost science fiction story that tries very hard to leave you wondering about the fate of humanity and the if we deserve to live on as a species, but ultimately fails to raise any questions.

     "The Box" fails on many levels. With the exception of Langella, the acting is really not very good. Saddling the main characters with vaguely southern accents was not the best of ideas. The directing isn't bad, but the movie does seem to become lost in its self in the middle, then there are far too many revelations about this mysterious force that's controlling everything, and, from there, the ending is very slow to come and doesn't really leave you with any questions to ponder, except, if the people pushing the button don't really believe that anything will happen when they push it, is it really a test of humanity's altruism? This might have been a better story if it had been left to the realm of the metaphysical by telling us nothing about the force behind everything, but the suggestion of alien intervention really throws the whole thing into an almost cheesy science fiction area that really doesn't work. One family's personal Hell, I could work with, but a succession of people being controlled by less than perfect aliens doesn't really make me ponder humanity's inherent worth. Perhaps if they had left the alien connection for the very end, and shortened the whole thing to ninety minutes, it might have made for a better mystery, but once the Mars judges humanity reference comes out, the mystery is completely deflated and we are left with aliens judging humanity, one case at a time, with rather flawed methods. Even the threat that humanity might not pass the test, as a lingering question, is defused by the fact that the movie takes place in 1976, so either the aliens are taking their sweet time about judging humanity's worth, or we were deemed worthy at some point in the last thirty-three years and no one bothered to mention it to us.

     "The Box" is long and tedious, its secrets are shallow and obvious, and the only thing it leaves one to ponder is, "Why didn't I believe the critics on this one?" If you can, personally, find some meaning in "The Box," I'm happy for you, but please realize that that meaning is purely a personal one and nothing that is inherently suggested. (That or you are just claiming to find meaning where there is none because you like to make people think that you are smarter than you actually are. Sorry if that sounds bitter, but I was really disappointed.)

Dead Alive or Braindead (Review)

2009-11-09T20:41:00.001-06:00

     I'm always looking for new, or new to me, zombie movies, so my Netflix queue is ripe with potentially disappointing, less than B-movie grade, suck fests. I had slightly higher hopes, however, for one of Peter 'Nerd of the Rings' Jackson's early works, "Braindead" or "Dead Alive," as it is known in the US, and I was actually surprised at how bad a lot of this movie wasn't, and very surprised at how bad other parts were.

     Written and directed by Peter Jackson, "Dead Alive" is a lot of plot and the goriest, bloodiest, and sickest ending I have ever seen. After watching this movie, I sincerely hope that Peter Jackson has since gotten some serious, psychiatric help.

     "Dead Alive" is about a timid man, living with his (s)mother. The mother gets bitten by the worst special effect in the entire movie, a stop motion, cursed, Sumatran rat-monkey, and she slowly degraded into an undead, zombie like creature. She then kills her nurse and turns her into a zombie as well, and we are halfway through the movie with very little action and almost no zombies. Another quarter of the way in, and we have three more zombies and an hint of the twisted depravity to come in the form of a newly born zombie baby, which is the product of zombie 'love.' (Really Mr. Jackson, really?) The last quarter is a non stop blood bath with unspeakable atrocities being committed upon zombie and human alike.

     Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not opposed to a good blood bath, and I understand that we are not supposed to be taking this movie seriously. Any time that a zombie's intestinal tract spills out on the bathroom floor, and then begins to pursue the main character, taking on a distinct, zombie persona of its own, I realize that this is not a serious horror movie. The problem that I had with "Dead Alive," however, was that it seemed like every single kill, of any type, had to be unique. The entire last quarter of this movie was almost like a neglected child, crying out for attention, and when he does not get any, he commits ever increasingly, disturbing acts in the hope that, surely, they won't be able to ignore this or, even worse, like there is no one there to control Peter Jackson's imagination and he is feeding on himself, trying to outdo every kill with the next kill, with no limit to just how depraved it might become. There is no one to say, "Hey, maybe we shouldn't have the zombie explode and liquefy as it hits the ground" or "Hey, maybe they shouldn't keep kicking the upper half of that guy's head around" or even, "Hey, maybe we don't need to shred zombies in a lawnmower." Once again, normally, I wouldn't have a problem with any one, or even some of what happens in the last quarter of "Dead Alive," however, with each zombie kill more gruesome and bloody than the previous ones, it rapidly reached a point where I had had enough, and Peter Jackson, it seems, was just getting warmed up.

     On a more positive note, I do have to give Mr. Jackson credit where credit is due. For an extremely low budget, campy, gore-fest, the story is better than it should be, the characters are better than they should be, and the special effects, while completely disgusting, are better and more realistic than B-movies with much larger budgets. Peter Jackson is a talented movie maker, and it shows in this early work. (He's also one sick puppy.)

     Fans of disgusting splatter-fests and gore will want to see "Dead Alive" again and again. Everyone else, I'd suggest you just skip it, or self medicate first. (Don't do drugs, kids, and don't watch "Dead Alive.")

The Men Who Stare at Goats (Review)

2009-11-08T18:52:00.000-06:00

     I've wanted to see "The Men Who Stare at Goats" ever since I saw Jon Ronson's interview on "The Colbert Report," although I could have sworn it was "The Daily Show." (I LOVE YOU SARAH VOWELL!!!)

     "The Men Who Stare at Goats" is an odd, little dark comedy, about a secret Army program in the 1980's called project Jedi that tried to create psychic warrior monks who could prevent wars with the power of their minds. Did I mention that this is supposed to based, at least in part, on real events?

     Ewan McGregor plays Bob Wilton, a recently jilted reporter who goes to Iraq to prove himself. There he meets George Clooney, who plays Lyn Cassady, retired Jedi warrior. Together, the two embark on a journey of self discovery and redemption that, in many ways, mirrors the Star Wars movies. (And they borrowed heavily from Shakespeare, like everything else does.)

     There is a lot of subtle humor along the way, and some not so subtle, along with just enough drama to develop the characters and move the story along. "The Men Who Stare at Goats" isn't going to win a Best Comedy Oscar (and not just because there isn't one), but it is an amusing film that fans of dark, subtle humor will enjoy.

The Fourth Kind (Review)

2009-11-07T23:12:00.002-06:00

     I attended a matinee showing of "The Fourth Kind" because I didn't want to risk paying the full night/weekend ticket price on what might be a less than stellar movie. I still paid too much. I want my money, and that hour and a half of my life, back.

     "The Fourth Kind" is Hollywood's (failed) attempt to make a 'found footage' movie. It's a mix of movie footage and so called 'real' archival footage. I actually thought that this technique would have made "Paranormal Activity" a much better movie, and it might have. "The Fourth Kind", however, only manages to make the entire movie seem completely unreal by constantly trying to convince you that it is real.

     The movie begins with Milla Jovovich breaking the fourth wall and lying to the audience by telling them that the archival footage in the movie is real. It quickly becomes apparent that it is not. Jovovich plays Dr. Abbey Tyler,(who is not a real person, despite what faked web sites tell you,) a psychologist in Alaska, who is continuing her late husband's work with people having sleep problems. She quickly stumbles into the possibility that these people are being abducted by aliens. Under hypnosis, her patients discover the truth of what is happening and begin to go nuts. This is where the movie lost me. We are treated to, so called, actual dashboard camera footage of a standoff in a house where one of these abductees is holding his family hostage. In poorly shot, grainy footage, we see him shoot his wife, both children, who are across the room, and himself, in a matter of seconds, and the police don't manage to fire a single shot. If this had actually happened, it would have been all over the news. The cable news outlets would have been giddy over actual footage of someone killing three other people and himself. Of course, this didn't really happen, but the movie is so incredibly persistent in trying to convince you that it did all actually happen, that one simply loses the ability to suspend disbelief. We are continually treated to split screens of movie footage and 'real' footage, audio tape recordings where the actors and the tape are heard almost simultaneously, and barely audible, subtitled audio, all in an attempt to get you to believe that it's all real. "The Fourth Kind" beats you over the head with with it's attempt to make you believe that the found footage is real but it only manages to destroy any illusion of reality that might normally be created by a movie. The acting is poor, the direction is poor, the story goes nowhere, the characters are unbelievable, and the plot is based entirely on you believing that what you are seeing is, somehow, actual reality. On top of that, there is nothing actually scary about anything that happens in this movie. The 'taped' evidence is not scary. There is no tension. When something happens on tape that might be frightening, the tape, conveniently, goes out. Of course, they even fail at the tried and true method of, what you don't see is scarier than what you do see, by actually showing you a bit of something completely unbelievable as the tape is flickering in and out. They show you just enough so you can't believe what's happening, but not enough to actually create any fright.

     The only way this movie is scary is if you actually believe that aliens really are abducting people, nightly, all over the world, and everyone, except for a handful of people in Nome, Alaska, are blissfully unaware. If you believe that, then this film might actually frighten you, (and you might actually frighten me,) otherwise, it's an hour and a half of bad movie making and oversell of a poorly thought out concept.

時をかける少女 or Toki wo Kakeru Shoujo or The Girl Who Leapt Through Time (Review)

2009-11-04T00:17:00.001-06:00

     When I saw "Toki wo Kakeru Shoujo" on Netflix, I thought it sounded like a a fairly original idea and was curious to see a Japanese perspective on time travel. I discovered later (five minutes ago) that this is actually, only the newest incarnation of an old story in Japan. The original dates back to 1965, according to The Boston Globe.1 (Actually, I learned that from Wikipedia, but I refuse to quote them as a credible source.)

   "Toki wo Kakeru Shoujo" is an almost tragic love story/coming of age tale, about an ordinary, maybe 15 year old, girl, Makoto Konno, voiced by Riisa Naka, who accidentally acquires the ability to, quite literally, jump through time. (I'm surprised she didn't get a concussion from all the rough landings.) Predictability, she uses the new found power to improve her own life, redoing each small embarrassment over and over until it come out well, and discovers, again, predictability, that her actions may have unintended consequences.

     While the setup may be cliche, where they go with it is not. I absolutely hate domestic romance flicks. They are all identical in the third act, leading up to what is really only the beginning of the story, and they all end in a huge romantic gesture and passionate kiss that, if you actually stop to think about it, is likely to be the start of a terrible relationship. Thankfully, "Toki wo Kakeru Shoujo" doesn't go there. It's more like one of my favorite films, "Roman Holiday." Sure, they have a good time for a day, but in the end, it can never happen. Well, maybe it can happen for these kids, but that's for the future, quite literally, and maybe a sequel.

     "Toki wo Kakeru Shoujo" has a great story, great development of characters, a surprise near the end that I would have never seen coming, is voiced very well, and, like most Japanese animated movies, is beautiful to look at. It also seems to put a new twist on this old, Japanese tale. From what I can tell, which isn't much, I don't think that the girl in these stories was ever as strong a character as Makoto is in this version. I could be wrong though.

     Anime fans (the ones who like to read their anime, anyway) will enjoy this modern update of "Toki wo Kakeru Shoujo" and so will anyone who enjoys a well done, if a bit fanciful, coming of age tale.

1. http://www.boston.com/movies/display?display=movie&id=12469

Død snø Or Dead Snow (Review)

2009-11-03T00:49:00.000-06:00

I will apologize now if my objectivity on this review is not as objective as it should be, however, I LOVE zombie movies, and I saw "Dead Snow" on Halloween, at the Alamo Drafthouse; the experience could have not been better.

     "Dead Snow" is a Norwegian, Nazi zombie movie (that should be all the review you need!) and an instant classic for the dark comedy/horror genre. The premise is simple and familiar; (even the people in the movie recognize it) a group of young, med students are on a ski trip to a remote mountain cabin where there is no cell phone signal or any other means of communication, they had to hike forty-five minutes to get there, and, the only other person they see is a random, old man of the mountain, who shows up for no purpose other than to educate the vacationers, and the audience, of an evil presence on the mountain, in the form of Nazis, who fled to the mountain with their stolen gold and were never seen again. Some fun in the snow, drinking, and sex follows, and then our vacationing med students are besieged by hordes of Nazi zombies and the gore fest begins!

   "Dead Snow" is extremely self aware, making fun of its self when it begins to become too serious or cliche. It mixes dark humor, gruesome death by zombie, and horror movie stereotype in a way that is very reminiscent or "Evil Dead II." While the crowd I was watching with, a sold out showing for the final movie in the Alamo Drafthouse's, Dismember the Alamo film festival, was obviously, like myself, biased and inclined to enjoy this movie, I still feel it is worth mentioning that multiple times during the movie, we broke out in applause at the creative gore, unique zombies kills, and the absolutely righteous mass slaughtering of Nazi zombies.

     I hate to give away too much of a good movie, but I would like to mention (entice you with) some vague details, like the fact that a Nazi zombie's intestine can support the weight of a person, and a higher ranked Nazi zombie, while they are both dangling off a cliff, the fact that I have never seen more intestine in any movie, ever, the fact that, at one point, someone's brains landed on the floor, and the fact that this movie contains, hands down, the funniest, self amputation scene that I have ever had the pleasure of witnessing.

     I find it very difficult to actually review "Dead Snow." I think about this movie and I just smile and wish I could see it again, and again, and again. (Sometimes I start to giggle a bit too.) It is pure gory fun. One of those rare gory, scary, and yet funny movies that just seems to get everything right.

True, "Dead Snow" is not for everyone. It does take a special (that boy ain't right) individual to like this kind of movie, but if you liked the Evil Dead movies, you will absolutely love "Dead Snow."

     P.S. Ok, so I didn't answer the main question for any zombie movie. Slow moving, Romero-esque, living dead, zombies or fast moving, virus infected, not really dead, zombies? Neither. These zombies are obviously dead, they move as quickly as a living Nazi, but there is no explanation for how they became zombies other than, they were the really evil Nazis, and they want all their stolen Nazi gold back. It all sounds so ridiculous when you say it out loud, but, when you are in the theater, watching it unfold, it's pure Nazi zombie magic.

The Stepfather (Review)

2009-10-25T15:32:00.000-05:00

I saw "The Stepfather" this weekend, after a failed attempt to see it opening weekend, and I was surprised. Most PG-13 rated horror movies are complete trash. They exist only to attract kids with disposable income to theaters during the first two weeks of release; the most profitable weeks for movie distributors. "The Stepfather," however, is not a horror movie. It's a suspense film. Something I didn't expect to see considering today's movie audiences are dominated by kids who text throughout the movie and only look up when something explodes. (You kind of have to pay attention to the whole movie when suspense is involved.) "The Stepfather" is not filled with a lot of gore or action. It's a textbook example of a suspense thriller. Of course, this is also it's downfall, for, sometimes, "The Stepfather" feels like you are reading a textbook. I was surprised to see it was doing everything a movie should do, like character development, foreshadowing, three well defined acts, and so on, but I was also disappointed that it was all so very obvious. Almost like watching a film school assignment where you get a passing grade because all the elements are there, but none of them are done with any style or finesse.

"The Stepfather" is about a serial killer, played by Dylan Walsh, who fools single mothers into thinking he has recently lost his family, gains their trust, tries to live as a happy husband with the perfect family, and then ends up killing everyone when it fails to work out. Why he does this is a mystery, although he does seem to be a bit of an obsessive compulsive. (He's also completely nuts!) "The Stepfather" is suspenseful, but also fairly predictable. I really hate to dog this movie. It really did make a valiant effort and it did everything the way it should, and, in a market full of plot holes, crappy dialogue, bad acting, and completely incomprehensible action sequences, "The Stepfather" gets everything right, but just barely. Perhaps it was a bad idea to have a director, Nelson McCormick, who works almost exclusively in TV, and actors, Dylan Walsh, Sela Ward, and Penn Badgley, who also do a lot of TV, all try to make a movie. In the end, you get what you might expect, a movie of the week, but not a film worthy of the cinema.

Watch "The Stepfather" on DVD or on cable some Sunday afternoon when you have absolutely nothing better to do or some weeknight when all the networks are playing nothing but reruns, but, don't bother with it in the theaters. Well, maybe in a few weeks when it's playing in some run down dollar theater, maybe.

Paranormal Activity (Review)

2009-10-24T18:08:00.000-05:00

I (finally) got to see "Paranormal Activity" this Friday, at a midnight showing, at the Alamo Drafthouse. In doing so, I gave this movie the best chance I could of actually scarring me. At the Drafthouse, I am virtually guaranteed there won't be anyone breaking the tension by talking or yelling something during a tense moment, or other such sophomoric activities that you are likely to get at a regular theater. Unfortunately, the movie did that its self.

     "Paranormal Activity" has been advertised as some kind of underground phenomenon. During its first weeks of showings, it played only to midnight audiences. Much of the hype around it was word of mouth. It is being advertised as "one of the scariest movies of all time.*"(*note the poster on your right) Perhaps it works a little bit better at midnight showings, where you don't know what to expect, and you haven't seen commercials or trailers, but now that the secret is out, and the trailers I've seen contain most of the movie's creepier moments, the experience falls a bit flatter than it should. Maybe it will work better on DVD, just you and a loved one you want to scare, or a small group of friends who have never heard about it, but large groups of people in theaters who know what they are in for disarm some of the scare of "Paranormal Activity,"

     Over-hype isn't the only problem with this film, however. The concept its self seems very strong. The way that the creepy moments are shown in digital camera 'reality vision', so to speak, make them seem real and visceral, however, there was no need to shoot the rest of the movie in the same, shaky, reality style. That tends to be the failing of every one of these Blair Witch clones. There is no real reason for someone to STILL be filming EVERYTHING that is happening. ("Cloverfield" is a prime example. Put down the camera and RUN!!!) The attempted explanation of the continual filming also tends to ring hollow. I think the film would have really worked if the scary moments were all on digital camera, making them seem very real, and the rest of the movie were just that, a movie.

     The main failing of "Paranormal Activity", however, is the idiot boyfriend, who, in the end, deserves what comes to him. I'll elaborate. "Paranormal Activity" is a kind of found footage movie. There are a couple of lines of text at the beginning, no logo or credits, the movie just starts. The movie is made up of footage from one digital camera that a couple, Katie and Micah, played by on one you're likely to know, has purchased to document odd occurrences that happen to Katie as she sleeps. Now, if both people were sane, rational individuals, this movie could have been very frightening, because you could empathize with them. You might internalize what is happening and imagine that it could happen to you. For a moment, you could get lost in their reality, suspend disbelief, and feel what they feel. Sadly, you can't do this, because Micah, is an idiot. He thinks everything that's happening is cool. He is excited to get it all on camera and actively tries to provoke more occurrences. To a point, I was still with the movie. I could see that happening. However, when the occurrences did begin to accelerate and intensify and when Katie, who has been dealing with these types of things ever since she was eight years old, begins to mentally break down, he should have stopped. They should have consulted the expert recommended by the first paranormal investigator who predicted everything that happened up to that point. Instead, Micah continues ahead, fueled by an inability to see the obvious and an overblown male bravado, and the film degrades into one of those horror movies that beg you to yell at the screen just to relieve your own frustration at the apparent stupidity of the characters. In the end, I didn't feel scared. I felt sorry for Katie and I felt like Micah deserved his fate.

     I understand the premise behind "Paranormal Activity." The fact that it's all supposed to look so very real, like a tape you found out in the woods or cans of old film in the attic, but its been done, so the shock value is gone, and you are not actually filming reality, so you still need to pay attention to your characters and their development. Personally, I recommend waiting a year or so, finding a copy on DVD, and trying to scare a few close friends with it, but I wouldn't bother seeing it in theaters now. The moment has passed.

Monty Python's Life of Brian (Review)

2009-10-21T22:06:00.000-05:00

Thank you IFC, for playing my favorite Monty Python movie, "Monty Python's Life of Brian." This is not my favorite Monty Python movie for the obvious, narcissistic reason, (same name!) but rather because, this is the most fully developed Monty Python movie. That is to say, it has a story and a plot. I don't mean to speak ill of the other Monty Python movies, they are classics in their own right, but this is actually a full fledged movie, whereas the others are more like skits, loosely bound together by a common theme. In any case, if you don't know who or what Monty Python is, well, it's almost impossible to explain. "Monty Python's Flying Circus" was an extraordinarily off beat comedy show in Britain in the early 1970's. It was a sketch comedy show where skits had no endings and one ran into the other, pet shop patrons couldn't convince shop owners that a parrot was dead, and double sighted mountaineers led expedition up the twin peaks of Kilimanjaro. Insanely silly would just begin to scratch the surface. If you still don't get it, ask your nerd friend (you know you have one) or anyone behind the counter at the Geek Squad, and I'm sure you'll get an earful.

"Monty Python's Life of Brian" is a comedy, of sorts, about Brian or Nazareth, born one stable over from the central figure of Christian mythology, and, his entire life, is mistaken for the Messiah. A rather simple idea that the Python crew milk for all it's worth.

While there is a generous helping of uniquely Pythonesque (that's a real word, by the way) comedy in this film, there is also quite a bit of religious satire. While the Python crew made sure not to make fun of Jesus himself, they have a lot of fun at the expense of those who follow him, or, rather, follow him poorly. My favorite example of this is the sermon on the mount, where Jesus is talking about how the meek shall inherit the Earth. As soon as the words are out of his mouth, people in the back, who can't hear everything he's saying very well, immediately begin fighting over what he said and what it means. (If that sounds familiar, it's still happening today!) There is also a short lived alien abduction somewhere in the middle of the film because they had to give Terry Gilliam a chance to animate something. That's Monty Python for you.

If you've never seen anything by Monty Python, "Monty Python's Life of Brian" is a pretty good starter movie. It mixes their very unique brand of comedy with biting satire and has an actual plot and story you can follow. It's a good way to get your feet wet and experience Python humor without being overwhelmed by the incredible, non linear, insanity of the show or other movies (or everything else they ever did!)

Law Abiding Citizen (Review)

2009-10-21T21:42:00.005-05:00

I love theaters, so, I'll often go to see movies that I wouldn't normally rent or bother with on cable. In the past, I have been pleasantly surprised. Other times, well, I got out and I went to a theater and all knowledge is good, even if that knowledge is just how badly a film sucked. (Hey, I could have went with, "Eternal vigilance is the price of integrity," but then I'd have to go see stuff like "Twilight" just so I could dog it in the review, and I'm just not willing to pay that price.) That's why I went to see "Law Abiding Citizen." It looked like it might have potential. It seemed like it might be worth taking a chance on. I needed to get out and go somewhere or I was going to go crazy. Luckily, "Law Abiding Citizen" was not really a bad movie. Sadly, it wasn't a very good movie either. It had potential, and it simply failed to live up to it.

Starring Gerard Butler as Clyde Shelton, a man who's family is murdered by thieves, and Jamie Foxx as Nick Rice, prosecutor who cuts a plea deal with one of the two accused to get a guaranteed conviction on the other one, "Law Abiding Citizen" seemed like it was going to be another "Se7en," complete with a moral lesson spelled out in blood across a city and everyone who will learn, too late, what that lesson is playing right into the intricate plan, but, in the end, it turns out to be something between an action flick and a crime drama.

"Law Abiding Citizen" is actually not poorly done, film wise. Butler and Foxx do good enough jobs, although their parts are not exactly challenging, the action isn't over the top, although there isn't enough of it for those looking for an action flick, and there seems to be a point to all of it, but this is where the film fails, because there actually is no point beyond, don't make deals with murders. The film seemed to be building toward an ending where Foxx's character would have to make a choice between stopping the killing by breaking the law, thereby proving a point being made by Butler's character, or do what the systems demands of him and allowing people to die or even, maybe, allowing Butler's character to go free because his constitutional rights had been violated, instead, it ended with the lesson being quite shallow and a big explosion. How very sad. There isn't even a clear moral good guy vs. bad guy in this film, just some explosions and killing.

If you are looking to turn off your brain for a while and waste the better part of two hours, "Law Abiding Citizen" is a reasonably well done popcorn flick. If you expect some kind of thought process to have gone into the screenplay and to get some kind of meaning from your time, you'll be sorely disappointed.

Revolutionary Road (Review)

2009-10-21T21:34:00.001-05:00

After being tricked into seeing "Titanic," I said a lot of cruel, hurtful things about Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet. I was wrong about all of them and "Revolutionary Road" is the thesis statement in the argument against all those terrible things I said. True, both actors have proven themselves many times over before this movie came out, but this biting critique of suburban life in the early 1960's is almost the antithesis of beautifully made yet vacuous love tragedy of "Titanic." (Kathy Bates gets to redeem herself as well!)

"Revolutionary Road" is a film adaptation of a Richard Yates novel by the same name. It shines an intelligent and unforgiving light on the illusion of happiness created in suburban America. Frank and April Wheeler, played by Winslet and DiCaprio, are a couple who are a little bit too intelligent for suburban life, but have fallen into it anyway. Both are bored and unsatisfied with the lives they've chosen and are looking for something more. Inspiration strikes as they revive a youthful dream of living in Paris and prepare to make good their escape from the tedium and shallow depths of their 'perfect' suburban home and lives on Revolutionary Road. However, cruel fate steps in and they must make a moral choice to stay in their suburban nightmare or end April's newly discovered pregnancy, sacrificing their unborn child for their own happiness. The drama is realistic and tense and the satire biting as the couple struggles with what to do.

"Revolutionary Road" is, indeed, a masterful work. The dialogue is incredible, the plot is thought provoking, the source material is, well, Yates, and Winslet and DiCaprio prove, once again, that they are not simply a couple of good looking faces, but, rather, great actors in their own right. The best performance, however, was had by Kathryn Hahn, who plays neighbor Milly Campbell. Young actors could learn a lot from watching the subtly of her facial expressions as she tries to keep the crumbling mask of happiness from revealing the utter desperation of a hollow and meaningless existence found beneath it. Dylan Baker also puts forth a great performance as Jack Ordway, who refuses to play along with the suburban facade, speak the truth about what he sees, and is considered insane because of it.

I was very disappointed when I didn't get to see "Revolutionary Road" in a theater, but the wait was well worth it.

The Shawshank Redemption (Review)

2009-10-19T21:29:00.001-05:00

     "The Shawshank Redemption" is one of my all time favorite films. It's one of those movies that, when it's playing on some movie channel, no matter how much I missed, I still get drawn in and soon find myself completely engrossed, watching till the very end. It had been on cable a lot lately, and I have been catching it, over and over, here and there, so, when I caught it at the very beginning tonight, I had to watch it, and I had to review it.

     "The Shawshank Redemption", based on a short story written by Stephen King, (why is it that Stephen King horror novels made into film or television program never really seem to live up to the book, but his short stories make such incredible movies?) is a well written, well directed tale about a banker, Andy Dufresne, played by Tim Robbins, who is convicted of murdering his wife and her lover and sentenced to two consecutive life terms in prison. The story is narrated and told, primarily, from the perspective of fellow prison inmate, Ellis Boyd Redding, or Red, (because he's Irish) played by Morgan Freeman. The story chronicles Red and Andy's stay in prison, and hope. Hope that Andy never gives up on. Hope that Red give up long ago, but, ultimately, finds again. It seems like too simple of an idea for a two hour and twenty minute movie, but you'll never notice the time. The story carries you along and keeps you hanging on every moment, then, suddenly, springs open like a jack in the box, revealing parts you never knew existed, but were right there in front of you the whole time. No matter how many times I see it or how well I know every detail, the story and the almost prose like dialogue, eloquent, befitting of character, and ineloquent, when necessary, still manages to enthrall me every time.

     Freeman and Robbins are great actors who give great performances. They are joined by a colorful cast of supporting characters, each of which has their own story and each of which grows over the course of the story. The dialogue, especially between Andy and Red, is both natural and memorable. The story is complex, yet, easy to follow and lose yourself in.

   It's difficult to give this film the high praise it deserves and not sound like the rambling of an enamored school girl savoring her first crush, so I'll stop here by saying that, to truly understand the greatness of this film, you simply must experience it for yourself, and it is an experience I strongly recommend.

Where the Wild Things Are (Review)

2009-10-17T21:45:00.001-05:00

If not for the book of the same name, "Where the Wild Things Are" could have simply been called "Childhood," for this is the best, symbolic representation of childhood and the perceptions of a child's mind that I have ever seen on the movie screen. On the surface, the plot is almost as simple as the 10 sentence book that it's based on, but hidden therein are layers upon layers of meaning. The urge to psychoanalyze this movie is overwhelming, but, for fear of giving away to much or tinting your own analysis and enjoyment, I'll save that for later.

Writer and director Spike Jonze and writer Dave Eggers masterfully recreate the mind of a child as it tries to comprehend the adult world that surrounds it. Max, played perfectly by Max Records, is a maybe eight to ten year old kid who's trying to deal with an absent father and his mother dating. Max flees home after, in his anger, he hurts his mother and, through Max's imagination, we live out his feelings and fears as childhood anxieties and the adults in his life are replaced with wild things.

James Gandolfini plays Carol, the wild thing that primarily embodies both Max's father and his fear of loss (but I'm supposed to be saving the psychoanalysis for later.) Though most of the dialogue sounds like it was written by an 8 year old kid, and seeing as it is supposed to be the embodiment of the imagination of such a child, it should sound exactly like that, Gandolfini, as well as the other actors voicing wild things, does a great job of sounding like an adult, as heard by a child.

Even though this movie has a cast of big, Muppet like, monster characters, it is not really intended for toddlers. I saw many bored and restless three to five year old kids in the theater. Sadly, this movie is simply above their level of comprehension. Seven to twelve year children will likely identify with this movie very well, and, when they grow up and see it again, they will likely gain a greater insight to their own childhoods and a greater understanding of their own children (one can hope.) Kids older than that can still enjoy this movie, though older teens may be a bit bored. Parents are likely to get the most out of "Where the Wild Things Are," as they see the lives of their own children mirrored in Max's imaginary world (and they, hopefully, develop a greater empathy toward their own children and the world their children live in.) And, apparently, twenty something can even enjoy this film as well. I was witness to a group of college aged kids reverting back to childhood, howling, as they left the theater. (No, they hadn't been drinking.)

Although I, personally, am a sucker for psychoanalytical symbolism, I can safely recommend "Where the Wild Things Are" to anyone who can find and savor that bittersweet joy that can be had by seeing the world through the eyes of a child.

Master Pancake Theater Presents Total Recall

2009-10-13T19:41:00.002-05:00

Ok, this is not, technically, a movie review, but I'm going to say a few words anyway. Last Friday night, I, and about eleven friends, co workers, and guests, went to go see Master Pancake Theater at the Alamo Drafthouse, Ritz, as they mocked "Total Recall."

If you don't know what Master Pancake Theater is, or what the Alamo Drafthouse is, the harsh and cruel reality of your cold and pitiful existence saddens me almost to the point of tears. (...or not.) The Alamo Drafthouse is a uniquely Austin (Texas, that is) movie going experience. Movies, good food, no commercials before the previews, unique, pre-show entertainment, and alcohol, and that's only for normal movies. They also have special events, like, Master Pancake Theater. Master Pancake Theater is very much like Mystery Science Theater 3000, where comedians watch a movie and make fun of it, except, for Master Pancake Theater, this is done live, in a theater full of people that sells out every showing, and they bring food and beer right to your seat. Surely, this must be as close as we can come to nirvana. So, while you were doing whatever Friday night, I was, literally, laughing myself hoarse, with friends and good food.

The Total Recall show was, hilarious, as they all are, (every showing selling out should be a hint of this) even if a lot of the comedy is obvious. Arnold Schwarzenegger isn't exactly hard to make fun of. However, the troupe was in top form and the odd, grunting noise that Schwarzenegger tends to use in place of actual vocabulary never gets old.

If you get the opportunity, go the the Alamo Drafthouse and see ANY Master Pancake show. I can guarantee, you will not regret it. Buy your tickets early, online, because they will sell out days ahead of time.

カタクリ家の幸福 or Katakuri-ke no koufuku or The Happiness of the Katakuris (Review)

2009-10-12T00:10:00.000-05:00

     Oh, where to begin. I suppose I must thank Zach for recommending this one to me. I am slowly learning that, just like monkey paw wishes, your movie recommendations come with a price. The price of this one seems to be a small piece of my sanity. For nearly two hours, I couldn't tell if I was in reality or a bad episode of The Twilight Zone.

     Imagine, if you will, a Japanese, horror, musical, comedy, where a family has terrible luck, must keep hiding dead bodies, and spontaneously breaks out in choreographed song and dance numbers, and that's just the tip of the iceberg. (My brain is crying.)

     The Happiness of the Katakuris, brought to you by director Takashi Miike, who you might remember from Audition, the longest setup ever for the most disturbing thirty minutes of film ever made, is an indescribably insane film. It's about a family, four generations, living in a quaint, mountain bead and breakfast/boarding house, who seem to be cursed by this little, clay-mation cherub/demon thing. Bad luck follows as guest after guest dies, and the family buries the bodies on the mountain side in order to avoid word getting out and ruining their already almost non existent business, plus song and dance numbers...? All of this wrapped up in the moral: "That's Life," meaning, good and bad comes in life, and you just have to keep going, even after you bury four dead bodies in your back yard. (Really?)

     There isn't any gore in this movie. Some dead bodies, sometimes dancing, but nothing really disgusting. (except maybe the dead sumo wrestler's naked butt) I assume that a lot of the dance numbers are spoofs, making this a kind of dark comedy in Japan. I don't know that much about Japanese cinema or pop culture, so, to me, it was just really, really odd and disturbing. Oh, and did I mention that anywhere where there might be special effects, they substitute in clay-mation? (Just in case your brain thought it had a handle on things.)

     If you like odd movie experiences, or your mind is, shall we say, in an altered state, you might just enjoy this truly strange bit of Japanese cinema, if not, then I might recommend skipping it. Watching it sober might just drive you to drink, if only to forget.

   Thanks, Zach.

雲のむこう、約束の場所 or Kumo no Mukou, Yakusoku no Basho or The Place Promised in Our Early Days (Review)

2009-10-10T16:08:00.000-05:00

Back in the day, watching anime meant a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a video tape and a photocopied script that were mailed around together, so it was really something when computers reached the point of being able to process video in a reasonable amount of time and dedicated fans could translate and subtitle anime themselves. Of course, you still could end up with a copy of a copy of a copy. The accessibility of the internet and the fears connected to file sharing seem to have destroyed most of the tight knit communities of fan subtitleers, and the advent of DVDs just makes the whole process seem archaic and not really worth the effort anymore. Ah, memories. I've seen a lot of anime and, as a student of Sociology, studied the Japanese culture, a bit, so, a lot of the stuff in anime doesn't shock or confuse me anymore. I had to say that so you could understand the full gravity of the statement I am about to make. "Kumo no Mukou, Yakusoku no Basho" is the most confusing, yet beautiful, anime, that I have ever seen. In the end, though, I think that the beauty of it was the point, and the not understanding of how and why is intentional.

The less you know about "Kumo no Mukou, Yakusoku no Basho," the better. It takes place in a slightly altered present day Japan, however, the movie's revelation of those alterations, as well as the revelation of other plot and story elements, is integral to the story as a whole, so, to review this movie properly, I will need to completely destroy the experience you will have in watching the movie. Before I do that, I will say that "Kumo no Mukou, Yakusoku no Basho" has elements of a coming of age story, a tragic love story, and is a very complex tale where the experience of the story is more important than the scientific analysis of the 'universe' that the story takes place in. To enjoy this film, you need to experience it and not try to analyze the sci-fi-ish aspects of it, you need to allow the film to reveal its secrets to you and not try to guess them ahead of time, (your guesses will almost always be wrong) and you need to be ready for a story that is far deeper and more complex that most. Characters first, augmented by story and animation, and setting becomes almost irrelevant. (...if you're wondering how he eats and breathes and other science facts, just repeat to yourself, "It's just a show. I should really just relax...")

Also, as an essential side note, never watch anime in English. You lose all the emotion and feeling of the characters. If you are not willing to read subtitles, then maybe this movie, and anime, in general, just isn't for you. (Don't be one of those people who puts down reading. It only makes you look ignorant.)

Now on to the complete destruction of the experience I was just talking about. Really, if you think you might watch "Kumo no Mukou, Yakusoku no Basho," don't read any further. Just watch it.

"Kumo no Mukou, Yakusoku no Basho" is a story about three childhood friends who share a dream and the eventual reconciling of that dream with the realities of adult life. In the, slightly altered, present day world, Japan is separated into northern and southern countries. When and how is not so important, but it does seem to mirror other split countries, like Korea, once Vietnam, and even the once split city of Berlin. The northern half of the country has built a huge, mysterious tower that the southern half, as well as the US, thinks might be some kind of weapon. Our three main characters, a year or two before high school, maybe, are building an airplane, so they can fly to the tower and see it for themselves. (These are bright, motivated kids) Takuya Shirakawa and Hiroki Fujisawa, voiced by Masato Hagiwara and Hidetaka Yoshioka are building the plane while mutual love, Sayuri Sawatari, voiced by Yuka Nanri, keeps them company and dreams of flight. Sayuri is also having prophetic dreams, which are, at first, innocent, but turn darker. Sayuri disappears and the two industrious friends are separated by attending different high schools and work on the plane stops, but the dream and the childhood promise they made to each other remains in each of their lives, which all, eventually reconnect in the realization of that 'promise', made in their 'early days.'

There is a duality going on throughout the film between the circumstances of Sayuri's disappearance and Hiroki and Sayuri's love for each other, between the dream world that Sayuri is inhabiting and the harsh realities that Hiroki must face, between the dreams of childhood, and the realities of love, and between the mysteries of the universe, and the mysteries of love its self. This is why I think that the complete understanding of the more sci- fi aspects of the film are not only irrelevant, but also intentionally vague. The mysteries of the science are not explained fully, but neither are the mysteries of love, dreams, what you felt as a child, and what happens to those feelings as an adult. Life is never fully understood, and the alternate reality and dream like worlds are mirroring aspects of life, so they cant be fully understood either. However, we do revel in the beauty and joy of life, and when those moments are experienced or mirrored by other realities in the film, the animation does a superb job of showing you that beauty and joy. "Kumo no Mukou, Yakusoku no Basho" is about living those experiences, not the understanding of them, the confusion you feel about the scientific parts of the movie is the confusion the characters feel about life and love, and the beauty of the animation is the joy of life.

In the end, "Kumo no Mukou, Yakusoku no Basho" is a beautiful, well made, and compelling story about life and love. I highly recommend it to anyone who is up to the challenge of viewing it.

Q (Review)

2009-10-07T13:50:00.000-05:00

Netflix is the greatest invention in the history of mankind, right next to spaceflight and modern medicine. It allow me to catch up on movies I've missed, see movies I never would have seen before, nostalgically relive my childhood movie memories, and in the case of "Q," watch something from years past and think, "How immature did I have to be to ever think that was even remotely good?" Ah, the innocence and ignorance of youth.

"Q" doesn't even really qualify as a B-movie or '80s camp. It's a step below that; closer to MST3k-able (that's mockable to those who don't know) and straight to video. Starring Kung Fu's own David Carradine, Shaft, himself, Richard Roundtree, and Michael Moriarty, who you might recoginize from a lot of TV guest shots. I remember him from his starring role in "The Stuff;" an infinately more watchable campy, B '80s monster/horror movie. "Q" actually starts off ok. There's some campy, bad SFX gore in the way of a decapitated window washer, a completely skinned human corpse, and some bloody skeletal remains and the acting is actually pallatable for a bad early '80s horror/monster movie. Then, there is a lot of what can be called plot, almost too much for a movie about a giant, flying snake eating people in New York, there's some more gore and random Q attacks, but not enough for fans of gory horror/slasher type films, and then, at what can vaguely be called the start of the third act, the movie really just bogs down. Right when you are ready for the big end battle, which is the way all these movies must end, we shift to the sub plot; chasing the people who are committing human sacarifice to bring about the return of the winged, Aztec god, Quetzalcoatl. (Q, get it! Sorry, I know I seem to be giving away the entire plot here, but, unless you are increadibly thick, you'll figure all this out very quickly. Besides, If you are actually going to enjoy this movie, plot is not what you are watching it for.) Once we plod through the sub plot, we finally get to the actual final battle with the beast, the obligitory fake ending, the real ending, where they actually try to make it seem like Moriarty's character has grown, and we fade to credits with the, also, obligatory, sequel setup/the monster is not dead bit.

Ok, I dogged this movie pretty badly, but it deserved it. Don't get me wrong. I love cheesy, campy monster movies. However, they have to qualify as a movie first, and "Q" feels more like a movie of the week, or, in more modern terms, one of those terrible "Made for SyFy" movies. Unless your night is going to involve a group of friends making fun of whatever you are watching, or maybe some heavy alcohol or drug use (kids, just say "No.") I wouldn't recommend "Q."

An Open Letter to Michael Bay (Rant)

2009-10-06T01:09:00.000-05:00

Before I begin, let me apologize. I created this blog for movie reviews and that was it, however, occasional, one must rant. I do not plan to do this too often and truly believe that this will be a rare occurrence, however, some things must not be allowed to stand unchallenged.

This weekend, I saw a trailer for a Michael Bay produced remake of "A Nightmare on Elm Street." Just when I think Hollywood has hit rock bottom and can't go any lower, I see Michael Bay with a miner's helmet and a pick axe, digging deeper and deeper. It's bad enough that Hollywood, as a collective, can't come up with one, original idea. I wonder if they even try. I mean, I understand, you can squeeze just a little more profit out of a movie if you didn't have to develop the idea yourself. You just take an old movie or TV show or comic book or, I kid you not, board game, and make a new movie out of it. It saves a step and saves money if some of the work is done for you. You can even save on writing if you just get a few comedians who think they are brilliant improve artists and let them say idiotic things to the camera for a few hours. Instant movie. No writing, no development, quick two weeks at the box office, and some unrated DVD sales. Mmmmmm...profit. And, as I said, that is bad enough, but Michael Bay takes it to a new low. First, let's make movies with no thought to dialogue, plot, or character development, but let's make sure there are tons of explosions and completely unrealistic special effects, all of which happen so quickly, no one can really see what's going on. And, once again, that is bad enough. No need to get any worse, but he does. Let's take that same formula, and apply it to:

an old movie that could use a revision...nope
A comic book...naw
an old TV show...ahhhhh, no
A classic, genera creating movie that was the breakout work of a great director...YES! Let's do that!!!

     Ok, some might argue that there is value in creating updated versions of these stories. That they become accessible to new audiences and can benefit from modern techniques. Ok, I'll grant you that if you grant me that Michael Bay is, beyond a shadow of a doubt, NOT the person we should entrust with the retelling of our cinematic legacy. "But, Brian", you might say, "he's only producing this one, not directing and writing it. Maybe it won't be so bad." Ok, fair point. Let's see who's directing it. Samuel Bayer. Who's he? Well, according to the Internet Movie Database, he's directed nineteen music videos. Well, that's a relief. For a second there, I thought he might not be qualified to direct a major motion picture. (Ah, sarcasm) Don't sweat it, though. Our writers are slightly more qualified. Also according to the Internet Movie Database, Wesley Strick has written a music video, (you have to write those?) some TV and some screen plays, and Eric Heisserer wrote a single episode of a TV show. First year film students know more about making movies than all four of them combined, and they want to remake "A Nightmare on Elm Street?" Is it hubris or self delusion that drives men to such deeds? Or is it huge piles of money? We may never know.

     And once again, we find ourselves looking at a new low, but, just as before, as we look in anguish and horror at what Michael Bay had beget, what do I see just under this latest insult, well, it's Michael Bay with a miners helmet and a pick axe, sinking to an even greater low. Once again, according to the Internet Movie Database, he's also in the process of remaking the Alfred Hitchcock classic, "The Birds!" Alfred Hitchcock. Michael Baysplosions, the man who plans out the special effects first, then shoots the movie around them, thinks he can do a better job than the undisputed master of suspense, Alfred Hitchcock? A genius. A legend. A master of his craft. And Michael Bay has the arrogance to remake one of his classics.

     Ok, I am now ready to start my open letter to Michael Bay.

Dear Michael Bay,

     STOP MAKING MOVIES! For the love of whatever you find dear and holy, just stop. Do movies a favor and limit yourself to doing special effects at the very most, but let qualified people direct and produce. You know, you might actually get nominated for an Oscar if your passion for explosions was tempered, channeled, and directed by talented writers and directors. I know, you have your own studio and you are the boss. You can do whatever you want. Well, that kind of freedom does nothing to challenge your creative talents and serves only to produce mediocrity. Your name is rapidly becoming a joke and the novelty of purely special effects based movies is wearing thin rapidly. While you still have a chance, stop. Just stop. Please.

Brian

There. I've had my say. I'm truly sorry to have subjected all (one) of you to that ugly, little scene, but some things just should not be allowed to stand unchallenged. I would also like to apologize to Samuel Bayer, Wesley Strick, and Eric Heisserer. I am sure that they are all lovely people and are well liked by their friends, however, this is an open and shut case of guilt by association.

Now, maybe, I can get back to watching and reviewing movies without my head exploding.

Zombieland (Review)

2009-10-04T00:33:00.055-05:00

I must preface this with a bit of a confession. I LOVE zombie movies! I will attempt to be as objective as possible in this review, but it will be difficult to find the line between the merits of "Zombieland" and my own, personal bias.

Amazingly, this is my third zombie comedy. I know, those words just don't sound like they go together, but, just like anything else, if you have all the right elements, the setting or subject matter shouldn't effect you that much. Ok, sure, an undead apocalypse full of bloody, disgusting, zombies killing people and eating human flesh might effect that delicate balance of all the right elements more than other subject matter, but you can adjust. "Zombieland" does this well.

Much like "Shaun of the Dead", which almost killed the genre of zombie comedies that it, its self created, by doing it almost too well, "Zombieland" uses a mix of light comedy, very dark comedy, and just enough human drama. This mix seems to allow you to have comedy in what would, seemingly, be very unfunny situations, by allowing the characters to use those humorous moments as a crutch for dealing with the end of their world. Just don't stray too far in the other direction, letting the weight of the end of the world fall on the character's shoulders, and it remains a comedy. Sort of the difference between M*A*S*H in the early years and the later ones where Alan Alda was writing and directing. "Zombieland" does this, without a lot of obvious, over the top, gross out comedy, and also manages to allow its characters to grow some, which makes for a story that holds your attention while enabling you to find humor in some really dark moments. (There, actually, is not a lot of gore in "Zombieland". Oh, there's some, obviously, but not nearly as much as there could have been.) Woody Harrelson does an excellent job as loner, zombie killer, Tallahassee. Jesse Eisenberg also does a great job as the almost neurotic loner, Columbus. Rounding out our cast are Emma Stone and Abigail Breslin as Wichita and Little Rock, respectively. (If you think you've noticed a theme in our characters names, you are right. Names lead to emotional attachments that they just can't afford, so they stick to destinations.) Stone doesn't really get a chance to flex her acting muscles much, but, then again, her character, hot, last woman on earth, isn't exactly a challenging role or a challenge for her. Breslin, doesn't exactly have a part that she can shine in either, but she does well and has a lot of talent that, sadly, "Zombieland" just doesn't give her the chance to show off. Oh, and let's not forget Bill Murry as, Bill Murry. He only has a small part in the film, but manages to bring his best Bill Murry. Although, I think his 'final' scene may have crossed that very thin line between dark comedy and morbid humor. Or maybe they were just trying to get a bit of suspense out of the moment, and failed.

Now, as much as i love zombie movies and love to see them spoofed well, "Zombieland" has its faults. The plot, characters, and their stories aren't exactly original. Of course, part of that comes from the fact that "Zombieland" is spoofing zombie movies and characters found therein. The comedy is good, but not constant, laugh out loud funny. I was amused throughout the movie, but I wasn't exactly in stitches. Also, the penchant to point out the rules along the way with on screen text might throw some, more, let's say, 'more traditional,' movie viewers, but is forgivable, because it is a comedy, and it goes along with the almost constant narrative provided by Eisenberg's character.

All that having been said, "Zombieland" may not be the best comedy out this year, or even the best zombie comedy ever, but it is funny, well done, and worth seeing, unless, of course, you just can't take undead corpses feasting on the flesh of the living. To each his own, I suppose.

P.S.

As a side note, the third zombie comedy I've seen, and easily the worst of the three, was Black Sheep. No, not the Chris Farley movie. I'm talking about a New Zealand based, zombie sheep movie (yes, I said zombie sheep) that's so bad, it's funny, if you're into that kind of thing.

The Informant! (Review)

2009-09-29T21:06:00.002-05:00

"The Informant!," starring Matt Damon and directed by Steven Soderbergh, is an odd, little comedy. A lot of the humor comes from the (seemingly) non-squinter actions of Matt Damon's character, Mark Whitacre, a VP at food giant ADM, who turns FBI informant. However, unlike the almost endless wave of gross out, mostly improvised, idiotic comedies that stain theater screens these days, (you know the ones, the ones that seem to rely solely on the non-squinter stupidity improvised by the comedians while filming) "The Informant!" is funny not because all of Whitacre's actions are completely unreal, and therefor, unexpected, but because Whitacre's actions are, in fact, based on actual fact, and there are very real reasons motivating him. This, sadly, is also the downfall of "The Informant!" Once we are through the first act, laughter gives way to cringing as we wonder how anyone can be that dumb, and once we are in the third act, we just feel sorry for Whitacre, his family, and everyone who ever had anything to do with him. In the end, "The Informant!" leaves you feeling uncomfortable and wishing you hadn't gone through the trouble of going to the theater. Soderbergh tries to take as much creative license as possible, but, in the end, the reality of the material is simply too depressing.

I do have to give Matt Damon credit for doing a great job playing, what turns out to be, a character you only end up feeling pity for, to Scott Bakula, who, likewise, does a great job as FBI Special Agent Brian Shepard, who ends up on the receiving end of Whitacre's problems, and to Steven Soderbergh who does his usual best directing, but, in the end, none of them could really overcome the source material, Mark Whitacre's actual life and actions.

Whip It (Review)

2009-09-28T19:36:00.002-05:00

     I got to see "Whip It" nearly a week early as it opened this Saturday in limited theaters for a sneak preview. (I got a free t-shirt too!) The drive was definitely worth it.

     "Whip It" mixes just the right amount of humor, emotion, and self discovery into a uniquely Texas coming of age tale. Ellen Page, who has an incredible amount of talent for one so young, brings her usual stellar performance as Bliss Cavendar, an 17 year old girl from a small (one stop light kind of small) Texas town who is being forced by her, well meaning, mother, played by Marcia Gay Harden, who does a prefect performance of an obsessive, small town, Texas mother, to participate in beauty pageant after beauty pageant, in an attempt to give her daughter the advantages she never had growing up. Younger sister, Shania, played by relative newcomer Eulala Scheel, seems to love the pageant life. Not so for Bliss. She hates it and longs for something outside of small town life. Her chance comes during a shopping trip to Austin where she picks up a flyer for TXRD, Texas Roller Derby. From there, a shy, reserved young girl lies to her parents about where she is going at night, lies about her age to get into the league, and discovers something she truly loves, or, at least, loves more than working as a waitress at a small town BBQ joint. Daniel Stern plays the father. He's also very typical small town Texas. He is a bit overwhelmed by a family of beauty pageant girls. He has to sneak out to his van to watch football and looks enviously at the high school football signs other fathers put in their yards for their sons. Additional star power is brought by Jimmy Fallon, who actually does a good job as TXRD announcer 'Hot Tub' Johnny Rocket, Kristen Wiig, also brings a great performance as Maggie Mayhem, player for the fictional TXRD team, the Hurl Scouts, Juliette Lewis, who does an incredible job as chief rival Iron Maven, player for the number one TXRD team, the Holy Rollers, Andrew Wilson, who is truly the most under rated Wilson brother, playing the beach bum-esque Hurl Scouts coach to perfection, (his performance is far more believable and authentic than anything brother Owen could ever pull off) and, of course, let us not forget, first time director, Drew Barrymore, who not only shines in her directorial debut, but also does a great job as Hurl Scouts player Smashley Simpson.

     (Ok, time out for a second. If case some of that confused you, let me give you a (very) quick explanation of Roller Derby culture. Roller Derby is a contact sport, played by women on skates, who try to pass each other on a track for points. The players and teams usually have, let's say, colorful names. Actual TXRD team names include the Holy Rollers, the Hellcats, and the Putas del Fuego. Anyway, you really don't need to know anything about Roller Derby before seeing this movie. It'll be very obvious or they'll fill you in along the way. Anyway, back to the movie.)

     "Whip It" is simultaneously a inspirational tale of a young girl finding her own path in life, a underdog sports flick about a team who started at last and fought hard to be on top, and an incredibly funny, true to life comedy, full of characters we see every day (especially if you live in or near Central Texas) and can actually relate to.

Surrogates (Review)

2009-09-26T17:42:00.010-05:00

Online, you can hide behind an avatar and a lie of a profile and have complete anonymity. Expand that to real life, with a realistic looking robotic body, made in your own image, or not, and you have the world of "Surrogates." Most crime being a thing of the past, no more spreading diseases, racism and sexism gone (if you don't know, how can you hate?), and few, if any , consequences for your actions, (destroying a surrogate seems to be considered vandalism) all seem to take our own self centered, hedonistic, world of instant gratification to a whole new level. Throw in those who don't choose to keep them selves 'safe' by using robotic bodies living on reservations, seemingly shunning technology and being the subject of new racism, and you might think that you have a great vehicle for a truly meaningful and poignant tale about where our ever increasingly virtual world is going. Sadly, "Surrogates" just doesn't go there. Perhaps the graphic novel origins of this story needed a bit more fleshing out (no pun intended, well, maybe a little) before it was ready for the big screen. That's not to say that "Surrogates" wasn't a good movie, just not that good of a movie and a disappointment considering the subject matter.

Bruce Willis brings his usual performance, that is to say, excellent. If some of the acting seems a little plastic in the first act, that's because it is supposed to be. Surrogates, the robotic bodies, are very advanced, but really don't quite pull off the full range of human emotions, especially the negative ones. This vehicle is used for some of the movie's most poignant scenes, showing surrogates fail to register anything when emotions should be tragic, and having the operator, the person behind the machine, actually disconnect and feel those very painful emotions in real life, like they were meant to be felt. It also shows the ability of people to lose themselves in lives devoid of any negative emotions and, in the process, they fail to feel anything. Sadly, again, this is shown and explored very minimally.

Thankfully, "Surrogates" also fails to explore the potential for CGI enhanced, adrenaline pumping, completely incoherent action sequences that would actually be possible with robotic bodies driven by humans who can't feel the pain or need to fear consequences like death or dismemberment. There is one chase scene where this comes into play, but it is done realistically and is not unnecessarily fast or over the top. Michael Bay would be disappointed.

In the end, what you get is a mildly entertaining action film that doesn't assault your senses, but also doesn't really challenge your brain either.

9 (Review)

2009-09-23T17:04:00.005-05:00

     Produced by Tim Burton (and, yes, you can tell Tim Burton was involved) and based on writer/director Shane Acker's short film by the same name, "9" is a visually stunning, post apocalyptic animated tale about odd, little rag dolls which are the last hope of humanity.

     Fair warning. Just because this is an animated film and the main characters are small, doll like things, this movie is rated PG-13 for a reason. It occurs shortly after the fall of mankind. There is ruin everywhere, some dead bodies, (nothing really graphic) and some skeletal remains. Don't bring younger or easily frightened children.

     That having been said, "9" is, as I said, visually stunning, action packed, and exceptionally well done. Acker pulls off a fast paced, yet enjoyable and engaging, story about death, hope, and the triumph, quite literally, of the human spirit. Voice talents include Christopher Plummer, Martin Landau, John Reilly, Crispin Glover, Jennifer Connelly, and Elijah Wood as our title character, 9. 9 is a small, cloth skinned, creation/creature, brought to life by a scientist, near the end of a devastating war between humanity and machines. It doesn't take 9 long before he is running for his life, pursued by something that seems to be part machine and part cat skull and aided by 5, one of the 8 other creations/creatures that seem to be the only things life alive. Each one of these numbered creations seem to have an innate role, including an almost insane 6 who seems to resemble Tim Burton a bit. 9 seems driven to find and rescue 2, who was captured by the afore mentioned cat/machine/monstrosity shorty before 5 found 9.

     From there, the story unfolds quite quickly, all without feeling rushed and while keeping the plot evolving. The story is simple enough for younger viewers to understand and contains enough subtly embedded meaning and metaphor (like the cathedral-esque factory where the machines are made, the fictional, Nazi-like state that created the machines and used them for conquest, and the best-ever use of a Judy Garland song to foreshadow oncoming doom) to keep adult viewers paying attention. On top of that, the action is paced very well and keeps you in suspense (nail biting, really) throughout the action scenes. The ending may seem a bit, confusing or even anti climatic to some, but I, personally, was satisfied with the thought that, one so many levels, live goes on.

Battle For Terra (Review)

2009-09-22T22:49:00.004-05:00

      I had seen "Battle for Terra" in theaters when it came out, but only the 2-D version, however, thanks to the Fantastic Fest and the Alamo Drafthouse, I got to see it in 3-D (and have a really good pizza.)      Sadly, the 3-D does very little for this movie. Luckily, there are no moments of things flying out of the screen, just some floating credits, but there is also not a lot of really good use of 3-D in the screen. Most of the time, you don't even notice the 3-D or it seems to be almost non existent, as if the movie was not originally made for 3-D and it was added after the fact. Some of the space scenes are nice in 3-D and the huge, flying, alien whale thing is a nice effect, but all in all, you can safely skip the 3-D version and not really be missing anything.

     Than having been said, this was a pretty good movie. It is not a lesson on environmentalism. It is an anti war story. The movie begins on Terra, an alien world inhabited by large eyed, legless aliens who seem to swim through the air. Despite the lack of 3-D luster, the animation is actually quite breathtaking. Not to far in, humans arrive. It seems that we did not destroy the environment, rather, over centuries, we used up the the Earth's resources. (No, it is not about recycling either.) After that, we terraformed Mars and Venus, colonized them, and began to use their resources. About 200 years after that, the colonies want independence. War destroys all three worlds, and the remaining humans strike out in a huge ship, taking generations to arrive at the nearest world that can support life, Terra. So, it's us or them. The story is a bit archetypal at this point. There's a general, hell bent on destruction of the native Terrians as the only solution, a young, intelligent Terrian trying to rescue her father, a human pilot who is rescued by a Terrian, and even a cute, little robot sidekick, however, despite a less than original general story, the execution of the story is gripping and done more than well enough to keep you engaged. You get drawn into these characters and actually care about what happens to them. They manage to not make the robot an annoying gimmick and make him more than a bit player. There is even a surprise as the Terrians end up being not your typical group of backwater natives.

     I enjoyed this movie. It's not long enough to get preachy or boring or hung up on details or the science of anything and it moves along at a really nice pace. The voice actors all do a good job, including Evan Rachel Wood and Luke Wilson in starring roles as the Terrian Mala and Human fighter pilot, Jim Stanton. Other voices include James Garner, David Cross, Beverly D'Angelo, Danny Glover, Laraine Newman, Ron Perlman, Dennis Quaid, and Mark Hamill. That's quite a lot of star power. Unfortunately, only James Garner and David Cross play roles of any consequence. Cross plays the, thankfully, not annoying, (and thankfully not very David Cross) robot Giddy and Garner plays one of the elder Terrians (and guardian of the terrible secret)

     Ok, so I liked "Battle for Terra," who else will enjoy it? It's animated, so you think kids, but it's not really a kids movie. There is war, violence, death, alien autopsy, racial hatred, and an attempted genocide. Even if you'd like your youngster to see the positive message about living in harmony and peace, it's likely to be a bit much for them. Adults are likely to be thrown by the short running time, 85 minutes, the sci-fi setting, and the kinda cutesy aliens, and teens will likely think it's a kids movie. However, if you can get over watching a cartoon (CGI, that is, and beautifully done) and you are old enough for the PG-13 content, I'd recommend seeing "Battle for Terra", at least once.

Coraline (Review)

2009-09-14T19:05:00.022-05:00

I recently had the opportunity to rewatch “Coraline” in 3D at the Alamo Drafthouse. Before I go any further, let me comment on the Alamo Drafthouse. If you have the privilege of living near the Austin area, (Texas, that is) you are missing out if you don't see a movie at any of the four Alamo Drafthouses. Three of the four are original Drafthouses, an Austin institution for over a decade, and despite the fact that the fourth one is a franchise, I can personally vouch for it. The Alamo Drafthouse is a unique movie going experience. Movies, good food, a wide selection of beer and other potent potables, no commercials before the movies, and unique pre show entertainment, not to mention a generally cool and laid back Austin attitude. If you only go to see a first run movie, you have only scratched the surface of the Drafthouse experience. I could go on and on, but I'll stop gushing there. If you really want to know more, there is a link above and RSS feeds from the Drafthouse on the right of the page.

Now, “Coraline”. Based on a novella by Neil Gaiman, who is well known for, rather graphic, graphic novels, as well as some recent, spooky children's books, and directed by Henry Selick of "The Nightmare Before Christmas" fame, “Coraline” is not your typical kiddie flick. Young children should not see this movie. It'll only frighten them. However, for children mature enough to handle a little bit of scary stuff, and for adults of all ages, "Coraline" is an amazing experience and a great film. Now, I don't say stuff like "adults of all ages" lightly. This is not like most kids films, where the kids are entertained, but not really challenged, and the adults are bored with the overly simplistic plot and occasionally entertained by some off color jokes that go over the kids’ heads, you hope. "Coraline" is a very well made and developed movie. Great writing, great direction, great voice acting, a really solid script, and visually, this movie is stunning. The film is shot entirely in stop motion animation, using miniature puppets, and augmented in places with a little bit of CGI, in 2-D, "Coraline" is truly an amazing visual experience. However, in 3-D, well, I was blown away. I can say, without a doubt, that this movie is the only one to date that has used this new 3-D technology correctly. All the other 3-D, animated kids movies to date, computer animated, every one of them, don't do 3-D well, mainly because a computer generated image is, well, flat, and you have to fake the third dimension. Other live action movies, well, they use it as a gimmick. "Coraline", however, was the perfect vehicle for 3-D. The little puppets and miniature, handmade sets, are all in three dimension to begin with. They translate over very well and allow a world of miniature puppets seem quite real. Also, most of the 3-D is inside the screen, not popping off the screen into your face. There are a few, brief moments like that, but they are all appropriate for the action on the screen and don't take you out of the movie. Rather, they draw you in. Well, except for the needle in the opening sequence, but you can forgive one 'ohh ahh' moment in the opening title sequence before the movie has really started. If you have the opportunity to see this movie, in a theater, in 3-D, do it. You will not be disappointed. (You will be disappointed with the DVD 3-D. Just skip that.)

"Coraline" is a modern day fairy tale, done in the tradition of Grimm's fairy tales, about a maybe 12 year old girl, Coraline Jones, voiced by Dakota Fanning, who has just moved into an aging boarding house with her parents, voiced by Teri Hatcher and John (I'm a PC) Hodgman, and is utterly bored and alone. Her parents work at home as writers and are trying to finish a gardening catalog that they are desperately behind on, so, at the moment, they have little time for their daughter. The new neighbors are elderly and eccentric or just plain odd, and it seems to be raining most of the time, confining Coraline to the inside of a old house with very little to do. That is, until, she finds a small, mysterious door that leads to another world; a world where everything is the same, except better. However, this other, better world comes at a price, and Coraline soon finds herself fighting to save herself, her parents, and the ghosts of other children trapped there. Truly, a wonderful story, a great movie, an incredible experience in 2-D, and an absolute must see in a theater in 3-D.

I would be remiss if I didn't mention some of the other voice talent in this movie. Robert Bailey Jr. does an excellent job as Wybie Lovat, the slightly weird neighbor kid who, initially, irritates Coraline to no end. Dawn French and Jennifer Saunders, of British comedy fame, do an incredible job as Miss Spink and Miss Forcible, former British (bawdy) stage actresses, who are now well past those days but still maintain a love of theater. Keith David provides a wonderfully mellow baritone voice to Wybie's pet cat, who only talks in the 'other' world, maintaining a separation of real and magical realms. And Ian McShane, from HBO's Deadwood and, more recently, NBC's Kings, lends his incredible voice talent to the Amazing Mr. Bobinsky, a former Russian acrobat who is now, supposedly, training a mouse circus in his attic apartment. Credit, ultimately, must go to Henry Selick though, for directing all of these incredible voice talents. This, once again, isn't your typical kiddie film, where a couple of top name comedians go nuts on the mic for a few days and they write half the movie around their manic style. Henry Selick took years to record carefully directed voice work from each of his actors and got, from each one, a magnificent performance.

Ok, I should end this review, but I have one more thing to say. Not only is this a kids movie that is actually enjoyable to adults, and enjoyable on an adult level, (parents may even be scared a bit, but not by what scares their children) but it is also one of those rare children's movies that has real characters in it. The adults act like adults, not arch stereotypes or like children themselves, and the kids act like kids. This is a huge departure from any Disney film you've ever seen and nothing like most kids movies. It is so rare to get a kids movie with real, believable characters in it that it is worth mentioning.

If you get the opportunity, watch "Coraline." If you get the rare opportunity to see it in 3-D, don't hesitate. You won't be disappointed.

Whiteout (Review)

2009-09-14T15:58:00.003-05:00

Against my better judgment, I saw "Whiteout" this Saturday. It was actually not as bad as I thought it was going to be. Not that it wasn't bad, but just not that bad. "Whiteout" is an action/suspense/murder mystery/cop drama? This film never really settles on any one for long. Kate Beckinsale plays Carrie Stetko, a U.S. Marshal assigned to a U.S. Antarctic base, who gets caught up in a murder investigation just three days before a storm will trap everyone on the base for the six months of Antarctic winter. During the beginning of the investigation, she is stalked by a masked, pick ax wielding murderer reminiscent of a bad slasher film. Then she gleams tiny bits of information from suspects as they are picked off, one by one, by the man with the ax. Then the film switches gears to murder mystery as she catches the killer, puts the pieces together, and his plot, ever so slowly and agonizingly, unwinds. We also get a sub plot of Beckinsale's character's past, which is also ever so slowly revealed throughout the film, setting the stage for her redemption in the end.

The first two thirds of this movie are tolerable; popcorn fodder during a matinee. The last third, however, seems to bog down in the unraveling mystery, which falls apart all to easily and slowly. There is simply not a lot to this movie and it's about 30 minutes too long. This might be worth watching on DVD as background noise or maybe at a discount theater, where it should be making appearances shortly, but I wouldn't (and wish I hadn’t) spend a full, night, weekend ticket price on it.

Citizen Kane (Review)

2009-09-14T15:44:00.005-05:00

This review had to come next. "Citizen Kane." Widely regarded by film buffs, film students, film critics, and basically anyone who went to film school, as the greatest movie ever; it's not. For the greatest movie ever, see "Casablanca."

"Citizen Kane" is, perhaps, the most over rated movie ever. Let me explain. "Citizen Kane" is a very important and historic movie. Orson Welles was deliberately trying to create something new in movie making, and he did. He pioneered new techniques in cinematography, special effects, make up, ect... Orson Welles was a great director who did something great for American film, and, at the time, something entirely new and different. It also tanked at the box office. Why? Well, it's long and boring and rather tedious. The entire story is laid out for you in the first five minutes, then relived in flashbacks. Of course, all the surprises are gone because you heard it already in the first five minutes of the film. I also really don't want to seem callous, but I really fail to feel any pity or remorse, or anything really, for the center of this story, Charles Foster Kane, played by Orson Welles himself. As a child, care of young Charles Kane is signed over, along with a fortune, to a financial advisor, to keep the boy away from his abusive (?) father. From there he grows up rich and loveless, trying desperately to find some kind of satisfaction in life, but ultimately failing to and wishing, on his deathbed, for the simplicity of childhood. I'm sorry, but the poor little rich kid doesn't really elicit my sympathy. I feel for the child removed from his parents, but that only buys so much emotion and we see Kane mainly as an adult, where all sympathy for the character dies and we are forced to endure the slow, agonizing telling of the story of his, oh so sad, incredibly successful life. I suppose we are supposed to be carried along by the quest to discover what his last word, "Rosebud", meant. The mystery doesn't really support that much story and turns out to be oh so unfulfilling.

Unless you are very interested in the technical aspects of early film making or just want to be able to intelligently speak about the subject when your film friends talk about it, I do not recommend watching "Citizen Kane."

Casablanca (Review)

2009-09-12T17:22:00.003-05:00

I say this without hesitation; "Casablanca" is the greatest movie of all time. Starring Humphrey Bogart, Ingrid Bergman, Paul Henreid, and Claude Rains, "Casablanca" is the quintessential movie.

"Casablanca" is both a World War II drama and a simultaneously tragic and happy love story. Set in unoccupied French Morocco during the early days of World war II, shortly after the Nazi Invasion of France, "Casablanca" is about an American, Rick Blane, a stoic, mysterious figure who owns and runs Rick's Café Américain, (The inspiration for the title of this blog) a popular night spot in Casablanca. "Everybody comes to Rick's," including Rick's ex lover, Ilsa, accompanied by fleeing resistance leader Victor Laszlo. From there, there is a murder mystery, complex webs of relationships between the three afore mentioned main characters, and, in the end, love lost, love found, redemption, and "the start of a beautiful friendship."

The acting, as well as the actors, are all top notch. The directing is superb. The characters are all fully developed, three dimensional individuals, each with complex sets of motivations who grow and change throughout the course of the movie.

Bogart plays Rick Blaine, the owner and proprietor of Rick's Café Américain in Casablanca during the early days of World War II. Rick is a strong character; Absolute master of his domain. He's also a character who is hiding in Casablanca. Running away both from his native America and from his broken heart, Rick is a character who has tired of fighting the good fight and had found a safe haven from the war and romance in Casablanca.

Bergman plays Ilsa Lund, a young, naive girl who traveled from her home in Oslo to Paris where she and Rick enjoy a time of carefree romance and no questions.

Henreid plays Victor Laszlo, a leader in the resistance, who is being perused by the Nazis. He arrives in Casablanca with Ilsa, and the intricately woven back stories and complex interactions of these characters begin there. I'm not going to ruin this movie with too many details after that, but each of these characters has a past haunting them, and all of them being pulled by multiple sets of loyalties.

Claude Rains quite expertly plays the almost comical Captain Louis Renault, Perfect of Police in Casablanca. While he is the least developed main character, He, like all the other main characters, has his motivations and ends up changing, for the better, in the end.

Over sixty-five years old, "Casablanca" has withstood the test of time. Most films that old feel dated or quaint. "Casablanca" can stand next to any modern World War II film and hold its own. It is truly a masterpiece and I can, without hesitation, recommend watching this film.