Jim Washburn

Lincoln Washburn and Toy Story 2

2010-09-23T13:10:00.000-04:00

Movie Review: Unthinkable

2010-07-19T23:48:00.000-04:00

This film's premise is extremely simple: an American-born Islamic terrorist, played by Michael Sheen, sends a tape to the US government claiming that he has planted 3 nuclear bombs in three US cities that will detonate in a matter of days; he allows himself to be caught and an unrestricted "interrogation" occurs; a Jack Bauer situation is presented to the viewer: "How far do you go in violating the law to protect the greater good?"

The film presents Sam Jackson as the interrogator who literally has no limits to what he will do to extract information. On the other end of the scale is Carrie-Anne Moss, an FBI agent who is assigned, against her will, to witness the interrogation and is appalled that such means are contemplated, much less allowed, to find out the location of the bombs. Pretty much everyone else in the movie serves as vacillating side characters who represent the disconnected, uninformed judgments of every person in the world who has a strong opinion of torture but no real, hard facts about it; much less any direct experience on either side of "aggressive interrogation."

Unthinkable is a character study and morality tale that carefully and skillfully forces the viewer to see the act of torture from several perspectives, never truly condemning or condoning it as an act. The backbone of the movie is Sam Jackson's performance as the torturer. He is so calm, collected, and confident in his staggeringly brutal acts of torture that he actually comes across as equally terrifying in the brief interactions he has with his own family between torture sessions with the terrorist. How can someone who has just done THAT to another human being picnic with his wife and chat with his kids over a webcam?
But if Sam is the backbone, then Carrie-Anne Moss serves as the heart and soul of the film. Hers is the only character to experience a real developmental arc throughout the film: her initial repulsion to torture goes through various phases (tolerance, acceptance, participation, remorse, etc.) as she struggles to balance her ideals with the desperate need to know what the terrorist knows before millions of people die.

But that really just reinforces the point of the movie: while the act of torture itself is clearly distasteful, what I found truly disturbing was the lack of commitment to ideals shown by all the other characters save Moss. They want the results of the interrogation, but absolutely nobody wants to take responsibility for the decision to get them or follow through to the necessary conclusion.

I came to a few personal conclusions about torture watching the movie, some of which were developed after watching 7 seasons of Jack Bauer's television network sanitized torture:

First: Torture is like war: don't start what you can't finish, and never hold back.

Second: If you engage in torture (my definition: to engage in the irreparable physical, emotional, or psychological damage to a subject during or in place of interrogation), you have irreparably compromised your own humanity in direct proportion to the pain which you inflict.

Third: In a similar, real-life scenario, I simply don't know how I would feel about torture. On one hand, I believe it is better that one man should suffer than that an entire nation should perish--so do whatever it takes to stop the bombs. Take off the gloves and make the terrorist suffer. And God help the man who has the will and ability to carry it out...
On the other hand, it may is better to do everything possible to prepare for the bombs to go off, to keep looking and investigating and searching and...whatever can be done, but, should all of that fail, let the bombs go off before compromising the principles and values that the country stands for by torturing someone. Nobody wants thousands or millions to die in a nuclear holocaust, but nobody wants to devalue the principles of the United States to the point where America stands for nothing more than the enemies it fights. And America as an idea and ideal would be irreparably broken if people are willing to compromise those principles by inaction just as much as evil action. By attacking only in defense, we as a nation are fully justified in extending the full measure of our wrath and indignation while preserving our values and moral standing.

The fact that the movie got my brain thinking about the subject was enough for me to recommend it. In fact, to indulge a more religious perspective (a lens through which I view virtually everything in life,) I was reminded of many portions of The Book of Mormon that dealt with the conditions of a righteous population of people during wartime: the death of Laban in Jerusalem, the slaughter of the people of Ammon while they prayed, the execution of traitors (whose betrayals had cost thousands of lives) by Captain Moroni. In the end, I do not believe I can say with any true confidence how I would react in a hypothetical situation; I can say that if confronted with the decision in real-life, I hope I would be uncompromising in applying the principles and values I have learned throughout my life to do the right thing.

I do recommend the movie to anyone who enjoys 24. The movie is far more graphic in violence and language than the TV show, but that gives this 'Jack Bauer' scenario significantly more context and gravity than television permits.

Book Review: His Dark Materials by Philip Pullman

2010-06-27T15:28:00.005-04:00

His Dark Materials is actually three books in one: The Golden Compass, The Subtle Knife, and The Amber Spyglass. Back in '07 the film adaptation of The Golden Compass was released in theaters to a lot of controversy about its supposed content. In an apparently startling revelation to Fox News, author Philip Pullman was revealed to be an atheist; they freaked out, proclaiming that the movie would corrupt good Christians around the world. Since I actually enjoyed the movie and perceived no anti-religious message in it, I decided to read the book for myself.

Before I jump into my thoughts on the book, I want to establish why, as a life-long active Christian, I decided to read a book that some believed would turn a devout Christian into an atheist.
First: It's a work of fiction! It's totally not real! I feel safe assuming the author would agree that in no uncertain terms this book is a fantasy novel. Why get worked up over a fake narrative?
Second: I believe that if your religious faith is so weak that a completely fictional novel is enough to shake the foundation of your beliefs, than either you don't spend enough time spiritually developing your faith or you don't really know what you believe. I despise blind faith (simply following because one is told to follow) and also feel that one's faith is always either strengthening or weakening; it is never static. If anyone is reading His Dark Materials or any other fictional novel to build their faith, they are sorely misguided. In my own church, there is a clear delineation between what writings comprise official Church doctrine and, well, everything else; nowhere in the canon of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a fictional novel regarded as doctrine.
I'm grateful that I have always been encouraged to question what I believe and seek deeper understanding of the tenets of my religion. I believe that faith is a belief in something unseen that is true; a belief so powerful it compels an individual to action.

So anyway...the book itself. Objectively, His Dark Materials follows the quest of a young girl names Lyra as she travels through parallel universes trying to save her best friend from the machinations of an evil institution. The fantastical tale is rooted in a world where a person's soul is manifested externally in the form of an animal; where devices exist that allow people to move between planes of existence and discover the absolute truth about the future; and there are whole hosts of mythical creatures and environments. Somewhere in that brief summary I hope you clued in on the fact that the story is complete fantasy fiction.

So what is the root of the controversy? Once you start reading, you find that in Lyra's world the evil institution is a worldwide Church and, based on descriptions and terminology, is clearly the Catholic church. To lay it all out up front, the book's Church reigns with an iron fist by utilizing Inquisition-type theocratic rule and, among its plethora of appalling hypocrisies, authorizes horrific indulges such as the assassination of Lyra. The story also casts the angels thrown out of heaven as quasi freedom fighters who assist Lyra in defeating the cruel Regent Metatron, who rules over mankind on behalf of the indifferent and (ultimately) powerless 'Authority', which Pullman clearly implies is God himself.
Now do you understand the controversy? According to Fox News' remarkable over-simplification, it's a story about a child's quest to kill God; perhaps the ultimate atheistic fantasy. Taken out of context it is clearly horrific. But let me emphasize the most important fact: the book is a work of fictional fantasy written by someone with absolutely no recognized ecclesiastical authority or an even remotely objective perspective on Christianity or any other religious institution.

Having just finished His Dark Materials, I have two completely differing opinions of the book:

On one hand, I liked it! I enjoyed the story. It was intriguing; it had some pretty cool fantasy elements--there is a kingdom of talking polar bears, for awesome's sake. Seriously, think about that--it's utterly bad-ass. The way the novel mixed fantasy with science fiction was well thought out, interesting, and relatively well executed for a non-science fiction novel. The idea of your soul or conscience existing outside your body as an animal was also a unique and intriguing concept. As a character Lyra definitely walks the traditional hero's journey, which always gives the reader someone to cheer for. The book is far from great literature with respect to the quality of its writing and is over-loaded with a difficult and extensive internal glossary of made-up terms and concepts. But all in all, it was a perfectly fun read when taken as fictional literature.

But on the other hand, I had a hard time staying focused on the purely literary aspect of the book; this may explain why it took me 2 years to slug through it. Whether a conscious decision or a subconscious product of his own beliefs, Pullman leaves an indelible philosophical fingerprint on the novel that, in my opinion, demanded that the book be interpreted as a loose allegory of his own personal atheistic/humanist philosophy; not simply a fantasy novel.
Ironically, from a certain perspective Pullman has essentially reinforced the basic teachings and underlying strength of Christianity. Throughout the entire trilogy, Pullman utilizes stories from the Bible, various Christian denominations' doctrines, and more than a fair amount of apocryphal Christian and Catholic lore. Without extensively plundering Christian source material for narrative symbolism, he would have utterly failed in his attempt to prove how messed up Christianity and organized religion are; how much better off people would be if they simply used reason to make decisions and relied on their own personal capacity to choose good and evil. He also blatantly ignores the significant differences between Christian sects and arguably categorizes all organized religion under the generic umbrella of "The Church." Intellectually this is as insulting as it is misguided. Ultimately, the underlying message of His Dark Materials is an almost flawless treatise in moral relativism, much like Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged is a fictional treatise on her own philosophy of objectivism, albeit presented in a far less intellectual or coherent manner.

Now, I could launch into my own hyper-extensive analysis of why I believe Pullman and moral relativism to be wrong. But I won't. I'm guessing Pullman probably wrote the book hoping that it would simply get people thinking about anything; from a simple examination of their own belief system to an out-right challenge of their religious faith by his godless theory of humanism; I suppose good writing demands a critical response from its readers. But my response won't be a thesis-length explanation of my beliefs, even if during the last two years I've spent enough time in quiet contemplation to produce such a document. Instead, I'll pretend like I didn't enjoy this work of fiction and briefly summarize my own personal response to the subtle message of the book.

I believe in eternal truth. I believe in a living God and that, in His perfection, He represents the embodiment of eternal truth and is thus the ultimate arbiter of right and wrong; or in other words justice. Truth and justice are as eternal as God himself and his commandments are meant to teach all mankind to learn eternal truth and follow its requisite principles.
Because I believe God to be the final word on right and wrong, I strongly disagree with any philosophy that states that humans can, completely independent of God, successfully or universally determine right and wrong.
I believe that one of the greatest gifts God has given his children is agency: the freedom to choose right or wrong. But with every choice comes eternal consequence; justice demands that at some point in this life or the next, every good choice must be rewarded (with the ability to continue to grow and learn eternal truth) and every evil choice eventually be punished (with restrictions on said ability.)

Does that sound complicated? I hope not; I tried to keep it simple. But in those two paragraphs, I hope I've demonstrated that my personal beliefs are diametrically opposed to Pullman's entire philosophical basis for His Dark Materials. There is simply no way to compromise my beliefs with his beliefs. And so I am left with two choices: either enjoy the novel for the flight-of-fancy fiction it truly is, or else take the underlying message of the novel deadly serious and engage in a supremely complex re-evaluation of what my beliefs are and whether Pullman has a better interpretation of existence than my own.
Guess what? Pullman's fictional story has not even remotely shaken the foundations of my faith. It was an entertaining read, nothing more. Rather than continually wax eloquent on why I believe what I believe, I try to live my religion and let my life speak for itself. I'm certainly not perfect, as anyone who knows me will attest. But my faith has brought a profound measure of peace and purpose to my life that transcends words, written or spoken.

I would recommend the book to anyone who likes either decent fantasy fiction or wants to have their belief system challenged, or at least compared in stark contrast to Pullman's atheism. If the thought of having your beliefs challenged scares you, perhaps it is even more urgent that you read this or any book that represents a stronger belief system than ignorance.

Movie Review: AVATAR

2010-01-03T00:41:00.003-05:00

When I first discovered my love of film, I quickly developed respect for James Cameron. His films have resonated with me throughout my life:

Aliens is the only movie to actually give me nightmares (and has become one of my favorite films of all time.)
The Abyss was the first movie I saw more than 20 times; I studied every frame.
The Terminator was the first movie with a full-fledged mythology supporting the film itself; plus it introduced The Arnold.
Terminator 2 was the first movie that absolutely, truly blew my mind; it still does.
True Lies was the first movie where Arnold Schwarzenegger acted; it’s also one of the best spy movies ever.
Titanic…well, it has that guy hitting the propeller and the funniest line of dialogue ever.

And after all of that and a boatload of Oscars, James Cameron disappeared for a decade, making goofy documentaries that indulged some personal obsession.
And now finally: Avatar. On every level, Cameron has fulfilled the expectations that his die-hard fans have built up over the years. I’m doubt I can properly articulate why I consider this film a masterpiece, and ironically, I’ll start with its faults.
I’ll be brief and simple with the three primary problems I had with the movie:

1. Avatar has a barely serviceable plot that is a thematic and narrative carbon copy of Dances With Wolves and The Last Samurai—not a bad thing, by any measure, but wretchedly unoriginal and diametrically opposed to the ground-breaking originality of the film’s visuals.
2. Avatar borders on wholesale propaganda; I’m not sure what is emphasized more: environmentalism, anti-Americanism/imperialism, or the awfully-clichéd Native American-like spiritualism.
3. Lastly, Avatar suffers from some lame-ass dialogue; not as bad as Titanic, but damn close.

But in all honesty, these problems are found in his previous films, albeit to a far lesser degree.

What makes Avatar truly incredible is the pure, unadulterated spectacle; it is an experience unlike anything you’ve ever seen. Cameron has always pushed the limits of special effects, but he has truly outdone himself with Avatar. Just as Terminator 2 prompted a revolution in film special effects, Avatar has now done the same.

There are two seemingly conflicting constants to Cameron’s films: a stern, unwavering thematic warning against human reliance on technology and the utilization of the most advanced technology in filmmaking to tell that story. Avatar is the most clearly representative of this theme and takes it to an extreme. But instead of balancing his signature theme with his technological proficiency, the film is ridiculously lop-sided. As mentioned above, the narrative is nothing to write home about.

But Avatar contains visuals that are like nothing you have ever seen. Cameron spent part of the last decade waiting for the special effects technology to catch up to his vision and the rest of it inventing the technology to film Avatar. His presentation of Avatar in IMAX 3D is utterly different from any other 3D movie ever made. Here is a (relatively) simple run-down of three elements that make Avatar a unique experience:

1. Avatar’s 3D effects exceed any previous film by making the third dimension immersive and non-gimmicky. The worst 3D movie I’ve seen was Beowulf, which occasionally let an arrow or tree branch leap out at me (way too gimmicky,) but was otherwise unutilized. The best 3D movie was Up, which consistently used 3D effects enough to convince me the technique was for effect, not a gimmick. But it also washed out the colors and suffered from some dodgy scaling issues.
Avatar’s 3D was exponentially more immersive. The colors are vivid, sharp, and well defined*. Literally every element on-screen was not just in three-dimensions, but was scaled properly, provided realistic depth-of-field, and was used solely in service to the story—not one gimmicky object ever jumped out at my face just to startle me.
2. Every movie includes a production designer, whose primary function is to create the look of the world in the film. Cameron creates whole world in his films, and exceeds anything else anyone has ever done in film. The moon of Pandora is, from top-to-bottom, a fully realized location. After watching the movie, it was actually difficult to convince myself that the place existed only inside a computer. It is impossible to distinguish between the real and the virtual. I mean that exactly how I say it: it is impossible by appearance alone to distinguish between the real and virtual elements of the film.
3. Lastly, several movies have used motion capture to create realistic characters. Most notable is Gollum from Lord of the Rings, which presented a completely digitized character that seemed remarkably real. But for every Gollum, there were dozens of Beowulf-ish characters, whose zombie-like appearance (especially the eyes!) was creepy and a constant reminder that the viewer was watching a special effect, not a character. The alien species in Avatar cross this so-called ‘Uncanny Valley’ and become so real and lifelike that when compared solely to the human motion-captured characters in any other movie, I am more convinced that the Na’vi could really exist.

Though I articulate my experience as best I can, all of these bullets are in a way just window dressing; a complicated explanation of what I really cannot convey with words. Watching Avatar is an experience unto itself. Despite its flaws, Avatar is thrilling; it is action-packed; it is a visual spectacle unlike anything you have ever seen. And unlike almost any other movie released, the experience cannot be replicated at home. Avatar reminded me of why I love going to the theater.

Go see Avatar in 3D on an IMAX screen. No matter what your preconceptions, you will walk away knowing that you have seen something truly remarkable and enjoy the experience.

* Just like my muscles…

Post-Summer Movie Roundup Extravaganza!!

2009-08-23T17:34:00.003-04:00

I realize I don't update this blog much; I have largely shifted over to Facebook for social stuff. But I still enjoy using my writing skillz (such as they are) and I don't know how to post movie reviews on Facebook, so I thought I'd take some time to toss my thoughts out on a bunch of summer movies I've seen. The goal is short and sweet. Here goes:

X-Men Origins: Wolverine
This movie was awful. It was marketed as half-dramatic character exploration and half incredible action movie. In reality, it was all ass.
Two big problems: first, all of the cool action was in the trailers and previews. All of it; there was nothing left in the movie. Bad move.
Second, it was like they took 20 or so pages from random Wolverine comics, shuffled them, and said "Let's film this just the way it is." I mean seriously. The title says "X-Men Origins" and yet they gloss over 98% of the characters life in under 10-minutes and leave us with a shoddy collection of cliché-ridden scenes of monstrously inconsistent acting. The filmmakers couldn't decide whether to take the material seriously or not. And after The Dark Knight, this kind of drivel doesn't cut it anymore. The bar has been substantially raised and Wolverine thought it was a limbo competition.

Star Trek
This movie was shockingly awesome. I once swore off all things Star Trek; I have now recanted. This is hands-down the best material produced from the entire Star Trek mythology. Director J.J. Abrams managed to take the most worn-out, abused franchise in entertainment history and infuse a level of emotion, action, and visual awesomeness that has never been associated with Star Trek. I particularly liked Kirk and Bones, though for opposing reasons: Chris Pine's Kirk was a fresh, original take on a character dominated by The Shat, while Karl Urban's Bones was an impressively accurate homage to DeForest Kelley's originating incarnation of the character.
Overall one of the best movies of the summer and successful in getting me excited for more Star Trek, a feat that is far more impressive that you think...

Angels & Demons
This movie was way better than The Da Vinci Code. But you know what? That's not saying a damn thing. I don't think Dan Brown is a very good author. His books are entertaining because they are well-researched, have intriguing puzzles, and really short chapters; the kind you can read on the walk from your front door to your car. Rare is the filmmaker that can take an awful book and make an awesome movie. Ron Howard, despite two attempts, is still not that filmmaker. A&D is far superior to TDVC, but only because it abandons all narrative exposition and resorts to absurd action vignettes; like locking Tom Hanks in a library room with no oxygen and no manual release on the door. Sure, it's tense while watching it, but afterwards you call BS and go buy another ticket to the far more realistic Star Trek. Seriously: Star Trek is more realistic.
On the plus side, it’s nice that they didn’t insult and deride Christianity as badly as The Da Vinci Code. It was only, like, ¾ as much…

Terminator: Salvation
T4 is a remarkably well-made action movie with some staggeringly flawed plot-holes. It was expensive, but every dollar is on screen; the movie is a two-hour non-stop action scene, with some ground-breaking visuals and a pleasantly menacing tone throughout (Yes, pleasantly menacing; you don’t want a feel-good tone in a movie with the word Terminator in the title…) The acting is solid, there are some great twists, a surprise Arnold appearance, and it is clearly meant to stand as the first in a probably new trilogy.
The biggest problem: some apparent script alterations meant that instead of one strong hero character, we are presented with two diminished protagonists. Sadly, I suspect that once Christian Bale signed on to play John Conner, that role was vastly expanded to exploit the marquee name. The real hero is Sam Worthington's Marcus, who has a clear hero's journey and emotional arc spanning the film. But it's not till the movie is over that you realize John Conner's contribution to the story was negligible; there was a huge imbalance between character exposure and contribution. But hey…when you have the star of the billion-dollar Dark Knight, whaddaya gonna do?
The movie also ended in one of the silliest scenes ever tacked onto an otherwise dark, gritty film. Ad hoc airfield heart surgery? Really? Couldn't you move this typically major medical operation into a quasi-sterile environment? Or pretend to? Something? Come on...
Otherwise, an incredible spectacle that brought the series back to its violent, dramatic roots from the campiness of T3.

Night at the Museum 2: Blah, Blah, Whatever
More of exactly the same as the first movie, but with Hank Azaria, who is funny because he does half the voices in the Simpsons.

Drag Me To Hell
This is one of the BEST movies of the year. I enjoy a good scare, and this movie made me jump so bad in the first 5 minutes that I poked myself in the eye and ripped a contact lens. I don't remember the last movie that really freaked me out for its entire running time. And what's more, the movie accomplishes this within a PG-13 rating, which impresses me simply because I don't like scary movies that rely on graphic violence and gore to creep me out.
As far as the movie itself, the premise is simple (girl meets gypsy, girl makes gypsy mad, gypsy curses girl with demon, girl has bad week) and the execution flawless by director Sam Raimi, returning to his horror roots after an abysmal raping of the Spiderman franchise with his third entry. I loved the music, the tension, and the genuine scares, though my heart could only handle one viewing in theaters.

Up
Another flawless movie by Pixar. Sometimes I'm skeptical that Pixar's ideas for movies are too far-out to be successful. I mean seriously: an old man and a cub scout in a house flying through the air attached to balloons?
And yet it worked. It worked really, really well. The movie seamlessly vacillates between scenes of extreme humor and extraordinary sadness, all with a sense of adventure that makes the viewer actually wish they were there. After a summer of loud, mindless action, this movie was the first one where story and character were clearly a first priority with action and spectacle a strong but distant second.
Also, the best 3D movie I've yet seen, with a vast majority of the objects onscreen in 3D, as opposed to just gimmicky random elements, ala Beowulf.

The Hangover
The best comedy of the year. The concept is simple but brillaint: four friends have a bachelor's party the night before one gets married, they party so hard they forget everything and the groom disappears, and the rest of the friends have to find him by reconstructing what happened during their accidentally drug-induced nighttime antics. The structure of the movie allows for a non-stop barrage of hilarious comedic set pieces. Some fail, but the vast majority are great and they come so fast that if you get bored, wait 2 minutes and something will make you die laughing again.
Another nice change of pace from all the loud action movies of the summer.

Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen
This movie is the worst movie I've seen in memory, and yet has the best action sequences of the summer.
I enjoyed the first Transformers because I was pleasantly surprised that they made a watchable live-action movie based on toys from 25 years ago; it wasn't hard to impress me and the fact that the cars and chicks and robots were always filmed beautifully was a nice bonus.
Sadly, Michael Bay is like a singular-minded machine. Instead of taking feedback from the first movie and focusing on the good and trying to eliminate the bad, he simply said "Hey, people liked the first movie, so let's do the same thing, but times a thousand!!" So yes, the action scenes are bigger and longer, there are way more robots, and there is much more Megan Fox on-screen. But the problem is that the awful dialogue, worthless storyline, and utterly superfluous scenes are also monumentally expanded. I let the paper-thin plot of the first movie slid, but I didn't expect them to try to get away with even less story; there are 22-minute episodes of the Transformers cartoon with more narrative depth. Megan Fox is clearly infinite shades of hotness, but in a 2.5 hour movie, she so underutilized as anything but eye candy that I felt sorry for her.
In reality, I love giant robots fighting, and this movie delivers. But sitting through 1.5 hours of cinematic trash for 45 minutes of impressive visuals is too painful; I literally left the theater feeling that my brain had been physically assaulted by the stupidity of the movie.

Moon
Moon is one of the best science fiction movies in years. This one-man film features Sam Rockwell (Guy from Galaxy Quest) in a fascinating story about a man who is the only worker at a moon base harvesting some kind of fuel from moon rock; when another person shows up that looks exactly like him, he has to figure out if he is losing his mind or if something else is afoot.
Moon avoided most every sci-fi space cliché (a few of which riddled the excellent Sunshine) and focused on the emotional shock and practical challenges of a character facing a seemingly impossible situation. As a super-low budget independent film, this movie was the best science fiction movie of the summer up through July, utterly shaming the studio-produced Transformers and Terminator, who largely didn't manage an even remotely original idea between them.

The Hurt Locker
I've seen several Iraq war movies, and I hated them all; they always focus on the politics and impact on people who have only peripheral contact with the actual conflict.
The Hurt Locker is a whole different beast. This gripping, ridiculously intense action movie keeps its focus solely on the soldiers on the ground; the men doing the work of the war. Like Black Hawk Down, the focus on the experience of the soldiers compels the viewer to invest so much more emotionally into the characters that you palpably feel the strain they are under.
The movie follows a bomb squad in Fallujah, Iraq in 2004 at the height of the IED era, when terrorists were killing US soldiers every day with a wide variety of ad hoc bombs. The main character is the man whose job it is to disarm the bombs. Director Kathryn Bigelow wisely presents more than a series of tension-ratcheted scenes where the men simply disarm sequentially bigger bombs. The story follows the character through a series of encounters that show just how deadly any situation in war can be, whether it relates to their specific duty or not.
Along with Moon, this independent film was far superior to virtually anything else I've seen this year; particularly any other action movie.

Public Enemies
Another Michael Mann film that, along with Heat, Miami Vice, and Collateral, shows that testosterone-fueled action movies can be as intelligent (never gets old!) as they are devoid of substantial female characters (gets tiring.) Mann has a gift for crafting strong narrative action movies, and Public Enemies earns its place in his repertoire. However, unlike his other efforts, this movie rises and falls on the star, Johnny Depp. Depp has always been a versatile actor, but his significantly heightened profile of the last few years means that even when he turns his attention to a role utterly different from Jack Sparrow, it is difficult to recalibrate your mind to not keep asking "When is he going to ask for some rum?"
The cinematography of this movie was unique, presenting an entire film that looked like a History-channel documentary re-enactment. Seeing the two big action set-pieces filmed in this way was technically impressive and helped divert from the film's biggest flaw: the 'hero' of the film, John Dillinger, was a scum-bag murderer who deserved every bit of justice and pain he received. This movie bugged me the same way Depp's Blow bothered me: by glamorizing a genuinely horrible criminal's life. To its credit, Public Enemies features Christian Bale as a tough FBI agent tracking down Dillinger, but makes the questionable decision to close the movie mentioning that the real-life crime-fighter Bale portrays committed suicide many, many years after the events of the film. This context-less footnote seemed like a final, insulting "Screw you" to the sacrifices made by many American lawmen who died trying to bring Dillinger to justice.
This movie was good, but a watch-it-once kind of film; probably won't see it again...

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince
I loved HP5 and thought it was better than the book. But HP6 is my favorite book and translating it to film in a franchise series that I already consider on shaky ground was a risk. In the end, I did enjoy the movie, but it had a couple serious challenges; one inherit to the story and one caused by the filmmakers.
First, the movie had no villain. True to the book, the movie features Harry and Co. discovering and beginning the grand search for the horcruxes. Voldemort does not appear in the movie at all and anyone familiar with the book AT ALL knows that the final showdown is staged, draining it of any real tension. Without a villain making an appearance, there is no central conflict to the story and it ultimately comes off as a 2+ hour preface to the real finale. The book did not seem like that; it was populated with numerous scenes of Harry and Dumbledore hunting for clues in the past and piecing together the mystery of Voldemort's life. And within the medium of the written word, there was plenty of tension and excitement in this path of discovery. But as a movie, this was mostly glossed over or completely eliminated, to be replaced with...
...my second problem: the filmmakers chose to make the film less of a narrative-driven adventure and more of a high-school romantic comedy/drama. Sure, the romantic relationships of the characters were important in the book, but when did the fight against evil get completely sidelined by a hormonally-infused after-school special about teenage love? It seemed like a cheap cop-out to avoid the complexity involved in filming and editing the non-linear investigation into Voldemort's past.
Overall, it's still one of the best Potter movies, but I was a little let down since I actually really dislike the seventh book (Harry Potter and the Extended Camping Trip.,) I am angry they are somehow splitting it into what will likely be two inexorably boring films, and that they probably justified this decision by eliminating the important final scenes of book six from this film and shuffling them into movie seven or eight (Harry Potter and The Stupidly Lucky Defeat of Ultimate Evil By A Wizarding Technicality.)

G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra
The good: super-ninjas (Snake Eyes, Storm-Shadow), super-hot chicks (Scarlett, Cover Girl, and Baroness), one good action scene (blowing up Paris), and half-decent twist to the end.
The bad: literally everything else.
Sure, it was better than I expected. But I expected s**t, so impressing me required nothing more than a couple beautiful women and a scene with ninjas fighting. One nice thing: unlike Transformers (another movie based on 25-year old toys...TOYS, for crying out loud...) the actors did not make vain attempts to take the material seriously. Dennis Quad filmed all his scenes with a look in his eye that said "No, I'm not trying, because seriously: anything I do on camera is more professional than you playing with dolls as a 9-year-old."

District 9
The best movie of the summer, bar none. Like Moon and The Hurt Locker, District 9 is another independent movie, but produced by Peter Jackson and featuring aliens and some of the grittiest violence this side of Battlestar Galactica.
A couple years ago, Peter Jackson agreed to produce a Halo movie. The director he picked (Neill Blomkamp) had never made a feature film. Result: Halo movie canceled. So PJ gave Neill enough money to make D9; a chance to prove he could handle gripping science fiction action. And wow...District 9 is The Stuff.
The movie starts as a documentary set in an alternate present day, 20 years after an alien ship appeared over South Africa. The insectoid occupants are without a leadership caste and seem unusually stagnant in intelligence or motivation to do anything whatsoever; like an ant colony with no queen. The government eventually resettled the million or so aliens in a ghetto in Johannesburg and largely ignored them, trying instead to co-opt their weapons technology which even the aliens themselves seem unable or unwilling to use.
Long story short: the film follows a seemingly bumbling housing administrator on a harrowing journey as he is involuntarily immersed in the alien's underground culture. To go into any detail would ruin a fascinating and remarkable story. Suffice it to say that that amidst the incredible action scenes and hyper-realistic portrayal of a supposedly fictional world, there is a powerful social commentary being presented to the audience regarding our own flawed concepts of race and rights; it is no coincidence that the film is set in the country ruled by the evils of apartheid for decades.
This is the best science fiction movie in years (better than the also excellent Moon) and as far as I'm concerned qualifies Blomkamp to get started on a Halo movie.

Inglourious Basterds
I only like half of Quenten Tarantino's movies: Inglourious Basterds, Kill Bill, and Pulp Fiction. I completely hate the rest. But this is arguably the best of the three films I do like.
What I didn't realize going into Inglourious Basterds is that it is a World War 2 fable; it is different than any other WW2 movie because it presents a fictional tale that has no bearing whatsoever on real events or history. It springs from every boy's childhood fantasy of making a movie about killing all the Nazis. Raiders of the Lost Ark was the closest thing to fulfilling that fantasy until now.
By the way, Inglourious Basterds is not an action movie; it is a dialogue-heavy drama. There are a few brief, intensely violent scenes, but they are hardly the movie's strengths.
The real strengths lie in Tarantino's dialogue (as usual), and the remarkable characters, particularly Brad Pitt's Aldo Raine, Chritoph Waltz' Hans Landa, and Til Schweiger's Hugo Stiglitz. Aldo and Hans are perfectly acted and intrinsically fascinating, entertaining characters. Hugo Stiglitz has the greatest character introduction of any movie ever; worth every penny of admission alone.
I won't ramble on. Inglourious Basterds is a wonderful movie to end the summer. I suspect it will be the first Tarantino movie that I could recommend to people without any real reservations; it is rated R, but is clearly the most mild QT movie so far.

Bonus:
Avatar (20-minute IMAX preview):
I got to attend the one-off 3D preview of James Cameron's science fiction movie that comes out in December.
Cameron has not made a movie since Titanic in 1997 and has spent the last three years working full-time on this movie. He is also arguably the greatest science fiction filmmaker of all time, having invented the Terminator franchise, made the best Alien movies (1986's Aliens), and created the wholly original and groundbreaking The Abyss. He has stated that Avatar is a movie that he had to wait to make for the technology to become feasible and affordable; he invented some of the camera technology to even make this movie.
And now, $275 million dollars and 3-months from release, he arranged for various IMAX theaters across the country to present a special 20-minute preview that featured several apparently complete and intact scenes from the first half of the movie.
All I can say is WOW. The 3D is unlike anything I've ever seen. It took a few minutes to get used to, but there is a clear depth of field to every image. You can focus on one part of the screen and others seem to go out of focus; just like...wait for it...REAL LIFE! This remarkable technological feat immerses you in the scenes in a way very unlike anything I've ever experienced. It kind of reminded me of what I thought the holodecks in Star Trek would be like. It wasn't a gimmicky thing at all; in a subtle but profound way, it truly puts you in the middle of the movie; it exceeded anything tried in 3D before.
And the world that the film presents is every bit as imaginative and colorful as what you would hope for from a master like Cameron. The alien world the film takes place on has environments and settings that will literally blow your mind.
And though the scenes were likely cherry-picked for their quality, I found that each short scene was so engaging that I was frustrated when they cut away; I wanted to see what happened next! I was only placated because the subsequent scenes were just as engaging.
If I had to find one complaint, I might say that the story appears to be very similar to Dances With Wolves or The Last Samurai: emotionally/physically traumatized soldier quickly assimilates into foreign but metaphysically superior culture and ends up fighting his own people.
Except this is a James Cameron science fiction movie, so it will be awesome. So very, very awesome...

Movie Review: Crank: High Voltage

2009-04-24T02:22:00.002-04:00

Every few years I have to watch a movie that reminds me why I have moral and ethical standards by completely and utterly offending every sensibility. Three years ago, that movie was Crank. The nest one was last weekend's Crank 2.
They are really one big movie; the second film picks up exactly where the first one ended. The main character is Jason Stath...wait...
Who cares? Here's the deal:
While ridiculously entertaining by virtue of the manic insanity built into the storyline, Crank 2 the most offensive movie I've ever seen. In virtually every way, it offended me. I've decided that my next movie in theaters will be Disney's Earth. And I'm going to ease off on movies that are this offensive. It's just too much...
So I'll let you guess whether or not I'd recommend it...

Movie Review/Essay: Watchmen

2009-03-29T07:27:00.002-04:00

I’m going to get this out of the way: this review will be long. Don’t like it? Go somewhere else. The webs are a vast place with quick, simple reads.

Personally, I’m just relieved to have a movie worth writing something about. This has been a weak year for movies so far. There have been a few decent movies, like Taken, and …umm…yeah. That’s all I can think of. And really, Taken was a popcorn version of the far superior Man On Fire.

I’ll begin with three important observations regarding Watchmen the film:

First, Watchmen is based on a graphic novel (read: long comic book) from 1986. It was included on Time’s top 100 Novels of the 20th century, a fact the filmmakers smartly bring to the forefront of every interview regarding the film. So what, you say? It means that there is some audience outside the comic-book-nerd crown that has recognized Watchmen as something of literary or artistic value.
Second, Watchmen has taken 24 years to make it to the big screen, although the rights to make it were sold shortly after its literary release. The bulk of that time was spent trying to make various iterations of the film, with armies of people attempting to make what has long been described as ‘the un-filmable film;’ more on that later.
Third, Watchmen was directed by Zack Snyder, whose two previous films, Dawn of the Dead and 300, received varying reviews by critics and viewers, but are unquestionably the works of someone who is passionate and respectful of his source material, whether remaking a film or translating a graphic novel to film.

Now, what is the point of mentioning these facts? They are the primary reasons that drew me to watch the film. Note how the fact that I actually read the graphic novel is not a reason I wanted to see the film; that is entirely intentional.

I had never heard of Watchmen until Snyder announced it as his next project after 300. All of the sudden, a few fans became very vocal about how incredible Watchmen was, followed by a vast army of pseudo-fans: people who had never heard of it or perhaps simply had not had any kind of memorable experience with it, but nonetheless felt compelled to suddenly agree that it was an epic project that needed making. I don’t know if it was Snyder’s astounding (and unexpected) success with 300 or the confirmation of thousands of these web-mobilized pseudo-fans, but suddenly, Watchmen was, without question, The Most Important Movie On The Distant Horizon for anyone who enjoyed comic book movies, a genre that received a stunning dose of credibility with the release of The Dark Knight.

Anyway, I was perplexed by the sudden emergence of this cult of Watchmen and felt that perhaps I had missed something in my youth. My mother absolutely banned anything comic book related while I was growing up, so I wasn’t too surprised to have missed its release. So I dutifully went to Borders and got myself a copy of Watchmen. Then I read it. Then I mostly forgot about it. In fact, I was more intrigued by the author, Alan Moore, who is some kind of a reclusive genius a-hole.
A genius because he almost single-handedly transformed comic books from the kind of trashy, throw-away entertainment my mom believes it to be, into a genuine art; a form of literature that more than holds its own against novels, poetry, painting, and film (possibly because it contains elements of all four other art forms.) Alan Moore wrote V For Vendetta, The League Of Extraordinary Gentlemen, From Hell, and various other comics, including an important interpretation of the Batman legend (The Killing Joke), which served as a supplemental inspiration for The Dark Knight.
Moore is an a-hole because he absolutely despises any attempts to translate his works into film, actively criticizing all such efforts and publicly disparaging them without first seeing the results. But he readily took his check for selling the rights.
Moore’s story intrigued me because it was him who apparently first said that Watchmen was un-filmable. He believed that he had created a unique story that was particularly suited to the graphic novel form, and would be impossible to transliterate to any other form. Watchmen was the graphic novel that defined graphic novels as art. And he would never support any effort that might compromise or disparage his singular achievement.
And thus began 20+ years of struggling to bring Watchmen to the screen. And now, it is here.

Here’s the meat of my review, in as simple a way as I can put it:

Watchmen the story takes place in 1985 and is about a disbanded group of superheroes (the ‘Watchmen’) who reconnect after one of their own is murdered and try to figure out if it was simply a random killing, an organized effort against the retired ‘masks’, or part of a much larger conspiracy against civilization itself.
Watchmen the graphic novel a stunningly dense, layered story, in which an alternate version of America’s history (America won the Vietnam war, Richard Nixon is serving a fourth term, etc.) serves as the backdrop for a character study of what, exactly, drove a diverse group of people to enter the career of ‘masked adventurer’. The intricate, brilliantly constructed psychoses of the characters are matched only by the fascinating way in which they are presented amidst a story that is equally complex. The experience of reading through once was fascinating and tiring; however, I only managed one reading before the film was released. Blame Left 4 Dead and Gears of War 2.
Watchmen the film is a stunning realization of the graphic novel, capturing the look and feel of the entire source material in every way…until the ending, which was well-adapted for a more cinematic experience but completely neutered the logical brilliance of the graphic novel.

Source adaptation is a tricky business, with most attempts failing miserably. In my opinion, the ultimate film adaptation is still The Lord of the Rings. Peter Jackson’s trilogy maintained the core sense of the novel while not feeling particularly enslaved to the exact details of the novel. Jackson realized that Tom Bombadil would have detracted from the movie experience, as well as a long, protracted battle to reclaim the Shire after the ring was destroyed. On the other end of the scale are the first two Harry Potter novels, though I would argue that the final book betrayed the series more than any film could. The first two HP novels were absolutely slavish to the books, not deviating in any way and finally producing two of the most boring ‘fantasy’ films ever made; there was clearly no imagination beyond what the book contained.
Watchmen is somewhere in between, leaning toward The Lord of the Rings, but suffering to some degree from the same slavish adherence to the novel as the first two Harry Potters. Snyder was under phenomenal pressure from fans to stay faithful to the graphic novel, who generally have become frustrated and disillusioned by significant departures from comic book source material (from Judge Dredd to Catwoman to any of the Punisher films.) The problem with adapting a graphic novel is that every single scene is already laid out visually within the frames of the comic. The fans think they know exactly how the film should look. A novel is much more individually adaptable; nobody can actually prove what a hobbit looks like: Peter Jackson’s interpretation could be exactly what Tolkien had in mind.
With 300, Snyder managed to stay faithful to the novel while changing significant visual and story elements; in fact, he manufactured a third of the movie’s narrative simply because the source material and the historical event it was based on were extremely skimpy on narrative detail. So Snyder earned a pass, though some hardcore fans complained viciously.
But Watchmen was a whole different beast. Instead of a source that gave tremendous latitude for visual interpretation (The Lord of the Rings,) or characters and a narrative lacking in literary substance (300,) Watchmen is the holy grail of graphic novels, with visuals, characters, and narrative to rival any other art form.

Personally, I believe Snyder was the perfect choice to make Watchmen. Dawn of the Dead and 300 clearly proved he had the flair for visuals and the necessary mastery of special effects. They also demonstrated considerable ability to incorporate some emotional and narrative depth into genre films that typically don’t possess either (I openly admit, zombie movies don’t usually have ‘plots’ or ‘characterization’.) Both of Snyder’s previous adaptations were excellent by most standards, including my own (which is, incidentally, the only one that mattered to me.)

Here are the important things that Snyder got right:
1. The story – he distilled the layered and multiple stories of the original novel into a coherent, cinematically presentable narrative. This is Snyder’s most important and remarkable accomplishment. The script that eventually made it to the screen contained a great deal of the original source material; but in reality, only enough that follow the through-line of the central murder mystery. Some significant elements were wisely eliminated while others were reduced to concise, functional versions of their longer sources.
2. The setting and costumes – Snyder wisely chose to retain the setting of 1985, when the Cold War was at its peak. A great deal of the moral center of the story rests on the unique and terrifying backdrop of the American/USSR nuclear arms race. To change the time would have distorted the narrative itself and severely negated one of the main characters, Dr. Manhatten. Yet thankfully, Snyder updated most of the costumes. Some of them are still a little goofy, but they could have been distractingly horrifying. Of course, Dr. Manhatten’s ‘costume’ was still distractingly horrifying, but for distinctly unique reasons…
3. Rorschach – Snyder’s casting of the main ‘hero’ was inspired and a critical success to me since he is my favorite character. He is the only member of the Watchmen still actively fighting crime as the film begins. The opening death of The Comedian compels Rorschach to investigate his murder to its absolute conclusion, despite not knowing just how far that path will go. The actor who portrays Roschach has the voice I imagined when I read the comic, and flawlessly looked the part, both in and out of the mask. I definitely identified with his uncompromising sense of morality, and admired his ‘aggressive’ pursuit of justice, legality be damned. So many aspects of this character are awesome, it’s impossible to really describe them.
4. Dr. Manhatten – after getting over his one glowing flaw (later), I realized during my second viewing that this character serves as the spiritual and philosophical center of the film. Manahtten is, in fact, the only character in Watchmen who has any super powers at all: the ability to alter the physical world in any way, bound only by his own knowledge and intelligence. His seemingly god-like power is the literal and philosophical McGuffin at the center of the story, though you don’t realize it right away. I also realized that Manhattan is the only character that truly discovers a sense of humanity during the film, and the scene where he describes that experience was entrancing, as was his retelling of how he acquired his powers. Both scenes are masterpieces of filmmaking and fascinating to watch and absorb; in my opinion, both scenes alone justified the experience of the film.
5. The pacing – comic book movies often have a real problem with pacing, and that is often because they are conceived of as vehicles for special-effects-laden action scenes. Blade was a perfect example of this: the film opened with a spectacular, atmospheric action scene that promised an incredible film; it was followed with 110 more minutes of exposition and flat, lethargic fight scenes. Watchmen’s action scenes are not the focal point of the film. The characters are. So the time I spent listening to them and observing their interactions with each other was more compelling than the brief, excellent action scenes. The movie never felt slow or like it was leaving out too much.

Now, having pointed out some things I really liked, there were a few that I really didn’t like:
1. The Big Blue Dong, or What Needs To Stay Versus What Can Go – Snyder spent obvious time deciding exactly what should and shouldn’t stay in the film from the novel. By his own admission (and in part to get Warner Brothers to allow him his own version of the film,) his guiding principle was “If it was in the graphic novel, it must be in the film.” I have no problem with that, but as soon as you compromise that at all, then you esoterically define a line between what you will and will not include; what you do and don’t change. In fact, every adaptation must make this compromise. The only difference is where the line is drawn. I simply disagree with where this line was drawn.
My complaint is that after Snyder made the decision to make changes, most notably the fundamentally different ending, he failed to make some seemingly minor but ultimately important changes. And best example is Dr. Manhatten’s man-junk all over the place. If there is a scene with Manhatten, chances are you’re gonna see his big blue dong (if you’ve seen trailers, Manhatten is the guy that glows blue and doesn’t wear clothes – a ‘really subtle’ reference to his disconnect from humanity is his eschewing of such things as pants.) Yes, this is true to the graphic novel. But no, I didn’t enjoy that particular aspect of the book. And hell no, I didn’t need to see it so often during the film; I don’t go to movies for dudity. And aside from the on-going distraction throughout the film, it actually detracted from the climax of the film (really, no pun intended…) As the final scenes is unfolded, the entire audience was ripped out of the film-going experience and started laughing when, yet again, Mini-Manhatten made his appearance. Maybe it worked for some in the graphic novel, but based on audience reactions, the film suffered. Would it really have been a significant compromise to raise the camera angle a couple inches? Literally every single person I’ve talked to that saw the movie complains of this one thing every time, with few, if any, other complaints. And they all, universally, state that they will probably never see the movie again for that reason.
The problem of what to include and what not to include basically describes all of my problems with the film, for example:
2. The Grit – Watchmen is a gritty film, based on gritty novel. I knew going into the film that Snyder had not compromised on the violence, language, or sexuality. Now I’ve seen my share of violent films, and some of them have been pretty gory. Watchmen, by no means, exceeds some movies I’ve seen and enjoyed. The problem is that the few scenes of extraordinarily gory violence are so overwhelming, that it detracts from the continuity of the viewing experience.
For example, two of my favorite films, Black Hawk Down and Saving Private Ryan, contain scenes of violence similar in graphic detail to Watchmen. But those films provide a context for the violence that makes it seem, oddly enough, very fitting. In fact, both films would be significantly impaired in conveying their message should the violence be removed or minimized. But Watchmen is not a movie whose narrative context is defined solely by violence. More exactly, I found that the level of gore that punctuated certain scenes did not fit the tone of the characters. It seems odd that these superheroes, particularly Nite Owl II, who espouse and typically live high moral ideals, seem unflinching in their willingness to inflict such horrific injuries; they are neither hesitant to inflict nor seem affected by the results of their actions. And the problem is not the violence itself, but the extremely graphic nature in which it is presented. It really took me out of the film several times, and I’m a relatively tolerant person. Again, the methodical inclusion of such graphic gore seemed counter-productive to the tone and continuity of the film.
3. The sexuality – there were a couple sex scenes that were particularly graphic and utterly superfluous to the story. I find depictions of sexuality in films are usually just excuses to try and appeal to an audience’s carnal nature and rarely (if ever) add any significant character development. I don’t enjoy the experience of being manipulated in films, whether it’s through cliché-induced grief or induced titillation.
4. The ending – I won’t spoil the ending, but I was really intrigued by its execution. On one hand, the fates of all the characters and the world are exactly the same as the novel. But on the other hand, during the climax of the narrative, the manner in which these characters get to their final destination is radically different. And the changes in that journey fundamentally negate the logic and brilliance of the graphic novel’s morality, particularly relating to the character of Adrien Veidt. Adrien is, as noted in the book and film, the smartest man in the world. But the alternate ending utterly negates this fact by introducing logical flaws that are too painfully obvious to anyone familiar with the novel.
And there’s the rub. Everyone I spoke to who had not read the novel thought the ending was great. And I would heartily agree that the new ending is far more cinematically presentable. But knowing how the original source material was neutered was painful to see. I didn’t hate the movie because of it, but I definitely left thinking “Why did Snyder need scene after scene of blue glowing man-junk from the novel but felt compelled to change the whole ending?”
Hurm, indeed…

Now, why did I think Watchmen was worth watching? I love getting out of a movie and having enough to think about that I have to talk to someone else that has seen the movie also. After seeing Watchmen, I talked to my buddy Ken who had seen it in Maryland at the same time. We talked about the good and the bad (see above—we pretty much agreed on most points,) we were both intrigued by the various messages the film presents. Among the most interesting ideas in the movie was contemplating what it would really take to save the entire world from itself. The characters of Watchmen are all doing what they think is best to save people and fight evil; that is, after all, what heroes do. But despite their disparate approaches to this universal problem, all of their efforts were of questionable effect. In fact, some of their efforts actually contributed to the chaotic downward spiral that civilization found itself in. So despite the impressive machinations of Adrien Veidt, the god-like powers of Dr. Manhatten, and the uncompromising morality of Rorschach, what does it really take to save a world that is so seemingly focused on destroying itself?
Ken and I both tossed around the various practicalities of such a situation, which is particularly interesting in the post-9/11 world where the U.S. is embroiled in a real Global War on Terrorism. The parallels between the GWOT and Watchmen’s fictional storyline of heated U.S./U.S.S.R. nuclear tensions are clear. On one hand, fighting evil is a moral imperative; just ask any WWII veteran. But on the other had, on a long enough timeline, violence rarely begets anything but more violence; just ask any Israeli or Palestinian. So what would it really take to unite all of mankind? What would it take to overcome all national, social, racial, economic, and philosophical differences to unite with respect for differences, but without the animosity we see today? Does anybody in the world realistically think that this can occur by any means that any human being can orchestrate; or even any group of humans guided by nothing more than their own belief in humanity itself?
The fact is that I don’t think any efforts of mankind can ever completely overcome these obstacles. I think that limited human wisdom combined with a relatively short lifespan literally make it impossible that any mortal will overcome these monumental issues and bring about the tolerant utopian future of humanity. Based on my own Christian religious beliefs, I think that these problems can only be truly overcome through the unifying teachings of the Savior himself, and only under his direct guidance. The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only truly elevating factor that I believe can unify all of mankind. Naturally, it is also one of the most commonly manipulated philosophies in the history of the world; a phenomenal amount of evil has been done in the name of Christianity over the last 2000 years. Nonetheless, I still absolutely believe in its capacity to make the world a much better place as people learn and apply His teachings.

I love the fact that this graphic-novel-turned-film actually provided the context and framework for a serious discussion.

So in the end, I really did enjoy and appreciate the film. It made me think, it was original in its narrative, and stunning in its execution. Of Snyder’s three films to date, Watchmen is by far the most complex and impressive achievement, but also the one I’m least likely to be watching frequently in the future. I’ll never stop watching zombie movies or war movies (Dawn of the Dead and 300) but I’ll always pause and question whether I really want to watch another 3 hours of Dr. Manhatten’s junk.
And finally, if you hadn’t figured it out, I probably would not recommend this movie to many people because of the extremely graphic violence, gratuitous dudity, and extraneous sexuality.

Movie Review: X-Files: I Want To Believe

2008-12-24T18:17:00.002-05:00

Here's my X-Files history: loved the last movie [a whole decade ago] and kinda watched a half-dozen or so episodes, which were ok; not much of an auspicious past.

The new movie is awful. Utterly horrific. Let me explain by starting with a comparison to a movie that most people also hate: Waterworld.

I actually liked Waterworld, but when re-watching it again recently, I realized why everyone hates it: Never, ever start your movie with the hero, the de facto protagonist, drinking his own urine. If you recall, the first shot of the entire movie was Kevin Costner pissing into a jar before pumping it through a rudimentary filtering machine and drinking it. All one shot, and a textbook example of how not to start a movie. There are other problems with Waterworld, of course, but I'm convinced that subconsciously people hate the movie for that reason.

The second X-Files movie takes that problem to the next level. I'll add another rule to the filmmakers' book of law: Never, ever feature a pedophile priest as any kind of hero/protagonist, much less the central McGuffin to the story.

So yeah, within 10 minutes, I was creeped the f*** out, hating the movie and completely perplexed as to why any studio executive would think to themselves "Hey, X-Files has been out of the public mind for over 6 years. A veiled attack on religion using a pedophile Catholic priest sounds like a great way to bring in the old and new crowds." Freaking asanine and revolting.

I've read many times and now agree that this movie is nothing more than a glorified TV episode stretched over 2 hours. There is no sense of epic scope or even thought to the film. Once a real mystery started revealing itself, it was mildly interesting, but not hold-my-attention-for-two-hours interesting. Sure, it was nice to see Mulder and Scully again, and I'm mystified how Gillian Anderson, who is, like, 75, still looks good. But in the end, I'm mostly just surprised that I made it to the end.

In no way, shape, or form do I recommend this movie to anyone. I hope they bury The X-Files and never pull that dead horse out into the open to beat anymore.

Movie Review: Bullitt

2008-12-24T18:09:00.003-05:00

There's two things that make this movie worth seeing:
1) Steve McQueen
2) Ford Mustang

The plot of this movie is boring: a local cop hired to protect a witness for a federal something, something, something.
The local cop is Steve McQueen, a tough-guy extraordinaire, by any measure.
The centerpiece of the movie and literally the only reason I watched it was the car chase involving McQueen effing sweet highland-green Ford Mustang coupe and a Dodge Charger that ended up getting exploded.

I used to own a Mustang and, by God, I'll own one again, and this movie has done nothing short of re-energize my commitment to that goal. The movie won an Oscar for film editing, due in large part to the way the car chase plays out. It has a sense of speed and intensity that makes the second Matrix film seem a little sad by comparison.

Anyway, I watched it online through Netflix on my XBox 360, and I'm glad for it. I wouldn't have wanted to pay for the 10-minute scene, but well worth it for 'free.'

Movie Review: Lions for Lambs

2008-12-07T16:33:00.002-05:00

Wow. This movie is the most non-committal statement movie I've ever imagined could exist, much less actually seen. It essentially threw out every possible opinion on a topic with absolutely no stance taken on anything.

Lions for Lambs is about the war on terror; a fictional drama set in the present. It follows three interwoven stories, each one a face-off between two idealistically opposed parties. First is GOP Senator Tom Cruise and liberal reporter Meryl Streep, who debate the successes and failures of the conflict. Second is college professor Robert Redford and his jack-ass student, Jack Ass. Lastly, two soldiers in Afghanistan shot down while on a mission and surrounded by enemy Taliban.

In all three story lines, important issues are debated in different ways. The most dramatic and interesting is the soldier's story. They are Americans whose idealism led them to volunteer for military service. Their conflict is very straight-forward: Islamic fundamentalist terrorists are shooting at them; they must fight for their lives.
The other two story-lines are severely hampered narratively and ideastically. Director Redford's own storyline portrays the impact of the war through the eyes of the educational institution. Redford's professor is trying to get a gifted but lazy student to engage in his own future. The student demonstrates almost zero potential aside from a ridiculously brief flash-back. The film needed a lot more time to flesh-out a character I cared about. As it comes across, the student is an idiot and if he is supposed to broadly represent American students, then our nation deserves the misfortune it brings upon itself. I don't buy it; perhaps because I attended a very conservative school that didn't tolerate any of the idiotic behavior the student in this film perfectly embodies.
The most annoying storyline was the Cruise-Streep story. It represents the politics/media conflict within the framework of the war on terror. In the end, it boils down to a plethora of talking points from both sides of the issue. It was long and protracted, and I found it to be very generic and eye-glazing. I definitely entered the movie already identifying with Cruise's character's position, so listening to Streep's character trying to get a media story was painfully annoying and pathetic.

I've already written more than the movie really deserves. All the way down the line I say pass. The problem with war movies set during on-going wars is that they run a real risk of being rendered null and void by actual events. I think that has happened here, and I'm already forgetting the movie. Watch the trailer--it has the whole movie in a succinct, concise form.

Movie Review: Punisher-War Zone

2008-12-06T01:01:00.002-05:00

This movie has gotten awful public reviews, but going in with low expectations, I found that I loved it. It was significantly better than the previous two attempts...
Anyway, I've decided a slightly different review was in order:

Top Ten Reason Punisher: War Zone is better than Quantum of Solace
or
Top Ten Reason The Punisher is better than James Bond

10. Results, Results, Results!!:
After 5 hours and 2 movies, James Bond finally confirmed that an evil crime syndicate exists.
In 1 hour and 40 minutes, The Punisher not only decimated at least 2 complete crime syndicates, but did so without any more intel than knowing the correct caliber of ammunition to load in his guns.

9. Workin' for The Man:
Bond's whiny, bitchy boss chewed him out for a body count of maybe 3.
The Punisher doesn't have a boss, and knows that a body count of 3 is simply a slow start for the evening.

8. Employee of the Month:
Bond is only a small cog in the British government's new task force to stop the Quantum organization.
The Punisher is so efficient at eliminating whole criminal organizations that the NYPD and FBI simply locked their 2-man task force in the basement to keep them out of The Punisher's way.

7. Firepower:
Bond: there's no doubt that at any given time, Bond might be carrying a sweet gun.
The Punisher: What's better? Carrying 8+ sweet guns, any one of which out-awesomes anything Bond might come across.

6. Arch-Nemesis:
Bond: a man who hoards water.
The Punisher: a psychotic mob boss who lost his face in a glass-crushing machine and whose constant companion is his sociopathic, cannibal, martial-arts-expert brother.

5. Director's Critically Acclaimed Previous Effort:
Bond (Marc Forster): Finding Forrester, a movie about an old Scottish author and a young black kid who become buddies--very tender and boring.
Punisher (Lexi Alexander): Green Street Hooligans, a movie in which Elijah Wood becomes a British football hooligan and beats the living shiat out of everyone that crosses him, finally proving that Frodo Baggins could kill a man.
Bonus point: Punisher director = female.

4. Best Laid Plans...:
Bond Goal: find/interrogate suspects for information
Bond Outcome: usually ends up killing them prior to getting any information. FAIL.
Punisher Goal: kill bad people
Punisher Outcome: killing bad people. SUCCESS.

3. Most Hated Body Part:
Bond target of choice: limbs.
Punisher target of choice: face.

2. Theme Song:
Bond theme song: Alicia Keyes and blah-blah-blah...it was ass; the worst song I've heard in months.
Punisher theme song: Rob Zombie's "Warzone", which made me want to jump up, run 5 miles, do 100 push-ups, put up 200 lbs., and beat the crap out of a criminal.

1. Quantity of Pain Absorbed:
James Bond got several scratches and was nearly shot several times; he received adequate medical care as needed.
The Punisher had his knee kicked out and was shot no less than eight times, but never accepted a damn bit of help from anyone.

Bonus Round
Ultimate Showdown:
Bond sternly glares at antagonist Dominic Greene, gives him a quart of crude, and makes him walk away.
The Punisher gives Jigsaw an epic hand-to-hand beat-down, impales him with a steel rod, and sets him on fire.

Make no mistake, Punisher: War Zone is not classical filmmaking. It is pure, unadulterated pulp, meant to entertain with virtually no connection to the real world. It is easily the most violent, brutal movie I can remember seeing since 300. But it's all done in a very over-the-top , tongue-in-cheek way, which gives the whole movie a solid feel-good vibe. The Punisher is what Batman and Iron Man would be like if they were willing to kill criminals. The Punisher dishes out every bit as much pain as his obviously guilty victims deserve; occasionally more, but definitely never less. I applaud Lexi Alexander for making a movie that fits the character, which in every way is an unfortunately outdated commentary on a society that has become sissified by an unnatural moral relativity that increasingly seeks to justify criminal behavior as simply the aggresive response of repressed social minorities. If you really want to deter future criminals, PUNISH the guilty ones...

Short Movie Reviews

2008-11-30T17:54:00.004-05:00

I've been horribly lax at writing reviews lately, but on the other hand, I haven't actually seen too many movies. Nevertheless, I wanted to write up a few short reviews of the mostly mediocre movies I've seen recently.

W
I was initially opposed to hyper-liberal Oliver Stone's movie, which seemed likely to simply bash George W. Bush. Fortunately, the movie was great! It is NOT a true story about the real W, but an absolutely true story of the media/public's perception of W. There is an important difference. That said, the movie was surprisingly even-handed. If you like W, you'll still like him. If you hate W, you'll still hate him.

Quantum of Solace
The new James Bond movie is the first direct sequel to a previous 007 film, in this case Casino Royale. It had excellent and disappointing aspects. I liked the gritty feel, the hot Russian chick, the continued narrative threads from CR, and the frenetic pacing. I hated the Bourne-style editing; it was awesome and effective in Bourne, but like The Matrix's bullet-time, it is horribly overused and of negligible impact. I also didn't like the lack of closure and the fact that this movie came dangerously close to emulating the faults of the previous Bond movies: impossibly grandiose action scenes and awkwardly contrived relationships. A fun movie, but possibly an unfortunate harbinger of future failure if they don't keep faithful to the scale, tone, and grittiness of Casino Royale.

Crossroads
Not the Britney Spears P.O.S. No, the 1986 movie about a 17-year-old blues-guitar-playin' Ralph Macchio (The Karate Kid). Ralph wants to break free of his Julliard education in classical guitar and be a real bluesman. So he finds a real bluesman who sold his soul to the devil for some blues skillz, and proceeds to help him out of his late-in-life predicament. This movie was recommended to me for the last 20 minutes, which features the mother of all guitar face-offs. The rest of the movie is ok, but the climax is freaking awesome.

Cliffhanger
My mom describes this as a scary no-brainer. It is an still absurd, unbelievable movie, but also still ridiculously entertaining. I also realized that they simply don't make action movies this simple but fun anymore. For $3 at Best Buy, definitely worthwhile.

The Golden Compass
Another $3 BB bargain. I saw this in the theater and thought it was ok. Watching it a second time I enjoyed it much more. Nicole Kidman is on auto-pilot the whole movie, Daniel Craig is horrifically underutilized, and the main actress is about as unlikeable as possible for a protagnoist in a movie. That said, there is some impressive spectacle and buried beneath the glaring faults is a solid, orignal story.

Forgetting Sarah Marshall
This movie has the hot chick from Veronica Mars, which was the only reason I wanted to see it. As a bonus, for a movie marketed as simply another comedy from the Superbad crew, FSM had a surprisingly engaging plot and some actual emotional impact at times. On the negative side, it is plenty dirty, so be warned...

Transporter 3
Jason Statham is one of the only real action stars out there these days: someone who unabashadly makes action movies irregardless of whatever absolutely idiotic central story the underpaid screenwriters and directors have conjured. In the Transporter movies, Statham is a driver who moves stuff for money. The catch: he wears a suit, has a sweet car, and had a set of rules that are meant to make his shady business go smoothly. The fun: he always loses the suit, works the car beyond the limits of reality, and is caught in the whirlwind created by antagonists who exploit his 'rules.' This movie is easily the best of the three Transporter films, a marked improvement over the awful second one. Enjoy if you like car chases, gun fights, hand-to-hand combat, hot women, and stupid-as-f#@& dialog.

The Unit: Season 3
This underappreciated CBS show is fantastic. It's an action-drama about five special forces soldiers and their wives as they save America and their personal lives with equal vigor and through equally treacherous territory. The show is evolving excellently from the first season and despite the shortened season (stupid writer's strike), looks like it has a bright future.

Chuck: Season 1
I watched this whole season with Ken, and we agreed it is awesome. Hot women, computer geeks, the CIA and NSA, and a rogue's gallery of one-dimensional villains. What's not to love?

Anyway, more reviews will follow...maybe a few music reviews. We'll see. Hope everyone is doing well!

Movie Review: Body of Lies

2008-10-15T19:47:00.002-04:00

There has been a dearth of decent movies for awhile now, and I've recently descended into "CSI: Miami Land", burning through five seasons in 3 weeks with one to go. I was really looking forward to Body of Lies, despite the fact that I'd read almost nothing about it and had only seen a couple trailers.
Body of Lies had a lot going for it on paper: it was directed Ridley Scott, who is my favorite director (Black Hawk Down, Alien, Blade Runner, Gladiator, and Kingdom of Heaven;) it has Leonardo DiCaprio (an excellent actor who is on a great winning streak for excellent acting) and Russell Crowe (one word: Gladiator), both of whom are solid actors at their peak; and the film's story is essentially a far more realistic Bourne-type spy thriller. In theory, the formula looked great. In reality, Body of Lies simply left me at least mildly confused, and at worst mostly indifferent.
The movie deals with CIA agent Roger Ferris (Leo) who is trying to develop a lead towards a newly emerging, hyper-violent Al-Qaida terrorist cell. There are two challenges he faces. First, these terrorists have adapted their techniques to the CIA's tactics: they have gone completely lo-tech, off-the-grid in their communication and planning. The CIA has slowly evolved from a primarily human-intelligence based organization to a signal-intelligence organization that over-relies on their target's use of cell phones and computers; finding any lead requires covert contacts and source-development. Secondly, his CIA handler (Crowe) is the worst kind of boss: he tells Ferris to do one thing but then either withholds or, worse, withdraws tactical support at really bad times; he meddles in Ferris' business, completely ignoring mission-critical needs.
In spite of these challenges, Ferris perseveres and forms an unlikely alliance with the head of Jordanian intelligence (played by some guy who essentially steals the show from Leo and Crowe.) The trail to the terrorists is complex and requires a great deal of legitimate counter-intelligence smarts that stretched my own mental capacity.
Even as I wrote all of that, I still can't understand why I was so underwhelmed by the film. I think it was because the movie failed to successfully tread the line between being genuinely entertaining and having an important social or moral message. There are some action scenes, but they are heavily outnumbered by scenes with Leo and Crowe talking intensely into cell phones, which gets old and somewhat laughable, especially since that is all Crowe's character does. On the other hand, the message of the movie is too narrow and confined. As a movie set in the real-life, on-going War on Terror (which is sadly an essentially invisible war the American public neither understand nor are cleared to hear about anyway,) the movie says that the CIA needs to refocus its investment in reliable human intelligence to compliment its technological abilities, as well as recognize the need to develop a relationship of trust and cooperation with foreign governments and organizations whose goals align with our own. This is an important message, but seems aimed more as a CIA employee HR video than for general public consumption. It is hard to really identify or relate to such a niche message as an average American.
The movie also included a romantic subplot that, despite providing the only levity in the entire film, seemed too distracting and superfluous, especially when the supposed "pay-off" came late in the third act of the film and was almost non-existant; certainly nor justifying the extensive set-up. The subplot was too long and drifted too far from the central story. This could have been remedied by either removing it altogether, or actually developing some kind of satisfying narrative closure.
When all is said and done, Body of Lies just kinda is what it is: an overly complex film with an overly subtle message. This despite great acting, top-notch production values, and Scott's always excellent visuals. Scott's weakest efforts are still better than most films, but I hope that he hits one out of the ballpark soon--I want another Gladiator or Black Hawk Down.

Movie Review: Righteous Kill

2008-09-21T17:22:00.002-04:00

Spoilers ahead, so beware...though I doubt anyone I know will ever see this movie, so no worries:

I will never grow old. This may also entail a potentially disturbing possibility: I may never mature, either. However, I definitely never want to get old. Because I don't to end up like Robert De Niro or Al Pacino as they appear in this movie.
Righteous Kill is a great idea lodged in an immature script directed by a nobody director who was responsible for wrangling two of arguably the greatest American actors who are apparently way past their prime. So let's go through this chain:
Righteous Kill is about a serial killer who is killing scumbags; guys who are clearly guilty of heinous crimes but slip through the justice system on technicalities. Two career cops are charged with solving the crime; two cops with a vocal penchant, if not deeply-rooted appreciation for, violence. Voila! We have a plot, with intrigue, twists, and a nice mystery: all the elements of a solid thriller.
Sadly, from this point, it goes downhill.
First of all, the trailer gave away too much. Way too much. When the twists are the big catch in a film, you really shouldn't give them away months before the film is even released. The trailer not only tells us that the killer is a cop, but that the killer is either De Niro or Pacino. And within the first 30 seconds of the actual movie, we see De Niro confessing, meaning that within 30 second of the actual movie, I knew the killer was Pacino. This left the whole run time of the movie for me to feel much, much smarter than any character in the movie as they all slowly bumbled towards my own astute observation.
Now, I really like the story of the movie; the primary failure of the movie is a weak script. The film itself is relatively short, but seemed filled with a lot of, well, filler. There were extraneous plot lines and character elements that did nothing more than create a sense of convoluted chaos. Each of these problems chipped away at a decent story and left me confused and frustrated with the final film. But the fundamental problems were even deeper than the script.
The director has never made anything of note, and this film had one element that required a heightened degree of skill: the film's chronology jumps around, which is meant to add to the intrigue or whatever. Did you ever see The Prestige? Director Christopher Nolan masterfully created a film whose chronological timeline jumped all over the place, yet there was an artistry and skill clearly evident in the storytelling. This film, whose story required nothing close to the finesse that The Prestige demanded, was an utter failure. The jumping timeline was confusing and, quite frankly, annoying, and harbored every sign that the primary filmmaker (aka "The Director") was simply incompetant. It was almost like he made a linear film, chopped it into pieces, and hit the random button. Lazy.
Finally, the real tragedy is the two main actors, who should know better. I say should because both De Niro and Pacino are unquestionably talented actors, who have let their careers slide of late. For whatever reason, neither of them has made anything recently that resembles their previous excellence. These are the guys who were in the Godfather films, for crying out loud. They have turned in performances that have defined films, careers, and the art of acting itself. Pacino in particular sleepwalks through the film, showing absolutely no sign of excitment, emotion, or anything whatsoever. He is utterly lifeless. Where is the scene-chewing force-of-nature I expect from Any Given Sunday or Heat? De Niro fares mildly better, but still doesn't set the artistic bar where you'd expect.
Ultimately, I think De Niro and Pacino have the same problem Harrison Ford has had recently: exceptionally talented and famous actors need a great director to challenge them and get them to turn in a decent performance. Ford finally got Spielberg to help him out with Indiana Jones, the first remotely passionate performance Ford managed in over a decade. De Niro and Pacino need to team up with some of the exceptional directorial talent they've worked with in the past; it's time to stop low-balling it with no-name hacks.
Righteous Kill has nothing really worth recommending. There is a ton of unnecessary sexuality, mildly entertaining but definitely crude language, and a lot of boring violence. Wait for the TV version and make sure there's an actual good movie on another channel to switch between.

Movie Review: Tropic Thunder

2008-08-25T21:23:00.006-04:00

Tropic Thunder is the smart, rambunctious satire. After feeling slightly let down by Pineapple Express, I was afraid the same thing would happen with Tropic Thunder. Fortunately, I was wrong. Way wrong.
Tropic Thunder is a movie about the making of the most expensive Vietnam war movie ever made, named 'Tropic Thunder'. This movie-in-a-movie is being made by an incompetent director and three lead actors who display a wide range of bizarre idiosyncrasies that stretch even Hollywood credibility. In an effort to subvert the wildly divergent methodologies of the actors, the director takes the five lead actors and dumps them in the middle of the jungle, telling them he will be filming guerrilla-style. Within minutes of being dropped off, everything goes wrong and the actors are unwittingly thrown into a real war, unaware that their lives are actually in danger.
There are so many awesome things about Tropic Thunder that I barely know where to begin; but I'll do my best...
The acting all around is nearly flawless and top-notch. The best two performances are Robert Downey Jr. and Tom Cruise. Downey plays Kirk Lazarus, a highly-acclaimed Australian method actor who dyes his skin black in order to play the role of an African-American soldier. Lazarus' performances are always marked by his complete submergence into the roles, and his turn as Sgt. Osiris in 'Tropic Thunder' is no exception. Downey, a fine actor by any measure, is phenomenal as Osiris, utterly convincing and unrecognizable as a black man, yet more compelling as an actor so caught up in his job that he has lost touch with reality.
Nearly as enjoyable is Tom Cruise, who plays a ridiculously foul-mouthed film executive. The role is, in-and-of itself, not particularly unique given the wide range of wild characters in the movie, but the fact that it is played by Cruise and is utterly different than anything he has done before makes it a true pleasure to behold.
Ben Stiller turns in a great enjoyable performance as the celebrity action star who thinks he is in his element making a big, violent war movie. His resolve to turn in his first important dramatic role as an actor is unwittingly subverted when the plot of the movie he thinks he is making coincidentally mirrors what really happens to him in the jungle. The fact that he never realizes this makes everything he does seem ridiculous yet somehow endearing.
Perhaps the most pleasant surprise is Jay Baruchel, who essentially plays a role similar to his own roles in other movies: the normal, working actor who does his job and is in every way a responsible person. He is the inadvertent central anchor of Tropic Thunder simply because he is the only normal, relate-able character in the entire film. Who is Jay Baruchel, you ask? Eh, you'll recognize him...he is one of those actors that always shows up and does a good job, but is never the star. Ironic, eh?
The exception to the acting perfection of Tropic Thunder is Jack Black, whose druggie comedy actor is annoying through-and-through. He certainly represents a very real type of actor in Hollywood, who stars in terrible movies and abuses drugs to no end, but just as those types of people are annoying in real life, so is Black's character in this film. Black did as good a job as possible with a role I simply didn't like.

To truly enjoy Tropic Thunder, a viewer needs a passing knowledge of Hollywood, particularly the methods and madness actors indulge in to "perfect" their craft. Above all else, Tropic Thunder is a movie that makes fun of movies and the entire industry that supplies them. If anyone has been conscientious of the news surrounding the film, then you have undoubtedly heard the two primary controversies surrounding Tropic Thunder: cries of racism over Downey's 'blackface' performance as an African-American and complaints of insensitivity due to the frequent use of the term 'retard' throughout the movie.
Both of these complaints are not only inaccurate, but also made by people who utterly miss the point of a satire and the specific target of the satire in this film especially. On both counts, Tropic Thunder specifically mocks actors who go to extreme lengths to rise to the top of their profession; lengths that seem utterly absurd until you actually realize that real actors in real life do the exact same thing.
The complaints about Downey are, in my opinion, the most absurd. His makeup in the movie is meant to genuinely simulate (and completely succeeds in) making him actually look like an African-American, unlike the contemptible and genuinely offensive blackface makeup used in the past that was a completely racist practice. Stiller, the writer and director, does a masterful job navigating the very thin line between funny and offensive, and with respect to the treatment of Downey's character is successful in avoiding any genuinely racist overtones whatsoever.
More debatable are the complaints that the film mocks the mentally disabled. A central plot point revolves around the fact that Stiller's character, Tugg Speedman, had previously starred in a film about a mentally retarded farmhand, and there are several conversations about this role using questionable language. I can honestly understand why people complain and condemn this aspect of the movie, but bless their hearts, I also think that these people have utterly missed the point. When Hollywood makes a movie about mentally challenged people, they typically do not hire mentally disabled people for those roles. Is that discrimination? Did Tom Hanks insult and degrade all mentally challenged people by playing Forrest Gump? Of course not. It is a reality that films roles featuring mentally challenged people are not only typically cast with non-mentally handicapped actors, but are often critically recognized as plum roles for awards. The fact that the actors in Tropic Thunder discuss this fact in insensitive terms serves to further mock the hypocrisy of Hollywood actors; they can play challenging roles with tremendous emotional and social depth, yet possess neither of these qualities whatsoever. Hey folks, that's acting: pretending to be someone or something you clearly are not.

I could probably go on, but I don't think it's really necessary. Tropic Thunder is an intelligent but lighthearted comedy that makes fun of a very specific cross-section of society: Hollywood actors. It reminds me of Zoolander, which also strongly mocked a specific cross-section of society in an appropriately brilliant manner. In both cases, the targets are extremely wealthy, often stunningly dimwitted people who can survive a scathing satirical film about their industry. Not surprisingly, Stiller, an actor who grew up in and around the film industry, wrote and directed both films. It is hard to get really angry at people making fun of themselves, but it is so easy to laugh with them.

As a side note, Tropic Thunder earns its 'R' rating with a lot of ridiculously funny profanity and some horrifically graphic violence, which is played entirely for laughs and impossible to take seriously. If you've seriously thought of seeing it despite the rating, you'll probably love it. Otherwise, stick with you gut instinct--you'll probably be more offended than entertained. I'm sure there will be a 30-minute, silent version on TV someday...

TV Review: Batman Beyond (Seasons 1-3)

2008-08-23T12:40:00.002-04:00

A couple years ago I bought all 3 seasons of Batman Beyond simply because I heard it was cool and I like Batman; good 'nuff for me. Sadly, I waited a long time to watch it because I had trouble convincing myself that my dignity could handle allowing a supposed kid's cartoon as my primary entertainment for a few weeks. I'm grateful that not only is my dignity intact, but to call Batman Beyond a kid's cartoon is not only inaccurate, but ignorant.
Ultimately, I really enjoyed the entire series. The TV show ran for three seasons, which I discovered is the time it takes to produce enough episodes to send a show into syndication, at which point cartoons are canceled and the creators move onto something else; Batman Beyond was the result of this happening to Batman: The Animated Series.
Batman Beyond is the most unique approach to the Batman universe I've seen. It takes place 40 year in the future when Bruce Wayne is simply too old and feeble to continue as Batman. In fact, his chosen isolation from the city he can no longer keep safe has led to the loss of control of his own company; a double-negative that has left him a cranky bastard whose continued development of his crime-fighting technology has been nothing more than a hobby to fill his time. Enter Terry McGinniss, a semi-delinquent teenager who randomly happens upon Bruce Wayne while being pursued by gang of ruffians. Bruce manages to beat the crap out of the gang, but suffers a mild heart attack and is taken home to his medication by Terry, who inadvertently discovers the batcave and its intrinsic secrets shortly thereafter. Before you can say "Holy part-time help, Batman!", Bruce reluctantly offers Terry the chance to take up the mantle of Batman with a new, utterly bad-ass suit.
But the differences are far more in-depth than simply a change in the hidden identity of the Caped Crusader. Here are a few significant changes that make Batman Beyond a unique enjoyment:
1. Unlike Bruce Wayne, Terry is no detective. He is more athletic and his suit is more advanced than Bruce ever enjoyed, but he almost completely relies on Wayne for the intellectual legwork in solving the crimes. I've always liked how Batman was the world's greatest detective in addition to simply a vigilante law-enforcer. The Bruce/Terry intellectual dynamic gradually evolves over the three seasons, but initially there is a clear division of abilities. Bruce is almost always on the radio with Terry and remains a critical part of the team, making this dynamic duo far more believable and far less gay than Batman and Robin ever were.
2. Terry is also not the psychologically-damaged vigilante Bruce remains. Wayne was always driven by the deaths of his parents, and that trauma is still his singular motivation. But Terry has a living family and, as a high school student, must balance his "part-time job for Mr. Wayne" with academic, familial and social responsibilities. This makes Terry a less vengeful, more morally compassionate crime-fighter than Bruce Wayne; a difference that allows interesting dramatic tension throughout the series.
3. The producers jettisoned the entire rogues gallery of the original Batman universe and creates a whole new batch of villains. This is actually much more difficult than you would think and they pull it off quite well. It would have been easy to throw out the name and look of The Joker and The Riddler and simply replace them with villains of similar personality or origin. Instead, the new villains are completely original and universally enjoyable.
4. The future setting allows the series to speculate into some unique social, technological, and corporate dynamics that are frequently and successfully exploited throughout the series, and more importantly, clearly distinguish it from other incarnations of the Batman.
5. Unlike Batman: The Animated Series, Batman Beyond has a coherent, core narrative arc that carries throughout the entire series. Batman: TAS, was very schizophrenic in its stories, with characters and storylines popping in and out of consecutive episodes with no discernible logic. BB actually seems to have been preplanned from start to finish, a remarkable achievement not only for a cartoon series, but for anything with over 50 individual episodic storylines to connect together.
Ultimately, I was really impressed with Batman Beyond and would have no qualms with defending it as completely reasonable entertainment for any 31-year-old. After all, you're only old when the child inside stops having fun. And you can be sure that my plans to become the Batman are far from buried...

Game Review: Grand Theft Auto 4

2008-08-23T12:38:00.003-04:00

Many people may think I'm a hypocrite for even playing this game; I played GTA3 once and was repulsed with the utterly antisocial foundation of the oft-described 'kill cops and hookers' game. Well, if that you really think I'm stupid enough to simply change my mind and decide I want to spend my time killing digital cops and hookers, than I guess you: a) don't know me very well, and b) shouldn't bother reading the rest of this entry.
GTA4 is a monolithic game. Costing over $100 million to make and meticulously recreating NYC, from geography to climate, GTA4 represents a masterpiece of computer programming simply from an artistic standpoint. No other game I've ever seen so utterly envelops the player in an environment that is all but physically tangible. In most cases, the only changes made are to the specific names of locations and landmarks (Statue of Freedom vs. Statue of Liberty.) It is truly remarkable from that standpoint alone and for anyone that doesn't play video games, this is genuinely a remarkable achievement in and of itself. You simply feel like you are in NYC.
GTA4 is also the first true sandbox game I've ever played. A sandbox game is one where, should you choose, you can abandon the story, the missions, and every pre-planned aspect of the game and do whatever you want. The game provides a vast array of activities that extend beyond the core campaign. You can go shopping; go for helicopter tours of the city (there are 5); date different women (all of whom have separate personalities, sometimes multiple [wink!]); go to a restaurant or bar; go bowling, play darts or pool; race cars; use police computers to respond to crimes in the area; use a firetruck to respond to fires, start fires and call a firetruck, steal a firetruck, set it on fire, put it out, then escape in the police cars that respond; take a boat out to visit the Statue of Liberty...err, Freedom; sit in your apartment and watch TV (there are whole TV shows you can see); drive around and enjoy one of the dozen or so radio station that have hundreds of songs and radio shows; or, should you choose, shoot cops and hookers. The point is, like a real-life sandbox, GTA4 allows the player to make of the game exactly what they want to--there are almost no limitations. It's fascinatingly open in its possibilities.
My primary complaint about the previous version of the game I played several years ago was that it encouraged you to indulge in completely anti-social/illegal activities with no acknowledgment of the complete moral vacuum it created, endorsed, and encouraged. GTA4 is completely different in my opinion. Whether playing the single-player missions or just sandboxing, the game's main character repeatedly acknowledges the remorse he feels for his illegal activities and the life he has chosen as a criminal. Along similar lines, the game responds accordingly to whether the player makes the character perform compassionate or illegal activities. If you stop and give money to a homeless person or take a friend out to dinner that is feeling down, there is some positive reinforcement and rewards. If you choose to shoot innocent bystanders and take their money, other bystanders call the cops, who will give chase and try to arrest you; and running away simply makes the entire city mobilize to chase you down and punish you--you'll even hear about your crimes on the radio and get chided by any number of radio presenters as a degenerate and blight on the city. There are rewards and punishments assigned to virtually any moral decision the player makes throughout the game. This essentially alleviated my primary concern about playing the game--you are never forced to do anything that you don't want to or find distasteful.
Now, as with many other medium, particularly film or television, this video game's setting and environment is the criminal underworld. It most closely resembles the world in the Godfather films, or perhaps The Sopranos. If you make a film about the mafia, you're going to be exposed to what they do; it is exactly the same for video games. There is a critical need to make sure that anyone who plays a game where you control virtual criminals should be old enough to distinguish between reality and fantasy, and the age-related game rating (M) should absolutely be enforced; I would have a real problem with children playing a game like this. But for all the reality the game meticulously recreates, it is still nothing more than a fantasy world and digital pixels are a far cry from the reality that motion pictures and television shows present. Nothing in GTA4 is as dramatically or emotionally intense, or graphically violent I might add, as any number of mafia films I've seen in my day; enough with the video games are worse than other mediums arguments!
Anyway, I was utterly surprised with how much I enjoyed the game. Once I completed the missions, I spent nearly 4 times as much time just wandering the city, completing side missions, and enjoying the engrossing environments offered.
On the flip side, once I did complete 100% of the side missions, I realized that I had spent so much time playing GTA4 that I gave up video games for 40 days, partially because I wanted to focus on developing a few neglected talents and activities, and partially because I doubt I'll play any game this year that compares. Sorry, HALO 3, but GTA4 has won this round...

Movie Review: Star Wars - The Clone Wars

2008-08-18T22:09:00.003-04:00

I hate to say it, but for the first time in my life I truly, utterly despised something related Star Wars. And even worse, watching this movie acted as a catalyst, releasing many years worth of backlogged frustration I've built up while trying to make empty excuses for why Star Wars hadn't devolved into oblivion.
This movie simply reeks of incompetence and indifference. For example:
1. It has two of the worst characters from cinema, let alone Star Wars: Ahsoka, the Miley Cyrus of the Jedi, and Ziro the Gay Hutt. Either one is worse than Jar-Jar, and I hate Jar-Jar. The only thing I hate more than the characters is what they represent for where Star Wars has ended up: offensive, simplistic, retarded caricatures.
2. The animation was a bizarre mix of only decent 3D plastered on Microsoft Paint pixelated 2D backgrounds--unbelievably awful looking. There was no artistic integrity found anywhere in this movie.
3. John Williams didn't do the music; if there is one defining trait of Star Wars, it's the fricking music. Who thought it was worth making anything Star Wars without John Williams music?!?! Even the video games all use Williams' music as their auditory backbone. The pimp-jazz-hiphop crap they used was so, so wretched.
4. Why does Lucas think anybody watching Star Wars films gives a crap about trade routes and intergalactic shipping lanes? WTF?!?! I put up with it in Episode 1 and pretended like it was an intriguing backdrop for a Star Wars narrative; it wasn't, at all. But never in my wildest, most fevered dreams did I think that Lucas' stunningly original space mythology was actually some kind of weird-ass commentary on interplanetary economics and would dominate every narrative since The Phantom Menace.

I could go on and on and on, slowly releasing a tidal wave of rage tying together all my frustrations relating to everything Lucas has done to Star Wars since the original trilogy. He has taken a perfect trilogy of genuinely classic cinema and completely ruined it. It is a monumental achievement in ignominy.
The Clone Wars is a childrens movie and I think that is ultimately the problem. The original trilogy are classics in their own right and that will never change. But cinema has grown up since then. There are two fundamental problems that Lucas has completely failed to address in this regard.
First, with respect to cinematic storytelling mechanics, films have evolved way beyond anything Star Wars has offered since Return of the Jedi. We've had the incredible Matrix trilogy, Predator, Aliens, Battlestar Galactica, Sunshine, Pitch Black and The Chonicles of Riddick. All of these movies were superior to post-Jedi Star Wars. Lucas seems to think that amazing special effects will distract from superficial narratives and appallingly awful dialog. He's wrong. Star Wars should have evolved into something more like Battlestar Galactica, not Buck Rogers.
Second, everyone that saw the original trilogy as children has grown up. Lucas is still making movies for little kids. That's cool...I mean, Lucas can exercise his perogative to target the 8-12 crowd, but there is a mass of 25-35-year-olds that love the original movies that would die to see James Cameron, Ridley Scott, or Christopher Nolan make a Star Wars film; a darker, scarier, more gritty film set in the Star Wars universe but reflecting the kind of movie we want. The Batman franchise went from a classic reinvention in the 1989 film to the campy, horrific Batman and Robin in 1997 before coming back with a vengeance in Batman Begins and The Dark Knight. Star Wars needs its Dark Knight, not Batman and Robin #4.

The Clone Wars is apparently introducing a 100-episode animated TV series. I, for one, refuse to watch it; I will no longer give George my money or attention for such dreck. Similarly, he'e planning a live-action TV show to start in 1-2 years. Unless he manages to use the new Battlestar Galactica TV show as a model and pattern, then I will not watch it either. In fact, I doubt I'll watch anything Star Wars related until George is dead and the rights to make movies fall to literally anyone else on Earth. Because I'm convinced that almost any other human being on the planet could cobble together a better movie than The Clone Wars.

Thanks a lot, George Lucas, for destroying what was once one of the greatest trilogies in cinema. I'm going to go watch The Lord of the Rings and remind myself of what great fantasy filmmaking is like...

Movie Review: Pineapple Express

2008-08-15T16:43:00.002-04:00

Pineapple Express is a stoner movie: a movie about characters who use/abuse marijuana. They can only barely manage to navigate their normal lives under the constant influence of MJ, much less while in the extremely trying circumstances the film's story throws them into.

I'm going to keep this really short, since the movie doesn't warrant anything more:
1. All of the best parts of the movie were in the trailers, if in truncated form.
2. Having never taken any drug more powerful than Tylenol, I suspect that most stoner movies are genuinely better when actually under the influence of whatever drug they espouse.
3. I had forgotten how much it REALLY bothers me that there is an entire growing subculture in America that thinks that legalizing drugs is a good idea and tries to idealize the use of marijuana.
4. James Franco, of emo-Spiderman fame (he was Peter Parker's best friend), was absolutely the best part of the movie--he was so different than I've ever seen him that it was refreshing and great.
5. Seth Rogan is really funny, but is exactly the same character in every movie. Character names aside, 40-year-Old Virgin, Knocked Up, Superbad, and Pineapple Express all follow Rogan's singular character. This is not bad, but gets old...
6. Danny McBride is way funnier than he's given credit for--see Tropic Thunder for further proof.

In the end, the plot and structure of the film were better than I expected, but realistically, I had low expectations. I had a ticket to see The Mummy 3, but knew it would be awful, so I slipped into Pineapple Express instead. That's the first time I've ever done that, and I was glad I did. But in retrospect, I wish I'd sneakeded (sp?) into The Dark Knight. That was an awesome movie.

Movie Review: Step Brothers

2008-08-15T16:24:00.003-04:00

It's been over two weeks since I saw this movie, and to be honest, I've forgotten most of it. What I do remember is that it was really funny, and one of the Will Ferrell's better man-child comedies, right up there with Anchorman and Talladega Nights.
The movie is about two late-30's single guys whose parents get married and become...wait for it...step-brothers! They are socially retarded, crude, and utterly committed to their respective parents. The brothers are played by Will Ferrell and John C. Reilly, both of whom are in absolute top comedic form. Ferrell largely dispels the sour memories of a few recent cinematic misses, while Reilly continues to demonstrate that he is ridiculously funny.
If I remember correctly, the movie actually had a respectable story-arc. And by respectable, I was so surprised that there was a story-arc that its quality is basically immaterial. The step-brothers start out as enemies, become allies, then best friends, accidentally betrayed enemies, and finally reconciled friends. The catalyst for most of the transitions one the two step-brothers meet is the highly-accomplished, douchebag brother of Will Ferrell's character. He is so utterly loathsome that he is literally the only possible narrative device that could make you feel compassion for either of the two uber-loser step-brothers.
If anyone has seen the trailers, you have a vague notion of the kind of humor this movie is founded on. It's in the same vein as Anchorman or T. Nights, but taken to a whole new level of crudity and hilarity. I can't really recommend it to anyone that didn't enjoy the other films, but wholeheartedly recommend it to anyone who wants to see Ferrell and Reilly in absolute top form.

Movie Review: The Dark Knight IMAX

2008-07-26T08:53:00.002-04:00

HOLY. INCREDIBLE.
YOu haven't really seen this movie until you've seen the IMAX version. It is simply bigger and better than anything you can imagine.
The picture switches between IMAX-booyah-size and normal widescreen, with all of the larger action scenes and cityscapes in IMAX. The transition was completely unnoticeable except when it went from widescreen-to-IMAX, which was breathtaking. The IMAX scenes were detailed beyond anything a traditional screen can offer--only a digital projection can compare, and then it's still not as impressive.
The sound is what really got me. IMAX theaters feature way more speakers and more aural immersion than any theater I've ever been in. It's absolutely phenomenal. The music and sound effects were powerful enough to shake my bones. Awesome.
You really must see The Dark Knight on IMAX before it leaves screens forever.
It was also fun to go with Emme on her birthday--I'm sure that did not bias my opinion in any way...

Movie Review: Conan the...[whatever]

2008-07-26T08:45:00.003-04:00

Conan the Barbarian:
A mildly enjoyable movie that features Arnold Schwazenegger's muscles and his feeble attempts to speak English. Also, lots of laughably bad special effects. But a semi-decent attempt at a sword-and-sorcery-type flick.

Conan the Destroyer:
An utterly horrible desecration of an already bad franchise. Again, Arnold's muscles, but this time with horrible co-stars and a retarded "plot". The only surprise: the quantity of blood and gore they squeezed into a PG-rated movie. This didn't make it any more enjoyable, just surprising.

These movies are both bad. It is interesting to see Arnold's improvement as an actor from one movie to the next. Of course, this is relative--horrific acting to bad acting is not something to brag about. I heard they are doing a remake/reboot, so I thought I'd check out the originals. Probably won't do that again.

Movie Review: The Dark Knight

2008-07-19T08:22:00.003-04:00

Short Version:
The Dark Knight is the best movie I've seen in years, exceeding the original in every way and making a superior sequel a seeming impossibility. It is more than a great comic book movie; it is a genuinely classic film that holds its own against anything in the AFI Top 100.

Longer Version:
I've read a lot of reviews of The Dark Knight; they are all the same and drowned in superlatives. I want to try and avoid that, so I'm going to simply list a few notable aspects of the film:
1. Yes, Heath Ledger's performance is every bit as good as everyone claims. However, several other performances are equally impressive. Christian Bale has refined and mastered the dual roles of Bruce Wayne and Batman. In my opinion, Aaron Eckhart's Harvey Dent has the best character arc of the film, due to the excellent script as well as Eckhart's nuanced transition from Gotham's hero D.A. to...something far removed. Gary Oldman's Jim Gordon refuses to be relegated to second-class character, managing to demand attention and cheers from the audience. Basically, the film is populated by excellent actors at the top of their game; it just happens that the Joker is the most easy to appreciate: he tears through the movie in a mesmerizing display menace and psychopathic destruction.
2. The Dark Knight was, at one time, called Intimidation Game. I liked that title and can now see how well it applied to this film. The story of this film encapsulates the concept of escalation that Gordon mentions in the final moments of Batman Begins and it is realized in two ways:
First, as described by Gordon, when Batman ups the ante through his theatrical and uncompromising pursuit of justice, escalation dictates that criminals will emerge who idealistically complement Batman's moral extreme. Hence, the emergence of the Joker; the ultimate villain. The Joker could not have existed without Batman, and, as this film proves, Batman would not be needed without criminals like the Joker; a paradox that suggests that Bruce Wayne's stated desire to leave Batman behind are hopeless.
Second, The Dark Knight documents a series of gambits between the Joker and Gotham's trinity of law enforcement: the police (Gordon), the law (Dent), and the vigilante (Batman). As the two sides try to intimidate the other into submission, the film ratchets up the tension and dramatic menace beyond anything I've experienced in a film. The script is a masterpiece in its handling of the shifting power struggle and allows for multiple surprises and outright shocks throughout. Within the countless excellent facets of The Dark Knight, director Christopher Nolan retains as the core of the film this intricate cat-and-mouse game that commands attention and, upon close examination, demands praise for the ease with which it is presented on-screen.
3. I would feel remiss if I didn't say something about the score. Hans Zimmer has long been my favorite film composer and the score for The Dark Knight not only builds on the excellent thematic base of Batman Begins, but actually develops and improves it in many ways, primarily through the introduction of the Joker's theme, which unmistakably puts the audience on edge and keeps them there. As profoundly menacing as the film is, the score is a primary component of this. Apparently, James Newton Howard helped with the score, but since he still works for M. Night Shyamalan (The [Not] Happening), at best the most credit I'll give him is that he has broken even in my book with his contribution here. Go Zimmer!
4. As I've said, the reviews I've read have mostly bored me, except for one that had a very astute observation. To paraphrase, it said that every other comic book movie was just that: a comic book. The Dark Knight is a graphic novel.
My mom always laughs at me for trying to distinguish between the two, and I've largely given up trying to explain the difference to people, but there really is a difference. A comic book is short and reads like a super-abridged version of a bigger story; meant to be taken in short doses and not warranting a great deal of intellectual scrutiny without an extensive immersion in the whole of the associated mythology. A graphic novel is a self-contained story whose length permits layered character-development, in-depth narrative structure and manipulation, and thematic ideals that are more than capable of duplicating the literary complexity of any classical novel. Along these lines, I think The Dark Knight is the first great graphic novel movie--a film that rises above the genre that produced it and is the equal of the best films of any other given genre: The Godfather, The Empire Strikes Back, Citizen Kane, etc.
5. It is so easy to praise The Dark Knight. My own highest form of praise comes as a simple observation. In examining any individual aspect of The Dark Knight, I see excellence to near perfection. But what is more impressive is that taken as a whole, The Dark Knight is actually greater than the sum of its parts. It is a remarkable achievement by everyone involved and truly rewarding for anyone who watches the film.

My only complaint is that I cannot imagine a sequel matching the quality of this film, much less exceeding it. I hate to say it, but after the Spider-man 3 fiasco, I would prefer that they never make another Batman film in this universe rather than denigrate this film's achievements with a substandard sequel. Since Ledger's death makes the return of the Joker impossible, I would almost suggest taking a chance with an entirely original villain, since none of the traditional Batman villains really measures up.
I once wrote a paper on The Lord of the Rings, focusing on the representations of evil in Tolkien's mythology. Basically, Sauron represented an absolute evil, while Gollum represented an extreme corruption of an essentially good person. In The Dark Knight, the Joker represents absolute evil, while Harvey Dent/Two-Face represents extreme corruption. As with The Lord of the Rings, the villains in The Dark Knight occupy the story space and challenge the hero in a similar manner. And as with LotR, nobody escapes The Dark Knight without making a tragic sacrifice...

Movie Review: Point Break

2008-07-16T22:32:00.004-04:00

Point Break is one of the best action movies from the 90's; I still have many enjoyable memories of. In fact, one thing I loved about Hot Fuzz were the multiple plot-related references to Point Break--it completely reminded me of my own love of the movie.
For anyone that doesn't remember, Point Break is about a rookie FBI agent (Keanu Reeves) whose first case is to find a gang of bank robbers in LA who carry out their dastardly deeds with masks of the ex-Presidents. The only clue: the robbers are also part-time surfers. Keanu's job: go undercover as a surfer, cultivate clues, and infiltrate the tightly-knit gang.
But plot-shplot...this movie is more than just a tight, well-constructed story within an adrenaline-amped setting. The subtext of the film contains thematic elements that would make Shakespeare proud. At least, I like to think that if Shakespeare were alive, he'd prefer Point Break to yet another freaking iteration of his own rehashed plays. Bill Shake would have completely dug a movie with surfing, skydiving, bank robbing, FBI agents, guns, hot chicks, and southern California.
Anyway, I'll get down to business. The one part of the film that really strikes me as endearing is the acting. There are a lot of great performances. In one of the DVD special features, they mention that this very hard-core action film was directed by a woman, which is unusual by any standard, and was considered a great bonus by the people involved. Director Kathryn Bigelow coaxed some really impressive performances out of a diverse group of people. For example:
Keanu Reeves is usually a love-him-or-hate-him actor. I happen to think he's a great actor who thrives in the right role. I have a theory as to why most people hate him: he rarely smiles and seems to have virtually no emotional range. This fit The Matrix perfectly (though it kinda proved a hindrance in the sequels) as well as in Constantine. Few people seem to remember Bill and Ted, where Keanu was always smiling and acting generally goofy-retarded. Point Break was a great crossover film, moving Keanu from his Ted-persona to the more dramatic/serious roles that he have defined his career since. Point Break starts with Keanu giving a million-dollar smile that immediately reminded me that he is not a robot. He's gravitated towards films that exploit his natural ability to suppress human emotion, but nevertheless, he displays a wide-range of emotions and does a great job in this movie, and it's completely fun.
Patrick Swayze was the big movie star in this film, and quite frankly, it's his only movie that I actually like. And he's a force. His character is a great cocktail of mystery, evil, enlightenment, and recklessness.
John McGinley is the head FBI guy and chews up every scene he's in. Anyone that has seen him in Scrubs should recognize that he was simply rehashing a role he perfected in Point Break.
Playing the sole female character, Lori Petty does a perfect job balancing out the ridiculous testosterone that drowns the movie. She's holds her own against the men, but is by no means a tom-boy. Her role is sympathetic even as she demonstrates a toughness that rivals the guys.
And finally, Gary Busey. Gary is insane in real life. In interviews with fellow cast and crew, everyone clearly recognizes that he is a unique and bizarre individual, but completely harmless. I have found this hilarious since I didn't know that the first time I saw the movie ever so long ago. As an actor, he turns in a great performance that is memorable, endearing, and devoid of any indication that in real life he's a nutcase. He plays a counterbalance to Keanu's rookie, playing a perfect version of what we could imagine Keanu's character being like at the end of his career instead of the beginning.
Additionally, the action scenes are great; well-staged, unique, and not just tacked-on, throw-away scenes tossed in for good measure. The bank-robbing scenes are a perfect compliment to the several scenes of surfing and skydiving, showing that the adrenaline junkies that populate the film are more interested in the rush than the moral implications of whatever activities give them the high.
All in all, this movie managed to slipstream a solid character-drama into a nearly-outrageous action film. The story was written by James Cameron, the dude who defined action films in the 80's and 90's with movies like The Terminators, Aliens, True Lies, and The Abyss. Point Break has many thematic elements that scream out Cameron, but since someone else directed the film, it has become something unique from his repertoire. The fact that the action and over-the-top adrenaline-junkie themes never overwhelm the story is a byproduct of filmmakers who respect the material enough to try and be serious. Even when the FBI is paying an agent to learn to surf.

Mid-Movie Review: Point Break

2008-07-14T23:02:00.002-04:00

This movie is the balls. It is a national treasure, for a shload of reasons. Among them:

Keanu Reeves shows emotion! For reals! Plus his name is Johnny Utah. My nickname at work is Jim Utah. Coincidence? No. Not a bit.

Gary Busey is completely insane. This is more true in real life than movies. But this movies channels the endearing madness that is The Busey.

The only movie that makes bank robbery look awesomer than the Ocean's movies.

Real review later...

Short Movie Reviews

2008-07-13T23:09:00.002-04:00

None of these movies warrants a full review. I really blame Best Buy for their $4 and $5 bin bargains, cuz theirs no way I'd have watched these otherwise.

Eregon
The book was a pretty lame fantasy remake of Star Wars. The Eregon movie completely butchered the book. Therefore, the movie was pretty good. At least, better than the majority of reviews let me to believe it would be. And for $5...worth it. Not $6, but $5 is ok.

The League of Extraordinary Gentleman
This is another seriously maligned movie that really isn't as bad as its reputation. Sure, it has its faults, but I've seen a lot worse comic book movies. I think I'll actually watch this one again. Voluntarily, no less.

The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift
This movie thrives on three things: hot chicks, fast cars, and hot chicks. Sure, there's virtually no plot or acting in sight, but with the holy trinity of good things, who cares? It's a mindless joy ride (pun alert!!), is way better then the second hyper-gay movie, but still a far cry from the awesomeness of the first one, which had faster cars and hotter chicks. Oh well, maybe #4.

Movie Review: Full Metal Jacket

2008-07-11T22:30:00.003-04:00

Some guys from work said this was the best Vietnam movie ever made. I saw it 13 years ago or so, but didn't remember hardly anything about it. So when I saw it for $5 at Best Buy, I thought I'd give it a try. Sadly, I made one tragic mistake: I accidentally bought the full-screen version. Idiot...

The movie is amazing. It's a Kubrick movie, which means that like it or not, it is assumed there is a heightened aura of cinematic artistry about the movie. I'm not a part of the Vietnam generation, having been born a year or two after the war actually ended, but from what I can tell, the movie exemplifies the emotional trauma associated not just with war in general, but particularly with the Vietnam experience as I have been raised to understand it. There are just certain, specific elements of the movie that carry so much dramatic weight and emotional power that it elevates the entire experience beyond what most Vietnam films are capable of.

For example, the first half of the film takes place at the Marine's boot camp. It becomes evident that the entire experience is tailored not just to creating a professional soldier, but to doing so with a clear, unequivocal acceptance that these soldiers will die in combat and never be more than a number. The haunting, vacant acceptance of this reality slowly builds an undeniable sense of dread that dramatically and literally seems to peak the night before the recruits leave for Vietnam, but really only briefly plateaus before ramping up again, making the entire experience of watching the film emotionally exhausting. I can only imagine that this was intentional, allowing the audience to experience in small measure what the real soldiers of the time endured.

Anyway, the film is incredible. I defintely don't recommend it to anyone who doesn't enjoy hardcore war films, but for those who want to understand the Vietnam experience better, this movie will accomplish that in a more direct and focused way than a depression-drenched effort like Platoon.

Movie Review: Cloverfield

2008-07-11T22:23:00.002-04:00

I watched this movie again on DVD, cautiously optimistic that I might enjoy it more the second time, which really wasn't much of a challenge since I wasn't too blown away by the first movie.

I think the real difference was that watching it on a TV screen was less annoying than on a movie screen. Filmed as a 90-minute hand-held horror flick, I left the theater thinking that the gimmick had been stretched too far. But the effect was less overwhelming on a TV screen and I found myself enjoying the movie so much more.

So that's about it. Watch the movie when you want a good scare from a relatively unique perspective on the monster movie genre!

Movie Review: Hellboy II: The Golden Army

2008-07-11T21:36:00.002-04:00

As a continuation of the year of comic book movies, another tremendous entry has been made. Quite simply, if you liked the first Hellboy, then you will love Hellboy II. It is superior in every way and the few weaknesses of the first movie are only vaguely carried over to the second.

There are two things that make Hellboy awesome. First is the character himself. Hellboy is an everyday, blue-collar guy who has a job that is only one aspect of his life; an aspect that is in no worse turmoil than any other facet of his life. The fact that he is a demon with red skin, horns, a tail, and a love of cats is just details. You simply cannot be around Hellboy and not think that he would be fun to hang with. This is a truly remarkable achievement since the character and setting of the film are so far removed from anything you are familiar with.
The second thing that I love about the Hellboy movies, particularly the second film, is the fact that it is truly a fantasy world. It occured to me as I left the theater that this movie is every bit as much a fantasy as The Lord of the Rings, the setting is simply modern-day NYC. Again, it is amazing that the film takes something so beyond the veil of familiarity and manages to firmly root it a relatable, completely enjoyable environment.
These two bonuses are purely a product of director Guillermo del Toro, who has emphatically stated that Hellboy has always been a pet project. In fact, he turned down several guarenteed blockbusters to ensure that he could devote his time and attention to Hellboy. For the love of all that's sacred, he turned down Halo and effectively killed the project; a bold move that made me cry a little bit inside. But del Toro has proved that success lies in doing what you love. His skills have been evident in films such as Blade II (the best of the series) and Pan's Labyrinth, which rightfully recieved an absurd amount of critical praise. All of his experience and incredible imagination is brought to bear in Hellboy II, and the result is simply pure, unadulterated fun.

Now, all of that said, I did leave the movie slightly less thrilled than I expected. My expectations were admittedly hyper-inflated, but I noticed a few flaws that ever-so-slightly dimmed the experience. First of all, I'm absolutely sure that I loved The Incredible Hulk more, even though the general critical consensus is that Hulk as an inferior film. I might even say that Iron Man was more thrilling (though it definitely had less heart.) The only other complaint I had was Hellboy's wife in the film, Liz Sherman. Just like the first movie, she just looks dour and depressed the entire time. Even the scenes where she is supposed to show either anger or happiness are just overwhelmed with her lack of emotional involvement in anything beyond her own sadness. It's too bad, really, because the actress looks the part and every interview seems to indicate that she loves the opportunity to be in the films. It would just be nice if she cracked a genuine smile every now and then.

As a final word, I completely recommend Hellboy II. The Hellboy universe is fresh, exciting, and different from virtualy any other comic book character, making it a nice diversion. At least for 7 days until The Dark Knight comes out and blows everything else away...

And since I suspect my mom might read this, you and dad should go see the movie: there is a significant scene that takes place at Giant's Causeway in Ireland. That's, like, cool and stuff, yeah?

FYI...

2008-07-07T18:48:00.001-04:00

If anyone is interested, here's a link to the trailer for the film that was made in Antarctica while I was there. I haven't seen it yet, but I'm sure I'll pick up the DVD when I can.
For the record, I recognize several people and locations...sweet!

Movie Review: 10,000 B.C.

2008-07-01T00:52:00.003-04:00

This movie is exactly what I expected from the makers of Independance Day, Stargate, and The Day After Tomorrow: a vapid film that works better as a special-effects demo than as a story-telling medium. The biggest difference: no actors of any appreciable celebrity or skill. Oh, and more wooly mammoths.
About 10 seconds into the opening narration of this movie, I already didn't give a crap. The narration went on and off throughout the film, delivered as if it was some important, long-lost tale of heroism. Yeah, whatever...it's fiction, straight up. There is absolutely no aspect of this movie that has any anchor in reality, other than that it exists for real. The concept that so much fiction is presented with such conviction for the purpose of establishing a foothold on reality is itself a deeper philosophical dichotomy than anything the film conveys.
But I digress. The question is: Is 10,000 B.C. worth watching? Well, yeah, if you want to watch a 100 minutes of better-than-average special effects. They are not photo-realistic by any measure, but there something kinda cool about seeing a saber-toothed tiger in a movie. There's also something entrancing about a lead actress with the bluest eyes you've ever seen. Beyond that, no...there's no real reason to watch this movie.
To be honest, I kinda switched between watching the movie and playing Grand Theft Auto 4. Whenever the movie got slow, I'd recharge by stealing some cars and racing them around Liberty City. Once I'd gotten the adrenaline flowing a bit, I'd switch back to 10,000 B.C. and watch it for awhile. I think it took about 3 cycles to get through, which is less than the 6 cycles (over 2 days) I needed to get through Harsh Times.
So yeah...watch it if you want. You'll probably be entertained and when the movie over you'll think "Man, I wish they'd make a movie about that time period that is worth remembering. Oh well...back to reality." And the rest of your day/life will proceed as if nothing happened. Cuz really, nothing did.

Movie Review: Wanted

2008-07-01T00:07:00.002-04:00

I once read a review of the movie Shoot 'Em Up that described it as 'gun porn'. That was not far off the mark, and it was a really fun movie. Shoot 'Em Up was not, however, a particularly good movie. It's only redeeming quality was the ludicrous amount of gunfire and Clive Owens' 'wink-I-know-this-movie-is-ridiculous' performance.
Now the world has Wanted to add to the ubiquitous cinematic sub-genre of 'gun porn'. And luckily, it is actually a good movie. Scratch that, it's great.
Now don't take that to mean that it has an Oscar-worthy plot or storyline. The opening title card of the movie states that 'The Fraternity', a secret society of assassins, was created thousands of years ago by a group of weavers...
Riiiiiiiiiight...
A bunch of weavers changed careers mid-stream and became assassins. Can I do that? What is the market for computer geeks who want to become highly-paid assassins? Anyway, that's the level of suspension of disbelief the film requires.
Aside from this kind of conceptual absurdity, the movie is an awesome exercise in style over substance. This potentially disastrous ratio is nullified by the astronomically entertaining level of action the film maintains throughout its running time. The actions scenes are choreographed to perfection and show that there are just some things that are meant to be experienced on the big screen.
James McAvoy, some Scottish kid who I'm pretty sure I could beat up, plays the main character and does a perfectly acceptable job. For more entrancing is Angelina Jolie, primarily because she is Angelina Jolie. I think I've figured out what it is about her that draws everyone in: she is sulty. That word seems to sum up the whole effect of her looks, voice, eyes, lips, etc., etc., etc. Sultry is kind of a mix of the words 'sexy' and 'ultra', so I dare you to think of a more better word to descibe her. Morgan Freeman has an important role that, as a great actor, he manages to make seem entirely credible until the screenwriters ran out of authoritative dialog near the end of the film. There are other people on the movie, but they are all unimportant and mostly cannon-fodder.
Which brings me back to the whole point of the movie: guns. I don't know if it's the fact that I live in America, where guns are a guarenteed right in the Constitution, or the fact that I earned my rifle merit badge in Boy Scouts, but something in my past has made me a huge admirer of firearms. I'm simply fascinated by the new and wonderful ways that filmmakers come up with to film an activity that is so fundamentally simplistic and commonplace in entertainment media. This movie is constructed around a vast array of ways to use a gun to shoot stuff. On a bullet-to-bullet level, this movie is as creative as The Matrix for its utilization of munitions. And if you just enjoy that kind of this like I do, then this is defintely the movie for you.
On a more subtle and perhaps thought-provoking note, it did occur to me somewhere midway through the film that it was desperately trying to be like Fight Club. The general philosophy that most people waste their lives doing things they hate (job) for reason that don't actually bring happiness (money) is an important concept the film flirts with, but is ultimately nullified in the fantasy world the film takes place in. I still maintain that no other movie ever made conveys an important social message as effectively as Fight Club, so trying to imitate it, especially the same message (the corrupting effect of materialism and commercialism), is an exercise in futility. Still, there is no question that Wanted tries to convey a similar message, but as a distant side note to the wanton violence it primarily focuses on.
Finally, I'll leave with a comment on the fact that Wanted is based on a graphic novel, i.e. a comic book. 2008 is shaping up as the year of the comic book movie and it's nice to see the genre continue to mature and grow. I have my doubts that it will ever be taken entirely seriously, but I am glad that it is becoming more of a footnote for films instead of a disclaimer. And everytime a really good movie comes out based on comic books, my smile widens a little bit to think that films are finally accomplishing what printed media was unable to do for over a hundred years: legitimise the most imaginitive and fantastic story-telling medium out there.

I hesitate to recommend Wanted to too many people. It's rife with violence, including a shload of people getting shot with blody results. The violence is so over-the-top and stylized that an episode of CSI is more disturbing, but nonetheless, it's bloody. But if you don't mind a few f-bombs encapsulated in a bajillion bullets, then this movie is for you. Period.

Movie Review: Harsh Times

2008-06-30T23:56:00.003-04:00

Harsh Times was written and directed by David Ayer, the man who wrote Training Day and wrote/directed Street Kings. This is another cops/criminals movie. It's the weakest of the three.
The movie is about a ex-soldier suffering from severe PTSD who is trying to get a job after being discharged from the military. His best friend, also looking for a job, follows him around for a few days of their lives. Both friends have no inhibitions to criminal activity, drug use, or any range of dodgy activities.
The only reason to watch the movie, should you choose to, is Christian Bale's performance as Jim Davis, the ex-soldier. He gives a solid performance in a role that elicits absolutely no sympathy from the audience. It actually speaks well of Bale that he could make such a detestable character watchable.
But when push comes to shove, the movie's really about two complete rejects with no redeeming qualities who ultimately get only a fraction of the punishment they receive. The most tragic part of the movie is the way the two methodically destroy the lives of everyone that cares for them.
So...no, I don't recommend it to anyone, unless you really want to see Christian Bale demonstrate how good he is at literally any role he takes on. But then again, if you really want to se him in a great movie, watch ANYTHING ELSE HE'S EVER MADE.

Movie Review: The Incredible Hulk

2008-06-28T12:22:00.003-04:00

Oh yeah, The Incredible Hulk rocked! I'm utterly biased, since I'm always thought the Hulk was awesome; second only to Batman on my scale of superheroes.
I also acknowledge the ultimate problem in bringing the Hulk to the big screen. Unlike Batman, Superman, Iron Man, or any number of other superheroes, the Hulk doesn't actively fight crime or solve problems. The Incredible Hulk is a guy who turns into a giant monster when he gets mad and loses the capacity for cognitive thought. How can he be a hero when his talent is catastrophic destruction?
The answer: Who gives a fuck?!?! CATASTROPHIC DESTRUCTION, MOTHERFUCKER!!
The answer: Who really cares?!?! I freaking love movies with lots of catastrophic destruction and this movie is an orgy of destruction. For that reason alone, I loved it. But there's so much more...

As a remarkably pleasant bonus, the movie also manages to largely eliminate the fundamental flaw in the Hulk as a superhero...more on that in a minute.
The Hulk movie from 5 years ago was a super-expensive art-house film about the Hulk's father that attempted to create a feasibly realistic character universe for the one superhero that pretty much doesn't need realism. Again, when you make a movie about a dude that changes into a giant green monster that is hella-pissed, you just can't turn that into a Saving Private Ryan-type drama. You essentially just need a movie that has this angry fellow destroying lots of stuff.
Back to the new movie: The Incredible Hulk is basically a reboot of the franchise, much like Casino Royale was for James Bond. The film follows Bruce Banner as he is trying to find a cure for his condition, hiding away in any corner of the earth he can. At the same time, the US military is trying to find him not only as a supposed escaped criminal, but because his condition represents a potentially awesome advance in battlefield soldier technology. As Bruce races to find a cure, he struggles to control his anger, which he knows will hurt other people as well as blow his cover. Long story short: Bruce eventually is found, his condition exploited, and he has to fight another monster that possesses some of the same powers and weaknesses he has as the Hulk.
The action in the movie is well-placed and well-paced. We don't have to wait more than 10 minutes before the Hulk starts beating the crap out of...well, everything (unlike the last movie, which took 45 minutes to show the Hulk.) And from then on, the film keeps the tension high as Bruce struggles, often and furtunately without success, to keep the beast at bay.

There are two things I really, really liked about this movie that led me to the conclusion that I like this film more than Iron Man. First of all, Edward Norton owns the role of Bruce Banner. He looks scrawny yet intelligent enough that you completely buy into him as a brilliant scientist who doesn't bear any of the physical traits his alter-ego possesses. Norton shows the frustration of Banner's situation, but also the drive and determination that makes his cause heroic. He could have easily been a real downer the whole movie, constantly lamenting his condition. That would have been depressing and one-dimensional. Instead, we get an exceptional actor demonstrating just how good his range is with a smart, funny character who is doing a great job navigating such desperate human territory.
Secondly, in complete opposition to Iron Man's philandering-sleaze-as hero, Bruce Banner has a real emotional connection to Betty Ross that transcends both of their situations. From the moment she sees a glimpse of Bruce as he accidentally walks into the same room with her, I was completely on-board, wanting the best for both characters but unsure of exactly what that might be. This desire for emotional closure as a viewer is a huge step in overcoming the suspension of disbelief required for the movie. The fact that the major emotional fulcrum of the movie was executed so well represents the reason the film works.

As for the Hulk as superhero, I really liked how the film dealt with it. In only a couple of sequences, Bruce explains that when he changes, he feels like his mind is overcharged, and that it is simply too overwhelming to control. But we've learned that not only is Bruce actively teaching himself methods of controlling his anger to prevent the Hulk from appearing at all, but that these techniques combined with his love for Betty slowly allow him to gain control over himself when he does transform. The transition between complete mindlessness and controlled rage is a consistent progression throughout the film's numerous Bruce-to-Hulk transformation; the transition to completely controlled Hulk is also not completed, which is important for sequels!
I liked how the Hulk (as a monster) was shown in a variety of situations: an uncontrolled change in response to fear and danger, another uncontrolled transition to protect Betty, a controlled change in a laboratory, a touching scene with Betty on a mountainside, and a final voluntary change to battle the bad monster. The subtle but important differences in context each time the Hulk appeared allowed the viewer to learn new and different aspects about him as a monster and, ultimately, as a real superhero.
As with any superhero movie, the film lives or dies by the quality of the nemesis (though not necessarily villain!), and there are two great ones in this film. General Ross (Betty's father) is the perennial nemesis who simply wants to cover his own failures by regaining control of Banner. He's tough but ultimately practical, finally knowing when he needs to stop fighting and start supporting Banner. Emil Blonsky is the real villain, and he creates a great character: an over-the-hill soldier who is given a second lease on the career he loves, but then goes way, way, way too far with it. Both men are well played by excellent actors and provide very different, if compelling, opponents to both Bruce Banner and the Hulk.
When all is said and done, I really loved The Incredible Hulk. I think comic book movies are truly coming into their own and it's nice to see one that is NOT an origin movie, but a truly great film itself. Having just watched 5 Dirty Harry movies and The Happening, The Incredible Hulk is clearly superior to all of them by leaps and bounds and HULK SMASHes!!!

Movie Review: The Happening

2008-06-28T11:55:00.002-04:00

I quote myself from a text I sent my good friend Michelle immediately after the credit rolled:
"The Happening was ass"

This was one of the worst movie's I remember seeing. I would rather watch Aliens Vs. Predator 2 again. It is almost impossible to quantify everything about this movie that was bad. But there are a few notable horrors:
1. There is no tension in the movie whatsoever. For a horror flick, there should be some underlying current of terror. None here, folks...Finding Nemo is scarier and more emotionally and psychologically challenging.
2. Every actor looks like they are not only reading directly from cue-cards, but are also not reading them until some unseen force off-screen (probably the director?) cues them to read the cue cards. It's funny how awful people look and sound as they attempt to spout hideous dialog. Just not funny enough to sit through for 90 minutes.
3. The film is needlessly gruesome. Violence has its place in movies and entertainment, but when it is nothing more than violent images with no emotional or moral purpose and no consequential explanation, then it is simply disgusting and unpleasant.
4. The director's modus operandi is to take a fantastic idea and make a brooding, thoughtful film around it. The Sixth Sense, Signs, The Village, Unbreakable: they all take concepts that could easily be completely laughable and absurd, and actually craft a respectable, and sometimes phenomenal film around them. Now we can see just how close to the line Shyamalan treads, as he takes yet another potentially absurd concept, but this time creates a movie that only hyper-emphasizes how asinine it is. The Happening had a really strong connection to The Day After Tomorrow, except that this movie was not fun or enjoyable at all, even when it was similarly raping every scientific principle known to man.
5. The actors, most of them excellent in other films, particularly Mark Wahlburg, are utterly wasted. They all turn in what could easily be acknowledged as their worst performance ever. There is no consistency in the tone of their performances, no underlying logic to their emotional state at any given point in the film, and certainly no connection between any characters. It is simply a god-awful display of excellent actors floundering around a film with no higher goal than to end the pain.

I've read it plenty of times that M. Night Shyamalan is simply a pretentious douche who got lucky with a few of his movies. I now agree. His movies just exude the subtle undercurrent of a filmmaker who is under the false impression that people will love his movies no matter what, simply because they are "something that hasn't been done before." What he doesn't realize is that simply having a unique idea doesn't make it a good idea. And with his last two movies, he's shown that he doesn't recognize the audience's ability to smell a rat. Well, he has successfully driven me away from anything else he makes by insulting my intelligence and patience one too many times.

Movie Review: The Road Warrior

2008-06-28T08:29:00.002-04:00

God Bless AppleTV!

The Road Warrior can only be bought on DVD in probably the worst, VHS-like quality known to man. Thankfully, Apple offers the movie in widescreen HD quality as a rental. The minute I discovered this, I rented it.

The Road Warrior is an awesome movie. The dialog is terrible, the story is lean and simple, the costumes are strange, bordering on S&M-offensive. But the real treat; the real reason this movie is a fundamental classic, is twofold: Mel Gibson and the car chases.

Mel had hardly any movies under his belt when he made The Road Warrior and you can tell that his lack of polished skill is complemented by an intensity and focus that perfectly fit the character. As a sequel (to Mad Max), Mel made a tremendous improvement in performance while demonstrating the early traits of what has made him such a great actor today.

Secondly, the car chases are phenomenal. It is not a stretch to say that countless movies, from The Matrix Reloaded to all 4 Fast and Furious movies, reference The Road Warrior as inspiration if not direct duplication. There is a clear sense of geography in the action scenes and in no way, shape, or form are the stunts anything but practical effects; there was no CGI. It is very clearly a monumental achievement that a 20-minute car chase was made with no modern special effects, while still making the entire sequence easy to follow and intense for its dramatic intensity.

Anyway, I hope that a decent DVD comes out soon, or that I eventually get a Blu-Ray player, because watching such an old movie restored so perfectly was fantastic.

Movie Reviews: Magnum Force, The Enforcer, Sudden Impact, The Dead Pool

2008-06-23T23:59:00.005-04:00

The original plan was to write a review for each of the Dirty Harry movies as I watched them, but having finished watching them last night, I've decided to just write one post that reviews the rest. Here's the low-down:

Magnum Force: Boring, long, unfocused, and clearly made to capitalize on the surprise success of Dirty Harry. The story about a group of rookie cops who 'duplicate and elaborate' Dirty Harry is too simplistic a plot and stretched over way too long. There are no real surprises and Eastwood tries to humanize Harry to the point where he's the most grounded cop--not the gruff bastard we like expect from the first film.

The Enforcer: A whole movie that preaches about how women can be good cops too. I guess this was a real issue back in the 70s, but the entire concept is so dated and carried out in such a misogynistic way that the whole movie really struggles for thematic relevance in 2008. That said, Harry as a character was more like in the original: utterly uncompromising, with more one-liners than you can shake a stick at.

Sudden Impact: Probably the darkest and most disturbing of the DH films, this one focuses on Harry trying to find a vigilante who is killing a group of people we eventually discover are responsible for the rape of two sisters. Harry is unstoppable with the one-liners and there are some legitimate dramatic conflicts that accompany any vigilante story. Short of the original, this movie is probably the best, though a very, very far cry from the Kill Bill movies, which have a similar story but are way better.

The Dead Pool: This movie featured Jim Carrey and Guns N' Roses in cameo roles, making that the best part of the movie. The plot was revolves around a series of murders that ties into a game being played by a group of Hollywood filmmakers called the Dead Pool. The movie seemed to be building towards a really cool twist, but suffered two catastrophic problems: first, an absurdly ridiculous 'car chase' with Harry trying to outrun a tiny remote control car while driving a regular car, and the apparently idiotic decision to avoid the great twist and go for a boring ending. The action scenes were silly and despite good performances by Eastwood and Liam Neeson, this movie mostly sucked.

I was actually surprised by the Dirty Harry movies. I expected a series of movies featuring an American icon; each movie gradually enhancing and expanding the mythos around the incorrigible but uncompromising titular character--something like the Rambo movies. Instead, the movies are more like 5 episodes (of hugely disparate quality) from a decent TV show featuring a great main character rarely surrounded by characters or material that match. The movies are very firmly planted in the eras they were made, powerfully reflecting the dated social mores of the time and place. Sadly, aside from the character of Dirty Harry, nothing about these movies translates into entertaining film-watching today. The fact is that a few episodes of CSI or a few well-chosen movies (SE7EN, Lethal Weapon 1 or 2) convey similar themes and stories with more engaging storytelling and supporting characters. And I doubt I'll ever feel compelled to watch 10 hours of movies again for a half-dozen action scenes featuring Eastwood growling great lines while shooting bad guys.

Anyway, I don't feel like writing anything else cuz really, the material doesn't warrant it. Check out the first movie and Sudden Impact; skip the rest.

Movie Review: Dirty Harry

2008-06-21T23:56:00.002-04:00

Until a couple weeks ago, this is everything I knew about Dirty Harry: he was played by Clint Eastwood, he used a .44-Magnum revolver, and he said catchy phrases before shooting bad guys ("Go ahead...make my day.") I also knew that he was a cultural icon, so when the boxed set came out last week, I grabbed it.
Did you know that there are 5 Dirty Harry movies? Neither did I. I'll write a review of each one as I have time to watch them; this is the first.

I gathered from the special features that the Dirty Harry character was written as a response to widespread corruption throughout law enforcement nationwide and that the public was outraged that criminals were often granted more extensive rights than their victims. From this cultural setting of the late-60s, early-70s, somebody wrote a script about an incorruptible cop with a penchant for simple, lethal justice: Harry Callahan, AKA Dirty Harry.

The first movie is actually quite good, particularly for the time it was made. It perfectly reflects the cultural environment that spawned it, featuring a stagnant justice system and nearly universally incompetent cops, all of whom are faced with a psychotic sniper who is blackmailing San Francisco. The film follows the parallel stories of the sniper and his pursuer, Dirty Harry.

From a technical and narrative standpoint, there is a subtle, underlying sense of naivete throughout this film that suggests that the filmmakers, including Eastwood, had no clue that the film would be so ridiculously popular and spawn an iconic American character. The story basically meanders through a few days in the life of Dirty Harry as he solves the big murder case while coincidentally solving several other 'minor' cases, almost all of which are accomplished with the assistance of his massive firearm. The film is gritty and shows the seedy underside of SF, pulling no punches; yet there is a clear focus in the film on tracking down and stopping the sniper.

Now, all of that said, Dirty Harry had its problems. The pace and action are clearly outdated. It seemed funny to me that the special features included numerous interviews with people like Arnold Schwazenegger, who credited Dirty Harry with inspiring him to make action movies. The simple fact of the the matter is that many of Arnold's movies are superior to DH in terms of pacing and, obviously, action. In 1972, it was probably shocking once to see a large handgun like the one Harry uses. But nowadays, the use of firearms in film is a science, and audiences are far more informed about the types and purposes of many of the weapons featured in any number of films. Similarly, when the one-good-cop cliches were first being established by films like this, the pacing was probably appropriate, to allow people to process the new urban-terror aspect of the film. But today, there are countless movies with tough cops chasing crazy killers; I personally think Seven was a more effective and powerful serial killer movie that definitely made Dirty Harry seem slow and boring.

But none of that is really the point here. Like any art form, as a film Dirty Harry has to be viewed with a clear understanding of the time in which it was made, and with the ability to not compare it to later movies that themselves were trying to emulate Dirty Harry (perhaps unaware that they surpassed the original.)

Anyway, it's not the kind of movie I'm gonna pop in on a Friday night to be entertained, but it's definitely the kind of movie I'll throw in when I want to see Clint in his prime growling one-liners to criminals. The movie is entertaining and though times have changed and the particular circumstances that spawned Dirty Harry have changed and evolved, it's clearly evident from this movie why Dirty Harry is still so popular.

What Is A Classic? ['There Will Be Blood' Re-review]

2008-06-08T21:35:00.002-04:00

I am relatively confident that you have not seen There Will Be Blood. Why? Because I've met three people in the world that have, and two of them don't know this blog exists...

But there are more people in the world that have seen it, and they seem to fall into one of two camps:
1. That was the worst, most boring movie I've ever seen, despite Daniel Day-Lewis' amazing performance.
2. That film is an American classic that will be appreciated by future generations as a great cinematic accomplishment of early-21st century America.

Do you see the dichotomy? It's almost funny that opinions are so absolutely opposite each other. As fate would have it, I fall into category 2, though perhaps not quite that pronounced.

I re-watched There Will Be Blood today, this being the second viewing after seeing it in the theater earlier this year. My former review was positive and still stands, but I've been contemplating ever since exactly what makes a film a legitimate classic, particularly one that so many people seem to hate. So here's what I've concluded after my second viewing.

I just re-read my initial review and still stand by it, though I chuckled to myself with the grandiose statements I peppered the review with; "On every level is exudes excellence..." Perhaps I was a little over-the-top in my language. Nonetheless, There Will Be Blood is still an excellent movie. It again held my attention start to finish, despite the fact that watching movies at home lends itself to wandering focus. Not this time.

Like it or not, the history of the United States since 1900 could easily be interpreted through the framework of the oil industry. As future generations look back on 20th and early 21st century America, there will likely be one defining feature: oil. It has changed the face of our country from its economics to the day-to-day lives of every citizen. Oil and its bi-products have permeated every single aspect of our lives. This is a fact, incontrovertible and immutable. And few people could really argue the fact that our nation is beginning the great transition away from its utter reliance on oil as it's primary source of motive energy.
The history of the birth and (probable) death of the oil industry intertwines with America in a much more personal way than most of us acknowledge or understand. There Will Be Blood is a classic because it captures these two distinct time-periods; the birth of oil in a literal sense, and the death in a philosophical sense.
The film plainly and accurately shows how the oil industry was born. This aspect of the film is simply a matter of historical fact, and the accuracy of its portrayal is proven by the special features on the DVD. These include authentic and extensive photographic and motion picture archival material from the early 1900s produced by the Department of the Interior for exactly the purpose it is used on the discs: historical reference and information. Watching the material shows how earnestly and successfully the filmmakers strove to show exactly what conditions were really like. Taken from this point alone, the film is an impressive achievement.
Far more challenging and impressive in its success is the manner in which the film tackles the second aspect: the death of the oil industry. This aspect is told solely through the main character of Daniel Plainview. His life as portrayed in the film symbolizes the rise and fall of probably the richest yet most corrupt industry in the United States. As previously indicated, Plainview's character arch is expertly and perfectly portrayed by Daniel Day-Lewis. Plainview is a complex man, whose life has two very different aspects to it. On one hand is the hard-working, practical business man, who works staggeringly hard to earn everything he gains. There is no question that he embodies the type of industrialist that Ayn Rand would worship; an objectivist who is uncompromising in his demands as well as his expectations of compensation for his labors. The wealth he accumulates is, generally, a result of his expert use of a capitalist economic system. On the other hand, Plainview is a ruthless man, who exploits those who are too weak to stand up to him, which ultimately turns out to be everyone else. No philosophy, religion, or human need can crack the stone heart he has crafted in his own soul; he indicates himself that his hatred of other people's weaknesses has utterly consumed his life.
On every level, Plainview can easily represent the modern-day oil industry: as wildly economically successful as it is socially detached from the very people it earns its money from. Is this bad? I believe that largely depends on where you stand on the matter of capitalism versus socialism. If you support any business' right to supply a good that meets a demand, than Plainview's choices seem fairly logical, and far more upright than the real-life corruption that typically permeates our perception of the oil industry; Plainview is an almost idealized version of what people probably wish the oil industry was really like. However, if you feel that a business bears some responsibility to the people and communities it relies on above and beyond the compensation that employment contracts dictate, than Plainview is a villain beyond almost any other portrayed in film. It occurred to me several times during the movie that Plainview is clearly more vicious and uncompromising that Emperor Palpatine in Star Wars, who could arguably be described as one of the most conniving and Machiavellian villains in all cinema. As this film unfolds in the last act, we find that virtually every good deed Plainview seemed to engage in was simply a precursor to a shocking betrayal or exploitation. This is, in large part, the same way that the oil industry is publicly perceived today.

There Will Be Blood is a classic because it profoundly and accurately presents these themes, and many more, within a film that is fascinating to watch and rewarding to anyone who takes the time to examine these issues. I suspect that 100 years from now, people will watch this film and feel as if they legitimately understand why our country evolved in the way it did during the era of oil. It is not a light film by any measure, and to go into it expecting to have the morality play spelled out is to illicit deep disappointment and possibly misguided criticism of the film. There Will Be Blood demands that the viewer critically examine the films themes and decide exactly how the issues apply to your life. As with any real capitalist venture, you truly reap what you sow when watching a film of this depth.

Ninja Assassin

2008-05-30T23:47:00.002-04:00

The Wachowski Brother/Siblings/Wierdos-But-Awesome-Filmmakers are involved in making a movie called Ninja Assassin. I cannot possibly think of anything that could be a more awesomer idea for a movie. There are two things that make this awesome: Ninjas and Assassins.

The absolute beauty of this film is the absolute simplicity of it. There is really nothing in the world more sublimely beautiful than properly executed ninja movies. In all of cinematic history, there have been brief glimpses of this concept, but only partially realized, due to their brevity and lack of exact focus on this precise concept. Seven Samurai is perhaps the oldest and, ironically, one of the best examples. Tom Cruise's The Last Samurai similarly contains elements of ninja-awesome. The Matrix Trilogy contains the most actual ninja action in terms of quantity, though it is sullied by combining it with other elements, like computers, and Zion, and junk.

Anyway, consider this an official heads-up. Short of a catastrophic failure on the part of whoever is involved in making the movie, I plan on geeking out to this film in 12-18 months. If you are in any way an awesome person, you should begin making preliminary plans as well.

Note: If you are a friend of mine, then rest assured: you have elements of awesome in you. Otherwise, I would not acknowledge your existence. Just FYI...

Movie Re-Review: Rambo

2008-05-27T21:38:00.001-04:00

Bought the DVD today. This movie is still freaking awesome.

Movie Review: Indiana Jones and the Blah Blah Blah

2008-05-23T20:52:00.007-04:00

I loved this movie, but like the movie itself, I feel that my review, as originally written, was kind of a re-tread of a lot of recent, previous reviews. Here's a brief summary:
1. Another 80's franchise resurrected...
2. First in franchise series still best...
3. New movie surprisingly good, though...
Yet again, my original review was much longer, but redundant; those three statements encompassed several paragraphs of drivel. If all you want to know is whether I liked the movie, the answer is YES. If you want to know more, here's a bit:

Harrison Ford hasn't acted or appeared in a decent movie since The Fugitive (1993), except for maybe, almost, sorta What Lies Beneath. Yes, he has most certainly appeared in more movies than he's acted in--watch Firewall.
Steven Spielberg has really struggled to make an entertaining popcorn movie for a few years; the closest he's come is Minority Report or Catch Me If You Can, neither of which is real popcorn material. For that, we're looking at 1997's Jurassic Park 2, which blew.
George Lucas essentially defiled Star Wars mythology with the prequels, making about 2 hours of respectable Star Wars over the course of 7 hours of vapid acting and wretched dialog. Other than that, George Lucas hasn't done anything whatsoever.
Add to this the fact that I really hated most of the trailers. I had some real concerns about this movie and my expectations were remarkably low for a sequel to one of the best action-adventure movies ever made: Raiders of the Lost Ark.

Fortunately, Indy 4 was far better than I expected and I'm excited to go see it again Memorial Day. If you are reading this, you should have already seen it, or dang well better see it soon. I don't really want to rank it among the previous installments yet; I prefer to wait until I've had time to ruminate.
The Crystal Skull didn't actually resort to as many self-referential one-liners as I feared, and Harrison Ford finally brought his A-game, demonstrating that he definitely remembers how to act, it's simply a matter of getting him passionate about something. I read another review that said that Harrison Ford is a difficult challenge for most of the directors he's worked with the last few years. Not because he's a difficult person, but he's Harrison Ford: the most profitable movie star in the world; most directors simply don't know how to handle and challenge a star as massive as Ford. Spielberg is probably one of the few directors who's talent and resume can match Ford's, and it seems evident that both of them really enjoyed the reunion.
The movie itself has some genuinely great thrills; a couple of times the word "Zombies!!" escaped my lips, usually preceded by some four-letter expletive. And lets be honest: any movie that even suggests zombies is aces in my book. The action is thrilling, with several massive set-pieces that were impressive enough to make me think "How'd they do that without CGI?" (Spielberg said they tried to minimize the CGI...I mostly believe him, since a lot of bigger sequences looked real enough to me.) The story itself is as good as any of the other films, with a new setting in the 1950s a welcome change.
There were a few stumbling blocks. Cate Blanchett's hair was a $5 Halloween wig, stolen from a Star Trek convention. The quicksand scene was so awful and extraneous, that I cannot fathom decent filmmakers watching the movie as a whole and not saying "Yeah, let's leave that scene on the cutting room floor, where we can stomp on it and destroy it." I throw up a little in the back of my mouth every time a movie resorts to hitting men in the junk for a laugh; it's not funny, even when Shia LaBouf is being sacked by plants while straddling two jeeps. Especially when Shia LeBouf is being sacked by plants while straddling two jeeps. Shia himself did a surprisingly respectable job, but the way his character entered and exited the movie were sickeningly lame. The ending was WAY too sugar-coated Disney for me.
But all in all, the good severely out-weighed the bad. I would trade half the movies I've seen this year for the punching sound-effect used in the Indy movies. Someday, I hope to be in a fight where I punch someone and this loud, awesome sound effect is heard by everyone around. Indy's hat and whip are characters themselves, and make the geek in me shudder with joy. The brief cameo of the Ark of the Covenant was great. The character of Mac was nearly superfluous, but his double- and triple-agent lines were gold. And it was nice to see Marion again, even though the intervening 27 years since Raiders have evidently been spent slapping her face full of wrinkles and bad make-up.

So there you have it. A great movie, perfect for summertime when I expect my popcorn movies to take me away from my world for two-hour stints every week or so. Mission accomplished.

Movie Review: Chariots of Fire

2008-05-21T22:38:00.004-04:00

Do you like really slow British historical films that won Oscars? Then Chariots of Fire is for you!

This is going to be brief, I promise. Chariots of Fire is a great movie based on a true story of two British Olympians preparing for the 1924 Olympics in France. The film is a dramatic character piece showing how each athlete is very different in his preparations and motivations. One is a determined, Jewish scholar who hires a professional trainer to hone his skills. The other is a Scottish missionary who has a natural gift for running. Kind of like the opposite of me.
Anyway, the film's primary focus is on the Scottish Eric Liddell, the clear favorite, who is faced with a crisis of conscious when the Olympic trials are help on a Sunday and he refuses to compete. The moral conflict is expands as British national honor is put on the line.
Ultimately, the film is a powerful statement on personal integrity, strengthened by it's support of keeping the Sabbath day holy, a commandment largely ignored in today's world.
As expected, the film is really slow and ponderous; I paused it once to play some Grand Theft Auto 4 to wake myself up (I'm classy.) But there are a few genuinely thrilling and touching moments, due largely to the musical score by Vangelis, who snagged an Oscar for his effort; well-deserved since everyone with the capacity to hear sound recognizes the theme music from the film.
I totally recommend Chariots of Fire as a good Sunday movie--I was glad I watched it instead of a zombie flick on the Sabbath day...

Movie Re-Review: Mission: Impossible 2

2008-05-21T21:02:00.003-04:00

Please, I know. You hate the movie. How do I know this? Because I've NEVER MET ANYONE ELSE THAT LIKES IT.
I worked at a movie theater when MI2 came out and was actually paid to see the movie. Twice. (I'm totally unbiased, I swear.) I absolutely loved it and were it not for Gladiator, I would have seen MI2 more times in the theater than anything else that year. Sadly, I topped out at about 15 times.
Obviously, I loved it when it came out, but in the ensuing years, my opinion has faded. I have a sad tendency to actually seriously believe other people's opinions over time; they tend to erode my own opinion if I don't revisit a film enough. Such has been the case with MI2--so many people have talked trash over the years that I had begun to believe them. Well, screw that!! I watched it again and it kicked my ass!!

That said, this time, I was able to watch the movie from a more objective perspective. And to be completely honest, its significant flaws were far more evident and glaring. I'll start there, since you probably want to make sure I know why you hate the movie:

Buried inside MI2 is a really great movie. If you can examine the plot independently from the other aspects of the film, particularly the acting and dialog, then the fact is that the core narrative is as solid as either of the other two. I've read that the original version was nearly 3 hours and marginalized the action scenes to strengthen the plot and characters. I'd like to see that movie.
Unfortunately, as I've noted before with movies like Hitman, I think the primary problem is the fact that the film was made by a non-English-speaking guy. There are two ways that I feel this negatively impacts the movie, one general and one specific.
Generally, my main problems with MI2 seems rooted in a cultural gap. For example, the acting in the film is wildly divergent. Take Anthony Hopkins. Despite 30+ viewings, I only noticed this time that Hopkins tries to say something funny; to tell a joke. Does anyone else see the problem? Hopkins has no sense of humor. He is a ridiculously gifted actor but has a ridiculously small role that is underutilized and ultimately mis-cast. In fact, there is no consistency in tone between any of the characters: some are way too funny, some way too serious, some simply lost in between. It's like nobody on-screen really knew the tone the movie was aiming for: action? comedy? drama? Add to this the fact that the actors are of very divergent skills, and the end result is that the inconsistent tone makes every other weak-point of the film seem much worse. As I watched the movie, I had this sense that the director's unfamiliarity with Western culture left him unable to fully notice and evaluate these serious differences in tone throughout the film, which are often glaringly evidenced in the delivery of dialog. I normally wouldn't jump to this kind of conclusion, but John Woo's entire Hollywood repertoire is the same way: an inability to maintain any kind of consistent tone throughout his films. Most actors require a fair amount of input from a director regarding their performance, and without proper guidance, you end up with an actor like Anthony Hopkins displaying absolutely none of the acting skills we all know he possesses. Or you end up with Star Wars prequels.
The second problem is with John Woo specifically. As far as he is concerned, narrative takes a distant second place to staging action scenes. This is a double-edged sword. There is no doubt that the action scenes in MI2 are spectacular, and some movies are fantastic despite the action scenes overwhelming the plot (300). Unfortunately, Woo sacrifices a decent narrative for action scenes that end up being way too over-the-top. Most noticeable is the ridiculous motorcycle-jousting scene at the end of the movie, which is followed by the longest, most absurd fist-fight in all of film history. The scenes go from almost dramatically intense to far beyond belief, completely pulling the viewer out of the film. Woo loves doing this, and as bad as MI2 is, watch Paycheck sometime: it's a million times worse. Plus, someone needs to tell Woo that slow-mo doesn't make everything awesome. Some stuff looks stupid in slow motion, like catching a scarf caught in the wind--it appears to take no skill when done in slow motion.
In the end, I really think the movie would have been much stronger if the action scenes, particularly the final fight, were toned down and the narrative fleshed out and given room to breath. The basic elements were there for a solid movie, they just weren't mature enough to really show their colors.

Now, as I re-read that, it sounds really harsh; like I hated the movie. Not so. I love it. This movie is pure, unadulterated, mindless fun. The music in the movie is among my favorite scores by Hans Zimmer. The entire scene when Cruise breaks into the lab to destroy the virus is almost perfect, with the music defining the pace and emotion of the encounter. I really liked the choice to mute the sound effects of the massive firefight and let the score carry the viewer through the confrontation. Similarly, there are some respectable twists in the movie, like the Cruise having the bad guy unknowingly execute his own right-hand-man. The over-arching threat of an epidemic viral release is largely squandered, but if you really latch onto the implications, it gives serious gravity to the machinations of the plot and the actions of the characters. The actual car-motorcycle chase near the end is great (until they get to the beach...) The relationship between Cruise and the hot chick is ridiculously rushed, but shows some signs of dramatic life, especially given that the crux of the relationship hinges on Hunt completely misunderstanding why he is asked to recruit said hot chick. Like I said, right beneath the surface of the movie there is a really solid framework for a great movie; I think it just requires too much work for people to notice and appreciate, and this isn't the type of movie that should require that kind of effort; leave that kind of heavy-lifting to There Will Be Blood or something.

All in all, as I watched the movie, I completely remembered why I loved it so much. It's kind of like my own personal comfort movie: I watch it to just remind myself that sometimes mindless action flicks are what you need in life to relax. I guarantee that if I sit down to watch either the first or second Mission: Impossible movie, I'll choose MI2 every time. It's a shame that it is so derided; I think that hatred seriously affected the third (and admittedly best) film's performance in theaters as much as Cruise's new-found madness. Regardless, if you haven't watched MI2 in a while, check it out! You just might be surprised that it's not nearly as bad as you've been telling people...

As a side note, Cruise is in early talks to make a fourth, so sign me up right now--I'm all-the-way on board for that ride.

Movie Review: 30 Days of Night

2008-05-18T00:54:00.004-04:00

Vampires are scary. Especially when they're not the relatively friendly ones from things like Interview with the Vampire or Sex and the City. No, I'm talking about the scary-as-**** variety that makes you soil yourself. Such are the vampires in 30 Days of Night.
**** is short for 'fuck'
I've decided that there is little innovation in vampire movies. Basically, when a new movie is to be made, they take all the common elements, remove one element and change it (either a little bit or drastically,) put it back with the rest of the common elements, and blend it up to see what comes out. Sometimes, you get sweet-sweetness (Blade II) and sometimes you get pure crap (John Carpenter's Vampires.) But most fall somewhere in between. 30 Days of Night is in this area.

The Story: A small settlement in northern Alaska is on the verge of winter, when the town will be plunged into...wait for it...30 days of night!! In the 24-hours preceding the last sunset, local sheriff Josh 'I Can Barely Act But I Look Good' Hartnett receives a flurry of emergency calls in a town that typically doesn't warrant any law enforcement beyond keeping drunk people off their snowmobiles. All of the calls relate to a subtle, concerted effort to cut off the town from any form of communication from the outside world. It's subtle because only Josh Hartnett is capable of making you believe he is dumb enough to not notice that all communication is being cut off; literally anyone else would say "Hey, we've lost touch with the outside. Maybe sumpin's up, eh?" Anyway, sun goes down, vampires attack, small group of people must survive until dawn, which is 30 days away!!

The movie is based on a graphic novel (a long comic book) and when I looked at a copy at Borders today, it's illustrations were completely nebulous to visual interpretation; in other words, the pictures were so esoterically awful, that I literally could not tell what was happening in the graphic novel. This is bad for a literary medium that relies wholly upon illustrations with bubble quotes, but it serves the filmmakers very well since the only requirement for making a more accessible film version is to make sure that Jackson Pollock is not the production designer. Long story short: the movie looks really good. A lot of it reminded me of my time in Antarctica, where it was really cold and the loss of power or lack of food could have been really, really awful. Especially if compounded with an attack by a clan of vampires. Thank goodness that didn't happen!

Anyway, there are only two unique elements to the vampire genre in this movie: the location (letting the vamps have the run of the town for...30 days of nighttime!!) and the fact that they are apparently mentally retarded--only the leader can talk; the rest of the vampire clan just shrieks and flails about mindlessly seeking food, kind of like I imagine Josh Hartnett doing when he can't read the cue cards off-camera.

All in all, the movie is fairly good. There are some real scares, some good twists, and a lot of crazy vampire action (read: plenty of vampire gore.) There is, of course, the requisite hot chick (Melissa George, from Alias and my dreams), which makes the movie more accessible to my demographic (dudes who like hot chicks.) And, of course, a main villain who is scary looking and scary acting.

I would not really recommend this movie to anyone who doesn't like horror flicks of the vampire variety. It's got lots of vampire gore, with the requisite linguistic reactions to such a situation. But there's no nudity or sex, so if that's what you're worried about, maybe this film is right up your alley...

Music Review: Nine Inch Nails -The Slip

2008-05-17T02:28:00.004-04:00

I wrote a lengthy article about NIN's recent double instrumental album Ghosts, so I won't do that again here. Suffice it to say that Trent Reznor continues to redefine the music business with his latest album, which he also released completely for free on the NIN website with a note that says "Thanks for all the support--this one's on me..." Honestly, how can you not love this guy?

Unlike Ghosts, The Slip is a non-instrumental album; i.e. - the songs have words, kids. Very much like Ghosts, this is an exceptional album. I'm continually amazed that Reznor's output is exponentially increasing in frequency and quality. The Slip has some really awesome songs on it, particularly Discipline, which makes my car shake and realigns my heartbeat; it's just a great song!
The only complaint I could possibly conjure is that the album is short, at only 45ish minutes.
However, the album is available for free. How can I legitimately complain? Especially since the music is so great?
I really admire Reznor for his integrity with his new business modal. He realizes that music will get pirated, so why fight it? His theory seems that getting his music into people's hands as easily as possible will generate revenue from other sources. I think there is a very real chance that he could redefine the music business, especially if he keeps releasing music this good.

If you like NIN's music, getting the album is a requirement. For crying out loud, it's free. If you don't know or aren't sure about NIN, just download it and listen to it once. You literally have nothing to lose...and I suspect you'll find a song or two that you really like.

Music Review: Moby - Last Night

2008-05-17T02:17:00.003-04:00

Moby's career has been an interesting trend of ups and downs. His early music mostly sucked. Then he made the album Play, which was awesome. He quickly released 18, which was essentially Play v.2. Then he decided that he was getting pigeon-holed and needed to 'reinvent' his sound, so he made an album called Hotel. It sucked. All the while, Moby's music has been licensed and whored out to half of all commercials on television and films on the big screen, to varying degrees of success. If you have functioning ears, you've heard Moby's music somewhere.

Throughout all of this, there has been one constant: either you like Moby's electronic, heavily-sampled style or you don't.
His new album, Last Night, is easily the best album since Play and may even be better. I've read reviews and interviews and articles where Moby supposedly said it was an effort meant to salute NYC's underground dance scene. Whatever that means... All I care about is whether I like the music.
As far as Last Night is concerned, I really, really like it. It's got a solid beat, a consistent vibe, and more energy than that Hotel crap I fell for a couple years ago. If you like Moby, check it out--you won't regret it, unless you hate bouncing up and down while driving.

Movie Review: Twister

2008-05-17T01:58:00.003-04:00

I bought Twister on DVD last week. I missed it in theaters because I was on my mission at the time, though I did catch it when I got home. But watching it again reminded me of what blockbusters in the mid-90s were like: big, spectacular, and dumb. Why were they so successful? Because there weren't that many of them per year. Back then, I think that summer movie seasons featured 1-2 big movies per month. The success of movies like Twister spawned the current trend studios have adopted: make more big, dumb movies and they'll all be that successful! Of course, they are wrong, but that doesn't stop studios from releasing 2-3 major films per week all summer long, for better or worse.

I'm pleased to report that Twister is still ridiculously entertaining, ridiculously spectacular, and ridiculously dumb. Produced by Steven Spielberg, it reminded me that he once knew how to entertain people really well.

There are a lot of dumb things about Twister, not the least of which is Helen Hunt's vacuous acting. The dialog and acting are all B-movie quality, with Bill Paxton unexpectedly shining as the lead. Seeing him in this movie made me miss him in other great roles, such as in Aliens and True Lies. He's great at delivering crappy dialog with enough conviction to create a lovable character, but enough of a wink in his eye to remind you that the script gave him every right to phone in a performance, like Helen Hunt was doing.

In a movie about tornadoes, the set pieces are as awesome as they are contrived; they leave you equally breathless from the spectacle and from their innate absurdity. Yet there's just something about the film that works in a way that is rare today. The only movie I've seen recently that brought the same level of excitement was Iron Man, the difference being that Iron Man was far more realistic and did everything right as well as the special effects.

Anyway, I totally recommend watching Twister again. I promise you'll enjoy it more than you expect. Especially Helen Hunt's stoic performance.

Movie Review: Saved!

2008-05-17T01:15:00.002-04:00

This was a 99 cent iTunes special, so I thought what the heck...I've heard a few relatively positive things about it, so why not.

For those unaware (both of you,) I'm an English major. I actually really enjoy writing, and every now and then I find a topic that I can just write on forever. I actually started this review two hours ago, decided that my thoughts were better suited to a thesis paper, and started over. Anyone truly interested in the full review can leave a comment and I'll finish the other one and send it. This is the short, super-simplified version. For reals; this is the short one.

My verdict: I really should not have watched the movie. I thought it would make me mad beforehand, but I didn't realize how wound up I would get. Here's the short reasons for why I didn't like it:

1. A complete lack of reverence for Christianity, particularly its namesake. I'm Mormon. Anything our Church does, from Sunday meetings to devotionals to many of my classes at BYU, are conducted in a fashion that shows the utmost respect for Christ's name and especially his message. This movie did not. If one needs a prime example of what it means to take the Lord's name in vain, look no further.

2. Exploring the theme of rank hypocracy within the framework of an evangelical Christian high school does not support a 90-minute movie. At least, not this movie.

3. Tolerance of people's beliefs does not demand acceptance of their behavior. Unless you're this movie. Then anything and everything is acceptable, and to believe otherwise is wrong.

4. Although people can absolutely exercise the freedom of choice God gave them, people MUST accept the consequences of their decisions, good or bad. This film disagrees. Moral relativity is the subtitle of this film, baby, so it's all good--just do what you think is right! Wait...no...

Can you see where I'm going here? I am a lifelong member of a Christian church that emphasizes an attitude of quiet reverence relating to any Church-related activities; that emphasizes charity and good-will to others; that stresses the concept of moral agency equally with the idea that choices always include consequences; a Church that has very clear teachings and standards regarding important moral issues. I believe these things not because the Church teaches them and tells me to believe, but because I have seen the positive results of implementing them in my own life.
Saved! is a movie that portrays a Christianity that I struggle to relate to. Not because the underlying teachings are different; they're not. The problem is that everything that happened throughout the entire film reminded me of why I am grateful for my membership in the LDS Church and not a mainstream, non-denominational evangelical Christian sect with no higher principal of encouraging devotion than peer pressure, guilt, and ignorance.

Now, I realize that there is someone reading this that is thinking "Hey Jim, the movie is a satire. You just didn't get the point...it's all meant to be tongue in cheek." Don't worry. I saw the satire. I am something of an expert on sarcasm; ask my mom. However, there are certain areas of life that I am utterly uncompromising on, and my religious beliefs are all of them. Well, maybe my loyalty to the U.S. and my Halo skillz as well, but mostly it's my religious beliefs. I find no satirical humor in something that insults and belittles beliefs that are so much a part of who I am; there are simply lines that shouldn't be crossed in the name of comedy, and religion is all of them.

Which brings me full circle to what I said earlier: I really shouldn't have watched the movie in the first place. I suspected beforehand I might not enjoy it, and was dismayed that I actually despised it more than expected. Definitely not recommended. If you feel differently, drop a comment!

Movie Review: Speed Racer (AKA Color-Induced Epilepsy)

2008-05-09T20:55:00.006-04:00

This is my stream-of-consciousness review of Speed Racer. It seemed the only appropriate way to review a film this...kinetic. Starting at the opening logos:

Wow. Check out the psychedelic colors and patterns. The Wachowskis are apparently determined to capture an even more retro-color scheme than the Ocean's movies. Noble. I guess.

Double wow...is this what LSD is like? Cuz it's just...too much. Glad I haven't wasted any time on drugs.

Saying the phrase "Cuz it's just...too much." like Captain Kirk sounds funny.

Epilepsy is cool.

No. Wait. It's not.

Hey, I remember acting like that as a kid. Especially in school. My car drawings had giant saws and sh**. I could have been a production designer on this flick.

Eff my high school guidance counselor--that MF should have told me about NASCAR! How did I ever get into computers?!?!

This movie is PG. I'm probably the only one thinking in profanity. My bad. Oh well, nobody reads these anyway...

I better not drive for at least 24 hours--I'll get a ticket. Or arrested. Not good.

How will I get home if I don't drive?

Christina Ricci is hot. Her lips are amazing. Her lips are shrinking my pants.
How old is she? Maybe I should check on that...
(Note: It's OK. She's 28.)

Oh hell yeah...a monkey ninja!

Oh double hell yeah!! Real ninjas!!

This movie is long. Kid's movies shouldn't top 100 minutes.

Hey, it's Jack from Lost.

Lost is cool. Too bad they don't have cars like this in Lost.

Jack's diction is very precise. I guess that's one of the qualities of a good actor. Or whatever.

This movie is very busy. There's more movement here than any other film I've ever seen.

This movie is the kinetic polar opposite of, say, M. Night Shyamalan's movies. Those have, maybe, ten 10-minute, static shots. Speed Racer would make Night's face melt. If we're lucky, it has already. Oh wait...plot's over, back to the racing.

Fast cars are awesome.

Hot women are awesomer.

Hot women in fast cars are, no exaggeration, the awesomest. Ever.

Hey, the hero won. Didn't see that coming...

End credits. No director's credit. Hmm...Didn't one of The Wachowski Brothers get a sex change? So is it...The Wachowski Siblings? Maybe they couldn't agree, so they removed the director's credit.

That's so gross.

The credits are tripping me the f*** out. My brain kinda hurts. Time for a black and white movie.

So anyway, Speed Racer. It was a lot more fun than I expected. I've never seen a movie where so much movement was on-screen, yet it amazingly was done in such a way that I could understand what was happening pretty much all the time. It was a very remarkable accomplishment given so many action movies with action scenes that are impossible to follow. I was pleasantly surprised on pretty much every level.

Do You Like Free Legal Music?

2008-05-05T21:53:00.002-04:00

As a follow-up to the surprise release of a double instrumental album a couple months ago, Nine Inch Nails released a whole new album today for free. That's right, the whole album is free. I haven't gotten all the way through it, but it's really good so far.
I really, really like this new business model: give away the music and if people like it, they'll pay for other swag to support the artists...
I'll write more about the album after I've listened to it a few times.

Movie Review: Iron Man

2008-05-03T23:45:00.002-04:00

I'm not going to write a whole lot about this movie, because the experience of watching it is completely worth having, unencumbered by the ramblings of someone such as I...

I didn't grow up reading comic books, so Iron Man is another relatively vague character I didn't know anything about prior to the film. I kind of enjoy that aspect of watching comic books movies--sometimes the less I know the more I enjoy! The only other comic book movie I enjoyed this much was Daredevil, which was another similar, origin-story film about an obscure super-hero. And please, don't give me any crap about Daredevil; I really enjoyed it and if you can get over the fact that Ben Affleck turned into a cinematic joke in the years after Daredevil, then you might realize it's a pretty good movie, particularly the Director's Cut that came out last year. Iron Man was even better.

In some ways, Iron Man reminds me of Batman-lite. Tony Stark doesn't have the troubled childhood and past of Bruce Wayne, but does enjoy being the billionaire owner of a company bearing his own name. Technically, he doesn't have any super-powers any more than Batman does. Where Bruce Wayne is the world's greatest (and scariest) detective, Tony Stark is the most brilliant inventor of his day.

As an origin story, Iron Man doesn't break any new ground. In fact, as comic book movies go, I think that origin stories are almost impossible to make original anymore. Similarly, the general story of Iron Man isn't particularly original either. But despite these potentially serious concerns, Iron Man has some really terrific tricks up its sleeve.
First and foremost is Robert Downey Jr., who despite a troubled personal life, is a genuinely great actor who completely sells the character of Tony Stark. His acting ability combines with a really solid, if narratively generic, script and injects a degree of magic into the movie that easily covers all its faults. Of particular note is the surprisingly compelling heroic-arch that Stark goes through in the film. He is clearly a slimy, cocky bastard at the beginning of the movie, but Downey conveys a very real change of heart in the character, to the point where you really believe he has turned away from his previous transgressions and become the kind of man Iron Man and Tony Stark need to be: a super-hero with some real moral fiber.
Along with Downey, the rest of the cast is absolutely top-notch. Gwenyth Paltrow apparently still acts, and very well at that. Same with Jeff bridges, who sports the Jim Washburn haircut of choice. Terrance Howard is brutally under-utilized, but makes the most of a character that could have been forgettable.
The special effects are awesome in the film. Seeing Iron Man fly and do stuff is exhilarating, and I found myself sitting in the theater with a giant smile on my face, dazzled by the spectacle and excitement. That just doesn't happen much in movies anymore.
I think that the real cohesive element was the director: Jon Favreau. Who is he? Well, he's one of the few actor/directors in Hollywood who is good. He's acted in enough really good movies and directed enough movies to have been easily qualified on a technical level. But his real talent with Iron Man was bringing together and correlating all of the above critical elements to make a truly entertaining movie. Iron Man is funny, exciting, and very well-crafted, a combination I simply don't see in many movies anymore.

I absolutely recommend Iron Man to everyone. There has been a dearth of good movies this year so far--the only other movie I've enjoyed this much was Rambo. Iron Man kicks off the summer movie season and I hope that a few more movies can live up to its standard.

On a side note, they showed brand new trailers for The Dark Knight and Indiana Jones. For the record, in my opinion The Dark Knight will probably be the best movie of the year. Everything about it simply screams out that it will be amazing. However, I am getting abad vibe from Indiana Jones. Does it look entertaining? Sure. Will it be full of action? Probably. But will it have one ounce of originality? I don't think so. Almost everything about every frame of the movie I've seen seems like a 'sly' homage to the earlier films, with nothing new to bring to the table. I hope I'm wrong, and in two weeks, I'll write about what I finally see. But mark me as skeptical; I think Indiana Jones will not be as good a franchise resurrection as Rocky Balboa, Rambo, Die Hard 4, or Terminator 3. We'll see what happens...

Movie Review: Afro Samurai

2008-04-27T19:16:00.002-04:00

Ry recommended this movie so much that he sent it to me. Much like The Kill Point, Afro Samurai is a Spike TV original, which means that it is aimed at my demographic: 18-35 males with too much testosterone. Afro Samurai fits the demo like a glove.

Afro Samurai combines some of my favorite things in the world: Samuel L. Jackson, samurai swords, and fight scenes. All wrapped in a package of Japanese animation, which looks a lot like some of The Animatrix episodes a few years back.

The movie tells the story of a young black kid whose father is the greatest samurai in the world. Unfortunately, his dad is killed by a bad guy and, after growing up, the kid sets out for revenge. Along the way, he meets various and sundry people who either help or hinder his progress. It's a pretty simple revenge story.

But none of that really explains why I enjoyed it. I'll summarize it by relaying what Ryan said to me when he mailed it:

"There was this one time when I suddenly realized that things started getting slow, but just then, Afro killed, like, 50 guys. With a samurai sword. They had guns and rocket launchers."

If that sentence sounds absurd or in any way not fun to watch, then Afro Samurai is not for you. It's basically 3 hours of pretty much just that. And since it's animated, there is a ludicrous amount of animated blood and gore. But it's animated, so it's not bad, right?

Anyway, there's no point in my going further. At this point, you are either sold or not. Depending on which side of that fence you come down on, I urge you to pursue that decision with great haste.

Movie Review: Escape from New York / Escape from L.A.

2008-04-27T19:05:00.003-04:00

Oh. My. Gosh.

Apparently, April is watch-awful-movies-month. I have seen so many wretched movies this month it is physically painful to think about, much less actually experience.

So I got these movies for a combined total of $5. The NY one is considered a cult classic and for another $3, I thought "Hey, why not? I'll make it a double feature!"

I'll tell you why not. These movies suck. L.A. is actually an inadvertent remake of NY, with the exact same plot, plot devices, awful acting, awful music, awful visual effects, and incredibly awful direction. Can someone please explain to me why director John Carpenter is considered a good filmmaker? Please? There must be some hidden evidence somewhere since I hear from various corners of the webs that he is a genius.

There is only one even remotely enjoyable aspect of these movies, and that is Kurt Russell. His character is almost enjoyable to watch, if solely for the fact that Russell, a legitimately great actor, is obviously struggling against overwhelming odds to do some serious acting in a 'film' where such skill and talent are completely irrelevant and unnecessary. I actually feel sorry for him as he is continually surrounded by rank incompetence in every single frame of the movie.

So no, you should not under any circumstances waste time watching either one of these movies. Your time is better spent doing literally anything else you can think of. Literally. Anything. Else.

Movie Review: Harold and Kumar Escape From Guantanamo Bay

2008-04-26T20:19:00.003-04:00

Uhh...don't go see this movie. There are a few funny parts, but not enough to justify the ridiculous amount of not-good-stuff. Even if you are only going to appease your co-workers who are tired of you not showing up to see movies with them...

Movie Review: 28 Days Later

2008-04-22T22:54:00.009-04:00

I admit: I love zombie movies. I believe this is because I did not see a real zombie movie until I was 26 (Resident Evil, 2002) and it frightened me so badly that every other movie that I thought had been scary was instantly diminished. Monster movies prey on very real, primal fears that people have, whether it be sharks (Jaws), vampires (Dracula), or science (Frankenstein). But what are people more afraider of than anything else ever? Getting eaten by psychopathic, virus-infected cannibals, particularly if they were recently close friends or relatives. This fear is more deeply rooted than anything else and encompasses many other monster-related fears. And that's why zombie movies are the scariest--you can't watch one and not think "What if the person I'm sitting next to turns into a zombie right now..."
This is why I watch most zombie movies alone, including 28 Days Later. It is advantageous for two reasons: first, I know that if the real zombie apocalypse happens during the film, I'll at least have a few moments to collect myself without having to worry about whether or not I can kill the friend-cum-zombie that was watching it with me moments before. Secondly, I can pause the movie whenever I'm on the verge of soiling myself.
28 Days Later is far superior than almost any other horror movie made, and near the top of the zombie-flick pile; there are a lot of things it really has going for it. For example:
1. The zombies are unique; they are not actually living dead, but rather people infected with a virus called Rage that, well, sends them into an uncontrollable state of cannibalistic madness. This means they can be killed like regular people. This positive note is countered by the fact that the virus is transmittable by only a drop of fluid from the infected--definitely not good. All-in-all, first rate variations. Oh, and the zombies run. Fast. Maybe even faster than you or me, which is a terrifying reality, should it be realized.
2. The story is told on a minimalistic level, focusing on only a few characters. This keeps the drama taut and the intense. And I don't mean "Wow, Street Kings was pretty intense for a cop drama." intense. No, I mean run-for-your-fucking-life-even-though-you-are-sitting-on-your-couch-watching-a-movie intense. It doesn't get any more crazy than that.
3. The entire movie looks like it was filmed with consumer-grade digital camcorders and is 1000 times more better than Cloverfield for making that format enhance the experience. 28 Days Later is a much lower budget film and the early digital-camera technology gives the movie a very raw feeling to it.
4. Silence. No movie ever made uses silence more effectively to creep you the fuck out. More exactly, the transition from silence to full-on zombie-attack panic-related audio mayhem tends to make you jump a little bit.
5. John Murphy's music is poignant, creepy, and beautiful, all at the right times and places. In this movie, the music is a critical facet of what makes it work.

Of course, not everything is perfect. For one, the pacing of the movie varies, depending on how closely any particular scene relates to the overall goal of escaping the zombies. Every time the characters slow down to contemplate life before the zombies or take a break from running for their lives, the movie takes just a little too long to get going again. Don't get me wrong; we need those moments of pause to grow closer to the characters and make sure we care for them , particularly if they are about to be set-upon by a pack of enraged cannibals who will tear them limb-from-limb. But in a genre that absolutely compels the audience to be thinking non-stop "What would I do to get to some fucking safety...", every time the characters lose focus for too long, it takes you out of the experience.
Also, as with all horror movies, the characters make some staggeringly bad decisions. Didn't any of them read The Zombie Survival Guide? Don't any of them possess a genuine sense of self-preservation that supersedes their nostalgic connections to pre-Z life and people? I always find myself saying stuff like "Shoot him in the face now or you will die" in movies like this. And you know what? I'm always right. Always.

Ultimately, I learned two things watching this movie. First, it's one of the best, grittiest zombie movies ever made. Still (Did I mention I watched it in theaters 4 years ago?) Second, when the real zombie apocalypse happens, I'll probably survive. But if you want to hang with me, you might make it through as well. But don't expect mercy if you get infected...if that happens, you're on your own, friendo...

Movie Review: The Kill Point

2008-04-21T17:33:00.002-04:00

The Kill Point is a TV movie that was on Spike TV last summer. I got halfway through the movie before I moved to Maryland and just now got around to watching the rest. And I'm really glad I did--it was very good and I recommend it to anyone who enjoys decent drama.
The Kill Point is a bank-heist/hostage movie that is better than most. Since it's a TV movie, it is not limited to the normal 2-hour time-frame of feature films, and uses its 5+ hours to flesh out some good characters and pursue some effective red herrings along the way. Unfortunately, it also allows the movie to meander down some cliche-ridden story lines that are a little too predictable.
The movie focuses on 2 main characters, played by Donnie Wahlberg and John Leguizamo. Both men are fantastic actors and give their respective roles everything they have. Leguizamo plays Mendez, an ex-military sergeant leading his old platoon into criminal territory by robbing a bank in downtown Pittsburgh; a bank robbery that goes horribly wrong right off the bat and ends up a long, drawn-out hostage situation. Wahlberg is the cop in charge of the hostage negotiations. As the two actors square-off, they develop a kind of trust and respect for each other, even as they covertly try to thwart each other's efforts; they simply accept that the other will be trying to outsmart them and as their respective plans are unveiled, they figuratively nod to each other and say "Well played, sir. Well played." Their little dance is the centerpiece of the movie and is strong enough that it masks some otherwise groan-worthy "plot" twists.
For example, among the hostages is, of course, a hot chick. And, naturally, one of the robbers falls in love with her. Of course, she uses this to double-cross him. This is only one example of a plot thread that is so predictable despite its unreality, that the only reason I didn't get angry was the 4-hour delay before the projected "surprise" was actually revealed. I guess that's an advantage of a longer movie. But there were enough other over-simplified projections that it became noticeably, if not significantly annoying.
Another thing that was a little distracting was the super-low-budget action scenes. Perhaps I've been spoiled by great heist movies like Heat, which has, bar-none, the greatest bank robbery action scene ever made, if not the greatest action scene ever filmed. But The Kill Point seemed to avoid using authentic gun replicas with decent blanks. I would have sworn that they switched to plastic cap guns every time someone had to fire. I was also convinced that the muzzle-flashes were added in post-production, possibly by some intern who used YouTube tutorials to learn Photoshop well enough to paste in some semi-aligned flashes. It was pretty lame.
All these complaints aside, however, The Kill Point really delivers with respect to drama. There are several taut encounters that kept me guessing and ultimately glossed over the film's weaknesses. I really enjoyed it, particularly coming from Spike TV, which is kinda like the retard channel on cable television. The failed to opt for a second season of The Kill Point most likely because they realized it was more genuine drama and intelligence than their usual fare of UFC fighting and reruns of Monster Truck Shows.

Movie Review: Street Kings

2008-04-15T21:45:00.002-04:00

Anyone remember Training Day? Or SWAT? Street Kings was written and directed by the guy that wrote the screenplays for those movies. So guess what the theme is: Corrupt L.A. Cops!! Awesome!! Apparently, audiences cannot get enough of rogue cops. I was REALLY wary about Street Kings, but I'm pleased to say it was fantastic; the best movie I've seen in theaters since Rambo.

Street Kings stars Keanu Reeves, and whatever your thoughts on him, he is a genuinely good actor in the right role. This is apparently a perfect role for him. He plays a cop who gets the job done, whatever it takes. That's a veiled way of saying he has absolutely no qualms with ignoring any rule, law, or restriction. But despite his extremely liberal interpretation of the 'rule of law,' he definitely has a clear sense of moral justice as an end, though not necessarily a means.
The film revolves around Reeves being set up for murdering his ex-partner, a dude he hates and is planning on beating to a pulp right before the partner is murdered. The inner-workings of the LAPD seem to indicate that Reeves' value in implementing street justice on behalf of other cops means they will covertly mobilize to protect him and ensure that he gets a free pass, despite the fact that he is actually innocent anyway. As Reeves gets closer to solving the crime, things naturally get a little hectic, to the point where...well, yeah. It's crazy.

There are a few real high points: Reeves is only one of several actors that does an exceptional job, but I give the most credit to him since he is onscreen for virtually every scene and plays a relatively different role from anything else he's done. His character is almost like a vampire in the movie: during the day, he's a mellow, introspective man who questions how he got to such a place in his career where he's the go-to guy for violence and street justice. But at night, he becomes a whole different monster; his brutality is only matched by his utter indifference for the wretched humans he must deal with on the job. The films starts out with a scene highlighting this trait and doesn't let up from there.
Along with Reeves, there are a host of other great actors, including Forest "My Left Eye Is Always Effed Up" Whittaker, Chris "I'm Learning To Distance Myself From Fantastic Four" Evans, some dude named The Game and another dude named Common (probably rappers, or abused children, or both), and several other recognizable and excellent actors. They all do a great job. The other great performance was by the freaking sweet car Reeves drove in the movie. I couldn't tell what it was, but it was black and I think it was a Dodge.
On the not-so-impressive side, there are a few laughable idiosyncrasies in the movie. When everyone on your team keeps telling you that "You got a free pass on this one; just let it go, man..." then you should immediately assume that your team is plotting against you. Reeves' squad of LAPD buddies says this over and over, usually following it up with "You're just too valuable to us, man..." After the second time, I was really suspicious that he was being double-crossed by his own buddies. After the 20th time, I wanted to shoot them all just for a ridiculous lack of subtlety.
Also, as I read on another website, there are a few scenes that are so over-the-top that they are laughable. For example, the scene where Reeves' old partner gets shot with two automatic weapons for 8 full seconds. Go ahead, count that out and imagine two machine guns firing that whole time into a human body. As the killers run away and the partner falls to the ground in his own gore, Reeves runs up and grabs him, screaming "Don't leave me, man, don't leave me!! You'll be OK!!" Riiiiiiiiiiiiiight...when he grabbed him, I was trying to imagine what super-vitamins the partner must have been dosing on to ensure that his super-tensile tendons and connective tissue were holding together the limbs. I mean, seriously, when your crying over your partner, who has multiple bullet holes in his face, let alone the rest of his body, you have to pause briefly and ask yourself "Wait a second, does anyone actually WANT to live through this?" Reeves is so passionate in his conviction that his partner live, that I just kind of sat there in awe of his inadvertent callousness at wanting someone to survive such a horrid total-body-perforation.

Weak spots aside, the movie really is very solid all the way around; much better than I expected. Again, I doubt I'd recommend it to anyone who didn't like Training Day, or who doesn't have a cinematic fetish for corrupt cops flicks. If nothing else, Street Kings reminds you that the cop who pulls you over for speeding might be a hair-breadth away from shooting you in the face simply for looking at him funny, and that should inspire some degree of at least feigned respect for law enforcement. I know it did for me.

Product Review: Mach 3 Disposable Razors

2008-04-15T00:23:00.002-04:00

I've never written a product review, but I thought I better since I shamelessly fell for some advertising today. There's a big billboard down the street advertising these razors, so I thought I'd give them a try. Here's my review:

Using the Mach 3 Disposable Razor is like using a regular Mach 3 that you've been using every day for 2 weeks.

That's right--it feels like a used razor ripping the flesh from your skin in chunks and slabs whose size is equaled only by the intensity of the pain.

Do Not Recommend.

Movie Review: The Bank Job

2008-04-13T21:10:00.003-04:00

For whatever reason, Hollywood ran out of good movies this year. The last movie I saw in the theater that I really liked was Rambo, and it came out 4 month ago. Think about that. The best movie in theaters so far in 2008 was Rambo. An action movie with a 65-year-old fighting and killing the army of a small country. I loved Rambo, it's just sad that there hasn't been one really good movie since then.
Such was the state of affairs when Michelle and I went to the theater last Monday. We had prepared by trying to think hard of which movie to see in a sea of crap. In the end, we spur-of-the-moment picked The Bank Job because I had heard it might be sorta OK and Michelle thought Jason Statham was hot (he's The Italian Job, Transporter guy...) Well, the movie was sorta OK and Jason is, still, so hot. At least, according to Michelle.
The Bank Job is a true story of a bank robbery in England in the early 70s that was utterly covered-up by the British government, with the details largely sealed from the public until recently or something. I don't know, but that background was barely enough to intrigue me to see it.
The movie is about a bunch of low-life Londoners who are conned into robbing a bank, convinced that they are lucky to have a friend who came across some information that would make the job quick and simple. Well, the job is quick and simple, but the 'friend' had an alternative motive: the British government was being blackmailed by some black supremacist guy with photos of a naked princess he kept in a safety deposit box at that specific bank. So they in turn blackmailed this girl into arranging the robbery. So once the robbery was over and done with, suddenly the government is willing to let the robbers go scott-free if they'll turn over just the photos.
The movie was made in a very convincing 70s style, with authentic clothes, hair, cars, and stuff. In other words, it was filmed in England today. The acting and everything were great. The story was intense and had some pleasant and not-so-pleasant surprises. The only real problem was the ridiculous amount of gratuitous nudity and sex. The movie is front-loaded with scene after scene of naked chicks, strip clubs, and the like. It was the first movie I can remember where I very nearly walked out; I usually make a conscious effort to avoid movie with too much of this kind of thing. I distinctly said to myself one more scene and I'm leaving. And then it was clean for the rest of the movie. I was mildly embarrassed and Michelle and I decided that in the future we would be more careful what we watched and that the next movie we go to will be G-rated, to balance out our karma. Let this stand as a lesson why you should always research a movie before you go so that you know what you are getting into...
Anyway, if you can't tell, no, I don't recommend the movie to anyone. Watch The Italian Job instead. It has that hot guy from The Bank Job...

Movie Review: The Mist (in B&W)

2008-04-13T21:05:00.001-04:00

This movie was actually much better in black and white. At least, I enjoyed it more. And I had already enjoyed it. So basically, it was even more better.

Movie Review: D.O.A - Dead Or Alive

2008-04-13T20:40:00.003-04:00

I watched this movie right after watching Crash, wanting a mindless slice of silliness to balance out the dark tragedy of Crash. And for those that actually have heard of DOA, no, I didn't pay for it. In fact, I got a legal, free download of the movie before it ever hit theaters, a sure sign that it was terrible. A further sign is the fact that after downloading it, I couldn't be bothered to watch it for over a year.
What is DOA? Well, it's based on a video game. A fighting video game. A fighting video game with absolutely no plot, that revels in outrageous fighting moves and outrageous depictions of barely-clad women of outrageous physical proportions. At some point, someone actually ponied up the money to make a film out of this dreck. I can't even imagine what the producers had to do to collect the hundreds of dollars that went into producing the film; hopefully it was all legal, because I have moral objections to supporting illegal ventured, whether directly or indirectly.
Anyway, someone mapped out on a napkin a paper-thin plot [Ka-ZING! Get it? Napkin...paper-thin?], collected a batch of semi-professional actors and highly professional stunt people and spent a few afternoons and a Saturday filming DOA. And you know what? It was kinda fun.
Yes, that sentence may damage my credibility, but I'll take the hit. I openly admit that in the grand scheme of cinema, DOA is complete ass, a worthless film whose very existence is a black hole in relation to films like The Godfather, The Ten Commandments, or even 300. But taken for what it actually is and what it aspires to, DOA is great; it's own classic. The movie knows it is ridiculous and revels in god-awful dialog, outrageously hot chicks, ludicrously tough guys, and utterly nonsensical fight scenes. In the end, they hit a tone and pace that perfectly fits the material.
I could go on for days nitpicking everything that is bad with this movie, but instead, I remember that it is the perfect kind of film to watch with a bunch of friends who want to just have fun riffing on a slick B-movie. Well, make that C. Or maybe F.
;)

Movie Review: Crash

2008-04-13T19:53:00.003-04:00

Crash won a bunch of Oscars, including The Oscar (Best Picture) back a few years ago. I remember reading a bunch of reviews and critiques that questioned whether it should have won. Well, personally, I'm glad it beat out Brokeback Mountain, even though I didn't like Crash that much.
Now, Crash is a well-made movie, there's no doubt. It is basically a film about a dozen or so characters whose lives intertwine over the course of a time period of a couple days. Oh yeah, and it's primary purpose is to explore racial tensions in L.A. and, by association, all of America.
In both of these respects, Crash is profoundly effective, raising some important and tragically necessary questions and issues.
I'm not going to bother explaining much about the plot of the film; it really just needs to be seen. The acting and directing are all top-notch. I believe the sole reason Crash was so critically acclaimed and is even now well-liked and respected is that it openly provokes and explores American racial issues. What I will do is cautiously explain why I didn't like the movie.

For those that are not aware, I'm a white guy who has lived a vast majority of my life in areas that are traditionally really white. I have long accepted, for better or worse, that there is an aspect of racism that I will probably never experience or fully be able to understand and empathize with. However, I have always gone out of my way to be as sensitive as possible to anyone who is different from me, particularly with respect to race. I very clearly understand why a movie that confronts issues of racism in such an upfront, uncompromising way appeals to people. It opens a conduit for dialog and provides a relatively neutral focal point for anyone to vent their frustrations or thoughts concerning such a provocative topic. These are all good things in America's ongoing struggle to find a way to eliminate the evils of racism.

Now let me try and explain why I didn't like Crash. I do not believe that eliminating racism will happen by watching movies that simply confront and talk about it; by feigning an understanding of racism by just watching a film. In a similar but more extreme sense, I don't think that religious conflicts will ever be resolved by warfare. Warfare intrinsically requires the betrayal of the very religious principles it espouses to defend, and a movie like Crash intrinsically contains many scenes of exceptionally overt examples of the most offensive racism I've ever seen. Many times in the movie I was squirming; terribly uncomfortable as I listened to racist language and confrontations, the content of which offended my closely-harbored beliefs and sensibilities of racial tolerance.
As far as racism in the real world is concerned, I have two trains of thought. On a practical level, I try to live with the highest degree of respect for people of other races, trying to not only be tolerant, but set an example for those around me, particularly as I now live and work in a a place where there are significantly more differences represented. Secondly, and on a more ideological level, I believe that people with such horribly negative tendencies need something more appealing and rewarding in their lives to replace the racism. I think that fear is the fundamental motivation behind racism and that fear is eliminated by confidence in something that is morally capable of inspiring people to rise above such carnal, base beliefs. In my own life, the standards and beliefs I have learned from my membership in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has provided me deeper understanding of what the real purpose of life is for all people; that despite any differences whatsoever, we are all children of a God who loves us and wants us to learn to love each other in the way He loves us.

For better or worse, I didn't need Crash to teach me that. And that seemed to be the only purpose of this movie: to teach tolerance by openly, provocatively confronting an important issue. Maybe some people really need or want that kind of lesson, but I'm not one of them. I really don't recommend the movie to anyone.

Movie Review: Death Sentence

2008-04-13T18:54:00.002-04:00

Did anyone out there ever see Charles Bronson's Death Wish? Yeah, neither did I. But apparently it's a cult classic revenge film. It's also over 34-years-old, made during an era when it was significantly easier to scare and frighten an audience with the projected threat of extreme physical violence; a .38 caliber Saturday-night-special was scary back then.
Well, Death Wish was based on a book by some guy who wrote a sequel called Death Sentence, which was never actually adapted into a movie. Last year, it was adapted into a film starring the always reliable Kevin Bacon and directed by the guy who made the first Saw movie. Death Sentence was everything to me that I suppose Death Wish was to people that saw it back in the day: an overtly emotion-manipulating, hyper-revenge flick that hits all the notes you want it to.

Before I go into the movie, I want to state my opinion of revenge movies in general. I'm afraid I'm kind of split on them. Half of me loves revenge movies, because they allow me to vicariously indulge in, well, the revenge that I've sadly wished on people who have wronged me to varying degrees. Movies like Man On Fire and Kill Bill are the ultimate in revenge flicks, in which a seriously flawed anti-hero has the chance to redeem themselves by avenging an innocent person close to them. Man On Fire is my personal favorite, in which Denzel Washington becomes death incarnate to avenge the kidnapping and murder of the only person to ever care for him: Dakota Fanning. Let's be real; both you or I would be more than happy to avenge a kid as sweet as Dakota Fanning if someone so much as scowled in her direction.
On the other hand, I consider myself something of a decent Christian, and that means that I fundamentally oppose the concept of revenge in real life; theoretically, Christianity sets itself apart from other major religions in this way. While the Old Testament clearly advocated godly revenge, the Gospel as Christ taught in the New Testament clearly says "Turn the other cheek." I don't believe you can really profess to embrace Christianity when you enact revenge in response to offenses, whether minor or grievous.
So for me personally, there is a very fine line between rejecting the concept of revenge, but enjoying a good revenge flick. Revenge movies thrive on the concept of an eye-for-an-eye, and the greatest revenge flicks rely on not just eye-for-an-eye, but the idea that if your neighbor takes an eye, you take an eye, a few limbs, burn his house down, and kill anyone complicit in the crime; a la Man On Fire. Damn, I love that movie...

So anyway: Death Sentence. Unlike many other revenge movies, and similar to what Death Wish was apparently like, the hero of Death Sentence is a genuinely good man. Kevin Bacon is a great husband and father, with two sons he's very proud of and a great job. It is by stupendously bad luck that his older son is murdered at random in a gang-initiation killing. When the lack of physical evidence means the killer will get a severely reduced sentence, Bacon stops cooperating with the courts and allows the killer to go free, deciding that he will exact his own form of revenge; a 'death sentence,' if you will . Well, his successful retribution simply escalates the cycle, as the killer's older brother takes everything to the next level. The film spirals out of control in what could easily be argued is a powerful statement against revenge.
Death Sentence was in theaters for maybe a day and got less than steller reviews. I'm convinced this is because it doesn't really bring much new to the admittedly large table of revenge flicks. But what it accomplishes is so done so well and in such an unrestrained, utterly vicious way that it is, basically, a perfect revenge movie; I really enjoyed it, particularly the unexpected twists along the way. Sure there are holes in the plot here and there, but all revenge movies have built-in narrative deficiencies to allow the hero to actually reach that point where they will snap and go off the reservation. Fortunately, along with religious beliefs, there are any number of social and legal safety nets that prevent most people from becoming the vicious, horrifyingly-effective vigilantes they imagine they could be if properly provoked and improperly restrained. The only vigilante I openly or privately endorse is Bruce Wayne/Batman, because he's real and awesome, two qualities I totally respect.
As a last word, Death Sentence is terrifically violent, so take that into account if you think you might want to watch it. Directed by the Saw guy, it very convincingly portrays the emotional and psychological horror as well as the physical trauma that it takes to motivate people in revenge flicks. While not prone to abjectly enjoy violence in film, I do find myself more accepting when violence is portrayed in such a way as to convey the true consequences of its infliction and utilization. As with all good revenge movies, Death Sentence really stands as a testament to why forgiveness is truly divine, even when something in the human soul screams for vengeance.

Movie Review: Escape From Alcatraz

2008-04-13T18:42:00.002-04:00

I recently purchased an AppleTV, which I strongly recommend to anyone who watches anything with iTunes or owns an iPod, wishing they could watch stuff on their TV. As part of the whole iTunes-AppleTV-iPod marketing thing, Apple has made one film per week available as a 99 cent rental, which has mean that movies I probably wouldn't have watched otherwise I'm now willing to check out. That's how I ended up seeing Escape From Alcatraz.

It's an old Clint Eastwood movie that is the semi-true story of how some guys might have been the only people to successfully escape from Alcatraz. Really, it's a pretty standard prison movie in the vein of The Shawshank Redemption. And when push comes to shove, prison movies tread a really fine line between completely fascinating and utterly revolting. Due primarily to its age and the fact that it tells a true story, Escape From Alcatraz largely avoid being too disgusting with respect to the darker, more disturbing aspects of prison, and instead focuses on the fact that Clint Eastwood is the hardest man alive and engineered a brilliant escape.

As with many movies that are super-old, Escape From Alcatraz has a slow, meandering pace in which dialog and subtext are more important than action. It's pleasing to be reminded that such bizarre approaches to film-making were once really successfully employed. Don't tell Michael Bay; I don't want a Transformers 2 made in the style of Escape From Alcatraz. But I really enjoy seeing movies like this every now and then and I totally recommend Escape From Alcatraz to anyone who enjoys prison-break movies.

Movie Review: 1492: Conquest of Paradise

2008-04-13T00:53:00.003-04:00

1492 is one of the first movies I saw in the theater by myself and the very first movie I saw after my family moved to England. It had a profound effect on me and I have long held it in high regard, though I have been unable to watch it in many years because it has not been released in the U.S. on DVD. I finally ordered it from Amazon England and, through a tremendous amount of witchcraft and wizardry, managed to rip it onto my computer and, after 16 years, finally watched again.

1492 was directed by Ridley Scott, arguably my favorite filmmaker, during the period of his career when he simply wasn't making good movies. It was between the Alien/Blade Runner period and the golden age that began with Gladiator and continues into the present. 1492 was bookended by films like Black Rain and White Squall, both of which flat-out sucked. 1492 ended up being a very good film that was utterly hamstrung by a couple of fatal flaws, which I'll get to in a minute. First, I'll focus on the things I really like about the movie.

First and foremost, the one aspect of 1492 that will always be close to my heart is the music. This was the first movie in which I realized that a motion picture's score is every bit as critical as its acting, cinematography, or any other aspect. The marriage of Scott's trademark visuals with Vangelis' sweeping score defined for me what is possible in film.
Speaking of visuals, 1492 is a mixed-bag of phenomenally beautiful cinematography interspersed with some surprisingly plain and/or strangely-filmed scenes. Epic movies benefit tremendously from methodically planned and executed visual styles, but the keystone of this element is consistency; the camera movements and angles need to be executed with a consistent tone and pacing. 1492 has some moments of such sheer beauty that I have compared every movie since then to the power of its visuals. Some of the only films that have compared are other Ridley Scott films. Gladiator, Black Hawk Down, and Kingdom of Heaven all benefit from Scott's enhanced ability to maintain the quality of the visuals throughout an entire film. Lastly, as far as I can tell, 1492 is actually fairly historically accurate. While creative license is obviously needed for events over 500 years old, the film successfully conveys an accurate sense of what Christopher Columbus' life was like during some of the most important events in world history.

In the end, what really cripples the movie is the actor who was chosen to portray Columbus. Gérard Depardieu is a great actor in some of the movies I've seen him in, but he does not fit this role in any way, shape, or form. My #1 complaint is the fact that I can barely understand a word he says. This inability to communicate leaves me utterly unable to invest any degree of belief into his capacity to inspire confidence or any kind of compelling force on the other characters in the film. His accent is so laughably thick that I eventually gave up trying to understand. Gérard Depardieu is French, playing an Italian, who sails for the Portuguese in a film directed by an Englishmen who discovers what becomes a Spanish settlement in the New World that is now dominated by America. There are too many linguistic layers, both real, cinematic, and narrative, between Depardieu and me to make the film a successful suspension of my disbelief. I suppose Scott hadn't found Russell Crowe yet, but after seeing Crowe in Master and Commander, I wish that he had been Columbus in this film.

In the end, I now see 1492 in a more objective light, having vastly enhanced my cinematic education in the intervening 16 years. Sadly, 1492 really is a mediocre film that has the seeds of greatness in it. I almost wish that Scott could remake his own film today; I believe that he has grown into a level of film-making expertise that so excels beyond his abilities in 1992 that a remake could easily become one of his best films yet. I seriously doubt that will ever happen. 1992 (the year the film was released) represented the 500-year anniversary of Columbus' discovery, and even then I recognized a general feeling of negativity permeating Western culture as misguided people decided that Columbus was a genocidal misfit who, had he not existed, untold millions of native Americans would be alive today. For my part, Columbus has always been a personal hero; someone who realized his inspired dreams in the face of cultural and historical forces beyond the scope of what most people will ever imagine, much less overcome.

Movie Review: Walk Hard

2008-04-13T00:33:00.002-04:00

This movie is another comedy from the guys who made Superbad and The 40-Year-Old Virgin, both of which are very funny but very dirty. Walk Hard is in the same league, though it's plot is not as risque. Instead, it's a spoof on all the musical biopics that have become popular the last couple years, particularly Walk The Line and Ray, which won several Oscars between them. I really liked Walked The Line, but mostly because I've always liked Johnny Cash and his music, not because I was very familiar with his life. In fact, Walk The Line pretty much is the definition of a biopic: talented person get famous, destroys their own life, and makes a comeback. There are variations, but not many. The formula is so tried and true, that it was ripe for a good, thorough mocking. Enter Walk Hard.
Walk Hard unabashedly duplicates the structure and cliches that other biopics rely on, but turns the entire affair into a very funny ride. The glue that holds the entire story together is John C. Reilly, who was Ricky Bobby's best friend Cal in Talladega Nights. Without Reilly, I doubt this movie would have warranted watching. But his turn as fictional singer Dewey Cox is classic. The film hits every single cliche imaginable, focusing particularly on Walk The Line as a model, and turns them into a series of hilarious vignettes.
For example, Dewey had a hard childhood, living in the shadow of a talented older brother. Of course, his talented older brother was outrageously talented, nicknamed the Mozart of Tennessee, whose talents transcended music to include virtually everything. Dewey was more than lost in his shadow; he practically didn't exist. Until the two brothers playfully sparred with machetes and Dewey accidentally chopped his brother in half. Everything is played for laughs and 4 out of 5 times, it hits home. The M.O. for the filmmakers was simple: make a list of every cliche, then take each one to the extreme. This holds true not only for Dewey's troubled childhood, but also his drug-use, family life, and...well, everything you expect from an E! channel Behind The Music special.
Walk Hard benefits from a lot of really funny costars, a lot of character chameos (Elvis, The Beatles, etc., etc., etc.), and most importantly, some awesome songs, the title song being a classic in its own right.
On the negative side, there was way too much dudity...that's right, dude nudity. Of course, any dudity is too much, even when they try to balance it with regular nudity (chickity?!), but in the end, I really prefer a movie with no nudity at all. The movie is also so good at mirroring the structure of biopics, that it tends to feel a little too authentic at times, which translates into a little too boring. Some cliches are simply boring.
Anyway, as with Superbad, I'm sure I'll watch it every now and then for a good laugh, but I'll probably keep it on the DVD shelf that's low enough and close to the wall enough that people won't actually realize I own it.

Movie Review: Blazing Saddles

2008-03-31T18:29:00.003-04:00

I'm writing this movie before the movie is over, because I already know how I feel about it. I finally got around to watching this movie, which many people have claimed is the holy grail of comedies, only because a dude at work insisted and backup up his recommendation by giving me the movie.

Anyway, this movie sucks. I'm pretty sure the movie is way too racist to be made today. The guy that gave it to me pointed this out. Personally, racism is really offensive, and just because a movie thrives on mocking it, doesn't mean that I enjoy watching any form of racism. Plus, the movie simply isn't funny. Maybe it was 30 years ago, but not any more. I'll take Anchorman or Talladega Nights any day of the week.

So, I'm gonna suffer through the last 20 minutes now, but I don't anticipate any improvement. Avoid at all costs, and if you run into people that love this movie, tell them there have been thousands of movies made since this one that are better in every possible way.

UPDATE: No...the movie didn't get any better. I've laughed more in zombie movies than in this old, decrepit "comedy"...

Movie Review: The Mist

2008-03-31T16:53:00.002-04:00

I've never understood why so many people love Stephen King. Some people I have the highest respect for consider him one of their favorite authors. I guess my problem is that I basically don't like horror novels, and of the three I can recall ever reading, two were King books and I hated them. And his movies aren't any better. In fact, there are only three King movies (out of, like, fifty) I can stand: The Running Man, The Shawshank Redemption, and The Green Mile. It is no small coincidence that The Mist, which I also enjoyed, was made by the same guy who made Shawshank and Mile.

The Mist is a great, classical horror movie. Unlike the recent surge in gory torture-porn horror films, which rely simply on overwhelming the audience with shockingly horrific visuals, The Mist is far more of a psychological horror film. Dare I say cerebral horror film? Probably not, and yet, it has now been said.
The story is simple. An unusually powerful storm brings a thick mist into a small town and a group of people are trapped in a grocery store when they realize that some horrific creatures have accompanied the abnormally thick fog. The utterly unexpected and terrifying circumstances are exacerbated by the fact that the people trapped have wildly divergent personalities, which forms the basis for the psychological conflicts that ensue. Long story short: the real horror involves the way people treat each other, not so much the monsters. But don't get me wrong--the monsters are still pretty freaky.

There are a few problems I had, all of which are, in my opinion, rooted in Stephen King's style. First of all, the diversity of people naturally breeds conflict, with good and bad sides eventually emerging. I consider it a pathetic cinematic cliche in general and horror in particular that the evil people frequently end up being Christian fundamentalists. For f***s sake, why does Hollywood hate Christians? It's not exactly a high commentary on Hollywood when the most prominently pro-Christian movie of the year is Rambo. Second, although it is a horror movie, the director stated that he wanted to make a film that hearkened back to 50's style horror films. But the few and gratuitous moments of gore were too over-the-top to resemble the horror films of yesteryear. It wasn't anything like SAW or Hostel, but the excessive moments took me a little out of the movie in contrast to the measured, restrained pace the tension builds.
But really, the complaints are relatively minor compared to the overall enjoyment of the film. One pleasant surprise was the ending, which, unlike most horror films, eschews the fairy-tale happy ending and goes for a full-bore, genuinely horrific ending. It was a bold move, but a powerful way to end an unusually good horror movie.

Anyway, the DVD came with an unusual special feature: the entire movie in black and white. I hope to watch that within a few days and I'll write about it here if there is anything significant about the experience.

Music Review: NINE INCH NAILS: GHOSTS I-IV

2008-03-29T09:21:00.005-04:00

I can't write this review without focusing on two wildly different aspects of it: the music and the manner in which it arrives. But to maintain some degree of coherence, I'll go in the opposite order. Heh-heh-heh...I'm so confusing!

First, the manner of arrival. Most musical artists sign contracts with a record company to begin their career; they rarely become truly popular until they sign with a company that can finance the recording, distribution, and marketing of albums. In return, artists sign away their rights to the music and allow the company to collects a lion's share of the profit of sales. It used to be that CDs and tapes were the only way people could own music; the record company dictated virtually every aspect of the relationship between artists and fan, a situation that has traditionally led to artists being financially and, ultimately, artistically destroyed.
Trent Reznor found himself in such a situation since signing for his first album in the late 80's. Since then he has had various legitimate concerns with the direction the recording companies have chosen, all of which take advantage of consumers and artists. After 2007's Year Zero and its remix album, Reznor finally fulfilled his contract and was free to do whatever he wanted with his music.
The one factor that has strained the relationship between the recording industries and, basically, The World, is the rise of the internet. Instead of buying CDs, consumers can purchase or simply download for free digital copies of whatever they want, legality be damned. Similarly, artists suddenly have the technology available to create and distribute music at least as effectively as record companies. The business model has utterly shifted, rendering the need for the draconian record companies vastly diminished.
With Ghosts, Reznor did zero marketing beyond a single-sentence announcement on NIN's website saying a new album was available. Ghosts 1 was free. For $5, you could download Ghosts 1-4 in a variety of formats of varying quality. For $10, you could get the same deal plus a physical CD. There were also $75 and $300 packages for super- and hyper-fans. Additionally, Reznor made sure high quality versions were available to public download sites, knowing that people that download music without paying are simply not going to ever pay if they don't want to. Ultimately, Reznor wanted his music available to as many people as possible for a price and with a quality that they wanted. His choice should terrify every record company. For an album he recorded on his own with some buddies and made available for next to nothing online, he made more money from this album than any of the other albums he has released. In my opinion, this is the direction that consumers want music to go: directly from artist to fan. I am confident that a larger percentage of my purchase went to the artist in this case than literally any other piece of entertainment I've ever bought, and I'm completely OK with that.

Now, as for the music. Almost every NIN album has had a few instrumental tracks, and in all honesty, given the subject matter of primarily the earlier albums, I've always enjoyed the instrumental tracks more than songs; A Warm Place on The Downward Spiral album is, in my humble opinion, one of the most beautiful pieces of music I own. Ghosts is 36 tracks of instrumental music, a project Reznor has mentioned possibly doing over the years, but I never thought he'd actually do. Well, to my great surprise, he actually did, and it's fantastic!
Reznor mentioned that there was an underlying philosophy that went into the writing and recording of Ghosts, mainly that it was a project kept to 10-weeks (or less), involved a minimal number of people, and was guided by an attempt to sonically-realize specific visual experiences. He also specifically opted out of sharing with the public the visuals that accompanied the recording process, as well as kept the track-titles uber-generic, all of which was aimed at allowing the listener to let their imagination wander.
Reznor's music has always been a complex, layered soundscape that can sound completely different each time it is listened to. Ghosts is a project that in every possible way allows the listener to utterly indulge in their own imagination with music whose sole purpose is to facilitate this indulgence. I love it. I love the fact that I can listen to it as I'm going to sleep, prepping my mind for any dreams it inspires. Or while I'm driving home after work and need something to help me relax. Or when I'm running and need something to drive the pain out of my mind. I've enjoyed picking out different themes in each of the four suites, and then recognizing particular cues that are reminiscent of earlier NIN work, but modified and altered to fit the new sonic environment. I find the entire experience fascinating on an emotional and intellectual level.

So where does that leave me. I definitely recommend the album to everyone. For one thing, it's free for 25% of it, which is enough for you to decide if you like it. Secondly, it's $5 for a completely legal copy of the whole thing, which is amazing. Lastly, if you in any way are tired of high-priced CDs from artists who pad their albums with filler and are distinctly disconnected from their fans, then support this business model as a way to protest and set the stage for the future! Because someday, your favorite artist will be free of their recording contract, and if they survive, hopefully they'll adopt the NIN philosophy of musical distribution!

Movie Review: Doomsday

2008-03-18T02:05:00.007-04:00

What a sad weekend I'm having, when unquestionably the best movie I've watched so far is a hyper-derivative film called Doomsday. While entertaining, I spent virtually the whole movie saying to myself "Hey, they did that in [fill in name of better movie.]" If flattery is the highest form of praise, then Doomsday is a stunningly complimentary film. Some reference material examples...completing the sentence:
"Doomsday is kinda of like...":

Mad Max, but not as good.
The Road Warrior, but not as good
Resident Evil, but not as good.
Aliens, but not as good.
28 Weeks Later, but not as good.
Terminator 3, but not as good.
No Escape, but about as good.
I Am Legend, but not as good.
Outbreak, but not as good.
Waterworld, but not as good. (It's true...)
Gladiator, but not as good.
Demolition Man, but not as good.
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, but not as good.
Reign of Fire, but not as good.
V for Vendetta, but not as good.
Raiders of the Lost Ark, but not as good.

Timeline, but BETTER!!

The list goes on and on. It's unfortunate that so many parts of Doomsday brought to mind such a long list of other, better movies. Except for Timeline, which sucked. Badly. It seems that the filmmakers took every post-apocalyptic film they could think of, picked a few (yes, it's true) medieval European movies, and OD'd on some of the great sci-fi films in all cinema, threw them in a blender, and came out with Doomsday. It ain't awful, but it certainly isn't great, either.

The plot is simple, but I won't waste time on it. There is a simple list of what made this movie enjoyable, such as it was: hot chicks, crazy car chases, guns and explosions, sweet futuristic tech, medieval sword fighting, and hot chicks. I'll address the two most enjoyable features selected from this comprehensive list.
First, medieval sword fighting. This was completely unexpected, since the movie takes place 40 years in the future, or something like that. I say completely unexpected, even though Ry told me ahead of time to expect it, Why unexpected? Because after the first medieval element turned up, I thought "Oh, that's cool." Then I assumed they were done with the medieval homage. But then it came up again. I thought, "Hey, it was cool once. It's kinda cool again. But they can't really stretch it much further." Well, how wrong I was. Every time I thought the medieval thing was done, they went further and further, to the point where I was convinced the filmmakers were just making an utterly absurd joke. It was like a more entertaining version of Timeline kinda, except the filmmakers knew it was silly and outrageous. Not like Timeline, where I think people thought they were making a real movie. Anyway, it was just funny how far Doomsday went with the medieval fighting and setting--you'll laugh, I swear.
Second, hot chicks. No B-movie is complete without hot chicks. Suffice it to say that in the honored tradition of Alien, Doomsday gives the world yet another strong female lead character, who is tougher and more vicious than 99.9% of all male characters in the history of film. And she is 360-degrees of hotness. Then there were a few other hot chicks, whose acting ability and characters were obviously unimportant and unnoticeable for being either good or bad. As soon as the thought seriously occurs that I hope I meet this chick in real life, I no longer care what they are doing on-screen. Just as long as they are there.

Anyway, by no means is Doomsday a great or even good movie. But it was fun. And after Lady in the Water and Match Point, it was a welcome relief.
And no, I don't recommend it to anyone. It's violent and gory and somewhat profane. I doubt I'll ever watch it again. Unless I'm forced, God forbid, into watching Lady and Match again...then I'll have to, since I know Doomsday is a great remedy.

Movie Review: Match Point

2008-03-18T01:51:00.002-04:00

Strike two: This movie was even worse than Lady of the Water. They share one trait in common: they were both movies that I archived from [other people's] DVDs that I kinda wanted to see but not enough to buy or rent them. The one redeeming quality is that I was absolutely right on both counts; neither movie was worth spending any money on. However, they are awful for ver different reasons.

LitW was bad in every way. Match Point, however, was a very technically proficient film made by a very well respected, experienced filmmaker: Woody Allen. I've only seen one other Allen movie that's probably 40 years old, so I'm hardly a fan. His movies typically come across as too cerebral. Yes, I just admitted to being perhaps too dumb to enjoy his movies. But in all reality, they come across as not being entertaining, just well-written dramas with excellent acting and a classic style. Allen has often criticized modern blockbuster films, with their over-reliance on special effects and the fact that any self-respecting filmmaker would waste years making a single film. Well, Transformers may have had silly dialog, passable acting, ridiculous reliance on special effects, and taken 2500+ people 2-3 years to make, but I guaran-damn-tee that I'll watch and be entertained by Transformers way more times than any Woody Allen movie.

So...Match Point. The reason I hated this movie is that its singular focus is on adultery, and there is absolutely no redeeming quality whatsoever to a film that glamorizes or in any way attempts to justify such a horrid, awful thing. I'm gonna be honest, the only reasons I saw the movie were because it had Scarlett "I'm 8-Shades of Hotness" Johansson and apparently there would be some references to tennis, one of the few sports I've actually excelled in during my life.
Well, neither of these points were compelling enough to make the movie even remotely bearable. I had to break this 2-hour film into parts just to get through, and I still believe that the 20-25 games of Halo 3 I played between segments were enough of a reprieve to convince me to actually finish it.

I really don't want to write any more, and don't think I need to. There is no reason for anyone to ever watch this film. Hopefully the next movie I see will be more better...

Movie Review: Lady In The Water

2008-03-17T00:30:00.003-04:00

This movie is a wretched abomination that primarily reflects on the sad, desolate corner its writer/director has painted himself into by not altering his film-making style one bit over the course of five films but decided to eliminate the one unique quality that had made this trend bearable in the previous films.

I'm talking about M. Night Shyamalan, the guy who made The Sixth Sense, Unbreakable, Signs, and The Village. Let's be real...Night's m.o. is the surprise ending, telescoped throughout the film by uber-subtle hints; so subtle that second and third viewings often increase in enjoyment. The problem, though, is that Night tossed off the surprise ending in favor of indulging his career in an inferior homemade fairy-tale.

What we end up with is a long, convoluted piece of crap. There are too many characters, they are too strange, the story is too absurd to accommodate the pacing and tone of the film, and there are just too many pretentious decisions Night made that reflect a very self-absorbed mentality. Like casting himself as the film's supposed literary messiah in the face of the real-world criticism heaped upon him in that particular arena. Similarly, the only person to die in the movie is the stuffy, annoying film critic, representing the real-world critics who regularly savage Night's films. These silly decisions take me right out of a film that already stretches its credibility.

I've already written more than is worthwhile for such a horrid film. I'm afraid that it has kind of shaded my opinion of Night's previous films, some of which I've had a very high opinion of. In absolutely no way, shape, or form would I recommend this film to anyone. Anyone that in any way enjoys good movies, anyway.

Movie Review: The Assassination of Jesse James By The Coward Robert Ford

2008-02-23T16:47:00.003-05:00

I have discovered a perfect litmus test for whether you will like Jesse James: Have you ever seen Terrance Malick's The Thin Red Line and/or The New World? If you enjoyed either of those movies based purely on their style, then you will likely enjoy Jesse James, directed by Andrew Dominik.
Malick's movies are made to elicit a specific emotional response through a visual and audio experience; the narrative itself is only a small and typically less important component. After watching a Malick movie, I am exhausted; the extended running times combined with an unusually powerful emotional journey are thoroughly tiring, yet unquestionably rewarding. Jesse James is made in the same cinematic vein as Malick's films. It's slow, deliberate pacing is combined with significant visual imagery meant to provoke a specific emotional response. However, there is a very profound difference between Malick's films and Dominik's Jesse James. Malick meticulously crafts the emotional journey to directly affect the viewer, inspiring a deeper examination of the viewer's personal emotions. Dominik carefully constructs an emotional journey meant to convey to the viewer the emotional state of the two main characters, particularly Robert Ford. The subtle difference between the externally prescriptive emotional journey of Malick's films and the internally descriptive emotional journey of Dominik's film is fascinating, but also encompasses why I don't believe Jesse James is as excellent a cinematic work of art as The Thin Red Line, but is far more enjoyable as a piece of entertainment.
Now I'm well aware that 99.9% of everyone that's tried to watch The Thin Red Line was bored stiff and hated it. I'm primarily focusing this review on those people who watch films for more than entertainment. Terrance Malick doesn't make popcorn movies, but you would be hard pressed to find a filmmaker with a more critically acclaimed repertoire. The fact that Dominik has made an essentially critically comparable film is, in fact, high praise; the fact that Jesse James is more watchable is due to the fact that it is more narratively focused and thematically subjective than Malick's objectively esoteric films; this fact is also very much appreciated by anyone who wants a Malick-type film that is not as emotionally exhausting.

Now, having blown your freaking mind with that bit of literary analysis, let me change directions tell you whether or not Jesse James is any good. In a word, yes, absolutely. It is an excellent western and head-and-shoulders above many of the films of any genre that were released in recent years. Jesse James is stunningly shot; the cinematographer deserved his Oscar nomination and hopefully will win. The music is beautiful and perfectly complements the visual and emotional tone of the film. The acting is across the board excellent, with Casey Affleck proving that he can run circles around Brad Pitt on a whim. But even then, Pitt demonstrates why he is a truly great actor, giving a brilliantly complex performance as Jesse James. It just happens that the real main character is Robert Ford, a truly tragic figure who, despite his oddities and obvious act of violence in the film, demands the deepest sympathies of the audience.
I wrote last year about 3:10 To Yuma being the best western in years and years, also commenting on other reviews I read at the time that emphasized the polar differences between the styles of 3:10 To Yuma and Jesse James. Yuma is clearly a morally black-and-white western, with characters and a narrative that harken back to older westerns, when good was good and bad was bad. This is hardly surprising as Yuma is a remake of a movie from the 1950s. However, Yuma updated this classical formula and proved to be an absolutely top-notch resurrection of a genre that has grown stale.
Why had westerns grown stale? It essentially began with Unforgiven, when Clint Eastwood turned the proudly moral genre on its head by making a movie drenched in gritty reality and brutality. Unforgiven began a trend in which each subsequent Western simply tried to convey a more and more supposedly realistic view of what the West was really like; life was ugly, cruel, vulgar, and above all, ripe with violence, both sexual and bloody.
The problem was, Unforgiven basically perfected this trend of gritty, historical westerns right at the outset, and virtually every western made since 1990 has only 'improved' on it in the form of more violence, more vice, and more vulgarity. I almost swore off all westerns ever again after seeing a couple episodes of Deadwood while in Antarctica; it was the most vile, offensive portrayal of the wild west I've ever seen.
In Jesse James, Dominik has finally nailed the tone of a historically accurate western in the style of Unforgiven. In fact, Dominik has actually, in my opinion, made a better movie than Unforgiven, without even resorting to a superficial attempt at oneupmanship with respect to excesses in graphic content.
Now, how is this done? Jesse James takes a factual historical event and presents a story that is thematically classic but clearly intended for modern audiences: the concept of celebrity obsession and pathological hero worship. I suspect that such clearly defined psychological concepts existed in the 1800s, but were not understood or appreciated, much less clinically treated at the time. Realistically, I'm not even sure they are diagnosed and dealt with today, as evidenced by the wholly offensive obsession America has with all things celebrity-related. However, to take a relatively modern concept and apply it so masterfully in a film portraying a more innocent (yet ignorant) era has produced a fascinatingly complex film.
Robert Ford worshiped Jesse James. Literally. Yet he was utterly harmless in the beginning of the film. He is overwhelmed with the awesomeness of the opportunity to ride with Jesse James on a job; a train robbery that essentially opens the film. Yet over the course of the nearly 3-hour film, Ford realizes that Jesse is truly indifferent to his admiration and, in all reality, a total douche, particularly towards Ford. Yet he is helpless to alter the course of his obsession, even in the face of James' wildly vacillating moods, which range from surprisingly generous thoughtfulness to a terrifying state of perpetual psychological torture and abuse. Though the film's title accurately reflects the technical historical facts, it avoids conveying the reality that Ford committed a form of vicarious suicide by shooting Jesse James in the head.
Recommending this film is real tough choice. On the one hand, it is really long, has very little action, and is clearly meant as a character drama in the vein of There Will Be Blood. Even in the midst of the excellent cinematic elements (acting, cinematography, etc.), the fact is that Jesse James is a humorless drama that deals with themes meant to remind the viewer that human beings are deeply flawed and probably not capable of changing themselves--not exactly an upper of a movie.
On the other hand, I strongly recommend this movie to anyone who appreciates a ponderous, thought-provoking film that explores modern concepts within the framework of a classical genre that itself has undergone extensive redefinition in recent years. I would particularly recommend that anyone interested in seeing Jesse James watch 3:10 To Yuma as well for a wildly contrasting portrayal of the direction this revered genre is heading into the future.

Movie Review: Step Up 2 The Streets

2008-02-21T21:51:00.002-05:00

Before you ask, no, this was not my choice. While out with Kara last Saturday, after seeing the Joseph Smith movie (my choice), visiting her parents, and going to dinner, Kara got to choose the second movie, and the sequel to one of her favorite movies was in the cards. I was more than willing to go, despite the fact that I knew nothing about it. I thought I had seen the first movie on accident in Antarctica, but found out I was wrong.

Ultimately, this didn't matter. The plot was of negligible value, with absolutely no new material brought to the narrative table. But who cares...this movie is about dancing! Eff yeah!!

Those who know me understand the extreme topical irony of this situation already. I mean, get real; my favorite movie this year is Rambo. Its most notable dancing moment: people dancing with cobras.

But in all honesty, the movie was relatively enjoyable. After waiting to confirm her legal age on IMDB, I'm now happy to report that the lead actress was stupidly hot, with a strangely sexy voice. According to Kara, the dudes in the movie were too. Not being much of an expert in dancing, I found the dancing in the movie to be pretty spectacular. It made me think I need to work out, do some yoga, and get all limber and junk. Not that my dancing will improve, but apparently ripped, bendy bodies are like ultra-chick-magnets. I'm convinced that I could accomplish this, just as I'm convinced that I could get in Navy SEAL physical condition in preparation for the inevitable zombie apocalypse. It's totally do-able, it's just a matter of necessity. I swear.

Anyway, far be it from be wax on about a movie the viewing of which feels mildly emasculating. Suffice it to say, I was pleasantly surprised and recommend it to anyone that...well, likes dancing or hot chicks.

Movie Review: Joseph Smith: Prophet of the Restoration

2008-02-21T21:21:00.002-05:00

This is, , of course, the movie the Church produced on the 200th anniversary of the Prophet's birth that shows in the Joseph Smith building on Temple Square in SLC. Believe it or not, despite several very easy opportunities, I never saw the movie while living in Utah last year. This is mainly because I didn't really like Legacy (too cheesy) or The Testaments (way too cheesy), and I didn't want to go to a movie about someone I admire so much and have that image tarnished. Fortunately, I experienced the complete opposite.

While in Utah for Mike and Sadee's wedding, I had the chance to (finally!) see Kara, something I look forward to at absolutely every opportunity. We had an awesome day, and I'm really grateful that we chose to go to this movie in particular.

From a purely cinematic point of view, Joseph Smith is by far the best film the Church has produced. Technically, it's as good as any Hollywood film, and benefits from utilizing some greater theatrical drama. The sequence portraying Joseph Smith's experience in the sacred grove prior to the first vision was genuinely scary and provided great contrast to the sublime beauty of the vision that followed. The actor that portrayed Joseph Smith looked unlike anything I imagined the Propet looked like, but I quickly forgot thanks to a powerful and convincing performance. Over all, impressive all the way around.

More importantly, the film connected with me on a much deeper level. Obviously, being LDS my entire life has allowed me to learn a great deal about Joseph Smith, both intellectually and, more importantly, spiritually. His life is legendary, filled with ups-and-downs the likes of which few throughout history can claim. I have always admired his wonderful and miraculous accomplishments, but been overwhelmed by the tragic cost to him and his family. And yet, I know that the Prophet himself never regretted anything that happened to him, because he saw the end game and knew that he was on the right path. The film does an excellent job of portraying the life of a mortal man firmly committed to an eternal goal.

Joseph Smith once said "A religion that does not require the sacrifice of all things never has power sufficient to produce the faith necessary unto life and salvation." This could seem like a harsh requirement coming from someone who is so obviously revered over 200 years later. However, then one is reminded of the fact that few throughout history have sacrificed so much for something they believed in. A real sense of the sacrifice and physical pain the Prophet endured throughout his life is certainly conveyed in abundance throughout the film, but unlike Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ, which reveled simply in the portrayal of the suffering, each trial Joseph Smith faced was clearly tied to an subsequent blessing from the Lord, whether personally or on behalf of the Church and all mankind. I was reminded of an important lesson I learned on my mission, in which I learned by experience that where much is required, much is given.

Obviously, I recommend this movie to anyone. Literally anyone. I do not believe anybody can learn anything about Joseph Smith's life and not become a better person for having done so. I look forward to seeing it again in DC this weekend at the Visitors Center.

Movie Review: Rambo (v.3)

2008-02-21T21:20:00.001-05:00

Yeah, this movie is still freaking awesome. Suck it, everything else...

Movie Review: Charlie Wilson's War

2008-02-02T09:58:00.000-05:00

So I had the unexpected pleasure of seeing Charlie Wilson's War a couple nights ago. A friend and I were celebrating her new-found unemployment and she picked the movie. I was pleasantly surprised to find that I enjoyed it, despite knowing virtually nothing about it before hand. While it's entirely possible that it was due to the presence of a hot girl, I actually believe the movie was good as well!
Charlie Wilson's War has a very off-putting title. I know this because the first time I read the title, I thought "Meh...doesn't sound like a movie I'd watch." and that was that. I don't think I ever even saw a whole preview for it. It was kind of a gimme movie; with so many obviously talented people involved in it, I knew that it was the kind of movie I'd enjoy should I ever get around to seeing it. It just didn't seem like the subject matter was very intriguing.
Well, then a cute girl wanted to see it with me and, frankly, that's clearly a sufficient reason for me to go. And so we did.
Turns out the movie is a true story about a relatively minor congressman who championed a covert war that played a huge hand in defeating the Soviet Union during the Cold War. Yeah, that's pretty much the whole summary. I could fill in the details, but that would really ruin the movie. Historical movies are primarily about details; good period-pieces take some event from history, whether interesting or not, and fill in the details, making them even interesting. And such is Charlie Wilson's War.
The film itself treads a razor-thin line between drama and comedy; there were a lot of times that I found myself trying to decide whether I should be laughing or pondering something poignant. Naturally, because I'm me, I usually laughed. That said, I left the movie with a much greater appreciation and understanding of some not-so-long-ago historical events that eventually played a significant role in shaping the world we live in today. I found myself wrapping my head around the idea that winning the Cold War but not rebuilding afterwards (like we did in WW2) created an environment in which Islamic terrorism replaced communism as our nation's greatest threat. Impressively, the film inspired these thoughts and conversations without feeling heavy-handed, openly depressing, or preachy.
I did have one complaint. I didn't feel that the film presented any kind of meaningful motivation for Charlie Wilson's personal crusade. There were several potential elements that emerged as possible motivations for him, but none of them came across as the kind of compelling personal experience that would drive someone to pursue such an important and critical cause. This is far from a deal-breaker, but it was something that nagged at me during the film.
Anyway, it was a great movie; I enjoyed it. I don't think I'll ever be compelled to go out of my way to watch it again, but I am definitely interested in learning more about the real events. Sometimes a movie's best accomplishment is the stylish inspiration to learn more about it.
Thanks to Emme for a fun evening, and congratulations on throwing off the shackles of oppressive employment!

Movie Review: Rambo (v.2)

2008-02-01T21:11:00.001-05:00

I've had a week to think a little more about Rambo and really I stand by my earlier review. However, I thought I'd add a few thoughts to expand on it.

First of all, action movies today are not very good. Even I am willing to concede this sorry fact. I love action movies, but the number of good ones is overwhelmed by the number of bad ones. One reason is the sad dearth of action stars. For real, name one action star working today. Umm...yeah. You can't. Neither can I. Because there are none. Maybe because someone decided that special effects could turn anyone into an action star. No, sit down Will Smith and Johnny Depp. Maybe because someone thought people wanted a more realistic action hero with emotions and crap. No, sorry Paul Walker, you sissy boy and The Rock. Maybe somebody decided that action movies needed an ensemble cast to really appeal to a larger demographic. No, back down, ye scurvy Pirates of the Caribbean. Let's be real, the best action movies are carried by an action star. And there just aren't any great ones today.
Back in the 80s and 90s, action movies were defined not by plots, spectacle or, God forbid, emotional drama, although these were, to varying degrees, an occasionally-contemplated element of action flicks. No, action movies were defined by the stars, and those stars were Arnold Schwarzenegger, Bruce Willis, and Sylvester Stallone. But eventually, they got bored with action movies and moved on. Arnold migrated to politics. Bruce Willis tried his hand at non-action movies and discovered that he was, fortuitously enough, a genuinely good actor. And Stallone simply disappeared, apparently making infrequent appearances in the direct-to-video market; a sad pasture for someone who used to make $20 million a movie.
But then, one morning they all woke up, saw the sad state of the genre, and decided to show people how real action movies are made. Arnold decided to log one last turn as The Terminator in Terminator 3, surprising everyone with a shockingly enjoyable second sequel 12 years after T2. Then Bruce Willis decided to resurrect John McClane and made the best Die Hard yet, easily laying the smack down on every other action movie in 2007; again, 12 years after Die Hard 3. Stallone, coming from a deeper hibernation than Schwarzenegger or Willis, shook off the dust by making a dramatic and highly respectable last turn as Rocky Balboa before getting down to business and making Rambo; not only the best action movie in a long time, but arguably the most faithful sequel compared to his contemporaries' recent efforts.
Rambo is simply awesome. Despite a 20-year gap since Rambo III, the new film rests comfortably on the shoulders of its predecessors, improving on them in every way, yet relying on their foundation for extra dramatic depth. Sure, you can enjoy Rambo without seeing the earlier films, but being familiar with them, particularly First Blood, allows Stallone to tell a very taut, focused story, knowing that the character doesn't need any further explanation or development; Rambo is still Rambo.
The film takes place in Thailand and Burma. Stallone revealed that in writing the script he went to professional soldiers and asked them where in the world, right now, are the worst human-rights atrocities happening. Everyone responded unanimously: Burma. So Stallone decided to set his film there, which worked perfectly since Rambo III left the character in that corner of the world anyway.
The plot of the film is simple: Well-meaning Christian doctor/missionaries convince boatman Rambo to take them to Burma to deliver medical aid to oppressed Christian villagers who the government of Burma is systematically murdering on a genocidal scale. The missionaries are captured. Rambo rescues them, despite the pesky interference of apparently the entire Burmese Army and Navy.
There are a few important elements of the Rambo mythology that set it apart from being a mindless exercise in violence. First off, I'll address the white elephant: the violence itself. Violence in movies demands context before it is acceptable or even bearable to watch. This fact was reconfirmed recently when I sadly watched The Condemned, which was absolutely nothing more then an exercise in gratuitous violence. I hated the movie and was disgusted at the cold, empty violence it was filled with. On the other hand, the Rambo films, while filled with their share of violence, are very careful in framing it within a character who hates violence, who loathes his capacity to inflict it, and dreads those times that require him to indulge in it. John Rambo loathes the fact that his only real talent in life, the only skill he possesses that anybody on Earth cares about, is his capacity for war. From First Blood all the way through the sequels and most clearly in the new film, Stallone injects into the character a sadness and haunted submission to the fact that his destiny is not to just stand up for the weak by fighting evil, but to utterly and completely decimate it. The violence is also framed to clearly define the line between good and evil. There are a lot of innocent people that die in Rambo as the film portrays the absolutely real conditions in Burma; it's painful and disturbing to watch, but riveting simply because it is actually happening in the world today, right now. The bad guys in Rambo are so bad that when John Rambo finally drops the hammer, you are 110% cheering for him to rid the Earth of them.
It is within this framework that Stallone has allowed the Rambo films to progressively, even exponentially, increase the portrayal of violence in the films. Rambo is probably the most violent movie I've seen for a long time. And yet, I found myself sitting in the theater with hundreds of other people cheering and throwing my fist in the air as Rambo annihilated the entire hoard of bad guys. The violence is ultra-realistic and virtually non-stop for the last 30 minutes of the film. And it is awesome to behold.
The Rambo films also make no qualms about clearly defining the good guys from the bad guys. There is no gray area, no moral ambiguity, and certainly no shortage of examples on either side of the line. Despite the fact that Rambo is literally a war machine of death, he absolutely only targets people who unquestionably deserve it. In the first film, it was a clearly corrupt local police department (and technically, Rambo didn't kill a single person in First Blood.) In the second, Vietnamese soldiers still running an American POW camp. In three, the Soviet Union. And now, the despicable Burmese Army.
Maybe I'm just strange (no cheap shots, please...), but there is something supremely satisfying in seeing bad people get what they deserve. It's actually a remarkable accomplishment to show an entire boatload of people (and their steel-sided boat) literally torn asunder with a .50 machine gun and the audience's collective thought is "AWESOME! They SO deserved that!" Normally, I'd actually be very worried about condoning such a graphic display of violence. But when it is the medium by which the utterly polarized good guys and bad guys respectively administer and receive justice, it just feels right. I cannot remember the last movie I saw in which the audience was so utterly engrossed and involved.
A few side notes: I don't care what anyone says, Stallone, at the age of 60+, could still beat the living crap out of anybody in the world. He is also the most amazing jungle-sprinter ever, based on one of the most amazing shots of the movie. I was also really glad that the corny one-liners and macho-man, muscle-bound posturing were eliminated; those sad relics of the second and third movies needed to be forgotten. I was actually impressed with the band of mercenaries that assist Rambo. They were very rough, enjoyable individuals who served the purpose of demonstrating that, as tough as they were, they couldn't hold a candle to Rambo. Lastly, I want to give a special shout out to sound. Yes, the ethereal entity we so casually refer to as 'sound' makes this movie literally rock you in your seat. The sound in Rambo was awe-inspiring. It was so loud, and so engulfing, that you cannot help but be blown into the back of your seat. I can't imagine an actual war being much louder.
Anyway, as you can probably tell, I really enjoyed the movie. If I were compelled to point out one short-coming, the I would say it was a little short. But then again, most of the great action movies of the 80s and 90s were just fine at 90-100 minutes.

Movie Review: Rambo

2008-01-25T22:10:00.000-05:00

Rambo makes every other action movie ever made look gay.

I might expand on this later, once my mind recollects itself.
Maybe next week.

Movie Review: There Will Be Blood

2008-01-15T02:07:00.000-05:00

This movie is an honest to goodness cinematic masterpiece. Despite being a nearly 3-hour film about the birth of the oil industry in America told through a fictional character, I was utterly riveted from start to finish.

There Will Be Blood follows the story of Daniel Plainview from the accidental discovery of his first oil well to his Machiavellian machinations to secure his financial legacy in a series of wells in southern Texas. Daniel Plainview is played by Daniel Day-Lewis, also known as Daniel "Every Five Years I Remind People I Can Take The Acting Oscar Anytime I Want To" Day-Lewis. I recently wrote about I Am Legend, and how Will Smith was riveting as essentially the only person on-screen for most of the film. Want to know what tops that? An actor that is so exceptional that even when he is surrounded by a lot of other characters played by a lot of excellent actors, he still absolutely commands your attention. Even when Plainview is not on-screen, the film is still utterly dominated by his influence. I doubt any other actor could possibly match Day-Lewis in this type of character-driven film; I could not imagine another actor doing an even remotely equal job; not Tom Hanks, Russell Crowe, or even the sublime excellence of Will Ferrell. If Day-Lewis is not given the Oscar this year, you will know they are rigged.

There Will Be Blood is a film that is layered in thematic symbolism. I know what you're thinking: what the crap does that mean? It means that while director Paul Thomas Anderson tells a definite narrative story, woven into the fabric of this story are rich, textured commentaries on many themes, of which the viewer should be able to recognize and relate to at least some of them. Greed, religion, capitalism, poverty, morality, family, work ethic, industry, and corruption are all themes that, taken individually, are fully confronted in There Will Be Blood. Not on a superficial level, but in a manner which begs a discerning viewer to run out and find someone else that has seen the movie and just talk about it.
Of all of these themes, the one I have thought about the most, is the topic of religion and spirituality. Daniel Plainview is not a religious man, and if anything, he looks at religion with contempt, only tolerating it because it is capable of being manipulated for his own ends. This point of view seems, at first, to be utterly contemptible; an outright affront to people's religious beliefs at first glance. However, as the film progresses, you get the feeling that Plainview doesn't hate spirituality necessarily, just the particular brand of organized religion that he is continually harassed by. And quite honestly, who wouldn't?
The local church is run by a self-proclaimed healer who, at the tender age of 'my voice just broke,' plays a role that is carefully balanced between enthusiastic spiritual leader and greedy, corrupt evangelist. His real character is revealed at the end of the film and provides a satisfying conclusion to each character's story arc.
What I found most interesting is that the film portray the growth of organized religion as similarly corrupt to the growth of the oil industry. The preacher exploits people's spirituality just as Plainview exploits their greed. Which is more wrong, and which leaves the people worse off? Or do both help people enjoy life more? These were some of the questions that the film left me with. I found the portrayal of the local church to be particularly intriguing because I think it demonstrates the realistic religious confusion that Joseph Smith faced when he finally turned to the Bible to seek a real answer as to who was right and wrong. Assuming the movie has an even remote similarity to the socio-religious conditions of Joseph Smith's youth, I utterly understand not only his deep-seeded desire for spiritual clarity in his relationship with God, but the resultant logic and perfection that were his answer when he finally prayed about it in the Sacred Grove. The need for authority to act in the name of God should be one of the first and most important issues whenever the validity of a religion is considered.

Anyway, before I write another super-long essay, I'll conclude with a very strong recommendation to watch There Will Be Blood. Although the movie is rated R, I was very surprised that it was as tame as it was content wise; I expected a more grotesque display of, well, blood. Fortunately, not so much at all.
This is easily one of the best films released in a long time. On every level it exudes excellence and must be seen to be appreciated.

Movie Review: No Country For Old Men

2008-01-15T01:52:00.000-05:00

I went to see this movie because it's gotten incredible critical acclaim, and as with most movies I tried really hard to not read any reviews ahead of time or study up on its plot. This one time, I really regret that policy, because I walked out of the theater knowing I had seen an excellent movie, but really, really disliking it because of its unexpected "ending."

No Country For Old Men is kind of about a drug deal gone bad, how one guy finds the money and decides to keep it, how a hit man is sent to get the money and kill the thief, and a sheriff whose chasing the resultant trail of bodies. The movie is made by the Coen Brothers, who made the surprisingly good O Brother, Where Art Thou?, Intolerable Cruelty, and The Ladykillers, among many other very highly respected films, all of which are excellent films in their own ways. No Country For Old Men is the same, it's just the source material that's kinda weird.

So I can't really write much of a review. I walked out of the theater thoroughly disappointed, planning to really hate the movie. Then I talked to my friend Ry and he said the ending was pretty much exactly the same as the book, which he also thought was ambiguous and without any real closure. I recognize the films excellent acting, directing, and all that jazz. I just wish that I had been more aware that the movie was more of a character study than a narrative journey...

Movie Review: Sunshine

2008-01-15T00:46:00.000-05:00

So, I recently wrote about how science fiction is a genre in its death throes.I now find this ironic because only a day after watching Aliens vs. Predator - Requiem, I saw the best science fiction movie I've seen in years and years. In fact, since I bought it last Tuesday, I've seen the whole movie 4 times and one particular scene about 20 times. And I am also pleased to note that all of the severe complaints I had about AVP2 were utterly absent in Sunshine; present were all of the essential elements I wrote about in my subsequent diatribe about sci-fi.

Sunshine takes place approximately 50 years in the future when the sun is losing power and the earth is slowly freezing to death. A crew of 8 people is traveling to the sun to essentially re-ignite it with a massive bomb-like device.

This plot is simplistic and open to horrific screw-up. It reminded me of The Core, where humans were sent to the center of the earth to set off bombs to "fix" the earth. The Core sucked; badly. It was so bad that the only thing I remember is how bland, cliche, and vapid it was. Sunshine is a whole different beast.

One of the greatest decisions the filmmakers made was not explaining the science any more than is absolutely necessary. Why is the sun dying? What damage is it causing to Earth? How exactly will the mission's payload fix it? Exactly what are conditions like in the sun? All of these are the kind of questions that the audience asks, but if they are answered, the audience pounces on the science and tears them apart. Face it: most people are not nuclear physicists, so the filmmakers have a catch-22: when sci-fi movies explain the science, half the people will not care or understand but be bored with the documentary vibe, and the other half will know better and rip the movie apart, unable to suspend their disbelief. The solution: don't explain anything more than is absolutely necessary. The sun is dying. They have a solution that will probably work. The audience can use their imaginations to fill in the details with anything they do or don't want; they probably won't because there is something far more fascinating going on.

Sunshine really focuses on how the crew of eight people deal with the incredible isolation of being in space for three years alone, with the hopes of the entire human race resting squarely on their shoulders. The psychological examination of the characters in this situation is fascinating and handled in a believable manner. Each character deals with this stress in their own way, which in turn has an effect on the other characters. On top of this, the various complications that arise come, narratively speaking, naturally and unexpectedly, with consequences that progressively compound the danger and stress; the movie becomes a truly intense psychological journey.

There are several elements of the film that stand out. First of all, the acting. I had no idea that the flame guy from Fantastic Four could act, let alone that he was actually a really good actor. The super-bland FBI agent from Die Hard 4 takes it up a notch, as does That Guy from The Last Samurai, That Chick from Troy, and Scarecrow from Batman Begins. None of the actors is superstars, and the movie benefits from no single stand-out character.
The music from the movie is phenomenal. The beginnings of my love of film lie in Ridley Scott's 1492: Conquest of Paradise, a not-really-great movie that was a masterpiece of visual beauty enhanced by a stunning musical score. Sunshine has two particularly powerful sequences that are dominated by the music and visuals. No movie that I can think of has ever attempted to deal with the sun and the overwhelming physical phenomenon related to its size and destructive power. Sunshine takes this unique visual opportunity and allows the music to tell the story with minimal dialog.
Visually, the film is remarkable. The special effects are rock-solid, from the sun itself to the intricate, fascinating, and obviously well thought-out design of the space craft. Most of the film takes place inside the ship, which is filmed in dominant blues and grays, visually supporting the bleak, cold outlook of the crew. These interior scenes are in stark contrast to the bright yellows and oranges of the sun. The effect is nearly blinding to the viewer, as intended; it serves as a reminder of how dangerous the sun really is.

I could go on and on. There were so many aspects of the film that exceeded my expectations. I listened to the commentary and director Danny Boyle pointed out his inspirations as being films like 2001 and Alien. Yet despite the obvious influences, Sunshine is a work of art in and of itself. At every point in the film where a lesser filmmaker would have fallen back on old, tired cliches, Boyle challenges or treats the audience with unusually good dialog, particularly unexpected twists, or tragically horrific losses.

I really can't recommend the movie enough to anyone that wants to see a good science fiction movie. Sunshine proves that a great genre movie can take a simple story, but tell it in a fascinating way with good characters who face realistic challenges with understandable reactions. That said, the movie is rated R for some violence/gore dealing with Bad Space Accidents.

On a final note, Boyle mentioned how absolutely difficult the genre of science fiction is, and how no director ever does a second science fiction film that isn't a continuation of a franchise. After doing a little searching of my own, the only director I know of who has ever made a second science fiction film that wasn't a sequel/prequel was Ridley Scott, who made Alien and Blade Runner. This is an interesting fact, and almost enough to make me want to make three completely different science fiction films just to prove it's not impossible.

Science Fiction is Dying in Film...

2008-01-09T11:43:00.000-05:00

I just finished writing my review of Aliens vs. Predator - Requiem. It was awful--one of the worst movies I've ever seen. As I walked out of the theater, I contemplated the possibility that science fiction movies are dead.

The early seeds of my theory were probably planted by George Lucas' return to Star Wars. Let's be real: Episodes 1 and 2 were awful movies with a few phenomenally bright spots. Episode 3 was far better, but still lacked the heart and soul of Episodes 4 and 5. As time has passed, I thought that if George Lucas, the modern day godfather of sci-fi films, can make barely 2 hours of decent film out of 6+ hours released and over $400 million spent, then there is a problem.

After watching AVP2, I went home and watched, back-to-back, Alien and Aliens, trying to figure out what it was that Ridley Scott and James Cameron got right that nobody seems capable of anymore. Here are my thoughts:

In general, a successful science fiction movie cannot rely entirely on special effects or dazzling scientific theories. It probably should not directly aim at trying to specifically tell an epic story. Both Alien and Aliens tell small, confined stories that are focused completely on the growth and development of well-drawn characters. The great science fiction movies of all time tell character-driven stories that just so happen to be set in a science fiction environment. Whenever the environment overwhelms the characters, the audience is separated from the experience and the film suffers catastrophically.

Alien had several things going for it. Among them:
1. A creature that nobody had ever seen before, that was terrifying and which the characters were completely helpless to repel.
2. An excellent ensemble cast of great actors who not only turned in great performances, but also were utilized in a particularly unique way; namely, the star-caliber actors all died and the main character turned out to be a then-unknown actress named Sigourney Weaver.
3. The special effects, particularly the alien itself, were used sparingly and only to support the narrative. The more you see the monster, the less scary it is.
4. A measured pace, that slowly ratcheted up the tension by adding compounding challenges and dangers for the characters.
I've seen Alien plenty of times and it still scares the crap out of me. It is a masterpiece and represented a stark change from prior science fiction movies, especially the relatively happy, bright world of Star Wars. Alien was dark and terrifying, effectively convincing people that no, space was not a fun place.

For the sequel to Alien, James Cameron's Aliens did something remarkably rare in cinema: instead of copying the first movie to capitalize on it's success, it took a completely original approach in continuing the storyline and made a better movie than its predecessor. Here are some of the ways this was accomplished:
1. Two aspects of Aliens significantly amplified elements of Alien. First, the only thing more scary than one of those monsters, is hundreds of them. The hopelessness of the odds added an overwhelming pall of doom to the entire film. BUT! Secondly, instead of a group of space truckers, the protagonists are a group of hardcore marines with awesome firepower. The coordinated escalation of threat and defensive capability adds a significant measure of suspense as the audience tried to decide which side will prevail.
2. Despite an equally excellent cast, the story this time focused clearly on one character and her journey from PTSD-suffering survivor to full-blown rescuer and heroine. Sigourney's performance was nominated for an Oscar; that pretty much sums up the quality of acting. And many other characters have become standard archetypes for sci-fi films and video games; I challenge anyone to play Halo and not recognize multiple nods to characters in Aliens.
3. The pace of Aliens progressed slowly and methodically throughout the film, so that the last third of the movie had ratcheted up the tension to an unbelievable level, preparing the stage for one of the most masterfully staged action climaxes in film history. A great sci-fi film (or any action film) knows that truly great action scenes are only good within a solid narrative context, at which point what happens to the characters on screen is emotionally happening to the audience.
4. Cameron expanded the mythology of the aliens in a calculated, logical manner. There are no contradictions in timelines or biological growth when dealing with the monster. These types of internal rules must be adhered to before an audience will allow it's previous experience in this narrative universe to be expanded on in a new film. Cameron introduced the alien queen in such a way that it seemed perfectly logical and reasonable.

Although very different films, Alien and Aliens are both absolutely incredible examples of the heights that the science fiction genre can achieve. The two additional sequels to Alien (Alien 3 and Alien: Resurrection) were not nearly as good, but they at least represented two additional significant departures from the previous efforts; they were relatively original and daring departures from the two previous formulas. Alien 3 suffered from severe studio interference and Alien: Resurrection suffered from a foreign director (poor dialog direction, overly gory, etc.)

This brings me back to AVP2. It essentially represents the current stale state of action movies. It is a cliche-ridden collection of poorly staged action scenes that were obviously far more important to the filmmakers than a coherent story. There was no attempt at attracting real talent on either side of the camera and from start to finish, it seemed that the studio is ruthlessly exploiting a franchise that should have been fertile ground for further excellence in science fiction. All in all, it reminds me of a line spoken by Sigourney Weaver in Aliens: "You don't see them [EXPLETIVE]ing each other over for a percentage point..." Hopefully, at some point, responsibility for the franchise will fall into the hands of someone that actually cares...

So where are sci-fi movies headed? I've read interviews with Ridley Scott where he says he doubts he will ever do another sci-fi movie because as far as he is concerned, the genre is dead. This is especially disturbing coming from the director of Alien and Blade Runner, two genuine masterpieces that have inspired countless rip-offs and homages. I hate to admit it, but I can clearly see his point. As time goes on, if you want to make a truly great film in a niche genre, especially one populated by Alien, Predator, Star Wars, Star Trek, etc. ad infinitum, then the amount of work and genuine passion it takes increases exponentially. Until some truly passionate people, like Ridley Scott and James Cameron, dedicate themselves to making great science fiction, I'm afraid theaters will be stuck with a dearth of AVP2s.

Movie Review: Aliens vs. Predator - Requiem

2008-01-07T17:49:00.001-05:00

No exaggeration, this is one other worse movies ever committed to film ever. I re-watched the first AVP a couple weeks ago and was astounded at how bad it was--much worse than I remembered. I thought to myself "Wow, the second one cannot possibly be as bad as the first..." I was utterly, completely wrong...

I'm almost confounded in trying to decide what to criticize first; AVP2 utterly failed on every level as a cinematic experience. It is as if the filmmakers, who go by the uber-pretentious title "The Brothers Strause," watched all 7 prior Alien and Predator films, made a short list of everything they thought was cool, and, no lie, photocopied it. Sometimes there was a shot-for-shot duplication of something in an earlier film. Sometimes it was lines of dialog, other times it was plot-mechanics. The film is so devoid of originality that I was genuinely surprised that they didn't include some kind of special thanks to the directors of the other films. Additionally:
1. There were no likable characters. At all. Anytime someone died, all I could think was "Cool...the aliens/predators killed another one." It wasn't that the actors were all crap, even though I only recognized a few of them.) Michelle from 24 is a great actress, just not here. And Jose Yiro from Miami Vice, the ridiculously cruel, calculating bad guy? Yeah, deer in the headlights in AVP2. Literally no good performances were registered because literally no good characters were scripted.
2. The film was tremendously mean-spirited. With an entire city full of potential victims, WTF is the reason behind focusing on aliens targeting pregnant women and newborns in a hospital? Really...WTF!! I don't need to see that or even have it vaguely implied to know the aliens are monsters. The only thing that this demonstrated was the vicious inclinations of the filmmakers. Not even the SAW movies approached this level of offensiveness.
3. I cannot fathom how the filmmakers are completely oblivious to the established timeline of the previous films. The first AVP botched this aspect as well, but this movie compounded the problem exponentially. I don't care how perfect the "perfect organism" is, you are not going to have the parasitic face-hugger lay an egg, have it fully mature, "emerge," and grow to a full-size, 7-foot monster in under an hour. It's way beyond any scope of believability. Absurdly beyond. It takes me out of the movie when I see this gigantic monster that only an hour of storyline time before was an egg.
4. John McTiernan made a science of the art of establishing geography in Predator. Watching that movie gave me the distinct impression that I could actually navigate the landscape in the area where everything occurred. Within 3 minutes of AVP2, it was evident that nobody involved had this particular skill set. When a spaceship crash lands from outer space and enters the atmosphere at, I'll be generous, a 45 degree angle relative to land, and appears to be several thousand feet overhead, then it is not a hundred-yard walk to see the wreckage. I'm an English major and I can do that math. Traipsing several miles through the Rocky Mountains to get to the wreckage would take days if not weeks, not minutes. Crap like that also takes me right out of the movie.
5. Enough with the freaking shaky-cam action scenes edited with a strobe light!! I think this current trend may have started with Gladiator, except that Ridley Scott is a legitimate master filmmaker. He used the technique sparingly and in combination with an angled shutter, which rendered a sharp, staccato frame-rate that still allowed you to clearly see the action in each frame. The Bourne movies perfected the technique. But by now, it seems the fall-back position for every action movie. Quick edited shaky-cam shots are meant to render a heightened sense of energy, not confusion and nausea. In the end, I totally gave up trying to understand who or what was fighting because I couldn't see a damn thing. It was so infuriating.

Honestly, I could go on and on--there is an infinite number of points to criticize throughout the entire film. Literally limitless. I could write a freaking college dissertation on mistakes to avoid in film-making using only this movie as a reference.

AVP2 left me very angry. It was the most vapid science fiction movie I've ever seen and one of the worst films I've ever seen period. Part of that stems from the utterly squandered potential that the Alien and Predator franchises bring to the table. I'm now convinced that as they continue to entrust these movies to substandard talent, we will get nothing but horrific abominations. It's really very sad.

I'm writing another entry about my general feelings about science fiction next...inspired entirely by this film.

Movie Re-Review: Batman Begins

2007-12-16T18:56:00.000-05:00

So, you know all these great movies that have come out recently; the ones I have reviewed and praised? Well, they all suck compared to Batman Begins. In fact, almost every other movie ever made sucks compared to Batman Begins.

I watched it again today because I wanted to. And because I haven't watched it in a long time. And because one of the absolute best parts of I Am Legend was the trailer for The Dark Knight. There are a lot of awesome movies coming out next year, but unquestionably the best one, and most anticipated, is already The Dark Knight. If it were the only movie to be released next year, I'd be totally mostly OK with that.

Anyway, there's no need for me to write a review; I consider Batman Begins perfect. If you haven't seen it in awhile, watch it again and bask in its glory.

Movie Review: American Gangster

2007-12-15T23:59:00.000-05:00

I finally got around to watching American Gangster this last week. Normally, the story would have held little to no interested to me, especially since I've already seen one exceptional gangster movie this year (Eastern Promises.) However, this movie stars Denzel Washington and Russell Crowe, two of the best actors around today, and is directed by Ridley Scott, my favorite filmmaker.

The story is really nothing special except for the fact that it is true and both of the main characters are alive today. I think that because the film is based on a true story, I was more willing to get involved in the narrative. Washington is the titular character, who rises up to become the most powerful gangster in late-70s Harlem; Crowe is the cop who brings him down. There are a few unique twists to the story that kinda make the story a little unique, but not a whole lot, really. The real enjoyment is in the masterful acting and directing.

Naturally with a movie starring Washington and Crowe, the performances are pitch-perfect. There's really no need to say much. Between American Gangster and Training Day, I'm convinced that Denzel is either the nicest or most ruthless human being in real life. But even while terrifying, he is still mesmerizing and very charismatic; you easily understand why people would do whatever he says. Crowe gives a performance utterly different from anything I've seem him do; he actually came across as a convincingly meek, determined guy, something I never would have thought Maximus capable of portraying.

The real treat is the editing and directing. The pacing of the film as it switched between Washington and Crowe's stories is smooth and efficient. For a nearly 3-hour movie, I was shocked it passed by so quickly. We never dwell on either parallel storyline too long and whenever the transitions are made, it just flows really well.

As for Scott's directing, it brought a personal experience mind. Many years ago, I had to write an assigned-topic research paper. I dutifully engrossed myself in studying the subject matter and, when I had internalized enough material, sat down and hammered out a flawless first-draft. The key was my short-term mastery of the subject matter. It occurred to me that there was no reason why I couldn't replicate the same process for literally any topic in the world.
Ridley Scott seems to be capable of the very skill I imagined so long ago. He seems to be able to pick any genre of film and construct an exceptional movie. For a man who made his bones creating two of the most iconic sci-fi movies ever made (Alien and Blade Runner), Scott has also demonstrated excellence in film with such movies as Gladiator, Black Hawk Down, and Kingdom of Heaven; in each case, creating such a lush, fully-realized world that makes you feel as if you are truly there. In this case, Scott perfectly captures 1970s NYC at the height of the proliferation of organized crime and police corruption. Everything is so perfect, if I didn't know better I would have said the movie was made 30 years ago.
Factoring in the excellent music and editing, American Gangster comes out as a much better movie than I expected and I attribute that fact primarily to the directing and acting. I really look forward to whatever Ridley Scott does next...

Movie Review: I Am Legend

2007-12-15T23:16:00.000-05:00

Cursory Intro: I read the book about 5-6 years ago; loved it. It inspired Stephen King to write horror some 50+ years ago. Great psychological narrative with an unexpected twist at the end. All of this impressive for a vampire story.

With Will Smith and Constantine director Francis Lawrence, I Am Legend is now realized as a really good vampire/zombie horror movie. There are a whole host of things I really liked about it:

Will Smith owns this movie. Since he is essentially the only character on-screen for 90% of the film, there is a desperate need for him to draw the audience into the story with hardly any dialog. In my opinion, he did a better job than Tom Hanks in Castaway. Granted, being stranded on a tropical island isn't nearly as terrifying and emotionally draining as being the last human being in a world overrun by zombies, but I am now basically convinced nobody could do a better job than Will Smith.

Visually, the movie is astonishing. I don't know how they managed to create a film that takes place entirely in an empty New York City that has largely gone to seed. I look forward to the DVD to find out how much they actually filmed in NYC and what kind of effects were used.

As with Constantine, Lawrence does a magnificent job establishing a very specific mood and tone for I Am Legend. Constantine demanded a mysterious, other-wordly vibe that clearly delineated a battle between God and the Devil. I Am Legend establishes a mood that heavily emphasizes the stark loneliness and isolation that Neville experiences. The outdoor scenes in NYC succeed in turning the world's busiest city into a deserted wilderness, while the indoor scenes are so busy and crammed with survival gear and other swag, that the effect reinforces this isolation; without other human beings, Neville's world is abandoned of hope, making the seemingly endless riches of the world available to him completely worthless and empty.

And, of course, I Am Legend is scary. While the novel featured relatively intelligent vampires, the movie resorts to essentially mindless, 28 Days Later-type rage-zombies with vampire-like weaknesses. Though we don't see any for at leaast the first half-hour, this absence only makes the sense of dread that much more overwhelming, and when the monsters are finally revealed, bit by bit, it is nothing short of petrifying. I was really impressed that a PG-13 horror movie scared me significantly more than most R-rated horror movies, demonstrating that graphic violence, gore, and intensely-uttered profanity do not a scary movie make.

There are a few short-comings, but primarily the ending. I really didn't like it in part because it deviated significantly from the book. In the book, Neville discovers and rescues a woman who seems unaffected by the vampire-virus. She finds Neville to be a shattered, haunted human whose life of hunting vampires is destroying his soul. The end of the book reveals the woman to be a vampire with an evolved form of the virus; she gained Neville's confidence under false pretenses in order to compromise his security. She reveals to him that she represents the interests of the other surviving vampires, who see Neville as a mass murderer, killing people that already suffer the tragic effects of a sickness. There is a surprisingly powerful social commentary found in this paradox. Without spoiling the movie, the entire last third of the film is completely altered and made far more action-oriented.
I was just talking to a friend last night about how I am somewhat jaded by simplistic, cliched action movies and appreciate films that try to make some kind of meaningful contribution with their social commentaries. The novel I Am Legend seemed a perfect blend of intense horror-action with social commentary, but the film jettisons the psychological depth for more action.

But really, I Am Legend is a great movie; certainly the best movie in theaters in quite some time. I'd recommend it to anyone who enjoys a good scare but doesn't want to watch a typically gory horror movie.

I Am Tough

2007-12-14T08:39:00.000-05:00

Movie Review: Pulp Fiction

2007-12-07T13:30:00.000-05:00

[This is my third movie review of Jim's Long Movie Week]

I know, Pulp Fiction isn't 4 hours long, like Seven Samurai or Das Boot. But it's long enough and visually uninteresting enough that it felt long like a much longer movie than its running time would indicate. So I included it in Jim's Long Movie Week.

Pulp Fiction is a great movie. It's very funny, with some of the most natural, humorous dialogue of about any film. It was really the movie that made Quentin Tarantino sorta famous and junk.

But, Pulp Fiction suffers from the same problems of plague most of Tarantino's films: drug-use; the amount and context of this drug use comes across as nothing short of a whole-hearted endorsement of illegal substance abuse. That bothers me much more. With each new film he makes, the further glamorization of drug culture diminishes my opinion all of his films.
At the present time, I am uniquely critical of the profoundly negative effect of drugs on American society. While I enjoy, even love, my career, I'm keenly aware that the number of those who would enter public service and honorably serve this nation is vastly diminished by the careless, peer-pressure-induced glamorization of illegal drugs our media-centric culture endorses. I do not believe that any real measurement can be made of the awful sum-total effect of America's tolerance of alcohol and drugs has on society. It is sad that so many people embrace these vices, blindly ignoring the long-term consequences of their indulgences. Along the same lines, I am eternally grateful that at no time have I experienced even a remote temptation to partake of them; and have enjoyed a requisite bounty of professional blessings.

Anyway, off the soap box; I found my attention straying while watching Pulp Fiction and so I managed to accomplish a significant amount of work around the house while it was playing. I washed the dishes (by hand; I don't have enough dirty dishes to justify using the dishwasher,) washed and folded two batches of clothes, vacuumed my whole apartment (easy to complete within the space of one drug-fueled sequence,) fixed lunch for work the next day, made and ate dinner, and synced my iPods. From this perspective, it is obvious that Pulp Fiction is a great movie, since few films inspire such an awesomely domesticated response from one such as myself.

So, anyway...whatever. It was good times and worth watching again; something I'm sure I'll enjoy doing so every 3-4 years. Just remember that regardless of Tarantino's opinion, drugs is bad...

Movie Review: Das Boot

2007-12-07T11:48:00.000-05:00

[This is my second movie review of Jim's Long Movie Week]

Sometimes, movie are made so that you emotionally experience exactly what the characters on screen experience. This can be a great and moving opportunity to gain a unique perspective on the human experience, such as with Saving Private Ryan. It can also be the final proof that there are certain aspect of the human experience that are just not a good fit for you, like Das Boot, which is German for The Boat, which is American for The Bored. I now understand that being on a WW2 German submarine would have really, truly, genuinely sucked.

Das Boot follows a crew of German submariners during the closing months of WW2 as they go on patrol and try to do what they were commanded to do: sink Allied ships. This apparently involved excruciatingly long, drawn out period of the most abysmal boredom punctuated with short, horrific jolts of terrifying action.
That pretty much defines the nearly 4 hour of Das Boot. Sure, I could explain things like the meticulous production design, excellent acting, and shockingly good directing from The Guy Who Made Poseidon and Air Force One, but really, when push comes to shove, this is just a well-made, super-boring movie. If you want to know what it feels like to be on a WW2 submarine, watch it. If want to pretend what it's like to be in an awesome submarine, watch Crimson Tide and The Hunt for Red October; you could watch both in less time than Das Boot takes to suffocate you.

Special thanks to Michelle, Heather, Stephanie, and Ryan, who all took turns keeping me awake via IM while slugging through Das Boot.

Movie Review: Seven Samurai (1954)

2007-12-07T11:14:00.000-05:00

[This is my first movie review of Jim's Long Movie Week]

I've owned the DVD for Seven Samurai for awhile, probably a year or so, and finally made time to watch it. The last time I had seen it was several years ago for a class at BYU. Why the long delay for such a classic movie? That's simple: it's 4 hours long. That's a massive commitment for anything without ringwraiths or balrogs.

Seven Samurai is considered a classic in cinematic history for two reasons: it is Japanese and it is the first epic action film. Firstly, it is, in fact, the only Japanese movie ever made that doesn't feature dead ghost children haunting beautiful, sad movie stars (The Ring, The Ring 2, The Grudge, Dark Water, etc.)

Secondly, Seven Samurai essentially took every element of the classical epic hero archetype and crammed them into a story that has now been told over a billion times in different movies, most notably Lethal Weapon 4 and Rambo III. But Seven Samurai is special because out of the billion cliche-ridden films that have pimped-out the same basic heroic story since 1954, Seven Samurai was, in fact, the first and most thorough. I can almost imagine every action movie since then saying "I'll take scene 12 and make a whole movie out of that...that will be cool."

To the credit of Seven Samurai, I only realized this after the movie was over. I laughed more and more as I reviewed my own personal collection of apparent Seven Samurai knock-offs and it dawned on me that I had been so engrossed in the movie that I never got bored enough to notice the birth of so many action-flick cliches.

The story is simple: a poverty stricken village in feudal Japan hires seven out-of-work samurai to protect them from the annual bandits that ravage their food stocks. Yeah, I know--doesn't sound too original. But the reason Seven Samurai is a bona-fide classic lies in the masterful realization of this simple story. Virtually every aspect of the film making process is implemented perfectly: the direction, acting, cinematography, script, etc. Where almost every other action movie made since has something easy to criticize because it is unoriginal or incompetent, Seven Samurai simply did everything perfectly the first time.

I once read that this is one of four films Steven Spielberg watched prior to commencing production on every new project. Great filmmakers steal from the best, and any inspiration derived from such a masterpiece as Seven Samurai can only improve a subsequent project.

Another great thing about the movie: if you get restless, put on your iPod headphones and create your own modern soundtrack. The whole movie is in mono sound with subtitles anyway, so why not? You can't beat ancient Japanese ninjas defending freedom while listening to Korn, nine inch nails, and the Black Hawk Down soundtrack...it's science.