The Robots Won

BIG spoilers, as usual...

Having seen the reviews for "Terminator Salvation," and hearing a few of my friends come back disappointed after seeing the film, my hopes were not high. As it turned out, the movie was nowhere near as bad as I was expecting, and I actually enjoyed myself quite a bit, considering that I let all logic out the window when the movie started.
But therein lies the major problem.
The first two Terminator movies were well-thought out stories that, while sometimes contradictory if you thought about them too long, still were smart, logic-driven films.
T1 is the only movie that actually makes complete logical sense, as it goes by "12 Monkeys" rules and states that, in traveling backwards through time, you actually create a past that has already happened (Kyle Reese becomes John's father).
In T2, they went ahead and said, "No, the future is not set." Sarah, John, and good-guy Arnie go to destroy SkyNet and possibly prevent Judgement Day from ever happening. Of course if that's the case, Kyle Reese can't go back in time and father John, but who cares? T2 is without a doubt the best movie in the series, simply because it confronts some pretty scary issues about humanity, destiny, and the nature of determinism, all while delivering spectacularly on ground-breaking special effects that still hold up flawlessly. In T1 Cameron set the stage, but in T2 he expanded the universe to ask some even tougher questions, and ultimately make a movie with far more levels to it. It's the same thing he did with "Aliens," and the same thing Christopher Nolan did with "The Dark Knight." It's something every filmmaker should remember when making a sequel; don't rehash what has already happened--use what is there as the foundation to build a completely new and exciting story.
T3 is my least favorite Terminator movie, even though it really is not as bad a film as everyone says it is. There is nothing wrong with the execution of the story, or where they took the characters--it's just that the entire film is completely unnecessary because nothing new or interesting happens until the last five minutes where they have the balls to blow up the world. Also, T3 sort of undoes everything T2 by saying, "Yes, the future is set. Sorta. It's just very flexible. If you change the future, you're only moving the timeline around." This sounds like more of a convenient rewrite than a statement about the nature of time travel and destiny to me, but I'm willing to go along for the ride.
And now, for T4...
T4 DID deliver exactly what I was hoping for on the broadest scale. Ever since seeing the first two Terminator movies, my favorite part was always the flashbacks (flashforwards?) of the future war. Man vs. robots. Fight for survival. Love that stuff. And on that level, T4 gave me a ton of the robot goodness I needed (although apparently the laser-guns haven't been invented yet...oh well). In fact, for the first ten minutes of the movie, I had no idea why I needed to even be worried about the quality of the film. After a simple expositional scene with Marcus Wright in jail, we cut to a long Vietnamesque shot of John Connor vs. the robots, and the sequence was EVERYTHING I had been hoping to see. I thought I was in good hands, as Connor's entire team is wiped out by the merciless robots of all varying types.
But then things go sour, and I started to get worried. Connor radios to HQ (who apparently spend their entire time in a submarine), and when they won't give him their location, he jumps out of a helicopter into the ocean. WHAT???
First off, if you jump out of a helicopter from that height, you are probably going to break your legs. And even if you don't break your legs, you are still stuck in the middle of THE FUCKING OCEAN, and would probably freeze to death. Instead we cut to...
INT. SUBMARINE -- Michael Ironside (who can do these roles in his sleep by now) chewing John out in typical, "You're a loose cannon, Connor!" fashion. He briefly says something about how the dive team rescued him. OK...dive team? How did that happen? That's a long, possibly involving sequence that sort of needs to be seen! I mean, it seems to me that John Connor really only transported his way into the sub via the magic of jump-cut cinema.
That on its own isn't so bad, but T4 is riddled with these "logic issues," as my old prof Phil Messina would say. I never really liked Phil that much, because I thought he stifled our creativity and instead forced us to make the movies HE wanted to see, but he had a point. It's too bad McG didn't take a class from the guy.
But the biggest issue staring T4 right in the face is the main plot, where John Connor has to rescue Kyle Reese. SkyNet apparently has a "most wanted" list out there, and on it John Connor is #2. Fine. Connor is constantly making his radio broadcasts, leading the resistance, and riling up trouble. But #1 on the list is...Kyle Reese.
Hey, wait a minute...in this movie, Kyle Reese is a teenager. Nobody knows who he is. Only John Connor. And since Connor doesn't send Reese back in time until he is in his 30s, and this movie takes place in 2015, we've still got until 2030 before time travel is even invented. How would the robots know the significance of what Kyle Reese will do, if nobody else does? Just because the audience watched T1, doesn't mean SkyNet did!
And don't try to tell me the robots who were sent back in time gave "messages" to the future. That doesn't work. All the robots sent through time were destroyed. If they gave messages, we didn't see it. And we NEEDED to see it if it did happen, as that is vital information. Bottom line: there is no way the robots would be out to get Kyle Reese right now, as he hasn't done anything yet.
This is more than a plot hole. This is a gaping problem with the overall story in its ENTIRETY!!! I could never take anything in T4 too seriously, because all I kept thinking about was, "Bullshit...this would never happen."
The same problem happens when Marcus Wright makes his way back to SkyNet, and SkyNet reveals to him that he was designed to be an infiltrator against his will. Now first off, the character of Marcus Wright I really liked--it's a cheap attempt at the whole Blade Runner cyborg thing, and I dig it. BUT...
SkyNet says to Marcus, "We tried several times to kill Connor in the past. It didn't work. Which is why we created you..."
Um...no. As I already said, time travel hasn't been created yet. It's only 2015. We still have another 15 years. You haven't sent ANYONE back in time yet, SkyNet! It isn't even a possibility that has crossed your bionic mind! You stupid robo-network...
Plus, I understand that a global robo-network needs a base of operations. But SkyNet HQ was incredibly accessible and easy-to-use for humans. The entire place has keycodes, walkways, and stuff that is clearly designed for people. But SkyNet is for robots! Duh! To be fair, this is a problem you see in a lot of science fiction ("The Matrix" for instance). But sometimes they try to explain it away by saying, "The robots want to be like us." No such explanation attempts here.
Another major inconsistency was how the humans survived in this post-apocalyptic world. For the most part, it's Mad Max style (complete with a mute wild child from "The Road Warrior"), which I dig. Except, for some reason the Human Resistance has a base of operations with the outfitting of a fully functional air force. How??? In this time of war, how do they defend it? How are they allowed this luxury? I assume the robots have taken over the rest of the world, so why does this one little pocket still exist? This isn't a huge problem, except that it needs to be explained, so we understand WHY. Instead, it's just THERE. In broad daylight. With people running around. And no patrolling robots in sight.
As I said before, though, it's the robots who steal the show and are the centerpieces of the film. The sound design and special effects teams went all out to deliver some of the coolest, scariest metal adversaries humanity has ever had to face (I especially liked the robo-leeches that inhabit the water). But even then, there are things that bugged me. There are these giant robots called Harvesters that pick up people and put them into cages (to do their skin-testing). Every time a Harvester showed up, its giant claws punching through a roof, I leapt in my seat, and it definitely gave me the gut "oh shit" reaction they were looking for.
But these brontosaur-robots are HUGE. And SLOW. And the earth shakes when they walk! Wouldn't people see or hear them coming? And if a Harvester was instead dropped by one of the Hunter-Killer robo-jets, you'd have hard the jet coming (as indeed we do on a few occasions). What did the Harvester do, tiptoe? Did it unfold itself from a far smaller, quieter object, Transformer-style?
And in the final showdown, Reese and Connor face off against two T-800s in the bowels of the SkyNet assembly line (pretty cool, actually). In the biggest "holy shit!" surprise of the film, one of the T-800s looks EXACTLY like Arnold. And we're talking, young, early-90s Arnold, thanks to (ironically) computer wizardry.
But, in the final fight the T-800 gets burned by molten metal. In T2, this is how Arnold kills himself (actually, he let John do it...because robots cannot "self-terminate"). Yet in T4, the robot gets up out of the "lava" just fine, and is then frozen by liquid nitrogen-ish stuff (again, like T2). First off, the freezing stuff kind of comes out of nowhere, and secondly, that would totally kill a T-800! They aren't stronger than the T-1000!
Also much has been said about Christian Bale's rant on set (check this out if you haven't yet, and if you haven't, where have you been?). However, having seen his take on John Connor, I can see exactly WHY Bale went off on that DP. He was just in character! John Connor spends practically the entire movie yelling at people, so it's natural for him to yell at everyone who was on set. I like Bale, so I'm hoping this was McG's direction (or misdirection) and not a character choice from Christina himself.
Another bummer about T4 is the ending. I'm tired of seeing Hollywood cop out over a daring finish, and instead go with something generic, simply because "that's what the test audience wanted." A similar fate befell "I Am Legend." I got news for you...test audiences are IDIOTS! That's why they don't make the movies!
It was rumored that the original ending of T4 was going to have John Connor actually die, but they would place his skin over Marcus' robot body in order to rebuild him, and keep the name and idea of John Connor alive. It's a bit sacrifice-Batman-ish (not the John Connor we want, not the John Connor we deserve, but the John Connor we NEED), but it seemed pretty bold and ballsy. I would have LOVED to see them do something like that. Would it have made T4 a good movie? Probably not. But it likely would have made me give it a piddling but overall good review instead of a piddling but overall bad review.
All in all, McG did deliver finely on the action, but the acting, story, and character elements all fell apart in a bit of a misguided mess. I did enjoy myself, but only in a "check your brain at the door" sort of way; only on a basic mechanical level, and the Terminator series deserves better. Human thought and logic was erased in favor of awesome CGI, and so ultimately the robots did win. As I already said, it's sometimes OK for a movie to not make sense when you think about it hard afterwards (T2). But it's not OK for a movie to have basic logic problems continuously cropping up AS you watch it.
Finally, I also wish they could have incorporated dogs into the movie, since I always liked the concept that they could sense terminators, but oh well.

However, though T4 had issues, it was nowhere near as laughably awful as "Next," which I finally got around to seeing in full. It stars the enigma of enigmas, Nicholas Cage, as a guy who has the power to see anything that will happen two minutes ahead of himself, thereby destroying any hope for suspense the movie could have..
The movie is absolutely terrible, but hilariously terrible. The premise reminded me of that kid at film school who had an idea for a screenplay HE was convinced was awesome, that everybody else knew would be completely idiotic (I heard about a kid who was convinced he could make a good movie about gravity reversing, and people screaming as they went flying into space). In fact, it reminded me a bit of Charlie Kaufman's fake brother in "Adaptation" coming up with screenplay ideas. And Charlie Kaufman was played by (gasp) Nicholas Cage!
The best scene in "Next" has to be the sequence where this balding, old, creepy guy (Cage...duh) manages to seduce Jessica Biel through a magic trick involving a flower. And the "twist ending" defies description (even though I did sort of call it early on).
Truly a stumblefuck of a film. Highly recommended! I like when Cage does magic with a leopard gecko in the desert (leopard geckos are NOT native to Arizona, I may add).

"Alice" This was a very disturbing artsy film that tells the story of Alice in Wonderland through eerie stop-motion animation, often involving taxidermied animals. Other than some inventive stop-motion, there wasn't much here, and I'd skip it unless you are forced to watch it for a film class.

"Management" This was an "almost" movie to me. Steve Zahn works as a hotel custodian in the middle of nowhere, and he falls in love for one of his tenants, played by Jennifer Aniston. When she feels sorry for him to the point of giving him a little pity-sex, Zahn goes on a cross-country trip to win her back, despite the fact that he is a total loser with no prospects.
The film barely succeeds only because of Steve Zahn, who despite playing what is basically a creepy stalker, has such sad puppy-dog eyes that you can't help but root for him. The first act in the hotel is the best, as he keeps showing up at Anniston's room with bottles of champagne and wine, awkwardly trying to start up a conversation with a girl who clearly only wants to get work done. The middle feels like a different film entirely (perhaps a Zucker Bros. screwball comedy?), but in the end everything is reeled back to a sweet close. A film with a lot of problems (and I've never liked Jennifer Aniston in much of anything), but it succeeds on some levels thanks to Steve Zahn's perfect "aw shucks" performance. I wish he would get more roles.

I take pride in having seen every James Bond movie but two (the one with George Lazenby and the one where Madonna sings the opening credits). The best Bond movies manage to deliver both an exciting story and some top-notch action. "Goldeneye" showcases some awesome action sequences, but is also filled with enough spy intrigue to work just as well as an adventure novel; it's arguably the best Bond film since the Connery days. In general though, Bond films are about style and action over substance; you see them for the gunplay, gadgets, and girls, not for a gripping story.
However "Quantum of Solace" was the only Bond film I've seen that was the other way around. A very solid story full of political intrigue, drama, and convincing character motivations, yet the shoddy action sequences practically ruined the movie! It's full of editing mistakes I learned to avoid while at USC, and the shakey-cam stuff failed to engage on any level (the "dramatic" gun chase at the opera was particularly painful).
There's been a habit among action movies lately (especially spy action movies) to go all Paul Greengrass-y in order to get "gritty realism," but what a lot of these filmmakers fail to realize is that while shakey-cam often seems thrown together, Greengrass executes those sequences with just as much precision and planning as any other. Throwing your camera back and forth does not "put one in" the film. It just makes you motion-sick.
Still, as far as the Bond movies go, a pretty engaging story. And Daniel Craig continues to be a worthy successor to Brosnan. Here's hoping they execute the adventure a little better in the next one.

Boldly Rebooting

So...
"Star Trek"!!! (light spoilers...duh)
First off, I want to make things clear. As is fairly obvious to all of you, I am a HUGE sci-fi fanatic. The "Star Wars" films shaped my life growing up, and other movies like the "Alien" saga, "Blade Runner," "Terminator," "Back to the Future" or even "12 Monkeys" really developed my love for the genre. I've more-or-less seen every well-known sci-fi film out there, for better or for worse. And I'm also the sort of guy who goes DEEP when it comes to imaginary universes. I'm that annoying guy who can pick out the names and backstories of every character in the Mos Eisley Cantina, or can readily quote exorbitant speeches from "The Lord of the Rings" without missing a beat (yes, it's a fantasy, not sci-fi, but it still proves my point). However, between all the Harry Potters, Losts, and Battlestar Galacticas out there, "Star Trek" never really captured my fancy. Sure, I've seen (most of) the movies, and I've seen many of the episodes from both the original series and The Next Generation that are considered the "best." And I'm familiar with the universe, more so than your average non-nerd. Hell, I even went to a convention in Vegas once just to check it out.
But I've always found Trek lacking...something for the nerdiest of nerds (though not quite as bad as D&D). The characters spend too much time talking and philosophizing, and the so-called "alien situations" they always run into are laughably hokey. And as a guy interested in biology and the biodiversity of nature, I've always wondered, "Why the hell does every alien species evolved on different worlds look exactly the same?" Yes, I've heard one Trekkie point out to me that it WAS explained in that one episode, but you know what? I don't care! It's a cop-out for an opportunity to otherwise showcase some really cool and interesting creatures. Instead we get stupid stuff like a planet full of hippies. And while I'm always one to advocate for story over style, the so-called "space battles" lack the zip, zoom, and cinematic frenzy of, say, "Star Wars" (I did my best to wait until the end of the paragraph to touch on "Star Wars" superiority). Instead, it's usually just a bunch of guys standing on a cheesy looking set, telling the computer to "fire" and discussing how much power is going to the main engines.
So, while some of the "Star Trek" movies are pretty good ("First Contact" and of course, "KHAAAAAN!!!"), most of them are so-so. Trek has always felt to me to be the lesser, weaker, runt of the litter compared to the other sci-fi franchises film has to offer. It's not that I DISLIKE Trek in any way. But I found it silly and could never get into it. I mean, seriously guys...Tribbles? They're pretty lame.
Luckily the new "Trek" really pumps things up a notch, and gives the tired franchise the burst of energy it needed to justify keeping it around at all. I've liked mostly everything J. J. Abrams has done, and this did not disappoint.
In many ways, the new movie does a lot of ballsy things that were big risks in order to pull this off. Recasting the original crew as younger (better-looking?) versions of themselves had many fans in an uproar, but all-in-all they do an excellent job. The real winner for me was Karl Urban (of LOTR!) as Bones McCoy, and I really liked Zachary Quinto as Spock. In many ways, Spock is the most interesting character in the film, and I think this is more his story than Kirk's. I got a pretty big lump in my throat when his mother (Winona Ryder?) disappeared from the teleporter right before his eyes. And I love the fact that the filmmakers had the cojones to destroy both Romulus AND Vulcan. I mean...VULCAN!!! Where one of the most important races in the "Star Trek" universe is from...GONE!!!
AND I love the fact that the movie was able to justify the concept of a reboot better than any other film I've seen. "Reboot" seems to be the new hit word in Hollywood. It's right up there with "content," which is what all the old folks tell us young folks regarding the Internet ("You're talented...give us CONTENT!!!"). In many ways, I'm insulted by the concept of reboots even more than I'm insulted by the concept of countless pointless sequels; "Let's forget adding on MORE pointless stories...let's just pretend the stories everybody has come to love and cherish didn't matter in the first place!" (say the studio heads). However "Trek's" alternate timeline model is done in a way to both respect the old films, and leave things completely open to do them their one way. It's quite ingenious.
On the other hand, a lot of what made "Trek" special HAS disappeared, making one wonder if this is really still a Star Trek movie at all. I think it still is...there is plenty of stuff in here for the die hard fans to recognize while still feeling fresh. If anything, they go a bit overboard on the constant one-liners and in-references ("Look, it's the Kobayashi Maru! Hey...it's a Khan-bug!"). But Star Trek always attempted to be about more than action-adventure space opera. There was often some greater surrounding issue that attempted to probe a few the universe's grander questions; questions that could not be solved by visiting countless planets, but by looking inward, at ourselves. Now, this is a lofty ambition, and more often than not, it worked better in concept than execution (THIS is the reason we got all that boring standing around). But the new film rarely even attempts to say anything more than, "Kirk must defeat the bad guys!"
Plus, I'm always bummed when the central conflict of a film lies on a misunderstanding, and not actual actions by the characters. It made sense for Harry Osbourne to seek revenge on our favorite webslinger because Spider-Man DID kill his father (his father just happened to be a psychopath), but it didn't make sense for Eddie Brock to seek revenge on Spidey, just because he THOUGHT Peter Parker stole his girl and job. In "Star Trek" Spock does his best to save the planet Romulus from a supernova, but is unable to, and Nero goes on a psychotic and unjustified rampage. Things would have worked a lot better if Spock deliberately chose NOT to save Romulus for some other reason.
Allow me to do some fanfic-speculation shit for a second, and say this: I'm pretty sure Romulus and Vulcan are in relatively close proximity to each other in the universe, seeing as the Romulans and Vulcans are supposed to be distantly related or something. What if the supernova was threatening both Vulcan AND Romulus? Old Spock only has the power to save one planet, and so naturally, he chooses his homeworld. Hence Romulus falls by the wayside and is blown to smithereens. THIS would have given Nero plenty of justification to kidnap Old Spock in the alternate timeline and force him to watch as Vulcan IS destroyed, just as Nero was forced to watch his home planet die. See? I should be a screenwriter! Believe me, I'm trying...
And there are other nitpicks too...Kirk's handling of the Kobayashi Maru test, while quite funny, left me wondering, "You didn't even TRY to fool people into thinking you did it?" I mean, the entire program shuts down, glitches, and then restarts, and Kirk is able to smugly defeat the Klingons as easy as possible. So much for subtlety. In fact, the lack of subtlety in the film might have been its biggest failing. I was REALLY stoked when it was revealed Kirk was going to have to take control of the Enterprise by showing Spock as unfit to command due to his emotions. Knowing how clever Kirk can be, I was expecting some elaborate scheme that would ultimately reveal Spock's weakness. Instead, Kirk just waltzes up to Spock, gets right in his face, and says, "You know what? You're a little bitch, Spock. And you're planet is dead. Doesn't that suck? Hard?! What are going to do about it? Cry, pretty boy?!?! What about yo' momma? You gonna cry for her too?" I guess one should always take the simplest route possible, but it seemed a little too easy. And that part with Scotty in the pipes was kinda silly. And I don't remember a Spock/Uhura relationship in the original series, although since this is an "alternate timeline" I guess it works. I suppose the lesson is, "If you want a beautiful girl to fall in love with you, make sure your home gets destroyed."
But despite its flaws, this is still the most kinetic and exciting (though probably not the best) Trek movie I've ever seen. Overall J. J. was able to respect the old films while still bringing his own directorial flair (and lens flare) to the mix. I jokingly like to say that in the middle of the movie Kirk lands on Abrams' version of Hoth, complete with Abrams monsters; first Kirk gets attacked by a "Lost" polar bear, and then by a redder version of the "Cloverfield" creature. And it's nice that in a time when just about every reboot is "darker" and more sinister than its predecessors (mostly thanks to the success of "The Dark Knight"), a big-budget movie like "Star Trek" can still have an air of optimism in the time of a bad economy, shitty jobs, and climate change. It's wonderful to hope that humanity may actually have a future, be able to explore the distant reaches of space, and "boldly go where no man has gone before." Plus, we finally got to see some real aliens!
Ultimately, "Star Trek" is the first movie this year that I DID enjoy that ALSO made a lot of money, which is nice considering how appalled I've been at the idiocy of the moviegoing public lately ("Paul Blart"??? "Obsessed"??? I DON'T UNDERSTAND!!!). And while I may be suffering a tad from Stockholm Syndrome, since the company I work at did make this nifty trailer, I still think this was a great entry to a franchise that needed a breath of fresh air. I only hope in the next one they work on establishing a bit more depth and drama (but not too much, lest we get that boring standing around again!). Also, I want a large-scale space battle with MANY ships, since the technology exists to do it now (and the opening of this latest movie was AWESOME, and that was only a one-on-one ship fight). The pieces are set...the new cast works great...let's boldly go on to the next one!

Also...
I finally got around to seeing "Frost/Nixon" the other night. What a great film! Frank Langella really deserved the Oscar nom for playing Tricky Dick. He seemed right up there with the best supervillains in the Spider-Man or Batman movies. Yet at the end, you feel really bad for the guy. Nobody likes him. His country hates him. He is completely alone. And yet through the standoff against David Frost, he has pretty much found the only person willing to listen to him; the closest thing he may have to a friend. A very complicated and interesting portrayal of our most-hated president (pre George W. Bush?).
The faux-documentary talking heads took a bit of getting used to (what is this, "The Office"?), and the movie really doesn't start to pick up until the interviews begin an hour through the film (although all that set-up was necessary), but that's fine. I've also heard that certain parts of this film were embellished for the sake of storytelling, but I'm OK with that too. I remember when Tom Hanks spoke at USC a few years ago, and he noted a few sequences in the film "Apollo 13" (also directed by Ron Howard) that were tweaked a bit from reality. Hanks said something along the lines of, "Factual truth and filmic truth are often not the same" and I'm inclined to agree. As long as you're not blatantly making stuff up, but staying true to the emotional beats of the story, I'm all for a bit of exaggeration to get your point across. Complete accuracy is great when you can pull it off (isn't it cool that the ship DOES sink in real-time in "Titanic"?), but you can still be truthful while changing the details. I think I remember Mark Twain saying the same thing.

Also, I'm writing this blog entry on my 23rd birthday! Every birthday, I like to look back to a year ago and see if I've actually made any steps forward. And you know what? I have! I'm more-or-less completely independent from my parents, I'm working in the industry, and I still am still close with all my friends. So things are not perfect. But they're good.
In other unrelated news, Will, myself, and others have put our foot down and we're going to make a feature movie in a few years, if not sooner. So THAT'S exciting!!!

Live long and prosper, fanboys!

still truckin'...

It's been a while since I wrote on here, but that's because I've been unbelievably busy these last few months. The biggest and best thing that has happened to me is that I moved out of my shithole apartment with my shitty roommates, and am now living with Logan Olson in Culver City. And I LOVE it here! Too bad it's only temporary. In a few months I'll likely be having to figure out a new living sitch, but c'est la vie!
Also, this isn't really a change from anything I've said before, but I'm becoming more and more aware how movie trailers are not my cup of tea. Yes, they're cool, and yes, I am honing my editing skills. But OH how I wish I were working on my own film, or even some OTHER film, instead of just working on the ADVERTISING for a film. Working on trailers only leads to working on more trailers. I think I'll be at my current place for another year or so (unless someone drops the chance to direct a feature right in my lap), and then it's going to be time to move on to something else. Maybe grad school? Not sure yet. I do have to be aware that I am doing better than the majority of my friends are, and I do HAVE a job in this crazy Hollywood business in this awful economy. But (and I don't want to sound like a hothead here), I feel I'm made for better things.
On the other hand, I am writing a lot, and collaborating a lot on little projects with friends of mine. And I suppose at this point in my career that's all one can ask for. I've been meeting with big-wigs at Disney and other places now and then for "career advice" and they all tell me I'm doing the right thing at this point in my career. So, one must stay hopeful, stick to it, and not get stuck. I may be artistically frustrated, but I'm still optimistic.

Anyways, review time...and I apologize in advance for their quality. I had a bit of alcohol in my system as I wrote some of this (you have to relax SOMETIMES right?), and I'll try to keep them brief, since there are a lot of them. I need to be more regular about this blog thing.

1) "Beer For My Horses" Yes. This IS the first movie I'm going to review, as watching it was one of my first experiences upon moving in with Logan. The movie features Toby Keith as a deputy in a small Texan town. I knew this movie was going to be shit from the get-go, and it was. But this is one of the few cases where the fun of the movie was actually ruined by the plot. The first half hour of the movie is actually pretty enjoyable, as Toby Keith just meanders through town doing your basic southern stuff like hitting on hot southern women and hanging out with Ted Nugent as he brandishes dual machine guns (seriously, you have to see it). But things take a dive for the boring as soon as the guys go on a road trip to rescue Claire Forlani from...something. I don't even remember anymore.
Oh! But Tom Skerrit's in it. And he's always fun.

2) "Chop Shop" This movie got great reviews, and it was a very low-budget film, so I was excited to see it as the sort of movie that I might be able to make.
However I really disliked what this movie ultimately had to offer. While it gives you a glimpse of those people who live on the fringes of society, the story of a young Mexican boy and his sister struggling to make a living in Los Angeles by illegally tearing apart cars and giving sexual favor left me asking, "OK, so why would anyone want to SEE this movie?"
(SPOILER) The two don't succeed in any of their goals, and the movie abruptly ends as bleakly as it began. What was the point? Skip it.

3) "Bang the Drum Slowly" This is an old sports film starring Robert DeNiro as a baseball player with a terminal disease, and chronicles his last year playing with the team before he dies.
Frankly, I was a little disappointed by this "classic." DeNiro is good, sure...but again, nothing really happens, and then the movie ends. We're supposed to feel sorry for the guy, but I was just bored all the way through.

4) "Hoosiers" This movie hasn't aged perfectly, since about a million other sports movies have copied its style since it was made. But it still holds up pretty well, mainly thanks to Gene Hackman as the coach. And frankly, even though "Hoosiers" has a lot of imitators, it still does the formula better than most of the movies that followed it.

5) "Get Carter" (the old one, not the Sylvester Stallone one) It's interesting to see a young Michael Caine kick so much ass. Caine is good in everything, and even in his most refined butler-like roles, I've always sensed the badassery lurking underneath (I let out a little cheer when Alfred smacked that guy upside the head with a golf club in "Batman Begins"). In "Get Carter" we see where it all stemmed from, as Caine takes out fools left and right, and also bangs a lot of chicks. It's also nice to see that Caine is really QUITE out of shape as he does so, hearkening back to a time when dudes DIDN'T have to have washboard abs in order to score the ladies (I do the best that I can, but it's tough!). I had issues with the ending of this movie, but all in all, it was worth seeing just to see how badass Caine could be in his youth.

6) "Monsters vs. Aliens" I was VERY dissapointed in this film for a lot of reasons.
Mostly, I was disappointed with DreamWorks Animation for making this movie in the first place. For the most part, DreamWorks has never been on par with some of the other animation studios like Pixar or Disney. But now and then they've had a few gems, and last year's superb "Kung Fu Panda" really had me hoping they had finally found their footing. Then they come out with this garbage.
Everything about "Monsters vs. Aliens" feels concocted by some studio head with a great idea for what makes a hit, but no idea what makes a good film that will last through the ages. Tons of one-liners, one-dimensional characters, and so-called "ideas" that look good on paper, but are really just one-note gags (a lot of "ones" in there!). And I don't know how many times I have to say this, but why do animated films need big name voice actors that don't have interesting or unique voices? Aside from Seth Rogen (and maybe Stephen Colbert), the actors are horribly cast. Will Arnett is great at voice work, but he's barely used and underutilized as "The Missing Link," a completely bland and unfunny man-lizard black lagoon creature. Paul Rudd is a likable guy and a fun actor, but why use him for his voice? And Reese Witherspoon (whom I generally like a lot) is AWFUL as the shrill whiny protagonist named Susan. I wanted to punch her character in the face.
But I'm even more disappointed that critics somehow gave this piece of garbage generally good reviews, and that the American public appeared in droves to see this drivel! It proves to the studio heads that you don't need to make good movies anymore...all you need is to market the hell out of something and appeal to the right demographic. Done!
Maybe I'm asking to much from the American moviegoing public. These are the same guys who flocked to "Obsessed," "Fast & Furious" (4 Fast, 4 Furious?), and "Paul Blart," while really good movies like "Adventureland" fell by the wayside. Sigh.

Speaking of which...
7) "Adventureland" Greg Mottola really knows what he's doing. The guy gave us the best of the Apatow filmography thus far with "Superbad," and I don't think it was only because of a good script, but also because Mottola understands actors, scene structure, shot selection, and teen (and post-teen) angst.
"Adventureland" wasn't as funny as I was expecting, but it was still a very nice heartfelt drama that struck the same chord in me that "The Graduate" did. Somehow a movie about a nice, curly-haired twenty-something guy who gets a low-paying job right out of college, and maybe falls in love really spoke to me--I wonder why? I hope Greg Mottola gets to do a lot more work in the future. I like what he has to say.

8) "Klute" Jane Fonda won an Oscar for this movie, where she plays a call girl who is gets some disturbing threats. Donald Sutherland plays the titular detective asked to work on the case. However Sutherland is kind of bland, and Fonda really steals the movie away from him. As a bonus though, young Donald Sutherland looks a bit like me, and he gets to have sex with Jane Fonda...nice!
There are a lot of issues with this movie, but I recommend it especially for cinematographers looking for interesting ideas. And it's also cool to see the late Roy Scheider playing Fonda's pimp.

9) "Let the Right One In" I have really come to dislike vampires thanks to the whole "Twilight" phenomenon, but this movie was actually pretty cool. It didn't quite live up to the hype surrounding it, but it's certainly one of the best movies I've seen that happens to be about vampires. I don't want to spoil too much, suffice to say that one of the final shots of the film is one of the coolest things I've seen in any movie EVER (it's the part in the pool...you'll know when you see it).

10) "OSS 117" Will introduced me to this HILARIOUS French film that lampoons the old James Bond movies. Unlike Austin Powers, whose humor comes from his buffoonery and sheer unattractiveness, in this film the Bond character is actually rather suave and dashing. The real humor comes from the fact that Bond is actually quite a chauvinist asshole towards the women around him. The movie also feels like it was made in the 60s, complete with the same film stock, which adds to its charm.
However I don't think this movie would have worked at all had it not been for the BRILLIANT leading actor, who has perfected the smug Conneresque strut and grin. For the sequel, I hope they give him the "Casino Royale" treatment, and let him walk out of the ocean in a speedo.

11) "The Foot Fist Way" I had seen most of this movie already, but never in full until recently. Having also read (but not seen) "Observe & Report," it appears Jody Hill really has a very specific character archetype in his head--and it isn't a very likable one. Which is probably the reason "Observe & Report" didn't do so well.
However "The Foot Fist Way" works because of Danny McBride, who imbues his slightly dispicable character with the right amount of helplessness so that we grow to root for him (thought the other actors are good too).
It's got some truly hilarious moments, although it is overall a pretty depressing movie. Worth checking out, if only to get an idea what can be done with a funny script and a low budget.

12) "Peggy Sue Got Married" I had been looking forward to seeing this film because I had heard it was sort of "Back to the Future" for girls, since a woman time-travels from the 80s back into the 50s. In that regard, it was similar, but pretty much everything that was fun about "Back to the Future" is missing from this movie. There were no cool Dolereans, crazy doctors, races to the clock tower, or weird parent-incest. It isn't even a fish-out-of-water story, since the main character is just transported to her old SELF from the 50s, so everybody there already knows who she is and she fits right in. Peggy Sue then proceeds to act like an ungrateful bitch and sleep with the sleazebag artsy kid, whom any normal adult woman would realize is a total dwip.
The only redeeming thing about the movie is that Nicholas Cage is hilarious at playing a young geeky kid in high school, particularly with his fake whiny high-pitched voice. Other than that, it's pretty insipid.

13) "City Hunter" This early 90s export from Hong Kong stars Jackie Chan doing...something. I was never sure what. The plot is pretty incomprehensible. It does feature one scene worth watching, where Jackie Chan reenacts the original "Street Fighter" video game, to the point that he even dresses in drag as Chun-Li (!). Other than that, it's a weird blend of cartoonish Bugs Bunny mayhem, combined with scenes of extreme violence where people get shot at point blank range a la "Die Hard." I guess they just have different sensibilities in Hong Kong.
The biggest disappointment is that Jackie Chan is sorely underused, generally only for comedic purposes. We don't really get to see any of his awesome kung fu moves. And where's the fun in that?
But if you really want to see that "Street Fighter" scene, it's on youtube!

14) "The Wicker Man" No, not the ridiculous Nicholas Cage one. The original "Wicker Man" is actually pretty good, and succeeds at being creepy by showing you things SHOULDN'T be off-putting but are thanks to the Puritan roots we've been unable to shake off (why does people having sex in the open woods freak us out so much?). Plus, Christopher Lee makes anything creepy.
The famous ending also works because its displayed with such joy, despite the horror that is going on. Give it a look, if you can try and shake the Nicholas Cage version out of your head.

15) "Crank 2: High Voltage" I have a confession to make. When I first saw the original "Crank" I didn't really get it. I found it abrasive, frenetic, and a tad offensive. However a number of my friends LOVED the movie, and on repeat viewings, I've changed my tune and come to also be a fan. The same thing happened for me with "The Wrestler," a movie that at first left me feeling cold, but has since grown on me to become on of my favorite films of last year.
After I saw "Crank" though, I thought "Boy, they pretty much used every adrenaline-heart idea possible." Man, was I wrong! "Crank 2" is even more outrageous than the first film, and frankly, it's also a lot more fun. The actors fit into their character archetypes a lot better, and its clear the filmmakers have become a lot more confidant with their craft (sure, I'd call it a craft). Jason Statham in particular chews up the scenery better than he's ever done. Bai Ling, whom I normally can't stand, is a lot of fun because she's perfectly cast as an Asian hooker, because that's basically what she is.
Sure there were a few gripes. I don't know what Pedro (yes, from "Napolean Dynamite") was doing in the movie, and its a bit dissapointing that (spoiler) Chelios doesn't actually get to rip his own heart out of someone else's chest to get it back. But it had an AWESOME ending, and I hope they get to do a third one.
Oh yeah...I'm pretty sure there aren't any mansions like that on Catalina Island, but oh well.

16) "Encounters at the End of the World" I am a big Herzog fan, mainly because he shares my zeal for adventure and travel (I wish I had more of it, actually), and also because he looked a bit like me when he was younger.
"Encounters at the End of the World" basically plays like Herzog's really well-made home movie, but that's fine. It's an interesting look at Antarctica and the bizarre cast of characters that wind up down there (Herzog notes "It seems Antarctica gathers the leftover people that drop away from the rest of the world when it is shaken").
By far the BEST part of the movie is when Herzog asks a penguin researcher if penguins ever go crazy, becoming tired of it all and wanting to escape their daily lives. The guy denies it, but then Herzog focuses on one penguin, going neither to the fishing grounds, nor to the breeding grounds. Suddenly the penguin heads off towards the mountains, escaping penguin society. It's a hilarious, but beautifully sad moment. We all are that little penguin, wanting to just disappear from the hustle and bustle of our own lives and escape.
This doc's not as good as "Grizzly Man," but it's still interesting food for thought.
And the penguin clip is on youtube too! Check it out.

Ok, that's enough for now. I'll try to be a bit more active on here in the coming months.

Who Watches the Filmmakers?

So I finally saw "Watchmen" last night, and I feel compelled as a die-hard fanboy to give it a very thorough review.

However before I do the Watchmen review I want to comment on a few other films:

1) Children of Heaven--It's often nice to see a film from a foreign country that isn't known for its cinema style, because the filmmakers there don't know the rules. They can't be "bold" or "daring" (words overused when describing movies these days), because they have nothing to compare to. "The Band's Visit," for example, was enjoyable for these reasons.
This was also the case with "Children of Heaven," a very sweet and simple Iranian film. No flashy camera tricks, no tricky editing, no eye-popping cinematography that detracts from the narrative because the shot is so pretty--nothing like that. Just very solid storytelling.
I also like movies like this because it's neat to see another culture. One of the joys of watching a fantasy film is that it often takes a while for you to get your bearings and learn the rules of the universe. Movies in other countries can be fun for the same reasons--because as Americans we don't always know the way their world works.
That having been said, I liked "Children of Heaven" but found it thoroughly unfulfilling at the end. One extra scene wrapping up the loose ends was really needed to make it work, but there were too many unanswered questions.

2) Coraline--I didn't have a very lovey-dovey Valentine's Day this year, but I did make the best of it regardless. I went whale-watching in SB in the morning (by myself, thank you very much), and then went out to eat and saw "Coraline" with my parents.
As you likely know, I am a huge claymation fanatic, and "Coraline" is possibly the most technically amazing stop-motion film I've ever seen. And, I would also qualify it as the first 3-D movie experience I've had that actually qualifies as "art" ("Journey to the Center of the Earth" was still a lot of fun, though). I can sometimes be a grumpy gus about when computer animation is used to facilitate the "pure" process of stop-motion animation, but I didn’t feel that way this time. The technical mastery of the animation was entirely engrossing and unlike anything I've ever seen before.
I also love that the movie actually had the balls to be legitimately CREEPY. I'm tired of people freaking out and saying that certain movies are "too scary" for kids in these PC times (not Mac?...ha!). When I was a kid, a lot of my favorite movies scared the shit out me. Even classic Disney such as "The Little Mermaid," "Aladdin," and "The Lion King" have their truly frightening moments. And children's fairy tales from old days are full of kids tossing witches into burning ovens. A little danger goes a long way for a kid, and it's healthy for them. Much (but not all) of today's sugar-coated children's entertainment doesn't have the guts to show kids any sort of danger. I liked "Bolt" a lot, but it was fairly lacking in terms of any real threat to anyone. I love watching movies with kids because I love to see their reactions, but I'm always disappointed when kids talk constantly and are distracted throughout a film because they are not engaged. And one of the best ways to engage a kid is to scare the bejeezus out of them! When "Coraline" started, a few kids around me were a little antsy and chatty, but about a quarter of the way through, they stopped. I kept glancing over at them, and they were staring at the screen, transfixed. Not a lot of movies can do that these days.
Now, I'm not saying all you parents should traumatize your kids as early as possible. "Coraline" is far too freaky for the youngest of children. But if your kid is a tad older, maybe heading into the pre-teen years (about the age of Coraline herself, actually), this is one for them.
My only complaint is that while I loved the main story (sort of a twisted "Alice in Wonderland") and the relationship with Coraline and her parents (both real and fake), there were a lot of ancillary characters that were too cartoonish and over-the-top for me. I disliked the old ladies with the Scottish Terriers and the weird circus performer. And the character of Wybie was so twitchy and strange I kept wondering if it was going to be revealed that he was a victim of domestic child abuse. Several plot strands are also left hanging--I could never figure out exactly what the deal was with Wybie's mother or how Coraline got the doll in the first place (how were they linked to the Other-Mother exactly?), but that's fine with me. It sort of goes against everything I usually stand for with movies, but I really didn't MIND plot inconsistencies in this one because it was such an arresting visual experience.
For me, Selick's best still has to be "The Nightmare Before Christmas" (which Burton gets all the credit for), but “Coraline” was still a great work of art. And in a world where claymation (perhaps my favorite art form) is being more and more forgotten, I'm glad that I was so dazzled.

3) Sunshine--Sci-fi is without a doubt my favorite genre, but it's been a long time since we had any movie that actually broke away from its conventions to really become a great film (thank goodness I've recently found my fix with "Battlestar Galactica"). Even the possibility of the Star Wars prequels turned out to be overall disappointments. The sad truth is that the golden age of great sci-fi films has been over since the late 70s and 80s.
But Danny Boyle just won the Oscar, and even though I didn't love "28 Days Later" as much as everyone else, he's clearly a talented dude. Maybe "Sunshine" would be good!
It starts out OK (but not great), as a bunch of astronauts head out into space to re-ignite the sun and warm things up on our chilling planet. As a former planetarium show presenter, I should take a moment here to say that I'm pretty sure such a thing will NEVER actually happen to our sun.
It's a pretty decent ride until the final act, when the entire film spirals downward to become every clichéd sci-fi spaceship horror movie you've ever seen, after the crew picks up a hitchhiker who then goes on to kill everybody. Danny Boyle could have still gone this route and partially saved his film if he had offered a bit of explanation for the hitchhiker's motives, but he doesn't, and what could have been a solid film becomes stupid ridiculously quickly.
After seeing Boyle at the Oscars, I'm also convinced that he might be just a tad legitimately insane, but that's fine. I'll never forget what my old roomie Kevin said after watching a David Lynch film: "Many filmmakers try to emulate Lynch's style, but they never pull it off. Because they aren't insane, and David Lynch actually IS." I don't like David Lynch, but I do agree completely with Kevin; nobody can do crazy like Lynch can.
And that might be the case with Boyle. He's made some masterworks because he has such a tweaked way of looking at the world. On the other hand, being crazy also means you can also make a film that you might think is very good, but actually isn't.
I do also want to touch on one technique used in “Sunshine” that was particularly effective. When the crew enters a derelict spacecraft, they start looking around the ship with their flashlights. Every time the flashlight is aimed directly at the camera, instead of using a flash of white, Boyle uses flash frames of inverted pictures of the people who have died on the ship. These ghostly, almost subliminal images stuck with me and REALLY made my skin crawl. I was creeped out.
However, aside from the typical astounding Boyle-style cinematography and editing, this movie ended up being nothing more than a slasher in space. It reminded me a bit of “Event Horizon” and the underrated “2010.” “Event Horizon” is not a great film, but I actually enjoyed it more than “Sunshine” because I knew exactly what I was getting into, and it delivered on its promise. “Sunshine” did not. Sorry Danny…I still love you for “Slumdog”!

4) Watchmen--Oh boy, here we go...
A while back, I wrote on my fears upon seeing the teaser trailer, which you can read here.
First off, I have a confession to make. Even as a (reluctant but admitting) nerd, I never really got into comic books until my sophomore year of college. I had read a few, but for the most part I considered them sub-par and juvenile compared to the average novel you could pick up from the bestseller list. And to be honest, I generally still feel this way. The majority of comic books out there are really, really stupid (then again, so are a fair amount of novels…touché!). However it was only when Will started introducing me to some of the “classic” graphic novels that I really realized what I was missing, and came to understand that in some circumstances, comic books could be considered real art. And at the very least, a lot of them could still be escapist fun that I didn’t have to feel too guilty about.
Without a doubt, the graphic novel that transcended the medium more than any other was Alan Moore’s exquisite “Watchmen.”
And so…
I was very nervous about them making a “Watchmen” feature film. The scope of the story was too broad, and the material too deep and complex to serve the filmic format. While reading a book (of any kind) you can always sit back and reflect on the words contained in the text, in order to sort through the intricacies of what happened. In a movie, you don’t have this luxury, especially with “Watchmen,” where there is so much rich plot to get through. At nearly three hours, the length of the film is exhausting (and I prefer longer movies). I won’t say the film ever drags exactly, but it is so DENSE with so much happening all the time that when it was all over I felt drained. And I’m someone who actually knew the story.
I also think Zach Snyder was the wrong choice for director. While it’s clear Snyder respects the material on fanboyish levels, fanboys need to learn that adhering strictly to the source material doesn’t always make the best film. While I actually prefer the new Doc Manhattan ending (I hated the squid…sue me), too much of everything else seems so pulled right out from the comic that all it does is remind me how much better the comic is.
And unfortunately, most of the alterations Snyder does make are not for the better. All the over and under-cranking for the fast/slow-mo stylization that peppers his action scenes defeat the purpose of proving that these superheroes aren’t cool. “Watchmen” is a violent comic book too, but Snyder takes it to the extreme, causing the moments that should be violent surprises to lose their impact.
In one particular example, an assassin tries to shoot Adrian Veidt. In the comic, Veidt uses his physical prowess to stop the guy, and the guy dies. In the movie, the guy shoots a bullet, which goes through a girl’s leg. The girl stupidly screams in slow-motion. Veidt then spectacularly dodges a couple more bullets, as a couple more guys get shot and go down. What should have been a simple scene with simple execution becomes a pointless action sequence with senseless violence, ultimately causing the senseless violence that should be there (such as The Comedian’s taste for bloodshed) to lose its impact. The same holds for some added bloodshed when Rorschach is sprung from jail. There’s a whole stupid bit where a guy gets his arms sawed off that I’m pretty sure wasn’t in the book (please correct me if I’m wrong). The whole thing was gratuitous and should instead have been thrown in the next Tarantino film.
I would have rather seen “Watchmen” filmed as a straight drama, but I’m not sure that would have worked either. Unfortunately because of the movie’s length, scenes where characters talk about the weighty end-of-the-world stuff seem drawn out and hokey, which is a shame. Reading a monologue on the page can be gripping, but in a long and overly ambitious film, it just bogs things down. A lot of the “Rorschach’s Journal” stuff, which was sublime in the novel, seems almost campy on the big screen.
However what is almost more frustrating is that the movie gets certain things SO perfect that it is a disappointment when the rest of the film doesn’t meet those expectations. I absolutely ADORED the amazing opening title montage to Bob Dylan’s “The Times They Are A-Changin’”, which so deftly explains the alternate history of costumed adventurers in America (how cool was it to see Comedian as one of the guys on the grassy knoll?). This is what Snyder needed more of…creative abridging that has the feel of the novel, while still being filmic.
Also, I felt the first sequence with Dr. Manhattan on Mars, where he flashes back to his origin story, was nothing short of transcendent. You could feel the awe of the audience in the theater. The use of music by Philip Glass, which is often thrown in movies for the wrong reasons, was a perfect fit here. Had the rest of the movie been equal to this scene, Snyder would have had a masterpiece on his hands.
In fact, small praise must be given to the use of music in the movie. Tyler Bates’ score was fine, although Bates has yet to really find a way to make any score “his own” yet (I actually met him last year, and he’s a very nice guy, so I have high hopes for his future). But I loved the use of so many classic rock tunes to set the tone of certain decades and scenes. Aside from what I already mentioned, I liked the use of “I’m Your Boogieman,” “Ride of the Valkyries” (for Vietnam of course), and especially “All Along the Watchtower” during the approach to Antarctica. Even Simon & Garfunkel’s “The Sound of Silence” worked for me.
Actually, the “All Along the Watchtower” bit was especially cool, since the song was quoted in the book, and the scene also had no dialogue. It was a purely filmic moment of the Owlship shooting towards the cold expanse of ice, and Snyder needed way more of this basic, visceral, visual stuff (that didn’t involve violence).
As a whole, it was also interesting that “Watchmen” still holds relevance today, and I must applaud Snyder for trying to make us aware of that. I liked that the New York skyline of Veidt’s corporate headquarters showed the twin towers in clear view, and I also really dug that when characters talked about the impending doom and the current state of the world, I couldn’t help but think about today’s economic crisis. Billy Joel was right…we didn’t start the fire…the world’s always been pretty fucked up. And even so-called “superheroes” can’t save us from that.
I now want to take some time to directly critique each of the performances by the main characters. I thought some of them did a great job, while others didn’t fit the bill:

1) Dr. Manhattan (played by Billy Crudup)—This was by far the most difficult of all the characters to pull off, and yet for me it wound up being the best performance of the bunch. I loved how Crudup managed to somehow portray Manhattan’s growing detachment from humankind, while still hinting at his haunted humanity lying underneath. It was an understated, yet brilliant performance, that for me was one of the few things the movie nailed (and I think all Crudup deserves all the credit). The line, “Why should I save a world I no longer have any stake in?” just WORKED in every way it should have. Bravo.

2) Rorschach (played by Jackie Earle Haley)—I could be wrong, but I always pictured Rorschach differently in the novel. I imagined him much more like a wild animal—quiet and whispery, but ready to pounce. That way, when he did lash out, you felt it more.
However many friends of mine told me this is exactly how they imagined Rorschach, so I’m willing to forgive. I just thought his constant growly voice was over-the-top and tiresome. However in the novel he is given that scratchy-looking lettering, so maybe I was incorrect about Moore’s intention. I do think that Haley was best as Rorschach once the mask came off and we saw him in prison. That’s where his performance really shined.

3) The Comedian (played by Jeffrey Dean Morgan)—Of all the performances in the movie, this was the one that surprised me the most. I found The Comedian despicable in the comic book (rightly so), but I actually came to love him in he movie. Movie-wise, he probably was my favorite of the bunch (after Manhattan), and I really think that after his presence is gone about an hour into the movie, the film really lost some steam. Morgan imbues the Comedian with a sad sense of self-awareness (he knows what a dick he is), so that his “life is a big joke” ideals really shine through. In the scene where Nite Owl and Comedian disperse a crowd of protestors, the scene is again handled in lame-o Snyder-action fashion. However, in a golden moment, the sequence ends with Comedian turning around and giving Nite Owl the perfect look of smugness and sadness, while framed by an American flag tainted with graffiti. “I am the American Dream!” he shouts. Nice.

4) Nite Owl II (played by Patrick Wilson)—This one was a bit of a bummer for me. In the book, Nite Owl was probably tied with Rorschach for my favorite character. I often fantasized that in a perfect acting world, I’d have a chance to play him someday. Then again, I also had the same fantasy about Rorschach. But I still really loved the guy.
Unfortunately, Patrick Wilson was sort of…blah. He went for Dreiberg’s geeky aspects, but never really pulled them off. He just looked too damn good in that redesigned Nite Owl suit, and his frumpiness was lost (as an aside, I really DO want that suit, though). I’m not sure if it was all entirely Wilson’s fault though, since I think one of the weakest cast members was probably the girl he had to work closely with, being…

5) Silk Spectre (played by Malin Akerman)—To be fair, Silk Spectre was also one of the weaker characters in the comic book. And it’s tough to be the only superheroine in such a boys’ club. Even so, I think it is fairly clear that Akerman was in over her head from the beginning. Any scenes with her instantly fell down a notch. When she was with Dr. Manhattan on Mars, what had before been amazing (when he was alone) shifted to become standard. And I think it was likely mostly her fault that the stuff with Nite Owl didn’t come together. Also, I must admit I spent very little time actually watching her performance, since I spent most of the time watching her butt. So for that she was well-cast.
Also, shame on Snyder for the soft-core porn scene. I know we’re trying to tap in on the superhero fetishism, but come on! You had the same issue with that ridiculous sex scene in 300. I am starting to wonder whether Snyder really respects women much at all--perhaps that’s why Silk Spectre didn’t feel right. Maybe it’s not all Akerman’s fault…it’s Snyder’s (naw, it’s probably still Akerman’s).

6) Old Silk Spectre (played by Carla Gugino)—I admit I have a milf-crush on Carla Gugino, and I normally love her in just about anything. And I thought she did a great job channeling her inner pin-up girl as young Sally Jupiter.
Unfortunately, Gugino did nothing to change her performance when she got older, and this was a big failing. No alteration in voice or movement…nothing. Also, for such a big budget film, the makeup artistry on her was terrible. Not just on her in her older years, but also on Richard Nixon, who looked more like Pinocchio. Seriously, what were they thinking?

7) Ozymandias (played by Matthew Goode)—I found Ozymandias to be the weakest link of the group. In the comic book, Ozymandias is not only super-intelligent, but is also physically exquisite as well (sort of like the god Apollo in human form). However I’m all for changing things in a film for the right reasons. The film’s Ozymandias is very willowy, almost fragile. I suppose the idea was that you wouldn’t expect him to be the (SPOILER) villain, but unfortunately it didn’t work. The final showdown in his Antarctic lair was probably the weakest scene of the film, made worse by chaotic pointless fight scenes. And as an aside, while I don’t like to gripe about omissions from the novel, where was his awesome arboretum? It was one of my favorite images from the book! I also was really dying to see the Nite Owl’s sweet snow scooters (a stupid wish, I know), but they were absent too.
Pretty much the only thing I liked about Ozymandias was his pet kitty Bubastis, whose recreation was actually pretty cool.

So there you (mostly) have it. When the film was over, I turned to David and Sean, and commented, “Well…good hustle.” I really think the filmmakers tried. They gave it their all. They cared about what they were doing. They were (perhaps too) respectful of the source material.
But my fears for Snyder as director were correct. His “Ooo super-cool” style of filmmaking didn’t fit, and he is too early in his career to handle really heavy stuff just yet. He’s still too much into cool visuals, and not as into actors right now.
So is “Watchmen” unfilmmable then? I think so, and am fairly convinced it should never have been made into a movie in the first place. But it will make money, and sadly, that is what drives studios these days. I mean, Warner Bros. And Paramount practically killed themselves over this film. It’s a harsh reality that is causing me to become a tad bitter about Hollywood. Even many of the people I work with, at a freaking trailer house full of editors who, for all intents and purposes, should still be budding artists of some kind, tend to judge the quality of a film by how much money it has made. One friend of mine from work, only my age (and at my level, just out of school), likes to take bets on how much dough the latest big budget release will make over the weekend. A part of me wants to scream “Who cares about how much money it will make?! Will it touch anybody? Make anyone feel anything genuine?”
I’d rather make a film that only reaches a handful of people, but reaches them deeply and genuinely, than cast a wide net and try to please everyone (and take their money). Because if you do the latter, you reach no one, and your film is hollow. I wish studios would understand this.
But back to my earlier question…is “Watchmen” unfilmmable? Probably, but then again, people said the same thing about “The Lord of the Rings,” and I think those turned out awesome. It’s pointless (but fun!) to speculate, and I wonder how “Watchmen” would have done as a mini-series. Or what would have happened if they had handed it off to a director who knows how to balance special effects with dramatic performances. What would David Fincher have done, as a guy who knows how to make an incredibly long film actually work? Hell, even Steven Spielberg might have been a worthy choice.
Sadly, they gave it to Synder, and while I think he is talented, I wish he hadn’t taken this project. Because while the “Watchmen” movie got some things right, it tended to skimp out on the overall themes, and severely lacked the impact the book had. Ultimately, that just winds up cheapening the source material, not respecting it.
But oh well. I still have my yellow hard copy, sitting on my bookshelf. Squid and all.

Also, if my rant wasn’t enough, I wanted to point out a great review from comingsoon.net. They gave the movie a higher star rating than I would have, but I think the reviewer and I agreed on a lot of stuff. Check it out.

And I also thought this was pretty funny.

Just Reviews For Now...

Reviews first, musings (rantings?) second...

"Twilight Samurai" Why are samurai movies so awesome? Seriously...why?
Forget "The Last Samurai" and instead check out this import from Japan that heralds back to all those kick-ass Kurosawa films (actually, it reminded me more of the Miyamoto Musashi trilogy, but whatever). Though there is actually very little fighting in the movie, somehow anything that takes place in feudal Japan causes the awesomeness level to jump up tenfold. And these movies WOULDN'T be as cool if they were dubbed. Something about authentic Japanese, spoken from dudes with wicked-looking swords and cloaks, is just rad. And what's great about these movies is that they are often handled with realism and authenticity. If the samurai characters started doing ridiculous ninja-turtle-esque flips and superhero moves, it would not be nearly as cool. But the way the fights are always staged accurately and believably makes the sense of danger from a single sword swipe all the more real. In "Duel at Ganryu Island" (the third of the Miyamoto trilogy), this huge epic duel at sunset is just a buildup to who will be able to make the killing blow quicker than the other. The final "fight" consists of only two moves, but it is still intensely emotional and gripping.
And I love how much human drama and honor they manage to pack into these movies too. Seriously, samurai carry some heavy, weighty baggage on their shoulders. Jedi got nothing on them (especially since they were essentially INSPIRED by them).
I would love to shoot a short samurai film (in Japanese) if only I could find or figure out the right script. How much fun would it be to get a camera, some costumes, and wander off into the wilderness and shoot a samurai movie? Seriously, who's with me?
I realize I haven't done much to review the actual film other than to blow my wad over how cool samurai are, but who cares? It's a samurai movie...check it out.

"The Notebook" I tried to watch this movie with as much as an open mind as possible. Chick flicks get a bad rap, but I tried to give this movie a chance. However this so-called "film" is nothing more than emotional pornography for girls.
I hate to tell you ladies, but no man is going to go to the ends of the earth for you like Ryan Gosling does, especially if you leave him out to dry as Rachel McAdams does here (the bitch!). If you leave him behind, he's going to move on to greener pastures, not wait around at your convenience!
"The Notebook" also feels weirdly like two movies wrapped into one, neither of which work very well. At first it's this sub-par era romance about young love. Fluffy stuff, but I can live with it. However the story is recounted in (overused) flashback form by James Garner to some older lady.
(SPOILERS for all you attention-starved women out there!)
It's no huge surprise that Garner is recounting the story of how he and the woman met, and that they are in fact the much older iterations of McAdams and Gosling. However, then the movie takes a weird turn. As it turns out, Garner/Gosling/unrealistic-dream-man has been recounting this story over and over again to the older woman in a last effort to rekindle their lost love, since she has Alzheimer's. And he does this practically every day, just for a chance to have a few moments where she remembers who they were together. And we're talking SECONDS here people! After old-dream-man tells the story for what seems like at least an entire afternoon, old-lady-McAdams is only able to hug the guy for about half a minute, before she is suddenly repulsed and frightened by him as she forgets all over again. If she has that sort of short-term memory loss, how did she even sit still through the entire story? Didn't anyone see "Memento?" I guess Garner just has to wait until the next day to try all over again...oh well.
Girls, if you want a good accurate Alzheimer's movie, check out Julie Christie in "Away From Her." Of course you clearly DON'T want one of those...you'd rather have a so-called "romance" with more contrivances than the story of Xenu or the Creationist Museum.
If that wasn't enough, the movie ends with old dream-boy and old dream-girl snuzzling up together and dying on the same night. Awwww. BARF!
Of course, I was forced to see this movie with a girl, and she blubbered through the whole thing. I did my best to comfort her, but I'm glad she was so focused on the movie, so that she didn't see my eyes rolling so much that they practically fell out of my head.
I'm sorry girls, but THIS is why so many of you get disappointed. Even the nicest of us guys, we can't compare to the unrealistic Ryan Gosling dreamboat, because he doesn't exist! How are we supposed to compare with this stupid emotional masturbatory fantasy!
Girls get angry and say that "all guys want are sex," and frankly, that's not true. Sex is honestly one of the last things I'm looking for off the bat (though it's nice!). But if all girls want is complete and utter devotion to the point that we men never get a chance to do anything else with our lives, then sex might as well be all we're looking for. Because at least with sex, you get a chance to take a break every once in a while.

"GoodFellas" I've never been a Scorsese fan, and I've always felt guilty about this. Film students and scholars alike seem to go ga-ga over Martin Scorsese, so I feel like I must be missing something. But very few of his movies really stir me in any sort of important way. For the most part, I can't stand them.
When I tell people this, a lot of them say, "Go see 'GoodFellas.'" Well, I finally saw "GoodFellas" and again, I wasn't impressed.
It's not that Scorsese isn't technically a skilled filmmaker by any means. Nor is it that I dislike too much violence in movies. Violence is fine, as long as you're making a point about it, or making it very clear that it is meant to be tongue-in-cheek or not literal.
My biggest issue with Scorsese, I realize, is that his films are always about disconnect. Pretty much every one of his movies are about how some character just withdraws completely and becomes a sociopath in one way or another. Look at his filmography, and I think you'll see that I am right.
Now does this happen to people in real life? Sure. But I sure as hell don't want to be reminded of how lonely or disconnected I might be when I watch a movie. I'd rather see a film about people coming together despite their flaws and differences. For me, humanity is defined by our interconnectedness, not our separation.
And also, what was the point of "GoodFellas" exactly? That the mob is corrupt, and crime ultimately doesn't pay? That's fine I suppose, but all the characters in this movie were such assholes from the get-go that I didn't give a shit about what happened to them. I was HAPPY when they finally got what they deserved, and Ray Liotta never came close to gaining my sympathy.
"The Godfather," for example, is also a movie about the mob. And while I've never adored "The Godfather" as much as others do, it is a good film. And one of the reasons it is good is because you care about the Corleone family. Michael is a sympathetic hero (who ultimately gets sucked in by his family), and Don Vito is an old man whom you love and respect. It's made clear that the family lives by their own code, but that it is a code of honor. Other mob families in the film are shown to be even worse and more despicable, and thus while the Corleone family is a family of murderers, we love them because we see the humanity in them.
Nothing like this ever happens in "GoodFellas." They were all a bunch of shitheads, and I was glad when their lives crumbled to pieces. I wasn't glad that I was forced to sit and watch them for two and a half hours. I want my time back, Scorsese.

"Waking the Dead" Sometimes it's nice to see an experiment fail. This is an interesting indie movie about a man (played by Billy Crudup) running for Congress, who starts to have visions or hallucinations about his dead girlfriend (Jennifer Connelly). When I saw the movie, I wasn't expecting a ghost story, so that was kind of cool.
The movie meanders for a long time without going much of anywhere for a while. There are a few spooky moments, but generally it feels like a run-of-the-mill artsy romance with some eerie ghost stuff thrown in for good measure. At times it is all a bit tedious, as numerous flashbacks showing the relationship as it used to be distract from the main ghost story going on in the present day (I like ghost stories!).
Then suddenly, about 3/4 in, the movie won me over. And I honestly have no idea why. Something changed to make me really love this little movie, complete with all its many flaws.
"Waking the Dead" is not a conventional movie by any means, and normally I use the term "mood piece" to describe a bland work that doesn't lead anywhere. But in the end, I really liked this film. I also always have liked Billy Crudup, and he actually shows much more range and versatility in this film than I've seen in any other. It's nice when the non-A-listers get a small movie like this to flex their acting muscles (Richard Jenkins in "The Visitor" anyone?).

"Diner" Three years ago, for CTPR 290 (the best class I had at USC), I was required to direct a scene straight out of a script. I got "Diner," and I did the best I could (and overall, I'm proud of the job I did). I made a point of never watching the movie until after I shot the scene, because I didn't want the movie to color my interpretation of how I was going to do things.
Well, I finally got around to seeing the movie. And I loved it!
Barry Levinson's interpretation on Boogie and Bill was a lot more subtle than mine, but that sort of knowledge of directing comes with age, I think. It's nice to know that I was generally on the right track. Not a lot really happens in "Diner," but at my current age, it's great to see a movie about guys in their early twenties trying to figure their life out (it's also why "The Graduate" has gained new relevance for me recently).
One of the most shocking things about seeing "Diner" now is seeing Mickey Rourke back in his glory days. Having just seen "The Wrestler" it's shocking to notice how different Rourke used to look, and how much his voice has changed. He was still a good actor when he was younger, but the differences between then and now are astounding.
As a bonus, "Diner" also gives you another movie to use for "six ways to Kevin Bacon."

"Kindergarten Cop" I somehow completely missed this movie growing up, so I decided to check it out. It's a lot of fun to see Arnold Schwarzenegger completely baffled by how to deal with kindergarteners after punching out tough guys, and all the scenes with Ahh-nuhld and the kids are the best parts. While by no means a landmark piece of filmmaking, it probably is the best non R-rated Schwarzenegger movie I've seen.

"Conan the Barbarian" Continuing my Arnold kick, I got lucky and saw "Conan the Barbarian" on the big screen at the New Beverly Center as part of their Sword and Sorcery Night. And I had never SEEN Conan the Barbarian!
Yes, this movie was cheesy as hell, and yes, a lot of the effects are dated. Other effects, though, were still quite impressive (the scene where they fight off the "souls" from Conan's body at night was sweet). I finally get what all of the fuss is about, and I'm so glad I got to see it on the big screen with a bunch of other geeky fantasy fans.
The only real disappointment is that, after seeing James Earle Jones turn into a snake once, I assumed he was going to do it again later in his final fight against Conan. But instead, it's just a general run-of-the mill decapitation. Oh well. And it's also weird that James Earle Jones uses the "I am your father" line again. It's almost as if Conan's thinking, "No way, dude. That's impossible. You're black, I'm white, and I saw 'The Empire Strikes Back' anyway. I know that trick."
The movie is made even more entertaining knowing that Arnold is now our current governor. And honestly, his "acting" in this movie is pretty pathetic. Arnold's never been the best "actor" per se, but some of his later work shows his comic versatility and timing. That ability isn't really present in this movie since it was so early in his career, but it also doesn't really matter.
It's also cool to see Max von Sydow in a cameo role, and I really liked the girl who played Valeria. Her "Do you want to live forever" line at the end had be practically jumping in the aisles cheering.
Also, there's a rumor that, in the scene where Arnold punches the camel, the camel actually was killed. Does anyone know if this is actually true? Is Arnie a camel-killer?

"Deathstalker 2" The only other movie I saw in full at the New Bev's Sword and Sorcery Night was "Deathstalker 2." Frankly, I may have enjoyed it more than Conan.
This is a B-movie (C-movie?) in every sense of the word. The director was there for a Q&A, and I talked to him afterwards. Apparently, the first (and third and fourth) Deathstalker movies take themselves pretty seriously (and thus SUCK). However, on this one, when the director read the script, he realized that it sucked, and he also realized that he had no money. So, he decided to make it as cheeseball hilarious as possible.
And BOY did he succeed. Damn, this was a lot of fun, again made more so by the New Beverly crowd.
I've tried to see if I can buy this movie on DVD, but it is very hard to come by (for a reasonable price anyway). It's too bad, because I definitely want to own a copy. You could make a good drinking game out of every time they use "that" sound effect, and every time a girl shows her tits (normally, I don't like using the word "tits," but trust me, it's appropriate for this movie).

"Fatal Attraction" Doing a complete 180 from my "Notebook" review is "Fatal Attraction," which I finally saw for the first time a couple nights ago. "Fatal Attraction" is what would happen to any of those girls who actually believed that "Notebook" shit to the point of psychosis, assuming they were already off their rocker to begin with.
"Fatal Attraction" is every guy's worst nightmare. Michael Douglas has (what he presumes) to be a one-night stand with Glenn Close, but then she starts going more and more bat-shit crazy, to the point of stalking his family (and then some).
Some of the movie feels as if we've seen it before, but that's likely because many other movies have ripped off the premise since it was made. In particular, the movie reminded me a lot of Paul Verhoeven's "Basic Instinct" (it doesn't help that both star Michael Douglas). In fact, I wonder if Verhoeven was intentionally borrowing from this movie or not. While "Basic Instinct" is fun, I think "Fatal Attraction" is a better movie, simply because it doesn't have the sly "wink" Verhoeven likes to put in most of his films. "Starship Troopers" for example, spends so much time winking and pointing goofy things out to you that it fails to become grounded in reality like, say, "Aliens" does.
Don't get me wrong, though. Verhoeven is immensely entertaining nonetheless.

Anyways, that's all I have time for now. I was going to go on a rant about some confusing things going on in my life right now, but in retrospect, just writing SOMETHING, even if it was just a bunch of reviews, has made me feel better. Rantings and ravings can wait for another day.
Hope all is well with all of you!

2008: A Sad Year For Hollywood

So it's time for my yearly roundup of my Top Ten and Bottom Five for 2008. Before I get there though, I want to say that this was a sad year for Hollywood. We lost a lot of legends and good people working in the biz, and there was also a writer's strike (and threatened actor's strike) that impacted our job market. It's a wonder I was actually able to work having just graduated from school.

Think about it...in 2008 we lost Heath Ledger, Sidney Pollack, Paul Newman, Roy Scheider, Stan Winston, Don LaFontaine, Michael Crichton, George Carlin, Bernie Mac, Bettie Page, Isaac Hayes, Tim Russert, Eartha Kitt, Arthur C. Clarke, and even chess champ Bobby Fischer. Am I forgetting anyone? And somehow God lets Paris Hilton stay in the spotlight...

Anyway, a few quick reviews before getting to the list:

"Slumdog Millionaire" I think this may well be Danny Boyle's best movie, and that's saying a lot. I hope it does well at the Oscars this year. I'm a sucker for movies about guys who put it all on the line for the girl of their dreams, and so this movie had me practically cheering in the aisles at the end. There really is very little I have to say about this movie, because it was so GOOD. I'm generally critical of movies that try to show the plight and poverty taking place in other countries because they often fail to tell any sort of story, and instead focus on just a lot of poor people suffering. "Hotel Rwanda," for example, is a good movie, but it spends way to much time forcing us to feel guilty for the people of Africa, so that it overshadows any sort of human drama going on. "Slumdog Millionaire" on the other hand is almost joyous in its zeal to show us how people live in India. It doesn't shy away from any of the horrors of the impovershed country, but it also makes a point of showing what a bright and beautiful land it is, full of colorful and amazing people.
My only slight gripe was that, during the "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire" scenes I was never really sure how much Jamal was making on the show, since its all done in rupees, and I have no idea how much a rupee is. Also the basic premise (that all the questions on the show are luckily based around events in Jamal's life) is a tad hard to swallow, but I'm willing to go with it. However it's even MORE difficult to buy that, not only were they based on Jamal's life, but also that they were based on Jamal's life IN ORDER. Likely telling events from Jamal's life out-of-order may have given for more convoluted and confusing storytelling, so I'm willing to forgive. However, it does make the already unlikely premise even MORE unlikely. Even so this was such a joyous movie that I would have still been willing to suspend even more disbelief. This movie's good. See it!
I also want to say that I thought Dev Patel did an excellent job in the lead role. An Oscar nomination is a longshot, seeing as he's so young and basically an unknown, but I think it's possible.

"The Wrestler" I've never been an Aronofsky fan, but I do really like Mickey Rourke, so I was curious what I'd think of this movie.
Frankly, it made me think of many other Aronofsky movies. Superbly made, but depressing to the point where I wanted to blow my brains out afterwards. It is soul-crushing to watch Randy the Ram (Rourke), a basically good guy who's made a lot of mistakes, get to the point where he believes everyone he cares about has given up on him (spoilers ahead), so that he essentially commits suicide. The final shots of the movie, when he thinks that even Marisa Tomei's character had given up on him (and I don't think she had) broke my heart. Thanks a lot, Darren.
Comparisons between this movie and "Raging Bull" are inevitible, and frankly, I did like "The Wrestler" a lot more. I got more into Randy the Ram's head, and felt for him a lot more than I ever did for DeNiro's character. I've always thought "Raging Bull" was overrated. You are free to disagree with me in an angry fashion.
Will Mickey Rourke win best actor for this role? I think so, thought I'm still holding out for Richard Jenkins in "The Visitor." Marisa Tomei will likely get a nom too, and she deserves it for her work here (by the way, she's in INCREDIBLE shape...WOW!!!). The only role I thought competely failed was Evan Rachel Wood as Randy's daughter. She was terrible.

"Milk" I wasn't looking forward to seeing this movie for several reasons. First off, I've never really liked Sean Penn in much of anything...the guy seems like a tool. Secondly, even though I respect the gay movement and think it's important that movies like "Milk" get made, I was not wild about seeing a bunch of normally macho actors act like fairies for two hours (I'm being rather facetious, but you get the idea).
However "Milk" was quite an eye-opener. I realize now how little I actually knew about the history of the gay movement in San Francisco, and this movie did a good job educating me on a lot of what actually happened. Van Sant's use of stock footage throughout the film also gave it a wonderful sense of authenticity. And I like that Josh Brolin's character was never demonized, which would have been a very easy route to take. Every character was well-fleshed out, full of both stregths and flaws.
I only wonder what would have happened had this movie come out just a few months sooner, before the vote on Prop. 8 went through. Would it have changed anything? We'll never know...

Anyway, now for my Ten Best of 2008 List. This year gave us a lot of good movies, but only a few really GREAT movies. Hopefully 2009 will be better. Also, as a caveat, remember that I don't get a chance to see a lot of "Oscar-worthy" movies until after the year is over, so they slip through the cracks. Documentaries in particular I usually don't see until years after they come out. So the list is always somewhat biased. Finally, this is generally more of a "favorites" list than a best list, so forgive me...

1. "The Dark Knight" Yes. The hype was real. The fanboys were right. And they are still right. As much as I'd like to say one of the less-mainstream movies out there was better, it's simply not true. This movie kicked ass, and only gets better and better with each viewing. It stands as a movie for the ages.
2. "Slumdog Millionaire" Great movie. Great message. Just GREAT!
3. "WALL-E" The first half hour of this movie was about as perfect as a movie can be, animated or otherwise. The stuff with the people in space was not quite as good, which is what caused it to slip just under "Slumdog" and get the #3 spot.
4. "The Visitor" Come on Richard Jenkins! I believe in you and your Oscar-getting ability!
5. "Kung Fu Panda" Definitely the biggest surprise of the year, this turned out to be a thousand times better than anything else to have ever come out from Dreamworks Animation.
6. "Ghost Town" Hell, I'm a sucker for romantic comedies. And I like Ricky Gervais. And since this movie didn't get much notice, I'm giving it the #6 spot.
7. "Iron Man" While Nolan's Batman movie may have added to weight and relevence to the superhero genre, this movie still rocked the theaters and proved that the basic superhero formula can still be immensely entertaining.
8. "Taken" Technically this movie doesn't come out until next year in the U.S., but whatever. Liam Neeson kicks ass and I loved it.
9. "Milk" This could have just been a basic "message" movie that got a lot of press because of the subject matter, but it wasn't. It was actually very good.
10. "Cloverfield" The hand-held monster movie sneaks in at the #10 spot because it was one of the more original films to come out this year (which is actually kind of sad). I was lukewarm about it the first time I saw it, but I've warmed up to it after repeated viewings, and the marketing campaign alone practically makes it deserve to be mentioned.

The Bottom Five
These were the stinkers of the year; the ones I couldn't stand, or at least left the theater feeling disappointed. I of course go out of my way to avoid most bad movies, so often a couple of these movies aren't really that terrible. For example, I avoided crap like "The Love Guru" at all costs.

5. "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" True, I actually enjoyed myself a lot at this movie. But, considering how long we had to wait since "The Last Crusade," this film should have been a lot better, and it wasn't; it was rather generic. And seriously...wtf??? Aliens???
4. "Appaloosa" Not a bad movie so much as a bland movie. Viggo was awesome, but Ed Harris should stick to acting and not direct. Or at least not direct things that are so BORING. And Rene Zellwegger should just stop doing anything at all.
3. "The Clone Wars" A huge pile of bastardized dogcrap that once used to be Star Wars. It's interesting that George Lucas was involved with two of the five worst of the year. It's a shame that the guy who made me want to make movies has lost his touch.
2. "Funny Games" A dumb movie made worse by the fact that the girl who forced me to see it has since treated my heart like shit. That's right, I'm talking to YOU Julie!
1. "Jumper" Brian wrote a really funny review of this movie, wherein he said something along the lines of, "I'm not sure who had the last word on 'Jumper,' but I'm pretty sure that last word was 'shit.'" That sounds about right to me. This was the worst of the year (that I saw).

So there ya have it! I'm hoping for better things in 2009.

Ho Ho Home For the Holidays

You don't appreciate your family until you seperate from them.

It's all relative (no pun intended) of course, but my major goal for this year was to prove to myself that I can operate more-or-less independently and be reasonably successful. Unlike some of my friends who have jetted off on post-college European trips on their parents' dime, or moved back in with their folks, I'm doing everything I can do be on my own. Obviously, I still need my parents for a few things, but I've mostly been doing a pretty good job.

That having been said, when I returned home for Christmas, I really appreciated what I have here in Santa Barbara. While in college, returning home was sort of a given, but now that I'm on my own, it's more of a blessing. Man, I really REALLY hope I can live here permanently some day.

Anyway, Christmas was great, and overall went off without a hitch. I've really been enjoying my time off with nothing to do but relax and take it easy. And it might be the last time in a while that I get to do this, so I'm savoring it.

On to the reviews. And there are a lot of 'em.

1) I think "Kung Fu Panda" is the best thing I've seen from DreamWorks Animation, and one of the biggest surprises of the year. I thought the much-lauded "Shrek" movies were good, but overrated. And they aren't going to age well with time (some of their jokes are already rather dated).
However "Kung Fu Panda" has far sharper storytelling than anything else to come out of the Disney knock-off studio. And even more fantastic are the way the action scenes are handled with such slickness and style. At times the movie feels less like it's aimed for kids and more like it's meant for the Bruce Lee crowd. The use of color to set certain moods throughout the film is also really cool. I usually like my talking animal movies to be rather realistic (in "Finding Nemo" for example, there are times where it feels like you are looking at actual fish), but here I thoroughly enjoyed the exaggerated choices that were made; a lot of it reminded me of the old animated Disney "Robin Hood," with its world of anthropomorphized animals. I'm not entirely sure what rhinoceroses (rhinoceri?) and a Galapagos Tortoise were doing in China, but that's OK.
The main voice actors are also perfectly cast. As I've said before, I really think that Jack Black works well with animated movies because he is practically a living cartoon character anyway, and he is great as the titular Po the Panda. Dustin Hoffman also lends some nice gravitas as Po's unwilling kung fu master, Shi Fu (I think he's supposedy to be one of those raccoon-like red pandas). In fact, I think the crux of the story actually surrounds his character, as Shi Fu is the one who undergoes the most change throughout the film. The aching pain in Hoffman's voice during a few key scenes allow the movie to rise above the so-so kiddie fare we see being cranked out by the studios so often these days.
While the two leads are perfect, some of the supporting cast is misplaced or not needed. Casting the "furious five" as big-name actors is unnecessary (although I like the fact that each of the animals embodies one of the main kung fu styles). Lucy Liu doesn't really need to voice Viper, nor does Seth Rogen need to voice mantis, and David Cross is only so-so as Master Crane (and he actually looked more like a stork to me, anyway). My real beef was having Angelina Jolie voice Tigress, because I am finding myself getting more and more sick of her in the tabloids, and she CLEARLY doesn't need the money needed from some animated voice work, nor is her voice particularly exceptional or different from any other actress out there. Let somebody else do the role next time! The interesting choice is Jackie Chan as Master Monkey. He barely has any lines in the movie, as it is well-known that Jackie Chan can barely speak English anyway. Yet it's kinda cool that they honor the martial arts star by giving him a bit part in this film, so I'm on the fence on that choice.
Overall however, this is a great work of animation. It's too bad for the Dreamworks people that Pixar's "Wall-E" also came out this year, because that robot love story will no doubt take the Oscar (and deservedly so). Yet, while 2008 has been a disappointing year in movies overall, it has been a shining year for animation, between "Wall-E," "Bolt," and "Kung Fu Panda." And I still have yet to see Blue Sky's "Horton Hears a Who." Next year Disney is giving us "The Princess and the Frog," a return to classic 2-D animation. As a whole I love what animation is able to do, possibly more than live-action film, so I'm very excited that we're seeing a lot of good, visually dazzling, and somewhat daring work these days. I've got my fingers crossed on animation's future.

2) "Taken" This is a movie that has yet to come out in the United States, but I managed to get my hands on it early, and I thought it ROCKED. It's directed by the same French director who did "District B13" (which I have not seen, for the record). There's something to be said for a movie that keeps things down to the bare minumum. The first half hour shows Liam Neeson as a very loving father. He just LOVES his daughter (Maggie Grace). He loves her loves her LOVES HER, to the point that it almost gets a little creepy. We also get hints that he used to work in the CIA, or something like that.
Then his daughter goes to Europe and is kidnapped (or "Taken!"). For the next hour, Liam Neeson goes on a quest to get her back, no matter the cost. And I MEAN no matter the cost. Liam Neeson becomes a fucking locomotive, driving through everyone and anything to get at his daughter. Anything that is not involved in rescuing her is completely irrelevant.
It's really nice to see Liam Neeson finally get a role like this. He's played wise father-figure mentors many times before, but I've always felt there was something angrier and more badass lurking beneath the surface (we got a glimpse of it during his bad guy bait-and-switch in "Batman Begins" as Ras al Ghul). It's just awesome that here he gets to do nothing but kick ass and rock faces. My only minor complaint with the film was that it indirectly deals with the rather serious issue of human traffiking, but never really confronts it. Then again, that might have just slowed the movie down from Neeson's non-stop quest; this movie is proof that there's something to be said for simplicity and execution.

3) "Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog" Joss Wheddon (who I'm generally not a fan of) made this web series during the writer's strike as a way to stay creative and still not break any of the rules. I've always thought Wheddon is a tad overrated, despite what his die hard fanboys (and a hell of a lot of fanGIRLS) may say. And the fact that I've had many people tell me that they think my sensibilities and short films remind them of Wheddon's work only raises my hackles more. "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" just isn't my cup of tea, and while I enjoyed "Serenity" on my first viewing, as I thought about it later I sort of realized how blatantly derivative it was of other, better, sci-fi franchises.
However I gotta say, "Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog" was a lot of fun. Dr. Horrible, played by the always entertaining Neil Patrick Harris, is a wannabe mad scientist, competing for the affections of the girl he meets at the laundromat against his arch-nemesis, Captain Hammer, played with the perfect amount of swagger and idiocy by Nathon Fillion. Many of the best moments of the "web series" (you can't really call it a movie, exactly) belong to Fillion ("The hammer is my penis"), and the series also features a number of really catchy and well-written songs ("Penny's Song" in particular is one worth downloading and listening to on your iPod). It's also neat how Wheddon has incorporated the phenomenon of the Internet into the movie itself, as Dr. Horrible video-blogs to his viewers in a way reminiscent of all those youtubers out there. "Sex Drive" did something similiar with its creative use of IMs at the beginning of that film. It's cool to see moviemaking evolve with social technology.
"Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog" is in no way earth-shattering, but it's a creative way to showcase the adaptability of filmic storytelling into the new mellenium. And the fact that the web series is extremely low-budget is also encouraging. There's nothing in the film myself and my buddies couldn't do, were we just given the time. All that you really need to make a movie is a fun idea, a solid script, and enough energy to believe you can get it done. With "Dr. Horrible," Wheddon proves that the Internet is going to open doors, not close them.

4) "National Treasure 2" Ugh. I never saw the first "National Treasure," but I got roped into seeing the second one. My expectations were not very high, but even so, this was an overblown piece of garbage.
It starts out well enough. Having just visited Washington D.C. this summer, my interest in our nation's history is stronger than it ever was years ago when I actually took classes on American History (it's practically a decade too late, but hey, that's just the way it is). So it's kind of fun to see Nicholas Cage track down clues based around our American heritage, especially since I've been to a lot of the places he visits now.
However, I'm all for taking some poetic license for the sake of a fun adventure movie, but at a certain point the movie hits the tipping point. Suddenly, where we once were finding neat hidden clues in old desks and having a bit of fun with John Wilkes Boothe's "missing diary," we're suddenly kidnapping presidents, dealing with conspiracy theories, and finding lost golden cities underneath Mt. Rushmore. WHAT??? This is supposed to be somewhat embellished American History, not Indiana Jones! And will somebody please tell Nicholas Cage he is not an action star? It may have worked in "The Rock" because he was supposed to be somewhat buffoonish in that film, but that was over ten years ago! I know Nicholas Cage can be good in the right projects, but he never was an action hero, and that becomes more and more apparent the older he gets. And what the hell was Helen Mirren doing in this movie? This is her follow-up to her Oscar win? Was she re-modelng her kitchen, and did she need another paycheck? And boy, was Ed Harris completely useless. I hate that movies like this get cranked out periodocially, and that the general public continues to go see them. Blaah.

5) "Man on Wire" This was an interesting documentary about a tightrope walker who, during the 70s, walked across a tightrope strung between the Twin Towers.
Sure, the feat he accomplished is pretty amazing, and he didn't hurt anybody. But I couldn't help but think while watching this, "Holy shit, that is really dangerous and illegal." The most interesting parts of the movie are not how they snuck into the World Trade Center in order to pull it off. I'm curious, though, if the guy had just happened to fall to his death (even though he took precautions to train himself as much as possible), whether he would still be portrayed as a hero in the eyes of this documentary. It's hard to say.

6) "This Christmas" Several years ago, a movie called "Barbershop" made a big splash because it was considered such a hit movie for the black community to rally behind. I HATED this movie, and frankly, thought the black community should be outraged that this was what people expected them to take pride in. Yet somehow critics liked "Barbershop," and the movie did well enough to even warrant a sequel.
I liked "This Christmas" a lot more (despite the pointlessly bland title). It's about an all-black family coming together for Christmastime. I thought all the characters were much better defined, I thought it was well-acted, and all the family struggles seemed much more natural to me. "Barbershop" felt almost like a whole bunch of idiotic stereotypes (I have NO CLUE what Cedric the Entertainer said throughout that entire film), but "This Christmas" seemed like a bunch of actual real people who all just happened to be black.
The first half hour is a bit discombobulating, as you are introduced to a LOT of characters very quickly, without knowing what their relationships are to each other, but after one orients onself, the movie starts to open up and take off. It's also cool to see a cast without any big names that I could tell, yet almost all of whom are fine actors. I liked it.

7) "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button" Some critics are calling this David Fincher's best, but I thoroughly disagree. It's a good movie, but it's got some big flaws that drag it down.
For one thing, Fincher's movies are always ver long. I actually tend to enjoy really long movies. I won't say that "Benjamin Button" dragged exactly, but it certainly could have used the omission of a few things to keep the running time down. The fairy-tale-esque "tell-me-a-story" presentation, as a girl talks to her mother in a hospital as she dies did not exactly work, as it always took away from the far more interesting story of Benjamin's life itself. Even so, I did like the use of Hurricane Katrina as a symbol of approaching death. Since every audience member knows EXACTLY what sort of damage Katrina is about to bring to the young woman and dying mother, though they are oblivious to it, its coming dread offers a nice symbol of the futility of escaping death. However other symbols, such as the backwards-turning clock and the hummingbird, were useless, ham-handed, and not needed. And as for the guy who got struck by lightning over-and-over again...it was funny, but it was just a gimmick.
Brad Pitt and Cate Blanchett of course give great performances, and are perfect for their roles. I've always felt that Cate Blanchett really belonged in a different era of filmmaking. She seems like a relic from the golden age of Hollywood; someone who ought to be sharing the screen with the likes of Cary Grant and Audrey Hepburn (come to think of it, Blanchett actually PLAYED Katherine Hepburn in "The Aviator," right?). Brad Pitt also rises to the occasion to play the ideal backwards-aging man. There's a moment, when Benjamin and Daisy (Blanchett) meet "in the middle" and are the same age, that Daisy murmurs, "You're perfect." Everyone in the audience chuckled, and I could hear every female audience member swoon. I like Brad Pitt, but I am so jealous of the guy. It's impossible to compete. He IS perfect.
Yet it is Fincher's attention to detail that makes the movie really shine. As is the case with all his films, every shot looks like a beautiful painting. His cinematographers are likely to get the Oscar. And the real stars of the movie are his makeup and special effects team. As a budding hopeful filmmaker, I scrutinized every shot to try and figure out "how they did that." Yet in some sequences I had to give up. I have no idea how they made old man-baby Brad Pitt in the early scenes, or how the makeup crew managed to make him look exactly like we remembered him from the late 80s/early 90s when he first entered our consciousness. And the same goes for Blanchett. How did they make her so convincingly look like she is in her teens? When did they use complicated makeup only? Did they use computers? Was it motion-capture? How did they pull this off?
Technically yes, "Benjamin Button" is quite the feat. However it's very hard to make a grand-style romance in these cynical times, and I don't think Fincher succeeded. I'm honestly not sure this type of film CAN be pulled off anymore. Fincher's best has still got to be "Fight Club," followed by the sadly underappreciated "Zodiac." Then I'd place "Se7en," and finally this one. I haven't seen "Panic Room," and it's very hard for me to forgive the atrocity "Alien3" that dragged down one of my favorite franchises, even if he was only a newbie at that time.
One thing I thought was also interesting about "Benjamin Button" was the composition of the audience. It's no secret I see a fair amount of movies (seeing as that has become of the point of this blog and everything), and I like to see movies in theaters when I can. Usually, for almost any movie I see, the audience tends to be a lot of people in their teens, twenties, and thirties. Once you hit the forty to fifty age range, things start to level out. However in "Benjamin Button" the audience was mostly made up of elderly people. People in their sixties, seventies, even eighties! I think it's cool that a large production such as this can attract such an unlikely demographic into theaters. I like to think all these old people got a lot more out of the movie than a "young whippersnapper" such as myself did. I never respected the elderly enough when I was younger. I wish I had.
Yes, "Benjamin Button" has issues. But it succeeds in its overall goal to contemplate the passage of life. I recommend checking it out.

Blog ya next year, bitches!