Quis Custodiet Ipso Custodes?

I forgot in my post yesterday to also mention I saw "Journey to the Center of the Earth 3-D." The fact that I forgot to mention it might hint that the movie is sort of forgettable, and that may be true, but I also really enjoyed it. Like "Speed Racer" earlier this year, this is the sort of movie that makes you feel like a little kid again.
The movie is certainly cheesy, but cheesy in all the right ways. The 3-D is totally used as a gimmick all the way through, but exactly the sort of thrill ride gimmick that makes the little kids in the seats next to you go "WHOA" over and over again. My personal favorite bits involved sharp-toothed fish jumping right at your face, T. Rex drool dripping at the camera, and Brendan Fraser brushing his teeth and spitting at you.
Also, I have to hand it to them, for a movie with such a ridiculous premise handled with such silliness, they actually got a lot of the geology right. It was obvious that a geology consultant was aboard for the movie, and kudos to them for getting one. I always applaud movies when they make an effort to get some of the science right, even when the movie is clearly based around spectacle and little else.
For example, Brendan Fraser's character mentions that diamonds, rubies, and other rare gems are often found in areas of high volcanic pressure. He's right! The mineral muscovite, which I've NEVER heard mentioned in a movie before, actually is used as a plot device twice! And it indeed comes in thin and glassy sheets, as shown here. I'm also pretty sure that magnesium indeed does explode when ignited by fire. Finally, this is the first movie I've seen that even goes to the trouble to mention "feldspar" at least once. Not a bad bit of science for a film that is essentially nothing more than an extended amusement park ride.
I've always thought that cheesiness, when handled with the right amount of self-awareness, can be loads of fun. Examples are abound in sections of the first two "Spider-Man" movies and the first two "Mummy" movies, also with Brendan Fraser (though I frankly think "Tomb of the Dragon Emperor" looks like it's going to be a big stinker). And I think "Journey to the Center of the Earth 3-D" can be added on to the list of fun little kid pleasures of 2008. I may actually have enjoyed it more than "Speed Racer," and that's saying something!

Now that I've got that out of the way, I want to bitch a bit about the newest "Watchmen" trailer, which you can see here. Without a doubt, this is a cool trailer, but I'm quite worried. I think Zach Snyder is a talented director, but after seeing the trailer, I think he may be WAY to green to handle "Watchmen," arguably the greatest comic book ever written.
Zach Snyder has currently done two features, both of which were pretty solid. I actually thought his "Dawn of the Dead" was a better, more dramatic movie than "300," but it's his second movie that certainly got more attention from audiences. Indeed, Snyder did capture the "300" graphic novel pretty well, but that's mostly because Frank Miller's "300" is little more than superficial man-posing anyway. Snyder's experience with commercials served him well in that adaptation.
But "Watchmen" deserves a hell of a lot more than just a bunch of shots that look super neat. Without a doubt, Snyder mostly has nailed the look of the comic. But for the most part, the trailer just looks really "cool" and not much else. Granted, that is the POINT of a trailer, but it still has me on edge. When I read the book, I felt "Watchmen" would need to be a movie that stayed busy in order to deliver all the information it contained. And yet, the trailer shows so much slow-mo that I'm wondering how they're going to cram it all in if this is their approach. We already know how much Snyder likes drawn out slow motion action scenes after seeing "300." But is that what "Watchmen" needs? I don't think so.
"Watchmen" needs that heavy gravitas that comes from superb dialogue and, more importantly, superb acting to deliver those fantastic words by Alan Moore. I'm not trying to sell the screenwriters short; it's just that Alan Moore has already delivered all the excellent dialogue you need. But "Watchmen" isn't about just delivering a bunch of cool lines. It's about the weight and meaning behind all those lines. I'm not sure Zach Snyder knows how to handle that yet.
And going with a bunch of unknown actors is a risky choice. I actually tend to like unknown actors in big budget movies because they often allow you not to have any preconceived notions about the characters when they appear onscreen. It worked great for Brandon Routh in "Superman Returns." He was an unknown who easily upstaged Kate Bosworth, and maybe even Kevin Spacey, because he so perfectly captured the naivete and untainted purity of Superman (which is ironic, because that movie was all about how Clark Kent knocked up Lois Lane...but whatever, that's another argument).
Still, most unknown actors are also inexperienced actors, whether you like to admit it or not. And to get good performances from inexperienced actors, you really need to be an actor's director. And I don't think Zach Snyder is. He's getting close, but I don't think he's there yet. Directing "Watchmen" this early in his career as a director might be a bit presumptuous of him.
I know, I know...it's just a teaser trailer, and it's WAY to early to say how the movie will turn out. However, as I said before, "Watchmen" IS the greatest comic book ever written, and the movie deserves to be something special, not just another Hollywood blockbuster. Here's hoping my fears are unwarranted, and I can look back on this post sometime next year and laugh about how nervous I was.
I do like the use of the Smashing Pumpkins song though!

I Didn't Start the Fire

Checking in:

So my first summer without any clue what will happen after it (a movie job??? We'll see...) is well under way. And it has been a dramatic one.

My job at the museum as lead camp instructor has been a lot of fun, but it has been taxing on the rest of my life. The first week of camp was difficult, as it was a dino camp created entirely from scratch by yours truly. Luckily my hard work paid off and the kids loved it. And I had the next week off, which was great.

Unfortunately my week "off" was far less than relaxing. I went kayaking the Saturday before, and my legs suffered such a severe sunburn that I was actually unable to walk for a few days. It was literally impossible to put weight on my legs for a few days, and I had to crawl around the house using my arms like a paraplegic. My legs became COVERED in painful fluid-filled blisters that were essentially second-degree burns. Anyway, after a few days I was able to walk again, but then the REAL disaster hit when a forest fire got out of control and we were ordered to evacuate from our house!
I learned that I am actually a very efficient and fast packer in an emergency (I was ready far quicker than my parents or sister). And while our house was never in any immediate danger (many other houses would have had to be burned in order to get to us), it was very nerve-wracking to be down in Santa Barbara during the night, looking up at the flame-filled mountains, and knowing that your house was somewhere in that mess. And this is coming from someone who tends not to be much of a worrier!

I am very thankful to all the family friends for allowing me to stay in their places, but it was very difficult to keep my cool during my second week of teaching camps (more dinos). The GAP fire was declared a National Emergency, and it was quite a sight to behold the massive planes dropping retardant on the flames overhead (you may have seen it on the news). My highest praise goes to the firefighters, who managed to succeed in not allowing a single home to be burned (though a few came dangerously close). Whew!

While I'm glad everything about the fire turned out OK, it sure as hell set me back in my plans. I had hoped to try and start searching in the movie job market during my free week, instead of spending it evacuating. Instead, I had to unpack all my stuff all over again, having done it already once before. As of now I had hoped to have leads on a few jobs, but for the most part it has been zilch. And September is coming fast. Yikes! There is so much crap to take care of, and nowhere near enough time.

Anyways, camps have been going well, and I've been making decent enough money. Hopefully it will be a little boost for when I finally head back down to Hell-A (I really do miss people down there, though).

Anyways, movie reviews, I suppose:

1) "Dan in Real Life" I surprisingly LOVED this movie, and I'm not entirely sure why. On the one hand, it should be nothing more than a romantic comedy starring slightly older people than usual. But Steve Carell's sheer likability really made me feel for him. Certain actors I always find myself identifying a bit with, no matter who or what they're playing, and personally, I think if I met Steve Carell in real life we would get along great (and my name is Dan...Dan in Real Life!). Even though he can be a diverse actor, I think the inherent "Carellianess" that exists in all his characters is something found within me too...sort of the semi-shy nice guy, who is still funny, but mostly unsure of himself. This exists in all of Carell's best characters, from Andy in "The 40-Year Old Virgin" to Frank in "Little Miss Sunshine" to Michael Scott (yeah...I think so), to Dan in this movie.
The movie also proves that anyone, put in the right part, can be well cast. Dane Cook, whom I usually can't stand as an actor, actually works great as the well-meaning, but somewhat shallow, brother to Dan.
All in all, I recommend "Dan in Real Life" for somehow rising above its generic romantic comedy roots to becoming something far more meaningful and sympathetic. What can I say? I'm a sucker for lovable losers...especially ones named "Dan."

2) "Once" I was worried that the hype behind this movie would cause it to be a big disappointment. But again, I gotta say, this was quite good. I was not necessarily a fan of some of the music, but the song they one the Oscar for was deserved. The movie sort of crept up on me. I wasn't expecting myself to be affected as much as I was, but in the final bit when the guy and girl DON'T get together (which I saw coming a mile away), I found a few tears streaming down my face (I know...I'm such a wuss). But the most praise for this movie has to come from the fact that they made this thing with NO money at all. The fact that these guys managed to make me cry so much, when the movie probably cost far less than my college tuition, makes me wonder why I ever even bothered to got to film school at all (well, that answer's easy...I got a scholarship).

3) "Look Who's Talking" I saw this one on TV. It's an old movie from the 80s, directed by Amy Heckerling of "Fast Times at Ridgemont High" fame. Frankly, I never quite got what all the fuss about "Fast Times" was about, aside from the fact that it was perhaps one of the first of its genre. "Look Who's Talking" isn't a great film, but it's simple and enjoyable enough if you have nothing to do. The gimmick of the movie is that a baby makes sarcastic wry comments throughout the film, and Bruce Willis is actually a good voice fit. Also, the movie does star John Travolta as the love interest of the baby's mother, and it is actually one of the few movies I've seen where I actually really liked his performance (blasphemy, I know).
Also, those babies are WAYYYY older than they are supposed to be, and they do things real babies can't do at their age, or in the wrong order (babies walking and running before talking?). And it's very clear that a number of different babies that look NOTHING alike were used in filming to portray one character. But I'm nitpicking here, in a movie that is mostly harmless fluff anyway, so forget it.
If you want a cute baby fix, go see "Raising Arizona." Unless you catch this one on TV like I did, in which case, watch away and see if it's your cup of tea.

4) "Sicko" Another Michael Moore doc, this time about our shitty Health Care system. I didn't like this as much as "Roger & Me," but I did think it was better than "The Big One." And of course, I haven't actually seen Michael Moore's two most famous docs, so I can't compare there.
The doc does make some great points about how terrible our system is, but it is clearly leaving some things out when it compares our system to that in other countries. Sure, Cuba might have a great Health Care system, but just about everything else in the country is down the craphole. Even so, Michael Moore's overall argument that U.S. government regulated health care could help the situation is an idea I wouldn't mind entertaining. In about a year I won't be covered by any Health Care plan either, and that's a scary thought, especially since, as I understand it, crew positions on sets don't tend to have health care plans. Do they? Hell if I know...

5) "The King of Kong" This was an AWESOME documentary about a lovable loser everyman named Steve Weibe who pursues the World Record for the highest score on the old King Kong arcade game. However his foe, the current World Record holder, is one of the greatest sleazebag villains ever, except that he's REAL.
The entire thing feels like a Christopher Guest mocumentary, complete with all sorts of weirdo side characters. However, all the characters are real dudes, which makes the movie that much better. You should seriously check this one out, even if you aren't a fan of docs.

6) "I Am Legend" This movie suffered from something you see a lot of in Hollywood these days, which is WAY too much CGI when it isn't needed. I feel sorry for people who work as animal wranglers when I see movies like this, because so many of them were put out of work for easier, but nowhere near as convincing, CG work. It's good CG too! You just can't compare with the real animal. There are tons of deer seen throughout "I Am Legend," and even a few lions, but none of them are real at all, even when it REALLY wouldn't have been that hard. This sort of thing pisses me off just as much as those prairie dogs did at the beginning of Indy IV. I'm surprised they didn't go to the trouble to CGI Will Smith's dog!
In fact, the "zombie/vampires" would be pretty scary, if for the fact that they all are boring CG creations too. Again, the CG is good, but real shaved, scary looking people with red eyes in makeup would have been so much more chilling. It's like, to get the PG-13 rating, they went with bad effects.
Also, the movie completely abandons the ending in the book in favor of a happier, more Hollywood ending where Will Smith actually meets some survivors and sacrifices himself to ensure they will live on. Not a terrible rewrite, but nowhere near as good as the chilling ending in the novel (read it).
The movie is also surprisingly short. What it really needed to be was a longer, more brooding film about loneliness and isolation. Indeed, the early scenes with Will Smith and the dog moving through the empty city tend to be the best parts of the movie. A more steadily paced film that expands upon this vibe could really send chills down the spine, especially when the dog dies after we've REALLY been given the chance to get attached to it (i.e. longer than we get in the real movie). If Will Smith's character was then left completely to himself, the movie would almost be about a man fending off his own loneliness just as much as he is fending off the vampiombies.
Instead, we get an average big budget adventure that is nicely executed, but nothing special. Too bad.

7) Oh boy. Here comes my "Wall-E" review!
The first half hour of "Wall-E" is simply genius. It has almost no dialogue, and it is some of the best filmmaking I have ever seen. I'm not talking some of the best ANIMATION I've ever seen. I'm talking ALL movies. Seriously, the opening scenes rival some of the greatest classics of all time in their execution, as we are forced to piece together what has happened to Earth with the clues we are given. And the introduction to EVE is brilliant.
In fact, everything involving EVE and WALL-E works splendidly throughout the entire film. The scene where EVE later realizes how much WALL-E cares for her is also beautiful, as is WALL-E's earnest longing for her throughout the entire movie. And the final bit where WALL-E almost loses his memory is heartbreaking. The Pixar team deserves major kudos for making me care so much for these little robots. A part of me wonders about a darker ending where WALL-E does NOT get his full memory back at all, and instead EVE is left to care for him in the same way WALL-E cared for her at the beginning of the movie. But that may be a bit too somber for the kiddies.
Yet, while I loved the first half hour, and everything involving the two main robots, the rest of the movie pales in comparison. It's still excellent, but because the first half hour is SO damn good, the stuff aboard the AXIOM spaceship just isn't able to match. While I get what Pixar was going for with the fat people aboard the ship, I found it hard to sympathize with such a bunch of lazy losers. And the rogue berserk robots running through the ship is a bit too cartoony, and the autopilot not quite threatening enough. I know, I know, it IS just a cartoon, but it didn't seem that way to me in the opening scenes.
Also, I understand the message of the film, and one that is certainly worth promoting, is "take care of the Earth." It's probably the issue I personally care about more than any other (I am an environmental studies minor). Yet, at the end the humans return to Earth to clean the planet.
Frankly, judging by our track record, the BEST thing that could POSSIBLY happen to planet Earth would be for us all to get in a giant spaceship and leave. Earth would heal itself fine without us, and we do WAY more harm than good. But again, that isn't the message you want to deliver to little kids, is it?
And also, if all those people aboard the AXIOM were so fat, lazy, and "plugged in" aboard the spacecraft, I really doubt they would have been that much help upon their return to Earth anyway. But maybe I just have a dimmer view of humanity than even the Pixar people do.
Also, the movie gets much of the science right, but since I am now officially a science teacher at the museum's nature camp, I want to touch upon a few things.
First, the movie mentions that people aboard the AXIOM have gotten blobbier due to bone loss in space. Indeed, this can happen, but it is because of the lack of gravity. And the AXIOM clearly has its own artificial gravity! If the people got fatter, its ENTIRELY through their own sloth, and nothing to do with weightlessness.
Also, if the AXIOM does have its own gravity, than people would not go sliding around the ship when it tilts, since the gravity is obviously focused around the ship's center. Just another nit-pick.
Finally, when WALL-E reveals to EVE that he has saved the plant from the exploding pod, he exposes that plant to EMPTY SPACE! That plant would have been frozen within seconds which, I'm assuming, would probably piss EVE off rather than have her fly around and give WALL-E a big hug. But again, I'm willing to forgive some small rule-bending of science for the sake of a good story.
All in all, "WALL-E" is a splendid animated picture. While I would rank it as one of Pixar's best, I wouldn't put it higher than my current favorites, "Finding Nemo" and the two "Toy Story" movies. And that's too bad because I REALLY like space and I REALLY like cute robots. I just wish the rest of the movie had been able to match the excellence of the first act.

8) "The Dark Knight"
I'm going to try not to say too much about "The Dark Knight" because I am still reeling from seeing it at the midnight showing a few nights ago (yes, I did go to the midnight showing, and yes, I did go as the Joker...check facebook).
While "Spider-Man 2" has previously held its spot as my favorite superhero movie, I think "The Dark Knight" might knock it down to #2. And this is coming from a long-time Spidey fan!
It is almost impossible to deny that "The Dark Knight" is the best superhero movie ever made. With "Batman Begins" Christopher Nolan opened our world to a new, more serious take on Batman. Like the original "Star Wars," it was an introduction to the world.
Now, just as "The Empire Strikes Back" expanded and added more depth to the Star Wars universe, Nolan has taken the world he introduced and turned it into a far more complex and emotional tale.
There was a hell of a lot of hype for this movie, but for once, it was deserved. I tried to lower my expectations going in because I didn't want to be disappointed, but it was pretty evident right off the bat (har!) that those worries were unwarranted.
The movie is a combination of genres. It's hardly a superhero movie at all. It's one-third superhero movie, one-third crime drama, and one-third horror movie, mostly thanks to Heath Ledger. Everything you've heard about Ledger's Joker is true--he is one of the scariest screen villains in the history of cinema. You can see why this role may have indeed "killed" him (rumor has it he took too many sleeping pills because he couldn't sleep after playing this part). He deserves the posthumous Oscar he will undoubtedly get if there is any justice in the world.
In fact, I would love to see "The Dark Knight" get more Academy Award nominations and wins. Perhaps even best picture! It's certainly the best mainstream movie I've seen in a hell of a long time. The Academy should also look into giving Christopher Nolan, who has never made a bad movie, a nomination for best director. A lot of reviews have compared this movie to Michael Mann's "Heat," and indeed that is one of my favorite movies too!
My only qualm about the movie is that, after this, I don't know how they could possibly top it. The movie feels complete as is, even if the Batman legacy will live on. I don't see how any other villain could come close to topping Heath Ledger's Joker. (Spoiler) The Joker does survive in the end of the movie, and I think it's fairly evident that Nolan, Goyer, etc. were planning on using him for the next movie. Yet I still don't see how any other actor alive could come close to filling Ledger's (clown) shoes. So what do you do?
In addition, it appears as if Harvey Dent is also killed, thereby removing Batman's arguably two greatest foes. So, should they just end the Batman franchise here?
Most likely they won't, but if any studio head with any ounce of brain cells knows any better, they must make absolutely sure that Nolan is at the helm again, and that he is firmly in control of another story worth telling. Because doing another Batman movie that is anywhere near this good is going to be a tall order. And I DON'T want another "Spider-Man 3" experience, especially since "The Dark Knight" is so fucking good. Well done!
One last note though...I'm shocked this movie got a PG-13 rating. It might be a PG-13 on a technicality, but the fear, horror, and violence committed by the Joker really deserves an R. Take the "13" very literally. I would NOT allow my ten or eleven year old to see this film, because both villains will give them nightmares for months.

Here's hoping I see some of you LA buds soon!