Danfish

2011--THAT'S A WRAP!

2012-01-02T14:43:00.000-08:00

Well that was a year! Not too bad either. Made a lot of headway at my day job, did some amazing exploring in Nevada and Washington state, made some great new friends, did more decent than usual in the female department, and finally started getting back into the swing of things actually finishing some of my own creative work. Student loans are going to be paid off any day now, which will leave things open for even more amazing adventures!

Movie-wise I felt like it was a sub-par year, but at the same time when I went to make the Top Ten List I found myself leaving off several movies that I actually really liked. I guess while there weren't any huge hype-worthy blockbusters like in previous years (i.e. "The Dark Knight"), there were still a lot of creative surprises to be had. A dud of a year animation-wise which is a bummer, but otherwise there were still a lot of solid films even if there weren't that many GREAT ones.

And entertainment in other media flourished--this year brought us "Game of Thrones" and "American Horror Story" on TV, and finally got me into gaming with the superb "Portal 2" and "Arkham City."

Anyway, I've done my best to do my homework and see as many end-of-the-year films as possible. So on to the reviews!

"The Descendants" I got to see this for free at a special screening with Alexander Payne! Yay editors guild!

Like all Alexander Payne movies (that I've seen anyway) it's a solid film about aging males having a crisis of sorts, which somehow I always find incredibly fascinating and relatable despite being in my 20s. The cast is excellent, right down to the supporting roles (even Matthew Lillard). The central twist--that George Clooney's dying wife (on life support) had an affair--is one that agonizingly twists him into several situations at once that no man should ever have to go through. Yet Payne finds a way as always to make it almost charming and light in the midst of such frustration and sadness. I do think the sister's dumb boyfriend turning out to be "wise" was an unnecessary trope used far too often in movie after movie, but otherwise it was great. One of the best things about the movie is that it does such a fantastic job of portraying Hawaii as it actually is. When I visited Hawaii I was still competitively swimming, so instead of doing JUST touristy stuff I hung out with a number of kids on the island and swam with their club teams. Payne perfectly catches the everyday sense of the people who live in Hawaii, where it's not all fun-and-games and paradise as Clooney points out in the opening narration. I WILL say that Clooney has basically become the "narrator guy" in these types of movies ("Up In the Air" for example), and it was a little off-putting in this film since the narration never picks up again or bookends the film after the opening. All in all though, a very solid piece of work.

"The Muppets" If you outright HATE this movie, you have no soul. It's not as good as some of the other muppet films ("The Muppet Movie," "The Great Muppet Caper," "A Muppet Christmas Carol," or my personal favorite, "Muppet Treasure Island") but it's heart is solidly in the right place. In today's somewhat bitter economic crisis age, it's so full of unbridled joy and happiness it's exactly what we need. The music is great, the characters are all wonderful, and the story is bright and uplifting, though it is funny how much it touches upon ideas that were probably spoken at a studio exec meeting ("the muppets are no longer relevant!"). These movies always were self-aware to a point, I guess. On the human side of things, Chris Cooper steals the show as a greedy oil tycoon ("Maniacal laugh, maniacal laugh!").

One gripe I have is that my favorite muppet characters were underused (Gonzo and Rizzo's interplay…Rizzo is practically ABSENT from the film), but even so it's a lot of fun.

"Hugo" People have been split on this one, and I can see why to a point, but I thought this was overall a delightful childhood film (even if lots of antsy little annoying kids I know would probably find it boring and slow). Scorsese has never been my favorite director, but I thought he did a good job here creating a wonderful tribute to Georges Melies, probably my favorite early filmmaker. Granted I didn't know it would be ABOUT Melies when I went into the theater, so discovering this halfway through the movie turned out to be a pleasant surprise.

Visually, there's no denying the movie looks fantastic. The 3-D photography breaks every rule in the (relatively new) book, yet it's some of the best work I've seen. Paris itself has never looked more fantastical, filled with dust motes, snow, and gears that drift in front of the camera, filling every shot with beauty.

Most of the actors are great too. I'm not sure if I actually LIKE Sacha Baron Cohen, but he's always INTERESTING at least. It's a joy to see Ben Kingsley actually ACTING again, and the lead actor Asa Butterfield is great as well (I'm not convinced the "Ender's Game" movie will be any good, but at least they've cast it right). My favorite female child actress Chloe Moretz is strong as well, though her accent isn't always flawless.

I have a theory I've possibly mentioned before on this blog, but it's that all great filmmakers have a through-line to all their stories, in that they keep telling the same story over and over. Finding that through-line for yourself will make YOU a better artist, so it's something to be aware of. I think Scorses's through-line in all his work is that he is good at creating a person trapped in their own personal hell. "Raging Bull," "Taxi Driver," and "The Aviator" all have this in common, and when i was watching this movie I kept wondering if he would have it, seeing as it's about a kid. Sure enough though, in a fun nightmare sequence (even a nightmare within a nightmare…BWAAAAM!) Hugo gets trapped in his own personal terrified world. Gotcha, Scorsese!

So all in all, I liked "Hugo." It wasn't perfect and a lot of the sub-plots could have been trimmed (Baron Cohen's love story, the wiener dog couple), but as an ode to the beauty and preservation of early cinema, it was a lot of fun, and the perfect thing to see with my family over Thanksgiving.

"The Artist" - Speaking of odes to early cinema, "The Artist" is without question one of my favorite movies of the year. It's made by the same actor/director team behind "OSS 117," which is a fun French film that feels like a 60s James Bond movie actually unearthed from the period--albeit with an idiot French agent instead (imagine the lovechild of Inspector Closeau and young Connery). It did take me a while to get the character of OSS 117 out of my head while watching the lead actor, but the characters are similar and I got there eventually. Like that film, the filmmakers here perfectly manage to recreate something that feels born out of the silent era, telling it's own story while paying homage to countless classics you may have seen if you're a film buff (lots of echoes of "A Star Is Born," "Sunset Blvd," and "Singing in the Rain"). The movie is essentially about a silent film actor threatened with the birth of the talking picture (a la "Singing in the Rain"), but what it manages to do so deftly well is make you really FEEL what the main character is going through by reminding you how amazing and different those silent films were. It truly is a lost art form, very different from the movies we have today. At one point the movie even teases us with a moment when everyone ELSE in the film starts talking and things start making noise, but the main character is unable to. I was worried they would turn this into the story for the rest of the movie, becoming way to gimmicky, but luckily it's all a dream and played for eerie laughs.

Anyway, it's a great piece of cinema, and my hopeful choice for best picture this year. Check it out!

"Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows" - I didn't LOVE Guy Ritchie's version of "Holmes" that came out last year, but it was a lot better than I expected. They managed to respect the era while still making it hip and cool, his formalistic approaches to filmmaking were different and new, and the cast was mostly pretty good. Making Holmes a bit more action-oriented was a little strange, but there still was enough mystery and puzzle-solving to let it not feel like a betrayal to the source material.

In the new film, unfortunately, they got rid of more of the stuff that made it Holmes-y. The mystery and detective-work stuff is practically gone, and we're unfortunately left with another bland quippy action hero, and Guy Ritchie's bag-of-tricks at this point feels old hat. Forget the Robert Downey Holmes and go watch the excellent BBC "Sherlock" instead.

"Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol" - One of the best summer action movies didn't come in the summer at all--it came in December!!! All in all it's a solid outing in the franchise, possibly the best (I still like the first one more, I think…the action wasn't as heavy but the plot twists were a little smarter). Brad Bird proves to be just as adept directing live-action scenes as animation, and his use of continuous flowing choreographed shots works great here. The opening Kremlin scenes are very creative, but it's the film's second set piece that contains some of the greatest action I've ever seen. Tom Cruise scales the Dubai tower, there is some incredibly fun spy intrigue and fistfights within the hotel (including a favorite moment when somebody forgot they removed a pane of glass), and it culminates in an exciting sandstorm. Bad. Ass.

Unfortunately the set piece after this lively section can't quite live up to the earlier moments, but at least the car park section is pretty nifty (though what was that suitcase covered in…vaseline?!). Having all the suspense ride on whether or not smoking hot Paula Patton can convince the host from "Slumdog Millionaire" that she's sexy seemed pretty off; when you look like she does you should have no problem.

I was a little bummed that Josh Holloway (aka Sawyer from "Lost") was underused, because for some reason I thought he was going to play the villain, but he's only in the opening sequences (it's a FUN opening scene though). The REAL villain is also incredibly cookie-cutter, which can be OK I guess, but there isn't much emotional motivation behind Tom Cruise trying to once again stop the bomb and save the world. In the last outing Philip Seymour Hoffman was great as he threatened Cruise's wife, and though the movie as a whole was uneven, at least the emotional motivation rode through. I'm rewriting here, but I say make this villain someone who KILLED Tom Cruise's wife or something.

Also, the Mission Impossible series has always had lots of fun with those nifty masks, and they are usually used to reveal a twist, where we find out one character is actually a double agent or something. Here there's a great moment where Tom Cruise rips off part of the villains "face" in a sandstorm, and I was eagerly anticipating who it was actually going to be. The boss Tom Wilkinson? Jeremy Renner (which wouldn't really make any sense, but whatever)? Ving Rhames, bummed that nobody seemed to care about him anymore? Uh, no…it's just…the other bad guy. So…oh my gosh…it looks like the bad guys are certainly trading places being bad guys! What?

The ending is also rather pathetic…we don't care about Tom Cruise's wife, so there's no reason to have the weird ambiguous diner scene wrapping everything up. But on a surface-level action basis, this movie's got some of the best stuff in years.

"We Bought a Zoo" - A perfectly acceptable family movie that won't offend anyone. Matt Damon is good. Not really much else worth saying about it. Nice, but predictable and unspectacular. Take your parents if they're too sheltered to see anything "twisted" like "Dragon Tattoo."

"The Adventures of Tintin: The Secret of the Unicorn" - I really really wanted to like this film. It's made by several of my favorite heavyweight filmmakers, and I'm one of the few Americans who actually read the comics. While I'm not too keen on specifics, I remember them with fondness.

Unfortunately Tintin fails on far too many levels for me to recommend it. Given the pedigree, it's one of the sloppiest first acts I've seen in ages. We suddenly see Tintin buying a model boat for no reason, and people are fighting over it also, offering to buy it for lots of money. We don't know WHO Tintin is, we don't know who the villains are, we don't know ANYTHING (seriously, Tintin, go get another boat…that guy just handed you a wad of cash!). Later we finally discover that Tintin's a reporter, but it takes far too long to get there. I was confused, and I'm a guy who KNOWS Tintin! And it's not the same as the classic "Speilberg open" that so often starts out one of these films--a fun, often self-contained scene usually removed from the rest of the narrative before the plot gets explained. Examples are the boulder chase in "Raiders," the dark scary raptor cage in "Jurassic Park," and the opening shark attack in "Jaws." With "Tintin" it's just a big confusing sloppy early mess.

And Tintin himself is a bland and boring character--ever the goody-two-shoes, nothing about him changes and there are no stakes for his character. This works OK in a fun children's adventure comic, but in a film we need more. Indiana Jones, for example, isn't too complicated, but at least he usually has some sort of self-discovery, gaining respect for the artifacts he uncovers (i.e. "Holy shit, the ark's powers are real!"). And even on the surface, Indy's cool: he's a professor action hero, a neat contradiction that instantly screams "fun!" Tintin's a little asswipe with a clever dog.

Tonally, the movie is all over the place too. I'm still on the fence about motion-capture, but it at least looks GOOD here. But is it appropriate for a movie based on comics dating back to the 30s and 40s? Tintin is also pretty young (arguably even a teenager), which screams "children's film." Semi-animation screams "children's film." Thompson and Thompson, the bumbling cops, scream "children's film." And yet there are countless baddies constantly shooting at Tintin and his dog with GUNS. Indy was a full-grown man fighting evil Nazis…Tintin's a damn KID fighting guys who, while thugs, don't come across as faceless evil stormtroopers.

The movie finally gets interesting with Captain Haddock, an alcoholic sea captain who may hold the secret to a miraculous treasure, but his backstory (which IS admittedly pretty cool) doesn't start unfolding until about halfway through the film and by then it's too little, too late. Also, making jokes about alcoholism may have been OK back-in-the-day, but I couldn't help thinking, "Man, get this guy some help!"

There is some good stuff, though. Snowy the dog is super cute (though he has no hilarious thought bubbles like in the comics), and the motorcycle one-shot chase sequence showcases some incredible choreography and could almost be worth the price of admission on it's own. Even this, though, feels like an etude--an exercise rather than something integrated INTO a grander story. And since it's animated, while it's technically impressive, there's still no awesome sense that it's ACTUALLY happening like some of Cuaron's jaw-dropping long takes in "Children of Men."

It's not awful, but it's not the movie I was hoping for either. I expect more from Spielberg, Jackson, and the others involved.

"Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy" On a technical level, this movie is superb. Sharp editing, fantastic cinematography, riveting score, and all the heavyweight British (and some American) actors are amazing, top to bottom. On a story level though, it's rather confusing. I don't like to be spoon-fed my movies, but there were many times throughout watching this film that I thought, "Wait…hmm. I hope they explain that" and a few scenes later I quickly realized they weren't going to explain ANYTHING. I think I understood the movie for the most part, but it wasn't easy. The first half hour of the film, for example, is practically impossible to follow until Tom Hardy (excellent, by the way) shows up and starts talking to Gary Oldman (also excellent…again, the acting is stellar), at which point the film picks up steam. Worth watching for film fans, but don't ask me to clarify any details for you.

"The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo" - First off, please be aware I haven't seen the Swedish film, nor read the book, so I am basing this only only my enjoyment of the American film.

And, frankly, I loved it. It's probably Fincher's third-best film after "Fight Club" and "Zodiac." Remember how I said earlier how great directors center their movies around the same theme or story? I think I've got Fincher figured out…his films are all about obsession (often, but not always, over a crime). "Dragon Tattoo" is perfectly tense as Daniel Craig's character zeroes in on an age-old murder/mystery, drawing deeper and deeper into weirdness and danger. And Rooney Mara as the titular character is fantastic, though I'm not sure she's as good as everyone thinks she is, since she I'm not sure how different she is from Noomi Rapace, who has been terrific in several other films I've seen her in. The opening title sequence, set to a rework of "Immigrant Song" by Trent Reznor, is also one of the coolest things I've seen on-screen in ages (did anyone else catch the Nine Inch Nails t-shirt, by the way?).

I was a little disappointed in that I figured out the killer before I was supposed to (drat my ability to recognize well-known actors!), and the entire ending sequence that goes on for 20 minutes after the mystery gets solved was unnecessary (and it's not like the movie wasn't already long enough). I don't really care about bank accounts in the Cayman Islands or the fact that she buys Daniel Craig a really nice leather jacket. If anything, I thought it sort of stripped Lisbeth Salander (the girl) of her strong independence by showing her to be just another wounded lovesick waif in the final shot. For a movie that grabbed me so hard by the balls during most of it's runtime, it was disappointing to end on such a whimper, but everything up to that point was a gas.

Overall the characters are dynamic and interesting, leaping off the screen and burrowing into my mind and libido. "Realistic" probably isn't the term best-used to describe them, but they were certainly great CHARACTERS in the best way possible. I hated "The Social Network" because, for all the hype about the rapid-fire script, the characters were mostly greedy and all kind of felt like all the same snotty yammermouths to me, but in "Dragon Tattoo" they're all varied and fascinating, each with a different set of values and goals drawn by their own individual experiences. Fincher's delivered a great ride, and I hope you take it.

"Take Shelter" - Sometimes art films can be just as full of disappointment as the big blockbusters. "Take Shelter" does a fantastic job creating a horrifying sense of dread, as Michael Shannon has continuous nightmares of the apocalypse. Convinced it's actually going to happen, he builds a tornado shelter in his backyard while his family, friends, and co-workers worry he's going crazy. Shannon could well get an Oscar for his performance, and Jessica Chastain (who seriously showed up in every movie this year for some reason) does a delicately beautiful job as the wife who both fears and cares for him and her family's safety. And the nightmare visions hit hard with deep fear harder than any jump-scare horror flick (I almost wanted to leave the theater before each dream sequence, they started getting so unsettling).

But if your movie is all ABOUT the lead-up to one climactic event, you've got to really decide what that event is going to BE. Here be spoilers, you have been warned…

Eventually a storm DOES come, and Shannon takes his family into the bunker he's created. We get the feeling that perhaps he was RIGHT, and the storm has actually happened. Eventually the sounds outside die down, and Chastain decides it's safe to go out. Shannon refuses, and finally asks that SHE be the one to open the door. She gently demands that he do it, as stepping out of the shelter into the world is something he must face himself. Shannon finally does so, putting his visions of doom behind him and stepping into the light.

If you want, you can end the film right there and you'd be OK. The movie's not about whether Shannon's crazy or not and the apocalypse is real, it's about the choice he makes to get over his visions. But they don't end there, of course. Instead, Shannon steps out and realizes it was just a regular storm, not the End of Days. A few trees are knocked down, but it's no big deal. Looks like he WAS crazy after all. I don't like this ending as much, but I'd be willing to live with it.

But instead of THAT the movie tries to have it's cake and eat it too. Later when on vacation, Shannon sees a REAL storm brewing on the horizon, and for all intents and purposes his family sees it too. Looks like he was right after all!

Uh, what? So what's the point? I get that this is open to interpretation…metaphorically, his insanity hasn't left. OR it is real, in which case, I guess it's just a big case of, "Whoops!"

There are lots of ways you could read it…all terrible. None of them make any sense and it's ultimately a letdown. Your entire movie hinges on whether this guy is crazy or not, and ultimately you end it with, "Yes, he is…or IS he?" It's such a cop-out to what for the most part is a pretty good build-up, but a build-up is only as good as it's payoff. Instead what we get is ultimately an overlong film-school project from the artsy kid who should have stayed at NYU with a stick up his ass.

Also, is "a storm is coming" not seriously the most overused trope of all time?

Also, very quickly wanted to review "Red Dragon," which is an older film that I finally got around too seeing. It's pretty good, if not rather by-the-book (especially in the rushed "monster-in-the-house" ending). It unfortunately suffers from the fact that you're only continuously reminded how much better "Silence of the Lambs" is, but for Brett Ratner, notorious for his hackery, it's quite decent. Ray Fiennes makes a great villain, and I really enjoyed his fascination with William Blake.

OK, now for the moment you've all been waiting for (and by "you" I mean "me")…my Top Ten and Bottom Five of 2011! As always, it's a "Dan's Favorites" list, not a "Best Of" list…

TOP TEN

0. "The Lion King 3D" Gets diplomatic immunity "above" the list because it came out nearly 20 years ago (yeesh...), but it still was the most fun I had in theaters this year. Only movie I saw twice on the screen…long live The King!

1. "Cedar Rapids" For some reason this movie really spoke to me (hopefully not because I related TOO much to Ed Helms' character). It's not easy for a comedy to be both sweet and edgy but this one pulled it off, and John C. Reilly gives the performance of his career, which is saying something.

2. "The Artist" Fantastic celebration of the so-often forgotten silent era and the very different kind of magic they hold over the viewer.

3. "The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo" They could have chopped off the last twenty minutes and I wouldn't have cared, but otherwise this rocked pretty hard.

4. "X-Men: First Class" Fassbender and McAvoy (with the help of my future wife Jennifer Lawrence) anchor this very fun adventure that reminded me of a 60s James Bond movie more than it did a superhero flick, and Matthew Vaughn continues to show he's one of today's strongest action directors. What can I say? I'm a sucker for vintage superheroes.

5. "Fright Night" Awesome (and much better!) remake of the 80s movie that was a wonderful blend of teen comedy and horror. I wish more people had gone and seen this one.

6. "Midnight in Paris" I'm not a big Woody Allen fan, but darned if this movie didn't sneak up and surprise me with how delightful it was.

7. "Attack the Block" The only alien movie of the year (and there were a LOT) that actually delivered on it's premise. Tense, frightening, and funny, with some very creative monsters to boot.

8. "The Descendants" Alexander Payne continues to make movies that I should find boring but instead find fascinating. Not as good as "Sideways," but close.

9. "Captain America" I already said I liked vintage superheroes didn't I? A good old-fashioned patriotic movie that reminded me more of Indiana Jones than the last Indiana Jones movie did (or "Tintin" for that matter).

10. "Drive" I had a lot of problems with this film, but at the same time I haven't been able to stop thinking about it since I left the theater. The awesome soundtrack helps a LOT.

BOTTOM FIVE

5. "Rango" Overrated garbage with shoddy storytelling, a meandering plot, and bland characters.

4. "Battle LA" You have a problem when I can't tell your characters apart from each other OR the uninspired aliens.

3. " Spy Kids 4" Did this REALLY need to happen, Rodriguez?

2. " The Big Year" This was a potentially great premise ruined by a director who apparently thinks movies shouldn't have conflict in them.

1. "The Adjustment Bureau" Worse than a dumb movie is a dumb movie that THINKS it's smart. A waste of talent and a cool sci-fi premise.

Movies I wanted to see but didn't get to (lots of docs and foreign films wind up here unfortunately)…

Arthur Christmas, Beginners, The Guard, Martha Marcy May Marlene, Pariah, Shame, The Tree of Life, We Need to Talk About Kevin, Weekend, Winnie the Pooh

(docs) Corman's World, El Sicario: Room 164, Into the Abyss, Life in a Day, Louder Than a Bomb, Senna

(foreign) 13 Assassins, Elite Squad: The Enemy Within, Incendies, Scheherazade Tell Me a Story, A Separation, Tomboy

That's it for 2011. Let's make 2012 awesome!!!

20 Reasons Why "The Lion King" is Still King of the Disney Movies

2011-11-10T13:26:00.000-08:00

I wrote this on my facebook wall, thought I'd post it here too:

Seventeen years ago I went to go see "The Lion King" at the Arlington theater in Santa Barbara (my favorite theater to this day). I was already a young Disney-phile at the time, having transitioned from my youngest "Dumbo" phase through my "101 Dalmatians" phase, and was currently stuck in my "Aladdin" phase. Yet upon seeing "The Lion King" on the big screen I was blown away. Here was a lush, gorgeous, fantastic-looking and sounding film that quickly became my new favorite. Classic Disney movies are, for better or worse, 1/3 of the reason I've embarked on the career I have today (Star Wars and Lord of The Rings round it all out), and for me "The Lion King" has always been the best of those films that made me think "I want to work on stuff like that" so many years ago.

So I was delighted when The Lion King got it's 3-D rerelease in theaters, but also a tad apprehensive. Some movies you remember loving as a kid don't always hold up as well when you see them later in life. I recently saw "The Land Before Time" in theaters at a special screening a few months ago, and while the animation and tone is still wonderful, the writing is shallow and the pacing far more uneven than I remembered. Would The Lion King be the same way?

Short answer--NO. It's still the masterpiece I remember. But here are some things I noticed and questions I have now that I'm a bit older and have learned a bit more about filmmaking and life in general:

1. First off, look at this picture of the warthog and the meerkat for a minute. Isn't it awesome?

2. One of my favorite things about the film is it's attention to detail in terms of its wildlife. It would have been easy to pepper the film with simplistic versions of the animals everyone knows (lions, giraffes, elephants, zebras) and call it a day, but it's very clear real research was done not only into how these animals look, but how they move and behave as well. It grounds the entire movie with a sense of realism that could have easily been overlooked. In the opening "Circle of Life" sequence I found myself thinking, "Oh cool...marabu storks! And look at those vulturine guinefowl running between the elephants' legs!" And it works for the main characters too..even Zazu is a pretty accurate example of a red-billed hornbill.

3. I have been known to sniffle through a Disney movie here and there, and "The Lion King" is one of the biggest offenders in the scene when Mufasa dies (oh...uh, spoiler I guess? Seriously, who hasn't seen "The Lion King"?). Scar's line, "What have you done?" gets me every time. I promised myself I would keep it together for this viewing, and while I certainly got chills in this scene, I stayed strong. What I did NOT expect was how the opening "Circle of Life" sequence blew me away. A combination of the music, the stunning visuals, and maybe the fact that I'm maybe a little farther along on my own "circle of life" now really got me choked up, and that was only the opening number! So much for keeping it together.

4. One thing that gets missed on the small screen that really is evident in the theater are the stunning background vistas that go behind all the animation. Where do those things go when the movie is done being made? I want one to hang on my wall.

5. Rafiki says "You're a baboon...and I'm not." Uh, no. He's a mandrill. Look it up!

6. Tim Rice and Elton John are given tons of (deserved) praise for their amazing song work, but people shouldn't overlook the actual SCORE of this film either. Hans Zimmer (THAT guy again!) did a fantastic job creating a unique score inspired by African tribal music, and it really gives the film a grand epic feel unlike anything else Disney has put out. Take some time off from humming "Hakuna Matata" and listen to the score itself for a moment...you'll be surprised.

7. I don't know if they remastered the sound mix or not, but part of the reason I wanted to see this in theaters was to LISTEN to it more than anything. And it sounds fantastic. BUT...is it just me or did they mix down Scar's death scream at the end? I remember Scar letting out one final shriek before the flames rise up, but it was gone in the theater. Can anyone with the VHS confirm this for me? Maybe it was deemed to violent and mixed down. I know "The Lion King" received some flak when it came out for being rather intense for kids, and so I can sort of see that they might decide to lose it for this release. But on the other hand if I were a parent my motto would be, "Hey kid, nature's pretty brutal. You'd better learn about it sooner or later." Plus I always liked the image that scream put in my head of Shenzi ripping out Scar's throat.

8. SO happy this was the version without Zazu's "Morning Report" song. It's a cute tune that works well on Broadway, but it completely breaks up the pacing in the film. Glad they went back to the original version.

9. Yes, we all fell in love with this movie ages ago when it was in 2-D. But let's hear it for the new stereoscopic team! Stereoscopic conversion is NOT an easy job (some of my friends do it), and when rushed it can look absolutely terrible. But you can tell real care was done in this film to make it pop, and it was done very well. It's fantastic how even the muzzles of Mufasa and Simba seem to slope out of the screen naturally, even from an original 2-D image. Great job!

10. "The Lion King" unfortunately falls on my short list of movies where all my favorite parts happen at the beginning. My two favorite sequences are "Be Prepared" (goose-stepping hyenas!) and the wildebeest stampede, which occur at about the end of Act 1/Act 2 transition. After that the rest of the movie is still great, but it's never quite as dynamic and visually stunning as those early scenes to me.

11. Speaking of the wildebeest stampede, can I just say that this is probably one of the best-directed scenes in any animated film in history? That harrowing vertigo-zoom on Simba as the herd starts thundering down the gorge, the percussive thunderous music, the heroic semi-sillouette against the sun as Mufasa leaps out of the herd and struggles up the cliff, and finally the terrified look in Mufasa's eyes as his brother betrays him...this is pure cinema, and anyone who writes "The Lion King" off as just a kid's movie should be devoured by a pack of hyenas.

12. It's kind of neat how the movie's plot is reasonably accurate from a scientific standpoint. One male lion really does control a pride of lionesses, and other male lions will often try to kill that male or its cubs in order to gain control. So Scar plotting to kill Simba and Mufasa actually makes sense. Also, lions and hyenas really do NOT get along in real life either.

13. I'm definitely overthinking this, but I was curious whether or not "The Lion King" makes any sense from a geographical standpoint. Simba grows up on The Pridelands, crosses a desert (complete with HUGE sand dunes), and hangs out with Timon and Pumbaa in some sort of jungle. I pulled out a map to try and make sense of it--Africa is a BIG place after all.

I first assumed the "jungle" we see must be The Congo, though it's interesting that Timon, Pumbaa, and Simba never encounter any chimps or gorillas (a Tarzan-Lion King fanfic, anyone?), and the Pridelands are the Serengeti. But there are not really any deserts to cross to get to the Congo that way, so that doesn't really work. He'd also have to pass through Rwanda, which is pretty well-populated with people I think.

Then I assumed the Kalahari Desert would be the desert Simba crosses. There are some pretty lush areas of Botswana (the Okavongo Delta for example) that could work as the Pridelands, and if he went North he would move across the Kalahari into the Congo area. But this is a REALLY long journey.

Then I remembered that there's that iconic shot of Kilimanjaro in the "Circle of Life" sequence, which means Botswana is out, and places the Pridelands directly back in the Serengeti Tanzania/Kenya area. This also makes sense as a lot of the African names (and that annoying song Rafiki sings!) are Swahili in origin, and Swahili is accurately spoken within this region today. There are also some rain forests on the edge of east Africa that could work as Timon and Pumbaa's hiding place, and while I still don't know about the desert, I think there must be some arid areas in there somewhere. So Simba travels from northern Tanzania/southern Kenya southeast to the eastern coast of Tanzania/Mozambique. Makes sense to me!

14. For a movie that prides itself on its scientific accuracy, I do have one big nitpick. In "I Just Can't Wait To Be King" why are there a group of anteaters supporting young Simba and Nala??? Anteaters are native to SOUTH AMERICA!!! They could have used aardvarks, which would have been fine. Oh well.

15. Can I just mention how much I love the color in this movie? How did they do all that beautiful shading? Simba and Mufasa's manes seem to perfectly reflect moonlight in the starry night scenes, and even the orange-red gradient on Zazu's beak is marvelous to look at. I've learned a fair amount about animation, but I have no idea how this colorization stuff works. It's really cool.

16. When Nala attacks Pumbaa and Simba comes to his rescue, I had always thought Timon was cheering, "Spectacular! Spectacular!" I just now realized he's shouting, "The jugular! The jugular!" Gee...that's a tad more graphic than I remembered.

17. Even a kid I always liked the voice work in this movie. Jeremy Irons is deliciously "fahhh-bulous" as my favorite Disney villain ever (seriously, watch his pinky claws), and it's super cool that Nathan Lane, Rowan Atkinson, and even Whoopi Goldberg and Cheech Marin have fun little roles (off-topic, but hasn't it been at least a decade since we saw Whoopi in a movie?). Yet the one voice that really struck me this time around was James Earl Jones as Mufasa. As a kid you don't really realize how important a role this is, but Jones' resounding baritone really makes him sound like a true wise king and formidable father. His performance really anchors the film with a sense of weight and majesty that I never really noticed as a child. The scene where he teaches young Simba about the kings of the past gave me chills, really hitting home the worst of those father-son talks when you knew you'd done something bad and had to face the music.

The downside to all this is that now animated films usually get big names for the voice talent, regardless of whether or not they actually fit the part at all (Dreamworks is the biggest offender of this, but all the studios are guilty of it).

18. So, what does being a "king" entail, exactly? Because Scar REALLY screwed it up fast. Nala tells Simba, "You're our only hope," but what does Simba actually do to fix anything anyway? It's not like we ever see Simba or Mufasa going over a bunch of taxation paperwork to get the antelope better wages. Sure, Mufasa does get his "morning report" from Zazu, but he kind of shrugs it off and instead gives his son a "pouncing lesson." I guess Mufasa's job partially entails bashing in the heads of a few hyenas now and then, and when Scar takes over there is mention of how the hyenas are overhunting everything. But why would that cause a drought too? Was it just bad luck that Scar took the reins during a long dry spell? And where were all those hyenas living in the first place? Being stuck in an elephant graveyard can't sustain a population of that size for very long! Maybe it's just one of those "aura" things. Simba and Mufasa are just "good dudes" with a respect for the "circle of life" and "balance" and "nature" and letting things be totally groovy, man. Scar's just a lazy jerk and a bad guy (his fur is BLACK AND DARK ORANGE!!!), so everything just withers and dies wherever he goes. Wow, now I feel kind of bad for him; talk about determinism at its worst.

19. It was so cool to see this movie in a theater full of KIDS!!! Hearing them laugh of get scared again was a delight (yes, actually hearing kids get SCARED in a movie again is a welcome sound). I think "The Lion King" is a far more mature movie than many children are used to these days (aside from much of Pixar...yay Pixar!), and I think it's good that they're seeing it in theaters the way it was intended.

20. Finally, the main reason I think "The Lion King" holds up so well as a classic is because it is truly a timeless story. It borrows heavily from old biblical and Shakespearean tales of destiny (it's basically "Hamlet" with talking animals and a happy ending), and it's a story that resonates deeply with adults while still being simplistic enough for kids to understand without talking down to them. It's a movie that you can tell was made by filmmakers and artists with a respect and love for nature and storytelling, and not a bunch of suits or a committee (hate to rag on you again Dreamworks, but I'm looking at you and your four "Shrek" movies). Most of the humor in the film comes naturally, not through pop culture references. I love "Aladdin" for example, but it hasn't aged as well for this reason. Even Timon singing "The Lion Sleeps Tonight" is still an old enough song to feel classic; if he was singing something like, say, Toto's "Africa," it would have been pretty funny too, but it wouldn't have felt right.

Every little section of this movie is realized beautifully, and the ultimate tone it hits is greater than the sum of its parts. Disney has tried to recapture this film's magic with varying success, but it still stands alone as a unique and glorious artistic vision yet to be equaled in my opinion.

Bottom line...I really like "The Lion King." Anyone want to go again?!

Alien Summer

2011-11-10T12:54:00.000-08:00

Well surprise, surprise, I've yet again fallen behind in writing about the movies I've seen this year, so what I had originally hoped to be a nice in-depth essay comparing a few alien movies to each other is going to have to get cut short out of sheer necessity.

Anyway, the summer has finished. Some fun stuff, but nothing that's entirely blown me away. Let's review!

ALIEN MOVIES

One of the most frustrating things about Hollywood is its bandwagon-mentality of grabbing whatever seems to be "hot" at any given moment. I like superheroes, but now the market feels oversaturated. I used to LOVE vampires and werewolves, but Twilight sort of killed that. And as a die-hard sci-fi junkie, I ADORE aliens. For whatever reason, Hollywood decided this year that they were the big "it" thing, so we had a lot of those sort of films this year (even "Green Lantern" and "Thor" crossed the boundary between superhero and alien). I honestly hate that this happens all the time because it so thoroughly kills originality--one alien movie here and there can feel fresh, but having every blockbuster be centered around this theme kills the mood (and even on TV..."Falling Skies" anyone?). But let's check out some alien movies and see how they fared, shall we?

"Battle LA" There is a bit of an interesting story behind this movie. The company that did the VFX for this film, halfway through doing work on it, decided to make their OWN alien movie "Skyline" and rush it to release before this film. I saw most of "Skyline" (though I didn't bother to review it), and it was pretty terrible. Thankfully the movie tanked at the box office, and I heard the VFX company that made the film ultimately got sued by the "Battle LA" folks, since all the VFX hardware they were paid to create for "Battle LA" they more-or-less stole to make their own alien flick.

I was somewhat hopeful that "Battle LA" would be marginally enjoyable because they at LEAST spent more time making it than "Skyline," but I was unfortunately disappointed. It IS a better film that "Skyline," but that's like saying getting stabbed repeatedly is less painful than being drowned to death. The set-up is fairly interesting and could have made for a thrilling film...basically tell the story of the alien invasion from the point-of-view of the defending marines--on paper it's "Black Hawk Down" meets "Independence Day." Though I don't really like "Black Hawk Down" that much, part of why movies like it can succeed are because they're about real soldiers in war, and even with large casts they try to find a way for us to relate to all the guys. Unfortunately the script for "Battle LA" is laughable and cliche-ridden. I have no problem with cliches if executed right, but they have to be done with a sense of purpose. In this film I couldn't tell a single character apart from each other aside from Aaron Eckhart (barely), and the fact that all their outfits looked the same didn't help matters.

Obviously (in my "filmmaker's" opinion) character comes first, but if your movie doesn't have them, so be it. At least the action sequences and special effects were cool, right? Well...not really. I've said it many times before, but I'll say it again. Shakey-cam action sequences CAN offer a sense of realism to your movies if done right, but they aren't an excuse to be sloppy, which is what seems to be the norm these days. All the action in this movie was sloppy and headache-inducing, so even that didn't really pan out.

And worst of all, the aliens didn't even look cool or creative! If you're going to do a movie about aliens, at the VERY least your creatures need to have some sort of cool and freaky design to make them memorable. We never really get a good look at these creatures, but when we do, they don't really look like much of anything...just big squishy things that walk around like people. It's bad enough I couldn't tell the soldiers from one another, but with all the hand-held shakiness, I could barely tell the aliens from the humans!

A perfect comparison to this movie (hell, it's probably WHY this movie got green-lit) is "District 9." While some of the peripheral characters in D9 aren't too complex, there's no denying the antihero Wikus is a character who sticks in your mind, as is the alien character "Christopher Johnson." And the "prawns" are immediately memorable, with their multiple jointed legs, tentacly mandibles, and strange affinity for cat food (there's even a "cute" baby alien!). There are also some pretty hefty action sequences in the film, and though they are rather frenetic, they still have a sense of purpose and drive, and use the hand-held shaky style to make the movie feel like a documentary. "Battle LA" lacked all of this...avoid it at all costs.

"Cowboys and Aliens" I found this film to be one of the bigger disappointments of the summer. On paper I thought this would be fantastic. With so many alien movies coming out, what better way to make them fresh than by throwing the space invaders in the Old West, combining two of my favorite genres? Mix in some solid casting, a good director (forget "Iron Man"...ever seen "Zathura"?), and you could have an awesome retro adventure blockbuster. Right?!?!

Well, no. The biggest problem with "Cowboys and Aliens" is that it takes itself WAY too seriously. Call me crazy, but when your movie is called "Cowboys and Aliens" why not have a little fun?! The inherent silliness is in your title, why not go with it? I'm not saying we need slapstick zaniness here, and handling it more-or-less like a real western is kind of cool...but look at the best action-blockbusters of our time--James Bond, Star Wars, Indiana Jones, and Die Hard--all those films have moments of lightness to keep us from getting bogged down. Even westerns themselves were B-movies of a sort (masterpieces such as "High Noon" aside). But in "Cowboys and Aliens" the movie comes with such a sense of self-importance it's downright ludicrous. Learn to have a little fun why don't you?

This problem is all over the movie, but it is most obvious in the two leads. It's fun to see Harrison Ford play off his star status as the unscrupulous cattle baron, and I actually enjoyed seeing him play a grumpy old man. Unfortunately he is paired with Daniel Craig (whom I usually like). Craig CAN be a good actor, and has the ability to be somewhat snippy and fun when the role calls for it...we've seen a bit of it in "Casino Royale." Overall though people like Craig because he is a no-nonsense tough guy. Fine, but pair that with Harrison's consistent grumbling and you have a movie that just feels like to bulldogs snarling at each other. Personally, I would have switched Craig out with someone a little lighter to play off Ford (it's the "buddy-cop" formula that works every time). Imagine Ford snarling, "We'll never get our people back" and Craig (or whoever) just laughs and gives him a slap on the back, "Sure we will. Can't be any harder than robbin' your damn stagecoach. The ranchers you hired to guard that had brains full of goo too!" Not a perfect line, but you get the idea...immediately there's a fun dynamic going on. A perfect example is "Men In Black" (ironically created by the same comic book developer), where Will Smith's streetwise nonchalance is paired with Tommy Lee Jones no-nonsense take-care-of-business attitude. That movie could have also taken itself too seriously, but had fun with the premise, and at the end of the day it just turned out to be really really COOL.

While the tone is the main problem, a lot of that stems from an issue of too many subplots. Again, I've got nothing wrong with cliches, but they have to be executed right. "Cowboys and Aliens" uses every cliche in the book, but there are so MANY of them that none of them have a chance to breathe. I personally would have cut the one about the kid and his grandpa (I liked the sheriff, but the kid from "The Last Airbender" is annoying here too) and the one about Ford's Native American ranch hand, but it doesn't really matter. Something should have gone, because the movie constantly feels like it has so much INFORMATION to get out of its system that we're never allowed to stop and enjoy what we're watching. I know for a fact that funny moments existed in the dailies...Sam Rockwell especially is an actor known for his improvisational ability. But none of that lightness made it into the final film because it would have just taken so much damn TIME.

And there ARE moments of humor in the film, at least for a while. Paul Dano as Ford's bratty son is pretty funny, especially as he is abused and pushed around by Craig. And the sheriff had a nice sense of western gravitas that added an old-timey flavor to the film. However both these cool characters get abducted at the end of the first act. If you have fun characters, don't lose them so early!

I will give the movie credit where credit is due (though here be spoilers): there is a sequence where Olivia Wilde's mysterious character gets "killed" by one of the big creatures. Then a tribe of Apaches (I THINK they were Apaches) arrives, and takes Olivia Wilde's body in some sort of strange Native American ritual. All the other characters think they are just burning her body and are angry and confused, but in a delightful send-up of the hokey "Indian mumbo-jumbo ritual" we've seen a thousand times before, Olivia Wilde emerges from the flames naked and very much alive. Turns out she's an alien too (albeit a different species) and the Apaches were just helping restore her to her natural form! It's a great reversal of all the hokey Indian scenes we've seen in westerns before, and the movie could have used more clever twists like this one on the downtrodden western formula.

It's too bad...I'm convinced "Cowboys and Aliens" could have been awesome, even while keeping a lot of the same elements intact. But choices were made that caused it to be a wasted opportunity. Stop taking yourself so seriously, Hollywood!

"Attack the Block" So, these days, what DOES it take to make a good alien movie? Why, it takes doing it outside of Tinseltown!
"Attack the Block" is fun alien-invasion horror flick from Edgar Wright collaborator, Joe Cornish. In the film, aliens (not alien ships...the alien beasties themselves arrive like meteors) crash in the British projects, and its up to a gang of street kids to stop them. Like many British films, it takes a while to get a grip on the kids' slang and understand what the hell they're saying, but once the action starts it's a frightful good time. As with a lot of the better science fiction out there, a lot of the fun comes from the subtext; these characters are on their own because nobody bothers to help out a bunch of ghetto kids, and it's topical that I saw the movie right when this years' British riots were going on. The kids have been used to handling things on their own for quite some time now...a bunch of voracious aliens are no different than a rival gang. "What kind of aliens would land here?" one kid asks. "One that's looking for a fight!" the other retorts.

And the aliens themselves are pretty clever too, especially for a movie made on a (relatively) low budget. Rather than your usual CGI mess (which on a lower-end film, would look even worse), they look like giant black menacing furballs--but a PURE black that seems to absorb all light around them, the only visible part being their day-glo snarling fangs (originally mistaken for eyes). They manage to be both whimsical and frightening at the same time.

I will say that "Attack the Block" is shockingly gory at times, so it's something to be aware of if you're squeamish. But aside from that, it's a great little flick that I highly recommend checking out.

OTHER SUMMER MOVIES (AND EARLY FALL)

"Rise of the Planet of the Apes" If you had told me this would be one of the better movies of the summer (perhaps the year) I'm not sure I would have believed you. The "Apes" franchise is quite old, it's campy, and Burton's version left us with such an awful taste in our mouth it seemed unlikely to spring back any time soon, if ever.

BUT "Rise of Planet of the Apes" is not only a fun summer movie, it's actually a pretty darn good film as a whole, dealing with issues of animal rights and where the line of humanity is drawn. Sure, it all ends with campy visuals of apes destroying San Francisco (kind of awesome), but it spends its time developing a compelling drama (amongst a bunch of CGI apes no less) so that it earns this goofiness at the end. Even the Alzheimer's stuff at the beginning with Jon Lithgow is poignant and heartbreaking.

Visually the movie is stunning as well. All the apes are done with motion-capture. I've remarked before how motion-capture can often come across as creepy when dealing with human characters (I'm looking at you, Zemeckis), but it sails over the uncanny valley perfectly when dealing with creatures that are similar to humans, but not quite there anyway--it's why Gollum's performance was so brilliant in the Lord of the Rings films. And it works wonderfully on the apes for the same reason. There are a few shots where it's hard to believe you're not watching real apes, and even when the VFX don't hold up quite as well, the ACTING they still gives makes you forget about it. Andy Serkis has clinched the market on these roles, but he deserves it. As the titular ape "Caesar," he imbues the character with such pathos and empathy that you can't help but root for the furry beasts when they start taking over. One particular moment, a clever reversal of the "get your hands off me you damn dirty ape" line is so exhilarating and shocking you forget the visual effects entirely. And at the end of the day, THAT'S what I love about special effects. They don't exist to make us marvel at a bunch of dumb explosions, they exist to serve the story!

And while Serkis is good, kudos must be given to the filmmakers and the other actors for how this film was pulled off. Serkis may have played the main ape, but each and every one of the other apes in the compound is played by a very specific actor, giving them all a uniqueness that shines through and allows them to not be a bunch of faceless animals. And when that's the POINT of your movie...that there are real BEINGS behind these bars, it's a very smart way to hammer that point home. My favorite part of the movie--where Caesar gains control and power over the other apes in the compound through his wits--is handled in a pretty hefty sequence all done with non-dialogue; only looks and gestures. It's storytelling at it's best and I was enthralled, completely forgetting that these were really a bunch of guys in goofy golf-ball suits who were THEN scanned into a computer and digitized by a bunch of video wizards. And it's also nice to know that one reason why it was chosen for the apes to be CGI was because real "movie" apes are often mistreated, and they didn't want to make a movie on the subject of animal cruelty while ENGAGING in animal cruelty. A Hollywood blockbuster with ethics behind it? Maybe this business isn't so bad after all!

And while the apes are the stars of the show, one shouldn't ignore the rest of the filmmaking techniques taking place here too. There are some fantastic and dynamic one-take shots that move with Caesar as he swings through his human home or redwood forest that cleverly show the passage of time. And the human cast overall is very solid, though the best side character has to be Tom Felton stepping out of the Harry Potter films to play the nasty ape caretaker (even if he still is just another asshole with a magic wand). Though I couldn't help but wonder...at one point he tries to impress a couple hot babes by showing them where he works. Would girls ever really be impressed by a guy who works in a smelly ape prison, especially when you show them how terrible you are towards the creatures you are handling? Doesn't seem like much of a chick magnet to ME.

All in all, I'm not sure "Rise of Planet of the Apes" is going to make my Top 10 for the year, but it has a decent shot if none of the upcoming Oscar-bait films live up to their potential. It was a great surprise.

Oh yeah! I also thought it was cute to see humans watching the original "Planet of the Apes" film at one point.

"Spy Kids 4" You can shrug off films like this by saying, "Oh well, Rodriguez needs to make these films so he can keep making his 'Planet Terror's,'" but I'm not sure that's entirely true. As far as I know the "Spy Kids" franchise isn't that lucrative anymore...is it???

I actually sort of enjoy the first "Spy Kids" movie. For all it's cartoonish logic, it still has a fun tone, those kids were decent actors, and Carla Gugino and Antonio Banderas seemed like they were having fun riffing on their "sexy" personas. Dare I say the first "Spy Kids" even had a little style here and there?

"Spy Kids 2" was pretty lame, which is too bad because it was supposed to be an homage to my favorite old timey effects artist, Ray Harryhausen. I never bothered to see the third film, and I was forced to see this one because of my job (hooray!).

Anyway it's pretty bad. The two new spy kids brought in to restart the franchise have none of the charisma of the old kids, and the plot is more nonsensical than any of the other films thus far (which is saying something). Ricky Gervais phones in a terrible performance as a talking dog with lame one-liners that feel like the stuff a six-year old shouts at you, and then won't stop grinning into you falsely chuckle so he'll leave you alone (which he doesn't of course...then he just tells you another dumb joke). Jessica Alba is flat in just about every movie she's in, so no surprise there. The real shame is seeing Joel McHale slum his way through the film. I love him on "Community," my new favorite comedy TV show. Clearly the guy is trying to push into film (more power to him), but sadly he is above this dopey script. Shame on you, Rodriguez.

It's a dumb idiotic movie. Kids deserve better, be they spies or movie-goers.

"Fright Night" With all the Twilight b.s. out there, it's hard to be a fan of horror monsters these days. I've always been a werewolf guy myself, but vampires are pretty cool too. Hollywood has experimented in various ways to capitalize on the Twilight phenomenon (look at all the revamped fairy tales we have in development!), and so we've seen vampires in a number of forms as of late. Last year "Let Me In" sort of failed (I didn't like it that much anyway), and on paper it seemed like a remake of the 80s flick "Fright Night" to grab some Twilight fanboys might be a really bad idea.

I was shocked to discover the remake of "Fright Night" was fantastic, done so by solid direction, some smart updating, and a wonderful cast. Updating the movie from generic suburbia to Las Vegas is a smart move, as the desert atmosphere gives the film not only a unique sense of place, but also a slight sense of danger. When the characters have to flee from their home, running off into the desert actually seems pretty scary! In addition the kids' final plea to the "real" vampire hunter makes a lot more sense (and is a much cooler twist) when they go to aVegas magician and not some hokey B-movie TV star.

The direction is solid, but the cast is what sells it. Colin Farrell can be very hit and miss, but he sinks his teeth (haha!) into this role with gusto, clearly having the time of his life being both sexy and scary. The always solid Toni Collette is lots of fun as the mom, Christopher Mintz-Plasse continues to prove that McLovin wasn't just a fluke as the main character's cloying best friend, and one of my favorite young actors these days (and a nice guy in person) Anton Yelchin plays the hero with wonderful teenage vulnerability. The movie also does a good job of giving the female character a little more to do, and she is played well by the beautiful Imogen Poots (though her last name IS "Poots"...it's hard not to chuckle). All in all it's a blast and the new "Fright Night" does a great job of updating the vampire genre while still sticking to its tried and true roots--if you know your vampire films you're not going to see anything TOO new, but rarely will it be able to pack this much FUN into its scares.

So why oh why did "Fright Night" not make any money??? Was it the R rating? Moviegoers, this is why you can't have nice things!!!

"Drive" To start out, I had a LOT of problems with this film. For a movie called "Drive" there isn't that much driving. It runs the cardinal sin of having it's best scene be the first one. The lack of dialogue and awkward pauses is disconcerting. The sudden violent tone halfway through is too shocking and we should have had some hint of it earlier. And (spoiler!) Gosling should have killed that one guy WITH the slick racecar he was given, not just some beat-up junk vehicle.

BUT...

Even though I had issues with the film, more than any other film this year, "Drive" has been unable to leave my head since I saw it. It hits such an amazing groove and such an exotic feeling that I've been thinking about it constantly since I left the theater (the retro soundtrack helps a LOT, I might add). It is the one film this year that feels like it was made by a FILMMAKER and not by a director working to get a paycheck from a bunch of suits. Though I didn't always agree with all the choices, I definitely felt like they were conscious choices made completely within the filmmaker's control. From an artistic standpoint, you should see it. You won't be able to get it out of your head either.

Also, I went as The Driver for Halloween (made the scorpion jacket myself). I looked badass.

"Moneyball" Interestingly, I felt about "Moneyball" the opposite I felt about "Drive." I didn't expect to like the movie going into it ("sports and math" might as well be "cancer and herpes"), but I was surprised how good it turned out to be. However days later I realized I didn't really remember a single scene from the movie for the most part, aside from Brad Pitt's rapid-phone-call-deal sequence.

Anyway, I remember it being a good movie, and that Jonah Hill was surprisingly fun in his (only?) dramatic role. But I can't tell you much more than that other than it was actually accessible to somebody like me who doesn't give a shit about sports.

"50/50" Hey, speaking of CANCER movies!

This is a good dramedy, but I don't think it's as great a movie as the reviewers would have you believe ("it's a good movie about cancer...gold stars for everyone!"). It has a likable cast and overall it feels very genuine, but ultimately I don't think there's much more to the film other than that. I did think the relationship stuff between Bryce Dallas Howard (purr...), Joseph Gordon Levitt, and Eddie Munster (excuse me...Anna Kendrick) was the most interesting. How do you healthily develop a romantic relationship when you might be dead in a matter of months? It's a flick worth seeing, and could even make a good date movie, but it's not going to shatter your perception on life or anything.

"The Big Year" A movie about birdwatching? All right!

As anyone who knows me, I actually LOVE birdwatching, and think in the right hands this movie could have been great. The story about birdwatchers (and science freaks in general) that Hollywood never tells is that we are CRAZY, constantly stopping the nature bus or leaning out of windows to catch the field marks on something that just MIGHT be a rare species ("or...wait...never mind...just a blackbird"). If this movie was handled by, say, Wes Anderson or even Christopher Guest it could have been brilliant...show these birdwatchers for the poetic lunatics they are! "Best in Show," for example, isn't really about a dog show, it's about the weirdos who own the dogs (and Fred Willard as the awesome announcer). Even the central plot device of the movie...that these three characters are in competition to get the highest bird count, could be brilliant as these idiots undercut and back-stab each other at every turn...for a bunch of birds!

Unfortunately "The Big Year" was not directed by anybody whimsical or awesome. They got the director of "Marley and Me," so it's bland, uninspired (despite a decent cast), and sugarcoated to the point where I felt sick. Instead of the three birders fighting amongst each other, they all become buddies about halfway through the film, killing any possible tension that could exist in the story. What?! Why?!

I do applaud the movie for sort of going out of their way to include accurate bird identifications. One of my favorite movies, "Finding Forrester," frustrates me to no end because it incorrectly identifies a yellow warbler as a Connecticut warbler. So that's nice (though they seem to think "red-tailed hawk" is some sort of rare bird when they're really the coyotes of the sky). Otherwise though, this movie has absolutely nothing going for it. People are convinced birdwatching is a boring subject for a movie, and it ISN'T...but it certainly is if you present it like this.

"Puss In Boots" Oh Dreamworks Animation...always one step forward and two steps back (kind of a bummer year for animation, really). It's not enough to have four Shrek films (the last two of which were atrocious), you have to keep milking it with Puss too?

Admittedly, Puss is probably the best character to crawl out of the Shrek series, AND the one most likely to hold his own film. At least for the first act, the movie does a decent enough job setting a cool spaghetti western tone to the whole proceedings. Cute cat jokes can go a long way, and while I normally hate pop culture casting, it's pretty cool that this movie is basically Robert Rodriguez's "Desperado" with cats, since it not only features Antonio Banderas as Puss (basically cat-Zorro), but also Salma Hayek as the slinky cat burglar Kitty Softpaws.

But as the story introduces more fantasy elements like Humpty Dumpty and Jack's Beanstalk, the movie starts to grow tiresome quickly. It's not as bad as the last two Shrek outings, and it's a little more clever than the Madagascar series, but for the amount of WORK that goes into an animated feature, there should be no excuse for phoning it in. Overall "Puss in Boots" just feels...unnecessary.

OLD MOVIES

"Android" An old low-budget sci-fi movie exploring themes of humanity vs. artificial intelligence. I usually applaud low-budget filmmaking from any era, but this one felt extremely dated and the effects didn't hold up. I remember it had some interesting ideas, but I've honestly forgotten most of it at this point. Gah, remind me why I keep this blog again?

"The Andromeda Strain" Based on Stephen King's sci-fi book (which I read ages ago), it's actually a decent film about an alien virus that starts wiping out humanity. I will say that most of the film feels like a fairly standard thriller-drama, but the sudden action-adventure ending felt extremely out-of-place (though memorable). It's an interesting watch. Also, "The Andromeda STAIN" would be an awesome porno.

"Scarecrows" For a low-budget slasher/horror film, I actually really liked this one. A group of burglars crash-land near an old farmhouse (their sin already committed by being, well, burglars), and are picked off one by one by sinister scarecrows lurking in the cornfield. The scarecrow-monsters themselves are creative and scary (they sew pieces of their victims onto themselves to become more human), and there are some very creative kills and shock moments (one person's body is gutted and stuffed with straw...pretty shocking). Even some of the acting is actually pretty good. A recommended watch for 80s horror fans. Maybe grab it around next Halloween.

"Silent Running" I appreciate this movie for what it stands for...thoughtful science fiction as opposed to the explosive space opera. The movie supposes that all plant life on Earth has gone extinct, but a gardener (played by Bruce Dern) aboard an orbiting space freighter takes care of the last remaining bits of flora in existence. When an order is sent from his superiors to destroy the plants, the gardener finds a way to fight off the rest of the crew members and (spoiler?) jettison the plants out into space to survive on their own, though he will run out of oxygen and die in the process.

A neat idea for a movie, to be sure. However it moves at a snail's pace, and I found myself getting very antsy. Slow pacing is not the worst thing in a movie if your actors are riveting, but unfortunately Bruce Dern's performance is one of the worst I've ever seen anywhere.

Even so, "Silent Running" is one of the forerunners of the narrow genre of thinking man's sci-fi, (it directly inspired Duncan Jones to make "Moon"), so I have to stand by it for that reason alone. But aside from this film's historical context, you can skip it.

"Wet Hot American Summer" Gee, how do you even review this movie? It's a fun period piece about summer camps, basically used as a framework to string a series of sketches featuring a large number of up-and-coming comedians. The sketches are definitely uneven with some better than others, but as a whole it's impossible not to be delighted at this movie's sheer irreverence, which reminded me of my favorite parts of "Wayne's World." The movie is definitely worth seeing at LEAST for Paul Rudd, who is always enjoyable but probably gives the best performance of his life this time around as the jerkwad boyfriend of the main character's love interest (interestingly, the budget was so low on the film that Rudd isn't even sure he was paid).

"Broadcast News" Great film! Classic! What can I say? Holly Hunter, John Hurt, and Albert Brooks are brilliant! It is interesting to see how the big "moment" in the film that is revealed to Holly Hunter at the end (where Hurt acts the news) has changed over the years...in today's world people don't really trust their news stations anymore, and it's not quite as shocking as it might have been then. I can't really say too much else other than that it's considered James L. Brooks' best film for a reason. Go see it! I do have one question though...just once (once!) I'd like to be a John Hurt character and not an Albert Brooks character in my life. I've had a couple Holly Hunters leave me out to dry in the last couple of months.

"Death Becomes Her" The perfect Halloween movie to take a girl who hates horror movies (though I would never date that kind of girl anyway). I had no idea what to expect from this film, but it turned out to be quite the fanciful trip. Bruce Willis gives on of his funniest performances ever, and Meryl Streep and Goldie Hawn seem to be having a blast as the catty lovers fighting over him. To say too much else would give the film away, suffice to say it's clever midpoint twist that is the crux of the movie is one of the loopiest, funniest, most macabre things I've seen in ages. Wow, Robert Zemeckis, you used to be so GOOD.

"The Offspring" (aka "From a Whisper to a Scream") I like low budget horror especially around this time of year, and I REALLY like anthology films, so I was hoping this would be a lot of fun.

Some of the stories are OK, but mostly it's just gory and disgusting rather than enjoyable. A creepy old man who has an incestuous relationship with his sister and lusts after a beautiful girl, then he accidentally kills her? So what? There's nothing FUN about this idea, it's just skeevy. And the rest of the tales aren't any better. Skip this flick and watch "Creepshow" instead.

"Return of the Living Dead" Once upon a time in film school I wrote a paper I was really proud of comparing George A. Romero's "Dawn of the Dead" to Zach Snyder's "Dawn of the Dead." I ultimately said that I preferred Snyder's version simply because, while Romero tried to add a bit of consumerism subtext to his film, Snyder's was just way more FUN (for the record, it's probably the ONLY time I've ever been on Snyder's side over methods of an adaptation...my "Watchmen" review was not kind).

Romero may have "invented" the zombie genre (he certainly is responsible for our basic image of zombies today), but aside from "Night of the Living Dead" his movies aren't necessarily that well put together (I did like "Land of the Dead" but I'm in the minority).

I thought "Return of the Living Dead" was just another Romero movie I had somehow missed along the way, but it's actually an outrageous send-up of the zombie genre. The movie presupposes that "Night of the Living Dead" was actually embellished from true events, and goes from there. It's campy, it's stupid, some of the gore is completely ridiculous, and it's a blast. It's not as good as "Re-Animator," but it's definitely born of the same cloth...err...braaaaaaain.

"Sherlock (TV Series)" Again, I usually don't review TV shows, but this one was too good not to at least mention. The Robert Downey Sherlock movie that came out last year was OK, but it definitely "Hollywoodized" the story too much. When someone recommended the BBC version, I wasn't really sure what to expect.

At first I was nervous when, upon watching, I realized the entire thing was set in the modern day. But luckily the spirit of Sherlock Holmes is actually MORE intact here than in the Guy Ritchie films, and updating the mysteries to include things like cell phones and other modern technology actually works incredibly well. And it's really cool that Watson served in Afghanistan in the original stories...some things never change! Cap it off with Martin Freeman as Watson, and you've got a winner on your hands. It's a great series of three "mini-movies," and I can't wait to see what else they have in store for us next year.

OK, that's it for now. Bring on Oscar season! And SURPRISE me.

Harry Potter and the End of My Childhood

2011-07-28T11:01:00.000-07:00

Well, it's finally come and gone! While I generally feel that the Potter saga officially ended when the book came out four years ago (wow, that long?!), a few weeks ago marked the end of any denial. It's done. Potter is now finished as a film franchise, and it's more-than-ever a reminder that I'm not a kid anymore (sigh).
I want to save my Potter review for last. First...
"Fish Tank" I've talked before about how art-house movies can often fall into their own tropes just as much as big blockbuster movies can (see my review of "Hanna" from my last post), and for a while I was worried "Fish Tank" was headed that way. I know the term "raw" gets overused with movies like this, but when done right, there's an honesty to the filmmaking that suits the hand-held, natural light aesthetics of these projects.
The movie starts out as the story of a troubled teen living in the British projects (I know they're probably not called that in Britain, but you get the idea) with a crappy homelife who clearly is headed down the wrong path. Her world changes when her out-to-lunch mother brings home an enigmatic new boyfriend, played by Michael Fassbender. Fassbender recently rocked my face off in "X-Men: First Class" and he does a fantastic job here, riding the line between attractive, dangerous, and caring all at once. Without ruining anything, I will say that "Fish Tank" is not afraid to go to some very scary, uncomfortable places (not a great one to watch with your parents as I did), yet it does so without making judgments on the characters. People are complicated and they're not always what they seem.
And while Fassbender is riveting to watch, possibly an even better performance is given by Katie Jarvis in the lead role as frustrated Mia. She swears, yells, and fights back against her surroundings, but you understand WHY she does it. For a first-time actress it's one of the best performances I've seen since Rob Brown in "Finding Forrester" (one of my personal underrated favorites).
A good comparison to "Fish Tank" would be the movie "Chop Shop," that tells the story of a young girl trying to survive in the slums of Los Angeles. "Chop Shop" does a decent enough job of portraying what it's like for this girl and her little brother to survive in their harsh world, but it doesn't really offer anything more. It's a snapshot movie that doesn't lead anywhere and ultimately doesn't have a story. Or if it DOES have a story, it's a pretty bleak one.
"Fish Tank" on the other hand, also shows a girl trapped and frustrated by her lower-class existence. But there's a STORY in it too--she meets Fassbender's character, relationships develop, she starts to change, and there are unexpected twists and turns along the way. Real tension and drama lies in the scenes, making me wince at times because I cared so much about the characters and was at times angry at them for making such poor decisions. Not once did I feel this way about "Chop Shop." I just thought, "Wow, this girl's life sucks." Possibly most importantly, "Fish Tank" ends with a ray of hope and new beginnings, whereas "Chop Shop" just ended with the characters trapped in the same situation they started out in. Symbolism can be hokey at times, and in "Fish Tank" there's a bookend involving an impoverished horse Mia tries to free from it's chain early on. Towards the end of the film after Mia has been forced to grow up a lot, but hasn't done much to change her living situation, she goes back to the horse only to find that it has died of old age. Seeing her break down crying, understanding that she felt like that same trapped horse, really WORKED and made you understand why this poor girl lashed out at the world so much.
All in all "Fish Tank" is an indie film in the best sense of the word--a modern coming-of-age tale that manages to evoke and move the viewer within the confines of the budget. I really liked it, though it's not one to necessarily watch for a "good time at the movies."

"Harold & Maude" Hal Ashby has directed some of the better movies of his time, and I also really like him because he worked with my fantastic editing instructor Bob Jones at USC, who was one of the more inspiring teachers I had while in film school. "Harold & Maude" is considered a classic, and several of my friends have stated that it's one of their favorite movies of all time (including my old boss Tabatha, who is one of my personal heroes...Tabatha if you're out there, I think you're fantastic!).
So maybe my hopes were too high. "Harold & Maude" is certainly a quirky and intriguing story, and its way of handling its obsession with the macabre through a twisted sweetness reminds me of Tim Burton's best works (and Ashby probably does it even better than Burton ever did).
But did I like it as much as, say, "The Last Detail"? Not really. It's a sweet, fine, unique film, but not anything I'm going to sit down and watch time and time again. Worth seeing for historical purposes, but I didn't feel it deserved the masterpiece status others seem to give it. It's possible I just saw it at the wrong point in my life (I'm 25 and so OLD!), although I personally believe the best movies can resonate with anyone, regardless of age.

"Super 8" On paper, this movie should have been my favorite movie of the year, possibly one of my favorite films of all time. It looked to fit the bill of "movies I wish I had made"--films that feature stuff so in tune with what I'm into that it's as if someone was reading my mind (if you're curious, this is also how I feel about "WALL-E" and "Moon"). "Super 8" is a movie about pre-teens growing up. It takes place in the late 1970s and features tons of my favorite classic rock music (like "Freaks and Geeks"!). A dog gets lost. It's (supposedly) about a father-son relationship. The kids are trying to make a B-movie in their hometown (boy, I can identify with THAT). And there's a big scary creature. What's not to like?
Well, there IS a lot to like, but it's not perfect. The cinematography, production design, and FEEL of the film is spot-on, perfectly encapsulating the decade, although the lens flare gets even more distracting than in Star Trek (at least in THAT movie you had a whole "the future's bright" excuse). The movie LITERALLY ends on a "fade to lens flare"; I guess old habits die hard. Acting-wise most of the kids do a decent job, particularly Joel Courtney in the lead role and Elle Fanning as the love interest. And the monster manages to be both horrific and sympathetic, behaving as a terrified animal would.
But at the end of the day, I wish they had handed someone like me the screenplay to polish things up. Abrams is perfect at coming up with gripping concepts, but often falls short when it comes to his common sense in delivering the goods. "Lost," "Star Trek," and even "M:I:3" were great roller-coaster rides that started to splinter to pieces the minute you applied too much logic to them. Well, maybe "logic" isn't the right word--but just a general mastery of story sense.
For example, in "Super 8" the monster is kept in the shadows for the majority of the film...fine. But there are definitely one too many scenes of the monster mysteriously jumping out of the darkness and attacking a dude. The first time when it attacks the police chief at the station, it's perfect. The chief gets attacked, we now KNOW the monster is destructive, AND it causes the father to get promoted to deputy, pushing the plot forward. But then a few scenes later we have a sequence where a man tries to restore some power lines and gets killed. Did the scene give us any new information we hadn't already got from the previous one? Was that character who got killed important at all? Not really. The second scene should have been cut.
Though some would argue, I think the log-line of this movie would read something like, "When a group of pre-teen kids set out to film a home movie, their summer is turned upside-down when a their town falls under attack by a mysterious and destructive monster." So ultimately, what's your film about, plot-wise, at the bare bones? It's kids vs. monster! Right?
But the kids don't interact with the monster at all until the third act. It's almost as if the monster doesn't matter to them. I'm not saying we need the monster fully revealed out in the sunlight, but scenes where the kids were facing off against the creature should have happened much sooner.
Also, the movie does a wonderful job in the first scene of setting what I thought would be the main character's internal conflict throughout the film--he's tormented over the death of his mother, and disconnected from his father who doesn't know how to be a parent. Great. Part of this is told through the overused "she-gave-me-this-locket" device, but it's an old-fashioned movie anyway, so I'm willing to let things slide.
And at the end of the film, the father rushes to his son and they embrace amidst all the chaos around them as (spoilers?) the monster's spaceship exits into space. This is exactly where the pieces should fit, but unfortunately neither character really EARNED this ending. The boy and his father don't really interact throughout the movie...the third act unfortunately becomes more of your typical damsel-in-distress stuff. Even though I liked the way it was handled, I would have downplayed the romantic angle of the movie and in the third act I would have the creature attack the military base (we know it hates military dudes). Now the boy has to rescue his FATHER instead. It's a movie about father-and-son, so you should have him rescue his dad! Duh!!!
And while I liked the feel of the monster, it's motivations didn't entirely make logical sense. It's shown killing and eating people which is cool, but suddenly it chooses not to kill this one group of kids because...what? They understood loss? It could empathize with them telepathically? Fine, but are you trying to tell me all the other dozens of people it's been snatching up don't have feelings? Why didn't the monster empathize with any of them, even a little bit? Wow, that monster's an asshole.
And the creature's plan for escape is a tad arbitrary too. We know it's building a spaceship to escape off-planet, but at the end after it's moment with the kid it just magically conjures up a bunch of cubes to assemble the ship, then it blasts off. Why didn't it conjure all those cubes earlier? A simple line about how it "wasn't quite finished yet" or something could have cleared that up. OR the main kid still has the last magic cube, and so he gives it to the monster in order for him to go home. I jokingly said that maybe the monster's spaceship had a locket-sized hole that needed filling in his ship's hull, and while that would have been ridiculous, it at least would have been a REASON for things to happen the way they did.
But despite all these issues, I've always felt that the mark of a good movie is that it lingered with you, and the wondrous spirit of "Super 8" has certainly stuck with me stronger than a lot of other movies have this year. It may be a film with some severe story scoliosis (thank you Blake Snyder!), but it was still a lot of fun.

"Horrible Bosses" A solid comedy with a dark edge, elevated by a spot-on cast in Jason Bateman, Jason Sudekis, and Charlie Day as three good friends who decide they need to kill each others' bosses. Not the most original premise in the world, but the script is biting enough, and the cast sharp enough to make this one of the better comedies I've seen this year (though it can't touch "Cedar Rapids"). As the bosses nympho Jennifer Aniston is passable, cokehead Colin Farrell is hilarious but underused, and Kevin Spacey is delicious terrifying. Jamie Foxx also manages to squeeze quite a few laughs out of what could have easily been one joke as the workers' murder consultant, "Motherfucker Jones" (as a child he once stole money from his mother's purse, hence the name "motherfucker").

The most laughs probably go to Charlie Day as the most dimwitted of the three friends, which is to expected as Day is absolutely hilarious on "It's Always Sunny In Philadelphia." In my theater we had a rather "meta" experience, as Danny DeVito and his family were sitting behind us. DeVito is partially responsible for "Sunny's" success, so he was obviously there to support his boy Charlie. In the movie, Charlie makes a joke referencing Danny DeVito, getting Hitchcock's "Strangers on a Train" confused with "Throw Momma From the Train" starring Danny DeVito. The joke was clearly meant as a subtle wink to "Sunny" fans, but when it hit in the theater DeVito and his family of course burst out laughing more than usual. It was weird.

Lately a lot of people have been saying I remind them of Charlie Day now that I've fully grown-out my scruff and not lost my manic energy. I suppose this is a good thing.

"Bosses" does suffer by a truncated third act, when Spacey's character becomes downright murderous HIMSELF. The three friends look as if they're going to need a safehouse, and for a moment I thought they would wind up shacking at Aniston's home, but unfortunately this gag didn't pan out. It's too bad, because I think it could have been pretty funny AND integrated Aniston's character into the main narrative a little better. Oh well.

Regardless, the movie is certainly one of the better comedies of the summer (I liked it more than "Bridesmaids"!)

"Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 2" Oh boy. How do I even review this one?

All in all, the Harry Potter series has been a great ride. It isn't as perfect as Lord of the Rings, and I won't cherish it in my soul as much as the original Star Wars trilogy, but Warner Bros. has overall done a stellar job of adapting all eight (wow!) movies to the big screen, albeit with a few hiccups along the way. Are they perfect? No. Are they exactly as I imagined them when I read them? No. Do they even work as MOVIES for those who haven't read the books? Not really. But who cares? The spirit is there, the world feels right, and it has been a joy to watch the cast grow up through the years.

I reviewed that Part 1 of "Deathly Hallows" didn't really work as a film because it was far too disjointed and didn't ultimately end up going anywhere (as would be expected for half a film). Luckily in being the final film of the franchise this movie really feels like a full story, and the conclusion to the entire series ends on a satisfying note. It was hard not to get choked up when John Williams' score ran over the end credits. This really is the last "good" franchise from my childhood to be wrapped up (until we get "The Hobbit" I guess), and the midnight showing really felt like a true EVENT of events.

Being the final film, they throw everything at the wall--dragons, wizard battles, final showdowns, best friends kiss...it's all there! The movie does a great job of showcasing the "greatest hits" of the Potter franchise--we go back to Gringotts, we get to see the Chamber of Secrets again, giant spiders are show scurrying about in the battle for Hogwarts. Even one-off characters like Professor Trelawney get a little screen time. It's a hoot (no pun intended, Hedwig).

And unlike nearly all the other Harry Potter movies (except perhaps #3), this one put lumps in my throat a lot more than any of the others did. (SPOILERS!) Anyone who's read the books knows that Snape is the unsung hero of this tale (the Sam Gamgee of Harry Potter, you might say), and an opening foreboding shot of Snape staring down at the now dour Hogwarts offers a sense of what could be menace for those who don't know the backstory, but an anguished nobility for those of us who know the truth. When Snape's backstory is finally explained it is poignant and heartbreaking. We've been WAITING for Alan Rickman to do more than just glower behind-the-scenes, and seeing him finally emote in this way reminds us why he is such a truly good ACTOR and not just good at caricature. Seriously, if I saw Alan Rickman on the street right now I might give him a hug.

Nearly as heart-wrenching is the sequence when Harry enters the Forbidden Forest to die. In the book this scene never quite brought me to the edge (though the "wizard purgatory" part sure did), but in the movie it works beautifully. Seeing Daniel Radcliffe, who really has matured into a fine actor, march towards his doom lingers with us not only because his character is going to die, but symbolically because it's OUR turn to say goodbye to Harry Potter too. This IS the end. When his parents appear to tell him how proud they were of him, I might have had to dab my eyes a bit (especially when Gary Oldman says "to the end"...how can you not cry at the sight of deceased Gary Oldman?).

The movie also ends with a weird "nineteen years later" sequence featuring Radcliffe, Watson, and Grint in unconvincing "old people" makeup, taking their kids aboard the Hogwarts Express. The scene is a little hokey, but it reminds us how innocent these movies were when they started; at the end of the day, through all the dark events that have taken place, these are still films about magic and wonder, and they remind us how young and innocent WE were when we first picked up "The Sorceror's Stone" so long ago. Someday I hope to have kids, and one of the reasons I want to is so that I can share these beloved stories with them when the time comes.

All in all this has been a wonderful journey, and I am so thankful to have been able to grow up with Harry, Ron, and Hermione over the years. Your mischief has indeed been managed.

"Captain America" One of the better surprises of the summer. Joe Johnston is one of those directors that is able to often deliver the goods, but not go too much farther than that (and it's not really his fault that "Jurassic Park 3" and "Wolfman" were terrible...he works for the studios, and with the good comes the bad). Johnston's strength lies in his ability to create pulpy FUN, and "Captain America" feels a lot like "The Rocketeer" in all the best ways. It's retro, it's just the right kind of campy, it's a good old-fashioned "go America!" type flick. While I like when superhero movies can add a little gravitas to the mix (Nolan's Batman or the recent "X-Men: First Class"), unabashed glee can take you a long way too. At the end of the day it's still all about execution.

And the execution is good! Captain America would have felt wrong if it wasn't patriotic, and thank God they didn't try to "modernize" the story with a bunch of nasty questions about America's place in today's messy mid-East meddlings. Setting it in World War II is perfect, and it makes for a classic feel-good romp full of classy American heroes and snarling Nazi bad guys (I guess they're technically super-Nazis, but whatever). Letting the movie breath and have a sense of humor also helps alleviate what could have otherwise been a very uptight flick. My favorite joke is a reverse on the typical "save the child from drowning" gag--you'll know when you see it.

Overall the cast is great too. Chris Evans is one of those actors I always feel I should be jealous of because of his natural good looks but darn it, he just comes across as such a nice guy (and he was my favorite evil ex in "Scott Pilgrim"). The movie milks the sympathy we have for Steve Rogers every chance it gets, but it does it well. I'm going to get a bit personal here, but when I was growing up I was a bit of a shrimp, but I had a lot of spirit and drive (still do!). It's what allowed me to be a distance swimmer rather than a sprinter. In my opinion any muscle-bound genetic freak can jump in the water and be across the pool in a matter of seconds, but it's the kids with a lot of heart that are able to push themselves past their limits and swim 66 laps, after all the other events are over and most of the other swimmers have gone home. So a movie about a scrawny dweeb with the right sense of spirit being granted the gift of superpowers really GOT to me a lot more than the braggadocio of Thor or the snarkiness of Tony Stark (I guess this is why I like Spider-Man too...I root for the little guy). Plus the VFX of putting Evans' head on a shrimpy body were nearly flawless. I was trying to figure out how it was done and I'm still scratching my head. Kudos to the filmmakers for letting us spend time with Rogers before the transformation, and really GET what the character is about. These early scenes are without question the best part of the movie.

And the supporting cast is great too. Stanley Tucci is one of those actors who gets better and better every time I see him (can't wait for the "The Hunger Games"!), and many of my favorite moments in the beginning belong to him. It's a shame he departs from the film so early. Tommy Lee Jones hams it up just right as the no-nonsense colonel, and beautiful Brit Hayley Atwell has a classic 1940s beauty about her while still being tough (and MAN does she have great boobs). It takes a little while to get used to Hugo Weaving with a German accent, but he's always great at sneering when he needs to.

Even so, the first half of the movie is much better than the second half. Everything involving Captain America is great, from his creation to his getting used to his new strength, to the propaganda montage--all that stuff was bliss. Unfortunately the second half becomes a bit messier, as the villains plot is forced to come to the forefront, and it gets a bit too comic-booky for its own good. What's with the magical energy cube? Nazis with ray guns is kind of cool, but they ultimately aren't that formidable. I was never too worried Captain America wouldn't bash them all to bits. And how did Red Skull "die?" What was that about? And while I think "Captain America" is a better, more coherent movie than "Thor," I liked Thor's over-the-top Asgardian action sequences a lot more. And like all these Marvel movies, we're forced to get an ending that shoehorns us into The Avengers, which unfortunately didn't feel like the kind of ending we should have been given. Poor Captain America doesn't get to bang the girl with the big cans? How Un-American!

Even so, Captain America is a good old-fashioned time at the movies in the best sense, and in a year where there have been WAY too many superhero movies, it's still a good one.

Wow, did I just give all these movies generally good reviews? What has happened to me?!

Oscar Leftovers

2011-06-16T13:26:00.001-07:00

OSCAR LEFTOVERS

It's been a while since I've done an update, and my excuse was I wouldn't write any reviews until I had seen all the 10 Oscar nominees. Well it took me half the year, but here we are. In that time I also went on an adventure through the Nevada wilderness, moved a bit farther up the career ladder (for better or worse) and turned 25. Holy shit...25?!?! Dammit, I need to get my act together. Please don't tell me I'm going to be stuck in an editing booth for the rest of my life tricking people into seeing shitty movies...

Anyway, quarter-life crisis aside (although honestly, do these feelings ever REALLY change?), let's do some reviewing!

OLDER MOVIES

"Monsters"

I personally feel like this is a very important film because, like "Moon" and "District 9," it's proving that movies don't need extravagant budgets to tell visually impressive and engaging science fiction stories. A new sub-genre of "indie sci-fi" is almost emerging, and it's awesome that pretty believable effects are becoming easier and easier to achieve for anyone willing to sit down and learn a few new nifty tools. Take the power from the studios and give them back to the filmmakers! The downside of course is that people WITH tech-savvy jobs like mine are becoming easier and easier to come by, making us less important. But I'm all for filmmaking becoming a more artistic singular-driven endeavor than an overblown, sequel-driven, studio-garbled mess. Seriously, fuck Michael Bay and the Transformers movies.

Of course, the movie isn't perfect. In the film giant squid-like aliens have landed in Mexico and set up residence in a huge chunk of the country as their "breeding ground." The lead character, on assignment to photograph one of the creatures and get a bunch of money, is tasked with the job of bringing his boss's runaway daughter back home. At the beginning, the photographer character makes a point about how you can take a thousand beautiful pictures of doves or flowers or whatever (I'm paraphrasing because it's been a while since I saw the movie), but it's the pictures of suffering that actually make you money, like that famous Nat Geo one of the starving kid and the vulture.

Later in the movie there's a pretty cool scene where the group has a nasty run-in with some creatures (nicely handled with only short glimpses of their tentacles and some incredible sound design), and afterward the lead character comes across one of the children that has been killed. A perfect chance to make a statement about our character--have him pull out the camera and snap a photo! OR show that he's changed...have him pull out the camera, but then hesitate and NOT snap the photo (which honestly is a little ham-fisted, but whatever). Instead, we don't really get anything...a wasted opportunity. The same thing happens again towards the end of the film when the photographer has a chance to literally take the photo of the century (though I won't spoil what it is) and just stands there dumbstruck. Dude, I don't care how amazing the things are you're looking at--you have a damn camera around your neck!!! Take a fucking picture!!!

The film is also set up as a love story, and while I liked the relationship that developed between the characters, I honestly felt like it left things hanging and didn't go far enough.

But even so, Gareth Edwards does a fantastic job creating some eerie sequences on a shoe-string budget. The final scene at the gas station, particularly a shot where one of the creatures is revealed by a flash of lightning, reminded me of the masterful sequence where he Rex attacks the jeeps in "Jurassic Park." AND apparently the guy is on his way to directing a new Godzilla movie, so way to go!

"Let Me In"

Speaking of giant monster movies, "Let Me In" is directed by Matt Reeves, the director of "Cloverfield"...so that's neat. If you didn't know, "Let Me In" is the remake of the fantastic Swedish vampire film "Let the Right One In," which I think is arguably one of the best and most interesting vampire flicks ever made. There are many out there who wail, "Why remake it?!" when they see that Hollywood is redoing a foreign film. Generally I agree, but I'm always willing to give the benefit of the doubt and see what a creative American director can do (I didn't really like "The Host," so I'm all for Americans butchering it if they can get it to be any less haphazard).

Unfortunately "Let Me In" is everything I feared it would be. While not quite a shot-for-shot remake of the original film, it doesn't offer a shred of new ideas anywhere. There's nothing all that bad about it, but I'd rather see a movie at least try something new and fail than go through the motions and make some extra cash because the characters are all speaking English now. My advice? Skip it and watch the original if you haven't already.

"Superman 2"

Up until relatively recently, the only Superman movie I had seen was Bryan Singer's "Superman Returns," an at times exciting, but generally pretty flawed film (apparently Superman is the ultimate deadbeat dad).

This movie certainly made me understand the Man of Steel a bit more. I've always been a Spidey fan because I like that Peter Parker is a nerd who can still get his ass kicked. With Superman the question of how this guy would actually save the world never seemed to be a problem since he can basically do anything. "Should I save the world or shouldn't I?" can get sort of interesting, but usually only when it's explored by Alan Moore's Dr. Manhattan. And are we seriously supposed to believe Lois doesn't recognize him under those glasses?

But in "Superman 2" I sort of get it...he's a guy who WANTS to relate to people as much as possible, but can't. Superman is actually who he IS, and Clark Kent is his disguise. Few other superheroes are this way, though I like that it's been touched upon in Nolan's Batman films.

Also, it's weirdly refreshing to see a superhero movie without any of the pretensions that so heavily weigh today's post-modern world. Yes, I love the new Batman movies, but they are so weighty and tense all the time. "Superman 2," with it's bombastic John Williams score and plucky performance from Christopher Reeve is just so much FUN! Also adding in some actual Kryptonians as the villains was awesome. I know comic fans would disagree with me, but it's a little ridiculous that Lex Luthor, who is basically just a smart guy, is supposed to be the arch-nemesis to a man who can fly and shoot lasers out of his eyes. And General Zod is played by Terrence Stamp, one of my favorite character actors of all time!

One thing I will say is that I've heard this film was marred by the studio wrestling it away from Richard Donner, and it certainly shows. Sometimes you'll get dramatic scenes of Superman pondering his new-found humanity and ability to be with Lois, and suddenly you get an ice cream cone falling in a guy's face or Superman throwing his LOGO (?!) at the villains. What?! It certainly makes me want to see the incomplete, but no doubt more interesting, Richard Donner cut available on DVD.

"They Live"

I'm not going to lie. While I know this is a cult classic, I was sorely disappointed in John Carpenter's "They Live." Had it been made early in his career I might have let it slide, but come on...this was done AFTER "Halloween" and "The Thing," two phenomenal horror movies that are the best in their genre. Still I must admit the insanely long fight scene over one character arguing to the other to put on a pair of sunglasses is laughably incredible.

"The Crow" A so-so film with some fun visuals. Not worth killing the lead actor over, though. I don't really have much more to say about this movie other than that it's nice to see a Tim Burton-ish film that ISN'T directed by Tim Burton. Overall it left me feeling the same way I felt about this director's other film, "Dark City." Neat visuals and certainly some original elements, but overall rather unmemorable.

"Psycho"

Yes! Dan the film student had never seen the original "Psycho" until a few weeks ago! And what a film!!! SPOILERS coming (for a movie over 50 years old...).

Even by today's standards, "Psycho" is a pretty amazing feat. I knew Janet Leigh would die in the film, but I had no idea it would take so long. I was expecting something along the lines of Drew Barrymore's death in "Scream," but instead it happens literally halfway through the film. What a way to send the audience reeling! Suddenly we have no idea who our protagonist is, and we have no idea where things are headed. Great!

Also, the way Norman Bates methodically cleans and disposes of the body is eerie too. Rather than cut to the body stuffed in the car and dumped in the swamp, we see every step of Bates' process as he thinks about what to do. Even today it gives the film a hard, realistic, unnerving edge rarely seen. As my friend Sonia (who also had never seen it) remarked, "It reminds me of something out of 'Dexter.'" How true...but now I know where "Dexter" got it!

And the last thing I want to say...Anthony Perkins' performance! In an era where acting was stilted and over-the-top, Perkins plays the whole thing straight, making him all the more creepy. It's a very modern performance that still can get under one's skin today (he reminded me of the late Heath Ledger), and back then it must have been a revelation. What a great job!

While I still adore "Rear Window" and probably regard it as Hitchcock's finest because of it's simplistic premise and perfect execution, "Psycho" might come in at #2. What a great flick...I'm glad I finally saw it. You're the man, Alfred!

MOVIES FROM THIS YEAR

"Source Code"

I already wrote about Gareth Edwards and "Monsters," and how he's moving on to a Godzilla film. Isn't it cool that Duncan Jones has moved from "Moon" to this one?

While not quite as clever or introspective as "Moon," "Source Code" is a fun ride. It's sort of like a sci-fi "Groundhog Day." In the movie Captain Colter Stevens (played by Jake Gyllenhaal, eager for some street cred after "Prince of Persia") is continuously sent back in time to a train that is about to go explodey because of a terrorist on board. Stevens' job is to figure out who the bomber is in the PAST so that the people in the present can find him and bring him to justice.

Of course, there is more to the movie than this...Stevens starts to fall in love with a girl on the train (Michelle Monaghan...understandable). Even though she's already dead, Stevens becomes convinced he can--and must--save her by stopping the bombing from happening.

While there are a couple of loose hinges, "Source Code" is overall a lot of fun and, like "Moon," definitely feels like the genre of movie I'd like to make someday (someday SOON!). It's also the movie that marks my first "finish" as they say in the trailer editing biz, as some radio spots I cut went to air. Hooray, I'm famous! At least they happened for a movie I actually enjoyed.

But I will say the ending of "Source Code" brings up some interesting questions (SPOILERS for those who haven't seen it...)

Isn't this movie kind of a weird twist on the cool guy who steals your boyfriend away from you? What happens to the guy who was inhabiting Sean Fentress before Stevens took his body over? Does he just wink out of existence? It's clear Fentress had a thing for Michelle Monaghan...poor guy.

At the end, Stevens basically becomes Fentress, but in this alternate quantum universe, there is STILL a Stevens at the military facility, waiting to be used by Jeffrey Wright (who gives a terrible performance by the way). So if there are infinite quantum universes, once THIS Stevens goes through the Source Code and saves the day, won't there be TWO Jake Gyllenhaals running around? And what if he winds up in the body of a girl...won't that be weird? Won't there eventually be a universe with TONS of Jake Gyllenhaals? A whole WORLD full of Jake Gyllenhaals? Can you enter the body of a dead dog, and if you do, does that dog gain Jake Gyllenhaal intelligence? Hmmm...

Anyway, fun movie. I look forward to seeing what Duncan Jones does next!

"Cedar Rapids"

"Cedar Rapids" is probably one of the better comedies I've seen in a while. I read somewhere (I think in "Save the Cat") that any story is supposed to be the most interesting thing that will happen to your main character in his or her life. For THIS main character, that just so happens to be going to a company convention in Cedar Rapids! I'm already laughing!

The whole cast, be they lead or supporting, does a great job. And while Ed Helms is memorable as the complete loser protagonist (at least I'm never going to be as bad as HE is), the real star of the show is John C. Reilly in the performance of his career--and that's saying something. Reilly plays Dean Ziegler, the guffawing, booze-guzzling sleazebag with a heart of gold. Comedies rarely get Oscars, and a little movie like this is going to go completely unnoticed, but seriously...the guy is ON FIRE in this film.

What I also like about "Cedar Rapids" is how, despite being an ultimately very sweet story, it doesn't pull any punches. (SPOILERS!) Ed Helms winds up befriending an underage hooker, smoking crack, and sleeping with a married woman...and all the while we still feel like he's a lovable underdog. Not an easy feat to pull of, and with less subtle direction it could have come across as base and hateful.

Anyway, I liked this film...you should go see it, at the very least to see John C. Reilly firing on all cylinders like there's no tomorrow.

"Patisserie"

It's not every day you see a Japanese film about a French bakery, where you'd need to be tri-lingual to get every line of dialogue, but that's why you go to the Santa Barbara Film Festival!

In this cute film, a young (and very pretty) Japanese girl runs away from home and gets a job working in a Patisserie making pastries. As to be expected, she manages to change everyone's life, goes through her own personal drama, and becomes a fantastic chef in her own right by the end. I feel like I've seen a lot of foreign films with this same basic plot (especially at film festivals) but that doesn't make it any less delightful. And damned if my stomach wasn't growling the entire time...the photographers REALLY knew how to make the food look delicious. A cute and tasty treat!

"The Rite"

"The Rite" is an excellent example of why setting the tone of a movie is so important. I had moderately high hopes for this film, as it seemed to promise the possibility of being a smarter horror film, and it was directed by the guy who did "1408," a very flawed--but thoroughly entertaining--creepfest.

Sadly "The Rite" fails mainly because it never commits itself. At times it tries to startle you by being a true blue horror flick, complete with your standard jump scares, while other times it just feels like a slow-moving drama that happens to be about exorcism. The central premise, that a priest with faltering faith must exorcise his older mentor, could be really cool AS a scare flick OR a drama, but in trying to be either the film just drags and rings hollow. Bummer.

"The Adjustment Bureau"

...or as I like to call it, "Cockblockers in Fedoras." Every few years, Hollywood tries to raid the Philip K. Dick short story catalog with the hope of finding a cool premise for a feature film. On very rare occasions this has proven wonderful, as seen with one of my all-time favorites, "Blade Runner." Yet one must remember part of why "Blade Runner" works is because Ridley Scott only used the source material as a jumping point. The same holds true for the enjoyable, if not slightly silly, "Minority Report," which holds the basic elements of the short story, but has an entirely different narrative.

My point is that, Philip K. Dick wrote a lot of great SHORT stories (he also wrote a lot of BAD short stories, but let's ignore that for now). But a good short doesn't necessarily mean a good feature. The overlooked "Imposter" starring Gary Sinise was originally intended to be one part of a science-fiction anthology movie, but when they lost funding it was expanded as a feature. While it is interesting at times, it ultimately felt padded out and didn't work, and "The Adjustment Bureau" has the same problem (I never bothered with "Paycheck").

In the film, Matt Damon plays a charming would-be senator on the road to victory. In a momentary lapse of doubt, he meets sleepy-eyed and highly overrated Emily Blunt, who makes out with him in a bathroom and gives him the energy he needs to keep rocking the campaign trail. Later Damon meets her again on a bus, and the two flirt a bunch, exchange numbers, etc.

Yet after this encounter, Damon is kidnapped by a bunch of weird sketchy dudes in fedora-hats, led by the stone-faced TERRENCE STAMP ("KNEEL BEFORE ZOD")!!! It turns out these big-brother-is-watching-you types control every aspect of our lives and make sure we all are led down the paths destiny has prepared for us. Matt Damon is supposed to be senator (and, it is implied, ultimately president), and this saucy British minx gave him just enough oomph for him to give an impassioned speech and appeal to the voters in exactly the right way to tip the scales. However, he is NOT supposed to wind up with her...their chance encounter on the bus was a mistake, and could doom everything! At this point, Emily Blunt's number is torn into a million pieces in front of Damon and thrown to the wind. He's lost her number forever! Shit...that's even worse than dropping one's cell phone in the pool! We don't get a scene where Matt Damon searches to see if she's on facebook...I guess it was cut for time.

Anyway as a short story premise, this is kind of interesting. We all like to believe we can forge our own destinies, but what if even those decisions are still illusions from some sort of mysterious puppetmasters? It's intriguing enough.

Of course, Matt Damon is fully convinced that the girl who slobbered all over him in the bathroom, and later gave him a boner on the bus, is THE ONE. A few years later (seriously...years?!), he accidentally bumps into her a third time, and makes it his mission to not let her go, no matter how hard the fedora-men try to stop him. At this point the movie gets really stupid really fast. There isn't much else left for the movie to do other than to wear out it's premise, and we get a lot of annoying lofty dialogue of Damon talking about destiny with fedora-people, Emily Blunt crying and looking confused, and the duo running here there and everywhere through New York. I personally found the whole thing a lot MORE entertaining if you believed that Matt Damon wasn't in LOVE with Emily Blunt, but just really, REALLY wanted to bang her. Just once. Maybe she was into freaky stuff. But the agents won't let him because banging this girl could have "unseen consequences" (STDs are serious business!).

Oh yeah, my other favorite part! It isn't just Damon's destiny that will get screwed up...it's Blunt's as well! If Damon winds up with Blunt, somehow he'll ruin her dancing career! She'll lose focus, and instead of performing for thousands on magnificent stages, she'll wind up being a dance instructor for eight-year olds--a fate worse than death!!!

Anyway, the movie eventually ends with a conclusion that isn't really satisfying one way or the other. Nothing particularly enlightening is revealed about this weird plot device...Damon and Blunt get to be with each other, the fedora guys concede, basically shrugging their shoulders and saying, "Well...I guess we'll just have to see!" and the credits roll.

I wouldn't really have any problem with this movie IF it had been fun. "Terminator" is basically one long chase movie, and boy does it work. But if a movie is going to BE so damn pretentious in the first place...filled with such lofty topics as love and destiny, then you damn well better be sure you have something to say about it all. To me, the film is a perfect example of a story that didn't deserve any expansion, and should have just stayed where it was...in a book of sci-fi shorts. Oh well.

PS: Having done a little research, apparently the laughably awful "Next" is also a Philip K. Dick story! Again, interesting premise to read on paper, but it makes for terrible, TERRIBLE cinema. Save yourself a lot of trouble and figure out IF a story is worth translating to screen first, Hollywood!

"Rango"

I'm a little surprised everybody liked "Rango" as much as they did. It got decent reviews, many of my friends seemed to enjoy it, but I thought it was a little pathetic.

However, first off, major kudos to ILM's animation department for delivering their first animated feature. In terms of technical design and creature work, the film is a delight. In the world of animation today Dreamworks movies look like Dreamworks movies, Disney movies look like Disney movies, and even Pixar movies tend to look like Pixar movies. Blue Sky has their look, and even Animal Logic's realistic animals still only look like realistic animals. It's great to have a new animation studio in the mix, and in "Rango" the weird collection of quirky, grotesque, sometimes nightmarish critters is a sight to behold. From the animators to the shaders to the concept artists, "Rango" at the very least has a visual imagination all its own that doesn't feel any pressure to be "cutesy." I would even argue they went a little too far...when your love interest is one of the ugliest-looking creatures ever seen on celluloid, you could have a bit of a problem.

Yet as a story "Rango" fails in the same way Verbinski's other work often has. I definitely think Verbinski can be a great director in a variety of genres. "Mouse Hunt," "The Ring," and of course the first "Pirates of the Caribbean" are all strong films, yet quite different from each other. But at the same time the second two "Pirates" movies showed a lot of unbridled creativity with very little focus; they were kind of just big overblown messes.

This is how I felt about "Rango." The main character, a chameleon made to look like Hunter S. Thompson, is rather selfish and despicable. This is fine, but it's not like he really FIXES this problem by the end of the film. Everything he manages to accomplish happens through sheer buffoonery and dumb luck. Much of the movie is spent coming up with goofy gags and "funny" characters, but rarely does any of it amount to much of anything. Yes, there's an environmental message towards the end, but we've seen it done better a million times before. Here it doesn't feel like the natural conclusion to anything, but tacked on so the filmmakers could feel smug and warm about their film's resolution (I felt the same way about "Happy Feet," which is still one of the most undeserving Oscars I've ever seen the Academy give). Early on the bad guys seem to be a group of tunneling bandits working for a shadowy evil tortoise (who bears fun reference to John Huston's character in "Chinatown"), yet at the end Rango has to face off against Rattlesnake Jake, a slithering viper with a Gatling gun for a tail. Like the "Pirates" sequels, a lot of it is pretty cool, but none of it really pieces together. There's even a sequence where the characters explore an underground cavern and pass by a giant freaky reptilian eyeball. "Cool!" I thought..."Alligators in the sewers or something!" Nope. That's it. The eyeball is there because Verbinski liked the way it looked. OK...

There's a lot better alternative animation out there if you search for it. I say skip this one.

"Your Highness"

Sometimes I just don't agree with the reviewers. Critics seemed to think "Rango" was inspired while I thought it was unfocused. But they hated on "Your Highness" because it was filled with...well, stupid pothead and bathroom humor. OK, fine.

Whatever, I liked it. Irreverent fantasy is something I've always enjoyed, and this movie reminded me a lot of the same stupid shit I would watch at sleepover parties back in junior high and high school (in a GOOD way!). I also appreciated the movie for not riffing on any particular specific fantasy film, but still coming up with it's own fun universe. The guy who created snakes by sticking his hand in a pot of mud was very creative, and the Blade of Unicorn, made from the spine of a dead unicorn's skeleton (using the horn as the hilt!), is actually one of the cooler fantasy weapons I've seen since the triple-bladed sword from "The Sword and the Sorcerer." Some I feel movies get lazy with their spoofing, or even fail to spoof ENOUGH movies (I'm looking at you overrated "Walk Hard"), but this flick generally spoofed only the genre, nothing specific, making it feel a lot more universal and, in my view, fun. It's "Deathstalker 2" with a budget (actually it's not as funny as "Deathstalker 2," but only because "Deathstalker 2" is a masterpiece)! It won't make any of that budget BACK, but who cares? The minotaur penis jokes continuously made me chuckle.

So I don't know...maybe I'm just a juvenile idiot at heart, but I found nothing wrong with "Your Highness" to say the least. It could have been because I was also really, REALLY high* when I saw it, but isn't that how you're supposed to watch movies like this anyway?

"Hanna"

A rare breed of "art-house action movie," "Hanna" at the very least is pretty interesting. It comes from Joe Wright, the guy who did "Atonement" for better or worse, and it's neat to see his take on the action flick. In a set-up that has echoes of "The Hunger Games" (great book series, by the way), a young girl is trained by her father in the Arctic circle to be a stealthy assassin. These early sequences are filled with a great primal tenseness; in the opening scene Hanna ruthlessly tracks down and kills a caribou. Eric Bana plays her father wonderfully, but Saoirse Ronan easily holds her own and makes Hanna a both lovable and frightening character; I have high hopes for this young actress. Plus she has one of the most interesting and expressive faces of anyone her age out there.

Eventually Hanna chooses to leave the safety of the Arctic circle and is drawn up in some sort of weird spy espionage stuff, led by the mysterious Marissa Wiegler, played over-the-top by Cate Blanchett. I like Blanchett, but at times she can be a bit cartoony, and Joe Wright's constant grotesque close-ups on her feet and teeth don't help matters.

Anyway, after a daring escape through techno jail (my favorite scene), Hanna is on the run. Somehow she winds up in Morocco (which at first I thought was Nevada) with an obtuse British family, where she learns a bit about "real" people and how they behave (how many families do you know where every family member knows ALL the lyrics to obscure David Bowie songs? Oh well...). These scenes are kind of nice, but I honestly thought they dragged a bit. If anything, "Hanna" is one of the few films I thought could have used a couple MORE action set pieces rather than character development.

Because the action scenes, at the very least, are very different to the ones we are used to in typical action movies. Though the sequence at the loading docks is underwhelming, many of the others are pretty cool. "Atonement" had that long take of James McAvoy on the beach, but it's nothing compared to the sequence where Eric Bana walks into a subway station and believably takes out a bunch of thugs in one continuous shot. Give the stunt coordinator (and camera operator!) a medal!

Often what really makes these action sequences shine isn't so much the action itself as the SETS. What bizarre set pieces! I already mentioned the techno prison that felt like something out of a rave music video, but we also get a fantastic ending inside some bizarre decrepit Alice and Wonderland theme park (further hinting at the fairytale origins of the story). Adding to the strange intensity is a unique soundtrack from the Chemical Brothers, giving us a cinematic experience unlike that which we are used to.

Yet at the same time, while I liked a lot of this stuff, the film also suffered FROM a lot of art-house tropes. People complain that mainstream movies are constantly full of the same old shit--standard lighting, overly loud action scenes, shaky-cam, plot contrivances for the sake of convenience, the list goes on and on. And I agree! But art-house films have a whole manner of their own pitfalls too--at times "Hanna" gets weird for the sake of...getting weird. I already mentioned the annoying close-ups of Cate Blanchett, which I assume are supposed to hint at her desire to be clean and organized, but just come off as annoyingly fetishist. The same holds true for a scene where we meet one of our bounty hunters tasked with finding Hanna. For whatever reason he is watching an interpretive dance being put on by a transvestite in some sleazy bar. Huh?! Why??? That's like something you add in a film to make FUN of an art-house movie! What happens next, do they all sing Bjork songs in a bathtub full of pudding? And this German character inexplicably whistles and acts super-flamboyant everywhere he goes, despite his violence. Is this supposed to be threatening? You say character trait, I say you're just being weird.

Either way though, "Hanna" is a neat experiment, and I felt really pumped afterward to go shoot an action movie. I just think it could have used a little more Neveldine/Taylor and a little less Luis Bunuel.

"The People vs. George Lucas"

A while back my buddy Boston Chris showed me a doc (which I reviewed) called "Still We Believe," about Boston Red Sox fans. I found the movie a chore to sit through, mainly because I could care less about the Boston Red Sox. Of course a really good doc WILL make you care about something you don't find interesting (i.e. "The King of Kong"), but it definitely makes things more difficult for the filmmaker.

"The People vs. George Lucas" might be my version of "Still We Believe." The Star Wars franchise has been a huge part of my life since I was a kid--it's at least tangentially responsible for why I wound up pursuing filmmaking. But among Star Wars fans there is a very interesting love-hate relationship with its creator, George Lucas. On the one hand, he made films that shaped our childhood. On the other, he has cheapened the saga through the prequels (really not THAT bad) the Clone Wars series, and cheaper and cheaper merchandising (OK, bad). But is that all his fault? We asked for it didn't we? "Give us more!!!" It's an interesting dynamic that makes for a fun doc with lots of funny quips and one-liners from nerds like me. I also appreciated the inventiveness of showing very little of the actual Star Wars movies--most of the visuals are the same scenes reenacted from numerous fan films, which is an excellent way to show the passion and love so many people have for these movies.

If you're a Star Wars fan this is a must see. If you could care less about this (awesome!) franchise though, you probably won't find it that interesting.

"I Am"

It would be very nice of me to give "I Am" a glowing review, because it's a doc with a real positive message about treating everyone nice, ending world hunger, etc. etc. etc. And that's great! But ultimately it doesn't really lead anywhere...it sort of feels like the lead filmmaker Tom Shadyac, director of huge blockbuster comedies such as "Ace Ventura" and "Bruce Almighty" had a mid-life crisis, and got over it by making a film. I'm glad he figured it out, but his doc honestly feels a bit unfocused and scattered. I will say that his heart is in the right place, and when I met him he was an incredibly cool and down-to-earth guy. I suspect he will continue to make docs in the future, and I'm excited to see what else he comes up with now that he's had his "flash of insight."

"The Beaver"

An overall very strange, somewhat dark comedy about a depressed man named Walter who's life is changed after he finds a beaver puppet in the trash. Kicked out of his home, he tries to commit suicide when the puppet (on his hand) starts talking to him...with his own voice, like a bad ventriloquist's dummy. Walter gets back into the swing of things and manages to sort his life out, but at what cost? Is he crazy? Is the Beaver taking over?

I felt kind of bad for a lot of the people involved in this film, because while it is sort of nutty, it's also rather sweetly nutty. And unfortunately the film was delayed because Walter is played by Mel Gibson, who is an altogether a different kind of nutty (it's not the sweet kind). Jodie Foster directs the film with a gentle straightforward approach, and delivers a fine performance herself. And the most interesting story in the film has nothing to do with the Beaver/Walter at all, but the off-kilter high school romance between Walter's son (Anton Yelchin) and the terrified valedictorian who wants him to help her cheat on her end-of-the year speech (the ever-more-beautiful Jennifer Lawrence). Maybe I'm a sucker for young love, but I thought these two up-and-coming actors did a wonderful job. However because Mel Gibson became box-office poison as of late, all these other people had to suffer as their movie (which clearly at least thought it could gun for an Oscar push) was delayed to a limited release in late Spring. Bummer.

Of course Jennifer Lawrence is now an Oscar-nominee, played Mystique in the new X-Men flick, and will soon be Katniss in the upcoming "Hunger Games" (seriously, read it). And Anton Yelchin has already been in "Star Trek" and played Kyle Reese in the latest Terminator movie. Both actors are several years younger than I am, so they're doing just fine.

"Thor"

I'm not a huge fan of the fact that Marvel is now a freaking MOVIE STUDIO, because the over-saturation of superhero flicks is starting to wear out its welcome. However for better or worse, "Thor" is pretty fun. Chris Hemsworth is PERFECT as the pompous swaggering space-god hero, and Kenneth Branagh's Shakespearean upbringing allows him to add the perfect sense of majesty to all this weighty Asgard talk. It's probably because of him that villain Loki winds up being such an interesting character, and the relationship between him, Odin, and Thor grows and develops grandly without feeling too forced. Branagh could take it easy on the Dutch angles though...he uses them as freely as J. J. Abrams uses lens flare.

But the weirdest thing about "Thor" to me is that it felt like two separate movies forced to live together. Half the film is an epic grand weighty action movie that kicks Asgard (har har, I'm sure I'm the first to make THAT joke), and the other half is a dopey fish-out-of-water comedy with Thor on planet Earth. While it is a hoot to see Thor slamming his coffee cup and demanding "Another!" or walking into a pet shop and requesting a horse, I personally would have preferred that the whole thing took place in Asgard, because that stuff was fucking cool. But either way, I didn't entirely feel the two worlds fit together that well; it made for a very schizophrenic film.

Yet at the very least Marvel is getting (slightly) more subtle about their cross-referencing. I hated "Iron Man 2" because the entire thing just felt like a big ad for all their other movies on their slate (eventually gearing up for "The Avengers," which I think could be a huge disaster). I would much rather just see a movie about your main character and nobody else, but if Marvel doesn't want to do things this way, so be it. And when the main spook from S.H.I.E.L.D. asks, "Is this one of yours, Stark?" upon confronting the Norse version of Gort from "The Day the Earth Stood Still," his line didn't bug me as much as it should have. And the Green Arrow cameo worked fluidly within the story also.

Bottom line? Not an insta-classic superhero movie by any means, but the Asgardian poetics were gorgeous enough to be worth catching on the big screen.

"Bridesmaids"

Everybody is raving about this movie and it's doing a bang-up job at the box office, which is GREAT. The fact that a "smart" women-driven comedy can draw big numbers is wonderful, because it makes me hope that we'll see movie execs try a bit harder and not create more and more of the Kate Hudson/Sex and the City-type romantic comedies that are, frankly, so stupid as to be borderline offensive. Feminist or not, women should be insulted. The fact that this movie just works AS a comedy that happens to have an all-woman cast is (sadly) a huge step forward.

But is it really all it's cracked up to be? One of the "greatest comedies I've ever seen" said my mom (said a LOT of moms I'm sure...)? Well, no. Not really. But it's still fun.

The sad truth is that the Apatow formula is starting to wear a little thin, and I'm starting to "get" how he makes a movie now (or in this case, Paul Feig, one of his disciples from the "Freaks and Geeks" days). You cast a bunch of funny people, you have them improv scenes over and over again, you string the best takes together, and voila! Is this a bad way to make a movie? Not really, but at times I really wish I could see something actually well WRITTEN and not just well spontaneously-shouted. As the Apatow crew makes more and more of these, it's starting to show. At times you feel like scenes that "weren't funny enough" were cut out regardless of how they worked in the overall story, while other scenes were left in (or at the very least go on too long) in because they were funny, but don't really add to much else.

My hope is that "Bridesmaids" proves female-centric films can still actually BE decent films, but that we'll also see movies down the line that would also work as sharp screenwriting.

"Midnight in Paris"

I wasn't expecting to like this movie because I'm not the biggest Woody Allen fan (I've remarked before that I don't "get" Annie Hall--go ahead and lynch me). And the trailers made it look like a boring film only for the white privileged upper-class. When watching "8 1/2" with Logan once he remarked, "Is this another movie about people who have problems who don't really have problems?" Looked like the same deal here. However this film turned out be endearing in spite of itself. Owen Wilson is a far more likable "aw-shucks" kind of guy than the neurotic Woody Allen, so when he plays the typical Woody Allen role, you manage to empathize with him a much more easily.

But the biggest surprise in "Midnight in Paris" is that all the marketing has hidden a HUGE fascinating plot point from the audience. Spoilers? Let's just say "Midnight in Paris" has a heck of a lot more to do with "Back to the Future" than the previews would make you realize. Having worked in the world of film marketing for a while now, I must say this is quite a surprise...the central "hook" of the film is so fun, why would you keep that a secret? I admit it was a great surprise once I was watching the movie, but I almost didn't see this movie because it looked so boring! Whatever went on with the marketing creatives behind the scenes on this one has me curious...

Regardless, it's a sweet film. Owen Wilson is charming, Michael Sheen (I peed next to him once) is delightfully smarmy, Marion Cotillard is as sultry as always, and numerous other character actors are clearly having a field day impersonating celebrities from bygone eras with gusto (the Hemingway guy in particular was great).

Yet at the end of the day I can't shake off the feeling that the movie was a tad misogynistic (even if the girl I saw the movie with had no issues). SPOILERS! At the beginning, Owen Wilson is engaged to Rachel McAdams, who is clearly wrong for him. He starts to fall in love with Marion Cotillard (understandable), but when she doesn't share his love for the 1920s, he just drops her and moves on to ANOTHER girl he's met. The movie may talk about "true love" all over the place (it DOES take place in Paris), but don't all these girls come off as interchangeable? And while he's likable, Wilson's character is also kind of a dope. To quote Sam Weir on Freaks and Geeks, "I don't know how you get ONE girl, let alone several." Bah.

I was also a tad miffed because the central idea was one I'd had for a while (though naturally, my character would yearn to live in the 1980s), but no worries. As they say in Paris, c'est la vie!

"Kung Fu Panda 2"

The sequel to what may be Dreamworks best movie isn't that bad, but it isn't very good either. I've been trying to figure out exactly why I enjoyed this one so much less than the first, and it's honestly kind of tricky. The animation is still technically there, and it more-or-less goes through much of the same motions and the characters don't feel too inconsistent--so what happened?

The biggest problem, I think, is focusing the story on Po. Po may be the protagonist of the first film in theory, but as I've said before, the true kung fu panda of the first movie is Dustin Hoffman's Shifu, a red panda. In my mind there is no question Shifu has the more compelling character arc, and his emotional core resonates the strongest. Jack Black's Po may offer some great laughs and make me like the movie on the surface, but Shifu is the reason why I like the first film so much in my heart.

In the second movie the story centers around Po trying to figure out what happened to his parents (done in nifty 2-D flashbacks animated in...well, Flash). But at the end of the day I don't care about Po that much as a central character (plus having his father inexplicably be a goose was one of the better gags of the first movie anyway). Poor Shifu has taken the place of tortoise Oogway as the sage Yoda-like figure, which generally makes him pretty boring--he's just a stock character now. Admittedly maybe his character didn't have anywhere to go since the first film, but it's such a shame to see him stuck on the sidelines. In many ways Angelina Jolie's Tigress plays a bigger part in the sequel, but she's as uninteresting as ever--maybe they should have let Shifu take over elements of her role?

The other missing hole is the action scenes--in the first movie the humor generally came from Po not fitting in with the rest of the group. Yet when it was time for an action set piece, the sequences were dynamic and exciting...like something out of a REAL kung fu movie. Watch the bridge battle or Tai Lung's escape from prison and you'll see that the filmmakers pulled no punches. If anything, the least memorable battle in the first film is the conclusion, where Po manages to defeat Tai Lung by whomping him with his fat belly. Cute, but a bit hard to swallow.

In the second movie Po has been integrated into the Furious Five, so the "fish out of water" jokes are less easy to pull off. Instead of being "awesome" (a word that's starting to get highly overused in this franchise), the action scenes are now the thing that is played for laughs. In a rickshaw chase, Po has to stop and save a handful of baby bunnies. In an opening battle sequence, efforts are made to turn the fighting into a percussive musical sequence like something you'd see at a "Stomp" concert. Cute? I guess. Bad ass? No way. We get tastes of it when Po and the other heroes (including two new characters, Master Ox and Croc) square off against hordes and hordes of cannon wielding wolves, but at that point it's just too little, too late.

The one saving grace of the movie is that they were able to create a bad guy at least as cool as the one from the last film. Gary Oldman (always a treat!) plays Lord Shen, an albino peacock who can shoot deadly knives out of his feathers. Ian McShane's Tai Lung was great as a baddie who fought with brute force and muscle in the first movie; Lord Shen works behind the scenes with a vast wolf army, but can be just as dangerous up close--in a regal sort of way. It's a different type of lethal, and it works wonderfully.

I heard Dreamworks was hoping to do six (seriously...SIX?) of these movies, but seeing as this one didn't do that well, I hope we just have one more to go before we can put the panda to bed (this one ends on a cliffhanger, so we're probably not done QUITE yet).

"Cave of Forgotten Dreams"

As anyone who knows me well is probably aware, I'm a fairly solid Herzog fan. I'm not quite as crazy as he is, but I definitely feel like a kindred spirit to his "enter-the-wild" sensibilities and ability to still be wondrous about the world at the age of 68.

And while "Cave of Forgotten Dreams" certainly offers some fascinating visuals, I wouldn't say it's as well-made as the other documentaries of his I've seen, "Grizzly Man" and "Encounters at the End of the World." This one feels, more so than usual, like Herzog's cool home movie. Sure, he got to take 3-D cameras into these caves, but the entire time you can't shake off the feeling that Herzog is saying, "Look what I got to do! Isn't this COOL?!" rather than actually going much farther. And at times the 3-D itself is distractingly bad. While I'm sure SOME of the film is shot with the actual cameras, you can also tell that other sections are done with stereoscopic conversion--and sometimes it looks pretty terrible (keep an eye out for the sequence where they talk about the red dots).

However, what Herzog is showing us admittedly IS pretty cool. The fact that these beautiful paintings originate from the ICE AGE is quite a mindfuck when you start thinking about it. But unlike "Encounters at the End of the World," which showed a place completely unlike anything I've experienced before, I feel like I've lived much of what Herzog's seeing in "Cave of Forgotten Dreams" because of growing up with my archaeologist father. I might not have seen caves quite as cool as the ones shown here, but it's not too far a stretch.

At the end Herzog tries to bridge the gap and make some sort of odd connection about humanity's place in the universe with some neat footage of an albino alligator. It's nice, but it feels forced and doesn't really flow as beautifully as the quirky deviations from his other films (such as the hilariously poignant deranged penguin). All it really did was remind me of his goofy photography in his version of "Bad Lieutenant."

If you are fascinated by ancient cave drawings or are a Herzog fan, you'll like this one. But it's not as focused as some of his earlier docs.

"Beautiful Boy"

"Beautiful Boy" belongs on my list of well-made movies that nobody wants to see (see also, "Precious" and the review for "Blue Valentine" lower down the page). At the end of Act One, the son of the two parents shoots up his school and commits suicide. The rest of the movie chronicles how the two parents (played by Maria Bello and Michael Sheen) deal with the aftermath. The acting is very good, but it makes for a very depressing movie.

I've gotten in arguments about these sorts of movies before, because I'm of the opinion that these kind of films are often not worth making in the first place. I love a little pathos and sadness in a film, but I still want to feel somewhat uplifted when the credits roll. I don't LIKE being depressed when I leave a theater. Moved? Absolutely. Soul-crushed? No.

For example, I'm probably never going to watch "United 93" again because it was so painful. But was it worth seeing? Absolutely! It was a heroic story of the people who died stopping one of the terrorists on September 11. And Gus van Sant's "Elephant," while also a very depressing film, did wonders by showing us the beauty of day-to-day life in high school and then snatching it all away from us in the final minutes; a haunting piece of work that reminds you how precious even the little moments in life can be.

I will give it to "Beautiful Boy" that showing the perspective of a school shooting from the parents' point-of-view is certainly a new way to view things, and it reminds you that even seriously disturbed kids have families (normal families!) who love them. But did it really take us farther than that? Was it worth bumming me out for two hours, and that evening as I went to bed? Not this time.

"X-Men: First Class"

Best movie of the summer (so far)! I'm generally not a big X-Men fan, mainly because in both the comics and the movies there are simply too many characters and it's hard to know who to focus on. What this movie does so well is make it a clear character study between two opposing ideologies--Magneto's and Professor Xavier's--and the friendship that exists between them despite their differences. In the ending when Magneto walks a separate path from Xavier, he doesn't do it as a villain; we understand why he's made these choices.

It helps that the two leads are played by such charismatic actors. James McAvoy always delivers fine work, but it's Michael Fassbender who walks away with the movie as the stone cold Magneto. And most of the supporting cast does a great job as well, particularly my future wife Jennifer Lawrence as Mystique. In previous movies we've never learned much about her, but in this film she comes across as a fully formed character full of her own conflicts and issues. My only gripe is that once she ACCEPTS her blue form, I don't get to look at Jennifer Lawrence's natural beauty as much as I'd like to...sigh. I'm sure much of this balancing act is due to (mostly) exceptional direction by Matthew Vaughn, who knows how to put together a rocking action scene while still making the characters shine through (though it has it's detractors, I still love "Kick-Ass").

Also, I'm a sucker for period movies, and my favorite thing about "X-Men: First Class" was how it takes place during the 1940s and 1960s, at times reminding me of a classic James Bond film or "Inglourious Basterds" with mutants. Revisionist history--when done right--can be a blast.

But of course, I had some nit-picks. Here they are:

1) The biggest problem--Kevin Bacon's plan didn't make a heck of a lot of sense. Last I checked, you blow up a mutant with an A-bomb, they still die, right?

2) In the climax Kevin Bacon absorbs all this nuclear energy. I expected he would blow up or diffuse it somehow, but then nothing happens (though the way they take him out IS pretty cool). Isn't that what they call a Chekov's gun?

3) One of the neater mutants of the "new" group died WAY too quickly. :-(

4) January Jones' Emma Frost was AWFUL. I've already remarked how cool it was to be in a period film, yet every time she showed up on screen I was reminded that I was in a superhero movie again. Blah. Also, why include a scene where it looks like she escapes from prison, only to later show it never happened? I kept expecting her to pop up in the final battle, but she never did.

Altogether though this was a great summer flick, and probably the best superhero movie I've seen since "The Dark Knight" (admittedly not that long ago, but "The Dark Knight" was also REALLY good). I think it's the best of the X-Men movies. I know there's a lot of love out there for X-2, but I honestly felt that one was just one long commercial for X-3. And a HUGE thanks must be given to the movie for letting it be an X-Men movie and an X-Men movie ONLY. Thank goodness the X-Men are still owned by Fox, which means I don't have to see Marvel shove a bunch of cross-series references down my throat. While there may be a few fun unexpected cameos from other characters (or VERSIONS of characters) in the series, at least it's still just confined to the X-Men world. Sometimes I just like my fantasies to play in their own sandboxes, thank you very much.

OSCAR WRAP-UP

OK, finally finished with all that stuff. Here are my reviews of the remaining 2010 Oscar picks!

"The Fighter"

Pretty solid. Christian Bale was without question the best part, especially when he was jumping into that dumpster. Certainly one of the Bostoniest movies I've ever seen. Honestly, I saw it a while ago, and don't have much else to say about it.

"Blue Valentine"

Ick! Ick! Ick! Why do they make movies like this? I GUESS it's well acted. I GUESS it's shot OK (though I think I could do just as well with a 3-point lighting kit, a couple friends, and a 5D). But how despicable a film!

Basically Ryan Gosling and Michelle Williams play an unhappy couple whose marriage is unraveling. In between this unfolding we intercut sequences of them meeting for the first time when they are younger and falling in love. Moral of the story? Don't ever fall in love! Love is a sham! Your marriage will ruin your life, and the lives of the ones you once loved!

You can dress it up as a "character study" all you want, but movies like this are just as pointless as some of the schlocky blockbusters pumped out by the major studios, or the countless crappy Kate Hudson-esque romantic comedies that get made every year. At least THOSE movies know their audience. As a 20-something trying to figure out all this love business, and even contemplating the idea of marriage (as an abstract concept only!), this is exactly the kind of movie I DON'T need to see. Ever. I wish I could unsee it!

"Winter's Bone"

Yup...third time I get to mention Jennifer Lawrence in this batch. Mroww!

Solid low-budget film in the Ozark mountains that really shows what it takes to survive. While it was a tad over-hyped for me, it still kept me tense and worried the entire time, and Lawrence does do a great job. Even better is veteran character actor John Hawkes, who also received an Oscar nomination. The movie certainly didn't make me want to go exploring in the Ozarks anytime soon though (and it crept into my mind during my recent adventure in the Nevada outback). Yikes.

"The Kids Are Alright"

Ugh. As I get older I tend to look forward to Oscar season more and more because a lot of the summer movies start to look the same (though I still like to think this is because the studios are getting more uncreative, not because I am getting more cynical). But even so, there is always Oscar bait that makes you roll your eyes and go, "Really?"

"The Kids Are Alright" is, honest to goodness, a terrible film. If the movie had been about a straight couple, it would have been no better than a soap opera you see on TV. But BECAUSE it's suddenly about lesbians, now it's "progressive" and an Oscar nominee? Please.

The characters are all despicable and selfish. At the very least Mark Ruffalo is well-cast, because I've always thought of him as a douchebag. Also, far too many scenes end with a character shouting "Fuck you" and storming off, as if that's an appropriate way to resolve a scene. This was up for best original screenplay? Seriously?

Let me ask you something, lesbians of the world...while it's nice to finally see movies where people "like you" are represented as the main characters, isn't it MORE insulting when that movie still is basically a trashy sitcom dressed up in liberal's clothing? They just USED lesbians to go for an Oscar push! You were USED! And I'm not even talking about the basic plotline of the story, where Julianne Moore is converted from being a lesbian because Mark Ruffalo is such a hunky dickwad.

At the very least the title of the movie turned out to be true. While I hated every adult character in this self-indulgent piece of trash, the kids (Mia Wasikowska and Josh Hutcherson) were likable and turned in fine performances. Now that these two young actors sold out for their Oscar cred, they should move on to better projects.

"Black Swan"

I avoided seeing this one for a long time because I'm not the biggest Aronofsky fan (though I've warmed up to "The Wrestler") and "Black Swan" not only looked like a pretentious movie, it looked like a pretentious movie ABOUT BALLET DANCING. Plus I've never really liked Natalie Portman all that much. No matter what she does it's hard for me to forgive how flat her deliveries were in the Star Wars prequels.

But I was surprised how much I liked "Black Swan." Movies with subjective points-of-view are always a neat treat, and watching her spiral into her mad state as she gradually transforms into an actual swan was trippy and cool. It's fun to try and figure out how much of what you are seeing is real, and how much is in the characters head. Ultimately that's the POINT of most of these movies--it doesn't usually matter too much because we are supposed to be seeing things from a skewed perspective. Movies like "Fight Club" or "Inception" are stellar for these reasons.

Because of this I wish I could give "Black Swan" an overall glowing review, but unfortunately I will say the entire film is nearly ruined by the ending (spoilers!), where it turns out that in the "imaginary" scene where she stabs Mila Kunis, she actually stabbed herself, so she dies at the end of the Swan Lake performance. Excuse me? Are we supposed to believe she was able to dance perfectly through the entire final act of this play with a shard of glass between her ribs? It certainly stretches the limits of believability, AND ruins all the fun of the earlier subjectivity by giving us such a definitive answer. Sorry goose, but those last few seconds kept this from being a golden egg.

Phew, that took a while. Y'all should also play Portal 2. Later!

* high on LIFE, Mom and Dad.

2010 In Review...Top Ten, Bottom Ten

2011-01-02T12:53:00.001-08:00

I'm way behind on this stuff, so I'll do full movie reviews after the Top Ten List.

I have to admit, this year's Top Ten looks a lot worse than last year. Nothing on this list really felt like it was fighting for top spot. Part of this could be due to a rather unimaginative year from Hollywood, and part of it could be that I've been really lazy on my Oscar homework. Movies I have YET to see that could have made my list include:

The Fighter

Black Swan

The Kids Are Alright

Let Me In

Winter's Bone

Monsters (I could see it making MY list, anyway)

Off to the races!

1. Toy Story 3--the "Return of the King" of Pixar, in that it's not necessarily the best of the trilogy, but it elevates the Toy Story franchise in its entirety to something easily on par with the greatest film sagas of our time. You've made it to the top again, Pixar!

2. Kick-Ass--Nicolas Cage shoots his daughter in the chest in his first scene, then they go out for ice cream.

3. 127 Hours--I'll never be able to think the way Danny Boyle does, but thankfully he puts it to good use and makes great films.

4. Easy A--A wonderful tribute to John Hughes, and one of the few really good comedies I saw this year. Emma Stone, you might be perfect.

5. Inception--While the movie has its detractors, I still think its a great flick. A movie with this much inventiveness STILL being a summer blockbuster deserves praise. BWAAAAAAMMMM!!!

6. Tangled--Disney is back!!! The first CG animated movie from the studio I've seen that still captures the heart of Disney. Well done!

7. Catfish--Fascinating little film that wonderfully blends what the very nature of a doc is about in itself. Man, why couldn't I have been as inventive as the kids who put this thing together?!

8. How To Train Your Dragon--Dreamworks' great leap forward! I have my doubts, but keep it up!

9. Despicable Me--Is my love for animation showing? Still, Universal finally had a much-needed hit from its brand new animation studio! Stay strong and keep these coming!

10. Piranha 3D--The best possible movie that could have been made with this title. Kelly Brook is hot.

Normally I do a Bottom Five list, but I saw so many awful movies this year that I think I'm going to do a Bottom Ten. Here we go...

10. Shrek Forever After--On this list more for what it represents...shameless unnecessary sequels nobody wants to see. Last I heard they're planning six (SIX?!) Kung Fu Panda films and four How to Train Your Dragons. Dammit Dreamworks, have you learned nothing?!?! (Facepalm)

9. Letters to Juliet--Boring drivel. Amanda Seyfried is pretty but vacant. I recommend checking her out in "Chloe" instead. And no, I haven't seen Chloe in full...just a select few scenes from the Internet.

8. A Nightmare on Elm Street--Michael Bay's Platinum Dunes continues to destroy classic horror franchises with this terrible remake. Making the film "darker" and "more serious" only makes it more uncomfortable as it becomes clearer Freddie isn't a gleeful killer but an all-out creepy pedophile. Gee, that's fun.

7. The Wolfman--More unnecessary horror remmakes! I actually wouldn't be against a remake of 40s-era monsters in concept (it was great when Cronenberg did "The Fly"), but this was trash. When three different endings are shot months before your release, you know that nobody had any clue where the movie was headed.

6. Harry Brown--It's not just the big studios that make bad movies! I never thought I'd see the day where Michael Caine would be in one of the worst films of the year, but here we are. An uncomfortable hate-filled film with little redeeming qualities.

5. Alice in Wonderland--Why did this make so much money?!?! It was very pretty, but any movie where the characters pull out the literal screenplay to tell the characters why they need to do what they are doing (and aren't being tongue-and-cheek) needs a lot of work. Tim Burton, go back to designing the worlds, and let someone else handle the story (Henry Selcik ftw!).

4. Our Family Wedding--Unfunny people in a "diverse" comedy that came off as racist. I'd go out for drinks with America Ferrera though.

3. The Last Airbender--While visually OK, this movie proved without doubt that Shyamalan's time may be up. What a mess! What is disappointing is that I felt this easily could have been the next great franchise in the vein of Star Wars or Harry Potter, but it's pretty unsalvageable now.

2. My Soul to Take--I'll take more about this later, but it was one of those movies that made no sense from beginning to end, even in terms of basic understanding of what was going on (similar to Southland Tales in that respect). Man what happened, Wes Craven?

1. When In Rome--You win, Kristen Bell! The absolute worst movie of 2010, and one of the worst I've ever seen in my life.

Man, there were some stinkers this year, weren't there? Let's try harder in 2011, OK Hollywood?

OK, real reviews. Keep 'em quick:

OLDER MOVIES

"Scream 1-3" I don't know how I never got around to seeing these movies until now. They are pretty much tailor-made for film students who enjoy the horror genre, so naturally I loved them! I think the second film is the weakest of the bunch, but they're all a lot of fun!

"Call of the Cthulu" Now here's an interesting way to make a movie! A small but inventive low-budget film tells an HP Lovecraft story as if it were an authentic silent film, with pretty good results for those who appreciate experimentation. Cthulu himself is done with stop-motion animation (my favorite!) and some of the sets are pretty impressive, evoking the Cabinet of Dr. Caligari and the original King Kong.

It IS a shame that, even though this was made in 2005, if made today for the same amount of money it would probably be more convincing as an "authentic" old movie, simply because of the great strides that have occurred in digital camera technology. The movie often LOOKS like it was shot on digital, even with flicker and film grain added. If you shot this on the 7D, you wouldn't have as many of these problems, guys!

"The Naked Gun 2 1/2" We all watched this as a tribute to Leslie Nielsen when he died. It's not as good as the first Naked Gun, but it's still pretty damn funny. RIP Mr. Nielsen!

"Ponyo" All Miyazaki films are inventive, imaginative, and beautiful. That having been said, I feel like this was one of the weakest in his repertoire, with more akin to his early children-centric work such as "My Neighbor Totoro" than his later masterpieces such as "Princess Mononoke" or "Spirited Away." It's light and fun, but there's not a lot of focus. It's sort of unbridled imagination for imagination's sake.

But it IS Miyazaki, and the animation is stunning and worth seeing nonetheless. Seriously, how can you hate on a movie with this adorable theme song?

"Spaced" During a bout of sickness I finally got around to watching the delightful BBC show that gave Edgar Wright his start. It's very clear after seeing his other work how his style developed--lots of swish pans, being irreverently dramatic, even the basic slacker characters all started out here. Personally I thought that while his work became more technically polished later on, most of "Spaced" feels a lot more "true." Instead of the somewhat insufferable Canadian hipsters we got in Scott Pilgrim, here we have a bunch of British 20-something would-be artists obsessed with going to pubs, debating comic books and movies, and figuring out how to pay next month's rent. I feel like all people involved with the show have really LIVED this life, and it shows. Also the constant homages to Star Wars and other movies fit a lot better in TV show form than in a 2-hour feature. If you're a 20-something nerd (like me!) I think you'll really like it.

MOVIES FROM THIS YEAR

"Megamind" I wasn't a huge fan of this Dreamworks entry, but at least it's not as offensively bad as "Monsters vs. Aliens." I just generally dislike these pop-culture flicks over a more original idea. "Megamind" may on paper a more well-structured screenplay, but I'll take an unfocused "Ponyo" with more heart, soul, and innocence over these committee-made schlock-fests any day.

"My Soul To Take" One of the most incomprehensible movies I have ever seen. What did anything have to do with anything?!?! It's shocking that the guy who made the stellar "Scream" series I talked about above put this together. There are generally bad movies, and then there are movies where the basics of filmmaking get thrown so far out the window that it feels like a disjointed series of shots and scenes from several movies that have nothing to do with each other. Craven clearly knows how to put together a movie that at LEAST makes sense, so what happened?! One of the worst movies I've ever seen.

"Easy A" Whenever anyone wails about how Hollywood is falling into a sinkhole, I say "Make more movies like this!" Shot for only 8 million, it still features a stellar cast, sharp screenplay, and is tons of fun. The entire cast is brilliant, from the adorable Emma Stone in the lead to all of the adult characters who lighten up the sidelines (highlights are Stanley Tucci and Patricia Clarkson as her parents, and the always enjoyable Thomas Hayden Church as her eclectic teacher). The movie was a huge hit at the box office, grossing somewhere around $60 million total. That's what…over a 600% return on your investment? And why did people see it? Because it was a good story!!!

"Unstoppable" There are some movies that aim to deliver precisely on their premise, and no higher. Unstoppable is this kind of movie, and I loved it.

Tony Scott has flirted with more serious fare occasionally, but it's clear that it's not where his heart really lies. A standard action-packed thriller like this works much better for him, and is executed wonderfully. I had a blast.

"Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (part 1)" When I was in high school and I first started down my delusional path of "I'm going to be a filmmaker!" a fantasy project of mine was always to do one of the Harry Potter movies (book 4 was my favorite). However now that I'm older and I know how difficult in can be to adapt a film, I'm glad somebody else wound up doing the job (though you should have brought back Cuaron, WB!!!).

As a big fan of the books, it's always a delight to see what you imagined in your head translated to the screen, but (to her credit) J.K. Rowling's universe is so dense that far too much exposition needs to be crammed into each scene in order to explain what is going on. In previous films little bits of information were left out just to make THAT movie work, but now they're paying for it, and it becomes tiresome quickly.

Case in point--in a scene that is meant to have a sense of urgency, the entire film screeches to a halt to introduce the character of Mundungus, who will be important later. In the books Mundungus has been around since the order of the phoenix (I believe), but they've left him out of the movies thus far, so now we're forced an awkward introduction.

The same holds true for Bill and Fleur's wedding. We sort of know who Fleur is, but we've never heard of Bill, even though book-wise he gets his first mention in Sorcerer's Stone (technically the movie mentioned him too, but how am I supposed to remember some off-hand remark in a movie that came out nearly a decade ago…I was barely hitting puberty!). So why should I care about the wedding of a character of whom I know absolutely nothing? Even more ridiculous is the "climax" of this film (awkwardly split into two parts) involving (SPOILER!) the death of Dobby. Dobby and the rest of the house elves have a much larger part in the books, but in the movies I don't think we've seen him since the second film. So you're telling me our big climactic scene involves the tragic death of a secondary (tertiary?) character we haven't seen in eight years?

All in all the film is far more episodic than any other, feeling like a chapter-by-chapter retelling. That's kind of nice if you like the books, but it doesn't make for a very interesting MOVIE. More than any other of the Potter flicks, this one felt like if you hadn't read the source material you would be completely lost and confused.

On the other hand there are some pretty inventive moments. Breaking in to the Ministry of Magic, meeting with Xenophilius Lovegood, and the sequence where Ron destroys the horcrux were all great. And having the tale of the three brothers be told through animation was lovely. Even the ending where Voldemort steals the elder wand was exciting, if not smacking a bit of, "Oh, I guess the movie is done now."

Now I'm not saying this is a bad film, by any means. I certainly don't know how I would have done it better necessarily; but it just goes to show some things work better as books, some as movies (though I think Peter Jackson proved complicated fantasy epics CAN be realized to a pretty awesome degree).

Anyway "Deathly Hallows" looks and sounds great, but is very convoluted. However I AM convinced the next film will rock!

"127 Hours" Danny Boyle scores again! A movie about a guy trapped under a rock for its entirety seems a little difficult to make interesting, but I found this one of the most riveting of the year. Franco deserves an Oscar for his performance as Aron Ralston (though he may lose to Colin Firth…which I'm OK with).

I have to say, there are some filmmakers whose work I look at and think, "You know what, give me some more money and some more experience, and I could do something like that." Then there are guys like Danny Boyle…I have NO idea how his mind works or how he pieces a story together, but his pseudo-documentary style is riveting and fascinating.

I will say that "the scene" involving the arm is pretty intense, mainly because of the sound design used (what a smart way to show cutting through a nerve!). However as someone who wears contact lenses myself, the bit where he has to stick them in his mouth to keep them moist also had me squirming.

"The King's Speech" I smell Oscar bait! Does anyone else smell Oscar bait?

Regardless, it's pretty good Oscar bait, AND it tells a story about something I knew absolutely nothing about. The King in WWII had a stutter? Cool! (You could argue that the fact that I didn't know this proves how unimportant British royalty has been for the last century, but whatever).

Colin Firth is in top form as the titular king, and Geoffrey Rush is pleasant as his dialogue coach (I wish Rush could be my uncle or something).

It's a shame that this movie is rated "R" simply because of one scene where Rush asks Firth to curse just so that a steady stream of words can flow. It's a good scene, but other than this blue streak the movie could probably be rated "G." It's like one of my favorite (and underrated) Australian films "The Dish" with Sam Neill, which could also have been given a G rating until one character turned to the other and said, "You don't fuck up." Suddenly…BOOM. PG-13. And yet somehow this is less OK than showing people getting shot and murdered.

"Yogi Bear" This movie is awful. But why, you may ask, was it not on my Ten Worst list?

Because everyone THOUGHT it was going to be awful. Nobody expected anything else! It's harmless, and nobody cares. Avoid it, but know that it's not hurting anyone. Next review…

"Tron: Legacy" I may be a victim of Stockholm syndrome here, but I kind of liked the new Tron movie. I like to compare it to last year's "Avatar." The story is sort of a mess, but at least it's a newer more original world, and the movie looks frickin' AMAZING. Plus, Olivia Wilde's Joan of Arc haircut makes her hotter than ever.

I did have a problem with Jeff Bridges in this film, however. What I like about Bridges is that he always brings "The Dude" into any part he plays, livening up that character and giving it new life. But this is always done UNINTENTIONALLY. In the first "Iron Man" his character wasn't written to be "Dude-like," but Bridges added that extra layer that made it tons more fun ("Hey Tony, brought you some pizza man…"). And his characters in "Crazy Heart" and "True Grit" (more on that in a minute) also have his signature charm.

In "Tron" they're just trying too hard. Bridges is given lines like, "Sam, you're really messing with my zen thing, man" which are funny unto themselves, but as a whole make me think some exec thought it would be really cool to make as many in-joke references as possible. It just takes you out of the world. In fact "trying to hard" is probably where nearly ALL the problems in the film stem from. They're so obsessed with appealing to fans and being cool that they didn't stop to think if their movie actually made any sense (it doesn't).

I have yet to see this movie on the big screen, but I still think regardless of its problems it had a cool vibe, man. And Daft Punk's score was quite awesome.

"True Grit" This movie had one of the most rocking trailers I'd ever seen, so maybe my expectations were too high. I am a HUGE fan of the Coen brothers, and I always felt like their movies in many ways WERE westerns if not in the traditional sense. They're often stories of vast expanses, crimes, people hunting down others, and the wild setting as a character in its own right (Blood Simple, Raising Arizona, Fargo, O Brother Where Art Thou?, No Country For Old Men). So I was very excited to see what they would do with this one.

In general I thought it was 2/3 of a damn good movie that unfortunately didn't pay off in the third act. As expected from the Coens, the outdoor location shooting is gorgeous and really makes you feel as if you're living in the Old West, and the acting is top-notch all around. Jeff Bridges delivers a winning performance as expected, but the little girl could very well be up for an Oscar as the precocious Maddy. The biggest surprise was Matt Damon as the buffoonish Texas Ranger. The Coens have a way of coaxing goofy performances out of generally clean-cut stars (George Clooney in "O Brother" or "Burn After Reading"? BRAD PITT in "Burn After Reading"!), and Damon's heroic clumsy goofball was an unexpected load of fun.

However the final showdown with the bad guys is somewhat of a letdown. Aside from the villains not really being in the movie enough anyway, when Bridges rushes at them and guns them down it's all over far too quick. The bit involving the snake pit was neat (and scientifically accurate!), but as a whole the finale was anticlimactic. The Coens often have strange endings that leave things hanging ("No Country" or my favorite, "A Serious Man"), but generally there's a purpose behind it, and this time I just felt cheated.

Still, a darn good western no matter how you look at it, with some pretty tense sequences, especially in the middle.

I do have one question. What state was this movie supposed to take place in?

"Tangled" I think Disney might be the winner for being my favorite studio from this year. As I'm sure you're aware by now, 1/3 of the reason I wanted to make movies is because I grew up with Disney animation (another third is Star Wars, and the final third is LOTR). However at some point Disney got off the tracks a bit. They've slowly been getting back on for the last few years, and having Lasseter at the helm certainly helps. Last year's "Bolt," for example, wasn't perfect but certainly FELT Disney. And "Princess and the Frog" wasn't bad either.

However "Tangled" is great. While I will always be a lover of 2-D animation, this is the first (non-Pixar) film I've seen that doesn't just use 3-D animation because it has too, but bends the tools to the will of the animators to create breathtaking visuals. The scenery is stunning and the characters are vibrant and expressive…even though it's 3-D this movie has more in common with "Aladdin" and "Beauty and the Beast" than anything I've seen in a long time. If you can see it in 3-D I recommend it, as it really pays off (the floating lanterns scene is well worth the heftier ticket price alone).

While all of the main characters are tons of fun, special mention should be made of Maximus the vigilant and tenacious horse. One of the best Disney characters in a while, I wasn't entirely aware he was going to be such a big part of the movie when he was first revealed. Thank god somebody in a development meeting said, "You know, I think we have something with this horse here…" Whichever animators were part of his team deserve a medal! In a pretty darn good animated flick, he was unquestionably the best.

I should mention that while the songs aren't bad, they're not particularly memorable either (but at least they HAD songs!). I didn't leave the theater humming any of the tunes, which is often what you want from this sort of movie.

Still, good work Disney! Go see it! Take your kids!

OK, I'm done. I hope 2011 is a good year!

Summer Wrap-Up

2010-10-07T21:31:00.001-07:00

I need to do these things more often so that it can be more manageable. But oh well.

A lot has been going on since my last update. The day-to-day non-PA life has been easier, but it's still not where I feel I'm meant to be. But it's a nice foothold.

We've had some GREAT shoots on my personal projects, but it all still seems so far away. Got to keep pushing.

Our roommate Jason moved out to head off to Korea, and while we're sorry to see him go, I'm glad we were able to grab a new roommate that we actually know and trust. So everything's going fine there.

Honestly, this last month has been one of the hardest in recent times. In addition to some horrendous long hours at work my grandfather passed away, which made me reconsider what it is I'm doing with my life a little bit. My grandfather was a pretty awesome guy, and he truly left a legacy. I am certainly going to miss him. Unlike my grandmother, who we saw decline over a steady period of time, my grandfather went pretty quickly, and while it wasn't exactly a shock (he was 96) it wasn't something I was prepared for either. When you look at his life, you might think that after getting his master's and PhD he was "just" a high school biology teacher, but he influenced so many students (who would later become renowned biologists in their own right) that he really had a fulfilling life and affected a lot of people. We had SO many people show up for the memorial service...not just relatives (my father's family is not all that large), but many friends and colleagues in addition to just about everyone who lived at the retirement home, that it was clear this was a man who was loved by many. And these weren't just SB locals with nothing to do on a Sunday--people drove for hours, and some even flew in to pay their respects.

Perhaps more importantly, it's clear my grandfather was a man who followed his passions AND raised a healthy family of my father and two brothers. Right now my current job is a way to keep my head afloat, but there is so much else that I love that I'm not getting. It's a stepping stone, and it's an OK one, but in my heart I know I'm not in the right place. I look at the higher-ups I work with, and few of them are people I aspire to be like in any way when I'm there age. It's going to be time to move on to something else soon. I'm not even wild about the city of LA...the only reason I like living here is because I can be close to so many other creative friends of mine.

Yet at the same time there are SO many people out there...talented, smart, capable people...without any sort of work at all. I should be thankful (and I am). My grandfather struggled with jobs when he graduated school too because that was during the Great Depression. I'm surviving right now, but I'm not really living, and I don't want the life of someone who never created anything worthwhile; the life of someone who won't be remembered.

I went on that tirade longer than I intended, and it's similar to what I've complained about in previous blog posts, so I apologize. There have been good things going on in the last month, too. I've began some sort of relationship with a girl (be it just a close friendship or more I'm not sure yet), and it feels great just to have someone I can care about so much again. It's been over a year since I felt this strongly about someone, and it's nice and exciting. For a while I was feeling like I might be the kind of guy who will never find someone I could be content with because I'm too restless and scatterbrained, with so many million things happening at once that I may never settle down. However I've realized that whoever that person ultimately is, they CAN ground you, keep you centered, while the craziness whirls around you. There's something to be said for that person you can trust to always be there, open and willing to share with you and be your anchor. And it's nice when that person isn't your mom anymore!

So yes, lots on my mind. Hopefully my first out-of-school film will be wrapping up soon, and then its time for a new and exciting project!

On to the movies!!!

First, older ones I didn't see in theaters:

"The Fly" I'm trying to bone up on my classic horror. I've seen the Cronenberg version and I love it, but it's nice to see where it all came from. While a little dull in the middle, this movie is surprisingly creepy, and the (somewhat famous) ending still holds up pretty well.

"The Horror of Dracula" One of the more solid classic Dracula movies out there, although it again suffers from a sagging middle section (I guess they didn't feel the need to keep things briskly-paced back in the 1950s). Worth seeing as one of the few early vampire movies that's also in color, and also because Christopher Lee (as Dracula) and Peter Cushing aka Tarkin from Star Wars (as Van Helsing) fight each other, which is pretty cool.

"The Plague Dogs" I've always been disappointed in American animation because, for the most part, it has been pushed into the realm of "just for kids." Yes, studios like Pixar tell some pretty great stories that will give the grown-ups some food-for-thought too, but I've always felt the potential for animation is to allow no limits to the imagination, NOT just to find an easy way for the babysitter to do their job.
Luckily The Plague Dogs was not made in America. It was made in Britain by the same studio that animated Watership Down. Both films are based on novels by Richard Adams, and both films are NOT for kids...not by a long shot!!!
I liked The Plague Dogs (film, anyway) a lot more than Watership Down, probably because I am so attached to the rabbit book and haven't read the dog one, but this is not a movie for the faint of heart. The opening image is of a dog being drowned in a pool (yup!), who is then fished out by a net and revived. Turns out this is an animal testing lab, and the scientists have continuously been drowning this pup and reviving him to see how he reacts psychologically. Yeesh!
Anyway, two of the dogs escape the lab, but not before knocking over a cage full of rats infected with the bubonic plague. Though the dogs don't catch the plague (as far as I could tell), the scientists who run the lab think they may have, so the rest of the movie involves the dogs slowly dying of starvation in the Scottish highlands while the scientists hunt them down.
Oh yes, and one more scene that deserves mention...at one point one of the two dogs, who used to have an owner and still trusts people to a degree, is greeted by a recreational hunter in the forest. The dog nervously approaches, and for a brief moment we think he might make contact with this human and find happiness.
Nope! The dog accidentally steps on the hunter's gun, blasting him in the face! BLAM!!! No happy ending there!
A depressing movie, and a haunting forgotten one that you won't soon forget.

"The Lives of Others" Many considered it an upset when this movie beat out Pan's Labyrinth at the Oscars a few years ago, but after seeing both films, I have to agree that this movie deserved it. Pan's Labyrinth won for cinematography, art direction, and makeup, and deservedly so! But this is a better film.
What I like about a lot of foreign movies is they often have a coda after most American films would end...almost a "fourth act" to the traditional three-act structure. This movie is no exception, and when done correctly, these final sequences give a nice chance for the audience to breathe and live with the characters for a while after the dust has settled. It often doesn't work to have your movie continue on for much longer after the climax, but luckily a lot of international films somehow manage to pull it off quite nicely.
I don't want to really ruin this gem much more. I liked it a lot and you should go see it.

And now for the summer! Overall I was again disappointed, as a lot of Blockbusters didn't live up to their potential ("Iron Man 2" being the greatest offender) but there were a few surprises...

"Inception" It seems like such a long time ago that I saw this movie that I'm not sure what to say about it now. Suffice to say, I loved it. I think I'd rank it as Nolan's third best film (after The Dark Knight and Memento). For me The Dark Knight is Nolan's best thrill, Memento is his best character study, and Inception is his best "kick-in-the-chest" in that the ending took my breath away and I didn't have words to express myself as the end credits ran (and anyone who knows me is aware that is difficult to pull off!).
I love movies with ambiguous endings WHEN those endings add something to the story, and Inception does a great job of forcing you to twist your mind around what it is you've witnessed exactly, simply through the beauty of a final edit.
(SPOILERS) As I see it there are about three fairly solid interpretations of the film. One is that none of it is a dream, and it all actually happens as you think it does in reality. The other interpretation is that all (or most) of it is a dream, in that Cobb created the entire heist itself as a dream in order to formulate a way to get over the death of his wife and to be with his kids. Or (my favorite), everything leading up to the heist is real, until Cobb enters limbo, and he never comes back.
Or what if his wife was right (unlikely, but possible)? What if killing herself WOULD awaken herself from a dream, because that sequence still wasn't reality? Who's to say?
Honestly, it doesn't matter! Like Blade Runner, Inception is a movie where its virtue lies in its ambiguity. Were Nolan to ever definitively answer these questions, the strengths of the movie would be lost. Dreams CAN be someone's reality. That's the point!
Also, the hallway sequence was INSANELY cool. I wish studios would give talented directors oodles of money to make these kinds of movies more often!

"The Last Airbender" And on the flip-side of Inception we have THIS trash.
Shyamalan's been falling off the wagon for a while (I stopped watching his films after The Village), but this is undoubtedly one of the most overblown clusterfucks of a film I have ever seen.
What is disappointing is that it comes from pretty neat source material. I've only watched bits and pieces from the TV show, but from what I gather it's a very fun adventurous world, and I am convinced that had The Last Airbender been put in the right hands this could have been the next great franchise in the vein of Harry Potter and Star Wars.
The film LOOKS right anyway--production design, effects, and costumes all feel fairly accurate to what they should be. But the casting (race changes or not), acting, and convoluted plot is one of the worst in recent memory.
Between this and the Shyamalan-produced "Devil" that tanked, I hope we've seen the last of him for a while. He's clearly a man with some sort of talent, and his passion for movies is clearly evident, but BOY does he need some checks and balances!

"Knight and Day" This wasn't a great film by any means, but I saw it on The Fourth of July on what I consider to be one of the best days I've had this year, so it hits a wonderful spot in my heart.
This year for The Fourth I woke up early and saw an exhibit about mummies at the California Science Center with a bunch of close friends. Then we saw their awesome aquarium, rode an earthquake simulator, wandered around USC, rode the new ugly horse statue, saw this movie, played some Rock Band, got drunk, walked to see fireworks, and played some more Rock Band. AND it was the first day I got a call from the female I mentioned in the opening section, so it doesn't get much better than that (was it really JULY that that happened?...I need to step up my game!).
Anyway the movie is sort of dumb, but it's barely held afloat by Tom Cruise oozing pure charisma out of every pore. It also is one of the only movies that has giant holes in the screenplay blanketed over with such hilarious self-awareness.
Consider...
Tom Cruise and Cameron Diaz are captured by the bad guys. Diaz has been drugged. As she comes to, Tom Cruise is hanging upside down and tied up. Swinging back and forth he says, "Don't worry June, I got this." Diaz fades from the drugs.
CUT TO:
Tom Cruise, untied, fighting bad guys. Looks at Diaz (or her POV, since he looks at us). "Don't worry June, we're gonna be fine!" Fade out.
CUT TO:
Tom Cruise flying a freaking HELICOPTER as things explode outside the cockpit. "Don't worry, I got this!"
FADE TO:
Tom Cruise driving a speedboat on the open ocean, the wind throwing back his hair. "Almost there, June!"
...Well, that's ONE way to get your characters out of a nasty situation if you've written yourself into a corner.
Also, director James Mangold has one of the weirdest director's resumes I've ever seen. Kate & Leopold, Identity, Walk the Line, and 3:10 to Yuma? What a mish-mash!

"Predators" The best Predator movie since the first one (I HATE Predator 2)! Adrien Brody makes for an odd leading man, but it's fun to see a sci-fi monster flick that in many ways feels like it was made back in the '80s. Practical fight scenes, practical effects, and just some good old-fashioned sci-fi fun. And it's neat to finally get a little more info on how the predators interact with each other. The cast is decent, with my favorite performances coming from Alice Braga and (especially) Laurence Fishburne, who really lightens up the movie in what could have been a dry middle section (his entrance is the best part of the film).
However I think the part with the Yakuza samurai fight was stupid.

"Despicable Me" I was not excited about this movie at all from the previews, but when I finally got around to watching it I was surprised by how good it was, AND insanely cute. Similar in many ways to "Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs" which I also wasn't expecting to be all that great, but turned out be quite hilarious and fun.
While the screenplay is not only cute cute cute ("Adorable Me" would be a much more fitting title), much must also be said about the great distorted character and world design, and an awesome 60s-spy style score that kept this delightful movie bouncing briskly all the way through. I'm really glad this movie was a hit, since Universal needs one. Their track record hasn't been great.
Also, see it in 3-D if you can (we didn't, and there were a couple scenes where it was clear we missed out).

"Scott Pilgrim vs. the World" I was leery of this movie because, despite my nerdy tendencies, I'm not really a gamer (especially not of classic games), which seemed to be market they were trying to hit with this thing. Plus I also don't like movies with a lot of meta-jokes and flashy images if there's no substance behind them. And I hate hipsters.
However at the end of the day this movie was actually a lot of fun. Technically it's brilliant. The effects are inventive, and the sound designers were clearly having the time of their lives. A lot of the evil exes are enjoyable too, my favorite being Chris Evans (aka "Johnny Storm" and soon-to-be "Captain America") as the movie star ex-bf, who walks away with the best line of the movie: "That's my stunt-double. Sometimes I let him do wide shots when I feel like getting blazed back in my Winnie." Brandon Routh as The Vegan and Kieran Culkin are also a blast to watch. And newcomer Ellen Wong as Knives Chau is an extremely fun and adorable standout. If anything the two leads are a little bland, though they are both played by favorite actors of mine--Michael Cera and Mary Elizabeth-Winstead (a very nice girl I've had the pleasure of working with, by the way).
However while I was certainly enjoying myself, there is a point at the end of the movie where a question is raised: Will Scott choose to be with Knives Chau or Ramona Flowers? And I realized that, despite how entertained I was, I didn't care. I hadn't fallen in love with the characters, nor did I feel that Scott deserved or needed to be with one of the two girls. And at the end of the day, that's what your movie needs to be about, so in my book it failed. It was an incredibly entertaining failure, but an emotional failure nonetheless.
Personally I would have gone with Knives, but then I've always had a thing for cute Asian girls.

"Piranha 3D" Weirdly enough, I cared for the characters in Piranha 3D more than I cared for the characters in Scott Pilgrim. My roommate David put it the best--Piranha 3D is the best possible movie that could come from the title "Piranha 3D."
In other words, I loved it. It's gory, trashy, and awful, but some of the best tongue-and-cheek filmmaking I've seen in a long time, and it features one of the greatest money shots I've seen in a wide release film in ages. I don't want to spoil it, but it involves the death and severed body part of Jerry O'Connell in full coked-out bat-shit crazy mode. The movie also showcases the smoking-hot Kelly Brook in a terrifically tasteless nude 10-minute underwater ballet scene, and I refuse to give a bad review to a film that gives us THAT.

"Going the Distance" Sometimes I don't understand film reviewers. I saw Going the Distance, and while it wasn't earth-shattering, it was a nice well-acted film that treated long-distance relationships with a sense of realism. True-life pair Drew Barrymore and Justin Long really let their feelings loose and FEEL like they're a couple, something that sometimes goes awry in these movies, but when done right can feel authentic because it IS authentic. I liked it.
Yet Hollywood reviewers generally gave the flick bad scores. What the hell? In an era where the top-grossing romantic comedies are garbage like "The Ugly Truth," "Couples Retreat," and other movies that have about as much realism as the Transformers flicks, it's nice when a film reminds you "Oh yeah, this is kind of what a real relationship is like!" And as a bonus, Going the Distance features the hilarious Charlie Day from It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia, an actor I've grown to love over the course of this year (and lately people have been telling me I remind them of him a bit...something I suppose I'm OK with).
And at the same time, opening that particular weekend was also "Heartbreaker," a romantic comedy from France. I saw part of Heartbreaker and hated it, finding it every bit as silly and stupid as most of the generic drivel that tends to star Katherine Heigl and/or Jennifer Aniston here in The States. Yet critics when gaga for it, only because it's French! I think half the time reviewers assume that because a movie is from a foreign country it should get a free(er) pass. I agree that often you have to look outside the US to see anything with a hint of originality from time to time, but just because you have to read subtitles doesn't make a bland rom-com any more sophisticated. Get a grip, critics!

"Machete" There was a lot about Rodriguez's latest that I loved, and it starts out great. Unfortunately the film worked better as the trailer it was based on, and the energy tended to fizzle at about the halfway point. Still there are many fun moments, and Rodriguez's grind-house aesthetic is something I can always appreciate (you can clearly tell the guy loves the HELL out of making movies). Jeff Fahey (who recently stepped back into the limelight a bit as Lapidus on "Lost") is terrific fun as the bad guy, and I'm glad to see him getting some work. Michelle Rodriguez and Danny Trejo are also great, and though Cheech Marin is underused, he's a blast too. The rest of the cast is OK...
The biggest problem, I felt, was that the movie had too much going on in it. For a grindhouse flick it was a terribly complicated plot, and in the final showdown I never really felt like I knew who was supposed to be the ultimate bad guy, or even what everyone's motivations necessarily were. It was all just too messy, and not in a good shlocky sort of way. It seemed they crammed in every idea and B-movie star they had hoping some would stick (and indeed, some do), and didn't bother to cull the herd and figure out what worked and what didn't. A sharper quicker script would have been a lot better.
I still had a good time though, and I appreciate a movie that's willing to approach the issues of the tortilla curtain with such zeal in these days of Arizona bigotry.
My favorite line: "Machete sent me a text."

"The Town" This is a very by-the-book heist film, but it does that book very, very well. I was satisfied in just about every way by this movie. After the second action scene I remember thinking, "You know what? I could use ONE more awesome action scene in this flick before we're done." Sure enough, that's what I got. It's also fun to see a movie set in Boston now that I've actually BEEN to Boston, and for my money this movie does a far better job of representing the place than, say, Clint Eastwood's overrated Mystic River did.
The acting is quite good all around, and features some fun performances not only from its stars (Jeremy Renner and John Hamm are especially cool), but also from some of my all-time favorite character actors as well. It's nice when Chris Cooper shows up (even if he's underused), and I LOVE any movie that features Pete Postlethwaite--someday I'd like to see a movie that assembles the coolest character actors of all time (sort of like The Expendables for actor geeks), and Pete Postlehwaite would be at the top of my list.
I also think Ben Affleck may be a better director than actor. A lot of well-known actors will eventually make the move to direct a feature at some point, and usually these are nice little films that showcase some good dramatic work and are shot with competence, if not a lot of flair. But man...Affleck knows how to shoot an action scene! I was knocked out of my chair by the car chase in the middle of the film...one of the best in recent memory! Affleck's ability not only to develop a dramatic scene, but also hold and build tension is better than a lot of the A-list "directors" out there today helming multi-million hits (or misses...Shyamalan!).
Even so, heist films can be tricky because, at the end of the day, these are usually still bad people stealing from banks, and the filmmakers have to try really really hard to make you sympathize with them. "Dog Day Afternoon" did this by making Pacino a character who practically robbed the bank by accident and was in way over his head. "Inside Man" was particularly clever because (SPOILER!) the bank job turned out to not be a real robbery after all, and the guns the burglars used were fakes! In this movie yes, we sympathize with Affleck's character, but I still think he gets off too easy at the end. Really...after doing all this awful stuff you still get to hang out in a beautiful New Orleans home on the bayou? Please.

"Catfish" It's best to say as little as possible about this gem so as not to spoil it. I will say the trailers are a bit misleading, but it's a fascinating piece of work nonetheless.
Documentaries are an interesting breed of film that I appreciate, but they can be tricky--for the most part even the best documentaries fail to engage on a storytelling level like a fictional film can (one exception to this rule is my favorite doc of all time, The King of Kong). Instead they are meant to inform or challenge the viewer on a certain issue. It can often be interesting, heady stuff, but docs usually don't draw the emotional connection that a fictional film will (if done right) by taking you on a journey with a character.
Luckily Catfish avoids this trapping because it IS about the people making the doc, and the pursuit of a mystery. And it's fascinating to see the mystery unfold--you really feel for these characters as things start to unravel around them. Ultimately it's a very sad film, and I may have gotten misty-eyed in the final scenes.
If you like docs, AND you like to be emotionally engaged in a story, then you'll love Catfish for being that rare film that does both quite well.

"Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga'Hoole" Call me crazy, but I loved this movie. Yes, it's a bit silly to see a film about warrior owls, and the screenplay is a tad pedestrian, but it was still SO FREAKING COOL to watch.
I saw it in 3-D IMAX, and it is one of the most beautiful animated films I have seen in a long time. Soaring with owls above the trees and through clouds, rain, and fire was elating and breathtaking. It really felt like a roller-coaster ride in the true sense of the word. And what stunning detail! I feel for the technical animators and engineers who worked so hard to put these incredible images on screen.
When people ask me about this film, I think the perfect comparison to it is "Avatar." Both films were gorgeous (and featured a lot of cool flying shots, come to think of it). But both movies also featured a screenplay that was a little...obvious. At the end of the day I preferred "Ga'Hoole" far more; at least the concept of warrior owls hasn't been done to death the same way all the ideas in Avatar have (even if some of those ideas have only been in science fiction books, and not onscreen). And more importantly, LOTG doesn't try to shove white-man's guilt down your throat and hit you with heavy-handed symbolism and morality. It's an adventurous children's film about owls, and it has no pretensions about being anything other than that. How refreshing!
Unfortunately, Ga'Hoole was sort of a bust at the box office, which is too bad. In this age of pop-culture jokey schlock (usually coming from Dreamworks), it's nice to see a "serious" children's film for a change. It reminded me a lot of the Redwall books that I adored so much as a child, and I wish they'd make more movies like this.
I'm calling it now...Animal Logic (the studio responsible) should make an AWESOME Watership Down adaptation. And if that DOES happen, I need to find a way to work on it.
So yeah...the bottom line is I like owls and think they look cool beating the shit out of each other in armor as only Zach Snyder can do (even if his slo-mo gets a little tiresome).

"The Social Network" I wanted to like this movie a lot more than I ultimately did. Many of my friends are raving about it, and it's a good film, but it isn't the masterpiece people seem to think it is.
David Fincher, at least, is in top form. His innovation and direction is impeccable, and I think he is without question one of the best directors out there today. Most of the acting is also quite good.
The major problem for me is Aaron Sorkin's script. The rapid-fire dialogue is clever, witty, and sharp...which is why it's completely unrealistic. I like to think I'm a smart guy, and that I engage in intelligent conversations with other smart guys (and smart girls when I can find them in this city). But not once do I ever have a conversation that is as polished and acute as the ones displayed here.
Ah, "But it's a movie, Dan!" you say? Fair enough. Dialogue in movies is heightened from realism to a degree, I get it. But there's a difference between heightened realism and showing off. I may have been OK with this film if only Zuckerberg talked this way, but ALL the characters seem to talk in terms of acid-tongued quips. I just don't buy it, even if they are supposed to be a bunch of slick power-hungry Harvard kids. And if you've got so much stylish dialogue scintillating through your movie, you don't leave time for the movie itself! Screenwriter friends may disagree, but I'm a guy who watches movies for the sake of CINEMA, that is, cool shots, innovative edits, mis-en-scene...all that bullshit! You need a great script, don't get me wrong...but a great script includes great dialogue while leaving room for all that other stuff. I kept feeling like Fincher was trying to direct (and doing a great job) UNDER all the oppressive Sorkinism, and not WITH it.
Also, the movie doesn't have much of an ending to it. The final scene is nice, and really gets at the heart of what Facebook is all about, but there unfortunately is no conclusion beforehand to wrap everything up. Halfway through the final scene I found myself thinking, "Well, I guess we're done." But emotionally I wasn't ready for it because it never happened.
Anyway, good film...I still liked it. But I want Fincher to knock me off my socks as he's done in the past, and just this didn't do it for me. I put it below Fight Club, Zodiac, and Se7en (love typing that last one), but above Ben Button and Alien3 (barely forgivable). Haven't seen Panic Room...not sure I need to.

Anyway, interesting summer. Piranha 3-D turned out to be one of my favorites, and I still can't decide if that's really pathetic or really awesome.

Half Year(!?) Update

2010-06-28T12:30:00.000-07:00

I've been a bit lax about updating on here, so here's a quick run-down...

I got promoted! Sweet! No more slave wages! Now I can actually feed myself reasonably until I take the terrifying dive into making a feature film.

That's...basically it...I'm doing pretty well otherwise, staying healthy, and trying to keep personal projects alive. Trying to live thrifty and funnel all my new-found cash into fun filmmaking toys.

And yes...I've seen some movies. A lot of 'em. So many in fact, that I'm going to divide them by old ones (pre-year 2000), less old ones (this past decade), and new releases. Here we go...

Movies Pre-2000
"The Lawnmower Man" Jason made me watch this movie, and I frankly thought it was pretty terrible. The only cool part is that the bad guy is played by Frank Lapidus from Lost.

"The Warriors" I highly recommend this flick. It's got a groove and feel all it's own, and many classic lines that I didn't realize originated with this film. In a weird semi-futuristic (or alternate?) New York, a young street gang is unfairly blamed for the death of a leader. As they try to make their way back from Central Park to Coney Island, they are menaced by numerous other street gangs, each of which has its own neat look and feel (The Baseball Furies, which look like the band Kiss in baseball jerseys, are the coolest). It's a bit violent, but tons of fun. Come out and plaaaayyyy!!!

"Cocoon" Some movies just don't age well. I love science fiction, but I was disappointed in this "classic," especially since Ron Howard generally tends to be a pretty solid filmmaker. The movie rides on benevolent-alien E.T. vibes that were present at the time, but comes off as super-hokey and cheesy. Lame.

"Them!" It's funny..."Cocoon" is from the '80s, and has aged terribly. "Them!" is from the '50s, and is still totally awesome! It may be B-movie schlock, but rarely has schlock been this much fun or executed this well. In the movie, giant killer ants invade New Mexico. While the effects of the ants aren't entirely convincing anymore, it's a testament to the filmmaking that movie is still tons of fun to watch (then again, I am a sucker for giant bug movies). I don't want to sound like a Hollywood hack, but I would love to see or get involved in a respectful remake of "Them!"

"Chopping Mall" I caught this at the New Beverly during their Jim Wynorski tribute night. If you didn't know, Jim Wynorski is the genius behind "Deathstalker II," the most intentionally hilarious B-movie of all time. "Chopping Mall" is no "Deathstalker II" but it does feature the awesome Jon Terlesky (who plays Deathstalker) in a bit role, though he gets killed far too early into the film. Good B-grade (maybe C-grade) fun, though I wouldn't put it on any of my must-see lists by a long shot.

"Grosse Point Blank" A great flick that I'm surprised it had taken me this long to see. The always lovable John Cusack plays a hit man who has to deal with all the insecurities of going back to his high school reunion. The writing is spot on, the acting is great all across the board from the supporting characters as well as the leads, and even the action scenes are pretty sharp. Best of all, John Cusack was in high school during the '80s, so there is great wall-to-wall music blanketing the soundtrack (a highlight is when Cusack gets in a brutal fight near his old locker to the cue of "Mirror in the Bathroom"). It does take a little while before the film picks up, and I thought that the final fight was a tad anti-climactic, but this is an incredibly smart, fun, well-acted film that I would recommend to just about anyone. As with many of the best movies, it effortlessly combines several genres (action, comedy, romance) to make for a wholly entertaining flick.
The only weird thing was that, while watching this movie, I couldn't help but get that creeping feeling that I will be going to my own ten-year high school reunion in only four years. Yikes! Also, it's probably one of the only movies in which John Cusack does not have a dramatic scene in the rain.

"Fright Night" I was a bit disappointed in what some consider a "classic" 80s horror flick. The premise is interesting enough--a teenage boy discovers his new next-door neighbor is a vampire, so he enlists the help of his favorite TV-show vampire-killer to aid him. In execution the film drags and is pretty cheesy until the final act. However, the finale IS pretty neat, with some fun and inventive practical effects that really liven things up. Plus I always like when horror can be used as a metaphor, and while for the most part this movie is pretty surface-level, a sequence involving a girl who is a virgin and the vampire seducer has some intriguing undertones...let's just say "there's always blood the first time!"
If you enjoy fun horror you may like this one...but be patient as you suffer through the first 2/3 or so.

Movies Post-2000
"Food, Inc." A well-put together doc that will make you never want to eat anything ever again. I honestly knew a lot of this stuff already due to my interest in environmental sustainability, but even so the doc packages the material nicely in an understandable way.

"Up In the Air" I enjoyed this film, but I thought it had the same problems I find in nearly all of Jason Reitman's work. He always takes us to an interesting, often vulnerable place with his lead protagonist, but then leaves us hanging with little resolution. I felt this way about both "Thank You For Smoking" and, to a far lesser extent "Juno" (though the latter film had plenty of other problems).
Performances are strong, and a movie about people getting fired is certainly going to resonate with a wide audience in this day and age. And at the end, I get that George Clooney realized he had led a meaningless life. But so what? What does he do now? Where does he go?
An OK film, but I've yet to be wowed by Jason Reitman as much as everyone else seems to be.

"A Matter of Loaf and Death" Nick Park's work is one of the main reasons I have become fascinated with stop-motion animation (which, you could argue, ultimately got me to wind up in film school). The characters of Wallace and Gromit are certainly his most endearing, although I feel they work better in short form then as feature-film characters; "The Curse of the Were-Rabbit" was fun, but it lacked the sharp quick wit of both "The Wrong Trousers" and "A Close Shave." Even the earliest effort "A Grand Day Out" still had more pluck and originality, despite its unrefined and more primitive animation.
Because of this, I hoped the recent Oscar-nominated short "A Matter of Loaf and Death" would be another great one to add to the list. I was honestly a little let-down. The animation was top-notch as suspected, but the storytelling was far too lazy. What's great about both "A Close Shave" and "The Wrong Trousers" is that they are both mystery stories; and the reveal is always funny, surprising, and a cute twist on the old formula. In "The Wrong Trousers" the "chicken" diamond thief turns out to be their silent penguin border, who uses a glove on his head as a disguise. In "A Close Shave" the sheep rustler is Wallace's unwitting love interest, who is being manipulated by her evil dog, who turns out to be a robot! In both these stories there is more to the villain than meets the eye, and the reveal not only moves the plot along, but makes you laugh as well.
But in a "Matter of Loaf and Death" the villain is forgettable and predictable; we are pretty much aware of who the baddie is from the outset, and the "humor" lies in Gromit trying to make Wallace aware of it before it's too late. This result is by-the-book slapstick, and the finale showdown, while technically impressive (and admittedly full of a couple really good gags), is chock full of pop-culture film references--so much for originality.
By all means, if you like claymation as I do, you should check the film out. But it's not as good as some of Aardman Animation's past efforts.

"Special" Lately Hollywood has been getting a bad rap for making mostly shit movies (and I agree!), but people then assume the only "good" films out there are indies. While I agree that there have been some great low-budget films coming out lately, sometimes you watch a movie and realize that Hollywood actually knows what they are doing better than the amateurs (you also realize this the more you volunteer to help your "friends" out when they find out you have some handy equipment at your disposal).
"Special" has some fun moments, but it would have made for a much better skit (or even series of skits...web series?!?!) than a feature film. In the movie the lead character takes an experimental drug that convinces him he has superpowers. For a while the movie flirts with the idea that it may or may not all be in his head, but pretty quickly abandons this in favor of what is ultimately the same joke over and over again (though one very funny scene involving "mind reading" with his doctor had me in stitches).
I appreciate all independent filmmakers out there for doing their thing (it's not like I've made a film yet!), but I found this to be feel like a lame low-budget "Kick-Ass" (which in turn felt like a low-budget "Watchmen"). I'm tired of superheroes, and most of this material has been treaded before, and better.

"Crazy Heart" This film won the Oscar for both Best Song and Best Actor. Having seen it now, it 100% deserved the awards it got. The music is truly beautiful, and Bridges definitely gives a performance I would consider Oscar-worthy. Is it any more Oscar-worthy than some of his other roles for which he didn't win? That's another argument entirely, because Bridges is almost always good.
As a whole I liked the film, but it certainly had some problems. I could never fathom why Maggie Gyllenhaal would fall for Jeff Bridges, and it definitely ambles along similar territory as practically every other movie about aging musicians (so kudos to Bridges for making it work). I did appreciate that, in this case, the movie was about a fictional character (as opposed to the mediocre "Ray" or the excellent "Walk the Line"), and yet they still made him feel well-developed. I also thought Colin Ferrell was a welcome surprise, and I enjoyed that his character turned out to be a pretty nice guy who was there to help Jeff Bridges.
If you like Jeff Bridges and country folk-rock, I think you will really enjoy "Crazy Heart."

"Bigger, Stronger, Faster" Interesting doc about steroid use, and drug use in general. The main point is not so much that steroids are bad or good, but that regulation of drugs in general is completely out-of-whack and unbalanced. Worth a view.

"Open Water" You have to admire low-budget movies if they work on SOME level. This flick was made for an insanely cheap amount of money on shitty little DV cameras, but it still manages to get under your skin and freak you out here and there. As a full movie I don't think it works, but it's a neat exercise in shoestring filmmaking.

Movies From This Year
"The Crazies" Decent filmmaking elevates this by-the-book zombie-type flick to something I would actually recommend to horror fans. One scene in particular involving a car wash (and its aftermath) is worth seeing.

"Alice In Wonderland" Ugh. If you want a perfect example of everything wrong with what's being made in Hollywood these days, see this movie. Somebody assumed Tim Burton + Johnny Depp + tons of money had worked many times before, so they tried it again! The result is a beautiful-looking film without an ounce of soul in its body.
Reworking a classic is tough, and I am quite fond of Lewis Carroll's stories in Wonderland and the Looking-Glass. However I was totally OK with the approach to make Alice a teenager and make this a sequel of sorts to the stories Carroll came up with, especially since they did their best to stay true to the Victorian era and not "spruce it up" with anything "cool" or "hip."
However even in Burton's best work, he has always been a man of style over substance (he's even admitted so himself). And thus while the "darker" (or whatever) Wonderland certainly looks really cool (especially the nifty Cheshire Cat), just about everything else about the movie fell flat. In fact, the screenplay is SO dull that at one point they literally PULL OUT the screenplay and lay it out to the protagonist to prove to her she has to fight the Jabberwocky. "You have to fight the Jabberwocky because this piece of paper says you will do so by the end of the movie!" Ugh...so much for realistic character motivations.
Oddly enough, the acting is actually pretty solid across the board (especially from Alice and Helena Bonham Carter as the Red Queen), but it's the complete dullness and lack of originality that bogs the entire film down. It's probably Burton's worst film since he remade "Planet of the Apes," and that's saying something considering how lackluster many of his other films have been of late.

"Our Family Wedding" Shitty, unfunny movie with horrible actors and a terrible premise (aside from maybe America Ferrera). How do these films keep getting get made in the first place?

"Waking Sleeping Beauty" It's delightful that documentary film has come to the forefront in the last decade. However I find it funny that, though there are many-a-doc out there now about serious, necessary issues we should all be aware of, docs I like the most tend to be the ones about things that are far less important. My favorite doc of all time is probably "The King of Kong," which is overall a very silly premise about two dudes playing video games against each other.
And so it is with "Waking Sleeping Beauty," a terrific doc if you're a Disney fan. The film chronicles the Disney renaissance that occurred in the early 90s, back when I was growing up and watching all these movies. As a fan of Disney animation the movie definitely got my heart pumping. Whether it will do that for you depends on how much of a Disney-o-phile you are.
My one complaint is that while the movie does offer an interesting look at some of the behind-the-scenes in-fighting that was going on, it is still generally presented in a sugar-coated light since the film was made by Disney producer Don Hahn, who produced such classics as "The Lion King" and "Beauty and the Beast" (I met the guy at the screening, but had I KNOWN this I would have freaked out a little more and tried to make a more solid connection...oh well).
Anyway, if you like Disney, I recommend it.

"How To Train Your Dragon" It's no secret that Dreamworks Animation often comes across as the little bastard child of Pixar, even though some of there movies are often pretty decent (they at least tend to be a cut above Blue Sky). Kung Fu Panda was great, Antz had a lot more to say than A Bug's Life (even if the animation wasn't as engaging), and the first couple of Shrek's at least did the pop culture thing as well as it could be done.
However amongst all those are the SharkTales, Bee Movies, and Monsters vs. Aliens atrocities that exemplify the exact OPPOSITE of what I like about what is possible with animation. So where would How To Train Your Dragon fit in?
Luckily, I loved this film, and I think it's a big step forward for Dreamworks (we'll see if they keep it up). No pop culture references, no cheap poop/fart jokes, just a fun story with a dangerous (even dark) tone, that ultimately is about overcoming differences and living peacefully with each other, something I think we could use quite a lot more of in today's world!
And what dragons! Each species is given its own very interesting and unique look that really helps bring the world alive. The lead dragon in particular, Toothless, movies and acts like the cutest, deadliest kitten you ever saw.
Of course, it's not perfect. I still can't fathom Dreamworks' choices in their voice casting. Jay Buruchel is not a very charismatic guy anyway, and he has one of the most grating, simpering voices of anyone I've ever heard--WHY would you ever cast him as your protagonist? And aside from Gerard Butler and Craig Furguson who get a chance to use their natural awesome accents, the rest of the cast is lackluster also.
Check it out! I hope Dreamworks recognizes how well this film did and tries to move more in the realm of "real" storytelling in the future.

"Shrek Forever After"
...or not.
Not a terrible movie, but bland, boring, and a rehash of everything we've seen before. Why do you keep disappointing me Dreamworks? Nobody cares about Shrek anymore!

"A Nightmare on Elm Street" Michael Bay's production company has lately decided it's not happy with making shitty horror movies like every other production company out there--it will NOW churn out shitty horror movie remakes of the few GOOD horror movie classics already out there.
Platinum Dunes' awful remake repeats everything from the original Nightmare on Elm Street without any of the fun. The movie takes itself far too seriously considering how stupid it is. Freddie was special because he was gleeful about killing in the Nightmare flicks--the movies definitely got stupider as they went on, but even in the first film there was something to love about the guy with the scarred face and prune-shearer hands.
Not so here. Jackie Earle Haley, admittedly a pretty creepy dude, does the best he can with what he's given, but he is nowhere near as iconic as Robert Englund, and making the pedophilic subtext more obvious only makes the movie more oppressive and uncomfortable.
I hope Platinum Dunes stops making this garbage, but they probably won't.

"Harry Brown" The plot of this film concerns a bunch of young British hooligans terrorizing a local neighborhood, until Michael Caine takes matters into his own hands. Sounds awesome, right?
I actually enjoyed the first half-hour or so of this movie because all it involved was Michael Caine acting and talking about being old. Unfortunately when he takes a stand and the movie SHOULD start being fun, it instead becomes oppressive, ugly, and un-fun to watch. I was hoping they would tap into the old bad-ass Michael Caine days when he was young and suave (i.e. the original "Get Carter"), but except for the rare instance ("You failed to maintain your weapon, sah!") this is a very uncomfortable and unjoyable film, and far beneath the great Sir Michael Caine. Skip it.

"Kick-Ass" Oh man, where to begin? I LOVED this movie! A totally average and ordinary high school kid wonders, "What would happen if I tried to be a superhero?" The result is a film that starts out as an interesting deconstruction and parody of the superhero genre, but as it goes on it becomes so badass, action-packed, and fun that I was enjoying it just as much as any other summer superhero flick.
The cast is strong all around, but it goes without saying that Chloe Moretz is the star as "Hit-Girl," a foul-mouthed ten-year old who REALLY knows how to kick ass, unlike our wimpy titular hero. Nicholas Cage also stands out as her father "Big Daddy," and if anything the movie could have used more of him (although it's always better to leave you wanting more I guess).
If you're easily offended, don't like ultraviolence, and are put off by little girls spouting dirty language, you should skip "Kick-Ass" (I'm talking to you, Mom and Dad). But if all that sounds awesome, and you like to rock out as your heroes beat the living snot out of each other, go see "Kick-Ass."

"Iron Man 2" To talk about Iron Man 2, I'm going to start by talking about Kick-Ass again. "Kick-Ass" treaded a fine and difficult line, in that it definitely had some points to make about the influence of superheroes in today's world, but at the same time it was able to never get preachy and pretentious (a failing of the "Watchmen" movie). However, I believe that "Kick-Ass," "Watchmen," and even "Special" are all clear indicators that superheroes are beginning to run their course--I'm tired of them, and now it's come to the point where even making FUN of the genre isn't original.
Basically, I'm getting pretty sick of all these superhero movies and they're all starting to blur together. For any of these movies to work at all, you need a movie that can stand on its own two feet WITHOUT the superhero involved. Let's try a few examples...
"Batman Begins" A man seeks to avenge his parents by taking his greatest fears and turning them against the criminals of the world.
"Spider-Man 2" A young man is torn between his duties to the world and his desire to live an ordinary life and be with the girl he loves.
"Iron Man (1)" An egocentric billionaire realizes the work he does is causing harm to the world, so he aims to put a stop to it by using his technology for good and care about others.
I didn't think the first Iron Man was perfect. It dragged in places, and the finale was sub-par compared to some of the earlier scenes. But I appreciated that it told the story of a selfish man who learned to care for others. Unfortunately I found Iron Man 2 to be a big letdown. In the movie Tony Stark starts out as Tony Stark, and ends as Tony Stark. He doesn't learn anything, nor does he change...all he does is stop the bad guys and save the day. He may have an arc reactor, but where's his character arc (ha!)?
What's most frustrating is that I actually think there was opportunity for an interesting story in Iron Man 2. In the first movie Tony Stark may have learned to care, but he's still and egomaniac bastard, as evidenced by the fact that he's the only superhero who freely puts himself in the public's eye ("I am Iron Man!"). In the second movie, we learn that Tony Stark is dieing, and for a while I thought the movie was going to develop into the story of a man who believes he must go it alone, but then realizes he needs to put trust in others in order to make it. The first movie is about a guy taking control of his power for good--this could have been a movie about relinquishing one's power to others. The movie flirts with this idea...Rhodey (unnecessarily recast) gets the War Machine suit. Pepper Pots becomes the new CEO. And Tony deals with daddy issues. Great.
But then halfway through all this potentially interesting character stuff, Tony's dad tells him that he hid the key to his salvation inside a GIANT MAP in his office, and all Tony has to do is build a homemade PARTICLE ACCELERATOR in his room in order to create a NEW ELEMENT that will conveniently SAVE HIS LIFE. Hmmm...I know comic books can be silly, but this is just too ridiculous.
From there, it's off to the races. A few explosions, and we're done. And oddly enough, am I the only one who actually thought the fights were too few and far between anyway? We get one short one with Whiplash on the racetrack, and then one big one at the end. But there should have been something in the middle to keep me satisfied.
The biggest issue here is that the filmmakers just didn't worry about any sort of character study. These movies aren't Shakespeare, but people should change and develop, especially when you have one as interesting and dynamic as Tony Stark, played by just as interesting and dynamic an actor as RDJ. However I think another problem is something I fear will become more and more apparent in superhero movies as they continue to be made...why do we need to shoehorn in all our other movies into THIS movie, so that they all just become commercials for one another? Throwing in Captain America and Thor references may be fun for the uber-nerd, but it's not fun for the filmgoer who just wants to pay to see the good movie that THEY'RE ACTUALLY WATCHING. And the entire Nick Fury S.H.E.I.L.D. plotline (and Black Widow) could have been removed completely and the movie would have worked (and you could replace it with more action and character goodness!). The only reason the S.H.E.I.L.D. plot existed was to tease at Marvel's other movies and their ultimate plan for "The Avengers."
So is that all movies are now? Advertisements for other movies? Perhaps, but that's pretty sad. I'm all for a tip-of-the-hat to the sharp-eyed geek, but please, let's stop shoving our entire plot-line to the sidelines just to sell a few more toys that most people probably don't even care about.
The one saving grace is Sam Rockwell, who steals every scene he's in. I love the guy. "If [this gun] were any smarter it would write a book that would make 'Ulysses' look like it was written in crayon." Awesome.

"Exit Through the Gift Shop" Cool doc about street art! It's neat that, living in LA now, I see a lot of this stuff around, and after seeing this doc I appreciate it a bit more. I wonder how much of an in-joke this movie is amongst the art crowd, but it's a marvelously entertaining and interesting documentary nonetheless.

"Robin Hood" Has Ridley Scott lost his touch? This overlong, meandering film takes the problems of "Kingdom of Heaven" and compounds upon them, making a weird Robin Hood prequel that goes nowhere. Watch it if you want to find something to fall asleep too. Yuck! I hope Ridley doesn't make these same mistakes if he ever goes back to the Alien saga or develops The Forever War.

"Letters to Juliet" Every year there are movies that come out where I wonder, "Who green-lit this trash, again?" (last year's winner was "Imagine That"). "Letters to Juliet" may at least appeal to a handful of sappy female audience members out there, so I can see why someone signed the line, but WHAT a bland film! If you can't call every beat of the entire movie from within the first five minutes, then you must have been raised strictly on avant-garde shit, because MAN is it predictable. And why is Amanda Seyfried suddenly considered a star? As far as I know she's never had a breakthrough role in any sort of mega-hit, and she's not particularly interesting in any way aside from a relatively decent pair of cans, but suddenly she's being groomed as the next big Hollywood starlet. What's the point? Her agent must be really fucking good. Boooooring.

"MacGruber" This movie tanked at the box office, which is disappointing because I actually thought it was kind of fun. The SNL MacGruber sketches aren't anything that would obviously scream "Oh man, let's make a movie out of this" since they're only each about thirty seconds long, but the 80s action hero is ripe for parody, and they do a fun job.
If anything, it's actually a testament to the writing that the movie is as much fun as it is...none of the actors are exactly mind-blowing, even if they are watchable, save Val Kilmer clearly having a ball as baddie Deiter von Cunthe (it's a shame that Kristen Wiig is sorely underused). But a lot of the jokes do a pretty clever job lampooning their 80s action counterparts, even when they are still pretty dumb. It's certainly more versatile and interesting than the by-the-book "Walk Hard" that somehow was considered really funny by critics, even though it only went far enough to spoof "Walk the Line" which was actually a really good movie that didn't exactly NEED a spoof.
If you like 80s action, but have grown up a bit to recognize how stupid a lot of it is, "MacGruber" should give you a fairly solid kick.

"Splice" In this movie two geneticists incorporate human DNA into the organism they are creating, addressing some ethical questions about human cloning and the like while also putting a neat modern spin on the traditional mad scientist monster movie genre. This movie might not be for everyone, but I enjoyed it for combining a lot of stuff I like--thoughtful horror, science, and Sarah Polley. The constantly transforming creature(s) are really interesting, and the themes of motherhood and mixing science with human emotions allows the movie to go to some interesting places. Is it perfect? No. I especially was not satisfied with the ending. But it did sustain interest both viscerally and intellectually, which few films do these days.

"The A-Team" Some films are woefully pointless and stupid, and some films are blissfully pointless and stupid. Luckily "The A-Team" is the latter. Sometimes all you need is a great cast (aside from the horrendous Jessica Biel) and some fun set pieces, and the movie will "work" in the most basic sense of the word.
To be fair, I'd never watched the original A-Team show, but from what I gather the new movie captures the same spirit, for better or for worse. Liam Neeson is perfect as the hard-edged leader, and Bradley Cooper is somehow insanely likable as the pretty boy, despite the fact that all he does is sleep with beautiful women and make me jealous. "Rampage" Jackson is probably the weakest link of the bunch, but he still gets by just fine. And the REAL hero is none other than Sharlto Copley from "District 9" as the bumbling southern Howling Matt Murdock! Copley steals many of the scenes he's in, and my favorite bit involves when he goes "undercover" as a South African journalist. Genius!
The movie's meandering plot is wildly out-of-control, and unfortunately the final action set piece is far less exciting than some of the ones that came before it, but it doesn't really matter.
Basically, here's my judgment on whether or not you'll like the A-Team (SPOILERS though, I guess): In the movie our heroes fly a TANK by shooting its cannon and aiming it in different directions. If you think that's retardedly idiotic, you'll hate the movie. If you think that's retardedly AWESOME, you'll love it!

"Toy Story 3" How can I even write a review of this thing? Pixar time and time again has never ceased to amaze me. I knew this film would be good, but MAN did they knock it out of the park yet again.
When I was nine years old I saw the first "Toy Story" in theaters. To this day it still remains the movie I have seen in theaters more than any other (four times). What is incredible about the first "Toy Story" is that it didn't necessarily have to be THAT good. The new CG animation that it pioneered would have easily been enough to get people to flock to the theaters to see what all the fuss was about, and as long as the movie was watchable Pixar could have got by.
Instead "Toy Story" was an incredibly fascinating world filled with memorable characters, and people left the theater enthralled and talking about "that crazy next door neighbor kid" "the pizza planet aliens" or "the moving van chase." The movie could have been animated in any format and been great, and the fact that it was a new style of animation was just icing on the cake.
And when "Toy Story 2" came out it was still a big risk...sequels can be tough, and at the time Pixar was still young and fallible. And yet it did what every awesome sequel should do...take the magic of the first and expand upon it (see my fav movie of all-time, "The Empire Strikes Back"). If the first "Toy Story" introduced us to the characters and the theme of not being the favorite anymore, the second movie went as far enough as to question the meaning of LIFE itself. Woody is given the option of immortality in a children's museum in Tokyo, or a shorter (but more meaningful!) life as Andy's toy. Of course Woody chooses to be loved by his owner. What's great about "Toy Story 3" is that it says, "OK Woody...you've made your choice...now here are the consequences."
In many cases "Toy Story 3" is a return to form for Pixar, after the somewhat experimental "Up," "Wall-E," and even "Ratatouille." But that does NOT mean it is simplistic...far from it. Andy is prepping for college, and he is faced with the difficult decision we all must go through...what objects from our childhood go, and which stay? From a toy's perspective this is even more terrifying than it is for the young adult. I don't want to go into too much plot details here, but let's just say "Toy Story 3" does a brilliant job of dealing with feelings of uselessness and not being wanted. When most of the toys wind up at Sunnyside Day Care, they find it is not the happy carefree place it would seem. Another strength of the movie are the complicated characters...the toy who ultimately turns out to be the villain at first seems charming and friendly, and it's a surprise when he reveals his true nature. And he makes a great foil for Woody and the gang; when he was thrown out by his owner his stuffing went sour, while the other toys rely on hope and togetherness to get them through to the end.
And to the end they go! "Toy Story 3" is without a doubt the darkest of the three films, and I was shocked how close to the brink the filmmakers took these toys. They literally go through hell (or it's metaphorical equivalent) and back to get to Andy, and a pivotal scene where they accept their fate and come to terms with their mortality is one of the most powerful and intense scenes I've seen in a movie in a long time. It might even be TOO intense for the youngest ones, even though this film has a G rating.
But it's in the resolving coda, after the intense finale that Toy Story 3 really rises high. Woody recognizes what is best is not so much BEING there for his owner, as finding a way to stick together with his friends and move on from those he cares about. The last sequence of this film had me in tears, not only because it is a powerful scene in its own right, but because I myself have recently gone through the same experience Andy has. And in a weird way, I've also grown up with Woody, Buzz, and the crew through watching these movies as well. I was a young kid when I saw the first Toy Story, and now it's time for me to move on and say good-bye to these characters too.
Will Pixar make another Toy Story? I'm never going to say never, but I don't see how they could. "Toy Story 3" answers every hanging thread left, as the movie lets the toys not only come to emotionally satisfying terms with their own potential death, but also be allowed to bow out to their owner in the same beautiful way they bow out to their audience. I felt the same way about 'Toy Story 3" that I felt about "Return of the King." Is it the best movie of the bunch? Perhaps, but it's hard to say. Yet what it DOES do is elevate ALL the Toy Story films to a higher emotional level, and you recognize the maturity and importance of each of them. The Toy Story saga is ultimately greater than the sum of its pats, and I believe it deserves to stand as one of the greatest trilogies of all time. The story is done, and I am forever thankful Pixar let these toys guide me through my childhood.

"Lost" I don't normally review TV shows on here, but LOST is one of my favorite shows and it deserves an exception. I'll try to be quick...
Was every mystery answered? No. But I had relinquished myself to that fact a couple of seasons ago. And it is nice that the show opened and closed with Jack's eye. Even more so than Battlestar Galactica, this is ultimately a story about the characters (Jack in particular), and on that account they succeeded. Having every character meet their Constant and wake up in the alternate reality was a wonderful way to remind viewers how rich a show this has been over the years, and a graceful way to let some of the guys who died seasons ago get a final bowing out. It accomplished everything a clip show aims to do, WITHOUT being a crummy clip show! And I'll admit, I got a bit misty-eyed when Charlie and Claire reconnected.
So overall I loved this show through and through to the end, and found it emotional satisfying even if there were still a few burning questions lingering out there. But then again, The Island has always been a mystical place, and if they explained EVERYTHING the show would have lost much of its magic.
I can't wait to start my kids out on Season One someday!

A New Decade Means...

2010-02-17T19:19:00.000-08:00

...It's time to make things happen!

Time to stop wasting my talent (yes, I have talent, thank you very much). It's time to take risks, do what I love, hone my skills, and make the world a better place. It's time to enjoy life, and be creative!

In other words, a year from now I plan on being in a very different place than the year before; a better place, literally and figuratively.

Reviews...

I finally got a chance to catch some of the better movies from last year:

"Fantastic Mr. Fox" I've never been huge on Wes Anderson, but it turns out his quirky, almost OCD-brand of symmetrical production design and eccentric disconnected characters work perfectly in conjunction with stop-motion animation. I wasn't sold on the animation style after seeing the first dreadful kid-oriented trailer, but Anderson's attention to detail and doing everything practically (as opposed to using CGI as a facilitator) gives the film an old craftsman-like feel (despite stories that he drove the animators nuts during production). Things like cotton-ball explosions and saran wrap waterfalls remind me of my favorite creative animation classes from film school...fantastic indeed!!! Another notch in the belt for 2009's awesome year of animation.

"Inglourious Basterds" Like Wes Anderson, I've always found Tarantino's films interesting but never LOVED them. However this is certainly one of his better flicks. Setting a film in World War II forces Tarantino not to get too distracted with meta-references (part of what makes the "Kill Bill" movies so insufferable), and the result is a lot of fun.

Much has been said about Cristoph Waltz's performance as the villain, and he deserves all the praise he gets. However it's important not to overlook the marvelous work by the women in the film. Diane Kruger is great, and has gracefully risen from the bland pretty-face type roles she had in movies such as "Troy" to become a very mature dramatic actress (she was also quite good in "The Hunting Party" for those who saw it). But the real star of the movie is gorgeous French actress Melanie Laurent, whose story I found phenomenally more interesting than that of the titular Basterds. While the Basterds were certainly cool, every time they went to them I just wanted to go back and see what was happening to the girl who owned the movie theater.

At times I found Tarantino's stylistic approach actually got in the way of a movie that is already made up of some pretty stellar storytelling (I don't need flashy freeze frames and titles popping up in a World War II movie), but other times he thought up some great out-of-the-box stuff that was quite clever (David Bowie's "Cat People" was a stroke of genius).

I also expected the story to play out differently (SPOILERS). I assumed the Basterds would ultimately fail in their plot, but the girl would succeed and get her revenge. Instead, EVERYONE gets to have fun killing nazis, but the main bad guy gets away, albeit with a swastika carved in his forehead.

A few gripes here and there, but overall a great film by Tarantino; I don't think I've enjoyed one of his movies this much since he first broke out with "Reservoir Dogs."

"Sherlock Holmes" I didn't expect much from this movie, but I was pleasantly surprised. I had expected a Hollywoodized, postmodern take on Holmes that would be loud, brash, and annoying. To a degree I was right, but I was also surprised how faithful the movie was to the original Sherlock Holmes mythos. 19th-century London to me always seemed dismal, dank, and dirty (as shown in "Oliver Twist" for example), but this movie makes it seems like a really slick and stylish place to live. The costume designers in particular deserve praise for overriding my preconceived notions of British stuffiness. And of course Robert Downey Jr. and Jude Law are both in tip-top form.

The biggest problem with the Sherlock Holmes movie is the villain; Mark Strong has popped up in several projects recently, but he doesn't have the depth or screen presence to really shine as a worthy opponent to anyone, let alone someone as brilliant as Robert Downey Holmes. Plus, with most Sherlock Holmes mysteries you actually expect a real MYSTERY to be going on, and you should partially be able to figure it out until Holmes pieces it all together, making you slap your head and shout "Ohhhh...NOW I get it!" In this movie, while the mystery is certainly "solved" it never comes as a revelation, but simply a matter of keeping the audience completely in the dark. I was disappointed in that regard, and could have used more real sleuthing.

Hopefully the filmmakers will figure out the villain/mystery issue for the sequel (which is likely, considering that they hint at Moriarty in this film, and there have been rumors of Brad Pitt to play him). Solve that elementary (har!) problem, and my ass will be in the seat again!

On to newer movies! 2010 is off to terrible start, but it IS January, aka the dumping ground for shit:

"When In Rome" This is one of the worst films I have EVER seen. EVER. I have no desire to review it any more than that.

"The Wolfman" As you are no doubt aware of by now, I love werewolves, and I am sorely disappointed in the way this movie turned out. Despite a solid cast, the film missteps in almost every direction, mainly because it doesn't have an identity. Which actually makes total sense, considering the original director was replaced by Joe Johnston, your go-to guy for empty popcorn fodder.

I don't have anything WRONG with popcorn fodder per se, but I'm pretty certain the first director had bigger ideas on his mind that were nixed by the studio, ultimately resulting in a film mired by schizophrenia. Half the tim it feels like a moody character study in Victorian England; then the next moment we have over-the-top gore that feels entirely out of place. Even a last-ditch effort to bring in esteemed editor Walter Murch didn't help. Universal's best monster deserved better.

"The Book of Eli" The second half of this movie is more interesting than the first, but it's still pretty bad overall. Any sense of suspense or danger is diluted by Denzel Washington being such a badass that you're never worried he's going to come into any actual peril. Washington apparently produced the movie, so he's probably one of the people to blame, but it's also disappointing to see Gary Oldman and even Michael Gambon, who are above this sludgy material. Malcolm McDowell is a welcome surprise in the end (and he always shows up for the paycheck), but by then it's too little, too late.

I DID get to see this movie for free in the Gold Class Cinemas Pasadena theater, where they serve you drinks, wine, and gourmet food while you watch the movie in reclining chairs. Wallowing in such extravagance while gazing at such a shitastrophe, I couldn't help but think, "Yeah, this sums up Hollywood pretty well."

The directors of this movie are also in talks to develop a live-action "Akira" movie, so there's another potentially awesome project ready to get ruined; chalk it up with Roland Emmerich's completely misplaced plans for Asimov's "Foundation."

Other movies I saw:

"Battlestar Galactica: The Plan", I'm a huge Battlestar fan, but unfortunately their movies never seem to work out ("Razor" was a cool idea, but it wasn't executed very well). "The Plan" tells the story of the war from the Cylons' point of view. The title comes from the Battlestar tag line "And they have a plan" ("they" being the Cylons of course!). On the show, you always felt like the Cylons had some overarching goal involving their constant manipulation after the 12 colonies were destroyed, but in this movie it becomes very clear that they're "plan" was a big frak-up and they just made things up as they went along. Hmm...well THAT'S not very exciting now, is it?
A disappointing follow-up to an otherwise awesome show. However I've been following the "Caprica" spin-off. While I'm not a huge fan of the recent episodes, the pilot at least showed some promise. Fingers are crossed.

"Ginger Snaps" I've been doing my werewolf research, and this awesome little low-budget flick was quite original and clever (it actually makes a lot of my own ideas seem less clever in retrospect, but oh well). Here, lycanthropy is used as a metaphor for puberty and sexual discovery, and how it can drive two close sisters away from each other. Some great gore, but also a really poignant and interesting story with many surprises. I loved it!

"Fire and Ice" Fans of animation know Ralph Bakshi as the guy who made the first X-rated animated film, did a shitty version of Lord of the Rings, and generally has experimented with a lot of interesting animation ideas that gave results which were always less-than-extraordinary.
So it is with "Fire and Ice." Using the interesting technique of rotoscoping over live-action with hand-drawn animation creates a very otherwordly feel that is sort of interesting, but the overall quality is lacking and the storytelling sucks.
What is MOST interesting about the movie is its blatant sexism. The women are so scantily clad that it borders on pornography, but it feels like some sort of weird fetish because you're still watching animation; I don't recommend "Fire and Ice," but if you DO see it you may feel unclean and need a shower afterward.

"Being There" I had never seen what is widely regarded as Peter Sellers' masterwork. I liked it quite a lot, but I didn't love it. The basic premise is sort of one-jokey, but they DO take that joke very far and explore it in all its forms. The ending is also quite a head-scratcher. I interpreted it as an example of how innocence can lead to a life of bliss, free from the rules, while roomie David saw it as a critique on religion (which is a very "David" interpretation, so no surprise there). If you haven't seen this, it's worth giving a look.

"Quest For Fire" THIS movie was awesome!!! I've always enjoyed films that manage to tell a story free of dialogue, often with non-human characters. The first half hour of "WALL-E" for example, or even certain nature docs or faux nature docs (such as "The Bear"), allow us to recognize sentience not as the ability to talk, but to think and feel, and that there is a relatability we have to creatures that we often forget. It's the sort of movie I really want to make someday (with dinosaurs...you heard it here first!).
"Quest For Fire" tells this story with cavemen. You'd never think a bunch of grunting Cro-Magnons would make for great storytelling, but it's fun and fascinating, and must have been a blast to shoot (imagine the opening scenes of "2001: A Space Odyssey" stretched to a feature film and you get the idea). A young Ron Perlman plays one of the leads, which makes sense considering he LOOKS like a caveman.
The movie certainly takes artistic liberties with archaelogical evidence, but its heart is in the right place (there are no anachronistic dinosaurs at least). If you're like me and enjoy a fresher, different take on what constitutes a movie, I think you'll enjoy this one. Granted, I am a sucker for paleontology, so I may be biased. But this is still a waaaaaaay more artful caveman movie than "10,000 B.C."

Here's to better movies in the new decade! Even if it means kidnapping the Hughes brothers and Roland Emmerich so they can't ruin potentially great science fiction.

2009 Wrap-Up: Top Ten, Bottom Five

2009-12-29T13:12:00.001-08:00

It's that time of year again!
I'm probably not going to see any more movies this year (or at least have time to write on them anyway), so coming up is the 2009 Top Ten and Bottom Five!

But before I do THAT...
Christmas came and went. Unlike my therapeutic Thanksgiving, this holiday felt rushed and manic, at least partially because I'm stressing about my next "big" film project (whatever that means), which we'll be shooting in the next month.
In other news this video got really popular. Roger Ebert even tweeted about it!

Reviews before the big list:
"Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans" I'm a die hard Werner Herzog fan, partially because he makes awesome movies, and partially because he does awesome things like rescuing Joaquin Phoenix and shrugging off the fact that he's just been shot. Like all the best directors, even when he makes mistakes his movies are still fascinating (Terry Gilliam fits in this category too). However "Bad Lieutenant" is no such accident. Like Klaus Kinski, Nicholas Cage is a crazy actor who's insanity is the perfect marriage for Herzog's "man-against-the-world" paradigm. To watch "Bad Lieutenant" is to watch two perfectly insane people feed off each other's lunacy to create a perfectly nutty movie. Nicholas Cage has always been an oddball, but too often he comes across as insipid and stupid; a ridiculous fool. Yet Herzog knows HOW to bottle Cage and let him loose, and the results are glorious.
Plus, any movie that spends this much time on fish-eye close-ups of hallucinated iguanas and alligators deserves a medal.

"The Princess & The Frog" (also taking place in New Orleans...hmmm) Like last year's "Bolt" this isn't a Disney classic, but it puts them on the tracks again. I was overjoyed to see such gorgeous hand-drawn animation in theaters once more (I'm not knocking CG animation, but I'd like to live in a world that includes several stop-motion films, several 2-D hand-drawn films, and several 3-D films each year), and the fact that his movie did well makes me hope we'll see a lot more of the animation style I grew up with in the coming years.
A lot of hubbub has been made in the press about this movie showcasing the first black Disney princess, seeing as Walt Disney himself has been accused of being racist in his time (something I personally see as an example of presentism). However I really liked this movie for actually addressing the racism of the time, even if in an indirect way. We see the working-class struggle of Tiana's family, while her upper-crust white best friend lives in the spoiled lap of luxury. Some people griped that the lightning bug was racist, but this is totally unfounded...he's supposed to be CAJUN, not black! And if you're complaining about the use of voodoo black magic, you're missing the point...voodoo is super cool, and it is imbued in that type of southern culture. Finally, I also appreciated this movie for actually giving the prince some personality instead of just being a figurehead.

Sure, the musical numbers aren't as snappy as they could be, and the villain's plot doesn't really come to fruition as much as I wanted it to (especially since he's a really cool-looking bad guy), but all in all it's a fun time, and great to see old-school Disney getting back on track again.

"Avatar" Ohhhh boy. I'm not sure I've ever felt as conflicted over a film as I feel over "Avatar."

I was very skeptical about this movie from the beginning. The previews didn't convince me this would be as earth-shattering as we were led to believe, but BOY was I wrong. The movie is just gorgeous to look at. I saw it midnight in IMAX 3-D (and in regular 3-D a few days later), and from start to finish my jaw was on the floor.

However (especially after the second viewing), the story leaves a lot to be desired. All the characters are very cut-and-dry. The good guys are good. The bad guys are bad. The Na'avi are Native Americans. There are no layers to anything, and least on the script pages (the planet of Pandora, of course, is filled with visual richness).

James Cameron is smarter than this, and he should know better. Or has he just gotten sloppy as he's gotten older? In "Aliens" Burke is a slimeball, but we're still shocked when he takes things to the point that he's willing to kill Ripley and Newt in order to get a live specimen of the alien creature. In "Avatar" we're never surprised when the baddies decide to wipe out the "little blue monkeys"...they've been bigots from the get-go. And even their motivations aren't very complex or creative; they're mining "unobtanium" simply because it can make them a lot of money. Never does it mention what the unobtanium does or why it is needed on Earth. Earlier this year in the exquisite "Moon" there was some interesting moral ambiguity, because the stuff being mined on the moon was solving all of Earth's natural resource problems. Something similar in "Avatar" would have given a little extra layer of complexity to the characters, and at least give some sort of justification as to WHY the marines were willing to shamelessly wipe out an entire population.

And on the good guys' side, the main character Sulley (played by Sam Worthington) never really undergoes a character transformation. From the first scenes where he sets foot in the Pandoran jungle I was thinking, "Holy shit...he's going to want to stay on this planet. It's beautiful!" He has nothing to live for on Earth. No wife, no family...his choice to join the Na'avi at the end of the film is an obvious one. It's mentioned that perhaps he's "betraying humanity" but he's not, because it's never explained what the unobtanium does. He's just betraying a bunch of greedy dudes. Sure, he'll get his legs back I guess, but in order to do what? Sulley is a character who goes through the motions, but never has anything to strive for (and it's not Sam Worthington's fault...he just isn't given anything to work with).

But the most aggravating part of the movie for me were the Na'avi themselves. Aside from looking like standard blue cat people (which were far less imaginative than the anteater-horses, spinning chameleons, rhino-peacock-hammerheads, and day-glo jackals), they are such obvious Native American stereotypes that I found it borderline offensive. If they're going to be Native Americans, fine...but do they have to be such clear-cut Noble Savages? The Na'avi aren't complex characters with their own intricate motives amongst themselves. There's no in-fighting or struggles going on between their tribes that distracts them from the obvious threat of invasion, so why don't they take action? "Avatar" instead just becomes another story of white man's burden.
The fact is, you can HAVE allegory without using stereotypes. This summer's "District 9" was a clear apartheid allegory (with undertones of other conflicts as well), but the aliens didn't walk around and act like a bunch of black people--they acted like aliens! The movie worked on its own terms, but also had extra layers to give it some richness. In spite of all the gorgeous Pandoran scenery, "Avatar" doesn't really feel like its own unique world, removed from our stigmas of Earth. The Na'avi are Native Americans, and that's that.
And the more I think about it, the more I realize how unoriginal the movie is. Yes, everybody has made the obvious "Dances With Smurfs" and "Ferngully in Space" references. But it also smacks heavily of Cameron's superb "Aliens", and the "white-man-leading-the-minority charge" makes me wonder if this wasn't co-directed by Edward Zwick. I've also gotten back into READING a lot of science fiction lately, and the more and more sci-fi I read, the more and more I realize how unoriginal many of my favorite movies turn out to be. "Avatar" definitely calls to mind some novellas and short stories (Poul Anderson's "Call Me Joe" and Alan Dean Foster's "Midworld" if you're keeping track).
But at the same time, did I dislike "Avatar"? Not really. I hate myself for saying this, but at the end of the day all these story issues really didn't matter. The movie is a landmark in special effects. Will it change the face of filmmaking? Probably not too much, since these movies are so expensive and labor-intensive you can only afford one of them every few years. But did it look incredible from start to finish? Did my own real world seem drab and gray after living on Pandora for three hours? Absolutely.
In spite of a few pacing issues (after the interesting "training montage" with the Na'avi, I got a little restless before the final battle, especially during the furry sex), I could have watched another full half hour of them riding around on those dragons (it was disappointing that we never really saw him train the Big Red One). And the final battle of pterodactyls vs. helicopters had me pumping my fist and cheering. Cameron is a genius for coasting over the uncanny valley by creating aliens, unlike Robert Zemeckis and his creepy motion-capture puppet people. Cameron solves the "not-quite-human" issue by creating something that IS not quite human, thus the Na'avi deliver fully realistic, captivating, convincing performances (as...Noble Savages...which is still a script problem...oh well). It still must be said that I never quite got used to Sigourney Weaver's avatar, simply because she's an actress I'm so familiar with, and it was disconcerting to see her as tall(er) and blue.
So yes, you MUST see "Avatar" in a theater, in 3-D, preferably in IMAX. Is it a masterpiece? No. I wanted it to be, but while Cameron never went totally off the rails (ahem...George Lucas), I think he got a little distracted showcasing the technology. At one point in the film the military baddie asks Sulley, "You haven't gotten lost in the woods have ya?" Sadly, I think James Cameron spent so much time creating the Pandora's look that he DID get a little lost.

"A Little Romance" I saw this cute 1970s film with my parents over the break, about two kids living in Paris who run away to Venice in order to kiss under a certain bridge and solidify their love. The acting is a little spotty at times (kids can be difficult to direct), but it's fun to see an older movie about the junior high school age. We get a lot of movies about kids in elementary school, and a lot of movies about high schoolers. But middle school often gets lost in the shuffle, which is too bad. 8th grade-ish is a wonderful age where the innocence is still present, but the hormones are just barely starting to creep in. For me I remember it being the first time I ever starting feeling "real" romantic feelings for a specific person. That's something WAY too important to skip over! So yes, this was a very cute and sweet little film. And it's also fun to see the kind and gentle Laurence Olivier lending a helping hand.

OK...time for the list! As always, there are movies I haven't seen this year that I've been meaning to ("Inglourious Basterds," "Fantastic Mr. Fox," "Up in the Air," "Crazy Heart" for starters). Unlike previous years, I actually got to see some REALLY crappy movies thanks to my job, so a lot of what is on my worst list are actually pretty shitty movies. And some of the stuff in the Top Ten are REALLY close to each other and it was tough to decide on their ranking. There were even a few films I was sad to leave off. OK, enough excuses, here goes!

Top Ten (one being the best)
1. "Up" Animated Indiana Jones/Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, except with old people, flightless birds, and talking dogs. What's not to like? Pixar wins again!
2. "District 9" It makes you think, then rocks your face off. Exactly what good sci-fi should be. Give Sharlto an Oscar!
3. "Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans" Nicholas Cage. Drugs. Iguanas. It's poetic insanity.
4. "A Serious Man" I wish they'd make more movies like this. Great storytelling, with REAL actors. One of Joel and Ethan's best.
5. "Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs" Shockingly hilarious looney tunes-type fun.
6. "The Hurt Locker" A great war movie without any judgment calls. If you can't give an Oscar to Sharlto, give one to Jeremy!
7. "Moon" Another perfect example of what science fiction should really be about. Hell, give Sam Rockwell an Oscar for carrying the film solo (minus Kevin Spacey-bot).
8. "An Education" For me to like a (non-erotic) movie about a British schoolgirl this much proves it's a good movie.
9. "Drag Me To Hell" Sam Raimi's hilarious, frightening, and triumphant return to horror ALMOST makes up for his "Spider-man 3" travesty.
10. "Adventureland" A great movie that mirrored my personal life so well it had to be included on here.

Bottom Five (one being the worst)
5. "Transformers 2: Revenge of the Fallen" Kinda fun, but loud, long, and pointless.
4. "Zombieland" Oh shit I went there! You probably liked this film didn't you? Well I found it zombie-lite, completely lacking in the elements a zombie movie SHOULD contain (subtext, real scares, or at least some creative gore).
3. "The Fourth Kind" Cool premise ruined by shitty storytelling that never went anywhere.
2. "Monsters vs. Aliens" Ugh!!! The antithesis of everything I liked about the other animated movies this year.
1. "Imagine That" At least with "MvA" you could trick people into thinking it would be a fun movie and a good sell. This movie was awful AND based on such a horrible idea that it should never have been green-lit in the first place. Someone should have been fired.

2009 was a weird year for movies. The industry took a hard hit, proving it wasn't immune to the economy (believe me, I felt it at work). There was a lot of studio upheaval, and things SEEM like they are in transition, but nobody knows exactly what that transition IS (if YOU know, tell me, because I'm curious).
Yet at the same time, with no jobs to go to, audiences flocked to the theaters in droves. Box office numbers were HUGE, especially over Christmas. And it was a good year for smallish flicks; while I was less than impressed with most of the years' blockbusters, films with (relatively) smaller budgets did incredibly well, proving there is a niche for (gasp!) good, creative storytelling that doesn't rely on huge stars or exorbitant effects.
And it was a good year for many of my favorite genres. Science fiction came back, generally smarter than its been in the last few years ("Moon" "District 9" "Star Trek" yeah...even "Avatar"). Horror had a few great surprises that didn't rely on torture-porn ("Drag Me To Hell" and "Paranormal Activity"). And, aside from "MvA," animation thrived in new creative formats, often offering more mature stories than half the movies that WERE targeted for grown-ups ("Up," "Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs," "Coraline," "The Princess and the Frog," and I'm told "Fantastic Mr. Fox").

It wasn't the best year, but it was an encouraging year. I feel a little better about the coming decade...originality may finally be busting open the studio exec sequel-sequel-sequel bubble (which, to be honest, will never FULLY burst), allowing new voices to come through. The industry moguls may be buying up every comic book, board game, and gum wrapper ever made, but as long as the filmmakers keep saying "fuck that" and just making the movies they want to make, perhaps we'll be seeing even more creative stuff in the next few years.

Or not. Maybe I'm just being optimistic/hopeful. But one can dream. Remember, it's the filmGOERS who also decide what movies continue to be made. Only YOU can prevent forest fires.

See ya in the new decade, film freaks!

Special note: I also considered creating a list of my Top Ten of the decade, but realized it would basically just be Pixar movies and the Lord of the Rings trilogy, so I nixed that plan.

Autumn Round-Up: Halloween, East Coast Trip, and Thanksgiving

2009-12-08T16:02:00.000-08:00

Hey all! It's been a while since I was able to post on here, because things have been rather hectic, but here's an overlong (but somehow still far too brief) update of what I've been up to (complete with the necessary film reviews):

First up was Halloween! Arguably my favorite holiday (Christmas gives it a run for its money) partially because I enjoy many things creepy and ghoulish, but mainly because I love pretending to be someone else for a day. Last year I had a pretty nifty Joker outfit I was pretty proud of, but this year I came up with something else really cool--Wikus from "District 9"! Pics above. And yes, I did win the Halloween costume contest at work two years in a row, for the two years I've been there (ugh...don't remind me).
As is always necessary come late October, I did my best to view a number of spooky movies, so here we go:
1. "[REC]" Jason and David (current roomies, if you weren't aware already) turned me on to this great little foreign zombie movie. The film "Quarantine" is apparently an English-speaking remake of this Spanish flick, but why would you remake it? Ditch the underwhelming, uninspired, high-budget "Zombieland," and rent this baby, which tells the story of a news crew caught in the midst of a zombie outbreak, forced to deal with each other inside a high-rise apartment building. Many terrifying and shocking moments, all done in a way that remind me, "Hey, maybe I CAN actually afford to make movies." I've mentioned before that, though I love zombie movies, I think they've run the gamut, but "[REC]" proved there is still inventiveness to be had.
2. "The Fourth Kind" Starts out promising, but quickly turns into one of the worst "scary" movies I've seen in a while. The entire thing feels like an overlong, bland episode of the X-Files. An interesting premise about UFO abductions in Alaska sadly leads nowhere and meanders in its supposed "creepiness," and the "real footage" just feels gimmicky. Aside from a sort of cool motif involving owl probes (!) there is very little this movie has to offer. Which is too bad...how hard can it be to make alien abduction interesting anyway?
3. "Trick 'R Treat" I think my hopes were a little too high for this film, but it still had a lot of fun bits, and was VERY festive. Sort of a "Love Actually" for Halloween, it involves four intersecting stories that all take place on Halloween night. The only problem is, like all anthology movies, some of the bits were better than others. Though I like Dylan Baker, his story as a serial killer was pretty insufferable. Anna Paquin's story is pretty cool, but you can see the "twist" coming a mile away. The story about the kids is fun, except it ends on a rather unsettling note that left a bad feeling in my stomach. The best of the lot is the final story that, while going through familiar motions, involves a creepy little monster/demon terrorizing a Scrooge-like Brian Cox who "doesn't believe in Halloween." Recommended as one to rent on the 31st of October. It nails the overall tone of the holiday better than any movie has since...well, the original "Halloween."
4."Creepshow" Again, another horror anthology movie. Most of the bits were so-so, some were awful (Stephen King should never act!), and one in particular totally awesome. The awesome one actually felt more like something you'd see on a "Twilight Zone" or "Alfred Hitchcock Presents" than any horror film. Leslie Nielsen plays a surprisingly effective villain who tortures his wife and her lover (played by Ted Danson!) by burying them in sand on the beach, while a video camera films them...cool!
5. "Salem's Lot" A REALLY cool vampire movie dealing with them in a "modern" setting (OK, it's the 70s...so not that modern). Apparently this was originally a miniseries on television, which explains some of the choppiness and long length, but it's still a gripping fun movie with some tense moments (and a few cheeseball ones). Cool bits include the famous imagery of the vampire kid floating outside the window and scratching on the glass (remember that "Simpsons" Halloween special?), and look for a cool cameo from a young Fred Willard! Most importantly, it's an important reminder that vampires once upon a time used to be actually scary and cool, and not pussy-whipped unrealistic man-boys. Vampires aren't supposed to be your boyfriend...vampires are supposed to suck your blood and kill you! Which is ironic, considering that any girl who puts Cullen-esque expectations on their boyfriend probably will be sucking their BOYFRIEND'S spirits dry. But I digress...
6. "Paranormal Activity" The scary low-budget hit of the year, which I LOVED. As a big fan of horror in the last several years, it's become harder and harder for me to actually get scared by stuff anymore. I see the jumps coming, know when the musical sting will hit, and figure out who will get offed next. However, it has been YEARS since I have winced, closed my eyes, and plugged my ears so constantly throughout a movie. I was terrified, and it felt SO GOOD. It takes about a half hour before anything exciting actually starts to happen, and I was starting to think, "Maybe this was overhyped." Then there was a moment (involving a roar and a swinging lamp...that's enough to tell you without ruining it) where a chill went down my spine and I realized, "Uh-oh...I may be in trouble." Highly recommended as an example of what inventiveness can get you on a low budget, but not recommended if you scare easily. It took me hours to get to sleep after seeing it, and when I did finally doze off, I had nightmares.

I also saw these films in October, which were unrelated to Halloween but still deserve a review:
1. "A Serious Man" One of the best films of the year, and one of the best from the Coen brothers (I enjoyed it far more than their Oscar-winning "No Country For Old Men"). It's a movie basically about what it means to be Jewish during the 1960s (an alien world to me, anyway), but it's also an interesting take on the biblical story of Job. It also deserves mentioning that it is SO fresh to see a film of such caliber showcasing hardly any actors I've recognized from previous movies. It causes one to not focus on "oh he's the guy from THAT film" and instead just get drawn up in the filmmaking. See this movie.
2. "Where the Wild Things Are" I admire Spike Jonze for attempting what is basically a mainstream art film, but I ultimately thought the finished result was a mixed bag. The monsters themselves look incredible, and it's wonderful to see a movie that doesn't talk down to kids and instead shows them as complicated individuals in their own right full of turmoil and confusion at the world (anyone who looks back on childhood and remembers only innocent bliss is doing so with a checkered memory).
However while the movie starts out wonderfully, once Max gets to the island where the creatures live, things meander too much and the film loses its focus (which is actually the same feeling I had when I read the screenplay months before the release, so my instincts are good). This wandering style was intended to be a reflection on childhood games, and how kids playing in the sandbox often will make up their own stories on the fly as they play with each other. While this is an interesting idea, it unfortunately makes for rather aimless filmmaking. Things heat up and get better in the final act, but the middle just sagged too much. It's also a little surprising that the wild things are all such a bunch of Debbie Downers (my co-worker Blake joked that the island was a halfway house for monsters), which gives the entire thing a melancholy air that could have been a little lighter. While the wonderful children's book certainly had a dark edge about it, it didn't feel anywhere near as somber as this film.
Worth a look, but not the masterpiece I was hoping for.

Also, during a weekend at home, I saw these with the parents:
1. "Hombre" Underwhelming western with stilted acting, made interesting only by Paul Newman as a half-Apache. There are much better classic westerns out there to waste your time with.
2. "The 39 Steps" Classic early Hitchcock film that works great for its time, but feels dated by today's standards. Hitchcock got much better later in his career, but if you're a purist, you can check this one out. It's certainly better than a few others from his early career.

So anyway, that's October. November arrived with me FINALLY taking a vacation from my ever-tiresome job and going to the east coast, where I had TONS of fun.
Here is a list of what I did!
Day One: Flew in to New Jersey to meet with my Uncle Nelson. Of course, the best part of flying (for this blog anyway) is the in-flight movie. What was interesting about the airline I went on is that, instead of being dictated what movie you will be watching, everybody gets a screen attached to the seat in front of them, and you can pick whatever you want to watch (movies and TV shows) and even play games. And it's free! Even airplanes have On Demand stuff these days. What is most interesting is that while there are many new releases available, there are also many classic films. On this plane I viewed both "500 Days of Summer" and "Arsenic and Old Lace."
REVIEWS!
"500 Days of Summer" I was expecting to dislike this movie, mainly because I don't like hipster bait, and because (frankly) most romantic comedies these days suck balls. Plus I've also never really understood why people go ga-ga over Zooey Deschanel. I was surprised to find myself really getting into this movie, although perhaps for reasons not intended by the filmmakers. I instead saw it all as an anti-love movie. Instead of seeing Zooey Deschanel's character as the "ideal" woman for Joseph Gordon Levitt (who gives another stellar performance, by the way), I instead just kept shouting at him, "Get out! She's crazy...don't get involved! You're only going to end up a sad, broken man!" (perhaps this has something to do with my own personal experiences, but that's another story).
I also really liked that the filmmakers gave Los Angeles such a homey, east coast vibe. I really thought the movie was supposed to take place somewhere like New York, until I suddenly realized about halfway through that I recognized a number of locations such as UCLA, LA City Hall, and the Bradbury Building (neat also because the main character is interested in architecture). And the Hall & Oates dance sequence was one of the best things I've ever seen in a film in a longer time. If it's possible to be both a bitter and hopeless romantic at once, then this movie hits the nail right on the head.
"Arsenic and Old Lace" I always feel bad when I don't get into a classic film as much as I should, but I honestly didn't enjoy this madcap frenetic comedy as much as I felt I was expected to. The goofy, bonkers reactions of Cary Grant and co. just felt too ridiculous and over-the-top, as was the entire premise of old English biddies murdering people. I know this is a five-star AMC certified classic, but I just couldn't get into it...sorry!
Anyway, once I flew in to Jersey, I went to my aunt and uncle's house, where we played catch-up, I met with their dogs (three dachshunds + a long-legged German shepherd mix), and we had drinks.
Special note: I had an evening of drinks EVERY NIGHT of this trip, something which I rarely do. It was fun.
Day Two: A leisurely "settling in" day in Jersey. Didn't do much except walk the dogs and have more drinks. I also watched...
"Three Days of the Condor" Pretty solid film starring Dustin Hoffman and Faye Dunaway, and also featuring a the great Max von Sydow as a threatening hit man. A great paranoid journalism thriller that fits right into the '70s, and paved the way for "All The President's Men" (a movie which I admittedly still haven't seen). Aside from a few corny lines of dialogue, ("The night is still young..." really Faye Dunaway...really?) this movie was gripping from start to finish. And it was directed by Sydney Pollack! Did I mention I met Sydney Pollack once? He's a smart dude. Or he was, until he died. Suddenly I'm sad...
Day Three: Took the train up to Boston to see my old roomie Sean. The train ride through New England was BEAUTIFUL, and I really started to see the appeal of the east coast. Growing up in California, around autumn and winter, you sort of feel cheated during certain holidays. Christmas never feels like Christmas SHOULD. Seeing areas of New England, with old Halloween pumpkins still on the doorsteps, I really "got" it. This is the way Fall is supposed to look, with vibrant oranges and reds painting endless tree-filled hills, while children bundled up in extra layers leisurely wander through the (somehow safer-feeling) neighborhoods. And I could imagine Winter, with these beautiful houses that just BELONG there covered in blankets of snow, while kids sit by the fireplaces (they actually need) and sip hot chocolate after a day of tobogganing. California just doesn't have that.
I will say, though, that I brought a piece of California with me weather-wise. Despite the Fall colors, it was surprisingly warm, and I spent most of my time in New England wearing little more than a T-shirt. Which (I'm told) is odd for early November.
Before heading to Boston, I called a few friends from the area, and as it turned out, my good friend Alex was in her hometown in Connecticut (for rather unhappy reasons actually), even though she currently lives in SB. I got off the train and spent the afternoon with her, which was wonderful, especially considering I hadn't seen her for several months.
It was an odd experience, seeing where she grew up; imaging her as a kid running through those streets lined with old-fashioned two-story houses. We had lunch at the local 24-hour diner, and I saw the little neighborhood sound with its soft beach and gently lapping water. I understood why someone could fall in love with the area, and I really got a stronger feeling of who Alex is and where she came from.
Anyway, after my foray in CT I finally shipped up to Boston, where I got gypped at the train station and met Sean O'Toole!!! Sean lives near the Cambridge area, and after meeting his two cool roommates, we all went out to eat, where we hopelessly flirted with a Zooey Deschanel-esque waitress (in a good way this time), and I had a delicious peanut butter burger (you read that right). We also wandered through Harvard that night, and I have to say, I'm disappointed...kids at Harvard are NERDS. We wandered through the dorm area around 9pm, and the place was SILENT. All the kids were studying! Not a single beer being drank or a prank being pulled. At one point we passed by two hot Radcliffy girls, only to hear them discussing the potential uses of DNA. Huh???
I will say that the Harvard campus really puts USC to shame; the entire place looks feels like you just teleported (apparated?) into Hogwarts. At one point I saw a couple students disappear into a particularly fancy-looking castle-of-a-building, and so Sean and I took a peek inside. The interior was just as elaborate as the exterior, with high-arching ceilings that reminded me of a gothic cathedral (not that I'm any expert on historical architecture). It took me a few moments to realize this was their DINING HALL. Suddenly EVK feels even more lame than it did before!
After Harvard-ing, we stumbled back to Sean's apartment, where we played several rounds of Super Mario Drunk Driver, a drinking game I highly recommend, but one that takes to long to explain on a blog.
Day Four: The Boston day! I LOVED the City of Boston, and I frankly could easily have spent a few more days there. First things first, we went to Harvard's museum because it has dinosaurs (does USC have a museum? No). The most impressive fossil had to be their full skeleton of the monstrous fish lizard Kronosaurus, a true nightmare of the seas. However I also enjoyed their extensive geology collection, and was completely incredulous of their supposed "glass" flowers that I still don't believe are made of glass (Google it...I'm still calling bullshit). We were also invited to the first ever school-sponsored Harvard "rave," something I REALLY wanted to check out, but unfortunately I wasn't going to be in town (DAMN...I REALLY wanted to see how the east coast uber-geeks interpreted a rave).
After Harvard we made our way downtown. Like New York, Harvard is the sort of city you don't really need a car in, which is refreshing after being in Los Angeles for (too long) a while. What's incredible about Boston is that everything feels like it BELONGS there. Buildings seem to melt into the surroundings as if they've been there for hundreds of years (as many of them have). A number of cobblestone streets are used only for foot traffic, and without much effort you can easily imagine horse-drawn carriages moving down their paths. My favorite part of Boston was their massive Boston Common park, which reminded me a lot of Central Park, but less crowded and more hilly. Funnily enough, as I wandered through Boston Common soaking up the scenery I had a weird sense of deja vu, which I ultimately figured out stemmed from one of my favorite childhood books, "Make Way For Ducklings," which takes place in Boston Common!
After admiring a number of historical buildings and the Boston Fish Market, we eventually made our way to Boston Harbor, where I had some mandatory clam chowder and we wished we all had the foresight to bring some tea and stage a little protest. Then it was back to Sean's for another round of Drunk Driver.
Day Five: I got up early in the morning and wished Boston goodbye, feeling bummed I couldn't spend more time there. I had always assumed Boston to be a place filled with assholes (my same west coast assumption about New York, actually), but it is possibly my favorite "large city" I've visited thus far in my life.
Once in New York, I got a guided tour from my uncle of both the Museum of Modern Art and the Guggenheim, which was good because my uncle knows a hell of a lot more about modern art than I do. Ultimately my experience there amounted to, "Well, I guess I just don't get modern art" although I really liked a lot of Kandinsky's work at the Guggenheim, as well as the structure of the overall building itself.
Day Six: A bit of a recuperation day back in Jersey. I played with the dogs, watched Woody Allen's "Zelig" on demand, and had some delicious Cuban food with my aunt before seeing "An Education" in theaters.
REVIEWS!
"Zelig" I've said it before, and I'll say it again...most of the time I just don't understand all the Woody Allen fuss. "Zelig" may have been one of the first movies to utilize the use of stock footage, but that doesn't mean I found it very interesting. But you're talking to a guy who also hated "Annie Hall" and "Sleeper," so take from that what you will.
"An Education" was an EXCELLENT film, and one of the best I've seen this year. The screenplay was written by one of my favorite writers EVER, Nick Hornby, and it shows. Hornby really knows how to crawl inside the skin of a character and make you see things from their point of view, even when they make bad decisions. This works for rock snobs (in "High Fidelity," one of my favorite books of all time), just as well as it works for inexperienced British schoolgirls (this film). Cinematography and direction are easy to look over in a film like this, but they are top notch, as is the acting all across the board. Alfred Molina and Peter Sarsgaard are predictably solid, but the real standout is young Carey Mulligan in the lead, whom I very much expect to see at the Oscars this year. Throughout the film she makes choices that you know will lead her down the wrong path, as she is slowly seduced from the straight-and-narrow Oxford-directed path by the much older, but charming, Sarsgaard character. Yet even while you are aware of this, you can fully understand and sympathize with her desire to be free, to experience the world, and to have fun (a struggle I can very much identify with, let me tell you!).
As a guy who generally goes for the latest action flick, sci-fi fantasy, or elaborate animated work, I was surprised at how much I adored "An Education." And as a bonus, it was the perfect movie to see with my aunt!
Day Seven: Spent the day with my aunt visiting Brooklyn, which was fun because it my first time visiting a part of New York that wasn't Manhattan. The main reason I wanted to visit Brooklyn was to see if The Superhero Supply Company was actually real. It is! The store is a literal front for a non-profit organization that sponsors writing for kids. So my purchases of invisibility spray and maps of the negative zone all went to a good cause.
After my geeking out, we escaped from the drippiness (I was overdue for some crappy weather) by lunching at an incredibly affordable and delicious Thai place before returning home. That evening, we watched John Woo's "Red Cliff" on demand.
I'm not as big a John Woo fan as some others, but nevertheless, as far as Hong Kong action goes (and the action genre in general) he is the king. His inventive use of gunplay, doves, and slo-mo has been emulated by many, but he's the guy who really came up with it (ever seen this, by the way?). So I was very curious what Woo would do with swordplay instead of guns in "Red Cliff."
The swordplay IS really cool, but it doesn't feel as new or innovative as I had hoped (except for the awesome "turtle" scene). I felt like, after "Crouching Tiger," "Hero," and "House of Flying Daggers" we've seen things that were more or less the same. Even so, a lot of the stuff is pretty impressive, the best sequence invovling a VERY innovative way of stealing extra arrows from the enemy.
Still the film felt overlong and a little confusing; I kept forgetting who was on who's side (and not just because all Asians look alike...kidding!). Comment of the night goes to Max, however, for labeling the woman caught between the battle "Helen of Soy."
Yet my so-so attitude towards "Red Cliff" should be entirely ignored, because I later discovered that the film we Americans got was originally TWO films! Apparently American audiences can't handle a two-part epic foreign film (bullshit, I say), so instead of two cool movies that tell an overarching story a la "Lord of the Rings," we got a chopped up disjointed movie that felt too long for ONE film, and was somewhat convoluted and confusing. I kinda now wish I'd never seen this version of "Red Cliff," and just waited to snatch a copy from Hong Kong at some point, but oh well.
Day Eight: My final day on the east coast, and I made it COUNT. Early in the morning I took the train into Penn Station, and then the subway to Union Square. The mission...to meet my old friend from the cinema floor, Rachel Kerry! After hanging in Forbidden Planet for a while (the most awesome comic book shop ever), Rachel showed up, and treated me on a guided tour of the city.
We went to an amazingly delicious Ukranian place for lunch called Veselka's (I believe), and played catch up with each others lives, which was tons of fun. After we had stuffed ourselves, we forced more food down our throats by walking to the oldest pastry shop in New York (I'm told) called Venero's (not Venerio's, as I kept pronouncing it), where I polished off several delicious cannoli (is cannoli the plural of cannoli? I'm no sure). From there we wandered to a nearby hole-in-the-wall DVD store (called Kim's) full of obscure films. It was cool, although I still don't think it holds a candle to Amoeba. Sorry New Yorkers, but LA kids still do the movie stuff better than you.
After that we wandered over to a bar to grab a few midday drinks with Mack, which was tons of fun. It felt like old USC times, except we were all in the Big Apple! After an hour in the pub we parted ways, and I made a slow trek to another area of New York to catch the USC game (but not before stopping to get a good look at the T. Rex in the Times Square Toys 'R Us).
I went to a pretty swank bar and watched the USC game with Diana, my close friend since kindergarten. It was tons of fun catching up with Diana, and I met several of her really neat friends, but the game was a disaster...I believe it was our biggest loss in USC's history. I don't really get into football that much, but this was really painful.
However, a friend of one of Diana's friends was from Berkeley, and she invited us to go to a (far less fancy) bar to watch the Berkeley game. We did, mainly because (in my case) this girl from Berkeley was absolutely jaw-droppingly gorgeous and sweet. Diana actually left the Berkeley bar at that point, though I stuck around and hung out with a handful of Berkeley kids (and one girl from USC) whom I previously had never met before in my life. I even got my picture taken by the New York Post, because the reporter was doing an article on college football bar behavior, soI pretended to be a Berkeley kid (method acting...plus, my sister goes to Berkeley!). I never got to see if I made it into an issue of the New York Post, but I hope I did, and I hope that someone I know from USC catches it and gets very confused at my presence.
Anyway we parted ways from the bar, and the gorgeous Berkeley Amazonian went home to study (but we're facebook friends now...there is hope!). I wound up going to the place of the other girl from USC, where I met her roommate's yap-yap dog, we chatted, and I taught her some piano. From there we eventually joined up at the party with Diana, although I felt a little out of my element, hanging with all these ultra-young and yet somehow insanely rich New York investment banker types. I tried to pimp out my movie, but it didn't lead anywhere. We eventually wound up at some bar in the meat packing district, and from there I eventually found a way home back to Jersey. It was about 4 am. Whoops!
Day Nine: Took the plane home. There were a few interesting things on the journey (mostly revolving around myself not planning exactly WHO was going to pick me up from the airport), but I'm getting tired.
Having been to New York twice now, what I love about the city is that it is much more personable than I expected. In Los Angeles, everyone is confined to little bubbles as they drive around their cars, obsessed with their own lives and getting their OWN shit done. In New York, people are forced to walk on the streets, to take subways, and to look people in the face on a daily basis. Thus, you treat people more like actual people, and not as aliens (illegal or otherwise). As Logan so eloquently put it, "In Los Angeles, it's 'fuck everyone.' In New York, it's 'fuck YOU.'"

Anyway, the New York trip was great. Soon after that came Thanksgiving, which was a wonderful time back in Santa Barbara, and another welcome break from Hell-A. Four days with the family was just right, and the highlight of my time there was a wonderful hike with the two basset-jack russells (I think that's their mix, anyway) in the area ravaged by fire a couple summers ago. Plants were starting to grow back, but the trees were still wiry black skeletons. A thick eerie mist covered everything, occasionally parting to let us get a panoramic glimpse of the city below. It was hauntingly beautiful, and fun just to roam around in the woods with two sniffing canines again.
I also watched a few movies over the break. With my parents I viewed "Before Sunset," Richard Linklater's sequel to "Before Sunrise." The film is well-acted, and it's a nice change of pace to see a movie like this, which is basically little more than two people just talking and opening up to each other for an hour and a half.
But is it a good movie? I'm not sure about that. Linklater has done this before a number of times, and I sort of get his "trick" by now. These movies where characters just meander and talk are interesting poetic slices-of-life, and a welcome break from the Hollywood formulas we see so often over-and-over again, but they don't hold up very well or have much staying power (for me, anyway). "Dazed and Confused" and his feature debut, "Slacker" both fell into this trap and ultimately don't go anywhere, whereas "School of Rock" which he directed, but did not write, was ultimately a much more satisfying film.
You may be inclined to disagree, but I find the "pure" Linklater film a little tiresome and trite at the end of the day.
I also bought and viewed "The Valley of Gwangi" simply because it was a Ray Harryhausen movie about cowboys vs dinosaurs!!! It's a cheesy knock-off of "King Kong" with terrible acting and stilted dialogue, but the stop-motion animation is really excellent, and did I mention it has COWBOYS vs DINOSAURS?!?!?!
Lastly, I finished watching the original BBC version of the TV series "The Prisoner" in preparation for the new mini-series starring Ian McKellan (which I've now heard is awful and probably won't watch). As a whole, the original series is a landmark in television; without "The Prisoner" there would probably be none of the cerebral television on TV such as the "X-Files" and certainly "Lost." Patrick McGoohan's no-nonsense attitude grounds the show and makes you believe he can escape what he is fighting (he should have been played by Clive Owen or Daniel Craig in the remake rather than Jim Caviezel), and many of the episodes are gripping, subjective, and mind-bending. Others of them, not so much; it just goes through the motions. Yet as a whole I'm very glad I took the time to get through the series. If you're a fan of classic television, this is a must.

OK...that's good for now. Expect another update around Christmas...be seeing you ("Prisoner" reference FTW!).

Year One

2009-10-07T14:01:00.000-07:00

No, not a review of the movie, silly!

It's been a year since I moved down to LA to start my brilliant "film career." How has it been? OK.

I'm still poor, starving, not really doing what I want. But I feel I'm slowly getting somewhere. I like where I'm living, I enjoy who I'm living with, and my creative projects ARE taking hold, even if it's not happening as quickly as I'd like. I've made a lot of cool friends, had a lot of cool (and flat-out weird) experiences, and I am able to (barely) pay the rent every month, while working in my chosen industry.

And that was my goal right out of school. But now that goal's been completed, and it's time to figure out what comes next.
1) Do I make a movie? That's what I'd LIKE to do, but I don't have the $$ for that yet.
2) Do I try to move to another job that suits me a little better? Maybe. But sticking it out where I am now COULD lead to more doors opening. On the other hand, the big studios are floundering right now, meaning they spend less money on marketing, meaning I have less to do where I'm at anyway.
3) Do I just go crazy freelance? Act, work on sets, edit, travel, do whatever I can wherever I can? Ideally, this is what I'd like to do, but it's just so hard in such an unstable economy to go for it at the moment. But I don't want to KEEP saying that, and ten years down the line, find out I've done nothing but do glorified advertising for shitty movies.
4) Do I head for graduate school? I'd love to do animation at a place like CalArts. But it's so expensive!!! Is it worth wallowing in the student loan swamp even longer than I am now? And how much longer would that set back my (theoretical-as-of-yet) first feature?

I guess I'm just young and antsy, but I really know I can do a lot more with my life than what I'm doing now. It sucks that jobs are scarce, Hollywood is flailing and failing, and I'm completely broke.

Anyway, movie reviews!

"Wall Street" I checked this movie out because it deals with similar themes as a project I've had stewing around in my head, and I wanted to see how other filmmakers have let it play out. Overall a really fun movie, made even more eerie thanks to how it juxtaposes with the state of our current economy. My favorite things were seeing Charlie and Martin Sheen play as actual father and son, and of course Michael Douglas in arguably his best role of all time. Good fun!

"The Blob" (The 80s Version) I caught this on TV and was amazed I hadn't seen it until now. While I'm not a huge fan of Kevin Dillon's acting, this gruesome, fun, effects-filled B-movie extravaganza was right up my alley. A little better than the 70s "Invasion of the Body Snatchers," but not quite as good as Cronenburg's "The Fly."

"Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs" Now THIS is how you make an animated movie!!! I wasn't expecting much from this film, but it's definitely one of the best of the year.
In many ways this movie reminded me of "The Emperor's New Groove" in the best way possible, in that it is far more insane, goofy, loopy, and silly than most other animated features, sharing more in common with a Chuck Jones short. Honestly if I had read the screenplay of this movie, on paper I would have likely thought it too weird to really work, but it was executed perfectly.
The movie is also a wonderful example of GOOD VOICE CASTING (I'm talking to YOU Dreamworks!). Bill Hader and Ana Farris are both practically cartoon characters in themselves, and their vibrant bouncy energy translates brilliantly. The 3-D in this movie is really cool too, as food falls towards the screen.
Finally I want to note that I really appreciated the lack of overt bathroom humor in this movie. Often animated films (especially...ahem....Dreamworks films) will have a lot of juvenile, rather unfunny jokes for the kids, and a lot of "adult" sexual humor meant to go over the kids' heads for grown-ups. It's one way to go about things I suppose, but everything in "Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs" is just FUNNY no matter how you slice it. The only semi-lewd joke involves a monkey eating his own poop (mistaken for brown ice cream), but even that is actually pretty funny.
Seriously, no matter your age, you will laugh your ass off at this movie. Between this and the surprisingly good "Surf's Up," I like what Sony Pictures ImageWorks has been up to.

"Law Abiding Citizen" I went to an advanced screening of this movie, so here's an early review. The film has some story issues if you think about it too hard, and relies a bit too heavily on its "Silence of the Lambs" vibe, but overall it's tons of fun. Gerard Butler, whom I've always been lukewarm about, probably gives his best performance I've seen, and it's really fun to watch him torture poor Jamie Foxx as he continues to commit more and more brutal crimes in order to take down the justice system, somehow all while still imprisoned.
The movie begins to run out of steam after the first half (where all the best kills are), and it is NOT for the faint of heart (several short, but very violent moments are peppered throughout), but all-in-all a really good time, especially since I saw it for free!
It's also refreshing to see a city movie take place in Philly, after seeing so many set in Boston (thank you Scorsese), New York, or LA.

"Zombieland" I often have more to say about movies I dislike than movies I like, and I'm probably going to say a lot about "Zombieland."
If you weren't aware, I LOVE zombie movies, mainly because they're fast, cheap, and out-of-control. Anyone can make a pretty cool zombie movie with very little money, and it's no surprise a lot of early filmmakers make zombieish films when they're first breaking out in the biz (i.e. Peter Jackson and Sam Raimi).
However for the same reason there are a lot of shitty zombie movies out there. Because anyone can make a zombie movie cheaply, any two-bit horror-loving punk (like me!) with a film camera often tries to make a zombie movie, and winds up with something pretty stupid.
Also, in the last ten years we've seen a LOT of zombie films get made, and frankly, I think they've run their course and need to die down (har!) for a while. The same goes for vampires, but at least zombies weren't pussified (and I'm holding out and praying werewolves stay cool for a while).
Bottom line...if you're going to come out with a mainstream zombie movie NOW, you'd better be sure as hell that it's actually good. Zombieland got great reviews, so maybe my hopes were too high. Because I thought the movie was actually pretty superficial. Sorta fun, but superficial. It felt like ZombieLite for the regular film-goer who couldn't stomach a "real" zombie movie.
A REAL zombie movie (especially after a decade-long surge of popularity) has something going on under the surface. I'm not saying I need to be hit over the head with a message like "28 Days Later" (a paradoxical "art-house zombie movie" that didn't work), but even Zach Snyder's "Dawn of the Dead," which worked mostly as fun escapism, still took some cues from the Romero original and had a bit to say about consumerism and human paranoia in survivalist situations. "Shaun of the Dead," like "Zombieland" was also a romantic zombie comedy (rom-zom-com!), but under its goofiness lay an examination of British humor and pub culture, and culminated with a rather dramatic scene of Shaun having to shoot his own mother.
Yet "Zombieland" is just a silly adventure film, played for laughs, and nothing else. There are hints of a deeper movie lurking beyond the edges of the screen at times, mainly when Jesse Eisenberg explains WHY a loser like him would survive a zombie apocalypse, and his "list" of survival tricks that ties the movie together is admittedly pretty clever. I also enjoyed the scene in his dorm room when Amber Heard goes ape-shit because it was neat to see his longing tenderness so quickly switch to horror and revulsion, even if it did remind me of things I've seen in other films before. Yet at the end of the day, everything in "Zombieland" felt very surface-level, as the heroes have a run-of-the-mill adventure to save our damsels in distress. And not a single one of our heroes gets tragically bitten, a staple of the well-developed zombie flick. I suppose that was the point; take this "scary" genre and trivialize it, but I don't think that's a good goal to strive for. Even my favorite part of the movie involving (SPOILER!) Bill Murray I saw coming a mile away. Since Bill Murray wasn't signed on for the entire film, I knew he'd get offed in some comical, accidental faction...and I was right!
OK fine...maybe not all zombie movies have as much depth as I'm giving them credit for. But they at least have scares, right? In "Zombieland" my horror instincts kept kicking in ("Look behind you!!!"), but every time I was bummed out when no monster jumped from the shadows. And the "kills" were almost all pretty uncreative. Just basic "blasts to the head." Nothing anywhere near as enjoyable as PJ's "Dead Alive" lawnmower kill, or the "Dawn of the Dead" guys picking off celebrity look-a-likes from the rooftop.
And how did everything still work? For a zombie apocalypse, it seemed like most of the world was still (relatively) intact. Bill Murray's house was in pristine condition. Never did we see the survivors going hungry or looking for food (except for twinkies). The characters talked about how rough it was to go without showers, but Emma Stone (whom I liked by the way) was able to continue on day after day with perfect eye shadow makeup and lustrous hair. And at the amusement park finale, all the power works, and the rides are still fully functional. Didn't anyone working on the film see "Life After People" on the History Channel and realize how quickly things start to deteriorate without proper maintenance?
Yes, the acting is good. Yes, the camerawork and cinematography is what you would expect with an A-list budget. But it felt to me like somebody just wanted to show zombies in an amusement park (admittedly pretty cool), and wrote a film around that idea. "Zombieland" may have been well-executed, but it lacked the spark and spunk of originality it clearly thought it had, and I found it uninspired.

Summer Wrap-Up

2009-09-07T14:51:00.000-07:00

I've fallen WAY behind in this stuff, so I'm going to do my best to review a lot of movies very quickly, while filling in on what I've been up to for the last three months. In fact, to make things easier, I'm going to put things into "categories" that sort of relate to what's been going on lately. I'm also sure I'm forgetting a few, but what are you gonna do? Here goes:

"Freddie's Movies"
Freddie and his homeboys have started a very cool little club where we all get together in his loft every other weekish and watch a couple films. The only rule is that someone different presents every week, and that we have to give a brief "lecture" as to why the movies we are watching are important. It's this sort of thing that keeps me confident the relationships we all forged in college actually do have a chance of lasting well into the professional world.

1) "Waltz With Bashir" A really interesting doc about an Israeli director and his recurring flashbacks of the invasion of Lebanon. Sequences that would normally be boring talking heads are made interesting by inventive animation, and the horror of the actual event is made all the more effective at the end when we finally DON'T see animation, but instead REAL footage of the weeping victims. Pretty shocking stuff. The opening sequence with all the dogs is also masterfully done.

2) "The Hurt Locker" Yes, this was actually a summer movie, but we all know Freddie, and we all know how he likes to grab copies of movies early.
I frankly thought this movie ROCKED. Jeremy Renner, whom at first appears to be an expendable character, really comes into his own and takes control of the film. I'd love to see him get an Oscar nomination, although the film is probably too small to get noticed.
It's also very inventive how (spoiler) every major A-list star in the film gets killed off pretty quickly, keeping the audience on their toes. At first I assumed this was a Guy Pearce vehicle...boy was I wrong.
I really liked this movie as a refreshing example of a war movie that doesn't show the war as "cool," but doesn't have an agenda on its hands either. It just shows the war for what it is, and it's gripping, exciting, awesome stuff.

3) "Private Parts" I wasn't so excited to see this film, but it's a surprisingly funny movie about Howard Stern's "rise" to the top of the radio world, and features a lot of great side character moments. Howard Stern himself steals the show. I was startled how much I enjoyed it.

4) "Sherman's March" Jason brought in this movie, which starts out as a documentary about General Sherman. Halfway through the film, the filmmaker turns towards the camera and admits, "OK, my girlfriend just dumped me, I'm depressed. I don't know if I can finish this." The film then weirdly transitions into the story of a lonely guy meeting up with all his past loves and trying to find some meaning to his life. A lot of awkward, sad, and darkly funny moments unfold. A weirdly charming movie in spite of its inherent creepiness.

5) "Still We Believe" Chris brought in this documentary about Boston Red Sox fans. Some movies are made ONLY for fans of the genre, and this movie really was only amusing if you were a Boston Red Sox fan. It's like if I forced everyone to watch a movie about dinosaurs (except that almost everyone agrees dinosaurs are really cool on some level). Maybe a better analogy would be to say that I forced everyone to watch a movie about entomologists. Whatever...I'm rambling. The point is...not every subject deserves a full documentary about it, and this film didn't work for the general public.

6) "Used Cars" Robert Zemeckis made this loopy film before he made "Back to the Future." Frankly, it's a movie that barely lurches along, and manages only to stay alive thanks to the sheer charisma of Kurt Russell. It's only until the ludicrous final act where I realized I was watching something special.
In the final act, the "bad guys" change up the car commercial of the love interest, to make it sound like she says, "We have a MILE of cars." She is then arrested for false advertising.
Kurt Russell and his buddies, not to be outdone, then go off into the desert and engage in one of the most bizarre race-against-time scenes ever, as they get all the teenage student drivers to get a bunch of cars from a Mexican salesman and drive them to the lot. There are shots of HUNDREDS of broken-down hunks of junk driving through the desert, as Kurt Russell (usually clearly NOT a stunt double) fights the bad guy on top of his pickup truck while it's being driven, Ben-Hur style. Quite insane stuff.
You kind of just have to see it...

7) "Playtime" Sometimes I really don't get the French. This sequel to "Mr. Hulot's Holiday" (which I also hated) was purportedly one of the most expensive movies ever made for its time, and it's famous because the director had complete control over the entire production, to the point that he individually was able to tell each extra how to move in each particular shot.
Frankly, the movie SUCKS. Perhaps there's a reason directors shouldn't be given this much freedom. Especially French directors. Ironic French slapstick is the stupidest thing ever.

8) "Unfaithfully Yours" This was an awesome movie that was WAY ahead of its time. Made in the 1940s (yes...the 40s!) Rex Harrison plays a jealous orchestra conductor who suspects his wife of cheating. As he conducts, he imagines different ways of dealing with the situation/murdering her, and each version changes based on the emotional tone of the music. In the end, he tries to act out his revenge, but it all goes horribly wrong. The movie reminded me a little bit of a comedic version of Hitchcock's "Dial M For Murder."
Anyway, this a very under-appreciated movie that I think plays a lot better in today's darker, more cynical times. Highly recommended.

9) "Kingdom of Heaven" I saw the director's cut of Ridley Scott's epic movie. David seemed to think this counts as Ridley Scott's best film, but I didn't see it at all. First off, as a sci-fi geek, it's impossible to top "Alien" and "Blade Runner," but those notwithstanding, it's still not even as good as "Gladiator." Not a bad movie really, but very very long, and smacking of too many other movies I've seen before. It's part "Gladiator" (as expected), part "Batman Begins" (Liam Neeson as the old mentor), part "Return of the King" (Orlando Bloom fighting off massive armies in a climactic end hold-out battle behind large walls), and even part "Pirates of the Caribbean" (Orlando Bloom is a lowly blacksmith who rises to power). I was lukewarm about the entire film, although I hear the version I saw is miles better than the theatrical cut.

"Summer Movies"
You can't leave these out! I think the big releases of this summer were disappointing, but there were a lot of fun surprises hiding amongst the blockbusters.

1) "Up" OK...this movie was pretty damn good. It's impossible to argue which Pixar film is better at this point, but I think this is one of their best. I'd probably place it in their top five, although it's a really tough call.
I've rewatched the film several times since it hit theaters, and it gets better and better. I still get tears in my eye at certain points, and the overall adventure-serial feel, twisted to be about crazy old men instead of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle/Indiana Jones types, is whimsical, heartwarming, and fun. Perhaps the best film of the year so far. 2009 is shaping up to be a great year for animation.

2) "Drag Me to Hell” Sam Raimi’s triumphant return to his horror roots is (almost) enough to make up for the travesty that was “Spider-Man 3.” I say there are three types of horror:
a) The truly terrifying, psychological type that gets under your skin (my favorite type)
b) The torture-gore-porn (worthless in my book) and...
c) The scary yet funny kind.
“Drag Me to Hell” is one of the best of the latter kind, as half the time I didn’t know whether to scream or laugh, and was often doing both at once. I jumped clear out of my seat a few times, but still had a blast, and a lot of praise must be given to the sound designers, who did an excellent job of adding an extra layer of terror and creepiness.
My only complaint is that I guessed the end twist pretty easily; so easily, in fact, I thought there was going to be another twist on top of the twist, and there wasn’t. (spoilers) I assumed that when Christine gave the old woman the coin, it would mean that Justin Long would instead get dragged to hell, or that Christine would have one final face-off against the Lamia-monster, where she would ultimately defeat it. Instead…BOOM…she dies. A bit disappointing, partially because I’m totally in love with Alison Lohmann and wanted to see her survive so I could marry her.

3) “Moon” An incredible low budget film (directed by David Bowie’s son!) where Sam Rockwell plays an isolated man up in space gathering fuel for the Earth. As little as possible should be said about this movie so as not to spoil the fun (although I did guess the twist a little early), but I’d love to see Sam Rockwell get an Oscar nom for playing his character(s) so well. Kevin Spacey is also awesome as the ship’s computer. See it!!!

4) “Imagine That” Sometimes I want to slap studio execs. I understand the big studio heads are obsessed with money…it sucks, but it’s true. I understand when a bad movie gets made, but has enough mass appeal to do well (i.e. “G-Force”), and I also understand when somebody will take a risk on a strange idea, just because they have faith it might be made into an interesting film. But this was a film that anyone with an ounce of common sense would tell you was a piece of garbage even on paper. Eddie Murphy (no longer a box-office draw, mind you) plays a father who uses his daughter’s magical blanket to help his stock investing career, and in the end “discovers” the importance of being a real father.
Who was this movie made for??? Kids? What do they know about stock investments? Parents? The movie is too stupid and insipid to interest adults. With the multitude of films pitched every year, why the hell did anybody green-light this?
The movie is poorly-written, poorly-directed, and practically all the actors are in sleepwalker mode. The only bright light comes from Thomas Hayden Church, who steals every scene his in (and it’s pretty clear it’s just him having a good time, and not anything the director asked him to do).
However, while THC is a funny dude, his cameo appearances can’t save the movie. This piece of drivel totally blew. And it didn't help that a movie about stock investing was released in a recession either.

5) “The Hangover” Surprisingly funny, though not as amazing as a lot of people make it out to be. Definitely director Todd Phillips’ best work thus far.
I actually went to a screening where the director did a Q&A afterwards (cool guy, by the way), and he had some interesting things to say. He kept mentioning how he changed the script around, as it was originally just something in the same vein as “Bachelor Party.” It was his idea to cut from the roof of the Vegas hotel to the morning after, turning the entire thing into some sort of bizarre film noir. “But it’s really the writers’ movie” he’d say.
Then he’d mention, “Oh yeah…the tiger, I came up with that. And the baby…that was my idea too. But it’s really the writers’ movie.”
Don’t kid yourself Todd Phillips. I’ve looked at what other things the writers of this film wrote…you made “The Hangover” good, and deserve all the credit.

6) “Bruno” I actually found a lot of “Bruno” funnier than “Borat” but unfortunately the novelty has worn off, making it not feel as fresh. Still some pretty good stuff though. My favorite bit was the two-second piece with Harrison Ford.

7) “Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen” This movie was like empty sex. A lot of fun, but really nothing behind it. I suppose I liked it a bit more than the first movie, only because a lot of the robots were given a bit more personality and things to do (Optimus really finally shines and becomes his own character). Still, the movie smacks of Michael Bay idiocy, and it’s a shame this will be the top grossing film at the box office this year. Seriously, are you really that hard up for giant robots, America?
Also, Roger Ebert’s review of this movie is amazing.

8) “Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince” Pretty much every Harry Potter movie can’t be as good as the book (with the exception of “Order of the Phoenix”), but this was the only time I’ve left the theater feeling a bit disappointed. “Half-Blood Prince” was my second-favorite Harry Potter book (after “Goblet of Fire”) but the choices that were made for the movie didn’t work.
I appreciate trying to make this a far more adult film and compelling drama than the last few movies, but ultimately it just wasn’t as fun…this is Harry Potter, and we do want to see magic happen before our eyes.
Not enough focus was given to the crux of the story, which is really about how Harry becomes connected to his Potions textbook, without realizing it’s Snape. This entire subplot was turned into one throw-away line of dialogue at the end.
Also missing was the sense of urgency the film needed. In the book, you feel that time is running out…that Dumbledore NEEDS Harry to help him discover Voldemort’s past. And at the end, we realize it’s because Dumbledore was dying, and was trying to pass the torch to Harry.
In the movie, we just get that all this memory-collecting is some sort of bizarre extracurricular activity; “Hey Harry, check out my new Pensieve toy…pretty cool huh?” There’s no sense that anything is at stake. Even the added action sequence at The Burrow fails to heighten the sense of danger.
Even the ending is mucked up. When I read the book, there was a huge sense of doom when the Harry and Dumbledore return to Hogwarts (as Dumbledore is dying) and they see it is under attack. Harry feels completely lost, helpless, hopeless. The movie has no such attack, because a similar thing happens in the final book, and they likely didn’t want to repeat themselves. However this means all the energy of the final moment, culminating with (BIGGEST SPOILER EVER) Snape killing Dumbledore, is deflated.
Regardless, performances are very strong across the board. Alan Rickman is always excellent, but it’s nice that he’s given a bit more to do here. This was the first time Michael Gambon really FELT like Dumbledore, and the biggest surprise is Tom Felton as Draco Malfoy, who has physically grown into his role to look very lean, mean, and menacing. He also gets to be the most versatile, as shown in my favorite scene where he breaks down during the bathroom, yet still fights back against Harry. Great work!
There was a lot I liked about the movie, but overall I think they dropped the ball on what I think could have been the best of the Harry Potter films. Oh well.

9) “District 9” One of the best surprises of the summer, I LOVED this movie (though the fact that it includes aliens always helps the cause). It’s so refreshing to see someone like Peter Jackson greenlight an original story with a new visual look and daring new concepts. After a half hour of setting up a unique and interesting world via documentary style, Neill Blomkamp takes you on one of the most incredible sci-fi adventures ever, and rocks your face off. The special effects are top notch, and the lead actor delivers a performance that might be another Oscar long shot (and it’s his first feature film as an actor!). Keep in mind this movie was also made for $30 million, but is 1,000 times more exciting than most films I’ve seen with six times the budget.
Unlike Michael Bay’s hand-held action which just gets frenetic and confusing, here the action style, while still hand-held, has a fluidity and grace that just adds to the excitement. This movie ruled. Thank you Peter Jackson. You’re still my hero!

10) “Under the Sea 3D” IMAX 3D films are perfect for the ocean. I’ve seen several IMAX movies in 3-D, but the ones that take place underwater are always the best. Somehow, things emerging from the blue murk and heading towards you really gives you a sense of wonder that works better than other things do in 3-D. Movies like this rock. See it if you’re a nature lover, and are passing by your nearest IMAX-equipped museum (LA Science Center, guys).

11) “Gamer” I actually liked this movie a lot more than most of the critics did, although it’s still far from perfect.
Made by the guys responsible for “Crank” it’s sort of an update of “The Running Man,” as Gerard Butler is a death row inmate forced to fight people in a live-action video game to win his freedom.
The movie has a lot more on its mind than the “Crank” movies (though that isn’t necessarily saying much), and it’s definitely a more complex plot. Yet at the end of the day, it just isn’t as much fun. Plus, Jason Statham is entertaining even when he takes a piss, and sadly Gerard Butler is no Jason Statham.
The best part of the movie is actually not the “Slayers” game Gerard Butler is forced to play, but another game, “Society,” that spoofs “The Sims” and “Second Life.” Here people are forced to walk around in outrageous outfits, acting as living avatars. Of course, most people use this game for weird perverted sex stuff, so it’s darkly funny to see these avatar-people being forced to say “sexy” things with intense sadness and pain in their eyes. Peter Petrelli from “Heroes” even shows up as a character named…Rick Rape. Yup.
All in all, not a great film, but fun. Plus, my girlfriend Alison Lohmann shows up in the movie, and that’s always nice (she IS my girlfriend, even if she doesn’t know it yet).

“Other Movies I Saw”
1) “Dear Zachary: A Letter to a Son About His Father” A chilling documentary that actually gave me nightmares afterwards (when a real horror movie won’t). Quite well made, but truly heart-wrenching. Also worth watching from an editing perspective. A good film, but it goes on my “I only need to see this movie once” list (also includes “United 93”).

2) “The International” An overall solid movie, mostly thanks to the likability of Clive Owen. One major failing of the film is that it drops you right into the middle of the action from the beginning. This is fine, but then there is never any moment where they step back and explain everything. Act I is nonexistent.
Spielberg often does something similar, where he’ll drop you in an action scene, and explain everything immediately afterward (i.e. “Jaws” “Jurassic Park” and “Raiders of the Lost Ark”). However here we’re never given a chance to breathe, and as a result we never really get a sense of any of the characters.
Still well acted, executed, and shot otherwise. And the scene where they shoot up the Guggenheim is pretty awesome.

3) “Dial M For Murder” A really cool Hitchcock movie that’s a bit more plain in its shot selection and formal storytelling format than some of his other work, but still psychologically interesting. A man blackmails another man into murdering his wife for him. Of course, things don’t go as planned. I don’t want to spoil this classic, so just go see it if you like Hitchcock.

4) “Farwell My Lovely” A Philip Marlowe film noir from the 80s that was honestly a bit dull. It is neat that, by this time, film noirs could poke fun at themselves and be a bit more self-reflexive than before, and that certainly happens a lot in this movie. Overall though, it failed to grab me in any way otherwise.

5) “The Wild One” Hey everyone! The secret movie Will and I are working on? It has a lot in common with this movie.
Honestly, this movie was fun, but it hasn’t aged well and feels pretty dated. Yet in some ways that adds to the fun. The “rowdy’ biker gang is very well-behaved by today’s standards, and the love story feels pretty forced and ridiculous. Not a great film, but luckily bikers in the 1950s are always watchable.

6) “The Wolf Man” Yup…even as a fan of horror, I had never seen this movie until very recently. It’s a classic for a reason, and very much the quintessential werewolf movie. Can’t really say more (although I was surprised how plump Lon Chaney actually was). I’m curious about the remake starring Benicio del Toro. I’m hoping werewolves don’t become TOO popular too soon, because I really want to try and get a werewolf movie out the door soon.

7) “Spy Kids 2” Sometimes I really don’t get Robert Rodriguez. At this point, the guy can make any movie he wants now that he’s set up his own studio in the Texan desert, and a lot of his adult stuff such as “Sin City,” “Planet Terror,” and the “Mariachi” movies are a lot of fun.
And honestly, I enjoyed the first “Spy Kids” movie for what it was. But I fail to see why a guy with the power to really create his own stuff wastes his time on a movie like this worthless sequel (and don’t get me started on “Shorts”). Is it just to entertain his kids? Probably. But is that worth pouring tons of money into a stupid movie?
"Spy Kids 2" is meant as an homage to the old Ray Harryhausen classics, but the CG effects are far less-convincing than the old stop motion ones they’re emulating, and they have none of their charm either. Bad Robert Rodriguez…bad!!! Give me access to your studio and I’ll make something better. It can't be too hard.

8) “Horton Hears a Who” I really like the guys at Blue Sky Studios (at one point I almost went to work for them). Sure, they aren’t quite Pixar, but who is? Most of their stuff at least feels more original than what Dreamworks generally churns out (the occasional “Kung Fu Panda” notwithstanding).
This movie looked absolutely gorgeous, and Dr. Seuss’s visual style works for animation far better than the live-action shit like Ron Howard’s “The Grinch.” Yet at the end of the day, the story doesn’t fit for a feature film (and I LOVE Dr. Seuss, for the record). Despite some talented voice work, most of the characters are pretty forgettable, and don’t have the staying power of their “Ice Age” characters. Honestly, “Ice Age” isn’t an earth-shattering film by any means, but I at least got a lot more wrapped up in the adventures of those animals than anyone in this film.
Eh, maybe I’m just a sucker for prehistoric creatures.

9) “eXistenZ” David Cronenberg has some weird perverted fun and fucks with your head a bit more in this mind-bending, quirky movie. It’s a weird crazy ride, but I wouldn’t say it’s one of Croneberg’s best. I enjoyed both “Scanners” and “The Fly” a lot more. All this plugging in to diseased bio-ports as a clear metaphor for sex got to be tiresome after a while, and the whole “game within a game” thing has been done before, and better. And I honestly don’t think it’s that interesting a premise to begin with.
Actually, check out “Camera” one of my favorite shorts by Cronenberg.

10) "Across the Universe" A friend had me watch this because they knew I really liked The Beatles, but frankly, I hated this film, and I think it completely missed the point of what The Beatles were all about. A bunch of Beatles songs are loosely strung together for what feels like four hours, with very little actual plot connecting them. And each song generally just reminds you, "Boy, I really liked this song...when THE BEATLES sang it." The covers are terrible, the acting bland, and none of the characters interesting at all. The movie just wanders and wanders and wanders and NEVER ENDS. And so many of the songs are useless, clearly added because somebody liked the song, not because they were incorporated into the movie for any real reason. Dr. Casper (yes, I'm going there) said that, in a musical, people sing as an outward manifestation of their inner feelings, but the filmmakers clearly didn't make this film with any of that in mind. It's very obvious the filmmakers just put in as much Beatles music as possible, and tried to find a way to make a plot out of it afterwards. You really realize how stupid the movie is during "Dear Prudence" when a girl named Prudence, who has no connection to any other character as of yet, starts walking through a field and singing. She then disappears later in the movie, clearly only there so they could squeeze this song in. Stupid!
Joe Cocker is OK on his cover of "Come Together" (because he's actually a REAL singer), and Bono was pretty awesome as the stoned-out hippie guru. But honestly, they should have just made a bunch of Beatles music videos and had that be the end of it. Trying to milk an entire movie out of the whole thing really sucked. I'm going to go out on a limb and say this is one of the worst movies I've seen in a long time, if just for the fact that it took something I loved (The Beatles) and made me want to tear my eyes out.

“Battlestar Galactica”
I finally finished this show! It’s awesome!!! Possibly one of the best shows to ever grace TV. Even if you don’t like sci-fi, give it a chance. As far as I’m concerned, the show never really jumped the shark.
I’d write more about this, but I’m getting tired.

OK…that’s good for now. Now for a LIFE UPDATE:
After escaping from those crazies in Burbank, I moved in with Logan for a while and finished out Freddie’s lease. It was a lot of fun…Logan was a great housemate.

However that lease ended, and I hunkered down on Jason and David’s couch for a while, until we all FINALLY got a really awesome three-bedroom place together in Culver City. I really like it here, and am SO excited to finally be living somewhere where I can settle in and not move for an entire year. Plus, the place is nice and the rent is cheap. It should be good for my writing and general sense of well-being. The nomadic lifestyle was getting to me.

I also had some pretty interesting experiences house-sitting that aren’t safe for the internet (ask my friends), and have now successfully lived for a year on my own without my parents’ money. Work has been difficult, my pay has been low, and my job has been thankless, but I’m keeping my chin up and looking to the future. I think I’m on the right path.

I wanted to end on the most rewarding event of my summer, which was going to Santa Cruz Island for what I think is the 11th time. While there, I saw…ISLAND FOXES!!!

For those who don’t know, Island Foxes are found ONLY on our Channel Islands, and they almost went extinct. They are super cute, and about the size of a house cat. When I was little, I used to see them everywhere. However DDT wiped out the bald eagle population on the islands (bald eagles only eat fish). With no bald eagles, the golden eagles flew out to the islands to start eating the non-native pigs, which the Park Service were also trying to get rid of (pigs are very bad for rare endemic island plants). However, the golden eagles also started eating all these cute little defenseless foxes.

Anyway, the pigs were finally eradicated, the golden eagles relocated, and the bald eagles reintroduced. However the foxes were almost completely wiped out. When I went out to the islands in my later years, I would never see them anymore.

However, this time I saw many foxes, including several baby ones, meaning the foxes are breeding, and alive and healthy on the islands once more. A true preservation success story (which are sadly, very rare). I love the Channel Islands, and it’s very rewarding to see those foxes out there once again. It fills my heart with nature-y joy. In my lifetime I've watched a species almost go extinct, and come back from the brink to flourish again.

The Robots Won

2009-05-23T17:32:00.000-07:00

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

2009-05-11T18:10:00.000-07:00

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'...

2009-04-27T22:42:00.001-07:00

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.