Online Movies Review

Film Review: 50/50

2011-10-13T17:35:00.000-07:00

Learning that you have a dangerous cancer and that your chances of survival are 50/50 when you are in your late 20s and you haven’t even been to Canada must be the most difficult news to cope with. But Adam (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) takes it surprisingly well - at first. What seems to bother him more is the way his friends and family seem to handle it. Although he is told that his chances are 50/50, Adam would very much like to keep on living like he used to even if he knows he is going to die. Cancer however might have other plans.

When he learns about his disease Adam reaches out to friends and family for support. He gives his girlfriend, Rachel (Bryce Dallas Howard) an exit. She amicably refuses it, stating that she will help him through it. But it doesn’t take long before we realize she is not willing to take full responsibility over Adam. Ultimately, Adam finds much better support with his best friend, Kyle (Seth Rogen), who at first seems only to be using the disease as a way to get laid but ultimately rises to the occasion.

Finally Adam reaches out to his family, and he has a good reason to leave them till the end. His mother (Angelica Houston) is a bit overbearing; she certainly supports him, perhaps a bit too much. But would it kill her to give her son a hug? Furthermore she has to take care of a husband with Alzheimer’s at home.

Adam also meets a therapist, Katherine (Anna Kendrick); she happens to be a few years younger than him, just out of med-school, and behaving the way no therapist should. And joins a support group, where the youngest member is still twice his age at the very least.

All of this leaves Adam, alone in his house with cancer. But despite all this depressing cancer talk 50/50 is still a comedy. Not in the way it has been advertised, a Seth Rogan bro-mance about dudes, but a more mellow form of comedy. The one that is only recognizable as such because of its feel good ending.

I cannot say if this film accurately depicts the struggles of cancer patients; I wouldn’t even try to because, thankfully, I haven’t lived through that. But the film itself was written by Will Reiser, who was diagnosed with a spinal tumor, survived, is now in remission for life, and happens to be friends with Seth Rogen. So, I can see why the characters felt real, and their reactions logical. Perhaps exaggerated, and certainly sugarcoated. But it is still refreshing to see a movie where you understand most of the characters.

So, I do recommend this film. It is certainly well written, well acted, and best of all, likable.

Norman

2011-10-06T00:57:00.000-07:00

Needless to say, I am very, very excited for this.

Film Review: REAL STEEL

2011-10-04T12:58:00.000-07:00

One of the greatest virtues of the original Rocky (the film that won the Academy Award for Best Motion Picture in 1976) was that Rocky did not win at the fight at the end, although he became a better fighter. I am not spoiling much of Real Steel if I were to say this is the Rocky for the CGI generation. A few weeks ago I wrote that the best part of the fall is that movies get smarter; well, I was just proven wrong by Real Steel. While Rocky was a sentimentalist allegory for the great white hope, Real Steel is nothing more than a silly movie about robot boxing.

If you have seen the trailers, by far the best part of this movie, then you already know 99% of the story. Hugh Jackman stars as Charlie, a washed out former boxing champion; at some point in his career robots replaced humans in the ring and the sport changed. Professional boxing is now the ultimate playground for geeks and rednecks who like to watch robots bash each other, while the human boxers are simply used to teach the robots how to box. Jackman’s life turns around when his ex-wife dies and his long lost son (Dakota Goyo) comes to live with him. The kid is a robot-boxing fan and soon enough he inspires Charlie to fix himself up and start boxing again. And by boxing he means teaching a junkyard robot how to do it. Atom, the robot, turns out to be quite a good machine; the trio gets cocky and soon enough they are challenging the world champion.

Sound familiar? Real Steel is basically every underdog-boxing movie out there, but with robots. This is both its strength and it weakness. By focusing the story in a father-son relationship and not the sport, the film avoids those twenty-minute action sequences that have become quite tiresome. But at the same time it follows every cliché of the father-son story, and becomes overtly sentimental. Not to mention that it includes the most awkward kiss ever filmed between Charlie and his girlfriend, now foster mother to his son, Bailley (Evangeline Lilly). The clichés are so numerous that the film becomes painfully awkward to watch. Should I have expected better writing from a movie about robot boxing? Probably not; but the trailer was so well edited that my expectations were certainly higher.

Like many of its kind, Real Steel is a well-made movie. Well acted, decently directed by Shawn Levy (who is best known for his family comedies), and pretty looking. But although there used to be a time were this could only be attributed to a good movie, now a movie about robots bashing each other can enjoy the benefits as well.

I guess Real Steel is a decent movie. And you might enjoy it, if robot boxing is your type of thing and you happen to be in middle school. But we can and should expect more.

Film Review: MONEYBALL

2011-09-27T20:34:00.000-07:00

Moneyball totally took me by surprise and I couldn’t be happier. Yes, that’s right. I am declaring a big budget studio feature about baseball starring Brad Pitt a huge, wonderful success. I dare you to tell me you don’t like this movie.

Between Brad Pitt, Jonah Hill and the script, this film is rock solid. And what a relief to say that! I don’t need to mention brilliant visuals or alluring starlets. I don’t have to justify recycled excuses for why I enjoyed this film. There aren’t flashy action sequences or dazzling special effects. There is no 3D or IMAX to melt our brains. There are no gimmicks!

This is old style filmmaking at its best - a charismatic pair of leads and a script you invest in without ever thinking twice. It’s intelligent, informative and surprisingly funny. And how could it not be when two of the most brilliant screenwriters of the last three decades collaborated on it? Current Oscar incumbent Aaron Sorkin (The Social Network) and fellow San Francisco State alumni Steve Zaillian (Schindler’s List, American Gangster) not only give their audience a reason to love baseball, they give the audience a reason to love a version of baseball that by definition should be unlovable.

What we have on our hands here is one of the first smart films of 2011. Hill and Pitt are perfect channels for super enjoyable, talk-like-this-with-your-buddies dialogue that rockets along at a great pace and never gets stale. It’s also notably relevant to our modern day world (after all the story is only from 2002). Here, even in the digital era of statistics and new traditions, human emotion is still driving the engine.

I have to also share my astonishment that anyone could make me not only sympathizes with, but totally root for a Major League Baseball team and its financial predicament. The secret is that there is a fascinating message not-so-hidden in the film: today’s superstar athletes ARE way over paid and are taking away from the real power behind the game.

I don’t want to leave out Pitt’s fantastic supporting cast, the film had no weak links. But Moneyball is Pitt’s show and he deserves it richly. Just like his character Billy Beane, Pitt sold out early in his career to the lure of money and fame only to find a balance later through projects that mean something and leave a legacy behind for others to follow. Every scene he is on screen for is wrapped around his presence and there is never a doubt we want to root for Billy Beane – he steals us heart and soul for the whole show.

This is our team, this is a big problem, and if we don’t get through this we’re going to leave this theater feeling worse about life. But I’ll spoil the end right now, you’ll leave higher than when you went in. What a breath of fresh air.

Film Review: TUCKER & DALE VS EVIL

2011-09-26T17:03:00.000-07:00

Sometimes all the necessary things for a great movie to come into existence line up; it is the holy alliance or a fresh idea, a great script, and good acting to come together. If you have this it is quite unlikely for any filmmaker to screw it up. Eli Craig was blessed with this trifecta on his directorial debut, Tucker & Dale vs Evil, a warm parody of the teenage slasher classics (if we can call them classics). The film is what the Scream and Scary Movie franchises could have been had they not lacked, a fresh idea, a good script to tie down that idea, and good acting to make that idea come to life. And yet while those movies make millions Tucker & Dale vs Evil has sat on a shelf for two years, because studios refuse to believe new comers can be bankable filmmakers.

This 2010 Sundance release, centers on the misadventures of two “hillbillies”, Tucker (Alan Tudyk) and Dale (Tyler Labine), a likable boffo with low self-esteem. Tucker has just purchased a small cabin in the woods, which the two friends like to see as their new vacation home. They head there for the weekend to fix it up. Also camping in these woods are a group of undergrads that, like all college kids camping in the woods, enjoy getting high, narrating horror stories, and skinny-dipping.

When Tucker and Dale have a run in with the kids, chaos follows. The kids mistake the friendly “hillbillies” for the deadly psycho hillbillies of a horror movie. And in their self-defense effort they end up…

Well I am not going to spoil it. But soon enough Tucker and Dale are convinced that the kids have come to the woods for some kind of group suicide, and that they should get out of there before things get worse and the cute girl (Katrina Bowden) dies. Needless to say things do get worse.

And weirder.

And funnier.

I laughed so hard, for 90 minutes straight. The movie is 80 minutes (a was still crying out of laughter after the credits). As the writer, Eli Craig masters horror as he bombards the screen with horror film references; as a director, he has great comedic timing so even if you are unable to relate these references you still laugh when the joke comes. The plot turns in pretty much every unexpected direction, even when it is following the expected slasher formula. It is not what you expect to think you won’t expect, nor vice versa.

Meanwhile Tudyk and Labine provide a spot-on performance as the bewildered “hillbillies”, the perfect mix of confusion, fear, and amusement at the weirdness of their situation. You feel for them like you rarely do for a character in a movie. While Bowden, is the perfect cast for the girl who spends half the movie knocked out in hilarious fashions.

So in conclusion, watch this movie. It is now available on iTunes, and a few other on-demand cyber-retailers (maybe Netflix) and will soon get a limited theater release. It took studios two years to recognize how fun and fresh this movie is, do not make the same mistake. And if you don’t trust me, trust the millions of piraters who have made this film a constant member of the top ten most illegally downloaded movies from its premier at Sundance last year to its second premiere at Comic Con this year. A movie doesn’t get there unless it has really been recommended.

The Grey

2011-09-21T22:26:00.000-07:00

Film Review: THE HELP

2011-09-20T13:12:00.000-07:00

Some might argue that The Help presents itself as too rosy a movie for a movie about the lives of black maids in the South during the Jim Crow Days. That a movie of its kind should attempt to be painful, and provocative, not, as this movie is, a feel-good dramedy with a white girl as its top billing. But why does it need to be painful? Personally I believe the exaggerated pain drama only help propagate the problem they claim to be fighting against (I am referring of course to Crash, and the like). And that The Help might be just so much more effective a movie because it is not that: it just shows things as they were without caring for exaggerated drama.

The story focuses on two black maids and a white girl, raised by them because her mother was too busy being a socialite, in 1950 Jackson Mississippi. One of the maids, Aibileen Clark (Viola Davis), has spent her life raising white girls like Skeeter Phelan (Emma Stone); she knows more about the children than their own mothers, who never learned how to change a diaper. Yet she is not allowed the house toilet because according to the lady of the house, “black people carry different diseases” (yes, ignorance is a bitch). Aibileen, genuinely loves the kids she raises, but can’t wrap her mind around the fact that when they grow up they tend to turn into their parents (many whom she also helped raise). Aibileen’s friend, Minnie Jackson (Octavia Spencer), is a maid fired by a local social leader, Hilly Holbrook (Bryce Dallas Howard). Hilly is a voracious social climber, who likes things to be as white as possible, from keeping blacks out of white toilets, to setting up charities for the starving African children. Hilly’s younger sister Skeeter returns to Jackson Mississippi after four years in college only to find that Hilly and her mother have fired her beloved nanny, after 29 years of service at their home.

Skeeter convinces Aibileen and Minny to speak frankly about their lives as black maids in a white world. They share their stories, not without hesitation, for what they are doing is illegal in Mississippi. And Skeeter gets a book deal with a publisher in New York. Most of their stories are humorous, simple housekeeping wisdom about life. But quite a few are quite more tragic. The movie manages to find a very fine balance between the two. We can laugh at the basic life skill ignorance of the rich ladies only until it is clear that this ignorance has a very negative side that affects others.

Ignorance is a bitch. And the more ironic part is that many who will and have laughed through this movie are probably guilty of it. Laughter can be the cure, and in this case it likely is. In many ways The Help, is not a movie about race relations, just about the relations between people. Some are good some are bad, some are rich some are not, some are black and some are white but they are all people. The Help is a good movie; it is a sweet movie; and it just happens to be involving and wonderfully acted.

Film Review: CONTAGION

2011-09-15T17:35:00.000-07:00

Contagion is one lazy piece of fiction that banks on the names of numerous stars, pretentious direction, and the general audience’s fear of anything swine flu related. Ironically, several of the characters do point out, how the exaggerated fear over the swine flu made things worse. Would I be spoiling anything if I said the same thing happens in Contagion? Probably not because Contagion is trying to be a realistic film that speculates how a global epidemic could affect our lives.

The setting is somewhat familiar after the outbreak of swine flu a few years ago, and its annual variations. The film tells the story of a new deadly outbreak through the lives of several characters, and the casual interactions between them. The list of characters includes: the virus’ first American victim (Gwyneth Paltrow), her husband who is apparently immune (Matt Damon), the head of the CDC desperately trying to find a solution (Laurence Fishburne), the first CDC agent on the field (Kate Winslet) a WHO agent from Geneva (Marion Cotillard), and Jude Law as a crazed out blogger desperately trying to annoy someone.

If the cast seems impressive you most remember that the director is Steven Soderbergh, the man who brought us the Ocean’s Trilogy, which had an even more impressive cast and yet proved that having such high profile stars is not the mark of quality story telling. You can apply that same rule to Contagion.

The more characters there are, the harder it becomes to focus. And in contagion there are so many stories, many which only have a scene or two in the whole film, that there is no possible way to relate to any of the characters. But that is when I realized that the only constant character in the whole film was the virus. And like any good written character, the virus evolves as the story moves forward.

The virus in “Contagion” is an odd one; it defies isolation and can spread by simply touching an infected host, always staying a jump ahead of death. What it does to its victims is perplexing, and it seems ripped off several B-movies. Last time I checked no form of influenza, not even the deadly Spanish-flu that wiped out 1% of the world’s population back in 1918, was capable of eating a person’s brains from the inside out. I could be wrong, but I have a feeling that believable symptoms could have helped this film’s attempt at realism.

When put together, this works as cheap drama. It might have been useful if Soderbergh had explained the nature of the virus more clearly. Viruses are survivors; life forms that are not hostile to us, but concerned with attaching themselves to a host for their survival. And that is why a virus that kills off so many people is as realistic as a zombie outbreak. What happens when everyone is turned into a zombie and the zombies don’t have any more brains to feed on?

In short Contagion is for the people who freaked out about the swine flu; they will find this movie to be a frightening thriller. But in the end, as time goes by, we all grow a little bit more paranoid.

Film Review: APOLLO 18

2011-09-13T12:14:00.000-07:00

No, the moon may not be made of cheese, but let me assure you that the latest film about it is.

To the eternal delight of conspiracy theorists, Apollo 18 is sold to us as a found-footage project recovered from a secret mission to the moon, which would have been easier to swallow if it wasn’t so comically serious in its presentation. As it is, I found myself chuckling 10 seconds in and I was not alone.

The film, we are told was ‘shot’ by two members of a three man mission to the moon using their specially equipped cameras a la the Blair Witch Project. They are pilots Nathan Walker and Ben Anderson and some other guy who spends the entire movie orbiting the moon and wondering why there is so much static on his radio. We are supposed to sympathize with these guys and their nervousness over the government’s secrecy, but the performances and the script scream ‘alien fodder’ and that is that.

When they get to the moon, Nathan and Ben get into the lander, leave static man in the orbitor, and touchdown near a big, dark crater. I wonder where the aliens are hiding? Don’t go into the craters Ben, there is no light and the temperature is -1000 degrees. So Ben goes into the crater. Don’t go on unscheduled lunar walks Nathan. So Nathan goes on unscheduled lunar walks. Don’t feed the moon rocks after midnight… er.

Mainly due to terrific audio work and unconscious expectation you find yourself, against all odds, tense by this point, because there are no aliens yet and this movie promised aliens dammit. Then really eerie stuff starts happening; the radio stops working, lights flicker, stuff moves impossibly, and moon rocks end up inside space suits. Aliens you cry! It’s aliens stupid! Flee! So of course they go on more unscheduled space walks. And this is where the movie completely loses you.

As soon as the source of the eeriness is revealed, whatever trace amounts of tension the movie has managed to capture escape like oxygen through a rip in a space suit.

SPOILER ALERT

The mysterious and terrifying aliens, are, in fact, lunar hermit crabs. Yes, you read that correctly. Hermit crabs.

SPOILER ALERT

The rest of the movie is textbook horror gimmicks, one after another, to the point where the final 90 minute mark (relatively short for a film) feels like it took three hours to arrive. The thing about this film is that you can see traces of great ideas pop up on a regular basis, but director Gonzalo López-Gallego skips his chances. To feel horror, you have to feel connected to the human element. And Apollo 18 doesn’t have one.

.

Film Review: DRIVE

2011-09-07T14:27:00.000-07:00

There is a silent elegance to the way Drive presents itself; there is some clear nostalgia at work, as the film tries to emulate classic noir of the 60s and 70s, which results in a film that is very different from what modern day viewers are used to. But despite the nostalgia, Drive has suffered time’s filter nevertheless. Today all car chases are loud, explosive, and somewhat incoherent. With this background in mind, I welcome a movie like Drive; a movie that takes its time to explore the craft of driving. When you think about it logically car chase should be much more about stealth and avoiding the spotlight than blowing up half of downtown LA.

The films opening scene sets the mood; it opens with a car chase but you wouldn’t recognize it as one if the last movie you saw was Transformers: Dark of the Moon. Unlike some loud movies, The Driver (Ryan Gossling) doesn’t step the pedal on full throttle, and the silver Impala he drives never reaches past 40-mph. Everything seems methodical, focused, and calculated to the millisecond. If anything I would call this film Jean-Pierre Melville’s Le Samouraï on wheels; where the characters seem to hold their breath for ages just to make sure they hit what they are aiming for.

The Driver is a man of little words only action, like the anti-heroes of an old western. When he meets his lovely next-door neighbor, Irene (Carey Mullingan), he barely lets out a “hello”, but he is still very helpful when her car breaks down. And over the next few weeks he gets to know Irene, and her son Benicio (Kaden Leos), who’s father (Oscar Isaac) sits in prison. Irene and the Driver only exchange a few sentences and yet you feel an immediate connection between the two. It is innocent; he wouldn’t dare touch a married woman.

When Standard, Irene’s husband, finally gets out of prison, he is friendly towards the Driver; after all, good neighbors are hard to come by. So when Standard needs a Driver for his next heist, he has someone he can trust. I am going to guess that you have already guessed that it all goes badly from here on and that the Driver ends up in a mess he never intended to be in. But I won’t spoil it further.

I can say that you are in for a ride, with the Driver as you driver. This is an aggressive movie; there will be some laughs, not because the situation is funny but because there isn’t any other way to release the stress. Brutal would be one word to describe it.

Ryan Gossling gives a steely performance; with so little dialogue his true acting abilities surface. And man, this guy understands silent human communication. It is all in the little nuances. A smile can say so many things. And the fact that the Driver, has no name is an excellent throwback to the characters of classic Eastwood, like the Man with No Name. And unlike Nicholas Cage, he never drives angry; I guess this is because anger has a negative effect on your focus.

Finally something needs to be said of Nicholas Winding Refn’s directing; he has the steady hand of a surgeon. Like the Driver his methods are methodical and calculated to the frame. Anyone else would have done a completely different movie.

Review: SUMMER 2011

2011-09-05T17:58:00.000-07:00

Labor Day weekend, movie wise this means the summer season has officially ended, even if there are still a few blockbusters to be seen. Over the weekend The Toronto Film Festival will kick up the award movie season, movies will slowly raise their IQ, with an obvious break for Halloween when they tend to plummet into the negatives. But let’s take a look at what the summer of 2011 had to offer.

Overall summer is the highest grossing times for movies. It is the time the studios bring out the big guns and release their 200 million dollar + movies. It is the time of superheroes, loud explosions, and gross amounts of CGI. It is also the time in which actors and filmmakers get the most exposure, so it is not uncommon to see a capable actor like Neil Patrick Harris in a movie like The Smurfs selling his soul.

Above all things, summer is the time of the year when money talks.

And yet, there are lots of smaller, independent movies released, which try to ride the wake of mass audiences. In summer, feel good comedies hailing from Indiewood are not uncommon, and we usually get a Woody Allen movie and other of the like.

This summer was not very different from the rest. It had a few welcoming surprises and it gave us an awe-inspiring conclusion to the Harry Potter franchise; this was certainly the first time the seventh sequel of a franchise turns out to be its high point. I doubt it will happen again. And it came with a few significant disappointments: Cowboys & Aliens, and Pixar’s first critical flop Cars-2. Unfortunately this summer was somewhat unstable for me, so I missed a few movies. But of the ones that I did see and reviewed here are the ones I would recommend the most. As I explained back in my spring review, this is not a strict top five, but just a good set movies of, which I’ll likely re-watch or get the DVD.

Don’t Be Afraid of The Dark – A spine chilling haunted house story brought to us by Guillermo del Toro and Troy Nixey. Don’t Be Afraid of The Dark gave us a startling view of tooth fairies. Who knew that white lie parents tell their kids could have such frightening implications. As usual Del Toro proves that humanity still has imagination, and if anything it got me super pumped for Pacific Rim.

Midnight in Paris – I cannot Fathom how Woody Allen can simply churn up a movie every year, they are usually good but mostly great. Midnight in Paris is a throwback to the classic Allen movies and a bit of a travel brochure through the art world of Paris. Allen discovered Europe a few years ago during Match Point (London) and Vicky Christina Barcelona (Barcelona), and overall the continent seems to fit his sensibilities.

Rise of The Planet of The Apes – Despite the oddly worded title Rise of The Planet of The Apes (or ROTPOTA for short) was this summer’s greatest surprise. Not many movies can get away with making a CGI non-human the main character; much less a movie that also has James Franco in its cast. But ROTPOTA did it. And it made us care about a CGI chimp more that half the summer movies make us care about their human characters.

Crazy Stupid Love - Such a rarity; a summer rom-com that actually bothers to make its characters feel real, and not cookie cut outs from a princess story transplanted into modern day.

Super 8 – Most likely this summers best. A throwback to the classic kid-on-a-bike movies of the Spielberg days, updated with a lot of lens flare by J.J. Abrams. The film encompasses what the summer blockbuster can be at its best: an original film, with a determined main character, and a great sense of adventure. When you see a movie like Super 8, you can understand why there once was a time when a summer blockbuster like Raiders of The Lost Ark could be nominated for best picture.

Finally I would like to give a special honorary mention to Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2, very few third acts tend to be good at all; this movie is basically a two-hour third act. And it is, for lack of a better term, wicked good! The road show version Part 1 followed by Part 2, (I faked it by watching P1 at home before going to P2 at the theaters right afterwards) was perhaps the cinematic event of the decade. I might be exaggerating a bit.

Nevertheless, you should not miss these movies.

.

Film Review: DON'T BE AFRAID OF THE DARK

2011-09-02T16:04:00.000-07:00

What is it about basements, old manors, and dark corridors that cause the dark side of our imaginations to soar? It would seem that most horrors seem to inhabit these places; common sense would tell you not to go in there, not to go were the light is scarce because there might be something creeping in the shadows. Something you can’t quite explain, and that most people won’t believe is there.

As a rule of thumb, you should not move to an old manor who’s previous resident disappeared after allegedly going insane. But alas, 10-year-old Sally (Bailee Madison) and her father (Guy Pierce) move into such a place. Bad idea.

Sally’s father has purchased an old New England manor in which he hopes Sally will like living. His plan is to renovate it, wit he help of his girlfriend Kim (Katie Holmes), and later sell it at enough profit to put their business back on track. To be honest, even if this house wasn’t haunted it is still not a good time to enter the real estate market. But, when was the last time a horror movie character ever answered to reason.

The relationship between Sally and her father is somewhat cold and distance. It is quite clear that she much rather be with her obsessive-compulsive mother back in LA; neither of them sound like the ideal parents. Sally simply tells Kim “my mom gave me to my dad”. Kim is sympathetic but somewhat torn; she is not ready to be a stepmother.

To help her adapt to her new home, Sally’s father allows her to wander around the manor and its gardens alone. Keeping in the tradition of a Del Toro fairytale, Sally is a curious and inquisitive child. It does not take long for Sally to discover a hidden basement. If someone went through the trouble of walling up a basement of this size, chances are they were hoping to keep you out of there. Or worse, keep something locked up in there. Perhaps both.

It is not long before Sally realizes there might be other residents in Blackwood Manor. She warns her father, and Kim. But who is going to believe poor little Sally?

When the young Steven Spielberg was offered the screenplay for Jaws, his condition for accepting the offer was that he would direct as long as he didn’t have to show the shark for the first hour. It is a brilliant tool. And Troy Nixey, the director of this film, keeps us on the edge of our seat as he very slowly introduces the manor’s other inhabitants. Had it not been done this way, these creatures could not have been as terrifying.

This is the haunted house genre at its best; the type that makes you believe that there are indeed things that go bump at night. It knows how to play with the audience, how to build up its apprehension, and squeeze out its fear of the dark. Del Toro says that the original film is what first inspired him to divulge into horror films. I didn’t see the original, but if it is anything like this one, I can see why.

George Lucas Fixes "Star Wars"

2011-09-02T08:11:00.000-07:00

As reported by Moviefone, here.

In the re-re-re-re-re-release of the "Star Wars" trilogy...

Obi-Wan's dragon call has been changed.

Darth Vader screams "No!" when saving Luke Skywalker.

All I can say is, "Finally!" Because, man, I love the original trilogy but those two audio clips are really saving what I always said were the worst parts of any Star Wars film. For some reason, like always, there are talks of boycotting the Blu-Ray releases--so I guess that means I'm going to have to buy multiple copies of the Blu-Ray super 9-disc set to off-set those efforts.

Come on people! If we buy enough Star Wars crap again, Lucas is sure to keep "releasing" the films and we'll finally all get what we really want: a CGI Admiral Akbar!

Film Review: FRIGHT NIGHT

2011-08-27T22:31:00.000-07:00

Fright Night is a classic horror B-movie done well that restores some much-deprived dignity to the vampire mythos. It might flight under the radar for most but any true horror fan will certainly appreciated.

Set in the outskirts of Vegas in a suburban development, which common sense would tell you shouldn’t live there. It is several square blocks of homes and streets entirely surrounded by desert. Cell phone signal is shoddy at best, and most of its residents work at night. Vegas and its suburbs are as unnatural as the vampires who live there. And because of this it is an ideal location.

Even Charley Brewster (Anton Yelchin), a local resident of these suburbs firmly states, “People don’t live in Vegas”. No, they don’t. Whores, entertainers, and vampires do though. And like any average teenager, Charley has a pop-culture level of knowledge on vampires. They seem to be popular at the moment. Charley’s childhood friend Ed (Christopher Mintz-Plasse) believes his new neighbor, Jerry (Colin Farrel), is one of them; he is single, charming, only comes out at night, and all his windows are blacked out. But in a town where many work at night on the strip, this isn’t really uncommon.

But then again, this could be the perfect cover. Wouldn’t it? Soon students, strippers, and neighbors begin to disappear. If you have seen any horror films, you would know that Charley, being the movie’s protagonist would have to investigate these disappearances.

Yes. This film follows clichés. But, it is one of those clichés that serve as proof that clichés are clichés for a reason. But it also does a few things right.

The first one is having David Tenant as Peter Vincent. Vincent is a magician performing in one of the lavish strip hotels. He also happens to be an expert on vampires. He lives in a penthouse suite and guzzles absinth as if it were water. Despite his expertise, he is not the man you want to ask help from. He might be more dangerous to your health than the charming vampire next door.

The second one is Amy (Imogen Poots), Charley’s hot girlfriend. In any other teen horror film, Amy would have been a disposable two-dimensional damsel in distress, who would work solely as a McGuffin for the plot and something for the audience to gawk at. But good dialogue, acting, and one key scene makes actually makes care if she survives or not. Very few movies of this kind can boast of having that effect on the audience.

If you are the type of person that would go to this movie regardless, you will enjoy this movie more than what you might have otherwise expect.

The Origin of Marty and Doc's Friendship

2011-08-18T15:49:00.000-07:00

Just something a little interesting for you film buffs out there.

The two Bob's explanation of Marty and Doc's friendship, here.

Support Leslie Nielsen's Final Film

2011-08-12T16:33:00.000-07:00

If you're in the Los Angeles area, buy your tickets today!

A Very Harold and Kumar Christmas 3D

2011-08-12T16:13:00.000-07:00

I'VE NEVER BEEN SO EXCITED FOR A 3D MOVIE.

Film Review: RISE OF THE PLANET OF THE APES

2011-08-08T20:38:00.000-07:00

What a stupid title. Why be in-line with other stupid 1970s sci-fi titles such as "Beneath the... Conquest of... Escape from the Planet of the Apes?" Better titles would have included "Rise of Ape Planet" and "Those Wacky Monkeys." My love for the original is self-documented, so that might be a consideration to bare while reading this review. Then again, few people would challenge my displeasure with the Tim Burton remake in 2001; so maybe I'm in the best position to say the latest re-imagining of the franchise is bland, annoying and yet viscerally rewarding.

I mean we are talking about almost two movies in one--and a rather brisk one at that.

Over the course of the first fifty minutes, James Franco wins over the audience's confidence that he will remember all of his lines...and little else. His science-ish lines range between mumbo and jumbo and are eventually replaced with meandering moral superiority. He steals experimental medicine, steals a missing monkey (that nobody ever asks him about), conducts his own tests (unaware that experiments are only experiments in a controlled environment) and injects his own father with the experimental medicine over eight years, with no real chrono-logic. I guess he's the villain.

Our secondary, in every way, villain is Steven Jacobs, a suit on the Big Pharmaceutical payroll. Literally every line is a variation of "I like money" and delivered with such mustache-twirling gusto that'd one would believe privatized medical research need never bother with moral justifications. There is no insight or twist on reality but rather a complete disregard; an effort to flatten reality so that the audience can be drugged and assured Hollywood is on the side of the little guys and not billion dollar corporations. While the original film discussed nuclear holocaust through the lens of individual misanthropy, this film discusses "science" through the lens of gibberish cruelty.

Other villains include the maniacal Dodge Landon--the name a double reference to the original film--and the incomprehensibly pointless Caroline Aranha. Caroline is played by Freida Pinto, notable for her (realistic?) depiction of a virgin, teenage prostitute from Mumbai in "Slumdog Millionaire." That so much detail was given in the performance of the apes, it appalls one to consider how many creative minds labored over the writing, direction and acting of any of the truly inhuman characters.

Here's as good as any point to mention the nods to the first film are numerous and inconsistently enjoyable.

Then...something curious happens in the movie. Something risky, in how it assuredly divided the audience. A commentary on the original film. Strange, yet intriguing. Audacious, in the best way.

Do you care about spoilers?

I mean really.

Like, as in, plot twist of the year.

This review is over for some people.

I personally don't care about spoilers because I'll watch a good movie twice.

But I'm not like some people.

Those “some people” who listen to songs to get to the end.

I want to have a necessary discussion.

Okay?

Okay.

Caesar drops the n-word.

And by n-word, I obviously mean "no." At this point, the film comes to a screeching halt and realizes that Caesar, and not James Franco, is the hero of the story. I can't think of another (non-Korean) film that flips identity so quickly—much less for so much improvement. Caesar has the audience's attention, admiration and sympathy. And by speaking, Caesar stops playing the part of a cute pet and instead becomes a flesh and bone computer image. Animals communicating with humans (via sign language, toys or staring) is a parlor trick to get more treats, we tell ourselves. Speaking, using language, is the final frontier in achieving humanity.

When people on the news are protesting down some street in Iraq, it is too easy to block out their outrage. They may be passionate and have some technology like us, but their signs, chants, and websites are all gibberish. "We are real," say the xenophobes, "they are The Other." Increased communication decreases violence because it humanizes the respective parties. Caesar, the ape, is not a stand-in for any particular minority, but rather a representation of any outsider. And that is a planet-size concept.

When Caesar becomes a real character, so do the other apes--even if they somewhat embody war movie cliche characters (the brainy sidekick, the muscle bodyguard and the crazy former-competitor). This development increases the emotion just in time to create thrilling and inspired action sequences.

I once heard the advice, "Wow the audience at the end and you'll have a good movie."

I never realized how far a film could be in the hole and have that still be true.

Also, here's another spoiler.

Ready?

The planet was Earth all along.

REVIEW: CRAZY, STUPID, LOVE.

2011-08-07T23:17:00.000-07:00

There are comedies, there are romantic comedies, there romantic comedies that are actually good, there are dramadies, and then there's Crazy, Stupid, Love which manages to find a piece of every single one of them.

Crazy, Stupid, Love is just the type of movie I love - movies that make me laugh at the dumb little things, and yet manage to find a way to actually be about something. It's is one of those movies where you are presented with a large cast of characters that all seem to intertwine in some minor way. Occasionally, this works great. Love, Actually still stands out to me as a great romantic comedy. But then you're faced with clunkers like Valentine's Day, and the upcoming New Year's Eve, and these movies just seem dumb. However, Crazy, Stupid, Love manages to pull this off very well, finally crescendoing in a Monty Python-esque routine. Somehow, it works well.

The key to Crazy, Stupid, Love is the cast. It's an interesting bunch, but almost all of them bring their characters to life in a way that really works. Between Steve Carell, Ryan Gosling, Emma Stone, Julianne Moore, Marisa Tomei, Analeigh Tipton, Jonah Bobo, and surprisingly enough Kevin Bacon, we find characters that we actually care about. Writer Dan Fogelman has fleshed out these characters fantastically, and it's this great cast that brings out the life in each one of them.

I'm always hard on characters in movies. I constantly judge them for whether they seem real or not, or their motivations seem logical. Crazy, Stupid, Love's characters have all this. Carell gives you the impression of someone you may actually have known in your life, and you want to empathize with him. You root for him, and this is essential to a good character and a good movie. You need to want your heroes to succeed. Crazy, Stupid, Love has figured this out.

Carell is of course, terrific, and the rest of the cast is great as well, but it's actually Ryan Gosling that shines the brightest here. It's extremely difficult to admit how charming the bastard is, what with having been engaged to m'lady McAdams all those years ago, but I can't deny it. He's very good. He's got a way of saying his lines that make him sound like he's actually saying them for the first time. Imagine that.

The best thing about Crazy, Stupid, Love is that it's about something. Directors Glenn Ficara and John Requa have created something that's relevant to everybody. It's not a grandiose message and it's not something anyone seems to have forgotten, but it's something that matters. And making a movie about something as basic as fighting for the one you love is something I can easily get behind.

It's sad that most dumb comedies lately lose sight of these things that make movies worthwhile. Crazy, Stupid, Love hasn't lost sight of this. It stuck to what's important: people. And we're the craziest, stupidest, lovey-est ones of all.

The Sitter

2011-08-04T23:53:00.000-07:00

This looks like David Gordon Green tried to remake Adventures in Babysitting. Too bad Jonah Hill isn't as attractive as Elizabeth Shue used to be. But I will admit this looks decently funny.

Review: COWBOYS AND ALIENS

2011-08-03T23:30:00.000-07:00

I've heard that the graphic novel "Cowboys and Aliens" is pretty awful. So, I guess what happened, was that someone decided to make a movie about it.

Jon Favreau's newest Cowboys and Aliens is the definition of a movie that doesn't reach its potential. It's adequately made and solidly acted but also filled with an incredible amount of stupidity, and, worst of all, a serious lack of creativity.

Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orci have yet to write anything I consider "good". Both Transformers films and Star Trek failed to reach their potential and it's no surprise that Cowboys and Aliens receives the same fate. Part of the problem may be the mammoth list of writers attached to this project - too many cooks. Especially strange are Steve Oedekerk and Damon Lindelof since they write things that are, respectively, silly slapstick and well, good.

The first half of Cowboys and Aliens is intriguing and well-made. We have an interesting protagonist and a fantastic setting. It's almost a shame that aliens are part of the movie at all. Daniel Craig (in a flawless accent) is so goddamn serious that you can't help but take him seriously, regardless of the all the nonsense happening around him. For the first half, we follow him confidently, enjoying his character. The movie moves along at a great pace for a while, even making the aliens intriguing and exciting.

Then we get a plot twist. Ah, Hollywood, you are a dastardly mistress. The moment this twist comes into play (I'm referring to the twist regarding Olivia Wilde's character) the movie goes downhill and fast. It's almost like Hancock if it were stupider.

It seems like as soon as the twist happens, all logic and reason go straight out the window, as though Damon Lindelof worked so hard on re-writing the first half of the movie that he finally got frustrated and gave up. It's this point in the movie that hundreds of logistical errors pop up in almost every scene, the dialogue becomes atrocious, and the camera work seems to have been handed off to an eager film-student who has a soft spot for the zoom. And another thing - the Irish character is the stupidest character of 2011.

The single worst thing about Cowboys and Aliens is the lack of creativity in both the cowboys and the aliens. None of the characters are interesting except Craig and a Native American played by Adam Beach. The token "little kid" is incredibly annoying and serves no purpose except to appeal to a younger audience. It's rare when child actors are actually good, and Super 8 seems to have used up our reserve of great child actors for the year. The aliens are especially uncreative - big hulking toad-like things with green blood and exposed organs. Side note - why do all aliens have incredible armor that covers the outside of their bodies, but also have one spot where their heart is available to be shot or stabbed? And also how do the bullets our heroes shoot not harm them but sharp sticks they find on the ground go straight through? These are all questions Favreau should have thought about before even beginning to start photography on this movie.

There are salvageable elements. The cast is very solid. Daniel Craig and Harrison Ford are both great, and Olivia Wilde does the best she can with the stupid character she's been dealt. Sam Rockwell might be the best of the bunch, but that's no surprise at this point. The effects are fine, and Harry Gregson-Williams' score is fresh.

Other than that, Cowboys and Aliens is the let down of the year. It's almost like Kurtzman and Orci are the new Seltzer and Friedberg. They're very reliable. And not in the good way. I pray that Favreau can go back to his roots in comedy (Elf is fantastic) and not get to hypnotized by the summer blockbuster path he seems to have chosen. I'm sure Cowboys and Aliens already has a sequel in the works, and all I can do is hope that Favreau gives a second look at the script before he shouts "High ho Silver!" and gallops off into the sunset.

Review: CAPTAIN AMERICA: THE FIRST AVENGER

2011-08-01T14:36:00.000-07:00

There's something about superheroes that's been lost over the years. We never grew to love them simply because we thought they were cool, or because they beat up the bad guys. These things were part of it, but the real reason we've always been drawn to them is the fact that we can relate to them, and see them as real people. In the characters of Joe Johnston's Captain America, we find a return to that nostalgia - a return to what makes superhero movies so great.

Joe Johnston directed The Rocketeer back in 1991, and it still stands as one of my all-time favorite movies. To this day, The Rocketeer is thought of more fondly by its original graphic novel creator than most other graphic novel adaptations. Joe Johnston did something right with The Rocketeer, and he found out how to do it again with Captain America.

We start off in the 40s with scrawny little Steve Rogers. He wants to serve his country, but his list of ailments simply won't do. As they say, his asthma alone makes exempts him. However, he ends up becoming a supersoldier, and has just enough firepower to save the day.

It sounds silly, but writers Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely have done something incredible - they actually managed to make the birth of a superhero completely believable. As the story unfolds, you understand why Rogers is chosen for the project. You understand where his costume and his name comes from. You understand people's motivations for doing things. Plain and simple, the script is logical and it makes sense. With all the Green Lantern s these days, I almost forgot that was even a possibility.

Captain America is superbly crafted in almost every aspect. Shelly Johnson's cinematography is gorgeous, Alan Silvestri's score is powerful, and Johnston's direction is compelling. Johnston has always been among my favorite directors and his attention to detail is still intact. I can't help but admire the little moments he has, always giving each piece of each shot the proper weight and attention it deserves. Watch as the camera creeps in on Buckey as he fully understands what his friend has become. That's the kind of shot that brings this movie one level above others.

There are some great performances to be found throughout as well. Chris Evans surprises me and plays the Cap with a depth I never would have thought possible for him. Tommy Lee Jones and Stanley Tucci also shine. Jones may very well steal the entire movie. Hayley Atwell, while cute as a button, manages to be more than just eye candy and play a respectable role. (Cough, GemmaArterton, Cough...)

Hugo Weaving deserves honorable mention as my all-time favorite Marvel villain Red Skull. His makeup team certainly deserves an Oscar, and he breaths life into Red Skull with such precision you'd think that really was his face. The point is, these characters seem real. Weaving reminds us of the old actor's saying that it's usually better to play the villain than the hero.

Marvel is an independent studio now, and they've got something special going. While Captain America left almost nothing to be desired, I can't bring myself to give it a 5... mostly just because Christopher Nolan exists. I can't even imagine what this movie would have looked like under Nolan's wing. Then again, it'd be at least an hour longer. Regardless, what makes Captain America great are some very basic elements. For one, it's the fact that our characters seem real, and we care about them. Two, we're given a different setting than present day - the 40s backdrop makes everything more interesting. And finally, the movie wraps up with an ending scene that will leave you quite shocked - an incredibly bold move. If you think you already know how Captain America will end - you're wrong.

In the creation of this Marvel Cinematic Universe, something fresh and new has risen out of the superhero genre. Credit may in fact belong to Jon Favreau who allegedly had the idea to stick Nick Fury in after the Iron Man credits. Regardless, the Marvel Cinematic Universe is a brilliant and compelling thing. It gives every film we've seen in it an unfinished feel, and when sequels start crashing down to theaters, we can anticipate them as more of the story to be told, instead of a scheme to make more money by the studios. It goes without saying that The Avengers is going to kick a substantial amount of ass. The groundwork is laid - now they just need a competent filmmaker to handle it. What's that? They got Joss Whedon to write and direct it? Well then, by the Hammer of Thor -

Avengers assemble!

The 6 Worst Endings of Steven Spielberg

2011-07-22T22:30:00.000-07:00

Steven Spielberg is among only a handful of directors who successfully jackknifed their careers through several film genres, posting a classic in each one. However, genre and intentions aside, Spielberg again and again and again shows himself as a man with no end game. From his worst to his best, far too many films come to a screeching halt, make a cut that’d knock the cleats off Barry Sanders and dive into the warm embrace of absurdity. Fair warning, there will be several spoilers in this post, but the movies are all popular enough that I feel even modest film aficionados will be safe.

NUMBER SIX: Jaws

Starting with an early work, this suspenseful film helped create the summer blockbuster as we know it thanks to its summer-oriented setting. By the climax, our three sailors saw the fabled shark decimate the steel cage containing the egghead Cooper. From here, the far-too-small boat takes on water and begins to go under, with the meathead Quint being brutally tickled by the Great White. Next, our hero Chief Brody slides toward the shark, but manages to do what the shark-hunting expert could not: stay out of the shark’s mouth. Brody then finds a rifle and shoots a (obviously?) underwater shark that has an oxygen tank stuck in its teeth like a piece of parsley.

Wait. What?

When all hope is lost and the main character is doomed, things just start coming together in improbable, and impossible, ways. It would actually make more sense if Brody was eaten and in his last flickering moments of agony a few synapses fired in his brain orchestrating his vision of heaven. It was a millisecond “what if I had done this” fantasy for the dying man.

Just a normal happy ending?

An impossibly happy ending. Because after the shark BLOWS UP, Brody sighs and an entirely-alive Cooper surfaces, giddy that he was apparently able to escape the steel cage, out-swim the 50-ft shark and just hang out underwater for the last ten minutes. The two friends smile and swim to shore, knowing that neither had to make any sacrifice nor lost anything at all during the whole adventure.

NUMBER FIVE: A.I. Artificial Intelligence

This film was going to be a Stanley Kubrick film before that crazy man died, so Spielberg decided to the complete the film in the memory of his old friend. Given the subject matter (cold, dystopian future with hooker-bots), a Kubrick film is actually easier to imagine than a Spielberg film. David, a robo-boy, struggles to be loved by a human woman who is too freaked out by her quasi-son to really love him back…if robots can love in the first place. Toward the end, the robot (not Jude Law) gets stuck in a loop, wishing to travel back in time, until his battery dies. Then aliens show up, revive him, and send him, psychologically, back in time to have one last, perfect, afternoon.

Wait. What?

In this case, the protagonist actually does die and the end credits damn near start rolling when all of a sudden there’s yet another scene! The emotional power of the ‘wishing scene’ is completely washed away when aliens magically grant the wish. It’s like Muhammad Ali had his opponent on the ropes, falling even, and then not only didn’t throw a conclusive blow, but actually helped the guy back up and called the fight a draw.

Just a normal happy ending?

Nope! This ending has baffled so many people that Spielberg-apologists argue that the ending was originally Kubrick’s idea. Considering Spielberg actually has a writing credit for the film and Kubrick went to such lengths to avoid aliens in the mind-molesting film “2001: A Space Odyssey,” I find it a hard argument to believe. Again, the ending just makes more sense if one accepts that David died and the aliens are his mind’s own creation, a last act of remaining battery life.

NUMBER FOUR: Minority Report

For three-fourths of an exciting and compelling film, Tom Cruise struggles to prove his innocence against Pre-Crime—an immaculate crime-fighting organization that has pegged him for murder. Go figure, Cruise “murders” somebody and gets thrown in a futurist jail that sedates criminals but lets their minds wander free. Then Cruise breaks out of prison, finds his framer, reveals the truth to all and lives happily ever after.

Wait. What?

What’s insulting about this ending is how explicitly the jail guard foreshadows that prisoners live out impossible dreams while rendered immobile. Furthermore, Cruise’s escape from prison makes no sense off-screen when the entire movie up to this point was about him trying to escape the police (specifically with the barrage of eye-scanners). Continuing, Cruise upon eluding the system once again, convinces several technicians to aid him. Really?

Just a normal happy ending?

After Cruise’s plan works out perfectly, the “real bad guy” commits suicide, Cruise rekindles with his ex-wife and the mystic pre-cogs get to live in a safe house, the multi-billion dollar organization is scrapped? Come on now. The federal government wouldn’t pursue a project just for the science? Is Pre-Crime just an allegory for NASA? God, I hope so!

NUMBER THREE: Jurassic Park

In “Jurassic Park,” a velociraptor is one-third lizard/tiger/hawk and two-thirds blending machine. And at the climax of the film, our injured heroes (including two, presumably tasty, children) are caught in between two of them. So distracted by their inevitable disemboweling, nobody points out the elephant in the room. And actually an elephant would have been harder to spot, as there was a Tyrannosaurus Rex in room. The T-Rex then goes to town on the puny velociraptors and the people run away, instantly finding a jeep, pick up two more critically injured/old people, and get into a helicopter to fly away.

Wait. What?

Staggeringly, the original ending just had Sam Neil channeling Theodore Roosevelt and shooting the two velociraptors with the shotgun he had one scene earlier. However, Spielberg saw how well the CGI T-Rex looked from scenes earlier and thought he needed to bring the special effects centerpiece back into the mix.

Just a normal happy ending?

With several people already turned into dino-poop by this point, it’s ridiculous to imagine that a lone helicopter came to the island rather than, say, the better half of the 82nd Airborne division—after all, we’re talking about rich, white people dying here. The people then ride the helicopter in the heavenly sunset. Yeah, right. The last five minutes make absolutely no sense unless, you guessed it…the characters actually died and what we saw as “reality” was just Sam Neil’s nonsensical imagination.

NUMBER TWO: Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull

This movie doesn’t really have a dumb ending, unless the ending is the last 110 minutes of the film. Incredibly, like the other films, the titular character is placed in a hopeless situation and finds an impossible solution that goes several more steps beyond necessary to achieve a ridiculous end. Specifically, early in the film, Indiana Jones survives a nuclear explosion by hiding in a refrigerator and survives the radiation by being blown no less than ten miles away and survives the fall of several hundred feet by…landing on his head.

Wait. What?

After this obnoxious intro, Indiana learns that he has a son, his son (tragically) resembles Shia LeBeouf and they find the cognitive remnants of several alien species—who can still fly some antique space ship.

Just a normal, well, at least…a…ending?

Here’s an easier pill to swallow: Indiana Jones died in the atomic explosion and, unable to accept his own mortality, let his mind create a baffling delusion that he could reclaim academic standing at his university, pass the fedora unto progeny, rekindle a lost romantic interest and save the world yet again.

AND THE NUMBER ONE: War of the Worlds

In no other Spielberg example does the basic motif of the film break so perpendicularly with the overly happy and unapologetic contrivances. For ninety minutes, Tom Cruise and his family do absolutely nothing special. They hear reports on the radio, watch news coverage, hide in basements and talk to other confused, occasionally dust-covered, civilians. The source material is from 1898, but the 9-11 imagery is there is full view. Make no mistake, this is not an “Independence Day”-style, Cold War threat-down alien invasion with nuclear devastation. No, this is about personal loss and fear of the unknown attackers. And then Tom Cruise saves everybody.

Wait. What?

In a scene reminiscent of “Sophie’s Choice”—but with more explosions—Cruise let one child go get killed in order to save the younger child. Cruise spends the next sequence guilt-racked and filled with murderous fear. Eventually, he and his daughter are abducted, the little girl become unresponsive and Cruise gets sucked into the aliens’ pulverizing hose machine. Then, with one hand, Cruise explodes two hand grenades, downing the tri-pod and sending the human prisoners, in a metal cage, falling (safely?) a hundred feet to the ground. From here, the uninjured survivors walk to Boston and discover the alien weeds are dying. Cruise then points out to the weary G.I. Joe’s that the tri-pods, unexplainably, have no shield anymore—as the Earth pathogen should only affect lifeforms, not machines. Regardless, the troops bring down the aliens and humanity continues to add patties to fast food burgers.

Just a normal…ah, forget it. This ending sucks.

That is, until Cruise and company finally arrive at the in-laws, who were apparently ready to sit down for a nice Thanksgiving meal. Oh yeah, and the boy that Cruise let go to his doom? Alive and well. “Incredulous” doesn’t even begin to describe this ending if the audience has to believe everything at face value. Even the ending monologue articulates that man had paid a hefty price to maintain dominance of Earth, yet this is a story about a man who made no sacrifices, had no relevant expertise or had any special experience. The only thing that could combat this Joe Everyman’s social impotence in the face of worldly tragedy was a flicker of an idea, moments before being liquefied into Martian fertilizer. An inane and stupefying idea that he was uniquely capable of survival.

Had the movie—or any of them—created a reflective ending, or at least only a moderately happy ending, the notion of humanity’s inability to deal with mortality wouldn’t be so violently thrown in my face. So, yeah, thanks a lot, Mr. Spielberg, you pessimistic jerk.

Review: HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS PART 2

2011-07-16T10:43:00.000-07:00

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1 was certainly the best Harry Potter movie up to this point. The only Harry Potter movie that could be called a good movie actually, and it wasn’t even an entire movie, just the first half. Now, after a six-month wait, we get to see Part 2; and, thankfully, it doesn’t disappoint. This is, perhaps, the best two-and-a-half hour third act of any movie I have seen. Generally third acts of movies like Harry Potter and other summer blockbusters, tend to be simplistic, action-packed, low on development, and rushed. That this movie happens to be just a third act, and a full movie at the same time, says a lot about the talent, from J.K. Rowling, author of the books, to screenwriter, Steve Kloves and director David Yates, to the plucky trio of lead actors: Radcliff, Watson, and Grint (sounds like the name of an accounting firm doesn’t it).

A summary of the plot is unnecessary; either you know it because you read the books, someone has spoiled it to you after reading the books, you have read enough speculation that you accidentally spoiled it to yourself, or you have been living under a rock for the last decade or so. The point is; the Harry Potter franchise has become a landmark of popular culture in the way Star Wars did decades ago (probably even more so since it made a stronger trans-media jump from books into film). You have to be a relatively big Star Wars geek to read a Star Wars novel, but the Harry Potter books and films are all quite mainstream. And most have seen and/or read all of them more than once.

Even reviewing this film is a little redundant. Whatever I say, or any critic for that matter, you will go watch the film if you indented to do it in the first place. The film already made in its opening night what most blockbusters hope for their opening week and most films hope to make in their entire lifespan. And in a way, regardless of how bad it could be, you must go see it; after ten years of movies and fifteen of books we all need some conclusion. Thankfully it is a worthy one.

Suffices to say that you will not be disappointed. And it is worth appreciating just how much Harry Potter has become a cultural staple; a phenomenon like it will hardly ever happen again, at least not for another generation. The franchise has changed the world of publishing, for the better; it revitalized the British film industry, and brought a lot of British talent into the mainstream; and it has provided the world with a modern mythology that has been absent for a while.

Now, J.K. Rowling has announced that this is the end of the franchise. But who really believes that? This is a very, very rich world she has created. Perhaps it is the end of Harry Potter, but spoiling the possibility of exploring more of it outside the experiences of Harry Potter might be a bit of a waste I think. If anything this movie sparks further interest. I always take that as a good thing.

One final note, don’t see this in 3D, the movie is dark, and shadowy, 3D is seriously inappropriate for it. Watch it in 2D as it was filmed and intended to be watched; it makes no sense for Part 1 to be 2D and Part 2 to be 3D. This is a single movie with a six month intermission for all intents and purposes.

Review: GREEN LANTERN

2011-07-15T13:13:00.000-07:00

Green Lantern is a simplistic Saturday morning cartoon with a 200 million dollar budget and lots… I mean lots... of flashy CGI. I enjoyed it for all its silliness; it is the perfect movie to go shut down your brain at for about two hours. But you really, really have to try and shut it down fully, because Green Latern has the weakest, most hole riddled, plot of any movie I have seen this summer, including Transformers Dark or The Moon. Otherwise you might end up comparing the Green Lantern Corps to some fascist paramilitary organization.

So… once again, the battle of good versus evil rages across some cinematic universe. The “good” side is led by the Green Lantern Corps, a peacekeeping force created by an ancient race of aliens, who have divided the universe into sections like a chessboard. Meanwhile the Evil (yes, like in Dr. Evil so evil it has to be capitalized) side is led by Parallax, an Evil alien with the power of fear. It is up to Hal Jordan (Ryan Reynolds), a mere puny little human, to stop such Evil. And the plot doesn’t get any more complex than that.

For the most part all characters are cartoon cutouts stuck in immobile, unemotional, one-dimensional development. There is a good guy, Hal Jordan, our hero; his girl, Carol Ferris (Blake Lively), whose job is to look pretty and not much else; her father, Carl Ferris (Jay O. Sanders), who plays the part of the greedy corporate tycoon; a nerdy friend (Taika Waititi); and Hector Hammond (Peter Sarsgaard), who is the most inconsistent character to have ever been written for the screen. I can’t even begin to fathom what were his motivations, or what was his relation to the rest of the characters besides being the creep that goes evil only to bring the true Evil upon Earth.

When Evil rises again, the Green Lantern Corps recruit Hal Jordan to help them stop it. The movie is in serious need of a montage where Hal trains with the rest of the Green Lantern Corps; it feels like he was with them for half a day before he was ready to kick Parallax’s butt into oblivion. The film could also have shown some of the other Green Lanterns in action as well. Why, when you have a whole army to spare, would you place all the responsibility on the new guy? See, these are the type of questions that pop up in your brain when you fail to shut it off.

But, for what it is worth, I did enjoy Green Lantern at a very basic movie going level. I also happened to see it in 3D and I will admit that the colors remained bright and the image crisp. However, in the scene where thousands of terrified humans run away from Parallax towards the camera, the 3D caused a really odd effect and made all their movements jumpy like in an old Charlie Chaplin movie. Was this intentional? Who knows?

Ok, and now for the deep question intended for the Green Lantern fans. Supposedly Green is the color of will, will is our innate ability to choose. God gave us free will, and we enjoy the power of will. So if the ring chooses you and you have no choice but to become a Green Lantern afterwards isn’t the ring obstructing the power of will? In a sense Parallax who chose to forge a yellow ring of fear, demonstrated more will than any of the Green Lanterns. Or am I really wrong here, and should just not worry about it?

Weekly Ad Classics: MICHAEL MANN, MERCEDES-BENZ LUCKY STAR

2011-07-07T10:11:00.000-07:00

Lucky Star was a campaign commissioned by Mercedes-Benz to promote their SL500 in 2002 that seriously tried to break the barrier between film and advertising. It was presented in the form of a trailer for a feature film with actors Benicio del Toro and Ana Cristina in it. Supposedly Director Michael Mann imagined the piece as if it were a complete motion picture; the production staff of his previous films Heat and The Insider all worked on it. The “film” aired in cinemas across the UK, as if it were indeed a trailer for an upcoming movie, using the moviegoers’ suspencion of disbelief to promote the product. As part of the deal with Mercedez-Benz, Michael Mann actually retained the rights to make a real Lucky Star movie in the future. In case you were wondering, Lucky Star is the name of the three-pointed star that makes up the Benz logo. Hey, if they have made movies based on toy lines, why can’t they make one based on a car line?

Trailer for Spielberg's Next Classic

2011-07-06T09:38:00.000-07:00

It is good to see that Spielberg is involved in something more than "executive producing" the Transformers series, in which he had little involvement beyond convincing Michael Bay to do them. And hopefully those are over so the world can move on back to filmmaking.

War Horse seems to be an amalgamation of Spielberg's best a movie about a kid (and his horse) and a movie about a war (although not WWII this time). Hopefully we get to see more of this old Spielberg style before the world plunges into mo-cap and Bayahem for eternity.

In the mean time enjoy:

About the ARRESTED DEVELOPMENT Movie...

2011-07-06T06:00:00.000-07:00

Or: "Why a Fan Does Not Want an 'Arrested Development' Movie"

A few weeks ago, actor Jason Bateman was promoting the movie “Horrible Bosses” and once again got the attention of the internet-savvy by letting some MTV writer speculate, without provocation, on a Jennifer Aniston cameo in the impossible/inevitable “Arrested Development” movie. Bateman said absolutely nothing about the un-produced movie continuation of the cult TV show cancelled nigh on five years ago. In fact, nobody from the original cast or crew has offered anything but bland optimism for months or years now. Yet rumors are propped up by the unrelenting and vocal support of misplaced ambitions. Indeed, this very website has a link (down and to the left) for a fan-made “Arrested Development” documentary project. No outsider changes the minds of a group and so “true fans” of the former series wave off any discouragement from people unfamiliar with the show or--worse--who have moved on, as if British citizenship was renounced by anybody jumping off the Titanic. No, I’m a fan of the show and won’t even say a film adaptation won’t happen, but rather I want to say that there is room for a fan to not want a movie.

The outrage fans felt regarding the cancellation of “Arrested Development” and the particularly flippant way FOX went about it (dumping the last four episodes as counter-programming to the Winter Olympics) was no doubt due to the unique style of the show. The show rewarded fans for watching every episode, not just with callbacks but with unrivaled amounts of foreshadowing and subliminal visual gags. The show was written as to nearly require re-watching of all the episodes on DVD. The replay value proved alienating to people coming to the watch party late but solidified the fan base as a community that could spout quotes back in forth at one another, almost eradicating normal conversations all together. Ultimately though, just being a part of this, hyper-cutaway, “A.D.” club was fun. It was earned, rewarded and exclusive.

That is until the size of the fan base became too exclusive for FOX producers who kept seeing more traditional 3-camera sitcoms like “Two and a Half Men” and “Everybody Loves Raymond” dominate the ratings charts. Now, “A.D.” still had the support of critics and in its first season got nominated for 7 Emmy’s and won 5—among numerous other awards. However, newer, one-camera comedies came to be (namely, “The Office”) and “A.D” suffered even lower ratings. After a truncated three seasons, the show concluded with literally the last joke having Ron Howard—the show’s narrator—openly speculate that the show about the Bluth family, within the show, could become a movie.

But unlike so many other shows unrightfully cancelled (“Boston Public”) or even rightfully cancelled (“The War at Home”) by FOX around the same time, “A.D.” fans lingered. Lingered like that neighbor who wants you to see the movie he saw last week and tries convincing you by re-telling the entire plot, you know, as if previews don’t exist. The principle cast moved on to movies that ranged between mediocre and cinematic war crimes. And to an interview, each actor would be asked about any hypothetical “Arrested Development” movie in the works. For months. And years. And after each movie starring a former cast member, fans of the show, smitten by the comic delivery of the B-level (maybe?) celebrities, had to wonder why, at the very least, “Arrested Development” didn’t become some sort of Mickey Mouse Club-type treasure chest of break-out stars.

More disconcerting, Mitch Hurwitz struggled as much as anybody with a slew, a barrage, a stinking pile of TV shows, adaptations and pilots never picked up for a second season, if even a second episode. Hurwitz projects such as “Sit Down, Shut Up,” and “Running Wilde” turned “Arrested Development” from a work by a comedic genius into a magnum opus to the only endeavor mentioned in Hurwitz’s obituary should California fall into the Pacific Ocean next week.

Now there is precedent for FOX bringing back a cult comedy TV show in the form of a movie. How such a business strategy is so commonplace as to nearly create a genre is beyond me. “Firefly” was a space-western, the darling of critics and crushed under the weight of its own obscurity. Due to unprecedented fan–demand, FOX sank $40 million bucks into a film continuation of the series. Thrilled that their online petitions funded a dream project, the fans responded with lukewarm reviews and $38 million in ticket sales, worldwide.

Commercially more successful, the cult comedy TV show “Futurama” was cancelled by FOX, then resurrected years later with four-direct to DVD films. The films turned enough of a profit to bring back the show, not on network television, but on Comedy Central. However, like “Firefly,” the post-mortem films were not received as well by fans of the series. Simply, the films (especially “Bender’s Big Score”) suffered from apologetic callbacks and recycled jokes.

Whenever we—as a movie-going, TV-watching, Crunchy-Beefy-burrito-eating, public—want to know more about a fictional universe, we are almost always disappointed. Our imaginations get the better of us and our imaginations remain in a place so lacking in details that perfection can be reached and coddled. We need the mysteries. We need the speculations because they add to the cannon of discussion. Did Michael Bluth have increased jumping abilities after his calf was shortened by Dan “D’oh” Castellaneta? Were characters going to move to their identical house in Iraq? Was Tobias Funke a black man with a pigmentation problem? The questions may be better than the answers. (“Lost” fans know what I’m talking about, right?)

TV is a different format than film and it was what was necessary to tell the “Arrested Development” stories. Embracing a memory is great, but embracing an impossible or, worse, an unnecessary future is pointless and detrimental. Fans who want a movie are trying to relive history, but are actually just corrupting the future. Let the show go, let it exist as a memory, and, for the sake of finding the next great television program, move out of this hindering, dreary, perpetual state of…ah yes…arrested development.

Review: TRANSFORMERS: DARK OF THE MOON

2011-07-05T12:14:00.000-07:00

Transformers: Dark of the Moon might appeal to those who enjoyed Transformers: Revenge of The Fallen. But then again if you are one of them, you might be really annoyed at how much alike they are. In one short sentence: Transformers 3 is a Xerox copy Transformers 2 in 3D and without Megan Fox. One could see this as an improvement on Transformers 2, but then what isn’t? Or, one could see this as the removal of the only good quality Transformer 2 had: its 2D.

Either way this is not good movie, regardless on your appreciation of Bayhem.

Yes, there is lots and lots of Bayhem (explosions at sunset), tremendous amounts of it. No one involved in this movie, or anyone watch it is pretending that it was going to be anything more than that. But you seriously grow tired of it after it refuses to slow down. And you are not even halfway through the movie. I watched this on 2D, so I can’t say it as a fact, but my guess is the 3D would have made it even more unbearable to watch. I still cannot fathom how you eyes and brains would be able to keep up to the 3D projection short of guaranteeing a brain hemorrhage.

The thin plot is identical to that of Transformers 2; some ancient, all-powerful transformer knows something about some über-powerful transformer technology that might destroy the Earth (or maybe the Universe), unless Sam Witwicky and the Autobots get to it before the government or the bad guys get to it. Pretty much everything happens in the same order as well.

The reason why it might be better than Transformers 2 is that the urban destruction scenes are much easier to understand and follow than they were then. There is also the matter of Rosie Huntington-Whiteley having replaced Megan Fox; Rosie provides some of the worst acting that has been seen this side of Tommy Wiseau’s The Room, which proves to be hilarious at the right times.

I liked the first Transformers movie quite a bit. And I even learned to appreciate the second Transformers movie after reading this post-irony review about it being an art movie about the illusory nature of plot. Fine, I’d buy it the first time. But you cannot pull the same gimmick twice and get away with it. Or can you? Transformers: Dark of the Moon is now past $400 million worldwide after just its first weekend. And it will likely keep on bringing in the mullah.

Regardless this is a mediocre movie. Even for a Transformers movie. And that is not saying much about it.

Weekly Ad Classics: MICHAEL BAY, CHEVY CAR CRUISER

2011-06-29T20:00:00.000-07:00

Love him or hate him, Michael Bay is an icon of popular culture today (I am not saying this is a good him). He is the father of Bayhem (cinematic explosions occurring at sunset) and the current master of anti-plot; a position once held by directors like Vera Chytilová (her film Daisies is basically the female precursor of Transformers ROTF). Bay began his career in advertising, and with the amount of product placement in his movies one would assume he hasn’t quite left the past behind. In short these two commercials pretty much define his aesthetic taste and the reach of his ego. It seems fitting to show them now with all the talk on Transformers 3 (which I refuse to spend money on). You were probably expecting his Victoria Secret commercial, but it has been a bit over-watched by now. Maybe in a few years when Transformers 4 comes out.

Immortals Continues to Look More and More like 300

2011-06-28T09:46:00.000-07:00

There are very few times when watching a trailer makes me what to see a movie less than before I had watched it. The first trailer of Tarsem's Immortals did just that. And the second trailer, released this weekend, managed to do it once again. Seriously, what was the need for this movie to look like a sequel to 300. Same color palette, same CGI effects, and it has pretty much the same feel. The only Tarsem-like part of it all are the ridiculous (and yet somewhat minimalist) costumes that were featured in both The Cell and The Fall. But even then 300 used similar costuming so that doesn't help.
Anyway, here is the new trailer for Immortals. I hope you enjoy more than I did:

Review: CARS 2

2011-06-27T13:29:00.000-07:00

I seem to stand in the very low percentage of people who think that Cars is not Pixar's weakest film. People often cite that it's more of a Dreamworks film, and simply not Pixar quality. I've always given that review to Finding Nemo.

Cars had laughs and heart - I thoroughly enjoyed it. Cars 2 is an unnecessary sequel - but they got away with it. The golden rule for any sequel is that you must up the ante. Cars 2 delivers on this. We now move out of Radiator Springs and focus on a world of espionage and an expensive World Grand Prix.

While Cars focuses on the character of Lightning McQueen, we now move on to the story of Mater. Lightning isn't gone, he's just subdued. Here, we follow as Mater is thrown into a Bond-like world of thrills and spies. Silly old tow-truck.

Cars 2 balances precariously on the line between a sequel and a spinoff. The trouble with spinoffs is that 99% of the time, a fun side character from the original is given his own movie, and it's awful. For the most part, spinoffs are Kronk's New Groove all over again.

Few films handle the responsibility of giving that fun, side character their own movie. Nicholas Stoller proved he could do it with Get Him to the Greek, where the character of Aldous Snow was not exploited, but explored. I'm proud to say that John Lasseter has done this with Cars 2.

"What crazy antics will Mater get himself into now?" That could easily have been the recipe for a disaster of a movie. Luckily, Cars 2 provides us with both endless Mater fun and a well-developed look into Mater's humanity. The crux of the heart in Cars 2 rests on the friendship between Mater and Lightning. It won't rip your heart out the way Up does, but it's solid and carefully crafted.

Unfortunately, Cars 2 does not manage to overtake the amount of heart in Cars. The emotions we feel for the friendship here do not rise above the emotions we feel for the town of Radiator Springs in the first film. It's not that the emotion fell short, it's just that there's very little they could have done. They push it as far as they can, but in the end, it's just not as moving as the rest of Pixar's resume. And there's no way it could be - this is a sequel that didn't need to be made.

However, this is where the movie's shortcomings end. Cars 2 practically doubles the level of action and fun from the first film, bringing us a spy-world as intense and sleek as any Bond film. Finn McMissle, voiced by Michael Caine, is an excellent addition to our new cast of characters, as well as the hilarious Francesco Bernoulli, voiced by John Turturro.

It goes without saying, yet again, that the animation is spectacular. Pixar's reputation for gorgeous animation has not failed them yet, and the cityscapes in all the different parts of the world we get to see are truly astonishing. Check out the opening shot of the water - it took them 6 months.

It should also go without saying that Michael Giacchino's score is one of the best aspects of the whole product. I'm starting to suspect the man is incapable of writing anything bad. He picks up the right riffs from Randy Newman's original score and pumps them up with his own flair in a way only Giacchino can. He continues to blow my mind.

I've said it, but it's really the only way to sum the movie up, so I'll say it again. There was no reason to make Cars 2. Disney is, above all, a money-making company. It's no coincidence that Pixar started pumping out their sequels once Disney bought them. Hopefully their next project, Brave, will be a return to the originality and spirit that Pixar is now known for.

Cars 2 shouldn't have been made, but it was, and they did a great job.

Brave Trailer Surfaces

2011-06-27T10:22:00.000-07:00

If you saw Cars 2 this weekend you would have been treated to a pick of Pixar's next film, Brave. But in case you didn't, or you were late to the theater, here it is:

I have to say it looks different. Certainly looking forward to it.

Oh, and here is the poster:

Weekly Ad Classics: NEILL BOLMKAMP, HALO 3: LANDFALL

2011-06-23T09:32:00.000-07:00

Mr. Blomkamp made his feature debut two summers ago with his fantastically original and pseudo-realistically District 9, which was based on his short film, Alive in Joburg. The film was a brilliant mesh that was very well crafted for sci-fi fans, and political junkies to enjoy. It is no surprise then that the South African director was commissioned to do a live action trailer for the release of Halo 3. The mythical Halo live action movie has been in development hell since the release of the first game. Peter Jackson, who produced District 9, was at some point attached to the project. There really couldn’t be a better pair to tackle down the Halo franchise. However, with Jackson busy working on The Hobbit and Blomkamp directing Elysium any chance of them working on a Halo movie anytime soon is unlikely. For the meantime enjoy Halo Landfall:

PUSS IN BOOTS TRAILER

2011-06-22T17:56:00.000-07:00

Well. This is something I need to see.

Can the Summer Superhero craze be coming to an end?

2011-06-22T09:53:00.000-07:00

Is the end of the superhero craze that has plagued the box office for the last decade approaching? It may be so. Last weekend Green Lantern became the second superhero movie to under-perform at the box office during its opening weekend. We still have Captain America to go but if it stumbles it is likely studios will begin to loose their affinity for what has been their cash cow of choice. This brings up two questions: what will happen to the series of reboots, sequels, prequels, and rehashes that Marvel and Warner were allegedly planning to make? And if the superhero is indeed coming to an end what will replace it?

The first question is easy to answer. They will get canned. A studio won’t make a movie if it is uncertain on whether or not it can bring back the moneys, even if it means leaving the story unfinished. Warner/DC has announced its plans follow Marvel’s example and make a Justice League film universe; Green Lantern was supposed to be the launch of that franchise. But unlike Iron Man, which was a surprise success, Green Lantern turned out to be a disappointment (financially speaking). Green Lantern also cost almost twice the Iron Man budget to make and market. X-Men First Class, also underperformed but its lower costs made it much less of a blunder.

Regardless studios are still optimistic about the near future. X-Men First Class did do OK, not great just OK, overseas. Furthermore critical reviews of the film have been for the most part positive; it is a pretty good movie. Blame has instead been assigned to its shitty predecessors X-Men The Last Stand, and X-Men Origins Wolverine, which did quite well at the box-office but no one can admit that they were any good. Still confident Fox has announced that a possible fourth installment to the main franchise, and a possible sequel to First Class. Similarly Green Latern has yet to premiere outside the US, and Warner Bros is likely to be hoping for similar results for Green Lantern.

However if Lantern and Captain America both under perform it is most likely we will be seeing significant changes in studios’ upcoming plans. Marvel will continue ahead with the Avengers, but we might not see much after the first Avengers installment and Iron Man 3. To be honest I do not need a third Hulk movie. And Warner/DC will give up on their Justice League plans.

And if it does happen, now what? Well this is a lot harder to predict. Studios will search for a new cash cow to milk. And like the superhero genre it is likely to be sourced material, instead of original material. It is also very likely that this new cow is already in the barn. Universal has announced its plans to remake all its classic monster movies; believe it or not, they own the rights to everything from Dracula’s Daughter to The Monster From the Black Lagoon. Furthermore there is already a whole section in Barnes & Noble entitled “Supernatural Teen Romance”. I really hate to say this, but Twlight might have been to this decade what X-Men was, in 2000, to the previous decade; the forbearer of a genre boom.

Then again I could be entirely wrong about all this.

Ryan Dunn Dies at 34

2011-06-20T10:04:00.000-07:00

Ryan Dunn, best known for his exploits on Jackass died in a car crash this morning around 3:00 in Pennsylvania.

As of now, it seems as though the crash occurred as he was traveling over 100 mph. Another body, yet to be identified, was found with him.

Dunn may not have been a shining role model of any sort, but he brought laughter, joy, and warmth into countless people's hearts. And that makes him nothing short of a hero.

I like to think Dunn went out just as he'd have wanted - acting like a jackass.

New Trailer and Poster for DEATHLY HALLOWS PART 2.

2011-06-17T10:07:00.000-07:00

Way, way back in 2001 the first Harry Potter film came out. That same year the first Lord of the Rings film also premiered. It sparked a rather large debate across every middle school over which one was the better franchise. At the time the LOTR defenders had the upper hand by simply stating that the Harry Potter film was meant for little kids. Seven movies later they can no longer hold on to that argument. Hopefully they have also matured, unlike me, and moved on to debate more important things in life.

Honestly, this looks more epic than the final battle in Return of the King. And without the boring Frodo and Sam side plot.

Nick Adams on THE CONSPIRATOR: Ideas Defended

2011-06-16T10:00:00.000-07:00

“The Conspirator” is the first film released by The American Film Company, a production company that has staked its entire existence on the notion that real drama is more compelling than fictional drama. And with their maiden feature, the company has completely washed away any criticism about their film being historically inaccurate. This academic ambition will likely stay on the borderlands of Mainstream Country, as boasting historical accuracy just makes people look harder into the details, missing the story. More confounding to the creative team, historically accurate elements of the story are still brushed aside in lieu of budgetary restraints and the simple mathematics of forcing 4 months of American life into a 2-hour run time.

The film’s historical accuracy is best utilized by the vilified characterization of Secretary of War Edwin Stanton (played by the endearing Kevin Kline). Historically speaking, Stanton improvised a near coup d'etat of the country when it became clear Vice-President Andrew Johnson was blindly vindictive, staggeringly drunk, frustrating illiterate, and now President of the United States. Stanton’s political position has been fortunately remodeled so there is no direct modern day equivalent, nor could they design his physical looks (crazy, old-timey beard) into a caricature of any current leader. So I guess “The Conspirator” got away with a historically accurate antagonist, but they still failed to bring him to life.

Robert Redford has previously directed “Lions for Lambs”—a film whose subtly rivaled a bowling ball to the gut—and admittedly gained some nuance for “The Conspirator.” The American Film Company provided the language, research, set dressing and costume design to make the movie accurate and Redford provided enough philosophy to make the film more than a well-produced reenactment. But then Redford keeps going. Hypotheticals, generalizations, aphorisms and nods to the future drench in the script in intellectual ketchup, because, hey, why do fast food joints use such little packets if we’re going to take seven of them anyway? Fredrick Aiken (played by James “Trying oh-so Hard” McAvoy) is our idealistic young lawyer who doesn’t see the person Mary Surrat as being on trial but never sees the Constitution under the threat of a guillotine. From opening to closing credits, the films treats ideology primarily and emotions to fill in the gaps between legal jargon and scenes wherein Justin Long’s character apparently found a fake mustache, got one laugh and just never let the joke go.

There is no personality to the film, but rather a transparent desire for high school students to use the movie as a doorway into a four-page essay on Constitutional debates in American history. For a smooth two hours, the camera work is adequate, the editing inoffensive, the script acceptable and the actors remain in default. But for what the movie wants (a series of discussions) there is enough uninspired material to politicize and polarize an audience.

"Objection! The Constitution clearly states a bunch of boring stuff."

(Note: wrong movie pictured)

The prisoners are denied humane treatment, and even 1860s-level sanitation, to wallow their way into an unmentioned, though intended, look of inhumanity. The Northerners wanted the captured rebel conspirators to look frayed, dirty and deranged so that justice can be carried out as decisively as Atticus Finch sniping a mad dog. Seeing the enemy as “normal” means discussion is possible, or even expected. Having a discussion with the enemy means humanizing them. Humanizing them means questioning our own beliefs, lives and ideologies. Such questions are unacceptable to those with unquestioned power and so the powerful orchestrate, publish and push around photos of our enemies at their most unrecognizable, accentuating their "otherness."

From there though, the 9-11 allusions lose traction because the film/argument is about human nature, in which terrorism simply becomes an example--not the cause. Sure, religion is brought up, but the Catholic-bashing is so incredibly dated that only in the quietest pockets of radical Protestantism do people still attack the Pope for controlling the wealth of Europe. Simply, Mary Surrat is an American citizen and was captured immediately after the death of President Abraham Lincoln. Just barely does she demographically fit into the Union’s preconceived Southern Rebel stereotype. This all comes back to the point that the film isn’t a one-to-one conversation about modern politics any more than it is about 1942, 1993 or 2017 politics.

It’s about public perception and the dilemma of trying to convict people we “know” are guilty. In the film, Secretary Stanton picks up the microphone of the mythical Silent Majority and says scholarly idealists can shut up and wait in the freaking car while real Americans are fighting for the stability of the country. Surely the American people will go ballistic if Surrat, or any other “guilty” person, is found innocent by way of a loophole or soft-eyed lawyer. Except that losing the country to social instability is unfounded. There is neither precedent nor promise of a nation-wide social collapse given any single court ruling. Whereas if we sacrifice our ideals, we are no longer the country built on ideals but yet another nation in the long line of powerful nations world history that forces citizens to flee for their lives.

People will say the country is going in the wrong direction as they are required to say during every election season/year/decade, but society is not collapsing. There will be a backlash to current political leaders. To President Obama’s critics and supporters, I beg all to remember he will not be president forever. In all serious likelihood, another Republican will become President in the future, as will another Democrat, and, sure, maybe even a third party member. Regardless, there will still be an America and we will still make movies are that moderately entertaining, even if the entertainment comes from conversational exercises rather than communal emotions.

Weekly Ad Classics: JONATHAN GLAZER, BARCLAYS' IS MONEY EVIL

2011-06-16T09:19:00.000-07:00

Is money evil? Samuel L. Jackson is best known for his bad ass attitude, his uncanny ability to intonate the mother F-word phrase like no one else, and his Ezekiel 25:17 quote in Pulp Fiction. Jonathan Glazer, who has directed a few good films, is best known for his Guinness Surfer commercial, which is considered the Citizen Kane of advertising and has been continuously voted the best ad of all time by several critics.

Glazer is a big figure in the ad world and there is a whole roster of commercials to choose from. They are all good. But only his Barclays campaign has Samuel L. Jackson. Amazingly it captures the best of both artists.

Nick Adams on “The Adventures of Tintin”: A Series of Animated Quotes

2011-06-13T09:00:00.000-07:00

If Hollywood ever decided to replace the famed 50-foot, hillside letters with a (3D!) Mount Rushmore knockoff, there is no doubt that Steven Spielberg would be among the four titans. For the better part of forty years, the man crossed genres as fluidly as Stanley Kubrick, though with considerable more mainstream appeal. He won Oscars, dabbled in children’s TV shows (Tiny Toons, any one?) and just generally influenced pop culture discussion with every release. Then, after 2005 with the regrettably forgotten “Munich,” Spielberg went cold. More than that, he flatly disappeared from the directorial scene—except to somewhat accidentally film “Indian Jones and the Radiation-Induced Fever Dream.” Later this year, Spielberg will released his long--though not much--anticipated film, “The Adventures of Tintin” and seemingly nobody has caught on to the ramifications.

Spielberg is not a novice to animated films. He was one-third of the brain trust that started the perpetual Oscar-contending studio, Dreamworks. Moreover, he’s produced a number of recent films that greatly relied on CGI, including “Monster House.” A handful of years back, Spielberg got to see James Cameron’s 3D, motion-capture, cameras in action on the set of “Avatar.” For whatever reason (I hate how often that phrase comes up when talking about Hollywood), Spielberg thought such technology could be used in his adaptation of a 1940s, European comic strip, “Tintin”—and so, once again, put his Abraham Lincoln bio-pic on the backburner, next to the “Old Boy” remake and “Jurassic Park 4.” Modern readers have noted “Tintin” as having leanings toward fascism, animal cruelty, violence and just flat racism; but this is only the interpretation of people who didn’t grow up readings the beloved children’s stories.

From “Schindler’s List”…to this?

This all gets a little bit stranger though, when Spielberg was quoted as saying that he wants the “Tintin” movie to be considered an animated film, specifically regarding—almost inevitable—Oscar nominations. If one watches the trailer, the first reaction may be, “duh, it’s an animated film.” However, the aforementioned technology was the same used in “Avatar.” Also like “Avatar,” the actors provided movements, not just voice work. So then one must think back to “Avatar” and realize that they didn’t actually film in a jungle and put in CGI floating mountains and remnants of 1980s acid trips. Rather, “Avatar” was an animated film…but was not nominated, nor considered for nomination, in the category of “Best Animated Feature.”

The category of “Best Animated Feature” has an unfortunately unenlightened history to it. Created in 2001, the Oscar category was largely a response to computer-animated films, though the technology itself only peripherally related to the incredible plots, music and directing. Specifically, critics and audience’s did not like films like “Toy Story,” “Toy Story 2” and, to a lesser extent, “A Bug’s Life” having massive appeal yet no academy recognition, even despite reviews, to this day, standing at 100%, 100% and 91%, respectively, on RottenTomatoes.com.

In 2008, though, animated films (read: “WALL-E”) seemed to become even more intelligent and beautiful, easily surpassing the stereotyped, for-children-only, genre. At this point, people wondered if the “animated” category—not unlike the “documentary” category—was, in fact, imprisoning animated films from becoming inarguable winners. In response, “Up” and “Toy Story 3” received “Best Picture” nominations, though in both cases did nothing but ruin any suspense for the “animated” category.

In these last same years, the Academy declared that motion-capture technology itself is not considered animation. Similarly, movies must be at least 75% animated—which means the film “Paul” won’t be nominated in that category…or any other categories. Where this gets multifaceted is that the nearly 100% animated “Avatar” was not nominated for “Best Animated Feature” because James Cameron didn’t want it to be considered animated. He just wanted it to be a ‘regular’ film…that grossed enough money to stack a tower of dollar bills over 188 miles high (which is a really dumb measurement of money).

What this means then, is that the directors/producers get to decide when their movies are “animated” or “live action.” Aside from the categorical frustrations, it opens the door for more Hollywood politicking. That is, what is the best way to win awards with the film? In this case, Spielberg is spot-on with “Tintin.” Pixar basically had a collective brain fart and has no guaranteed award-love with their sequel to their near-unanimously-weakest film, “Cars”—inexplicably calling the new film, “Cars 2” rather than “More Cars.”

More distressing, this pattern is sure to continue, as Spielberg wants to make more “Tintin” movies and Cameron is gearing up for more “Avatar” films; with both franchises using identical animation yet never competing directly. Continuing, if Spielberg proves himself as influential to his fellow-producer, Peter Jackson, as he has influenced J.J. Abrams and Michael Bay, it’s a fair guess to say “The Hobbit” films will be considerably more animated and (…wait for it…) multi-dimensional than the previous “Lord of the Rings” trilogy.

Now imagine thirty years from now: what’s to stop people from redefining the genres or the technical intentions of the filmmakers? Maybe “Avatar” will be considered an “animated” film. Maybe even “Transformers 3.” Or “The Hobbit.” Maybe then, filmmakers will toss around the idea of doing “animated” remakes of “Titanic,” “Star Wars,” or “Planet of the Apes.” Past that, maybe they’ll do “live-action” remakes of “Tintin,” “Avatar” or “The Hobbit” (ala the 1978 LotR films).

Why all this fuss for a movie still 6 months away? Because Steven Spielberg is a giant of Hollywood--itself a multi-billion dollar industry. More broadly, history is a series of reactions; today’s actions fuel tomorrow’s reactions.

The Earth is moving, people, because a titan is waking up.

Review: MIDNIGHT IN PARIS

2011-06-12T21:21:00.000-07:00

I'm surprised Woody Allen doesn't slouch more. That head of his must weigh a ton, what with all the exhaustion and neuroses it's filled with. His newest braingasm Midnight In Paris should please everyone from the deepest Allen fans to newcomers of his style.

Woody Allen is one of my heroes for a specific reason; when he makes movies, he makes them for a reason. The reason he's made almost 50 movies is not because the studio asks him to pump them out like Stephen King novels. He makes his movies because he has vision about something. They range from wild fantasies to slapstick comedies, but they've always had the mark of a true vision. Allen is now 75, and Midnight In Paris is as true an Allen film as I've ever seen. As the phenomenal opening sequence came to a close, I realized he's still got it. He's still able to make movies people care about. Midnight In Paris is about a guy with a dream.

One of the best things about Midnight In Paris is that the trailers don't give it away at all. Anyone who walks into the theater expecting exactly what they saw in the trailer is absolutely in for a treat. As a result, I don't want to talk about the plot, but prepare to see more of Allen's whackyness than he's shown in a while. In short, the story is about a writer named Gil (Owen Wilson) and his fiance Inez (Rachel McAdams) visiting Paris. While Inez looks at it more like a fun, but very temporary vacation, Gil falls in love with everything about it, especially thriving on the nostalgia of what it must have been like in the 20s. Gil is Allen's classic character who's in love with a fantasy. He's also Allen's classic character who is so neurotic that it's a wonder that any woman could ever stay with him.

I love Owen Wilson. He's the definition of an endearing actor, and he's one-upped both Allen and Allen's previous Woody-Prototype Larry David. For the first time, Woody Allen may have written an anxious, neurotic character that will appeal to everyone. Wilson is beyond lovable, and even in his faults do we find ourselves unconditionally siding with him through everything. He's got that quality of someone you know in real life, someone you trust and want to care about. For a movie like Midnight In Paris it's so important that Gil be played by someone like this. Allen nails it with Wilson.

In fact, the casting might be one of the best things about the movie. Michael Sheen plays someone so obnoxious that he makes your skin crawl, yet audiences may walk out of the theater with incredibly fond memories of him. Rachel McAdams' character is an unexpected choice for her as well; she's not the incredibly gorgeous and adorable Canucks-loving girl she usually plays, but actually quite a B-word. I'm proud of her for making the leap outside her comfort zone. However, it is not Wilson, nor Sheen, nor McAdams that steals the movie, but Adrien Brody. He's got only one scene, but by the end, my sides hurt I was laughing so hard.

Midnight In Paris is a wonderful movie. It's full to the brim with Allen's wit, his originality and his skill as a writer and a director. The number one reason this movie works is because it's about something. Remember when all movies used to be like that? Real people and real dreams, not stories about zookeepers and talking animals that go to TGI Fridays. It's not a Best Picture nominee by any means, but it's an uplifting fantasy that wound its way into my heart. Above all, Midnight In Paris is a return to the reasons I love movies so much. Woody, you've done it again.

You Just Don't Get It, Do You?

2011-06-12T20:32:00.000-07:00

A montage of cinema's worst writing cliché by Jeff Smith.

Review: SUPER 8

2011-06-10T17:42:00.000-07:00

After I first saw the trailer for Super 8, I thought to myself, "Classic case of JJ Abrams trailer." All the trailers for Abrams' projects have always been phenomenal, and then I've been supremely let down by his films. In fact, I've never really loved anything Abrams has ever done. Keep in mind - he's had very, very little to do with LOST, though most people attribute it to him. Damon Lindelof is the genius behind that.

So needless to say, I was beyond pumped for Super 8, after an incredibly intriguing and well-done trailer. I tried not get myself too excited however, for fear of another let down for a promising JJ Abrams project.

Internet, I was not let down. In fact, I really don't remember the last time I enjoyed myself so thoroughly in a movie theater. It may have been when I saw Shaun of the Dead. It's nice to see that a director who has been prone to doing so many things wrong got everything right this time. Abrams' originality, creativity, and sensitivity is on full display from start to finish. Abrams' previous films, Mission: Impossible 3 and Star Trek had style but lacked heart. He was hired to direct these films, and never really was able to put his own soul into them. Here, Super 8 is written and directed by Abrams, and his soul, passion, and heart is everywhere. He's done everything right.

Without giving anything away, the plot is simple. A group of friends in the 70s (a seemingly new-age Goonies) sets out to make a monster movie on their Super 8 camera, and happens to catch on film the derailing of a train bearing some highly classified cargo. Pretty soon, strange stuff starts happening around town, and it's up to our new Goonies to figure out what it is.

For the most part, I can't stand child actors. The Mummy Returns and The Goonies are rare examples where the children are fantastic. Casting the children in Super 8 might just be the biggest thing Abrams did right. The main character Joe, played by Joel Courtney is absolutely terrific. He's everything the character of Joe could ever need to be, and in my wildest dreams I cannot imagine someone else in the universe could give as perfect of a performance as Courtney does. Real actors force empathy upon you. Courtney does this so smoothly that you have no idea you've been feeling every whim of Joe's emotions until the credits roll. We feel his tenderness, his frustration, his toughness, and his courage. Courtney is, in my opinion, the single greatest thing about the movie and I can't applaud him enough. And to top it all off - this is his first ever acting job.

The rest of the gang pull their weight, though none shine as bright as Courtney. Riley Griffiths, another acting newcomer, plays Charles and has the potential to steal the movie for anyone who can't find their love for Courtney. There's some great moments of ensemble child acting too, moments that remind me of The Goonies and impress me greatly. In a movie as reliant on child acting as this, I'm glad Abrams didn't cop out and go with some hot young pop star with stupid blonde hair.

Great dialogue is hard to come by in sci-fi adventures like this. It's oftentimes too much, or not enough. Abrams' writing really does the trick, finding the balance in between stupidly long speeches, and unrelatable flat sentences. There's several moments in this movie where a character says something that is "just enough". Just enough to get the emotion they need across. And every time this happened, I waited for another sentence to come along and screw it up, something to ruin the great line that was spoken. That never happened. Check out Kyle Chandler's line towards the end, "I got you." Superb.

Super 8 is sheer entertainment from start to finish, but it doesn't forget about the importance and depth of its characters, and that is where this movie succeeds. Our characters are real, they feel real. They have real hopes and dreams, real emotions. Super 8 transcends Mission: Impossible 3 and Star Trek because it gives us characters we care about. Abrams brought together all the elements of real filmmaking. The effects, the production design, and even the beautifully sweeping score by Michael Giacchino, who has probably never written a bad score in his life. JJ has figured it out.

So does this movie deserve a 5 in terms of real, film analysis? No, probably not. But movies are an incredibly personal experience, and certain movies are for certain people.

Super 8 is for me.

Weekly Ad Classics: TONY SCOTT'S NOTHING COMES CLOSE, SAAB

2011-06-09T10:29:00.000-07:00

The Scott brothers, who are rarely referred to as such, both got their kick-start into the film world through advertising. In 1968 Ridley Scott established his first production company in Britain, RSA, alongside Alan Parker and employed his younger brother Tony. After making several successful commercials in Britain the pair moved to Hollywood in the hopes of producing and directing films. Ridley Scott made his first feature, The Duelist in 1977, and Alien right afterwards, but it took almost ten years before anyone trusted Tony with a large-scale film. Before Top Gun (1986) Tony had only made a loose B-movie adaptation of Interview with the Vampire, called The Hunger. This was the ad that convinced backers he could do more. And you can tell he was really trying to go for Top Gun. Enjoy:

Where in the World will Hangover Part III be set?

2011-06-07T12:08:00.000-07:00

It was no surprised last Monday when Warner Bros. announced that the Hangover Part III was given the green light after the Hangover Part II broke all types of box office records, including the biggest opening for a comedy and an R-rate film, when it grossed $205 million in just five days. As of now, Craig Mazin, who co-wrote Part II but was not involved in the first installment, is the only one to have begun working on the film. The stars Bradley Cooper, Ed Helms, and Zach Galafanianakis, as well as director Todd Phillips had only signed up for one sequel, so it is still unknown if they will return.

Although I was not a fan of the first one, and I am certainly not defending the second one as having any redeemable qualities, the news did send me speculating over what city they will use for the third movie. After Vegas, and Bangkok it is hard to see what Sin City can cause more damage to the Wolf Pack. These are some of the most likely candidates:

Amsterdam: perhaps the most likely candidate. And popular consensus amongst the cast, who has already begun to talk about it, seems to be that this will be the case. But despite the Amsterdam’s notoriety for the legality of weed and prostitution there, anyone who has been there can tell you that it is a relatively quiet little town. Plus is it really sinning when it is legal?

Barcelona: If we are talking about partying in Europe there is probably no better candidate than this 24-hour city. This is perhaps the only place in the world I would believe the Wolf Pack could go 72 hours without sleeping. There is also the likelihood of them accidentally starting a bull run in the middle of their party. However, like in Amsterdam, there is a problem of scale. I can believe that in Vegas a hotel suite can be wrecked without anyone noticing and Bangkok can eat you alive; Barcelona not as much.

Mykonos & the Greek Islands: Less well known than Amsterdam or Barcelona but Mykonos is the party island by excellence. There is again a problem of scale; Mykonos is a tiny town much smaller than the other two European contestants. But this can easily be fixed by adding the rest of the islands making the adventure much bigger in scale.

New York: Closer to home, and a much more believable place where the Pack can loose somebody and not find him for 24 hours + than Amsterdam. But although New York is a Sin City, it is not known as a party city, at least not one where visitors loose their memories in. So I will rule it out as a candidate.

Cancun: Also much closer to home, and a well established party town. There is also a huge jungle around it and miles of beach where the party can extend. However Galifianakis is probability not allowed within 100 feet of a college girl. So Cancun is for the most part ruled out.

Panama City: Not many people know about this but Panama being a free port enjoys a lot of the same luxury legalities that Amsterdam has. It is a well-kept secret party town of international trade. It would be a likely candidate if you consider Mr. Chow’s (Ken Jeong) criminal career and how much are his life and the Wolf Pack’s intertwined. But due to its obscure nature its candidature is once again unlikely.

Rio de Janeiro: This city has all the party qualities of all of the above, with the exception of the legality of weed and prostitution, and very few of their weaknesses. If Vegas is the city I can believe a whole suite ends up upside down without anyone noticing Rio is the one place that can be completely destroyed without anyone taking particular notice. Hell, they do it once a year during the Carnival and the city still stands. The city is not only a jungle, but it is within a jungle. I’d give my vote to Rio as the place the Wolf Pack should be lost next. The only downside to it, is that it might be too similar to Bangkok in many way.

Review: YOU DON'T KNOW JACK

2011-06-06T10:41:00.000-07:00

Jack Kevorkian wants you to die… on your own terms. The advertising campaign of this HBO TV film is just as provocative as the film itself. You Don’t Know Jack tries to shed some light on the complex story of Jack Kevorkian, a doctor who assisted in the suicide of 130 of his patients. Is this a medical or criminal practice? The religious right, and several opportunistic politicians, accuse Jack of the latter. But the film is more concerned with studying Jack’s character, over what type of man would back euthanasia so vehemently, than providing an answer to the question.

The film is lifted almost entirely by Al Pacino’s performance. He is clearly one of the greatest actors of all time, and perhaps the greatest actor alive today. You Don’t Know Jack provides him with a new challenge. And Pacino delivers. And a terrific support cast provides credibility to the story of such character, even when the story is based on true events.

Kevorkian assisted in the suicide of 130 of his patients; at the time, and still today, assisted suicide falls in a very grey area within the law. Is it murder? Kevorkian avoided this question by recording, the confessions of his patients, their loved ones, and by allowing the patient to pull the plug himself. In the end, Kevorkian was simply providing the means for them to do so but didn’t really partake in the action. Also he claims to have denied well over 95% of the people who approached him. This, however, is not enough for some and Kevorkian is still indicted with murder. What follows is a series of trials as Michigan’s government tries to convict Kevorkian. But the doctor is too smart for his opponents. When they do convict him, he goes in a pseudo-hunger strike for nineteen days; his aim was to challenge and accuse the legislation by assisting in his own suicide.

You Don’t Know Jack will not make you like the character in any particular way. But you will understand his struggle regardless of your opinion in the matter. It lets you decide for yourself on whether Kevorkian is worthy of the title Doctor Death, or if he truly is an agent of mercy. Besides Pacino’s acting this is probably the film’s main strength.

The film was an HBO release of TV, being well over 140 minutes it was divided into two parts, but the DVD is now out as well as the iTunes rental. If you get two tired of robots smashing this summer on the big screen, You Don’t Know Jack is a worthy alternate. Is it just me, or is TV generally considered the lowlier of the two mediums slowing becoming a refuge for high-brow material?

Nick Adams on "X-MEN: FIRST CLASS": Reclaiming Some Dignity

2011-06-03T11:53:00.000-07:00

Who are the bad guys in history? It’s a question that can make historians squirm and laymen wonder why historians squirm. Simply put, a sentiment too often forgotten is that morality can be subjective. This is one of many points made in one of this year’s top 50 superhero movies, the surprisingly philosophical, “X-Men: First Class.”

Also it's not in 3D! Hooray!

By setting the story in 1944 and 1962, the film floats any questions about our own modern world with the grace, tapestry and costume design of the better Oscar-baiting movies. And by predominately setting the movie against the backdrop of the Cuban Missile Crisis (or “the October Crisis,” for my Russian readers), the film reaches to be something just a little bit more than a forgettable, comic book, superhero flick. “First Class” doesn’t completely escape its genre’s almost inherent shortcomings, but the strong, visceral, direction by Mathew Vaughan allows the movie to be quite accessible for non-comic book readers.

The historical element of the movie hits upon a proper series of events—most notably that America placing warheads in Turkey motivated the Russians to put some in Cuba. It’s only a modest coincidence that the distance between Turkey and Moscow is roughly the same as Cuba to Washington, D.C. However, the film disregards any actually humanity within humans and they’re own ability to plan with, trick or terrify one another, or otherwise cognitively function. Both American and Russian leaders become physical pawns, despite that many actually wanted what the film’s chief antagonist, Shaw (played by Kevin Bacon), wanted: a nuclear war. Essentially, when both sides are rendered to infant-level ability, awareness and ambition, the audience can no longer imagine the, non-baseball-playing, Reds as an appropriate villain...nor can we accept the baseball team has a bunch of bad guys now that I think about it.

While humanizing Russian soldiers (and warmongers on the Stateside) in a very light way was central in Stanley Kubrick’s “Dr. Stranglove,” it still forces the narrative question in “X-Men” of “what is villainy?” The single most rounded character is Erik “Magneto” Lehnsherr. And as a side note, the performance was absolutely rocked by Michael Fassbender (“The British guy from ‘Inglorious Basteds’! I knew I recognized him!”). Erik is given the most horrifying prologue to the story’s events this side of “Sophie’s Choice” but remains emotional and angry--instead of just marrying Kevin Kline. He is given the audience’s complete sympathy but slowly smothers it after obtaining a piece of serenity and begins to think bigger than his own, immediate, pain. Unfortunately for every Mumbling Joe out there, Erik goes in completely the wrong direction from a raging (and mostly forgivable) animal to a calculating terrorist. I’d argue, though, that Erik is only a terrorist in thought; as he consistently has a murders-per-attempt batting average on par with Dr. Robotnik.

The failure to solidify Erik as an antagonist stems from just knowing too much about him, really. The aforementioned villain, Shaw, and all of the bad guy minions are given no history and never flash the least bit emotion or personality. They are simply inhuman in the worst possible story-telling way. It’s stunning how little information the audience needs to sympathize with anybody. Erik gets two scenes and it’s almost over-kill...I mean, over-the-top. Had there been a scene where Shaw got slapped around by his father or tried to save a puppy, he would’ve been so much more. In same vein, Holocaust victims were tattooed—as alluded to in the film—so that Nazi soldiers wouldn’t have to risk learning names or personal histories. It’s a lot easier to hate an idea than a person.

More cinematically speaking, Kevin Bacon fails to find any character traits, nuances or depth within the, brandy-swirling, character Shaw that would separate him from the blandest James Bond villains. Continuing on a more traditional review-level, I’ll note that the movie had several plot contrivances. Interestingly, they all seemed to surround Hank McCoy, whose perpetual inventiveness struck me as akin to a live-action Dr. Hubert Farnsworth. Indeed, McCoy nearly started every scene with, “Good news everybody! I’ve just invented a Whatever Machine that can do exactly whatever we need something to do!”

In fairness, the film’s best moments overshadow the film’s worst—which really does force a wide variety of intermittent cheering and groaning. Regrettably, the movie has a low, low body count among mutants and the humans that die have less emotional weight or consequence than swatting a somewhat large fly. My guess is that the filmmakers forgot that literally hundreds of mutants occupy the X-Men universe (not to mention the freedom to just create new ones), and so saving all the characters for a sequel seems just flatly unnecessary. There is also a reasonable fear that the filmmakers won’t have the patience to keep their (probable) series of films set in the past in order to play with other elements in history such as Beast having a blurry picture taken of him and mistaken for Sasquatch. Or better yet, Magneto controlling the “Magic Bullet” that kills JFK. Or Mystic impersonating the President in 1974 to erase 14 minutes from the supposed “Watergate Tapes,” wherein Prez Tricky Dick Nixon actually conferred with Magneto. Maybe this is all getting a little too Watchmen-esque but the best part of that movie was the history re-writing in the opening credits.

Also, is it just me or would the best title for the “First Class” sequel be, “X-Men: Second Class Citizens”?

Also, also--and this is very important: staying for the end of the credits will elicit nothing but groans from the audience…because there is no scene. Honestly, I don’t think I’ve ever seen an audience leave a theater so angry after watching a pretty good movie. Quite the magic trick.

Win a Trip to Comic-Con!

2011-06-02T14:36:00.000-07:00

“THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN™” SWINGS INTO COMIC-CON® –

AND YOU CAN GET THE OPPORTUNITY TO REPRESENT

SPIDER-MAN FANS EVERYWHERE

BY BECOMING THE FACE OF THE FAN®

"The Amazing Spider-Man" Face of the Fan Contest Begins Today

CULVER CITY, Calif., June 2, 2011 – In anticipation of the July 3, 2012 worldwide release of The Amazing Spider-Man™ in 3D, the cast and filmmakers will discuss the movie for the first time as they address the fans at Comic-Con® San Diego. One fan can be a part of the action by proving he or she is the ultimate Spider-Man fan in The Amazing Spider-Man Face of the Fan® contest. The contest winner will be the “face of the fan” at Comic-Con, and have the opportunity to meet the talent and filmmakers and conduct an interview with them.

US residents 18 years of age and older can go to www.faceofthefan.com/TheAmazingSpider-Man to enter the contest, which begins today and runs through June 27, 2011. To enter the contest, users submit a sixty-second video of themselves answering the question, “Why should you be the Face of the Fan correspondent at Comic-Con?” Complete rules and instructions are available at www.faceofthefan.com/TheAmazingSpider-Man.

All entries will be judged and one winner will be chosen to attend Comic-Con San Diego 2011. The winner will meet the cast and filmmakers, and have a chance to ask them fan questions gathered from the social communities on the web about The Amazing Spider-Man.

The prize includes one trip for two (2 days/2 nights) to attend Comic-Con San Diego 2011, including hotel accommodations, roundtrip airfare, and transportation to and from the hotel, as well as two passes to attend Comic-Con.

Commenting on the announcement, Marc Weinstock, president, Worldwide Marketing for Sony Pictures, said, “We’re thrilled to be bringing Spider-Man back to Comic-Con – it’s an exciting place to give the fans an inside look into what the new Spider-Man film is all about.”

Dwight Caines, president, Worldwide Digital Marketing for Sony Pictures, added, “The Face of the Fan® program is all about connecting fans from all over the country to the films they care about the most by using the web and social networking tools. We expect there will be exciting Spider-Man news coming out of Comic-Con, and the contest winner will be the fan correspondent giving moviegoers everywhere an inside look.”

Face Of The Fan® is a Sony Pictures Entertainment initiative that lets moviegoers and TV viewers get involved with Sony Pictures' projects by participating in online casting calls and contests—turning today's fans into tomorrow's stars™. The concept was launched in 2007, tied to Spider-Man 3, when two fans were chosen to bring Spider-Man news to the fans following the film’s website. In November 2010, Face Of The Fan began offering casting calls for various Sony Pictures Entertainment films, including such Screen Gems projects as Lakeshore Entertainment’s Underworld and Rainforest Film’s upcoming Think Like A Man, which is based on Steve Harvey’s national best-seller, Act Like A Lady, Think Like A Man. The site also features contests in which winners can have an opportunity to appear on the red carpet at movie premieres, meet or interview talent, filmmakers, and producers, or even go on the sets of their favorite shows. Many exciting opportunities are available through Face Of The Fan®, and this program provides fans with a way to share their enthusiasm and get face to face with key decision-makers and talent.

A Columbia Pictures presentation of a Marvel Studios production, The Amazing Spider-Man, starring Andrew Garfield, Emma Stone, and Rhys Ifans, is directed by Marc Webb from a screenplay by James Vanderbilt and Alvin Sargent and Steve Kloves based on the Marvel Comic Book by Stan Lee and Steve Ditko. The film is produced by Laura Ziskin, Avi Arad, and Matt Tolmach.

Weekly Ad Classics: DAVID FINCHER LEAVE NOTHING (NIKE) FATE

2011-06-02T12:13:00.000-07:00

Nike is one brand that takes it advertising seriously. It seems that every ad they churn up could make it into a short film hall of fame of sorts. They have the resources not only to get brilliant directors, but also every sports star out there. It is almost a guarantee that their ads will be seen over and over by fans of both the sport and the craft. It is also one of the few brands that titles their ads. Previously we showed Iñarritu’s Write the Future that was made for last year’s world cup. Nike’s Leave Nothing campaign is perhaps a better-known campaign in the States where it came out a few years ago. With filmmakers like Michael Mann and David Fincher taking the helm on some of the ads, at least one of these ads would make it into this list. Here is David Fincher’s Leave Nothing Fate featuring LaDainian Tomlinson and Troy Polamalu. Enjoy:

Review: KUNG FU PANDA 2

2011-05-31T10:38:00.000-07:00

Now, this is my kind of family movie. Kung Fu Panda is exactly what it promises the title says it will be; it is about kung fu, a panda, and because this is the sequel you know the stakes are going to be higher than in the first one. Last time Po (voiced by Jack Black), the cutely overweight panda, became the Dragon Warrior after defeating Tai Lung, his master’s old apprentice, and training alongside the Furious Five. Now the evil Lord Shen (Gary Oldman), a peacock with serious daddy issues and a fear of pandas, has taken over China and the invention of gun powder threatens the very existence of Kung Fun; it's up to Po and the Furious Five to stop his evil reign and restore the balance to… I guess the force? Kung fu, maybe?

The plot doesn’t get any more elaborate than that. But were you expecting it to be? This is a movie about a Panda that kung-fus, (in this movie kung fu is a noun, a verb, an adjective, and a character in and of itself). But unlike the other sequel that came out this weekend, Kung Fu Panda 2 is not a xerox copy of the previous installment; instead, it legitimately tries to expand the universe, raise the stakes, and flesh out its characters further. It has fun with the loose ends that the first one left unanswered like: how did a goose father a panda? Turns out he didn’t. After a soothsayer (Michelle Yeaoh) foretells that a panda will defeat Lord Shen, Shen orders the extermination of all Panda-folk. Po might be the last Panda. Mr. Ping, AKA Papa Goose (James Hong), takes him in because – well an orphaned baby panda is too cute to ignore.

Lord Shen, the albino peacock, is a frightful and unapologetic villain. You don’t see his kind is children movies anymore; so evil that you could actually say that is character depth, not just cartoon evil. And Gary Oldman provides a voice acting that is likewise rarely seen nowadays. Unlike Po whom you are aware of him being Jack Black, Oldman’s voice fully emerges itself in character, in some type of method voice acting. The rest of the crew, including Master Shi Fu (Dustin Hoffman), is mostly there for support. Although Tigress (Angelina Jolie) shares a warm friendship with Po, and we might see this evolve in part three, unless inter-species dating is too much for a children’s film.

The start of the whole ordeal, however, is director Jennifer Yuh. This is her directorial debut (previously having directed the opening 'dream' sequence of the first film), but Yuh flaunts a mastery over the medium that is worthy of respect. Yuh includes more styles than your basic cartoon animal movie. A 2D style used for the flashback sequences involving Po’s back-story is particularly beautiful. And one style blends into the other, from Chinese paper-puppetry to regular 3D graphics and back to stylized 2D anime-esque frames, with what appears to be incredible effortlessness. This is what taking advantage of the medium is all about. Backing Yuh, of course, was a team of choreographers who painstakingly designed every fight, which end up taking over three fourths of the movie. Generally speaking, when a movie is all fighting, bashing, and action it quickly becomes uninteresting. This is not the case; the fights here are choreographed, you understand where every character stands, and the odds the face. Fights like these, of traditional Kung Fu movies, are more like dancing than fighting. And that is a good thing, because head butting for over an hour and a half quickly grows tiresome.

Finally I would like to point out how much this movie is targeted at pleasing Chinese audiences. This does not mean Western audiences will not enjoy it; this is a world type of movie. But the first installment broke all box office records in China, until the premiere of Avatar and 2012. The latter was actually described as a love letter to the Chinese people. Well, Kung Fu Panda 2 is a full-blown serenade and it will not surprise me if it breaks Avatar’s top spot in the land of Kung Fu.

Review: THE HANGOVER PART II

2011-05-27T16:18:00.000-07:00

I wasn’t that big a fan of the first Hangover. Sure, it had its laugh out loud moments, a few good OMFG shocks here and there, a sincerely nice stripper just looking for the right guy, and it launched Zach Galifianakis’ career. But despite all of this, the surreality of actually believing that three men can undergo an night that includes stealing a tiger from Mike Tyson’s home and sneaking the animal into the penthouse suite of the Caesar’s palace while being so effed up that they can’t remember a thing the next day was a too big a suspension of disbelief for me. I laughed, but I could not shake up the feeling that it could have had much more to offer. The Hangover Part II tries really hard to recreate the spontaneity, absurdity, and laughs of the first; it manages it at times, but on most tries it misses by a long shot. The result is a lesser carbon copy of the first that is missing the one thing that did make the first Hangover memorable, freshness.

From the moment it opens The Hangover Part II follows the structure and plot of the first one. Once again the opening credits scroll through wedding preparations and end when Phil (Bradley Cooper) calls Tracey (Sasha Barrese) to inform her “it happened again”. That is actually the first English spoken line in the movie. We flashback a few days earlier as the wolfpack gets together once more time as they make their way to a wedding. This time it is Stu’s (Ed Helms) wedding; the meek dentist, who is rapidly discovering the demon within him, is marrying in Thailand because… well because the writers needed another Sin City capable of topping Vegas, and Amsterdam, despite the legality of weed and prostitution there, is actually relatively quiet. Bangcock on the other hand provides a truly dark antagonist to the movie. Regardless, the odd group of friends travels to Thailand. And two days before the wedding they enjoy a few beers with Teddy (Mason Lee), the bride’s brother at the beach.

The next morning they wake up in downtown Bangcock, in a shady hotel alongside a jean jacket wearing monkey and Mr. Chow (Ken Jong), the Vegas mob-boss form the first movie. To make matters worse Teddy is nowhere to be found but Doug (Justin Bartha) is, somehow, safely back at the hotel. And of course they do not remember anything.

Does this look familiar?

The whole movie feels like déjà vu. We have been there; done that and it isn’t near as funny the second time around. The movie retains almost the same sequence of scenes from the first one down to the eventual payoff; I’ll just say Teddy is in the first place they did not look. It pushes to create a bigger raunch-fest than the first one but it stumbles and it only delivers some really awkward moments where we are forced to laugh to avoid embarrassment. This is not comedy; it is cheap writing.

There are however a few plusses. The film does provide a bit more character development than its predecessor. Stu, the only fleshed out character, last time around, is once again thrown into a situation no dentist belongs in. It suffices to say that by the end he deserves the Tyson tattoo on his face. Teddy also provides a much-needed line in the first one, and even without him being on screen much of the movie; he is a likable addition to the wolfpack. But even yet if falls way short of its full potential. Once again I left the theater thinking, it could have been much more. They could have at least tried.

Weekly Ad Classics: JEAN-PIERRE JEUNET CHANNEL #5 THE FILM

2011-05-26T16:30:00.000-07:00

Chanel #5 The Film

Although not as ambitious an endeavor as BWM Films, Chanel a brand recognized for its theatrical marketing campaigns just as much as for its actual products did give it a go at the whole filmic advertising. After a low sales streak in the 80s Channel recruited Ridley Scott to create an ad that would revitalize the movie glamour and sophistication that the brand had been asosiated with in its early days. The resulting commercials have been inventive mini-films that play with the silhouette and reflection of the Chanel #5 bottle, while adding touches of fantasy and seduction; simply, because this is a perfume ad we are talking about. The Chanel #5 Films have been directed by filmmakers like Ridley Scott, Baz Luherman, and Sophia Coppola; this is the most recent installment by the French filmmaker, Jean-Pierre Jeunet most famous for bringing us Amélie and A Very Long Engagement. Despite the size of the production, it is possibly the least extravagant and easiest to watch of them all in the long version. Enjoy:

Review: TE PRESENTO A LAURA

2011-05-23T14:30:00.000-07:00

Te Presento a Laura is a likable, and quippy story from beginning to end. It is a simple feel good movie; like its main character, Laura, the movie seems to spend its days holding up a sign that reads “free hugs”. It is certainly a been-there-done-that type of film; neither profound nor elaborate it offers a little bit more of what we enjoy seeing in most films of its type. It doesn’t need to be anything more than that.

Like many feel good movies of its kind this is a love story between two quirky loners. Laura (Martha Higadera), who sometimes calls herself Valeria, Eva, and another variety of pseudonyms, is a cute little hipster who hangs out in Mexico City carrying a “free hugs” sign as she gives off hugs to strangers. In the evening she frequents a life support group for people who suffer from depression and/or have tried to commit suicide. It is not a cheery group. Laura’s presence illuminates the room, but it is clear she doesn’t belong there. Counter to Laura there is Sebastian (Kuno Becker), a semi-success full actor whose career is in shambles, and gets accused of manslaughter after a drunk-driving accident. Depressed and not wanting to face jail, Sebastian thinks about jumping off a building. Right where Laura happens to be giving free hugs.

If you haven’t figured out where this plot is headed then you do not watch that many movies. And you will probably enjoy this one. The one true quality in the film is Higadera’s performance. She is a find. Like Zooey Deschanel in (500) Days of Summer, she is such a likable weirdo it is hard not to fall in love with her even when she is clearly mentally unstable at times. It is a shame her only Hollywood credit is the direct to DVD sequel to Smokin Aces.

The film premiered in Mexico a few months ago, and it just started doing it round in the states within a few film festivals. Most likely you won’t here about it until it comes out on DVD, and you somehow stumble into a “discount” DVD store in East LA. If you do happen to see it, avoid buying it there.

Review: PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN: ON STRANGER TIDES

2011-05-22T17:21:00.000-07:00

One of the biggest mistakes most people, writers and audiences alike, have made with the Pirates of the Caribbean trilogy was understanding who the protagonist was. I am still unsure if the second and third installments even had a protagonist; it certainly wasn’t Will Turner, the actually protagonist of the first film. The source of this confusion lies in Johnny Depp’s performance of Captain Jack Sparrow, a character so quirky bizarre and likable, that it simply outshines everyone else. But while Jack has been the poster child for the franchise, he was never the protagonist. On Stranger Tides outdoes this problem by removing the excessive amount of side characters, side pirates, pirate ships, pirate lords, pirate crew, and pirate monkeys, and centering the story on the latest of Jack’s shenanigans. All in all a more fitting title for this movie would have been: The Next Installment of The Captain Jack Sparrow Adventures; it highlights the story’s pulpy silliness much more than On Stranger Tides and since the movie doesn’t really take place in the Caribbean there is little point in keeping it on the title.

The movie opens in Spain where news that the Fountain of Youth had been found send the country and Europe into frenzy. Every pirate and privateer out there wants to get a hold of the map that, if you remember correctly, was in Jack’s possession at the end of the third movie. The Fountain of Youth is just a McGuffin to get everyone on a roll, and any other supernatural treasure could have easily replaced it. Anyway, Jack finds himself in London freeing his trusty first mate Joshamee Gibbs (Kevin R. McNally), who has been accused of being Jack Sparrow. After an amusing chase across the streets of London in carriages, Jack runs into his old - I’m guessing girlfriend here, the relationship isn’t really explained -, Angelica (Penelope Cruz). Like everyone else, Angelica is after the Foutain, so she kidnaps Jack (why? Who knows) and sets sail aboard The Queen Anne’s Revenge, Blackbeard’s infamous flagship. Following the Queen Anne’s Revenge is Captain Barbossa (Geoffrey Rush), Jack’s longtime rival, who has left the pirate’s life behind and is now a privateer sailing under the English flag. And close behind them the Spanish ship follows.

Why Penelope Cruz was not in the franchise before this movie baffles me. She would have been perfect for it since the beginning. Like Depp, Cruz is perfect for over the top performances. Her eccentricity, accent, and mannerism come from the heart. Yes, this is a performance but I always took Penelope Cruz for a telenovela character that accidentally stepped into the real world to become an actress. She keeps her stance and character alongside Johnny Depp, and Geoffrey Rush much better than Kiera Knightly ever did. Ian McShane does a fine job as Blackbeared, although there really isn’t much to playing a villain who is evil only because he has to be.

There are also two new characters that are bound for a return in any upcoming installments, Phillip Swift, a church going boy captive aboard the Queen Anne’s Revenge, and Syrena, a mermaid who also winds up as a prisoner of Blackbeared. They are incredibly stale and uninteresting for being side characters in this franchise. They won’t be unwelcomed in any future installment but I could really careless about them.

In his adventure Jack will encounter zombies, mermaids, more pirates (although not as many as in At World’s End), and water that falls up. Basically, all the ingredients needed for a swashbuckling adventure of its kind. The film is for the most part what you would expect; a cheery adventure filled with captian-jack-sparrowy madness. It is leaner, and better passed than the second and third installments. And will likely appeal the most to those who liked the first one and feel as strong aversion against the other two. It is not to say a better movie than the last installments; it is just easier to swallow down.

Nick Adams on: ATLAS SHRUGGED

2011-05-22T16:00:00.000-07:00

Why “Atlas” Collapsed: Everyone Missed the Point

Ayn Rand’s novel “Atlas Shrugged” finally hit the big screens last April 15th— a coy nod to America’s traditional tax day (though not actually the case of 2011). After five weeks, the film has sputtered to a box office haul of $4.5 million…crushed beneath a rumored $15-20 million production. Moreover, the film garnered 13% rating on RottenTomatoes.com and achieved just enough publicity to likely get a couple of nominations in next year’s incessantly bland Razzie Awards. The apex of this cinematic thrashing came when producer John Aglialor despondently coined the film’s epitaph sound bite, saying, “Critics, you won.”

Films lose money all the time. I even once heard some ridiculous claim that “only one in ten films ever makes money.” Regardless, “Atlas Shrugged” strikes me as an anomaly. That is, why wasn’t this movie a hit? The novel has had at least a cult following since the 1950s and a film adaptation was attempted in the 1970s, and about every ten years since. With the Great Recession and, more importantly, the election of Barack Obama, the loudest conservatives in America resurrected the novel with the phrase “Going Galt”—a catchphrase as stirring, inspired and thought-provoking as only the most mediocre beer commercials could stammer. As was, the book still struggled to get financiers. Due to Hollywood liberalism? Not likely, not with the financial success of other so-called conservative films—a classification that I feel is ludicrous—such as, “Passion of the Christ,” “300,” “Chronicles of Narnia,” “Gran Torino” and others. Conservatism aside, author Rand has credibility with young people thanks to her intellectual chest-thumping in oft-referenced “The Fountain,” but notably so in “Atlas Shrugged.” Young people like feeling unique; Middle America likes feeling validated; Hollywood likes turning ideological novels into (inane, 3-D) films.

So why the failure? Sure the movie has pointless CGI, seemingly regurgitated from some daytime SyFy original movie. And sure, the cinematography and acting resemble work complied by film school freshmen (present readers excluding, of course). But that’s all not enough. No, the real reason “Atlas Shrugged” failed is because everyone on every level drove a hundred miles past The Point, USA. And that is that “Atlas Shrugged” is a satire of Ayn Rand’s explicit ideology.

And the train comes to a screeching halt. The entire story is based around the concept that corporations are pushed around by the U.S. federal government. Specifically, that America’s wealthy are not only vilified but that they discriminated against and silenced. Continuing, each of the “successful” peoples are deserving of their wealth, undeniably due to some unexplainable Tony Stark-esque intelligence and/or Tony Stark-esque strength, looks and charm. Ayn Rand’s fictional world is not an exaggeration, but completely opposite to any situation America has ever seen.

“What are you talking about Nick,” I hear my Wonder Bread readers say, “Rich people are vilified in culture…look at Monty Burns in The Simpsons!” To which, I say, “Not really.” The nation is run by corporations, CEOs and boards of executives. The FEC, Congress, other government agencies and the private sector trade business-insiders like baseball cards. Even with this Great Recession and inflated accusations of socialism, bonus-pay outs and top tier salaries have skyrocketed—unlike so many NASA projects. But Ayn Rand couldn’t have predicted the future, could have she? Well, this is the humiliating part: she didn’t have to!

Trains—the primarily discussed industry in the movie/novel—were not that big of a deal in the 1950s, less so now. However, they really were a big deal in the 1890s. Also in the 1890s, wealthy capitalists bought political offices, outsourced labor, formed monopolies and prided themselves on their own nameless skills. And really, similar sentiments can be said in the 1920s, the 1840s, 1770s and you start to get the point. However, each of these periods are also marked by the somewhat forgotten philanthropy of the nation’s millionaires and billionaires. Indeed, even nowadays, several of the world’s richest are the most generous—in terms of raw dollar amount AND percentage of wealth. I don’t give a damn if they’re still rich, let’s see you give away half of your money.

This all comes back when John Galt and Rand’s other fictional industry titans fail to embody any self-inspired philanthropy—you know, like creating the world’s most profitable charity. Instead, the characters “go on strike.” Also note that the Pinkertons, the mafia and, recently, state governors have historically crushed this lone tactic wielded by organized labor. No, Ayn Rand’s wealthy citizens aren’t acting like John Rockefeller, Andrew Carnegie, David Packard, Bill Gates, Gordon Moore, Mark Zuckerberg, Oprah Winfrey, Warren Buffet and others. And it’s really not even entirely a question of morality. If you want more consumers for your goods, you have to make sure the consumers are healthy/alive enough to buy your goods. Oprah Winfrey can’t make any money if her audience is dying from preventable diseases. Indeed, there are plenty of selfish reasons to donate money. Ultimately though, intentions don’t even really matter, just the actions.

And so Rand wasn’t detailing the likely departure of America’s most ambitious industrialists, but rather demonstrating the inappropriate outrage of the middle class. People don’t see the entire suffering of one another and so with a common passing glance retirement and unemployment have enough similarities to frustrate the middle 68% of Americans who feel themselves as equally talented as their financial superiors, yet more determined/moral than welfare queens, runaway fathers, gang bangers, immigrants, hicks and other flippant nomenclatures.

Much has been made of the book’s 70-page monologue by the secretive John Galt, wherein he describes the plot of “Inception,” describes the incredible sandwich he ate earlier or otherwise laments the necessity of brevity. All too late I wonder if I should have read the entire Wikipedia article on the novel—as I couldn’t have been bothered to actually read Rand’s magna opus or watch more of the film than the 2 minute trailer. Before I start “Galt-ing” you to death, I would liked to point out that Rand’s/Galt’s supposedly persuasive (and almost certainly unchallenged) sermon about rational self-interest, individual rights and laissez faire capitalism is further evidence for my satirical reading. Gordon Gekko was inspirational in Oliver Stone’s “Wall Street.” Similarly, Lucifer himself is extremely charming and convincing in John Milton’s classic epic, “Paradise Lost.” Not only can a story’s villain be persuasive, but, frankly, they need to be. Bad influences wouldn’t be influences if they couldn’t change people. More times than not, though, the worst influences are just ourselves. For instance, I know I shouldn’t have another beer…but then again, I like this toasty feeling and fear my dumb body will start sobering up.

Galt is convincing, sure…but so is Stephen Colbert. The question then becomes, what is he convincing you of? Because interpretation is in the eye of the beer holder. As a last point, I’d like to show you a picture of a beatnik.

Sike! It’s not a beatnik, it’s Ayn Rand—scourge of the downtrodden, rustic and oppressed. Yeah, right. Rand was clearly a 1950s beatnik herself. If someone really thinks rich industrialists could, and deserve to, go on strike I want them to be wearing at least one—but preferably two—monocles…also holding at least one—but preferably two—glasses of brandy. No, Ayn Randy was scathingly sarcastic but on a current far below most people’s radar. The newly astute reader might now be asking themselves if I, writing this review-of-sorts, am being sarcastic. Truthfully, I don’t even know anymore. I just think Rand’s novel and the subsequent film would have fared better had each ended on a scene with one of the main characters turning towards the camera and giving the audience a sly wink.

But maybe that’s just me.

*wink*

Nick Adams on: PAUL

2011-05-20T16:00:00.000-07:00

Paul: An Alien Too Familiar

Is the parody movie genre an inevitable handicap? I want to say, “no, of course not, what a stupid question and stupid introductory sentence.” Yet, after seeing the movie, “Paul” I can’t shake the feeling that parody is a seasoning, appropriate, even delicious, in small dosages—whereas your night is ruined if you eat a full course meal of oregano. The real probe in my ear about “Paul,” though, is that the movie is not explicitly a parody, yet the movie barely exists if you take away the audience’s pre-existing, collective, cultural memory.

The movie’s first shots are imitations of “Close Encounter’s of the Third Kind,” culminating in a crash landing and the killing of some dog. Funny? In a different world perhaps. Here, what is really accomplished? Nothing. An hour later, our effortless expert, occasionally nude, alien protagonist asks for Reese’s Pieces, ala “E.T.” This isn’t really a joke so much as it is the filmmakers nudging the audience, asking if we remember the previous friendly alien. Had Paul said anything else, it could have been characterization, thematic, insightful or plot-moving rather than an unaffecting quip. This is not to say a good movie should be stripped of jokes, but rather the jokes need a zest to them. “Paul” could have been a road trip, multi-national, stoner-comedy and still not have numerous, blunt, movie references; and had this been the case, “Paul” could, at the very least, achieve a cult following. As is, this won’t happen because why would anybody follow banality that clings to the shoulders of giants?

Story-wise, the film has a solid set-up of four different groups of people trying to catch Paul and help/stop him reaching his destination: Devil’s Tower--a parody deserving a yawn. These ensemble-type stories work best when characters are arranged and rearranged in groups throughout the story because they don’t have to like or know each but all want the same thing. “It’s a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World” did this to an iconic, three-hour degree years ago. Enemies or strangers teaming up travel across county is dramatic, cinematic and hilarious. Alas, “Paul” would much rather wallow in nothingness around a campfire, at times even mocking this notion of character/plot evolution.

In fact, “Paul” uses the concept of “evolution,” but only to take awkward swipes at the religious right in America. Of course characters are allowed to be atheists and films can talk about the false dichotomy between religion and science, but movies should not be allowed to plunge into the territory with relentless ‘straw man’ attacks. The connection between God-believers and alien-believers is tentative, to where the freaking Catholic Pope has said one does not (dis)prove the other—perhaps paving the way for a startling, interstellar, Vatican confession. The lines poking at the religious characters aren’t so much jokes as they are resorts to “clapter” (def: the audience clapping in approval, not to be confused with laughter). The movie pushes this science-only, demagogue ideology into stereotype symbolism by having Paul literally correct Ruth’s vision—a sort of secular baptism.

With Ruth (played by Kristen Wigg) now an atheist-convert, the movie takes (probably unintentional) jabs at atheism, as intertwined with alien-belief. Ruth’s character development starts and ends with her now profanity-laced vocabulary. For whatever reason God doesn’t exist because Paul does and for whatever reason, because God doesn’t exist, neither does morality nor societal/language organization. More simply, she can now say curse words—though the chosen words are absent of any religious connotation. Do atheists swear more? Apparently. And they drink, smoke pot and like aliens, all things this movie would have the viewer assume is forbidden in the Christian Bible. Conversely, if these things are “immoral,” why are they treated with more sickly sincerity than say the film’s vehicular homicide? That atheism is so admittedly and nihilistically immoral in the film, one almost thinks this movie is pro-Christian (it’s really not). Ultimately, no God-believer has the self-assured intelligence to roll their eyes at the crazed musings of an alien-believer, in the film.

Fortunately, the characters are not so explicitly placed on one side of the religious discussion that they could be wearing team jerseys. No, the best friend characters (Simon Pegg and Nick Frost) are actually at their best when allowed to enjoy and discuss elements of the sci-fi, alien, pop culture canon. Their enthusiasm and casual expertise showed a love for the material. “The material,” in this case, being previous alien movies, not necessarily this one. Because what is there to love? The movie, a parody/tribute/homage/lovefest to alien movies, does not add or deepen the audience’s love or intellect. Comedies can be great films so I just don’t understand how “Paul” is so determinedly ambivalent.

Making an original alien movie is not difficult, conceptually. What it really takes is just courage. Courage to say we don’t need “Star Wars” parodies. Courage to throw a curveball or to jump off a ledge because the audience knows the movie will be over in two hours and wants to remember the movie for longer. “Paul” is not a worse movie than any movie I chose not to see (“Beastly”?); for a movie’s execution can be commended while it’s concept is criticized. But “Paul” remains a deeply disappointing trudge for what should have been a fun romp.

Also, yet another alien movie fails to make use of the phrase, “What not on Earth is that?!”

TOMMY LEE JONES SET TO STAR IN ‘GREAT HOPE SPRINGS’

2011-05-20T00:00:00.000-07:00

Los Angeles, CA (May 19, 2011) – Tommy Lee Jones has closed a deal to star in GREAT HOPE SPRINGS, to be directed by David Frankel. The comedy also stars Meryl Streep and Steve Carell. Sony Pictures holds North American distribution rights to the film which will be released in the 4th quarter of 2012. The screenplay by Vanessa Taylor and featured on the prestigious Black List, follows a middle-aged couple who after thirty years of marriage attend an intense counseling weekend to examine the intimacy issues that are threatening their marriage.

Guymon Casady of Film 360, the feature film production entity of Management 360, and Todd Black for his Escape Artists banner are producing. Mandate president Nathan Kahane, Escape Artists’ Jason Blumenthal and Steve Tisch, and Jessie Nelson are executive producing. Mandate’s Lawrence Grey serves as a co-producer. Escape Artists’ Chris Coggins and Lance Johnson will serve as associate producers. Mandate Pictures has set an August 2011 start date for production on the movie. Film 360 discovered the project, brought in Escape Artists as their partner, and then together approached Mandate for the financing. Lionsgate is handling international sales.

Synopsis:

Many years of marriage have left Maeve (Streep) wanting to spice things up and reconnect with her husband. When she hears of a famed relationship guru (Carell) in the town of Great Hope Springs, she must persuade her sceptical husband (Jones) to get on a plane for an intense week of marriage and sex therapy. Getting there was hard enough...now shedding their bedroom hang ups, learning some new moves and rediscovering their youthful spark is when the real adventure begins.

Tommy Lee Jones and Meryl Streep are represented by CAA, who was integral in putting this project together at Mandate. Steve Carell is managed by Steve Sauer at Media Four and Michelle Bohan at William Morris Endeavor (WME) Entertainment. David Frankel is represented by WME and Anonymous Content. Vanessa Taylor is represented by UTA and Management 360. Dan Freedman, Mandate’s SVP of Business Affairs, negotiated the deals for the company.

Weekly Ad Classics: Guy Ritche: BMW THE HIRE Episode 4 STAR

2011-05-19T18:55:00.000-07:00

If any advertising campaign ever blurred the lines between film and advertising it has to be BMW’s The Hire. Part ads part short films with significant product placement The Hire was a series of eight episodes each one by a different director, each one featuring Clive Owen as “the Driver”. The plot of each film differs, and in some it is hard to tell if there is a plot, but in short this was basically The Transporter with BMWs instead of Audis and Owen instead of Statham. The series became so popular the BMW released a DVD and a second season consisting of three more episodes and four mini-episodes that were meant to tie the story together. Season 2 provided the series with what is perhaps its most well known episode: Beat The Devil, which was directed by Tony Scott and featured James Brown and Danny Trejo. However personally I enjoy the earlier episodes that had a bit more of comedy to them. Star by Guy Ritchie featuring Madonna is a good example of star power in an ad that really wants to be a short movie. Enjoy:

Watch the Premiere of THE HANGOVER: PART 2 (Live)!

2011-05-19T12:40:00.000-07:00

TITANIC to re-release in 3D (2012)

2011-05-19T12:00:00.000-07:00

Movie’s Re-Release to Coincide With the Centennial of the Ship’s Sailing

HOLLYWOOD, CA (May 19, 2011) - Paramount Pictures, Twentieth Century Fox and Lightstorm Entertainment jointly announced today that James Cameron’s “TITANIC” will be re-released worldwide on April 6, 2012.

The release, which marks the 100th anniversary of the Titanic setting sail (April 10th), will present the film in 3D for the first time ever.

Written, directed and produced by Cameron, “TITANIC” is the second highest grossing movie of all time. It is one of only three films to have received a record 11 Academy Awards including Best Picture and Best Director; and launched the careers of stars Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet.

Called “A spectacular demonstration of what modern technology can contribute to dramatic storytelling” by Variety upon its release in 1997, the long in the works 3D conversion is being overseen by Cameron and his Lightstorm producing partner Jon Landau who produced the hit movie.

Said Cameron, "There's a whole generation that's never seen ‘TITANIC’ as it was meant to be seen, on the big screen. And this will be ‘TITANIC’ as you've never seen it before, digitally re-mastered at 4K and painstakingly converted to 3D. With the emotional power intact and the images more powerful than ever, this will be an epic experience for fans and newcomers alike."

Better late than never...

“This new presentation of Paramount’s top-grossing film is particularly special because 2012 is the 100th anniversary of our studio. Paramount has had the pleasure of introducing audiences to some of the all-time classics of cinema during that century of moviemaking and we cannot think of a better way to mark the occasion than with this re-release of ‘Titanic’,” said Brad Grey, Chairman and CEO of Paramount Pictures.

Commented Fox Filmed Entertainment Chairmen and CEOs, Jim Gianopulos and Tom Rothman: “Our 30-plus year relationship with Jim Cameron and Lightstorm has been enormously rewarding, from ‘Aliens’ to ‘Avatar’, and the global phenomenon of ‘Titanic’ remains one of the greatest sources of pride in our history. We are pleased to allow a new generation of audiences to experience the film in its brilliant digital restoration in 3D.”

Review: PRIEST

2011-05-18T18:12:00.000-07:00

This a movie set in a steampunk/western/medieval post apocalyptic world; its main character is a vampire hunting, motorcycle riding, cowboy-ninja-priest played by Paul Bettany. And somehow… somehow it managed to be uncool. Somehow it managed to make such a setting feel dull, empty, and unworthy of all those adjectives. Somehow it managed to make its main character even more uninteresting than the setting he inhabits. And most surprising of all, Priest manages to be a movie without any stylistic sense, even when clearly this material would only work under heavy stylization and a very literal interpretation of “the rule of cool”

Some stories are just too dumb. Period. By its premise alone, you expect Priest to be one of those. This is a story about an ex-vampire hunter living in a post-apocalyptic world that resulted from a war between humans and vampires. The humans won in the end, thanks to the vampire hunting priests, but at a terrible price. The world has been reduced to a wasteland and only a few hardy humans dare to live outside the city walls. It is in one of these wasteland towns that the vampires begin to strike again. Unfortunately, for the vampires, this gets Paul Bettany, the most badass of all the priests, chasing their ass. Because it turns out they have kidnapped his niece. Why didn’t they kill her? It is not quite well explained, and the payoff makes no sense. But the point is that now we follow Priest, as the vampire hunting priest is called, across the wasteland in a vampire hunting adventure as he rides his motorcycle towards the sunset. He is joined by lawman and a female priests (I think these guys had names but I can’t remember), on his quest.

As I said this is not the movie that one goes to see expecting a though provoking human drama, or a heartfelt comedy about being human, or anything with perception of depth.

But it could have been cool! It could have been told with humor! It could have been made for a love of the craft! And it could have embraced it ridiculousness!

But no it is incredibly serious about its subject matter. No one once breaks into a smile; there are no winks at the audience; no cheesy lines at the end of a kill; and everyone keeps praying all the time, because they are priests, which only makes it both more dull and more ridiculous. Even Michael Bay was man enough to admit Transformers was just about the explosions, Shia LeBouf being Shia LeBouf, and Megan Fox’s breasts. I can guarantee you that whoever wrote this film would claim it to be an attack of the Roman Catholic Church’s views on homosexuality, the vow of celibacy, and reprimanded sexuality.

Weekly Ad Classics: MY LIFE, MY CARD WES ANDERSON

2011-05-13T18:24:00.000-07:00

Pardon our delay of posts. We were experiencing some problems on our server. Regular updates will return.

American Express did a whole series of commercials by famous filmmakers during their My Card campaign. My favorite of all is Wes Anderson’s, since his style really comes through, and you could argue it is his most ambitious fully centered tracking shot, a technique that has become his personal signature. Like his films, it is a bit whimsical, and certainly quirky. But it lacks the father-son relationship issues. Probably for the better, it would be impossible to make a positive spin on that for a credit card commercial. Enjoy; it is a good little short.

THOR Featurettes:

2011-05-06T17:00:00.000-07:00

Check out these featurettes on Thor, courtesy of Paramount Pictures: