The Movie Watch

Review: OBLIVION

2013-04-25T22:51:00.001-07:00

Oblivion thinks it is much smarter than it really is. But the more you think about it after the credits start rolling, the stupider it gets. But I can compliment the film on two things: making an effort to channel Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey, and being just another dumb Tom Cruise thriller at the same time. That is not an easy feat to pull off. Oblivion’s strengths and weakness lie in the fact that it attempted do so.

The movie begins with an unnecessary narration by Jack (Tom Cruise), one of the few people left on Earth after an alien invasion destroyed most of the planet. In the narration we are informed that most humans have left for Titan, Saturn’s moon. Jack and his partner Victoria (Andrea Riseborough) are there to give maintenance to drones in charge of cleaning up the Earth and killing off any remaining aliens. When they don’t fix drones they spend the time by enjoying candlelit dinners and skinny-dipping in a glass-bottomed pool that hangs 1,000 feet in the air. They live a pretty nifty life, while their boss, Sally (Melissa Leo) supervises them from a pyramid-shaped control center orbiting the Earth; she is awfully cheerful. And you know that, in a movie, when the boss can’t help but smile 24/7 something has to be off.

Oh, and I forgot to mention that Jack and Victoria had a routine memory wipe five years prior. The only think Jack can remember is a cheesy backlit dream of a beautiful woman when met in pre-invasion New York. One otherwise average day, a pre-war shuttle crash-lands on Earth. The only survivor is Julia (Olga Kurylenko), a Russian astronaut that looks exactly like the girl in Jack’s dream. And then we are off into a space-chase adventure; to figure out whom is this girl, and what does Morgan Freeman’s character know that nobody else does.

There are a lot of question, and not all of them are answered. But for the most part the ride is beautiful to look at. The opening is immersive, gradual, and even slow. But it is perfect to introduce us to the world of the film. We see stunning digital landscapes of buried cities, dried up rivers, and ocean-sized desserts. The film’s biggest problem is that this world is much more interesting than any of its characters, which are all – for the most part – flat cardboard cut outs.

Take for example the cheesy love story in Jack’s dream. Julia is an idealized woman that he can’t remember, but she claims to be his wife. Victoria is the sexy redhead he goes skinny-dipping in the sky with. Guess which one is the evil one. Meanwhile, down below on Earth’s broken surface, everybody but the audience has to learn that Morgan Freeman is always right.

Director Joseph Kosinski’s previous movie, TRON: Legacy, was also a visual smorgasm with very one-dimensional protagonists. But it didn’t lie to itself about that; TRON: Legacy’s target audience was much younger than Oblivion’s and they ended up with what they paid for going in. In Oblivion, those who paid for a brainy Sci Fi that could work as some political allegory will get Tom Cruise, while those who paid for Tom Cruise will get a slow brainy world building Sci Fi that still doesn’t work as a political allegory.

The best way to enjoy this film is to relax and not think about it too much, yet at the same time not to expect Mission Impossible, or any other noisy movie of the kind. If you do, like I did, this can be a very enjoyable film. At the very least it is a very beautiful film.

Having said all this, I do have two random musings:

1) This is not the first movie where an unexplained affection for Olga Kurylenko drives the main character. This doesn’t work for me. Not because Kurylenko is a bad actress, but because the protagonist should have a reason to fall for her, other than “just ‘cause she is the love interest”.

2) The film could have used some more female ass kicking. Tom Cruise’s character is all man; he’s a sharpshooter, a mechanic, a sports fan, and gets to drive a cool bike. Meanwhile the women just run and follow instructions. When Kurylenko finally picks up a gun, the Kingslayer from Game of Thrones kills off the badie that was threatening her, so she doesn’t get to use it.

3) Had the movie ended 30 seconds before it did, it would have been wonderful. The extra 30 seconds and an unnecessary level of cheesiness and just ruin the whole thing for everybody.

Film Review: Skyfall (Through the eyes of a Bond fanatic)

2013-04-22T12:43:00.000-07:00

The very first Bond film I ever saw was GoldenEye and I enjoyed it even before I knew it was part of an over 30 year franchise at the time. Having seen every single Bond film numerous times since then, I fell in love with every aspect of it: The cars, the girls, the action, the gadgets. It was all just pure escapist entertainment at its finest and I still love every ludicrous minute of them. Then I heard that Pierce Brosnan was stepping down/being booted from the role of Bond, and my heart was crushed. I didn't think anyone could replace him, because he embodied everything that I had viewed Bond as: suave, sophisticated, lethal, even funny when the time came. I'll openly admit that I thought Daniel Craig was completely wrong for the part. I was hating on the blonde hair too and I was afraid that the franchise would fade into obscurity because of it. Then I saw Casino Royale, and I, along with many others, were absolutely wrong. I was blown away by everything in it. Almost immediately I thought Daniel Craig succeeded more in portraying Bond in one movie than many others had in 4-7. I won't go so far as to say he's better than Connery, but he's definitely up there with him.

As much as I grew up with Pierce as Bond, Craig has easily surpassed him because he's not only the most three dimensional Bond, he knows where this character has been and what is going on in his head, and that, to me, deserves the ultimate praise. Now that you know my affinity for Bond, let's talk about Skyfall, shall we? I went in with average expectations after Quantum of Solace, which was mildly underwhelming. However, I'm proud to say that Skyfall is the antithesis of that movie. It's an amalgamation of everything the Bond franchise represents and then some. There are many subtle references to the previous films done much better than in Die Another Day where they just put them in there to serve no purpose to the story whatsoever, but this one goes beyond just pleasing the fans. It tells a compelling and sometimes even heartbreaking story as well. The basic plot of it is that Bond and fellow Agent Eve (Naomi Harris) are after a man who stole a hard drive in Istanbul which contains information on the whereabouts of every agent embedded in terrorist organizations around the globe. Bond gets shot in the field and is presumed dead. (You Only Live Twice anyone?) We are then treated to one of the best opening numbers I've ever heard for the series. Adele was a great choice and Skyfall the song is right up there with Live and Let Die. You know you have a good Bond tune when you keep playing it on your car radio. Much praise must also go to Daniel Klienman for creating such a striking set of visuals to complement the film and the song. From there, M is under heavy scrutiny from her superior Mallory (Ralph Fiennes) for her handling of the operation that went awry three months earlier and is in danger of being forced to step down. Immediately after MI6 falls under attack and several agents are killed. This forces Bond to come back and hunt down whoever is responsible. This leads Bond to Shanghai, Macau, and eventually right back to London, where the movie stays from the remainder of the film. The cost of Bond protecting M and the rest of the country from the bad guys eventually becomes quite personal, which leads to some of the most interesting twists in the story towards the end. The finale is easily the best part of the film, mainly because it's a great 180 on the way Bond films usually end. That's all I can say for now, because otherwise I'd reveal some really juicy plot details that make the film that much better. It's an easy to follow plot and it takes liberties with the Bond formula as well. It's not afraid to follow the rules, but at the same time break them as well. Many of the classic elements that were sorely missed in Quantum of Solace return here, such as Q played wonderfully by Ben Wishaw. I love his scenes with Daniel Craig and it's also a nice change having Q younger than Bond himself. He's a bit of a smart ass, but he can back it up as he's also essential to the plot as well. The gadgets are minimal here, but they are practical and make sense within the boundaries of reality. (Sorry fans of watch lasers.) One gadget even lends for a fairly funny crack at the villain. Q also makes a great, nearly 4th wall joke about a previous memorable gadget. Bond in a casino, sleeps with women, his introduction; all those things are present here. The Bond girls themselves are ok here, but I wouldn't go so far as to call them unimportant to the story. Eve is more of a supporting character than an actual Bond girl, but she does serve the plot importantly enough for my eyes at least. Bernice Marlohe as Severine is interesting as well. She kind of reminds me of a cross between Xenia Onatopp from Goldeneye, but that seems to be her exterior, as underneath there's more of the damsel in distress from the Roger Moore era of Bond girls. The real credit here must go to Dame Judi Dench as M. She IS M and her relationship with Bond is one of the most intriguing elements of Skyfall. I know it's been addressed before in the Craig films, but it's really pushed to center stage here. She also delivers the first audible F-Bomb in the Bond series. That is the only spoiler I will give away, because it doesn't reveal too much. As for Craig, it's easily his best performance as Bond yet. He goes through so much here and you can see that he's a man who is at odds with what he does for a living, and yet he still would "give his life for queen and country" as he puts it. He even jokes about it to the villain at one point. Which is a device that is taken straight out of the Fleming novels. The bad guy's goal for world domination here is less elaborate, and makes perfect sense for this day in age. As one of the major points of this movie is the relevance of Bond and the entire 00 section, but by the end of the movie, you're convinced that this world needs a man to do the job that a computer can't do, particularly in this line of work.

Which brings me to one of the best elements of this film. Javier Bardem as Silva. We all know he can play a bad guy, but here he does it both stylishly and originally, at least as far as Bond goes. He's definitely alongside the likes of Goldfinger, Bloefeld, and Trevelyan. There's a creepiness that he brings a la Anton, but in a much different way. He's also one of the only villains who has an interesting back story, and there's a few moments that will send chills down your spine with him, both good and bad. You know what he's after, and his intentions are crystal clear. He has the best chemistry with Daniel Craig than any of Craig's other villains have had thus far, and his introduction is incredibly memorable as well, for a lot of reasons. Lots of people so far have compared him to the Joker, even in the trailer, and for good reason too. Sam Mendes has cited The Dark Knight as inspiration for this film, and it shows in both Bardem and the plot, and it's not a bad thing here. It might even do one better, because there's even some elements to Bond's story here that parallels The Dark Knight Rises, so you could call this one Bond Rises in a sense. I just remember being overwhelmed by Dark Knight in 2008 and somewhat let down by Quantum of Solace that same year. This year it was the opposite with both franchises. Skyfall came out on top this year, and for good reason. Sam Mendes was the perfect choice to direct this film, and I'd be sad if he didn't return in the future for more installments. He knows what he's doing behind the camera and he's had the luxury of directing Daniel Craig before in Road to Perdition. He has great style and knack for character, which is what any movie needs, and cinema is great because of directors like him. The action scenes are much better choreographed than the last time around. There's even one fight where it's shot all in one take without a single edit whatsoever, which I found fascinating. There are also a great number of silhouette shots in the film and the visual elements of each location are completely eye popping. It's easily the most beautifully shot Bond film I've ever seen. Stuard Baird is a masterful editor and he gives the film much needed pacing where it is needed. He was one of the main reasons I was hopeful this one would be good, because his work on Casino Royalewas stunning. The camera is also pulled far enough back from the action shots so the viewer can actually tell what is happening this time around, and the action is never just for the sake of a cheap thrill. It always serves the story, which is what makes Skyfall a great film to behold overall. The music this time around is a little more techno-ey, but it works all right. Also, there are enough "reflective" moments that helps the pace of the film overall, such as Bond by the swimming pool just thinking for a brief moment. It doesn't really serve any purpose to the plot whatsoever, but it doesn't detract from the film either. And for people saying Casino Royale was too sluggish and didn't have enough action, look what happened when they tried to "fix" that with Quantum. 'Nuff Said. I'll admit the first hour of the film does drag a little in order to set things up properly, but honestly, so did The Avengers, and that's the 3rd highest grossing film of all time. Overall, Skyfall is a true gem in this franchise and is a perfect way to commemorate a 50 year old film franchise much better than Die Another Day tried to do ten years ago for the 40th. At that point Bond may have been aging quite poorly, but this film ages just as well as a 55' Bollinger, which is one of Bond's main drinks of choice. It easily is as good as, if not better than Casino Royale and possibly even Goldfinger. Welcome back Mr. Bond. Here's to another 50. 5/5. Must see

Film Review: MAMA

2013-01-26T10:53:00.000-08:00

Well... it looks like we are starting 2013 with a rather fun ride. Mama, the new presentation by Guillermo del Toro, might not be breaking any new ground in the genre he helped define, but it follows the tradition of the twisted fairytale with full satisfaction. It provides a couple of nightmarish sequences, a handful of good shock scares, and a chilling feeling running down your spine for most of the film, and a few good laughs - most of them nervous laughs. Could you ask of anything more from a film like this?

The opening sequence has a distraught father (Nikolaj Coster-Waldau) running away with his two daughters in hand; over the radio we learn about a shooting at a financial firm. Was he involved in the shooting? Very likely, but we never find out. The family ends up in an abandoned cottage deep in the forest. No one has heared from them ever since.

The girls’ uncle, Jeffrey (also played by Coster-Waldau), never gives up hope. For five years he has been searching for his brother and nieces almost obsessively. His girlfriend, Annabel (Jessica Chastain), indulges him because “it is cheaper than therapy” and never expects Jeffrey to find them. One regular morning, they find the girls. After five years in the wild, Victoria and Lily (Megan Charpentier, Isabelle Nélisse) behave more like animals. They crawl on all four, can barely mutter a sentence, and gnaw on tree-bark and moths. There is no sign of their father, but the girls keep talking to the walls, referencing an unseen “Mama”.

Jeffrey believes the girls need a chance of a normal life. So he moves them to the suburbs, and brings Annabel along. Annabel, who has multiple piercings and a tattoo sleeve, isn’t quite ready to play mother and housewife; Victoria and Lily, who scream anytime somebody touches them and eat their food on the floor, aren’t quite ready for a life in the suburbs either. But when Jeffrey ends up in the hospital, after an accident, the girls are stuck with each other whether they like it or not. Oh, and I forgot to mention, the creepy Dr. Dreyfuss (Daniel Kash) owns the house. He has allowed Jeffrey and the girls to move in rent-free, as long as he has full access to keep an eye on them. If that doesn’t sound like a bad idea, what does?

So here is what we have:

A brilliant set up, the concept of trying to raise two feral-girls, while Dr. Creepy watches from afar, should be strong enough to be a film on its own. Amazing acting, Jessica Chastain is brilliant as usual and the girls, Charpentier and Nélisse, carry an intensity very few young actors are capable of. Solid direction, del Toro discovered Andrés Muschietti after seeing his short online and for a first timer he delivers. And the whole thing carry’s del Toro’s stamp and signature.

What we are missing is consistency. The film doesn’t seem to know what to do with Mama, the ghost that has followed the girls into the suburbs. Her back story is not terribly original, and seems ripped off from a japanese ghost story. And when Jeffrey and Annabel finally find out how to get rid of her, the solution seems so obvious, you question why it took them so long to figure it out. As for Dr. Dreyfuss, he goes out alone at night to investigate and ends up like the high-school slut in a teen-slasher. Seriously? The creepy doctor character has to be smarter than that.

As I said, Mama is solid but the resolution still left me wanting more. In a way it is a bit too perfect that it became imperfect. There aren’t enough open ends, and I kinda wanted to know what the local kids though of the wild girls who just moved in next door. They are much scarier and interesting, than a skinny ghost that crawls on walls.

Review: 2012 Top Ten

2013-01-01T16:45:00.000-08:00

So it is once again that time of the year when everyone wants to shout out their opinion on which should be named the ten best movies of the year. If you think this blog is any different to all those rants you are mistaken; we will undeniably nominate ten movies as The Movie Watch’s “Top Ten of 2012”, as we have done in the past. But never the less we do hope our list will be somewhat enlightening in terms of tastes and options. And once again we do not intend to rank our choices in terms of elitist taste; these are just some movies we highly recommend you don’t miss, and probably best you catch before awards season.

With no further ado, these are The Movie Watch’s Top Ten of 2012 in no particular order, other than alphabetical. Some have not been reviewed, we have been lazy this last few months, but reviews will come up ASAP. Anyway, here is our list:

Argo

Hands down the best “movie”. Argo is a legitimate movie, plain and simple. Despite it trying its best to stick to the depiction of true events, it is also a straight forward thriller in the low brow entertaining sense. More importantly, it has a premise that we belive it is based on true events only because it is so preposterous no Hollywood screenwriter could have come up with it.

Beasts of The Southern Wild

If there is a more powerful, and adorable, performance out there than Quvenzhane Wallis’ lease point me in its direction. There has never been a six year old capable of capturing our hearts, and raw emotion, as Miss Wallis has done. Her performance, and this film, are what filmmaking should be about. Their relative, low budget and indy status might cost them the spotlight during awards season. Yet, here is to hopping most see over the glitz and spotlight to discover this heart breaking toy about life in The Bathtub.

The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel

Simpler, and 100 times more lighthearted that anything on this list, yet The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel is capable of bringing cheer and good feelings to anyone with in a mile radius of wherever it is playing. This is the feel good film of the year, and I might not have included it on this list had it not been for the fact that it became increasingly enjoyable after the second and third watch.

Cabin in the Woods

A film so meta it pokes fun at other meta parodies. This might not be a great film, but it is a great experiment in movie going savvyness. Who would have thought that the reason all teen-horror flicks are the same, is because a secret organization of “scientists” is following a ritual to prevent the world from ending? Cabin in the Woods is a good comedy, a brilliant commentary on the lack of freedom writers have while writing formula, and an OK horror story. All from the mind of Joss Whedon who also managed to assemble The Avengers. More than any other filmmaker, Whedon has proven that the age of the nerds is here to stay.

Cloud Atlas

Love it or hate it, we love it. The truth is that a film like Cloud Atlas comes once in a generation; we will not see as different from the rest in 20 years. Perhaps for the best. This is truly an original and awe inspiring movie, that mixes six different story lines. Amazingly had they been separate films it is likely half out of those six would have still found themselves into lists like these. The novel was deemed unfilmable, and for many this was not a success. Yet, the attempt to do so should be considered a feet of admiration, especially today when few risk to venture out of the formula confront zone. Not surprisingly this ended up as an independently financed film.

Flight

With perhaps the most terrifying opening scene on this list, Flight is almost a horror story; it certainly is for the main character, Whip Whitaker. This is the story about a personal struggle over vice and addiction like no other. The film features one of Denzel Washington’s best performances, and that alone would make it a must watch. But it is also, Robert Zemeckis’ long awaited return to live action. I still don’t understand why Zemeckis would think he can replace a performance like these with motion capture; it is impossible.

The Impossible

Like Argo, this film is legitimately based on a true story. But unlike Argo, The Impossible is a harrowing film, with the goal to hit you in the guts and squeeze some tears out. Yes, it is a manipulative film - the director, Juan Antonio Bayona, previously worked on The Orphanage knows how to bring out emotion in his audience. Under anyone else's hands The Impossible would have been a tacky feel good movie, Bayona places us in the midsts of the tragedy and makes us suffer along side the characters. This is true compassion.

Life of Pi

Another supposedly unfilmable book, that was successfully adapted into a visual masterpiece. Ang Lee out does himself here, and manages to actually find a good use for 3D. The medium has been overused and abused by studios to juice out a few extra bucks out of movie goes. Despite the “acceptable” 3D in films like Avatar, Sanctum, and How to Train Your Dragon it still felt like an unnecessary addition. Not here, Ang Lee breathes life into the film with it. Furthermore, the CGI tiger “Richard Parker” is once again proof that an award for “off-screen performance” should be given to animators, puppeteers, and voice actors. It is a true art form when taken to this level.

Prometheus

Guess this is another love it or hated, and one I know most people don’t agree with me. But if stripped from the annoying connection of it being an Alien pseudo-prequel perhaps set in the Blade Runner universe, Prometheus is a legit sci-horror film. Yes the characters behave somewhat stupidly - running in a straight line from a two dimensional object - but you forget all horror movies do the same. Here at least they had some semblance of brainage. And while the human characters might not be too bring, no other character on this list is as interesting as David. I’m still rooting for Ridley Scott to squish out another of these if the establishment lets him.

The Intouchables

OK this one is cheating a bit. Technically, this was a 2011 film but it didn’t come out in this hemisphere until spring 2012 - and because of that it will be featured in the upcoming award season. Regardless of when it came out, it is a must watch. Much more of a feel good film than anything listed above, and still touching enough to deserve a spot as one of the year’s best. This film is incredibly easy to enjoy. It is a story that has been told many times before; the life of a stuffy old millionaire is enriched by a young man from the ghettos and vice versa. But once again it is prove that even if a story has been told before it can be told again in a different and perhaps more efficient manner.

This is the best we can do to make a conclusive list. But other great movies from this year we would recommend include, but are not limited to: The Avengers, Bernie, Chronicle, The Dark Knight Rises, The Hobbit, In Time, Looper, Moonrise Kingdom, The Paperboy, The Perk of Being a Wallflower, Rise of the Guardians, To Rome With Love, Ted, Seven Psychopaths, and Wreck it Ralph. We have yet to see Django Unchained and Les Miserables but, most possibly, we can assume they belong on this list.

Anyways. Happy New Years, and my 2013 bring you all awesome times.

Film Review: CLOUD ATLAS

2012-11-05T17:21:00.000-08:00

Oh boy, where can I begin? Reviews have been mixed, and for a good reason; Cloud Atlas is a love it or hate it movie. I do not expect to find a middle ground. The great thing about movies like this is that they get people talking, debating, and thinking. So even if you are on the hate it crowd, this movie affected you in someway or other. Generally speaking, I’d say this is a good thing in any art form. Luckily for me, I am in the LOVE IT crowd.

Cloud Atlas tells six stories interwoven to various degrees, all with the same thematic elements: primarily the search for freedom and the human desire to be together. Individually each piece is engaging enough, it would have made a good short story. But the editing turns all six into a thematic concerto that only film as an art medium can provide. To think that the novel was considered “un-filmable” means there is a lack of creativity out there. If anything Cloud Atlas proves the vast versatility of film as a story telling medium.

The six stories that we see are:

In 1850, Adam Ewing (Jim Sturgess) visits New Zealand and then sails home to San Francisco, where his wife if waiting. Along the way, he discovers a stowaway slave (David Gyasi), whom he befriends. There is also a mysterious Dr. Henry Goose (Tom Hanks) who spends his days collecting teeth.

In Belgium after WWI, an aspiring composer Robert Frobisher (Ben Wishaw), reads Adam Ewing’s diary, as he works for an old composer Vyvan Ayrs (Jim Broadbent) whose best days are over.

In 1974, San Francisco, a reporter Luisa Rey (Halle Berry) reads Frobisher’s letters to his lover, Rufus Sixsmith (James D’Arcy), all while she gets drawn into the apparent cover up of a murder.

In present day, an elderly publisher named Timothy Cavendish (Jim Broadbent) is locked up by his brother (Hugh Grant) in an elderly ward from which he tries to escape with the aide of his friends. He ultimately writes a novel about his adventures, and gets adapted into a movie.

In the near future, Seoul, a cloned “fabricant”, Sonmi-451 (Doona Bae) finds the movie about Cavendish’s adventures (played by Tom Hanks in the adaptation). She then joins a rebellion wishing to gran rights to the fabricants and falls in love with Hae-Joo (Jim Sturgess).

After the apocalypse, reduces humanity back to a tribal society, Zachry (Tom Hanks) and a stranger Meronym (Halle Berry) climb a mountain where they learn the truth of Sonmi - now considered a prophet in their culture.

The stories are interwoven further, as some characters are clear reincarnations of the previous versions. Either because they are played by the same actor, or because a recurring birthmark is present in several of them. You have to go by one or the other, since they tend to contradict. And to complicate it further some appear as dreams inside the other’s reality. Some characters appear in more than one, but aged, and some might not have even happened and are just fabrications of the other’s imagination.

Yet, as complicated as this sounds it is surprisingly easy to follow linearly, once you settle in with the pace. A testament to the ability of the filmmakers, and the editor. A score, composed in-story by Frobisher, dreamt by Zachry, and enjoyed by Louisa Rey also helps guide the reader. The complexity screams for some explanation. The right questions seem to be in place. But it doesn’t provide us with the answers. This might be a bit too meta for many folks out there, but what if there is no right answer? The goal of the film is clearly to challenge the audience into asking the questions. Personally, I believe this is OK. And better than something packaged for easy consumption.

The stories vary in terms of effectiveness and style. Some are rather silly, others quite trippy, and a couple very straight-forward. Personally I enjoyed the young composer’s story and the apocalyptic setting the most, while Cavendish plight in the elderly asylum was good old silly fun. Opinions here will vary, but there is certainly something for everyone.

If you noticed above, or have likely heard it already, the film has received some heavy criticism for the use of “yellowface”, that is whit actor playing Asian characters. The practice is generally frowned upon; in the past it was generally used to portray racist caricatures like blackface. To the defense of Cloud Atlas, there seems to be some reasoning behind it, and the film also has “whiteface”, “black-to-yellowface”, “gay face”, crossdress and every other sort of mix and match of actors to race and gender you can possibly imagine. At times, as is the case with Asian Jim Sturges, the make-up is cartoonish and not at its best. Sometimes this seems to be intentional, as is the case for Hugo Weaving as a burly nurse. And other times you will have no idea whom you are looking at and will be quite surprised when you find out at the credits. Playing guess-who is half of the fun here.

Cloud Atlas might be confusing, pretentious, and silly but the one thing it is not is boring. It is demented and brilliant at the same time. But above all it is ambitious - and a little self indulgent. It walks along the edge of absolute disaster, but it makes it through the end without ever overstepping the line. It is a bold, risky, move by all the filmmakers and producers involved. Movies like this are few and they don’t come very often; this is certainly a must watch experience, solely because it exists. And, if you are like me, you will find it to be a magical experience.

Review: SEVEN PSYCHOPATHS

2012-10-24T17:05:00.000-07:00

I can safely say you won’t see this one coming. Not because there is an unexpected twist at the end - or some other kind of cop-out - but because the characters in this movie are so unpredictable there is really no way of knowing what direction they are pointing their gun at, or when they might pull the trigger - accidentally or otherwise. This is a richly self aware movie, where the characters are literally writing the movie on the go. In an age where most movie characters - and writers - lack freewill and subscribe to common genre conventions a script like this might appear to lack direction or cohesion. But that is not the case here; it is just rare to see a movie where the characters truly have control of the events that surround them. Writer / director Martin McDonagh has done what many writers aspire to by breathing freewill into his characters.

The movie stars Colin Farrell as Marty Faranan, an alcoholic Irish screenwriter who has a great title for a screenplay - Seven Psychopaths - but no story to go along with it, or even a main character for that matter. Marty wants his film to be thoughtful, and - if possible - based in real life; his best friend Billy Bickle (Sam Rockwell), who is eager to help Marty write, would rather just see a movie that ends in a brilliant shoot out. They constantly bicker about writing conventions as a series of surreal situations unravel around them.

You see, there is an active serial killer working in Los Angeles called the Jack of Diamonds. We meet this “Jack” in the opening sequence when he wipes out a pair of mobsters arguing over a murder. After hearing about the Jack of Diamonds in the newspaper, Billy decides to help out Marty write his script by placing a classified ad asking psychopaths in LA to volunteer for interviews.

When he is not helping Marty in overcoming his writer’s block, Billy spends his days kidnapping dogs in Park La Brea. Billy’s dognapping partner is Hans (Christopher Walken), an old school christian with a hidden past and an odd scar on his neck. One day Billy and Hans nab the wrong dog when they take Bonny, an adorable Shih Tzu that belongs to Charlie (Woody Harrelson), a cold blood killer who’s only joy in life is his beloved Bonny.

Unbeknown to him, Marty - the alcoholic screenwriter - has a whole load of psychopaths heading his way. A lot of the events take place for real, a lot of them take place in Marty’s script, some take place in Billy’s take on what Marty’s script should be like, some are flashbacks of the actual psychopaths whom we are following, some of them are exaggerated stories by the psychopaths during the interviews, and some just seem to take place in all places at once. Not surprisingly, Marty ends up writing the movie he was just in. We, as the audience, just tag along for the ride.

Seven Psychopaths is less heavy handed McDonagh’s last film, In Bruges but it is just as brilliant a dark comedy as that one. And once again the Colin Farrell, and the whole cast, is at the top of his game.

I do feel obligated to mention that the trailer and poster are somewhat misleading. Seven psychopaths does not necessarily refer to a specific set of characters in the film. Everyone is strangely psychotic here, and the number of psychopaths varies depending on who’s point of view you take. The seven in the title refers only to those in Marty’s scripts, of whom he meets only four (or five because one counts for two) in real life in addition to other psychopaths he doesn’t necessarily write into his script.

Review: THE PAPERBOY

2012-10-18T14:10:00.000-07:00

Popular trash movies are sometimes compared to fast-food; they are manufactured to provide immediate satisfaction without little to no concern about the consumer’s health. The Paperboy is trash, but is has more in common with the juicy mess of grease cheese that fills the street-cart burrito you have at 4am in the morning after a long night of drinking than a McBurger cooked up in a sterilized kitchen. Like the burrito, this film has no care, no substance, and no shame but every single moment of it is delicious, rich in texture, and a unique experience.

This film has so much texture you can feel yourself wading and wallowing in it. It is set in a mud, blood, and piss filled swamp in Florida during the times before air-conditioning made it a preferable vacation spot. The swamp is so nasty a place the characters have to spend half the movie sweating and swapping mosquitoes. In this swamp lives Hillary Van Wetter (John Cusack), a man so vile and cruel that he should be executed solely on principle. Van Wetter spends his days catching and killing ‘gaters to make boots.

At the film’s opening Van Wetter has been wrongfully accused of slicing the guts out of the local sheriff and killing him. Ward Jansen (Matthew McConaughey), is a reporter for the Miami Times who believes Van Wetter has been wrongly convicted. Ward grew up in the town next to the swamp and knows the town would like to see Van Wetter dead even if innocent but he chooses to investigate anyway. He recruits his younger brother, Jack (Zac Efron) as his driver/assistant and brings along his partner from the times, Yardley Acheman (David Oyelowo). Yardley is an educated black man who speaks with a British accent and leaves most of the locals cross eyed. Even Jack has a hard time adapting to his presence. Aside from Jack, who is to naïve to do otherwise, every other character is hiding something about themselves.

The reporting team ultimately meets up with Charlotte (Nicole Kidman), the textbook definition of white trash blonde if there ever was one. Charlotte keeps correspondence with several men in Death Row, including Van Wetter, and has somehow fallen in love and gotten engaged with Van Wetter without ever meeting him.

A woman like her belongs in a psychiatric institute, but Ward decides to keep her around since she can provide information on Van Wetter. It doesn’t help that young Jack is absolutely infatuated with Charlotte. The trashy blonde’s hopeless romance with Van Wetter and her reproachable flirting with Jack lead to two scenes no other movie would have dared to include them both. To put it mildly, these scenes include: jellyfish, female body parts, piss, and a simultaneous orgasm. I leave the rest up to your imagination.

The entire story is narrated by Anita (Macy Grey), a maid who works for the Jansen family and could be seen as Jack’s only trustworthy friend. She seems to know exactly what happened but is reluctant to give up the information; after all she lives in a rather racist town, inhabited by the worst kind of white trash, in the 1960s. No matter how far away she stays from trouble, it will find her.

Apparently the film has been panned by critics, especially after its debut at Cannes. Many asking, how was this even put together? How did Nicole Kidman ended up in this role, which is pretty much the antithesis of what she is? Why does the director Lee Daniels, who made the acclaimed precious, spend half the time showcasing McConaughey and Efron’s abs? Was it necessary to show the piss, and the alligator's guts? In their defense, all the actors do a terrific job. And it is great to see that an actress like Nicole Kidman can still prove her worth beyond the roles society has assigned. And I could say the same about Efron and McConaughey, despite the fact they still have it in their contract that the film must display their shirtless torsos every other scene, at least Lee Daniels can make shots not look out of place.

Haters will be haters. And I’ll grant you that this film is not for everyone, and probably not for you. It is sick and disgusting but I loved every minute of it, most of the time in disbelief. You can look at it as an expensive student film, but to its defense I will say this film is not boring, it is very different to anything you likely seen in the last few years, and it prefers to take bold and risky moves into places where other movies would cringe and stay away from. So I highly recommend you go try something different and go see The Paperboy; it will be a unique experience and worst comes to worst you will see Zac Efron getting pissed on.

Meanwhile I am going sit back and enjoy this juicy carnitas burrito.

Review: ARGO

2012-10-15T14:10:00.000-07:00

Every now and then there comes a story so preposterous and incredible that you know it has to be true; no Hollywood screenwriter could have come up with it. Ben Affleck’s new film, in which he stars and directed, is one of those cases. The film opens with an animated intro covering the events that led to the Iranian Revolution; “This is the land of The Persian Empire”, it begins - as if this were going to be a large fantasy epic. But Argo is no fantasy and the film is ten times more gripping because of it.

Like most average movie goers, I am not particularly fond of modern day political thrillers. They involve a lot of characters sitting around, discussing “stuff” in complex jargon as if they were playing chess. Even the acclaimed Syriana was a bit of a bore. There is some chess playing in Argo but it is mostly for a set characters to pass the time; most of the film is all show business.

The set up is simple, and you probably already know; in 1979, during the Iranian Revolution the American embassy was raided by revolutionary forces. Most of its employees were taken hostage and held for ransom. Six of them escaped and found refuge in the Canadian ambassador (Victor Garber)’s house. There they wait, until the US sends someone to rescue them, the Iranian authorities find them, or the ambassador decides he is taking too big a risk and kicks them out. Back in Washington, the CIA concocts a plan to get them out.

They will send in an extractor, Tony Mendez (Ben Affleck), posing to be a Canadian Film Producer claiming that him and his crew were in Iran scouting locations for a new science fiction film. The “fake crew” will consist of the six hostages, who with new Canadian identities will be able to board a plane out of Tehran without anyone knowing the better. And who would, when a film production rolls into town everyone is always too excited to notice someone sneaking out the backdoor.

It is a cockamamie scheme, and the first to raise an eyebrow are the heads in Washington believing high profile fake identities are never a good idea when you want to smuggle someone out of a hostile country. But Mendez finds two allies in Hollywood willing to cooperate: a producer Lester Seigel (Alan Arkin), who has experience producing fake movies to taunt rival studios, and a make-up artist John Chambers (John Goodman), who wouldn’t mind having a hand in production even if it is a fake production. Together with Mendez, they will buy an ad in Variety, set up a fake green-light party in the rooftop of the Beverly Hilton; if they can get Hollywood excited about a fake movie, Teheran is bound to hear about it. Unlike Washington, if Hollywood is going to do a fake movie, they are going to make sure its good; there are too many bad real movies out there to make the fake ones bad.

The film is spellbinding as any thriller, and yet not a single gun is shot by the CIA team, or the Iranian guards who could have identified them. This is what real life secret agent work is like, if anyone fires a gun it means their cover has been blown, the mission compromised, and most importantly that they suck at their job.

To be able to craft a thriller without chases and gunfire goes to show that Ben Affleck is a talented filmmaker, and that The Town was not just a lucky strike. Yes, his acting is certainly not the best, nor the highlight of this film, but the man has talent elsewhere. Thankfully, in Argo, he supports his acting with a brilliant supporting cast. Arkin and Goodman are at their best, as Hollywood producers safely lounging by the poolside, while they know everything that is happening in Iran. Victor Garber also does a great job as the friendly Canadian ambassador, who welcomes the refugees at a great risk for himself.

I guess the movie has something to say about how people fail to notice the obvious when the stage lights are shining; one of the best moments involves a man in the bazaar giddily asking the frightened fake crew if the movie they are filming is a “foreign bride” movie; I guess the man often dreams about meeting his “foreign bride” that looks like a Hollywood star. Personally, I didn’t take much in terms of depth. This is just a good story, brilliantly crafted, that I would highly recommend. But deep down it is still a Hollywood thriller, but there is nothing wrong with that.

Review: Looper

2012-10-02T21:52:00.000-07:00

Any conversation dealing with time travel it can easily become an endless debate about the technicalities, ethics, paradoxes and impossibilities of practicing time travel. Time travel is messy and because of this it is a bit of a cheat when used as a literary device. It can get the writers into very tricky situations when the impossibilities begin to pile up, or it can be used to completely wipe a slate and start anew. Few writers have ever gotten it right, but when they do it is usually beautiful. Rian Johnson’s Looper gets it right within its own world. Unlike most time travel stories, Looper embraces the paradoxes. But more surprisingly it wipes them away in a rather clever - and intense - conclusion.

The film opens in 2044 where a narration by a Looper call Joe (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) informs the audience with what they need to know about the future. We learn that at some point further in the future time travel will be invented but declared illegal. Still, organized crime uses it as a method for disposing bodies. They zap the bodies from 2074 to 2044 where the Loopers are waiting with a shot gut to blast their heads off. It is effective and clean. Eventually the Loopers themselves, once they are old and useless, are sent back in time to be killed by their younger selves. This is known as “closing the loop”.

One day Joe, our Looper, is at work blasting away bodies for the mob when his future self (Bruce Willis) is sent back to be assassinated. Old Joe arrives without a hood, and Young Joe hesitates to pull the trigger when he sees his older self. Young Joe knew it was part of the deal, and if he doesn’t kill Old Joe the punishment is much, much worse than death. So the chase begins: Young Joe is hunting down Old Joe, while the mob is hunting down Young Joe for not disposing of Old Joe, and Old Joe is hunting down a future mob boss known as The Rainmaker - I love it when sci-fi villains have names like that.

The story is further complicated with the introduction of two female characters; we learn that in the future Joe will eventually be married and his wife (Summer Qing) will eventually be murdered by The Rainmaker. But in the present Young Joe meets Sara (Emily Blunt), a fierce farmer girl who lives with her son, Cid (Pierce Gagnon). Most of the film takes place in her farm while Young Joe is hiding in her barn waiting patiently for Old Joe to arrive so he can kill him. I shouldn’t have to mention that Old Joe knows Young Joe is waiting for him because he has been there before and remembers it.

Traditionally, Hollywood would have turned this premise into a high speed chase movie with a predictable third act; the premise alone is good enough that the movie could have just gone along with it. But, thankfully writer/director Rian Johnson has a lot more patience and a lot more to say. The best scenes are not the chases or the shootings - though they are quite thrilling - but the small moments between characters.

It is interesting to note that the future in the film looks very much like the past. Kansas City in 2044 is still a compact city surrounded by expansive farms; and the perfect place to have chases in the city, and the cornfields like a classic 1940s American gangster film. Shanghai in 2074 looks straight out of a 1930s Chinese noir film. All the necessary details are there to make us feel “in the future” but the film doesn’t waste time in making us notice because this is not a film about the future - or even about time travel; Looper is first and foremost a character piece. One minute before the end, the movie could have closed with a thousand different endings; nine-hundred and ninety-nine of them would have felt gimmicky and wrong. The one ending that is uses is unexpected and relies entirely on a main character’s decision, change, and growth. Rarely is everything so elegant in fiction.

This is Rian Johnson’s third picture after Brick (2005) and The Brothers Bloom (2009). The first is a high school noir also starting Joseph Gordon-Levitt, before his big break, it is charming, intense, and one of my favorite films. The Brothers Bloom could have used a polish but it is still engaging. Rian Johnson’s films happen too far apart from each other; I really hope we get to see a lot more of his work and more often; he deserves it.

Review: RESIDENT EVIL: RETRIBUTION

2012-10-01T17:38:00.000-07:00

One has to know what type of movie your going into when you walk into Resident Evil: Retribution, the fifth part of Paul W.S. Anderson’s adaptation of the zombie survival video game. Essentially it is going to be wall to wall action, zero-to-none character development, and Milla Jovovich prancing around in near-S&M gear. I could essentially end the review here, the film won’t be any deeper than that but, as far as bad action movies go, the Resident Evil franchise has always been a guilty pleasure of mine. So I will indulge a bit more.

For starters, like all of its predecessors Resident Evil: Retribution opens where we left off in Resident Evil: Afterlife. Alice (Milla Jovovich) and the inmates she rescued in the last movie, were in a ship en route to some safe heaven; the ship was attacked and there is where this film opens. To be honest, this opening sequence is the high point of the film; Anderson decided to run the entire action scene backwards and in slow motion. Why? Who knows, but it looks cool, and it lets us indulge in the cheesiness of staged action in a new, and somewhat lovely, way. Yes, lovely.

Like every sequel in the RE franchise, it forgets the previous movie existed five minutes in, and Alice finds herself in a new situation, fighting new mutant-zombies, and once again antagonizing the Umbrella Corporation. This time around, Alice finds herself in gigantic-warehouse basement where Umbrella has built replicas of four or five major cities, a suburb and a submarine base to test out zombie outbreaks. The facility also happens to be underwater, under ice, and under Russia; because where else would an evil corporation build such a facility?

So Alice find herself in this facility and in her escape she meets the clone of a deaf girl (Aryana Engineer) who has been implanted with fake memories, thinks Alice is her mother and decides to tag along. Endangering Alice - who for no apparent reason starts caring for the clone - and the rescue team who is here for Alice. The idea of clones has been explored in the franchise before, and for all we know the Alice in this film is not the Alice from the first film. In this film Anderson uses the clones as an excuse to bring back Michelle Rodriguez (whose character is apparently named Rain but I don’t believe they ever mention it once in the film). And there is not one but two clones of Michelle! But despite the fact that one is nice and the other is evil we never get to see Michelle Rodriguez fight herself. I find it hard to believe no one in the production thought this would be cool.

The film also brings the characters Leon S. Kennedy (Johann Urb), and Ada Wong (Bingbing Li) to the screen. And Jill Valentine, now an evil bitch, sports her fetish gear from Resident Evil 5 and blonde hair. They all look amazingly like their video-game counter parts. Yet, the video game counterparts have much more depth and character. I kid you not when I say the most complex piece of dialogue is “You are all going to die down here” blurted out by the Red Queen - who if you remember from the first film is an AI program with a sadistic complex.

All in all it is safe to say that the Resident Evil franchise has been getting simpler, sillier, and stupider per installment. The fun level seems to have plateaued and it won’t be long before my appreciation of women in fetish gear kicking ass won’t be enough to actually make me sit through one of these films. All in all, even for a movie of its kind, Resident Evil: Retribution is kinda mediocre.

Review: RED LIGHTS

2012-09-11T16:32:00.001-07:00

Red Lights provides us with an interesting thriller about the debunking of paranormal activities by a team of university physicists. And then the debunking of physics, and rational thinking, by that irksome thought in the back of everyone’s head that maybe, there just might be something unexplainable out there. All good horror movies depend on the exploitation of this feeling. Red Lights is the first movie, I’ve seen, that explores it through its characters. For the most part it is effective; the movie will keep you on its grip until everything falls apart in the last few scenes.

From the start we follow a team of university physicists who spend their free time exposing psychic charlatans. They are aided by the police, who then proceeds to arrest those who take advantage of their costumers naivety - if only the real world worked like this. The team consists of Dr. Margaret Matheson (Sigourney Weaver), who has a no-nonsense attitude few can carry with, her young colleague, Dr. Thomas Buckley (Cillian Murphy), and later on a giddy intern and love interest for Tom named Sally Owen (Elizabeth Olsen).

Both, Dr. Matheson and Dr. Buckley, have deep personal reasons to chase down paranormal charlatans. But it is easier to understand that their professional careers mean nothing unless the debunk every charlatan to the very last one. And there is only on they haven’t been able to expose till now; a blind psychic / healer named Simon Silver (Robert DeNiro). Besides being a “psychic” Silver is also a great showman and a cult phenomenon. Some followers take him seriously enough that they would go to extremes to prevent the university intellectuals from debunking him. There is also a turtle-like professor in the university, Dr. Shackelton (Toby Jones), who despite having a Ph.D. firmly believes there might be something to Silver’s abilities. Dr.s Matheson and Buckley simply resent him because his department gets more funding than theirs.

It is a great array of characters, everyone here has a personal and hidden motive for their actions. Even Dr. Matheson questions here colleague; he is a prodigy, who could have taught or work anywhere, why did he choose to work for her in an underpaid job in an underfunded university? And the cast could not have been better selected. Sigourney Weaver gives Dr. Matheson the weight of her non-nonsense attitude with an intrinsic only she can carry. While DeNiro grants Silver the charisma only a veteran stage hand can possibly have. Under DeNiro Silver is more than just a charlatan; he is a legitimate threat. All in all you can see Weaver, DeNiro, and Murphy enjoying their roles, and performing their best - hell even the lost Olsen triplet does OK here.

But despite its gripping set up and brilliant cast, Red Lights sort of falls apart at the end. Little detail is given about Silver’s psychic act, when the movie spent the entire first act deconstructing other performances and frauds. Instead it provides us with a series of chases through dark alleys that lead nowhere and red herrings crashing into windows. Only, to ultimately end up in a twist ala “Bruce-Willis-was-the-ghost”. Except that unlike “Bruce Willis was the ghost” ties into the movie’s logic. Not so much here.

Nevertheless Red Lights is enjoyable, and horror movie fans will be adequately entertained. The film was written and directed by Rodrigo Cortes, who has been the only filmmaker to deliver a movie entirely from the POV of a man buried alive. Buried was surprisingly effective as it is unique. In that film Cortes was able to create more action that one would think is possible to have inside a sealed coffin. Suffices to say Cortes works better in tight spaces; the most gripping moments in Red Lights happen in small rooms behind one-way mirrors, and the basements where underfunded professors do their research not in the grand halls of a mega-auditorium / church.

Review: TOTAL RECALL

2012-08-06T14:07:00.003-07:00

This new version of Total Recall succeeds in many ways. It has all the necessary ingredients to make a great contemporary action Sci-Fi: it is based off a cult classic based off a Philip K. Dick story, has a great action-class cast with a few British A-listers on the side, it includes three or four exhilarating action sequences, and some incredibly rich production design, packed with lost of juicy details. Unfortunately, for the film, its characters, plot, and - most importantly- logic get drowned by the opulent production that surrounds them. What comes out is a bit of a mess, but a fun mess nonetheless.

Lets start with the good stuff.

For starters it is a good re-imagining of the Phillip K. Dick source and the 1990 Schwarzenegger movie. This time around the hero Quaid (Colin Farrell) wakes up one day only to find out his life is a lie. He has been cluelessly married to Lorrie, (Kate Backinsale) who turns out to be a government agent; and is then involved in several high speed chases alongside another dashing female (Jessica Biel), while everyone - including the woman he thought to be his wife is trying to kill him.

The film does away with the swashbuckle in Mars, and replaces it with a grittier version of Earth devastated by chemical warfare. In this post-apocalyptic world, humanity has huddled into to mega-cities on opposite ends of the globe. The United Federation of Britain, and The Colony. The former is an opulent city of glass skyscrapers and magnetic flying cars - think the Jetsons meet Minority Report; the Colony is an amalgam of shacks, that when stacked on top of the other have become as tall as sky scrapers themselves. Both are a triumph of production design in their own unique way. And thankfully the camera pulls away so we can see the characters interact in this world and enjoy it as an audience. The action sequences use the design to their advantage and cleverly interact with it.

There are four or five great action chases through out the film. Generally I am not a fan of the twenty-minute action sequences held together by a flimsy narrative in between. This is an exception. The sequences are fun, ingenious, and easy to follow. They are not just a series of explosions followed by noise. Each one has its own personality and dynamics: A stealth chase that leads to a bank vault, a parkour run through the slums of the future, one involving elevators that go up down and sideways, and on zero gravity ala Inception. What a ride!

But this is all superficial fluff. Unfortunately all of the characters are overwhelmed by the background they inhabit. They are flat place holders for the more interesting chase scenes. And despite the fact that the casting is spot on, the script never finds something good to do with the actors. Collin Farrell, is admittedly a better actor than Schwarzenegger but is allowed less emotion for some reason. Kate Beckinsale, who has proven herself to be a decent action star in the Underworld series, dons a sexy British accent but is reduced to an nagging angry ex-wife. And Bill Nighy, who’s cameo would generally not go to waste is wasted in a very short cameo. Pity.

There is also the issue about several plot holes in the films universe. Consider the mega-structure referred to as The Fall. Like everything in this movie The Fall is an achievement in production design; it is a gigantic elevator through the core of the Earth. The characters utilize it to commute from their homes in The Colony to their jobs in Britain. This is supposed to be a post-apocalyptic world destroyed by chemical warfare; how did humanity find the resources to build this technological wonder! Surely terraforming Mars would have been the cheaper option? There are also huge logistical issues in justifying the need to commute cheap labor through such elevator, which renders The Colony’s efforts for independence pointless.

But the film doesn’t want us to ask such questions. It’s mere goal is to entertain with a well-crafter high energy action flick. And for brief moments it does that. It is just a shame that it had all the pieces to be something more and then chose not to.

Then there is also the question about whether or not a remake was necessary. The Schwarzenegger movie is just as entertaining and well-crafter. It is also somewhat sillier - Schwarzenegger plays the role of Quaid with his usual charm of a giant. No, a remake was not necessary, but why not welcome it. After all the story of a man with amnesia and a greater purpose has been told in many ways; I just wish they had kept the original title by Phillip K. Dick: We Can Remember It for You Wholesale. Much better title.

Review: THE DARK KNIGHT RISES

2012-08-03T18:17:00.003-07:00

So finally here it is; the epic conclusion to Christopher Nolan’s Batman re-imaging delivers both an incredibly good movie and a well rounded third part for a trilogy that has been all about deconstructing the hero myth. Usually, the third part of a trilogy - or any extended franchise - tends to be an underwhelming mess, as if no one knew where to take the story or what to do with the characters. Whether or not Nolan had a plan since the beginning is hard to tell, but The Dark Knight Rises could convince me that he did. Nolan tells a long coherent story across three films; amazingly all three films could work by themselves, but together they form an almost perfect three-act opera.

This is the third act of the story. At the end of the second act Batman (Christian Bale), our hero, was at his worst; he had taken the fall for Harvey Dent’s death, leaving Gotham without a symbolic hero, Batman, or a real life paragon, Dent. Dent’s death was the slap in the face Gotham needed to get its act together; nine years later it is finally at peace. Bruce Wayne has become a recluse in his own mansion, and no longer ventures at night as the cape crusader. This is, obviously, the calm before the storm.

In the process of cleaning the streets, Gotham’s government has grown; the Harvey Dent Act, which allowed the police to round up criminals and arrest without a trail might sound too Orwellian for everyone to stay in place. From this background a new masked face emerges. Bane.

Bane (Tom Hardy)’s first line in the film is, “nobody cared who I was, until I put on the mask”. Like Bruce Wayne, and the Joker, before him Bane knows that to be somebody, you need to be more than just somebody. You need to be an idea, an idea that people can look up to or fear. Bane claims to stand for the people; he rants on and on about oppression and corruption, urging the masses to rise against Gotham’s elite. Like most populist crusaders, I am not quite sure he even believes half the stuff he says. And when the people of Gotham sit around in total apathy; he threatens to blow up the city instead.

A few reviews out there have been claiming that Bane is a tad uninspired for a Nolan villain; I disagree. Sure, he is not Heath Ledger’s Joker - and unfortunately the mask prevents Tom Hardy from articulating and emoting properly - but Bane is a brilliant follow up. In TDK, the Joker wanted to prove to Batman and Gotham that people are intrinsically selfish and evil - by the end of the film he is proven wrong. Bane argues that people can and should govern themselves - it is the city, and the structures of society, which are corruptible. He is a true anarchist. And there already was an organization in the first film that advocated in the name of anarchy.

Yes, Rises spends quite a bit of time reframing everything that happens in the first movie with the League of Shadows. A trans-national secret society, who’s primary goal is to burn society to the ground so humanity can get a fresh start. The plan is intrinsically flawed, but you can see how Bane fits into the picture. Could it be possible that he is leading the league after the Death of Ra’s Al Ghul?

Aside from Bane the film introduces a such a large array of characters, that I am starting to doubt this will be the last installment of the franchise. The first is John Blake (Joseph Gordon Levitt), a young hotheaded cop who has become Commissioner Gordon (Gary Oldman)’s protege. Gordon is the only one who knows Harvey Dent had gone two face before Batman killed him. Blake believes in what Dent stands for but senses there is something fishy about the Batman killing Dent story.

The new roster also includes two new romantic interests for Bruce Wayne: Selina Kyle (Anne Hathaway), who never referred to as Catwoman in the film, and Miranda Tate (Marion Cotillard), an investor in Wayne Enterprises. One looks like a good girl who might be bad, while the other is a bad girl who might be good, and both are drawn to either Bruce or Batman in one way or another. Both Hathaway and Cotillard do a fantastic job in their roles. I think we all felt unsure when the news of Hathaway being cast as Selina Kyle emerged. But thinking back, we all thought the same when Ledger was cast as the Joker. Hathaway is no Heath Ledger but she is a convincingly alluring Catwoman - whether Nolan wants to call her that or not.

There are also new gangster, politicians, rival millionaires, and commissioners in the story. The first half of the film spends a bit too much time introducing them all and explaining who is doing what, why, and with whom. It is all pretty straight forward except for the fact that Catwoman pops up in every segment, either because she is stealing something for someone, or for herself. But once the pieces fall into place, the second half of the film delivers a might spectacle. When Nolan first delivered a “realistic” take on Batman in the first film the feat was admirable; it is even more incredible that he managed to stick with the concept for three full films.

Audiences are already debating on whether two was better than three or vice-versa. Rises is more straight forward than The Dark Knight and it feels much more like a comic-book movie. In fact comic book fans, who have been largely ignored in this re-imagining, will get a kick out of a few character cameos. Both are qualities that I, for one, respect and enjoy. In truth, the trilogy works best as a whole. Individually the films lack focus; even TDK is too much of an anarchic visceral gut punch without the other two to frame it. It is a masterpiece, but I was overwhelmed when I saw it; Rises has left me wanting for more.

Yes, Nolan has announced that he does not intend to do any more Batman films. But this is Warner’s prime franchise; they can’t do more Harry Potter films, the last Twilight comes out later this year, and DC doesn’t have any other A-list superhero that is cinematically viable. Not to mention, that both TDK and Rises have broken box-office records. Not continuing the franchise, is not financially responsible. They won’t be as good - especially if Nolan leaves - and they might not be as successful - especially if Nolan leaves - but, hell, even if they get halfway to where Nolan’s trilogy did they’ll end up as decent movies.

Review: RUBY SPARKS

2012-08-02T13:59:00.000-07:00

Recently there’s been a literary trend in film and TV to portray quirky and somewhat broken women as the ideal partner in a relationship. I partially blame (500) Days of Summer for it. Like that movie, Ruby Sparks has something interesting to say about this cultural ideal and the men who write it in their minds. The ideal is only ideal in theory and never in practice. Calvin (Paul Dano) a young novelist from Los Angeles stumbles upon this truth by writing his ideal quirky girlfriend and having her appear in flesh and blood, and living in his apartment.

Calvin wrote a novel in his late teens that was treasured by most Twilight-fans, but was considered better literature and actually respected in literary circles. He lives an comfortable life out of royalties but has never had friend, let alone real relationship, outside the one he has with his brother. Ten years later he still hasn’t written a second novel and has begun to visit a shrink (Elliot Gould) to help him with his writer’s block. The shrink gives him a simple assignment “write about a person who would like your dog”. Calvin gives it a try, and writes about the only woman he thinks would like his pathetic terrier. Lo-and-behold two days later the woman Calvin wrote about, Ruby (Zoe Kazan), appears in his apartment claiming to have been in a relationship with him for months.

Ruby is the ideal romantic parter - for those who like the quirky broken type - and is permanently backlit. For Calvin, who knows nothing about women despite having written a romantic bestseller, this is too good to be real. His brother, Harry (Chris Messina), encourages Calvin to write more, “for the sake of all men out there”. After all, what type of man who can control a woman through his writing wouldn’t want to do so.

It turns out that being able to control the woman takes out all the fun out of the relationship. After all you can’t tango with a puppet. And the more Calvin writes and modifies Ruby the more one dimensional her character gets - to the point where Ruby only has one constant mood.

The plot really doesn’t go much further. There are brief cameos by Annette Bening and Antonio Banderas as Calvin’s zen mother and step-father and by Steve Coogan - who is always a pleasure to see in these indy films - as his literary agent. They all add flavor to the film, but are pretty much there so the filmmakers have something to do with Calvin and Ruby, who would otherwise just hang at his apartment.

The premise is intriguing, but the execution is somewhat lacking. Yet overall it is a good exercise to showcase Zoe Kazan’s talents as both an actress and a writer. The process of rewriting is clearly a theme - perhaps a tad too obvious - as well a general observation on how relationships influence people. Calvin can directly re-write Ruby, but a parallel transformation is seen in his mom, who went from polo-wearing tennis fan while being married to his father, to hippie treehugger after meeting Antonio Banderas.

Review: THE AMAZING SPIDERMAN

2012-07-13T18:15:00.000-07:00

I will confess; I was not a fan of Raimi’s Spiderman trilogy. The first movie was all right; the second movie – despite the critical acclaim – felt too much like a telenovela that I couldn't properly enjoy; and the third movie… well, we can all agree that movie was an incomprehensible mess of CGI and not much more. Comparisons between the old and the new are inevitable - it has only been five years since the Spiderman 3 fiasco - but I will try to avoid them and speak for The Amazing Spiderman as a stand-alone film.

With that in mind, The Amazing Spiderman is a highly enjoyable film. You feel a sense of déjà-vu through out it, not necessarily because it is a rebooted Spiderman, but because since then, we have grown accustomed to the origin story of superheros. In effect, "been-there-seen-that" is the best way to describe The Amazing Spiderman. But think about all the things you've done and seen and enjoyed more the second time; I bet there are quite a few instances. The Amazing Spiderman is like that. You have seen it but are thankful that enough has changed that you can still enjoy. More attention has placed to detail, and the back-story is extended and made deeper, and best of all, Peter Parker is actually interesting even before he becomes Spiderman. Against all odds there are still some refreshing moments in the film.

The film opens with Peter Parker as a kid living with his parents – who are still alive. His father works for some top-secret-something-something regarding spiders. One night someone breaks into their house and steals his father’s work. In a rush Peter’s parents leave him with his Aunt May (Sally Field) and Uncle Ben (Martin Sheen) and mysteriously disappear afterwards. We flash-forward to high school age Peter (Andrew Garfield), who has grown up to be the lovable misfit that will one day become Spiderman. This time around Parker has been given a much-needed update; while still a misfit who can’t talk to girls, he is more likely to bully the bullies than to be the bully’s victim. And once he gets his powers, Peter treats New York like a giant skate-park; this version of Peter/Spidey isn’t above taking chances, showing off and pulling stunts to impress the girl he likes.

The girl is Gwen Stacey (Emma Stone). Gwen – who was reduced to a second rate love interest to make MJ jealous in the last incarnation - is pluckier than any of her predeceasing love interests. Like Pepper Potts in Iron Man, she takes a much more active role in Peter/Spidey's life and misadventures. Gwen becomes Peter/Spidey's confidant and partner in crime. And because it just so happens to be that her father (Dennis Leary) is the chief of police, Gwen faces the moral dilemma between obeying her father, the public face of law and order, and dating the most wanted vigilante in New York City. Her relationship with Peter/Spidey is much more complex - and fun - than the simple melodrama of a girlfriend who doesn't want to share his boyfriend with the life he lives.

To their praises, Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone have the ideal chemistry of two cupid struck teenagers, which lies somewhere between absolutely none and just perfect. The funniest conversation in the film occurs when Peter asks Gwen out for the first time; my best guess is that it wasn’t in the script because not a single coherent word was uttered. But we have all been there - déjà-vu. Peter and Gwen bond over their love for science, their hate for bullies, and their utter inability to speak to each other. If we take out the spandex and mutating lizards this could have been Mark Webb's follow up to (500) Days of Summer.

Outside the Peter and Gwen relationship the plot runs pretty much on autopilot. Parallel to Spiderman’s origin story, there is the story of how a mad scientist, Dr. Curt Connors (Rhys Ifans) becomes the super-villain known as The Lizard. Connors lost his right arm and attempts to regenerate by injecting himself crossbred lizard genes. It obviously doesn’t go quite the way he expected after he overdoses on lizard juice. This raises the question: do mad scientists ever read a comic book, or go see a movie? Injecting oneself with lizard genes has never goes right in fiction, why even try it?

By the end, the crazed out lizard scientist and the hero face off in a climatic battle atop New York’s tallest skyscraper – Oscorp Tower in Marvel’s universe.* Despite this being Marc Webb’s first large budget action flick, it is clear he understands that action must be slowed down to be fully enjoyed by the audience. The final action sequence is rather graceful, shorter and more fun that the current tendency to drag them out for a good half-hour. This time around Spiderman also seems to carry weight and move in accordance to the laws of physics. unlike the pervious incarnation, which limited by the CGI of its time, and improved over each sequel, always seemed bounce around as if weightless. A funny nod to the nerds who point out such things appears while Parker learns to use his new-found strength.

So all in all The Amazing Spiderman is an entirely enjoyable movie. That it suffers from being made so close to the previous incarnation is expected. Something like the Hulk reboot, where we jump directly into the next adventure instead of seeing the origins once again might have worked better. Though I understand it might have been more confusing since the film needed to establish that certain characters are still alive or not yet in Peter/Spidey’s life. But, I do look forward to se where the series will be taken and expect the sequels divert more form their predecessors.

Finally, for those who believe that Hollywood has run out of ideas with the amount of reboots, sequels, and franchising that has been going on over the last decade, please remember that this is nothing new. Different versions of the same story have existed since Urrk and Grrr the cavemen debated over who killed the largest mammoth over a campfire; Urrk claimed he did but Grrr disagreed, yet everyone thought they were telling the same story and accused Grrr of plagiarism. Urrk proceeded to become the archetype of the hero - later he sued Heracles and Hercules, Odysseus and Ulysses and many others for stealing the show. A few millennia afterwards, multiple gospels were written about the life of Jesus of Nazareth; the Church settled on four versions as cannon but even these four versions contradict each other as much as the Original Marvel Universe and the Ultimate Universe do. Centuries later The Office was adapted for American audiences, and Everybody Loves Raymond was exported to Russia as Everybody Loves Kostya. Yet, even if the retelling of stories has remained a constant the world has changed so much since the release of the first SPiderman in 2001 - and that incarnation was so nostalgic towards the Silver Age - that a reboot, while totally unnecessary, is also very welcomed in my book.**

* Side note: New York in the Marvel universe’s New York must be one interesting place. Almost every day a fight goes on at the top of one of its skyscrapers. But aside from those that exist in reality, this New York has Oscorp Tower, Stark Tower, the Fantastic-Four Tower, the Triskellion and quite a few others. How can all the mad scientists afford the real estate in Manhattan? They all seem to be working in the arms development industry; shouldn't competition drive their prices and net gain down.

** For a list of all the things that have changed since the G. W. Bush era, please refer to my review of A Very Harold and Kumar Christmas. In that case, a sequel set nine years after the original suffered for no longer being relevant to its times.

Introducing: THE BAT

2012-07-12T12:06:00.003-07:00

Review: TED

2012-07-09T19:39:00.000-07:00

It is going to be hard to convince you -or anyone for that matter - that Ted, a movie about a foulmouthed pot-smoking teddy bear, is a relevant work of literature that should have your critical consideration. But, please, indulge me as I try to do so.

As you would expect from the creator of Family Guy, Ted is an avalanche of raunchy comedy, politically incorrect humor, and four-letter one liners that could put any other comedy of the kind to shame. But aside from its superficial humor, Ted is also one of the most honest movies about buddy-bro-hood and arrested adolescence out there. Add these together and you realize that Ted is mostly funny because its true.

For a movie that opens with a narration by Patrick Steward reminding us that “Christmas is the time when the kids in Boston gang up to beat the s#*t out of the Jewish kid”, being wholesome is a serious accomplishment. And I don’t think it was the filmmakers primary intention. But a happy accident nonetheless.

Anyhow, the film is about John Bennett (Mark Wahlberg), a kid so unpopular that he envious the attention the Jewish kid receives during Christmas. John is a lonely, sheltered soul who in order to find a friend wishes for his teddy bear to to be his best friend forever. Without much scientific explanation - aside from a Christmas wish being the second most powerful force out there just behind an Apache helicopter - the teddy bear (voice by Seth MacFarlane) comes to life and promises to be John best friend forever.

Twenty five years later, John and Ted have both grown up to be a pair of pot-smoking slackers with the ambition to open a restaurant someday but no real drive to accomplish it or skill to back it up. How many times have we felt like that? In reality John works at a local car rental and Ted - being a washed out celebrity - is unemployed. How they can afford their luxurious apartment is a mystery until Lori (Mila Kunis) is introduced.

Lori is John’s girlfriend; somehow, against all odds, this insecure slacker who still has a teddy bear for a best friend has a girl that looks like Mila Kunis and works at as a junior-something-executive at a bank. If it were not for the fact that John and Lori clearly have chemistry, and that he looks like Mark Wahlberg, I wouldn’t really believe this relationship could happen. But he seems genuinely funny, caring, and continues to surprise her four years into a relationship. No matter how little effort he puts in life, John is putting quite a bit of effort into this relationship hence I believe it. But there comes a time when a man has to choose between growing up with the girl he loves or stagnating as an arrested adolescent with his pot-smoking teddy bear.

Sure, the plot follows the standard bro-mantic comedy formula. And there is a relatively bland subplot about a creepy dad (Giovanni Ribisi) who to kidnap Ted for his pudgy son (Aedin Mincks). However you never need to suspend disbelief to be convinced the characters would behave in the way they do; honestly, there is more humanity in the CGI Ted than in half the human characters of your average rom-com and blockbuster. Furthermore, MacFarlane’s humor and one liners never seem to run out of oomph. All cliché is buried under these qualities.

The success comes from the fact that Seth MacFarlane gives himself the freedom he has in animation. South Park Bigger Longer and Uncut proved that animators can get away with doing and saying this that live action could not. Ted puts this theory to the test by blending the CGI teddy bear with live actors. The result is uncanny - you can still get away with most things - and incredibly funny. Furthermore, unlike Family Guy and the rest of MacFarlane’s TV work, Ted is unrestrained by the FCC regulations; we are seeing MacFarlane unleashed for the first time and it is good. His fans will certainly love it more than the rest, but if your open to bold humor so will you.

Special recognition also has to go to Mark Wahlberg and Mila Kunis, who had to act and react against nothing. This is common in films now-a-days but aside from James Franco in Rise of The Planet of the Apes and everyone in Lord of The Rings, I can't recall another instance where it seemed somewhat silly. For Kunis, who has worked with MacFarlane in Family Guy, and has serious acting chops, I do hope she gets to star in her own comedy one day soon and for executives to realize she is more than supporting material.

I have to note that there were a few families at the theater during this movie. And by families couples with children under the PG-13 age. I warn: just because I reviewed the movie as honest and wholesome and it features a talking teddy-bear doesn’t mean it is appropriate for little ones. Hollywood is not irresponsible for making a movie about a pot-smoking, hooker-loving, foul-mouthed teddy bear the parents who take their kids to an R-rated movie are. Now having said that, I do recall Diary of a Wimpy Kid, a movie about two “best-buds” that was PG and targeted at children with a true asshole for a protagonist. If I had to choose between my kid hanging out with the stoner teddy or that kid, I choose the stoner teddy bear. Then agin I don’t have a kid.

Review: BEATS OF THE SOUTHERN WILD

2012-07-05T13:30:00.002-07:00

“Daddy says the people who built the levees are afraid of the water”, the fierce and wild six year-old girl named Hushpuppy (Quevanzhené Wallis) explains. “Daddy says we live in the prettiest place on Earth”. This is a swamp-island off the coast of New Orleans that the locals, fittingly, call The Bathtub. Isolated from the world by the levees the keep New Orleans from sinking, the inhabitants of The Bathtub live as close to the earth as possible, existing on their own terms, and surviving from the seafood the floods the landlubbers fear provide. They might be poor by suburban standards but the floods and swamp are abundant enough for them not to starve to spend their days enjoying life.

Hushpuppy is a six year-old born and raised in The Bathtub by her father. Like all of its inhabitants, Hushpuppy is on close terms with the natural world; she, and the other children, are taught by Miss Bathsheeba (Gina Montana) that all living creatures are meat- even little girls and boys are meat for wild animals; while her father, Wink (Dwight Henry) teaches them how to fish for the meat little girls and boys can eat. As Hushpuppy says with wisdom, “I am a little beast in a big wide universe”. She calls out to the world with a piercing scream.

The relationship between Hushpuppy and her father Wink (Dwight Henry) is one of the most interesting father-daughter relationships that I have seen on film. Wink would never win a father-of-the-year award, but it doesn’t mean he doesn’t love Hushpuppie. As a father, Wink does what he thinks is best for Hushpuppy, and though he is wrong on several accounts, it is hard to judge what is best when you grow up in a community that floats on The Bathtub. Wink want Hushpuppy to be a survivor, and makes her promise him one thing: if he is ever too old, or too sick, to drink beer and catch a fish she must set his body adrift and light it on fire. It is not the promise one would expect a six year-old to keep, but it is the way of The Bathtub; Hushpuppy knows this and she respects, loves, and fears her father in return.

The potency of this relationship would not have been possible to portray had it not been for the performances of the leads. Quevenzhané Wallis, who plays Hushpuppy, is a treasure - a little beast in the making. This is a great example of a powerful role finding the perfect actor to play it. Her performance has a determination that is uncommon in child actors. From her first few lines, this little girl from Louisiana will win your heart. It is even more impressive that neither Quevenzhané nor any of her co-stars are professional actors. For most this is their first film and might be their last unless studios act smartly. Although I have read that Dwight Henry isn’t particularly interested in acting... it is unfortunate.

While the film focuses mostly on the relationship between Hushpuppy and her father there is also a subplot of a local myth dealing with frozen Aurochs from the ice-age. The locals believe that the time will come when the glaciers will melt, The Bathub will flood, and the Aurochs will roam the land once again devouring everything on their path. It is a rather colorful version of the rapture, and if you happen to think those aurochs look too real it is because they are - well they are pigs dressed as aurochs with . Once again proof that practical effects are still awesome.

It is also a first for Benh Zaitlin, the director and co-writer, who proves that great art can be found in small budgets. Niether Zaitlin, nor his co-writer Lucy Alibar, are from the bayou but they clearly understand the struggles of the people who have to live in the now. If only more of us did, I suppouse, there would be a lot less anxiety in the present. I wish the best for these up and coming filmmakers, it is great to see new talent with such potential come to the light. Beasts of The Southern Wild already won the Grand Jury Price and Sundance, and the Camera d’Or for best first film at Cannes. I think Zaitlin and crew will be alright; perhaps a best picture nomination at the Academy Awards wouldn't be surprising.

Peter Wayland Gives A TED Talk on PROMETHEUS

2012-06-27T21:02:00.000-07:00

This video was intended to be viral campaign for Prometheus. It features Guy Pierce as a young Peter Wayland, giving the world a TED Talk. It is an interesting effort, and Guy Pierce does an amazing job as the young corporate visionary who will, indirectly, end up destroying the Earth (that is if we are still counting Alien: Resurrection as canon). Anyways enjoy:

Review: PROMETHEUS

2012-06-26T01:12:00.000-07:00

If a Facehugger from the Alien franchise ever face-raped 2001: A Space Odyssey, the resulting Xenomorph bastard would not be unlike Prometheus, Ridley Scott’s long awaited return to the genre many claim he revolutionized. Prometheus is an ambitious science-fiction film with the lofty goal of presenting questions about the origins of life. Like all great science-fiction literature, it is a blend of thoughtful speculation, great story, awe-inspiring effects, and wonder. And because the Alien franchise is its predecessor the package also includes chilling rape allegories, a nauseating birth scene, and a good amount fetal imagery. All in the name of brilliant filmmaking.

To be honest, Prometheus could have stood by itself without the need for the Alien tie-ins. It is a much more complex film than the slasher in space film that later became a convoluted franchise with an awkward crossover to a Scharzenegger B-movie. So for now lets forget Prometheus’ parentage.

The film opens on the dawn of Earth. A spectacular clouded sky covers the desolate planet devoid of life, a solitary humanoid figure is the only breathing being on its surface. The figure eats a black substance that causes his body to decay into ashes and slime. Its remains then fall into a river where they morph into molecules and from there into cells, the building blocks of life. Presumably all life on Earth evolved from these cells.

Flash-forward to the end of the 21st century, 2093, when a team of archeologists uncover the final puzzle piece to learn where these “engineers of life” might came from. The archeologists are, Dr Elizabeth Shaw (Noomi Rapace) and her boyfriend, Charlie Holloway (Logan Marshall-Green). Dr. Shaw wears a crucifix around her neck, and despite her scientific credentials, still believes life had divine origin. Charlie entertains this notion but believes that if Darwinism has stood for three centuries as a scientific model it is because there is some truth to it. So the couple cuts their losses and settles for believing in exogenesis, the belief that life arrived on earth from outer space. It is scientifically possible, since it does not challenge Darwin’s model of natural selection as long as there is still evolution post-seeding, and at the same time satisfies the superstitions believe of a creator. All in all it is the perfect compromise to turn everyone into a Scientologist.

Ashes to ashes and slime to slime, Amen.

But enough about theology. After Dr Shaw’s discovery, a trillion-dollar mission is mounted aboard the space-ship Prometheus to the distant planet those cave paintings seem to point at. The ship’s crew consists of a few essential characters and a few extras to kill off as the movie progresses and the dangers heighten. Aside from Elizabeth Shaw and Charlie, the ones worth mentioning are Meredith Vickers (Charlize Theron), the corporate representative and head of the venture, Janek (Idiris Elba), the ship’s captain, and David (Michael Fassbender) an android who can’t quite grasp why the humans want to meet their makers - after all from his perspective his human creators aren’t all that exceptional. Each character more-or-less represents a different perspective about the issue at hand, mainly humanity meeting its creator.

When Prometheus arrives on the planet of said makers, it turns out to be a desolate wasteland. Nothing grows on it and the atmosphere is poisonous. But there is an odd looking dome-like pyramid inside one of its valleys. The crew decides to dock and check it out. I seriously hope that when we do happen to discover life on other planets we send a more professional team who sends the curious android first. But this is a horror sci-fi film, so it is expected that what the characters end up finding in the pyramid is not what they expected. And it is not a Xenomorph either. Don’t even go there.

As I said. This film could have stood by itself. It has a rich mythology, a great cast of characters; Noomi Rapace channels Sigourney Weaver’s performance in Alien and then adds some heart to it; Charlize Theron is perhaps the scariest corporate boss in space; and Michael Fassbender once again demonstrates that he is here to be one of the greatest. Having said that, the tie-ins to Alien are welcomed - despite being wholly unnecessary - as a way to remind us that this film is not a theological survey but a form of mass entertainment; that we come to the theater to sit back and enjoy the ride and perhaps expect a sequel.

To summarize, never before have I seen a film that balanced the elements of mass appeal, high-brow speculation, and visual art - for the visuals in this film are truly masterful - so well and so seamlessly as Prometheus has done. Well done Mr. Scott.

One question though; why is it that whenever exogenesis is proposed, it is aliens who seed life on Earth? Have we ever considered that maybe we are the first, and that it is our destiny to become the engineers of life abroad? I guess we are afraid we would make really shitty gods.

Review: TO ROME WITH LOVE

2012-06-25T01:15:00.000-07:00

I believe it was Socrates who said, the unexamined life is not worth living; at 76 and with over forty films attributed to his name, Woody Allen has now examined his life and then examined himself examining his life. After Midnight in Paris -his most successful film in terms of revenue- Woody Allen takes a step back and returns to his more traditional depiction of neurotic characters observing, describing, philosophizing about, and suffering because of love, life, universal inconsequence, and - for the first time - Rome.

To Rome With Love, is a collection of four vignettes all set in Rome. Each vignette could have been separate stand alone film. And some of them would have likely been more enjoyable that way. We are introduced to the four vignettes by a traffic cop; who from his pedestal in the middle of the road observes everything. Or so he claims.

Traditionalist may criticize Allen for abandoning New York and “selling” to tourism boards that want to show off the most beautiful cities in the world - London (Match Point, Cassandra’s Dream), Barcelona (Vicky, Cristina, Barcelona) and Midnight in Paris (Paris)- but, personally, I like how my pseudo-intellectual self can relax and enjoy a Roman holiday alongside my giddy low-brow tourist self, while enjoying these romantic Euro locales, and conversing with characters as neurotic as... my neurotic self.

The first story begins when a cute American tourist, Haley (Allison Pill), asks the handsome Michelangelo (Flavio Parenti) for directions. If you know romantic comedies, you might think you know where this is going... but do you? By the next scene Haley and Michelangelo are engaged, and Haley's parents are on their way to Rome to meet the in-laws. Allen plays Haley's father Jerry, a retired opera director who suffers internally because he might die soon and hasn’t yet created his masterpiece. Jerry is desperate enough that he wouldn't hesitate sidetracking his daughter’s wedding if inspiration happens to stumble upon him in Rome. It does, and I’m just going to reveal that it involves someone (Fabio Armiliato) singing in the shower.

A second vignette plays around with Italian stereotypes, specifically the local Roman ones. This time a newlywed couple from the Neapolitan countryside ( Alessandro Tiberi and Alessandra Mastornadi) arrives in Rome so She can meet His family. But due to the confusing nature of Rome streets, the couple is accidentally separated, just before the big family reunion. That afternoon, they each have their own adventures, He with a prostitute (Penelope Cruz) and She with a famous Italian movie-star (Antonio Albanese); although these adventures are not necessarily sexual.

There is also the story of an average Italian clerk from the middle class, Leopoldo (Roberto Benigni), a schmuck if there ever was one. Leopoldo is caught off guard when suddenly, and for no apparent reason, everyone begins to treat him like a celebrity. Although the weakest story of the four, in the hands of Allen and Benigni the story takes a frisky and whimsical tone that provides for some good slapstick comedy.

And finally, we have the more relatable - yet equally comedic - story of the four. It begins with a successful American architect (Alec Baldwin) on vacation. The architect used to live in Rome during his 20s. While he pays a visit to his old neighborhood, he runs into Jack (Jesse Eisenberg), an American expat who might as well be the younger version of himself. Jack lives with his girlfriend Sally (Greta Gerwig), who - very naively - invites her seductive and self-centered friend, Monica (Ellen Page), to stay with them for the summer. Monica is so secure about her sexual prowess that she tried to screw a gay dude just to see if she could make him straight. When she failed, it was her ego who suffered the heartbreak.

Jack is automatically infatuated by Monica, and is willing to risk his relationship with Sally for a night with this fiery - and surprisingly philosophical - seductress. The material is somewhat cliché but Allen gives it a spin. Throughout Jack’s affair with Monica, the architect hovers around to deliver snarky, yet insightful, comments about the situation, not unlike that annoying guy that talks during the movies and tires to offer advice to the characters - advice he is fully aware they won't tale. Although, Jack seems to be aware of the architect’s presence, it is never revealed whether the architect is just in Jack’s imagination, or if the architect is just remembering his youth in Rome. For all you know it could be both.

As i said, all the vignette’s could have been successful films - to various degrees - by themselves. But this last one, being the most complex and relatable would have been en par with Allen’s better works. Furthermore, Jesse Eisenberg was born to play a Woody Allen character; his could practically be a younger Allen himself. And Ellen Page’s calculated hyper-speech, that is now her trademark, works brilliantly to deliver Allen’s pseudo-philosophical rants. I hope to see both of them in a future Allen film soon.

It most also be noted that the vignettes never interact with each other and that they do not follow one after the other. Instead they are edited together with no regards to time or continuity between them. The story of the newlyweds takes place in one afternoon, and the story of Jack and Monica takes place throughout a whole summer; while the one of Haley and Michelangelo’s parents probably spans six months, and Leopoldo’s adventures could all have been a dream in a single night. Such anachronistic editing only ads, in a positive manner, to the film's surreality. After all, these stories clearly takes place in the Rome of our fantasies and literature, not the actual city.

Oh... Roma...

Review: BRAVE

2012-06-22T23:08:00.000-07:00

Can Pixar beat Disney, its parent company and corporate partner, at its own game? That is, could Pixar create en emotional fairy tale with a moral core that will survive beyond its current generation? That was probably the question in every creative and executive working for Pixar during the production of Brave. The answer is not simple; Brave is a lovely film, with endearing characters. And like most of Pixar’s it is at its core strength is being a well-told story, but it is also missing a certain oomph for a Pixar film.

Even in its sequels Pixar has made the effort to push over known territory and tell a story a different way. Meanwhile Brave steps into the familiar territory of the spunky princess; something Pixar’s partner Disney has long dominated. As a consequence Brave could be mostly compared to the first Cars, Pixar’s other genre film. Cars was essentially a hot-shot rookie sports story, and Pixar is essentially a spunky princess fairytale. Like Cars, Brave feels smaller in scale than Pixar’s previous like Wall:E, which used the vastness space as its canvas, or Up, where we enjoyed a lovely balloon ride across Conan Doyle’s South America.

But even while treading into genre Pixar delivers; Brave has all the elements a fairytale needs; there is a spunky heroine, a kingdom, a witch, a curse, a Queen, and cute sidekicks for comic relief. Here we have Princess Merida (Kelly Macdonald), a fiery redhead tomboy who is the best archer in the land. King Fergus (Billy Connolly), her father, has encouraged her rebellious attitude, while her mother, Queen Elinor (Emma Thompson), would much rather have Merida stick to her studies to become a proper lady. When the time comes for Merida to choose a suitor, all the great clans of Scotland send their first born to compete for her hand. Plucky Merida would much rather grow old alone than mary any of the looses who showed up. So she makes an ill advice wish to change her fate and... oh surprise... the wish just doesn’t go quite like she planned it.

The story’s biggest strength is Merida herself. First of all there is that hair... oh that fiery ball of red tangle. Secondly, beyond being the ordinary plucky princess like Rapunzel in Tangled, Merida also somewhat selfish and self absorbed. There is much greater depth in a character when we have to learn to like them. And thirdly, unlike most Disney heroes who have to confront an exterior evil, Merida’s darkness lies inside her. Unlike the “kiss of true love” that cures most fairytale curses here Merida is actually required to examine her life, and her relationship with her family to lift the curse. The moral of this story is not just for the audience’s sake but for the characters’ sake as well.

Brave’s weakness is not really in the execution but on the limits of its own genre- and perhaps Pixar’s relationship with Disney. The fairytale is traditionally conservative; in them the protagonist usually takes a choice that defies their assigned role in society and as a consequence brings doom to said society- in this case Merida refuses to marry and people start changing into bears. Traditionally order is restored when everyone accepts their role in society. But in the 21st century we want our spunky feminist heroine to stay spunky but can a lesson really be learned if one gets away with everything in the end. I’m not saying Merida isn’t put through some trials, but she won’t live with the consequences of her choices for eternity.

So yes, it is familiar territory, but a refreshing take on it. After all this is a fairytale we haven’t quite heard before because it is not a re-hash, re-imagining, retelling or remake of a Brother’s Grimm or Christian Andersen fairytale. Just how many Snow Whites did we get this summer?

Could Pixar create en emotional fairy tale with a moral core that will survive beyond its current generation, and in essence beat Disney at its own game? Well, something tells me we won't see as many rehashes of Princess Merida of Brave ever as we had for Snow White this year. Its good but not ever lasting good.

Review: THAT'S MY BOY

2012-06-21T13:16:00.000-07:00

Most people, including myself, can appreciate a dumb joke. Hell, every now and then they are even refreshing. But for Adam Sandler there is no such thing as too dumb a joke or too low an audience. By now I suspect that his movies are conceived by team drunken twelve year olds and afterwards typed by the laziest intern at Happy Maddison. Sandler’s movies are the lowest common denominator of humor; to which I’ll admit I laughed, though most of the time I didn’t feel good about myself afterwards.

Sandler launched his career with Billy Madison and Happy Gilmore; the characters he named his production movie for. They are the two character archetypes he has played since a child of a man that never grew up and a child of a man with anger management problems (The Wedding Singer, and Funny People being the exceptions that make the rule). Here the actor plays Donny Berger, another child man afflicted by Sandler’s trademark accent - you know, the annoying blend of brooklyn redneck and mentally handicapped pedophile. Back when sound was first introduced in the 1930s many respectable actors lost their jobs because their voices didn’t sound well on screen; it is a shame audiences don’t have that level of scrutiny anymore.

The plot involves Donny trying to reconcile with his son he fathered while still in middle school. You see Donny was one of those victims who slept with the hot teacher... in the back of the auditorium. The affair produced a son whom a thirteen-year-old father aptly named Han Solo Berger (Andy Sandberg). The moment he turned 18 Han Solo changed his named to Todd, studied business, and proceeded to make a small fortune as a hedge fund manager. This is where my suspension of disbelief broke; if an Adam Sandler character ever fathered a child the poor kid would be so broken it be a miracle if he ever learned not to wet the bed. I am still not convinced Adam Sandler ever did... and according to this movie neither did Vanilla Ice.

Han Solo/ Todd is marrying Jamie (Leighton Meester) a rich little princess who is not beyond sleeping with the whole congregation and then some just to get her way. The wedding- for some reason- provides Donny with the perfect opportunity to reconcile with Han and get him to agree to appear in a reality show ambush with his mother, Miss McGarricle (Eva Amurri / Susan Sarandon). Unfortunately for Samberg, Meester, and everyone else in the cast, they end up being little more than victims to Sandler’s low brow humor.

In the process of the story Sandler pokes fun at fat people, strippers, handicapped, the elderly, immigrants, every minority, washed-up celebrities, ice skaters, women, bodily fluids, the military, etc. I repeat no joke is too crude, no audience too low. But by aiming too low Sandler ends up punching everyone in the dick. And that joke gets olds.

Back when Happy Gilmore premiered- in the 1990s before Family Guy aired on TV and Judd Apatow broke ground with a new type of heartfelt crudity- it was somewhat refreshing to see such low blows on the big screen. Now it is just an old joke that has been told one to many times. It is no longer as funny even if it still produces a chuckle or two.

Review: ROCK OF AGES

2012-06-16T01:47:00.000-07:00

Well, this is one silly movie. I never quite understood if I was laughing with the movie, at the movie, or if the movie was some sort of joke being pulled on me. Was I supposed to sing along?

At the opening, Sherrie (Julianne Hough) rides a bus with her headphones on listening to Sister Christian; she starts singing out loud and soon enough the entire bus joins in. Once again, was I supposed to sing along? Most of the audience laughed but didn’t join. It is understandable; in real life singing along is only acceptable if said song happened to be Bohemian Rhapsody. But in a musical film like this it could be any song. And it could have been any song for that matter; the number is not really memorable. Actually, none of the numbers are particularly memorable. But, at the very least, they do happen to zesty and entertaining while they last. With an extra punch they might have gotten someone in the audience to sing along.

Anyways, little naïve Sherrie who rides the bus and sings arrives in Hollywood to pursue her dream in rock n’ roll; she may settle for being a groupie, but hopes to make it as singer. Shortly after stepping off the bus, and before she finds a motel, Sherrie bumps into Drew (Diego Boneta), a bartender at a rock n’ roll club of the Sunset Strip. Their eyes meet, they share a musical number and fall in love at first song. It is essentially High School Musical under a different name. Unfortunately, this predictable love arch takes away form the much more original subplot regarding the fate of the club, and the much more interesting characters who run it.

The club called The Bourbon Room (played by The Whisky a Go Go), seems to be the last remaining rock n’ roll club on The Sunset Strip. To those who rock it is a reminder of a bygone era; for Patricia Whitmore (Catherine Zeta-Jones), the mayor’s wife, it is a reminder of how decadent Los Angeles has become. And she isn’t gonna take it! Unfortunately for the club owner Dennis (Alec Baldwin) and manager Lonny (Russell Brand), the Bourbon Room is so loaded with tax debt that the only way they can save it is to hold one legendary concert. And who else to star in said concert than the legendary Stacee Jaxx (Tom Cruise), an alcoholic rockstar so into himself that he might not even remember he got his first gig at The Bourbon Room.

Wait a second! This sub-plot is just as unoriginal as the one with the small town girl and the city boy falling in love. Once again, if you have seen a musical or two, you know who prevails, and it is not the politician lady who hates rock n’ roll.

Yet, despite its tremendous lack of originality, Rock of Ages entertains. And- more importantly- it never pretends to be anything else than a silly musical. They maybe singing some classics, but Rock of Ages does not stand on the shoulders of classics; it unashamedly turns them into a karaoke mix of show-tunes soon to be available on iTunes and/or sung on Glee. I have to note that there is some irony on the fact that the character on the screen, had they actually lived in the late 80s, would have vehemently objected to classic rock songs being converted into Broadway show-tunes. It makes what Lester Bangs, Phillip Seymour Hoffman’s character in Almost Famous noted even more true: “The war is over. They won... and they will ruin rock n’ roll and strangle everything we love about it”.

But everyone seems to be having such a good time, and making so much money, strangling the dream of rock n’ roll that it couldn’t have possibly be a bad thing. Can it? The actors here seem to be having a particularly good amount of fun. For the most part, they are satirizing themselves; everyone with the exception of Alec Baldwin was type casted. And Tom Cruise in particular seems to enjoy playing himself, perhaps his best performance because of it. Amazingly, Russell Brand’s character happens to be one of the most toned down on this film. Although, he does have a surprising scene with Alec Baldwin that I don’t think anyone expected. Compliments must also go to Mickey, the baboon that plays Jaxx sidekick Hey-Man. While the rest of the cast seems to be monkeying around, Mickey delivers a performance unlike any other baboon I have seen on screen.

Well, to be fair, after the disaster that was Mama Mia! when it tried to make Pierce Brosnan and Collin Firth sing I really wasn’t ready to give Tom Cruise or Alec Baldwin a chance in a musical of their own. But I was decently surprised to know that they can all hold a tune, even if it was auto-tuned. The musical numbers are still entertaining and zesty, and their production, direction, and photography are all still top-notch. The film is hard to hate, but it lacks true merit. Silliness can only take one so far as an excuse for one’s lack of originality. And it is not far enough to grant Rock of Ages anything but a passing grade.

Review: MOONRISE KINGDOM

2012-06-11T12:00:00.000-07:00

It seems that Wes Anderson has been practicing with every movie he makes to one day deliver a masterpiece. That day may never come, but it doesn’t matter. Each of his films, so far, have been a hell of an exercise towards that goal. And as a spectator, I've been enjoying the ride. Moonrise Kingdom may not be very different from your typical Wes Anderson film; after all, it is still part of these exercise. But then again- aside from centered frames and dry humor- what is a typical Wes Anderson film?

Consider the film's opening, which is told against an educational breakdown of the variations and instruments on a theme by Purcell. Anderson is bluntly telling the audience he will be playing by his own rules- as he usually does. And like the educational soundtrack the film is broken down, and each element is introduced separately before it all comes together in a litteral cliffhanger.

First there is the setting: Moonrise Kingdom is set on an island off the coast of New England in 1965. But never mind where or when this is set. It could be anywhere, anytime. The important part is that we are made aware a hurricane will hit the island in three days time. An excellent backdrop!

Then we meet the heroine: Suzy (Kara Hayward), who lives with her parents (Bill Murray and Frances McDormand) in the lighthouse. She spends her time looking out the window with her binoculars, distant but observant. And the hero: Sam (Jared Gilman), who spends his summers on the island at a Khaki Scout Camp presided by Scoutmaster Ward (Edward Norton). Both the lighthouse and the camp are prisons in the eyes of Suzy and Sam.

Sam and Suzy are in love. So they plan their escape, together.

Their plan doesn’t seem to be fully fleshed out. Sam has packed all the survival gear he “borrowed” from camp, but Suzy only packed a suitcase of books and brought along her kitten. Also they don’t seem to know how they’ll get off the island. But it doesn’t matter- at least not to them- because they are in love.

Despite what the adults might think, their love is innocent. It is that type of puppy-love that would make someone runaway from home, spear a boy-scout with a swiss-knife, and jump off a bell tower for. Suzy and Sam also seem to be oddly aware that next year they might be too old for such shenanigans; this might even be their last summer together. Ultimately, they find a paradisiac cove which they name Moonrise Kingdom. It is a beautiful little cove, the perfect getaway in which to declare your love to that special someone.

Meanwhile, the adult world searches for the runaways while the hurricane approaches. If it weren’t for the fact that Sam and Suzy are thirteen-or-so and that this film is spoken in the usual dead-pan of an Anderson film, it would be some sort of cheap drama. But no matter how unlikely the events are, the character so the story believe them to be true. So it works; nothing is played for laughs, and yet I was smiling from the begging to the end of the film.

Wait! I just got it! The looming hurricane is a metaphor for the situation Sam and Suzy are in; it is the storm that is adolescence is right around the corner. Clever... Mr Anderson.

In addition to Wes Anderson’s usual signatures there are also a lot of new experiments within his style. Building up from his experience in animation through Fantastic Mr Fox, the characters in Moonrise Kingdom move and flow within their environment as if animated inside a miniature set. I’ve never seen anything quite like it, besides Fantastic Mr Fox, which was animated. And then there is the talent of Edward Norton, who looks childish in khaki shorts, gives a performance very much unlike anything he’s done before. And Bruce Willis as Capt. Sharp. Capt. Sharp is a regular Bruce Willis character, the average joe who rises to the occasion, that somehow stumbled onto a Wes Anderson set.

The oddest thing of all is that I’ve just spent quite a bit describing the film, and still don't feel that I am doing it any justice. Moonrise Kingdom will appeal to those who will go watch it anyways. Personally, I loved it. So all I can say is that I highly recommend you give it a go.