Matt's Movie Blog

Not that there's still anyone here...

2010-01-16T23:02:00.002-04:00

... but if someone should stumble onto it, I figured I should post this since it is movie-related. I've given myself a challenge. Every Best Picture winner. In order.

More details at the Boston Babblings blog.

You need to see this.

2009-10-10T20:17:00.013-04:00

Last night, my mind was blown.

I've got a degree in theater, and I think by most standards for the industry, I'm a bad theater student. Frankly, I don't like weird stuff. Most of the time, it's not because I don't get it. Very often, I get the point that is trying to be conveyed through unconventional means of presentation, but very seldom do I ever feel that the point is made more effectively than it could have been made in a more straightforward production. Being weird for the sake of weirdness has always annoyed me, because it seems selfish. It doesn't seem to me to be done for the benefit of the audience. It's done for the benefit of the performers or the artists who are putting the show together. And that's fine, but if that's the case... why are you making me pay to see it?

What I saw last night completely redefined what I thought of as theater. It's not something that will ever replace conventional theater, but I think it could do more for the idea of the theatrical experience than anything else I've ever seen.

It's called Sleep No More. It's been brought to Boston (Brookline, actually) by the American Repertory Theater in Cambridge, but the project belongs to Punchdrunk, a theater group out of London. They first performed the show in London in 2003, and the run in Brookline marks Punchdrunk's American debut. And they certainly have me interested.

Sleep No More is a reimagining of Macbeth as a Hitchcockian thriller. For this production, they've taken over the old Lincoln School on Boylston Street in Brookline, and transformed it into... something else. I want to be very careful how I phrase things, because the best way to walk into that building is knowing nothing at all. Their new setting is reminiscent of the '20s or '30s. You start your experience in a small but beautifully appointed speakeasy that was dropped in the middle of the building. From there, you don a mask (which I think is for the comfort of both the performers and the audience), and are let loose to explore the hallways and nearly fifty transformed rooms over four levels of the school.

Some of the rooms are appointed in a pretty standard theatrical fashion - sitting rooms, dining rooms, offices - while others are much more imaginative - on one floor, there's a dune of black sand that makes its way through three or four rooms. In some rooms, there's little done to hide the fact that this used to be a school, even if that room's design doesn't fit a school at all. Other rooms, especially in the basement, are fully transformed into something else... anything else.

As you wander through the rooms, you'll encounter characters who are at the very least reminiscent of the characters from Macbeth, if not the characters by name. They'll go about their days, usually completely unaware of you and your fellow audience members, interacting with each other as if you didn't exist. My girlfriend described the feeling as being ghosts, with free reign to travel wherever you see fit and observe anything (and I do mean anything) and everything these characters do. One really cool way to experience the show is to pick a character and follow them. Everywhere. At no point did anyone go where the audience couldn't follow, so you really get a complete, unbroken experience. And if you pass a room or another character that looks more interesting, just break off and explore that room, or follow that new character. The actors are on a cycle that repeats at least once over the course of the night, so if you think you missed something after you stopped following someone, you can always try to pick it back up again later.

There's very minimal dialogue in the show, and that's for the better, I think. The actions, movements and relationships might become a little too defined if the characters were allowed to speak out loud, and the show would lose a very surreal, ethereal quality that helps make it so fascinating. It also means that when characters do talk, it's that much more important, and you need to pay close attention.

The one thing that I was worried about for this format was how well I would be able to follow the plot. You really have no restrictions on where you can go - if you can open a door in the school, its part of the show and you're welcome to explore. It does make for a very disjointed connection with the plot, but in the end I found that really didn't matter. There's a quote from a review in the Guardian newspaper of the London production: "... although you will need more than a passing knowledge of the play to make the connections, I suspect that the experience is sufficiently novel that, even if you had never heard of the play, you would take a puzzled pleasure in the evening." The performers are strong enough that you'll feel the full intensity of emotion just by watching and, if you're lucky, interacting with them. And those emotions will run the full gamut of possibility. The venue and scenes are constructed in such a way that you will see and feel everything. You'll find humor, you'll find sadness and joy, you'll be attracted and repulsed, and you'll definitely feel every hair on the back of your neck stand at attention more than once.

It's really a surreal experience. Very shortly after it began, I found myself standing in a hallway, completely alone. It very easily could have been a scene from The Shining, but sustained for the nearly three hours we wandered through the place. My girlfriend and I got separated right at the beginning, and despite crossing paths a couple more times during the course of the evening, we always opted to part ways again and explore on our own. It's a compliment to the atmosphere that they have created in there that even if you came with someone (and you should, so you can talk about it after), you really want to experience this by yourself.

At the end, they reopen the speakeasy to you so you can have a drink (which you'll probably need) and swap stories with other spectators. After talking to my girlfriend and about half a dozen other people, it became very clear that despite technically attending the same show for nearly three hours, we all had wildly different experiences. My girlfriend saw a character I didn't know existed. I saw rooms she never came across. It's remarkable to build something like this and have it really allow for that much repeat attendance. I just went last night, and already I'm dying to go back and find other routes, other rooms and other experiences. I hope I've given you an idea of the show without giving much of anything away, because there's really no replacing going in completely blind and seeing where the show takes you.

Here's the warning - this is very much a show for adults, definitely an R rating. Only adults. Nudity abounds, and there's a number of things that happen that are unquestionably too intense and mature for kids. The Shining reference holds, but you need to add in a little Session 9 or Eyes Wide Shut - and of course some Hitchcock - to really get the idea. It's eerie, it's unnerving, and I'm sure it's a better experience when you don't have to worry about what sort of trauma you might be inflicting on your child.

Right now, it's scheduled to run through the end of the year, but I wouldn't be shocked if it gets extended - it's not like the school will be used for anything else, and I really hope this becomes insanely popular. If you're interested, I've got three pieces of advice: 1) Abandon any preconceived notions you have about the play, the characters, or theater in general; 2) Be ready to go along with anything - the show and the experience will be better for it; and 3) GO.

For tickets, click here. Or go find out more about ART and Punchdrunk.

A side note: I'm completely shocked that I ended up writing this. I've been consistently unimpressed with ART for years. For a long time, they've been the closest thing Boston had to professional avant garde theater, but I've always got the impression they were doing what I said I hate: being weird for the sake of being weird. It was almost like they were expected to do it, so they did it without a legitimate reason. That's not to deride anyone who has worked there in the past, I just... it always felt stuffy, and full of "importance" and "purpose," and none of that appeals to me. This show is full of "feeling" and "emotion," and it's incredible. In my mind, ART is back on the proper road. Their production of David Mamet's Marriage was fantastic, Sleep No More is hands down one of my favorite productions of anything ever, they've got a really cool-sounding version of The Great Gatsby coming next year... I can't remember the last time I was excited about ART. It's cool. Now let's just hope they don't screw it up with Red Sox Nation...

Taken

2009-01-31T23:36:00.000-04:00

* * * * * (out of five)

Assuming that people like some complexity, Taken might be a hard sell. It just doesn’t mess around with any of that. It’s a thriller. It knows it, you know it twenty minutes in, and you never forget it until the very last second. Frankly, there’s not a lot of character here. There’s not a lot of background. There’s not a lot of relationship development. And honestly, there’s not a lot of moral consideration, all of which might turn some people off. But if you walk into this movie looking for a good time without any needless complications, you’ll walk out satisfied.

Liam Neeson, who owns the movie every single second he’s in frame (and there are very few Liam-less frames in the whole 90 minutes), plays Bryan Mills. There are really only three things you need to know about Bryan. A) He used to work as some sort of covert ops agent for the US government, a job at which he was very good, B) he is extremely meticulous and detail-oriented, and C) he loves his daughter, Kim, but didn’t get to spend much time with her growing up because of work. All of these points are bluntly established within the first twenty minutes.

After some exposition establishing tension between Bryan and his ex-wife (Famke Janssen), who now lives a much better life with her new, rich and present husband, Kim (Maggie Grace) asks her parents for permission to spend a summer in Paris with a friend. Bryan is skeptical, something that initially reads as overprotective, but it’s sort of understandable – without details, it is established that he has seen much more bad in the world than most people, and wants to shield his daughter from that if possible. But eventually he relents, with a number of seemingly-controlling conditions, and off she goes. Naturally, everything that could go wrong does go wrong within a matter of hours, and Bryan flies to Paris with a presumed 96-hour window to find his daughter before the trail runs cold.

Liam Neeson is not a guy you look at and immediately think “action hero,” but he doesn’t have to be, because this is not that kind of movie. Bryan isn’t a hero. He’s not even trying to be a hero. Bryan is dangerous, and Bryan has a goal. He knows exactly of what he is capable, and as far as we know there is no line he won’t cross in order to attain his goal. Compared to most other lead characters, this could very well come off as a flat character, because he doesn’t demonstrate many of the humanizing qualities we’ve come to need from action heroes in order to justify their actions. Difficult decisions, especially those that might result in violence, pain or death, are typically given heavy consideration. This is not a concern for Bryan Mills. It’s not that he’s sadistic – at no point does he enjoy what is does. It’s not even that he’s immoral. It’s all about priority, and in his case, doing what he needs to do to find his daughter outranks any moral consideration he might otherwise have.

There’s the potential for commentary about Bryan’s life in the times leading up to or following this particular moment – what training made him this way, if he comes to regret his actions, etc. – but while those might be interesting ideas to explore, they aren’t this moment. For that, credit writers Luc Besson and Robert Mark Kamen. Most of their scripts are action-based, but this sort of stripped-down single serving is relatively new for them (see Banlieue 13). They focus so completely on one situation, they’re able to really perfect the telling of this story, this moment, without other side plots getting in the way. The film is a straight line, from abduction to the end, and it is tense for the entire run. It’s really beautiful in its simplicity – sidetracks would have required more time to explain, and almost certainly would have lost the momentum of the main story.

Neeson’s not going to win any awards for this one, but I doubt there was any intention of that going in. This is a film about a man unleashed, and Neeson handles both extremes flawlessly. His stillness and quiet is often impressive, and nearly as frightening as his very, very violent outbursts, because to this guy, those are both means to the same end, equal tools for the same job. It’s Neeson that makes Bryan Mills dangerous, not his training or ability. But at the same time, it’s Neeson’s early sincerity in his love for Kim that justifies for the audience his actions later on, even though there’s absolutely a vindictive edge to some of the violence. Neeson’s total commitment to the black and white nature of what he’s doing sells that not only is Bryan doing what he must, but the bastards had it coming. There’s a recurring idea of focus that Bryan keeps coming back to – he exhibits it in everything he does, and he reminds everyone with whom he has contact of its importance. That idea really wraps up what Neeson brings to this part – a tunnel vision-esque focus that sets the pace and the mood for everyone else who has the pleasure or misfortune of being in Bryan Mills’s life.

The only issue with the film for me was the directing, car chases in particular. It’s a long-held complaint that didn’t get any better here… the best way to sell action and suspense in fistfights, in car chases and in tense scenes is to show us what the hell is going on. Showing Bryan’s car swerving in and out of oncoming traffic, hearing and feeling near miss after near miss, with the occasional look at Bryan’s reactions, will be much more tense than fraction of a second cuts that just end up being spatially confusing. I understand that the idea is to get a frenetic, stressful blood boil, but it doesn’t work for me. It’s stressful, but only because I get frustrated when I can’t see what’s going on. Anyone who wants to put a car chase in their movie ought to be forced to watch Tarantino’s Death Proof and take notes.

Other than that, Pierre Morel does just as well here as he did in Banlieue 13. He knows the story Besson is trying to tell, and knows the best thing he can do is stay out of the way. Besson and Kamen are working through Neeson to create this guy’s life and Morel is there to put it on film. He does well enough, but no one is exactly making it hard on him.

Neeson and a tight-as-hell script are the reasons to see this one. Why it got dumped in a crap slot like the end of January, I’ll never know. It’s much better than that. But it sure was a nice distraction from the cold. Appreciate it while you can.

Also up on eFilmCritic.

Angels & Demons

2008-10-30T20:40:00.002-04:00

Let's get a couple things clear. I enjoy Dan Brown's books. They are complete throwaway novels - they can be read on a single airplane or bus trip, they are perfectly engaging when you read them and absolutely forgettable after the fact. I think Angels & Demons and The Davinci Code, from a commercial literature standpoint, are just about perfect. There's a lot of people who will find a lot of things wrong with the books, but just about everyone will read them, and from a straight entertainment standpoint, millions will enjoy them.

I also hated, hated, hated The Davinci Code film. I think Tom Hanks is completely wrong for the character - he's too old, he doesn't possess nearly the amount of charm that Robert Langdon is supposed to have. This was supposed to be a slightly - slightly more bookish Indiana Jones. I think Audrey Tatou was even MORE wrong for her character, and I could have told you that without ever seeing her onscreen. The film came off much more like a scavenger hunt than a mystery. There's no doubt that there's a scavenger hunt aspect to the story, but it really felt like the pair didn't have to work for too much of what they found.

Since the day The Davinci Code film was announced, I was very, very worried about the inevitable Angels & Demons follow-up. The fact that it's a prequel and they're using an older Tom Hanks to play a younger Langdon is painful. There's any number of late 30-mid 40's guys who could pull this off. Tone Robert Downey, Jr. down a little bit and squeeze this in before Iron Man 2. It still worries me.

All that being said... I don't hate this. I'm not overly psyched by it, but I expected a lot worse. The tone seems a bit darker, which is necessary, and... I just really hope they pull this one off a lot better.

Religulous

2008-10-15T16:19:00.002-04:00

This is an exceedingly difficult movie to watch, let alone review, without allowing some personal feelings to slip in between the cracks. It is so slanted to one particular viewpoint (and shamelessly intended to be that way) that to watch it with any attempt at objectivity almost gets in the way of the film’s objective: Bill Maher wants you to be incensed or repulsed, preferably at his subjects of ridicule. But he’s OK if you’re repulsed by his actions, too. That just means you become one of his subjects.

Much like Larry Charles’s last cinematic effort, Borat, this film becomes a series of unscripted “gotcha” moments as Maher travels to different religious-minded communities and locations around the world and chats with anyone willing to talk to him. Most of these conversations follow the same pattern: Maher sets up the pins so the unsuspecting interviewee can trip and stutter their way to his ultimate point. Points to Maher for really hitting every possible slant on the major religions – he interviews the guy playing Jesus at Orlando’s “Holy Land Experience,” then makes a stop at a Trucker’s Chapel before jumping on a plane for London, Amsterdam, Israel and the Vatican.

The film is by no means even-keeled, and never makes any attempt to act like it. I mean, c’mon, it’s Bill Maher. If you’ve ever seen one of his TV shows, you know where he stands on the issue of religion. One thing I did find interesting is that he makes it very clear who amongst his victims he actually respects, and the answer is actually surprising. Above everyone else, the resident Vatican astronomer and a pastor working in Rome meet the least of his scorn, mainly because they show a disdain similar to Maher’s for literal interpretations of scripture. Nearly everyone else is subject to his well-laid traps, and that is where most of the comedy emerges. It’s pretty funny to watch Maher get a sitting senator to admit that you don’t need to pass an IQ test to get into the senate, even if you might not approve of how Maher backed the poor guy into that corner.

Read the rest at HBS!

Eagle Eye

2008-10-01T11:37:00.003-04:00

Stupid movies have carved out a nice little niche in America. They cost little, they do well, and they are often forgotten shortly after audiences leave the auditorium. The problem is that those tend to be comedies. Eagle Eye is not a comedy. But boy, is it ever stupid. On the bright side, it could be a lot worse.

I don't want to give the wrong idea. I enjoyed the heck out of Eagle Eye. While I was watching it, it was a damn good movie... most of the time. Occasionally, I would have a flash of realization that something I was seeing onscreen was completely absurd, ridiculous, misguided, paranoid or just plain idiotic. But then something would blow up REALLY BIG, and I would be sucked back in. In that way, I think the movie does exactly what it was designed to do – it's escapism at every possible level. But the way the plot is written, there may be people out there (re: stupid people) who try to see it as more than it is. If you fail to categorize the twist as absolutely moronic, then we have a problem.

Now, I can't go into what that twist is, really. In fact, giving away anything about the plot beyond what is shown in trailers and advertisements would be unfair. To start, we have two seemingly unconnected stories. The first is Jerry Shaw (Shia LaBeouf), a super slacker working at a Chicago copy center in between hands of a nightly poker game. Jerry's life kind of sucks – crappy job, crappy apartment, no savings to speak of – but early on you get the impression that if he wanted to, he could move beyond that life. There must be something attractive about it. Tragedy hits Jerry's family, which reveals a lot about the choices he's made, and upon returning home for the night, he finds his crappy apartment stuffed to the gills with weaponry, explosives, and classified intelligence. His cell phone rings, and a woman gives him instructions to run. He doesn't, he gets arrested, the woman calls again and helps him escape... we've all seen this clip in the trailer.

The second story is about Rachel Holloman (Michelle Monaghan). We meet her as she is bringing her son Sam to a train station in Chicago for a trip with his school band to Washington, D.C. Naturally, she's nervous, and her deadbeat ex-husband's presence doesn't help anything. Luckily, we don't see him again. After putting Sam on the train, her cell rings, and the same woman threatens her son. Rachel complies, ending up driving the car the picks up the escaping Jerry Shaw. From there, they are on the run together, completing assignments from the mystery woman without really knowing what the end game is.

It's about at this point that the movie turns deeply stupid. In the opening segment, we met Secretary of Defense Callister (Michael Chiklis), and his story is the one that reveals the mysterious woman to us. And it's deeply, painfully idiotic. I caught it about half an hour prior to the reveal, and I quietly swore that if it turned out to be true (which it was), I might leave the theater. I didn't. After the movie ended, I started talking about it with my girlfriend, and we picked it clean before we got to the restaurant down the street for dinner. Particularly involving the mystery woman's methods of getting Jerry and Rachel to where she needs them to be, there are leaps of logic over gaps so vast that they almost come off as clever at first, since there's no way in hell that YOU would have thought of doing things this way. But after a quick discussion, you'll quickly figure out that the reason you wouldn't have thought of it is because it's a damn stupid idea. This became a pretty common theme in our post-movie chat.

Read the rest at HBS

2007: The Superlative Post

2008-01-16T11:50:00.000-04:00

Looking at the list of films eligible for an award next month, if in fact the ceremony does happen, it's a little depressing, for a few reasons. Not only is my list of films seen the shortest I can remember it ever being, but the list of films I wish I'd seen is almost as long. But, all that aside, this space has been vacant long enough, so here we go.

Top 10 Movies of 2007
1. Sunshine - I freaked out the moment I saw the first trailer. It was sent to me by my brother, who had basically the same reaction. This is sci-fi done right, balancing the two parts... there's just as much science here as there is fiction. Is the science accurate? Well, who really knows, but it sounded pretty good to me. Boyle's visuals are amazing - that's not to say that they look real, or even necessarily that they deserve the Oscar for special effects. These are presented in such a way that you never forget the beauty or the raw, dangerous power of the sun as it is simultaneously humankind's only possible savior and worst possible enemy. Fantastic performances by the entire crew are led by Cillian Murphy, Rose Byrn and Chris Evans. Read that again. I said Chris Evans. Give the guy something good to read, and dude can act. If you have a chance to see this in high-def, do it. I'll be hitting Jay's place at some point. It should be freakin' awesome.

2. Ratatouille - Brad Bird better be on Pixar's permanent payroll by now. This is Pixar's best since Toy Story & Toy Story 2, and it sits right next to those two as one of the greatest animated pieces of artwork ever. It's note-perfect just about everywhere - the voice casting and acting is flawless, the visual style is both beautiful and inviting, and the story is just amazing. Bird's three features (The Iron Giant, The Incredibles, Rataouille) have all been brilliant, story- and character-driven masterpieces, and Ratatouille is the best of the three. In particular, the final restaurant review and Bird's way of visualizing taste are pieces of magic that made me love this movie from the moment I sat down.

3. No Country for Old Men - For my money, the Coens always deliver. Even their last two films, The Ladykillers and Intolerable Cruelty, which a lot of people disliked, found the right notes with me. This is different. This is Fargo, but better. Absent are a lot of the Coen regulars; instead they opted for a totally new cast. And damn, did it work. Javier Bardem's Anton Chigurh is one of the scariest screen villains to come in a long time. Josh Brolin's Llewelyn Moss is about as everyman as you can get, and still completely fascinating and badass. Tommy Lee Jones as Sheriff Bell is the perfect mediation, and following his story - straight through till the end - is what ties the entire film together. Those are just the big three. The depth to this cast is incredible. The Coens landscape is beautiful and terrifying in its bleakness. There's really nothing wrong here.

4. Grindhouse - I can't say much about this one except god DAMN it was fun. Tarantino and Rodriguez made it perfectly clear what they were shooting for with these films, and I'd say mission definitely accomplished. My only complaint was that they might have gone a little too far with the "crappy prints with scratches and missing reels" part of the experience, particularly with Planet Terror, but that's nitpicking to the highest degree. These three hours were probably the most fun I had in a theater this year. Between Rose McGowan's machine gun leg and Zoe Bell being COMPLETELY insane, I don't know why people complained about this one.

5. 3:10 to Yuma - I just saw this one again the other night, and it's still great. Bale and Crowe are wonderful opposites, and I realize that I pretty much ONLY like Russell Crowe in westerns (this and The Quick and the Dead). Mangold built a dynamic, lively world for these two guys to clash. It looks good, it sounds great, it just feels right. I have my gripes about the ending and one of Ben Wade's final decisions, but that decision sure made for a great final shootout.

6. Hot Fuzz - Just further proving that these guys can do ANYTHING. Much as Shaun of the Dead did with horror movies, this one successfully roasts and toasts everything that is awful and wonderful about the action movie, all while delivering one of the best action movies of the year. Simon Pegg continues to prove that he can pull of just about anything. I really don't know why this guy isn't a superstar yet. He's on his way. Many people might say this is a little too crazy for its own good, but that's kind of why I love it.

7. The Bourne Ultimatum - If, like me, you thought Supremacy slowed this series down a little bit, then Ultimatum soothed those worries away. It takes the best parts of the first of the series, combs some clear inspiration from Casino Royale, and rolls it all into a very good mystery that they never let you forget about during the chase. The best improvement? SHOWING THE FIGHTS. Car chases are still a bit suspect, but at least in this one, Greengrass let you see the fighting. Damon is still great - I think Bourne is going to be the character he's remembered for, aside from Will Hunting. This was the best blockbuster of the summer, by far.

8. Breach - On the list almost entirely for Chris Cooper, but the fact is that watching him in this part made me enjoy this movie more than most other ones this year. Laura Linney and Ryan Phillippe do their parts as well, but this is Cooper's movie, through and through. A shame it was dumped back in February, or he might have a shot at a statue.

9. Gone Baby Gone - There are so many good things that are offset by a lot of questionable things, but in the end, I think the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. I do love these books and these characters, and I'm positive that they can be done better, but the Afflecks still made a great movie. If they did anything right, it's capture the distinct feel of Dorchester, for better or for worse, and they owe a lot of that to Amy Ryan. It's a good mystery with some hazy marks, but the best part is that this will probably be enough reason to give some of the other Kenzie/Gennaro novels a try... though I wouldn't mind if someone else took a stab at it.

10. Ocean's Thirteen - ... what? Leave me alone, I enjoyed myself. Is it flawed? Absolutely. But it's better than Twelve, and there's no denying that it's fun watching these guys have fun. Like I said, there are a lot of movies I didn't get to that I imagine would have bumped this one off the list, but I can only pick from what I saw.

Biggest Disappointment
Juno - I so wanted to love this movie. Everything from the trailer told me I would love this movie. As it turns out, three minutes is about as long as I can buy Ellen Page spewing these lines while still being told she's 16. I get it, she's not like other 16-year old kids. But NO 16-year old talks like this. Hell, as far as I know, no 20-year old talks like this. The first hour is a set up of the quirkiness of her world and everyone in it, but by the end of the movie, the only people you come off liking or relating to are the non-quirky ones - J.K. Simmons, Jennifer Garner and Jason Bateman, notably. Ellen Page was great, but then they had her play a teenager. The style is good, but it trips on itself. There are pieces of a good movie here, but it gets marred by the details.

Biggest Trainwreck
Transformers - Just go here. This explains everything.

I imagine I will find myself back here next week to talk Oscar picks. Hopefully I'll have been able to squeeze in at least one other viewing by then, so I'm not completely uninformed. Until then...

New Blog

2007-09-07T15:21:00.000-04:00

Yeeeah... remember how I said I was back? It didn't last too long. Honestly, I think a part of it for me was I wasn't motivated to write specifically about movies anymore, so I stopped writing altogether. Not the best move

That being said, I just opened up a new blog, Boston Babblings. Hopefully, this will give me a bit more of an opportunity to rant in the style that I've wanted to. I will probably still do the occasional movie review (which will probably get posted here as well), but that will be just one of the things that will go into the new location. At the moment, I'm working on a fall movie preview, something I tried to do last year but never finished. Now, I'm determined.

So yeah, the four of you who have me bookmarked, update them. I'm anticipating a lot more activity over there.

I'm so close...

2007-09-01T22:33:00.000-04:00

I'm sitting at work right now. Two blocks from Fenway Park. I can hear the cheers, the honks, the hollers.

GOD I wish I was there tonight.

Clay Buchholz = #5 starter.

Much appreciated, friend. Welcome to the Nation.

Transformers (2007)

2007-07-20T15:36:00.000-04:00

* (out of 4)

Y’know, there are some things that are really hard to mess up. I’m pretty sure making a movie about giant robots from outer space fighting on earth with no regard to human constructions or human life is one of them. Then Michael Bay came along. Hoooooo boy…

I’ll admit that I’ve been harsh on Michael Bay in the past. But he deserved it. And if Bay does anything well, it is blow stuff up, and this had plenty of opportunities for explosive goodness. So I set aside my previous caution of Bay, ready to watch him do what he does best. Then, you know what’s weird? He didn’t do it.

The film starts with a brief introduction of Transformer lore – their planet, why the left, who they are, etc. Afterward, we’re introduced to Sam Witwicky (Shia LaBeouf), a high school kid who’s basically pawning some of his explorer-grandfather’s stuff in order to hold up his end of a deal with his dad: get good grades, raise some money, and they’ll get him a car. After a poorly timed joke which was basically an excuse to get a Porche logo on the screen, The Witwickys end up at a used car dealer, where Sam picks out an old yellow Camaro… or does it pick him? Hmmm…

Shortly after getting it home, he uses it to pick up Mikaela Banes (Megan Fox), local hottie extraordinaire. Continuing antics from the dealership, the car starts doing some odd things on it’s own, like turning on the radio, locking and unlocking doors, fixing itself… all seemingly in attempts to get Sam laid. Now, why would his alien car care if Sam gets laid, considering it’s on a much more urgent mission? Yeah, I don’t know either.

Fast forward a bit, and after a few strange attacks against US troops in the deserts of the Middle East, the US government is attempting to uncover the source of a strange broadcast signal they think is linked to the attacks. Back with Sam, a whole fleet of robots-turned-cars has been revealed, all with nice new 2007 model designs! Even Sam’s Camaro updated to a newer model. How convenient. As explained by the leader of the robots, Optimus Prime (voiced again by Peter Cullen), this collection of robots, the Autobots (see, cause they’re cars!) is engaged in a war with another faction from their home planet, the Decepticons (see, cause they’re evil!), over control of the fate of their species. The key to this battle is something called the All Spark, which they suspect is hidden somewhere on Earth. Thanks to foolish intervention from humans, the leader of the Decepticons, Megatron, has been found and reactivated, and is calling his forces for an assault on the Autobots. This happens about an hour or so into the movie. THEN the robots start fighting.

Read the rest at HBS!

I'm back!

2007-07-14T21:06:00.000-04:00

Y'know... for now. See that below? That's a review! And there's more coming! I swear! I'm also toying with the idea of putting my webcam to work and making a sort of video mini-review to accompany the reviews. We'll see how that goes...

Live Free or Die Hard

2007-07-14T20:57:00.000-04:00

* * * * (out of 5)

I’m all for stuff blowing up. I enjoy it. But the promise of another Die Hard flick had me hoping that the studio was willing to let them go back to the gradual tension build-up that make the original awesome. They weren’t. Nonetheless, it’s still John McClane. And he’s still pissed off. And that is ALWAYS fun.

It’s hard to give Live Free or Die Hard crap for not really feeling like a Die Hard movie when the series has such a jumbled history. Two were based on completely unrelated novels, one was adapted from a script that had been floating around Hollywood for years, and one took its main conflict from a Wired magazine article. Really, the only constant to these stories has been John McClane and Friends, and even they were added after the fact. Even still, while the other three seemed to blend fairly well stylistically, something about “Live Free” separates it, and not necessarily for the better.

This one sees McClane (an older, balder Bruce Willis) working as a senior detective in the Rutgers area in New Jersey. His daughter Lucy (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) is a student there, and it’s a nice way to keep an eye on the younger McClane. After some strange occurrences within the nation’s computerized defense and utility systems alarm the government, McClane is charged to deliver Matthew Farrell (Justin Long) to Washington, DC for questioning. Seems Farrell is one of a number of hackers under investigation for infiltrating the mainframe. When they arrive in DC, McClane and Farrell find a world almost completely shut down. Whoever is behind it all is in control of utility systems, traffic systems, defense systems, more than enough to make life hell for everyone. McClane, being John McClane, gets involved, first as Matt’s protector as they try to set things right, but after an ugly run-in with top henchmen Mai Lihn (Maggie Q) and a number of perfectly-timed Asian hooker jokes, hacking mastermind Thomas Gabriel (Timothy Olyphant) decides to make his attacks more personal, kidnapping Lucy, at one point touching her and pointing a gun at her head, almost guaranteeing him a painful torture and death.

I get the premise of this movie. It’s a fun idea to take an old-school cop/action hero like McClane and drop him into a post-9/11 world, one that has technologically, morally and philosophically passed him by. And it works. It does. McClane is essentially a dinosaur who is way out of his element. Naturally, being John McClane, he fights through it.

Read the rest at HBS!

Golden Globes rundown, cause I've nothing better to do...

2007-01-05T04:58:00.000-04:00

So I’ve been more or less useless on here (and on HBS/EFC) the last few months. For that, I apologize. Since I have a few spare moments (though I ought to be sleeping), I thought I’d post some thoughts/predictions for the Golden Globes. Yep. This is long.

Best Motion Picture - Drama

Babel
Anonymous Content Production/Una Producción De Zeta Film/Central Films Production; Paramount Pictures/Paramount Vantage

Bobby
Michel Litvak Productions/Bold Films; MGM/The Weinstein Company

The Departed
Warner Bros. Pictures

Little Children
New Line Cinema

The Queen
Granada; Miramax Films

Seen: The Departed, Babel

My Pick: The Departed. Just no topping The Departed. All sentimental value aside – my love for the original film, my love for the city it’s set in – this was by far one of the most enjoyable film experiences this year.

Best Performance by an Actress in a Motion Picture - Drama

Penélope Cruz – Volver

Judi Dench – Notes On A Scandal

Maggie Gyllenhaal – Sherrybaby

Helen Mirren – The Queen

Kate Winslet – Little Children

Seen: None of them, sadly
My Pick: Helen Mirren for The Queen, based solely on the reactions of nearly everyone I know who has seen it. It’s apparently absolutely stellar.

Best Performance by an Actor in a Motion Picture - Drama

Leonardo DiCaprio – Blood Diamond

Leonardo DiCaprio – The Departed

Peter O'Toole – Venus

Will Smith – The Pursuit Of Happyness

Forest Whitaker – The Last King Of Scotland

Seen: Blood Diamond, The Departed

My Pick: Forest Whitaker. Even in the previews, he looks absolutely brilliant. DiCaprio was OK in Blood Diamond, better in Departed. It’s not quite Smith’s time yet. O’Toole… I just don’t know anything about Venus…

Best Motion Picture - Musical Or Comedy

Borat: Cultural Learnings Of America For Make Benefit Glorious Nation Of Kazakhstan
One America; Twentieth Century Fox

The Devil Wears Prada
Twentieth Century Fox

Dreamgirls
DreamWorks Pictures/Paramount Pictures

Little Miss Sunshine
Big Beach/Bona Fide Productions; Fox Searchlight Pictures

Thank You For Smoking
Room 9 Entertainment/David O. Sacks Production/Contentfilm; Fox Searchlight Pictures

Seen: All of them. Finally, something I can judge fairly!

My Pick: Thank You For Smoking, with Little Miss Sunshine right on its heels. Two dark comedies easily beat out two movies for which I cannot for the life of me understand the hype. Nor do I see where Devil Wears Prada fits in… that bad a year, even for filler? Smoking over Sunshine just because the script was a little tighter, and the very, very good performance from Aaron Eckhart.

Best Performance by an Actress in a Motion Picture - Musical or Comedy

Annette Bening – Running With Scissors

Toni Collette – Little Miss Sunshine

Beyoncé Knowles – Dreamgirls

Meryl Streep – The Devil Wears Prada

Renée Zellweger – Miss Potter

Seen: Little Miss Sunshine, Dreamgirls, Devil Wears Prada.

My Pick: … Yuck. I guess we’ll go with Zellweger. She might feel the biopic love that has been running rampant lately. Knowles was OK but bland, Collette was the weakest member of the family (though still nothing to sneeze at) in Sunshine, and I just don’t see this as a part that will star racking up awards for Streep.

Best Performance by an Actor in a Motion Picture - Musical Or Comedy

Sacha Cohen – Borat: Cultural Learnings Of America For Make Benefit Glorious Nation Of Kazakhstan

Johnny Depp – Pirates Of The Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest

Aaron Eckhart – Thank You For Smoking

Chiwetel Ejiofor – Kinky Boots

Will Ferrell – Stranger Than Fiction

Seen: Borat, Pirates, and Smoking

My Pick: Eckhart. He deserves it. Though I am a little terrified that it will somehow end up in Cohen’s hands.

Best Performance by an Actress In A Supporting Role in a Motion Picture

Adriana Barraza – Babel

Cate Blanchett – Notes On A Scandal

Emily Blunt – The Devil Wears Prada

Jennifer Hudson – Dreamgirls

Rinko Kikuchi – Babel

Seen: All but Notes.

My Pick: Rinko Kikuchi. Her story was by far the most intriguing, gut-wrenching and well-paced in the film, and her performance is what made it so wonderful to watch.

Best Performance by an Actor In A Supporting Role in a Motion Picture

Ben Affleck – Hollywoodland

Eddie Murphy – Dreamgirls

Jack Nicholson – The Departed

Brad Pitt – Babel

Mark Wahlberg – The Departed

Seen: All but Hollywoodland.

My Pick: Nicholson, as a precursor to the Oscar that many say he’s probably already won (and would definitely deserve). In a twist I certainly didn’t see coming, sitting behind Jack on this list is most definitely Eddie Murphy. He shines quite brightly throughout a decidedly average musical. I would hope and expect a nomination for the big show.

Best Animated Feature Film

Cars
Walt Disney Pictures/Pixar Animation Studio; Buena Vista Pictures Distribution

Happy Feet
Kingdom Pictures, LLC; Warner Bros. Pictures/Village Roadshow Pictures

Monster House
Columbia Pictures; Sony Pictures Releasing

Seen: All of them.

My Pick: A good list this year. Each of them has qualities superior to the other two. For pure entertainment value, though, I will go with Cars.

Best Foreign Languge Film

Apocalypto (United States)
Touchstone Pictures/Icon Productions; Buena Vista Pictures Distribution

Letters From Iwo Jima (Japan, United States)
Warner Bros. Pictures/DreamWorks Pictures; Warner Bros. Pictures

The Lives Of Others (Germany)
Wiedemann & Berg/Bayerischer Rundfunk/ARTE/Creado Film; Sony Pictures Classics

Pan's Labyrinth (Mexico)
Tequila Gang/Esperanto Filmoj/Estudios Picasso; Picturehouse

Volver (Spain)
El Deseo; Sony Pictures Classics

Seen: None, I’m ashamed to say.

My Pick: I’m torn between Iwo Jima and Volver. Almodovar is almost always worthy of whatever comes his way, though I have heard that Clint Eastwood’s Japanese piece is superior to its English brother.

Best Director - Motion Picture

Clint Eastwood – Flags Of Our Fathers

Clint Eastwood – Letters From Iwo Jima

Stephen Frears – The Queen

Alejandro Iñárritu – Babel

Martin Scorsese – The Departed

Seen: Babel, Departed.

My Pick: It’s Scorcese’s turn, I think. Both here and the Big Show, he’ll get well-deserved statues.

Best Screenplay - Motion Picture

Babel
Written by Guillermo Arriaga

The Departed
Written by William Monahan

Little Children
Written by Todd Field, Tom Perrotta

Notes On A Scandal
Written by Patrick Marber

The Queen
Written by Peter Morgan

Seen: Babel, Departed.

My Pick: With changes for language, time period and locale, Departed seemed to stick pretty close to Infernal Affairs. I wasn’t overly impressed with Babel’s organization, so I’m thinking The Queen might pull this one in.

Best Original Score - Motion Picture

The Painted Veil (Desplat)
Composed by Alexandre Desplat

The Fountain (Mansell)
Composed by Clint Mansell

Babel (Santaolalla)
Composed by Gustavo Santaolalla

Nomad (Siliotto)
Composed by Carlo Siliotto

The Da Vinci Code (Zimmer)
Composed by Hans Zimmer

Seen/Heard: Fountain, Babel, Da Vinci.

My Pick: None of the ones I saw were particularly mind-blowing. The Fountain is the only one I can even vaguely recall, so I’ll go with that.

Best Original Song - Motion Picture

"A Father's Way" – The Pursuit Of Happyness

"Listen" – Dreamgirls

"Never Gonna Break My Faith" – Bobby

"The Song Of The Heart" – Happy Feet

"Try Not To Remember" – Home Of The Brave

Seen: Dreamgirls, Happy Feet.

My Pick: As much as I’d like to see Happy Feet get some love, the music is one of the only things Dreamgirls has going for it at a consistent rate, and “Listen” was a good scene (if not a good song), so we’ll stick with the obvious choice.

Onto the TV stuff… If I say I’ve seen something here, it means at least 1 episode of this past season.

Best Television Series - Drama

24 (FOX)
Real Time Productions/Imagine Television/Twentieth Century Fox Television; FOX

Big Love (HBO)
Anima Sola/Playtone Productions/HBO Entertainment; HBO

Grey's Anatomy (ABC)
Touchstone Television; ABC

Heroes (NBC)
NBC Universal Television Studio/Tailwind Productions; NBC

Lost (ABC)
Touchstone Television; ABC

Seen: 24, Grey’s Anatomy, Heroes, Lost.

My Pick: Although I do love me some Heroes, and it quickly became one of the more addicting fall shows, I’m looking for/expecting 24 to hand a quick and hilarious beat-down to lost. The best show on TV had one of its best seasons this year, and deserves some awards for that.

Best Performance by an Actress In A Television Series - Drama

Patricia Arquette – Medium (NBC)

Edie Falco – The Sopranos (HBO)

Evangeline Lilly – Lost (ABC)

Ellen Pompeo – Grey's Anatomy (ABC)

Kyra Sedgwick – The Closer (TNT)

Seen: Lost, Grey’s, Closer.

My Pick: Though I don’t watch regularly, I think Sedgwick has one of the best serious female role on TV today, and will be recognized for it. This is, of course, only because Kristen Bell is getting screwed for the seriocomic vibe off Veronica Mars.

Best Performance by an Actor In A Television Series - Drama

Patrick Dempsey – Grey's Anatomy (ABC)

Michael C. Hall – Dexter (SHOWTIME)

Hugh Laurie – House (FOX)

Bill Paxton – Big Love (HBO)

Kiefer Sutherland – 24 (FOX)

Seen: Grey’s, House, 24.

My Pick: Kiefer narrowly beats out Hugh. Tough call. I’ve also heard that Michael C. Hall might make it an even tougher one.

Best Television Series - Musical Or Comedy

Desperate Housewives (ABC)
Touchstone Television; ABC

Entourage (HBO)
Leverage/Closest to the Hole/HBO Entertainment; HBO

The Office (NBC)
Deedle Dee Productions/Reveille/NBC Universal Television Studio; NBC

Ugly Betty (ABC)
Touchstone Television; ABC

Weeds (SHOWTIME)
Showtime/Lionsgate Television/Tilted Productions, Inc.; SHOWTIME

Seen: Office.

My Pick: If only because I really don’t care for what I’ve seen of The Office, I’m gonna go with some love for the newcomer, and give it to Ugly Betty. Again, Veronica Mars AND Studio 60 getting screwed here.

Best Performance by an Actress In A Television Series - Musical Or Comedy

Marcia Cross – Desperate Housewives (ABC)

America Ferrera – Ugly Betty (ABC)

Felicity Huffman – Desperate Housewives (ABC)

Julia Louis-Dreyfus – The New Adventures Of Old Christine (CBS)

Mary-Louise Parker – Weeds (SHOWTIME)

Seen: None.

My Picks: Flying blind here. I’ll go with Julia Louis-Dreyfus, if only because she got the Emmy.

Best Performance by an Actor In A Television Series - Musical Or Comedy

Alec Baldwin – 30 Rock (NBC)

Zach Braff – Scrubs (NBC)

Steve Carell – The Office (NBC)

Jason Lee – My Name Is Earl (NBC)

Tony Shalhoub – Monk (USA)

Seen: 30 Rock, Scrubs, Office.

My Pick: Alec Baldwin was the best thing on this other “backstage on a variety show” series, though that’s not saying too much. Still, crazy Alec Baldwin is different enough from the rest of his competition, I think. Unless Tony Shalhoub gets more kudos, which is entirely possible.

Best Mini-Series Or Motion Picture Made for Television

Bleak House (PBS)
Masterpiece Theatre/BBC/WGBH Boston/Deep Indigo; PBS

Broken Trail (AMC)
Butchers Run Films/Once Upon a Time Films/Sony Pictures Television; AMC

Elizabeth I (HBO)
Company Pictures/channel 4/HBO Films; HBO

Mrs. Harris (HBO)
Killer Films/Number 9 Films/John Wells Productions/HBO Films; HBO

Prime Suspect: The Final Act (PBS)
Masterpiece Theatre/Granada/WGBH Boston; PBS

Seen: none.

My Pick: Purely guessing here, but based on Helen Mirren’s press (cause she’s having a great year), I’ll go with Elizabeth I.

Best Performance by an Actress In A Mini-series or Motion Picture Made for Television

Gillian Anderson – Bleak House (PBS)

Annette Bening – Mrs. Harris (HBO)

Helen Mirren – Elizabeth I (HBO)

Helen Mirren – Prime Suspect: The Final Act (PBS)

Sophie Okonedo – Tsunami, The Aftermath (HBO)

Seen: None.

My Picks: Helen Mirren, cause she is the person everyone loves this year. Probably for Elizabeth I, but does it really matter?

Best Performance by an Actor in a Mini-Series or Motion Picture Made for Television

André Braugher – Thief (FOX)

Robert Duvall – Broken Trail (AMC)

Michael Ealy – Sleeper Cell: American Terror (SHOWTIME)

Chiwetel Ejiofor – Tsunami, The Aftermath (HBO)

Ben Kingsley – Mrs. Harris (HBO)

Bill Nighy – Gideon's Daughter (BBC)

Matthew Perry – The Ron Clark Story (TNT)

Seen: None

My Picks: My gut says Matthew Perry, to counteract the lack of notice for Studio 60. I could also say Nighy, because he’s always awesome.

Best Performance by an Actress in a Supporting Role in a Series, Mini-Series or Motion Picture Made for Television

Emily Blunt – Gideon's Daughter (BBC)

Toni Collette – Tsunami, The Aftermath (HBO)

Katherine Heigl – Grey's Anatomy (ABC)

Sarah Paulson – Studio 60 On The Sunset Strip (NBC)

Elizabeth Perkins – Weeds (SHOWTIME)

Seen: Grey’s, Studio 60.

My Picks: How Paulson can get a nod without Perry or Whitford getting anything, I just don’t get, but still, she is one of the other reasons the show is so great. Give it to her.

Best Performance by an Actor in a Supporting Role in a Series, Mini-Series or Motion Picture Made for Television

Thomas Haden Church – Broken Trail (AMC)

Jeremy Irons – Elizabeth I (HBO)

Justin Kirk – Weeds (SHOWTIME)

Masi Oka – Heroes (NBC)

Jeremy Piven – Entourage (HBO)

Seen: Heroes.

My Pick: Masi Oka, hands down. Hiro Nakamura is one of the most fun characters on TV in awhile, and he’s apparently a complete 180 from Oka in everyday life. Good for him.

There. I’ve been productive on here (sort of). Lots of reviews forthcoming at some point (I hope)… we’ll see how that goes. In the meantime, take care, and head over to HBS/EFC to see people who actually do keep plugging away.

The Fountain

2006-12-08T11:12:00.000-04:00

Seen sometime last week at AMC Boston Common
* * * * (out of 5)

The basic plotline in The Fountain is interesting enough – a Spanish conquistador falls in love with his queen, and on her behalf quests for the Fountain of Youth. That quest kicks off a 1000-year journey to save his love through the centuries. Simple enough, right? Could be entertaining. What sucks for you is that Darren Aronofsky got ahold of it and made it his own. Still entertaining, but now it gives you a headache to go along with it.

The 16th-century conquistador in question is Tomas (Hugh Jackman), who is one of the few remaining followers of the rogue Queen Isabel (Rachel Weisz). She has been declared a heretic because of her belief in the Fountain of Youth that supposedly resides in the New World. If Tomas can bring her evidence of this, she will marry him and accompany him back to the New World to live for eternity. Sweet deal. Flash forward five hundred years, and here’s present-day Tom Creo (Jackman), a neurosurgeon looking for a cure to brain tumor-induced cancers from which his wife Izzi (Weisz) happens to be suffering. Flash forward five hundred years AGAIN, to roughly 2500 AD, and we have Tommy (Jackman) floating around space in a bubble with a strangely reactive tree, searching for some sort of answer at the heart of a dying star.

Yeah, it’s weird. But strangely enough, it all works. The best advice for watching is to try and hold in your mind that not only as these stories working consecutively, but concurrently as well. It’s difficult at first, but Aronofsky has cut the film in a way that helps you accept that so long as you are open to it to begin with. All three stories are very well done, and Jackman cruises through all three “acts” with style. He gives each era’s Tommy a very distinctive feel, all the while maintaining some of the basic traits that let you know this is still the same guy. Weisz is good too, but she has significantly less to do. Present-day Izzi is the meatiest piece for her, but even Izzi is somewhat weak. She does have a nice contrast between no longer fearing death and still wanting to drag the most out of life in what little time she has left. The dynamic between the present-day couple (the only time we really get to see them honestly interact) is very realistic and nice to watch.

Read the rest at HBS!

Casino Royale (2006)

2006-12-06T10:40:00.000-04:00

Seen 20 November 2006 at Regal Fenway 13
* * * * * (out of 5)

I enjoyed the heck out of Casino Royale. As far as I can tell, there’s no reason not to. What we have here is a modern, almost-realistic spy story that has much more grounded characters, better storytelling and much less reliance on the flash that has defined the Bond series since god knows when. Oh, the flash is still there. It’s just approached in a vastly different way.

Originally, I was wary of the idea of “rebranding” – taking old franchises and completely revamping them in order to make something more relevant and “better.” It seemed to me like another way writers were avoiding being original, and thus finding a new way to suck. Batman Begins kicked the crap out of that theory. And now Bond 21.0 kicks the crap out of it again, whips it in the nuts with a braided rope, and shoots it in the head. Which is lucky, because if there was ever a series that needed a new direction, Bond is it.

Royale opens with James Bond (Daniel Craig) garnering his second kill, conquering his last obstacle on the path to 00 status. A cool black-and-white sequence and an insane, parkour-style chase scene later, and we find out that Le Chiffre (Mads Mikkelsen), a terrorist banker, has lost a huge amount of the money with which his clients entrusted him. In order to make it all back and save his own hide, he has set up a high-stakes poker game in Montenegro, with the winner walking out with $150 million. Mi6 has decided to enter Bond, the best Texas Hold ‘Em player in the service. He and new associate Vesper Lynd (Eva Green) travel to the Casino Royale, well aware that if Bond loses and Le Chiffre wins, the government has just handed over millions of dollars to a terrorist organization.

The reason Royale has gotten so much attention up to release is one of the main reasons the film is successful: Daniel Craig. Craig is a huge departure from previous Bonds, especially the ones that I have come to know (Pierce Brosnan-era). Craig’s Bond is a much more complex character, but at the start of the film you see how different he is. This Bond is a killer; a government-funded assassin. He likes his job, and he's good at it .

Read the rest at HBS!

Happy Feet

2006-12-06T09:44:00.000-04:00

Seen 19 November 2006 at Regal Fenway 13
* * * * (out of 5)

I love penguins. Let’s make that clear. So I was somewhat predetermined to love this one. I AM its ideal audience: I love penguins, computer animation, crude humor, family humor… and penguins. So I have to say I’m a little disappointed that I’m not lobbying for the right to post a 38-star review. As much fun as I had with this one, it ain’t worth that.

This is probably the downright cutest movie I’ve seen in some time, easily topping anything from Over the Hedge that had Hammy in it. And it does so with no apology whatsoever. Which is perfectly fine, as far as I am concerned. The kids need something too. And that cuteness will actually drive it for adults to a certain extent as well. No one can argue that the country has been in penguin mode since March of the Penguins, and Happy Feet cashes in with efficiency and style. In the end, it just pushes a little too hard.

The fluffy, tap-dancing baby penguin we’ve all seen in those sugar coma-inducing trailers is Mumbles (Elijah Wood), the newborn son of Memphis (Hugh Jackman doing his best Elvis) and Norma Jean (Nicole Kidman doing a pretty damn good Marilyn Monroe). For whatever reason, Mumbles cannot sing, which the main way penguins find and identify a mate. But he can tap dance like a sonofabitch. In his attempts to woo Gloria (Brittany Murphy), the most beautiful penguin on the glacier, he pisses off just about everyone else, and is exiled from the colony. He runs into five adelie penguins (Robin Williams and friends) that become friends and support as he tries to redeem himself, and win the love of his preferred penguin.

Read the rest at HBS!

... I'm a bad blogger...

2006-12-06T09:21:00.000-04:00

And a bad reviewer. This thing sort of comes and goes in phases, phases in which I actually have the motivation to write. At this point in the semester, if I have the motivation to write, chances are it should probably be on schoolwork. Ah well. Here's one.

Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan

Seen way the hell back when it first came out at Regal Fenway 13
* * * (out of 5)

I had high hopes that they wouldn’t mess with the funniest part of the Borat character. Watching Sacha Baron Cohen go and prank unsuspecting people, drawing out buried prejudice and opinion with fantastically hilarious results. And then they went took all the funniest jokes and ran them into the ground. And they tried to give him a plot. Gosh durn you, Hollywood.

As most of the country already knows, Borat Sagdiyev is Cohen’s fictional reporter from Kazakhstan who originally appeared on Da Ali G Show on HBO. He has been dispatched to the United States in order to make a documentary about our culture, supposedly so he can return home and improve his already-glorious nation. Shortly after arriving in New York City, he catches a rerun of Baywatch on TV, and immediately falls in love with Pamela Anderson. He convinces his producer Azamat (Ken Davitian) that they should embark on a cross-country road trip to get the “real feel” of America, secretly wanting to get to L.A. so he can marry Anderson… by throwing a sack over her head.

The thing is, a good portion of this film is still pretty damn funny. The positive that will come from Borat is that Sacha Baron Cohen will be elevated to the level of bankable star. Which means, hopefully, that after the movie based on his Bruno character is made, we’ll get to see Cohen branch out into some stuff we haven’t seen (the confirmed spot in Tim Burton’s Sweeney Todd is a promising start, I think). The best part about the Borat character is Cohen’s consistency. As we’ve seen from publicity stunts for the film, Cohen is ALWAYS in character. One scene at a bed and breakfast in Massachusetts proves this. The inn is owned by an elderly Jewish couple. And remember, Borat hates Jews.

Read the rest at HBS!

It amused me...

2006-09-15T08:05:00.000-04:00

So I was getting ready to take in my first show at work last night... I come out, and make my normal group announcement. The group turns around, and I'm looking at this guy:

Yep. I took Feedback through the TOMB. Very exciting. It was amusing to me, because I actually just watched the finale of the show about a week ago. He's a very nice guy... smart as hell... the impression I pulled off the show more or less matched the actual man (Matt) very nicely.

Thus my run-in with the pseudocelebrity ends.

By the way... he (and his wife and in-laws) totally made it out alive.

Accepted

2006-09-07T08:50:00.000-04:00

Seen 4 September 2006 at AMC Loews Boston Common
* * * * (out of 5)

Accepted has one thing going for it from the beginning. Despite all the normal trappings of a silly teen high school/college movie, it recognizes from the get-go that the super-stress situation that some students put themselves into when it comes to college applications is total crap. It’s completely unnecessary for the process to be as painful as it is for some people. And remember, unnecessary pain can be mined for comic genius.

Bartleby Gaines (Justin Long) just wants to be like any other kid, and get into college before the end of his senior year. Easier said than done. After being turned away by every single college he applied to, disappointing his parents to a previously-unheard of degree, Justin makes a desperate plea to buy himself some time – he fabricates an acceptance letter from the South Harmon Institute of Technology (yep… S.H.I.T.), a fake sister school to Harmon College (a pretty blatant riff of Harvard). Naturally, his parents are thrilled and relieved, and the pressure is off of Bartleby – until his dad wants some more information about the prestigious institution that he’s never heard of. Bartleby enlists his best friend Sherman (Jonah Hill) to create a website to continue the lie, and some other friends to help him turn a run-down mental facility into a faux college campus. All of it works to fool his parents, but he makes one wrong move: the website includes a button that says, “Acceptance is one click away.” Enter all the other students just short of the standard college line who need a place to be come September. Once they all show up at Bartleby’s new doorstep for “orientation,” he tried to break the news to them. But he created the lie in order to get his parents off his back, so who is he to send all these others back into the clutches of disappointment? So he enlists Sherman’s crazy Uncle Ben (Lewis Black) to be acting dean and faculty member, and starts an alternative education format where students decide what they want to learn, a format that – strangely enough – just might work. But it’s all still a lie, and God knows it’s going to catch up with him one way or the other.

Now, I never had an issue getting into college. I was lucky: I did well enough on my SATs that those alone got me into the school I wanted to attend. My admission process was pretty painless, since I only applied to two schools. But I had friends who applied to upwards of 15 schools. That’s 15 applications, 15 application fees, 15 essays to write, 15 campuses to potentially visit… It’s a big, inefficient headache. All of my friends who wanted to go to college are there, but I certainly know some who got discouraged in the early goings of the decisions, and certainly some like Bartleby’s friend Rory (Maria Thayer), who banked on one Ivy League and was devastated to be turned away. So Accepted has some good points in its ideas. Given the abysmal retention and graduation rates at some colleges and universities, one would think the institutions would try to cater to students, and make it relatively painless to get there, so long as the students were willing to work hard once they WERE there. But exclusivity is the name of the game, and every year, thousands of students are left behind because they fell short of the line that they were told made them “good enough.”

And there’s some merit to the self-education idea. People learn best when they are invested and interested in the subjects they’re studying. Sure, some of S.H.I.T.’s classes might not be exactly perfect, but along the way, most of the students seem to stumble upon a worthwhile venture that they wouldn’t be given the opportunity to explore otherwise.

Read the rest at HBS!

The Descent

2006-09-06T15:55:00.000-04:00

The Descent is the perfect set-up for a horror movie. It starts out with the now-tired formula – six attractive women doing something dangerous. It takes a normal twist – one of them makes a seriously misguided error. Something bad happens – they’re trapped, with no way out, and no way to get help. This is normally the part where the killer/monster/virus/insane clown slaughters them all, one by one. But in most horror movies, the villain never has to deal with anyone who kicks nearly this much ass.

The story, for what it’s worth, revolves around Sarah (Shauna Macdonald), a young woman who’s dealt with way too much trauma in her young life. Year(s) earlier, Sarah was in a car accident that left her husband and her young daughter dead, something from which she still hasn’t fully recovered. As an attempt to further that recovery, she’s meeting five friends in the woods in America to go cave diving. They’ve always had a good time with this sort of thing, and it seems like just the right move to get Sarah back into life. Led by Juno (Natalie Mendoza), they arrive at camp for the night to drink and prep for the day ahead. There we see a little more of Sarah’s fractured emotional state, through her nightmares about the deaths of her family.

The next day, they head out for the entrance to the cave they’re going to explore. At first, it’s all more or less fun and easy, nothing the girls can’t handle. But when squeezing through a particularly tight passage, Sarah gets stuck and starts to freak out. Beth (Alex Reid) tries to help her through it and rejoin the others, difficult in the claustrophobic tunnel.

And then the damn thing starts to collapse.

They race out and regroup, now realizing that the entrance they came through has been sealed shut. It’s OK, because there are other entrances to the cave system they were talking about exploring… oops. We’re not in that cave system! Juno switched it last minute in order to make the trip more exciting, so that they could “discover” this system together and have a truly unique experience. Needless to say, this pisses everyone off, and the friendships start to strain under such a high-pressure situation.

And then they hear something. And see something. And it wants them out of its cave.

This is the flow of The Descent, done in brilliant fashion. Everything goes from fine to terrible in a matter of minutes – there’s no release before the tension builds again; every possible bad thing gets dumped on these women within a ten minute span. Writer/director Neil Marshall has no issue showing EXACTLY how bad this is getting, either. This is one of the most cringe-worthy horror films I’ve seen in some time, and not just for “the big scares.” In fact, more cringes come from real life injuries, accidents that put something outside the human body that has no reason to be outside the body. It’s gross, and really, really effective.

Read the rest at HBS!

Tape

2006-08-30T11:34:00.000-04:00

Seen 23 August 2006 in my living room
* * (out of 5)

Tape is a film that shows that even greatness has limits. Based on a play written by Stephen Belber, who also penned the nearly word-for-word screenplay, the dialogue is just higher than realism, the performances just a bit over the top, the set nicely confining, and the directing very invasive. And it all works very well. On stage.

Seriously, there’s not really any reason for this to be blown up to the screen. The play is just about as perfect a script as one can find for the stage. But Richard Linklater decided to push longtime collaborator Ethan Hawke a little further, so I decided to give it a shot.

Hawke plays Vince, a drugged out deadbeat. He is the renter of the Lansing, MI hotel room where the entire film takes place. We see him pouring one beer down the drain as he drinks another, and decorating his room with them – making him look much worse off than he is. He’s soon joined by Jon Salter (Robert Sean Leonard), who we soon find out is his best friend from high school, and who is premiering a film at the Lansing Film Festival, which Vince has apparently come to support. As they chat, you get a good idea of how their friendship in high school worked – Vince was off the wall, and Jon was the quiet guy – neither benefiting more from the friendship, but each bringing something very different. Eventually, Vince moves away from beer and onto pot, and once he convinces Jon to smoke with him, talk turns to Amy Randall, a high school girlfriend of Vince’s who John slept with at the end of their senior year, ten years earlier. Vince is convinced that something happened that was less than consensual, and he’s determined to get it out of John… something that gets even more complicated when Amy (Uma Thurman) shows up at the door as well.

It’s a great little premise, and Belber’s script is fun to listen to for awhile. Leonard and Hawke certainly sound like they’ve known each other for some time – there’s a pretty decent established history between the two guys, though less so once Thurman enters the picture. Performance-wise, Hawke is great… it’s a very high-energy role for him, a little different from what I’m used to seeing. Leonard is less so, as there’s not a huge amount of difference between Jon Salter and his current Dr. Wilson on House, MD. Not that that’s a bad thing, since I love that show, but… it gets kind of bland for 90 minutes when there’s nothing else to look at.

Read the rest at HBS!

Raiders of the Lost Ark

2006-08-22T13:05:00.000-04:00

Seen 14 August 2006; Coolidge Corner Theater (main screen)
* * * * * (out of five)... can I make this go higher?

Very few films get better as they age. It’s a subjective media, and most are made with immediate returns in mind – the audience they’re looking to wow is the audience that will see the film at the time of the theatrical release. “Raiders of the Lost Ark” is one of the few things I’ve seen made before I was born that still delivers everything I’m looking for.
I recently had my first opportunity to see Raiders at the Coolidge Corner Theater last week. I “dragged” my girlfriend as well, who isn’t as big a movie dork as I am, but she was more than a little psyched about this one. I mean, it’s Indiana Jones! Who doesn’t love Indiana Jones?

As everyone is aware, the film introduces us to Henry “Indiana” Jones, Jr. (Harrison Ford), a quiet college professor by day, “acquirer of rare antiquities” by… other days. His lectures are completely packed and his students smitten, thanks to rumors about his other life. We meet him deep in South America, searching through the jungle for some lost treasure. After narrowly escaping death arrows, a giant friggin’ rolling boulder, and betrayal by his guide (Alfred Molina), Indy emerges from the cave victorious… only to have the business end of a bunch of guns and bows pointed at him. They are commanded by Belloq (Paul Freeman), a rival archaeologist who has a tendency to be a pain in Indy’s backside. Belloq removes the idol from Indy’s possession, and sends him running for home.

Back at his university, Indy is approached by his friend Marcus Brody (Denholm Elliot), who makes him the offer of a lifetime – search for the Ark of the Covenant on behalf of the United States. The only snafu? He’s gotta find it before the Nazi’s do, and they already have a significant head start (and they have Belloq). Naturally, Indy takes the challenge, and heads off. Before hitting Egypt, he stops in Nepal to find Marion Ravenwood (Karen Allen), the daughter of one of the foremost Ark scholars on Earth. Marion tells Indy that her father is dead, but as it turns out, she has what he needs to further his quest. So naturally, she joins him on his trip to Cairo… can we say hostage bait? At this point, I’m sure most of you know what goes on, but if you don’t, I won’t spoil it for you.

What struck me most about the film is that there are so many sequences that are so well known, and yet those sequences refuse to get old or fall into cliché (or maybe it’s just excusable, since as far as I know this movie STARTED the clichés). Those sequences drew applause from the entire crowd – a packed house, ranging from ten-year olds to seniors.

Read the rest at HBS!

Snakes on a Plane

2006-08-21T13:57:00.000-04:00

Seen 18 August 2006 & 20 August 2006; AMC Fenway 13 & AMC Loews Boston Common

* * * * (out of 5)

Pay very careful attention to the first half hour of Snakes on a Plane. If you don’t, you won’t be able to remember what happened come the end of the first hour. The plot is completely transparent, with only one purpose – to get Sam Jackson and a whole bunch of poisonous snakes onto the same plane. And it works, just like the rest of this ridiculous, always hilarious gore-fest.

All the hype that’s been piled upon this film really doesn’t seem fair, because the film doesn’t seem to have ever had lofty aspirations. It’s not complex, it’s not inspired, it’s not trying to say anything particularly profound. This is the product of someone saying, “Wouldn’t it be scary/weird/awful/funny as hell if someone put a whole bunch of snakes on a plane, and the passengers had to try to deal with them?” And if this is the best scenario they could come up with the fit that mold, I’m certainly not going to hold it against them.

And New Line seems to have stumbled upon the most amusing – though apparently not most effective – marketing campaign possible: let Sam Jackson play in a film, and then unleash him onto the talk show circuit in all his giddiness. I swear, Sam on the Daily Show, with both him and Jon Stewart giggling every 15 seconds, is one of the most entertaining interviews I’ve ever seen.

Sam plays Nelville Flynn, an FBI agent investigating an LA mobster named Eddie Kim (Byron Lawson). In Hawaii, he’s finally found what he needs – an eyewitness to Kim’s murderous crimes – in the form of Sean Jones (Nathan Phillips), an X-sport enthusiast who stumbled upon the crime scene. Flynn, his partner and Jones commandeer the first class section of South Pacific Air flight 121, much to the anger of some of the other passengers on the flight. But it’s all soon equaled out when a series of events leads to hundreds of poisonous snakes, hidden in the cargo hold by Kim’s men, find their way into the cabin and cockpit of the plane. After the snakes off the pilot and the majority of the passengers right away, the remaining passengers and crew must find a way to stay alive and land the plane using only what’s available to them 35,000 feet in the air.

It’s just so silly you have to enjoy it. Again, the complexities are very limited. Beyond Flynn, who fits the “Samuel L. Jackson” type perfectly, all of the passengers are restricted to specific but necessary types. There’s the ditzy rich girl, the celebrity, the helpless kids, the unexpected hero(es), the complete asshat (foreign asshat, no less!), the sexually explicit snake fodder… they’re all here. And they all play their roles as well as they need to, making sure not to get in the way of the two draws of the film – ridiculous snake-induced deaths and Jackson chewing scenery.

Read the rest at HBS!

Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby

2006-08-04T08:33:00.000-04:00

Seen 31 July 2006 at AMC Fenway 13
* * * * (out of 5)

This, paired with Anchorman, can be held up as the reason DVDs were invented. Sure, the initial release of the film was pretty decent, but I can only imagine that the quality will jump a little more when Will Ferrell, Judd Apatow and Co. release a DVD with every take of every joke. Someday, there ought to be a format that just gives a string of one-liners that the viewer can piece together. That’s basically what Ferrell did.

It’s a funny movie, to be sure, but humor is such a subjective thing that I can imagine the sections that didn’t work for me in execution probably had something much funnier (in my opinion) left on the cutting room floor.

The premise is fertile enough for comedy. Ferrell plays Ricky Bobby, a man who has wanted to “go fast” for his entire life. He finally gets his opportunity when working on the pit crew for a dead last NASCAR racing team; the normal driver basically gave up, and Ricky jumped in the car and finished the race, placing surprisingly high. From there on out, he’s a NASCAR sensation, even getting a driving gig for his best friend, Cal Naughton, Jr. (John C. Reilly). Together as “Shake n’ Bake,” they are the best driving duo in the business. All that changes when Ricky comes up against Jean Girard (Sacha Baron Cohen), a top French Formula 1 racer who has come to challenge Ricky. After a fairly horrific crash that leaves Ricky completely unscathed physically (despite what he might think), Ricky has to rebuild the life that got stolen from him – Cal’s with his wife, his sponsors dumped him, and his issues with his never-there father (Gary Cole) begin to emerge when his father does. To reclaim his title as king of NASCAR, he has to get back in the driver’s seat, beat Cal and Girard, and prove to his father he really is a driver.

Yep. All kinds of silliness, and all kinds of potential fun, too. In my mind, when you start with a premise like this, it’s better to keep it completely over-the-top for the entire runtime. Keep people consistently giggling, and they won’t notice the giant lack of a reasonable plot or cheaper-than-cardboard characters. And Talladega Nights does pretty well with that, though not quite as spot-on as its predecessor Anchorman did. The biggest downfall is that there are moments when everyone, even Ferrell, felt subdued, something that’s entirely against the grain for this group of talent. I have to wonder if they were nervous about the obvious stereotypes they were playing off of – popular to mock, but when you’re making a movie with so many NASCAR sponsors and promoters signing off on it, that’s not a crowd you want to alienate by being overly abrasive.

Read the rest at HBS!

Monster House

2006-07-26T21:04:00.000-04:00

Seen 21 July 2006 at AMC Boston Common (Disney Digital 3D)
* * * * (out of 5)

Starting from a kid’s horror perspective, “Monster House” has everything going against it. It’s done in CGI, which means things aren’t going to be realistic, so that reduces how scary they can really be. It’s also done via motion capture, which “Polar Express” demonstrated as being very lifelike movements, but sacrifices were made via the more or less soulless human characters. And it’s in 3D, which means… OK, no, that just kicked ass.

What’s cool about Monster House is that it overcomes a lot of those challenges, and also provides a pretty fun narrative that ought to keep kids – and adults – engaged. There are also moments that might scare the crap out the younger kids, which is cool, because that’s a hard thing to achieve. And it looks gorgeous. I only have a few, small complaints about the film, but nothing that detracted seriously from my enjoyment.

DJ (Mitchell Musso) lives across the street from Mr. Nebbercracker (Steve Buscemi), the crotchety old man of his town. He’s worse, though, because his house is old, creepy, and alive. Yeah, alive. It eats people, animals, tricycles, or any random objects that might happen to land on the lawn. When his best friend Chowder (Sam Lerner) loses a ball to the house – and later witness the house REALLY come to life – they team up with local Girl Scout Jenny (Spencer Locke) to unravel what’s really going on, and put an end to the carnivorous domicile.

It’s silly, it’s cute, it’s completely ridiculous, but I’ll be damned if they don’t work it. It’s very hard to make an animated film scary, especially when the people are very much not realistic, but they pull it off here by making the house a legitimate threat. It’ll eat ANYTHING – cars and people included – and isn’t afraid to let adults see it, like a normal kid’s horror villain. There’s also a sense of anxiety, because the “monster” extends to the lawn and trees as well; there are some great moments when the house lures people in by having the lawn slowly consume the “BEWARE” signs the owner posted.

Read the rest at HBS!

The Great Yokai War

2006-07-26T11:55:00.000-04:00

Seen 9 July 2006 at the Brattle
* * * * (out of 5)

Takashi Miike has a distinctive track record. Previous to this, I’ve seen “The Happiness of the Katakuris” and sections of “Ichi the Killer,” while repeatedly dodging my brother’s attempts to get me to watch “Audition.” Miike is one messed-up guy, and if you want weirdo, freaked-out horror, he is certainly the guy to go to. So it’s only natural that his latest work is a kid’s movie.

Well… MOSTLY a kid’s movie. There are sections here and there that I predict would sufficiently freak out preteens in the US. Part of why that happens is that Miike, in all his freakiness, is somehow able to bounce between cute and cuddly and mildly disturbing at the drop of a hat. Seeing a major character – and one of the few traditionally cuddly creatures – get dropped into a vat of boiling goo and reemerging as a killing machine might rub some kids the wrong way, but that’s how The Great Yokai War works: Miike sends his young hero into a nightmare’s nightmare, and forces him to fight his way out.

Tadashi Ino (Ryunosuke Kamiki) recently moved with his mother and grandfather out to the country after his parents got divorced, leaving his father and sister in the city. Tadashi is a small kid, and not at all used to country life, so he gets picked on somewhat viciously by the other boys in his new school. During a traditional parade and ceremony in the village he is “bitten” by the Kirin, making him the new Kirin Rider. The traditional duties of the Rider involve heading up the nearby mountain to retrieve a sword from the Great Goblin that guards it. He gets freaked out on his way up the mountain, and hitches a ride to go home. Suddenly, the bus is “attacked” by a whole plethora of freaky creatures and things. He comes to learn these are the yokai, peaceful creatures from Japanese mythology who are being threatened by an evil demon (Natsuhiko Kyougoku) and his accomplice (Chiaki Kuriyama). They plan to turn the yokai into evil killing machines, and use them to take over Japan (and presumably the world). The Kirin Rider, now Tadashi, has always been the one to maintain this balance, and he is prophesized to come to the yokai's rescue again.

The most striking thing about the film is the creature design. There’s some CG here, but the vast majority of the yokai are guys in crazy suits. Miike’s strength lies in his ability to sufficiently alarm the audience upon the initial appearance of these creatures, right in line with Tadashi’s reaction (but maybe without the screaming).

Read the rest at HBS!

Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest

2006-07-17T15:51:00.000-04:00

Seen 9 July 2006 at AMC Fenway 13
* * * * (out of 5)

Dead Man's Chest had a big pair of shoes to fill. Somehow, the memory of the first film proves to be both a blessing and curse for Ol' Captain Jack Sparrow and gang. This is a film that really wants to exist on its own, but demands made by the bookends of the series dictate a little too much for the middle child. Still, it's very entertaining for 3/4ths of the running time, and it made me want the third installment out now. I say mission accomplished.

As we return to the Caribbean, we find the ruins of Elizabeth (Keira Knightly) and Will's (Orlando Bloom) wedding. A new meanie has entered town in the form of Cutler Beckett (Tom Hollander), an official for the East India Trading Company, infamous for branding any pirates they happen to run into. Beckett tells Will that both he and Elizabeth have death sentences for assisting in Captain Jack Sparrow's (Johnny Depp, in the role he will forever be known for) escape, a crime that is itself punishable by death. The only way out of it is for Will to hunt down Sparrow, and make a deal with him - a pardon and a commission as a privateer for the Trading Company in exchange for that crazy compass of his that doesn't point north. So off Will goes (and later, Elizabeth as well) to find him, but Jack has problems of his own. It seems that the only way Jack ever acquired the Black Pearl was by selling his soul to Davy Jones (Bill Nighy), the undead ruler of the sea, and now Davy is looking to collect on the contract. In addition, Will finds that his father, Bootstrap Bill (Stellan Skarsgard), found his way onto Jones's crew... which would either help or hinder his mission to find Jack.

It takes most of the first hour for Pirates to get its sea legs. The introduction of Jack is far too drawn out, and takes up way too much time for a sideplot. The reason his entrance into the first film was so memorable is that it was so simple and unfortunate, but the way Jack was handling it gave you a great idea of what kind of pirate and/or man this guy was. This felt like they were trying way to hard, and trying way to hard to be goofy when there was no need for it.

That's a common theme here, actually. This is a much more serious film, but it doesn't realize it until too late into the runtime. As opposed to just a direct threat to Elizabeth, now EVERYONE has a sword to their throats, and the situation is much more dire. That explains why Depp's Sparrow isn't quite as quirky or insane this time around - he's very much invested in this adventure. His soul is at stake. That in itself helps to bring Sparrow a bit more down to earth, which some people will like because it makes him more human, and some people will hate because... well... it makes him more human.

Read the rest at HBS!

The Devil Wears Prada

2006-07-11T22:05:00.000-04:00

Seen 7 July 2006 at AMC Fenway 13
* * (out of 5)

I must have had a bad night on Friday, because I don't remember how I wound up in this theater. I think it had something to do with Johnny Depp in black eye liner, and me being trampled by the eighty-four million people who wanted to see him on opening night. Somehow in the confusion, I ended up in a Meryl Streep film. And for a solid hour, that didn't bother me. And then they decided to change the rules, and make it inconsistent and preachy. Funny how that ruined my experience.

It's a cute little film with a cute little premise. Andy Sachs (Anne Hathaway) is fresh out of college with a degree in journalism and a head full of ideas. When she moves to New York City, she takes the only job she can get - working as the assistant to Miranda Priestly (Meryl Streep), the fashion czar ruling over Runway magazine with an evil-yet-perfectly-accessorized eye. After one day being scrutinized by Miranda and her fellow assistant Emily (Emily Blunt), Andy is ready to quit, but she buckles down and insists on doing the job well, because one year working for Miranda is a blank check to any job in publishing she could want. So she sticks with it, slowly moving into the fashion world... and surviving. But the rest of her life starts to suffer, as her boyfriend and friends begin to see a change in the practical, down-to-earth Andy they've always loved. Oh heavens! Whatever will she do??

I'm cool with this film being painfully cute. That is the goal, and it accomplishes that goal. And for the first three-quarters of the near-two hours, it's tolerable, even chuckle-worthy at times. The best parts of this film come from two situations. The first, while boring after awhile, gives Stanley Tucci a chance to steal scenes, and there's nothing wrong with that...

Read the rest at HBS!

A Prairie Home Companion

2006-07-06T13:55:00.000-04:00

Seen 4 July 2006 at AMC Loews Boston Common
* * * * * (out of 5)

I admit that it was odd watching a film about the fictional last performance of a show with the history of “A Prairie Home Companion,” considering that I’ve never heard a minute of the show. One would think that would lessen some of the gravity and weight the film might have otherwise held. Luckily, Robert Altman is really, really good at telling character-based stories and Garrison Keillor really, really knows about what he writes.

The film follows the perspective of Guy Noir (Kevin Kline), the private eye-turned-head of security for the show, which broadcasts from the Fitzgerald Theatre in St. Paul, Minnesota. Unfortunately, a broadcasting company from Texas has bought the theater, and plans to turn it into a nice new parking lot, evicting the show from its home, and presumably from the airwaves all together. On this last performance, a number of strange and unique events occur, but the show goes on, as it had since 1974. We see the live broadcast interspersed with backstage moments and conversations between castmates as they slowly move toward the idea of doing something else with their lives.

I give a whole lot of credit to Garrison Keillor for this one, because only he could really capture the proper tone of this thing that he had built from the ground up. In addition to playing himself, Keillor has populated the stage with coexisting versions of his ever-present characters - Noir, Dusty and Lefty (Woody Harrelson and John C. Riley), and Keillor himself - the old-timey singing Johnson Sisters (Meryl Streep and Lily Tomlin), and a full assortment of guest performers and techies, many played by current cast members of the program. He’s blended them in a way that allows you to very easily follow everyone without any need to know anything about their previous lives. All you need to know is that this show is important to them, and its death is a sad occasion. From there, the relationships and conversations will carry the rest.

Read the rest at HBS!

Superman Returns

2006-06-28T10:41:00.000-04:00

Seen 18 June 2006 at AMC Fenway (advance screening)
* * (out of 5)

My lack of anticipation has been confirmed. “Superman Returns,” while having a fun scene here and there and some great stuff from Kate Bosworth and Frank Langella, is the not the second coming of the Man of Steel. For everything hopeful about it, this is a miss.

This is an odd review to write, because I know there are a lot of people out there who will probably enjoy Superman Returns, but I was not one of them. At no point was I able to get myself excited for the film, and that extended straight into the closing credits. Based on that, even though I know a lot of people will like this film, I just can’t bring myself to recommend it.

Five years since astronomers discover a potentially healthy Krypton, Superman (Brandon Routh) returns to Metropolis after mounting his own investigation. Both for Supes and alter-super-reporter Clark Kent, the world is vastly changed. Most notably on both fronts, intrepid reporter and loving mommy Lois Lane (Kate Bosworth) has written an article called “Why the World Doesn’t Need Superman,” and is now raising her son, Jason (Tristan Lake Leabu), with fiancé Richard White (James Marsden). What Supes doesn’t know is that old nemesis Lex Luthor (Kevin Spacey) has returned to Metropolis as well, with something that belongs to Spandex-Man in tow: pieces of kryptonite Lex swiped from Kal-El’s Fortress of Solitude, which gave our hero the only remaining connection to dear old dad (Marlon Brando). Lex intends to use the crystals to create a new world… and then charge rent! Superman would never allow that to happen… WOULD HE???

The more removed from the screening of this 10 days ago, the less fondly I remember it. There was just very little in the film I truly liked. I bought Bosworth and Langella, moreso the latter, and James Marsden impressed me by not being as forgettable as I’ve usually found him. But much of the film is just off-the-mark, and that adds up to it falling significantly short of the greatness it was supposedly destined for.

Read the rest at HBS!

Click

2006-06-23T10:39:00.000-04:00

Seen Tuesday 20 June 2006 at AMC Boston Common
* (out of 5)

I didn’t have high expectations for “Click.” Hell, I didn’t have ANY expectations for Click. The trailer looked slightly more amusing than Sandler’s typical crap, but not so much that I’d put money down. I figured the moments that made me giggle did so because they were contained within a three-minute clip, not a two-hour film. Boy, I was right. Despite the high concept with universal (zing!) appeal, this is a film made specifically for Adam Sandler’s pre-existing fan base. They’ll like it. If you don’t like Sandler, stay far, far away.

Sandler plays Billy Mad… er… Happy Gil… shit… MICHAEL… Michael Newman, an architect who is on the cusp of becoming a partner at his firm. To get to that point, he’s worked his ass off, trying to balance demands from his boss (David Hasselhoff), his wife (Kate Beckinsale… yeah, I know), his kids and his parents (Henry Winkler and Julie Kavner). Unfortunately, most of his time goes to work, which angers the family, which stresses Michael out, etc, etc. Eventually, in a symbolic effort to make his life simpler, Michael makes a midnight run to Bed, Bath and Beyond to find the universal remote of his dreams, which will control the TV, the garage door, the ceiling fan, the kid’s toys, his neighbor’s car, and his kids’ hair growth. There he meets Morty (Christopher Walken) a Doc Brown ripoff who gives Michael a very special new product – a remote that controls his universe. Now Michael’s life has never been easier – he can savor the moments he wants to remember, and skip what he doesn’t want to experience. But everything goes to hell when the remote starts “learning” Michael’s habits, and skipping huge amounts of time that he didn’t want to miss.

So yes, the premise is just as pointless on film as those last few lines look on paper. Click’s biggest (but certainly not only) downfall is that the film’s pattern mimics Michael’s. Once the premise is established – “I can fast-forward through life!” – viewers could easily skip 15-minute sections of the film, and know they’ve only missed the same thing they’re now seeing. It’s a one-trick pony. It’s a gag that’s funny once or twice – one or two of the pause antics are amusing, especially when they involve Hasselhoff (and no, not the fart joke) – but when you stretch it out to two full hours without trailers, it wears very, very thin. It also doesn’t help that the same joke is made multiple times – specifically the 15-second sex session between Beckinsale and Sandler, and the family dog’s attraction to a giant plush duck. Repetition may be one route to comedy, but you have to make sure that you start with something humorous in the first place. So because of that, the film never really gets a chance to build the least bit of momentum – every time it looks to advance the bare-bones story, it runs headlong into some joke it already told, and grinds to a halt.

Read the rest at HBS!

Over the Hedge

2006-06-16T15:07:00.003-04:00

Seen May 20 at AMC Fenway
* * * * (out of 5)

Over the Hedge is a completely inoffensive animated film. It is a good dose of family fare, and great for kids. At that point, does it really matter if you’re not laughing like you laughed at Toy Story or Shrek?

To me, it was pretty clear from the outset what kind of audience Over the Hedge was looking to grab, and that audience was not me or my girlfriend. But that’s OK. I can still appreciate a cute, sweet kids movie with basic gags. And that’s not to say that there weren’t some clever moments in the film. Dreamworks simply wasn’t shooting for the double-entendres in this film like most animated films feel a need to include.

The first lovable little rascal we meet is RJ (Bruce Willis), a raccoon who has worked up a sizeable debt to a big menacing bear (Nick Nolte). If RJ can’t fill Vincent’s cave back up with food in time, RJ will become the food. Nearly hopeless, RJ stumbles on a hodgepodge family of forest creatures living in an isolated oasis in the middle of suburbia. Led by Verne the turtle (Garry Shandling), they spend every day collecting food so they can survive the winter. This winter, though, they wake up to a new addition – a giant hedge severely restricting the border of their once-huge forest, since the suburb has expanded into their territory. RJ sees their naivety as an opportunity, and embeds himself into the group with the ruse that he will lead them through suburbia to collect all the food they need, all the while planning to grab the food once they’ve gathered it and pay off his debt. But once he gets to know the crazy bunch, will he really be able to screw them over like that?

Yep. It’s predictable. But the ride to get there is fun, and filled with a few really great moments. Not surprisingly, based on the trailer and the voice cast, many of those moments come from Hammy the Squirrel (Steve Carell). Hyper as hell and dumb as a brick, Hammy is very endearing because of his happy dimwittedness. He takes to RJ immediately, and is really the emotional leader of the film – the look in his eyes when he learns of RJ’s betrayal is heartbreaking, something very impressive to do in an animated film. He also has some of the funniest moments in the film – between rabid squirrel and the outcome of feeding an already-hyper animal (who weights under a pound, no less) an entire energy drink, Hammy definitely got the most chuckles out of me.

The entire cast is very solid. For the forest creatures, Shandling and Carell are joined by William Shatner and Avril Lavigne as possums, Wanda Sykes as a sassy skunk, and Eugene Levy and Catherine O’Hara as porcupine parents. Thomas Hayden “Lowell” Church plays the main villain, an exterminator determined to eliminate the pests, and he provides some good laughs while the animators give him some good sight gags.

Read the rest at HBS!

Banlieue 13 (District B13)

2006-06-05T15:36:00.000-04:00

Seen 2 June 2006 at Loews Boston Common
* * * * (out of 5)

A lot of summer movies come off as mindless entertainment. They’re still worth watching, but they don’t have nearly the intellectual interest that some of their filmmakers would like to think they do. What’s even more fun is when a filmmaker doesn’t even make an attempt. They just deliver the fun.

As the film starts, we’re informed that crime in Paris has gotten so bad that in 2010, the worst section (banlieue 13) has been closed to anyone who doesn’t live there, and the police have pulled out, leaving the residents to their own devices. One man, Leïto (David Belle), refuses to give into the criminal temptations around him. We find him destroying a shipment of cocaine, which naturally pisses off the previous owner, a crimelord named Taha (co-writer Bibi Naceri). He sends a band of thugs to smoke out Leïto, triggering maybe the most fun chase scene in a very long time. For a good seven minutes, Leïto doesn’t stop running, no matter what thugs, locked doors, windows or balconies get in his way – apparently following a running discipline called parkour. After a nasty incident with the police, which also sees his sister kidnapped by Taha’s thugs, Leïto is thrown in jail. Six months later, he is recruited to help a special strike against Taha, who has acquired an armed and ticking nuclear warhead. He teams with the equally-impressive Damien (Cyril Raffaelli), the military agent assigned to the job. Lots of fun running and kicking ensue.

One of the great things about this film is that there’s really nothing to it. It’s pure fluff, and it is aware of that. The “plot” is actually just a backdrop for a pretty kickass martial arts demo. The characters have no real depth to them beyond their clear identities of ‘good guy’ or ‘bad guy’. The plot, silly as it is, is only used to get the two heroes into confrontations with the villains.

The thing is… that’s all OK.

Read the rest at HBS!

Brick

2006-06-02T10:30:00.000-04:00

Seen at Coolidge Corner Theater Screening Room
* * * * (out of 5)

Brick is a very unusual film. Its brilliance lies in the fact that the characters exist in a sort of parallel universe. It’s a world where people talk in strange patterns, with strange analogies, and no one thinks twice. And showing emotion is BAD. It’s a world of noir, which Rian Johnson has brought it crashing headlong into the high-school drama genre, and he handles both sides brilliantly.

Joseph Gordon-Levitt plays Brendan, a loner at his high school. When the film starts, Brendan is outside an aqueduct, grieving over the body of a blonde girl. Retracing his steps shows the girl to be Emily (Emile de Ravin), Brendan’s ex-girlfriend that he never really got over. Days earlier, Emily, who hadn’t been seen for some time, called Brendan in a panic, ranting about some trouble she’d gotten herself into. Not understanding half of what she said, Brendan enlists the help of The Brain (Matt O’Leary), who knows just about everything that goes on in the school, and begins unraveling the events that eventually led to Emily’s death. In doing so, he must burrow deep into an underground drug syndicate that Emily was linked to, agitating an already volatile situation.

For the first half hour, the gimmick is a hard sell – as a viewer, you really need to readjust your perception of normal speech and behavior. Once you get there, though, the world is so engaging that the snippets of reality that pop up every once in awhile are almost jarring. Most interesting is that for the most part, these characters operate almost completely independent of adult involvement. They are so on their own that it almost seems absurd when The Brain remarks that he’ll have to borrow his mother’s car. All the dialogue is so well-written and performed that you'll quickly pick up the flow of it.

Read the rest at HBS!

The Da Vinci Controversy

2006-05-18T14:58:00.000-04:00

Worldwide protests. A boycott called by the Vatican. Mainstream media coverage on all outlets. A book at #2 and #15 on Amazon.com’s Top Selling Books. And maybe the most anticipated film of the year.

Gee, I wish people got this riled up about... I don’t know... human rights or something…

I thought I'd throw my two cents into the debate about The Da Vinci Code, as much to sort out my own thoughts as for anyone else's benefit. If you've any interest, keep reading.

Now, I’m not a religious person. I haven’t been to church since I was about six. As such, I feel like I’ve had the opportunity to get a fairly objective look at religion. I have nothing against organized religion – for those who find something rewarding in their faith, it is a phenomenal and blissful institute. The problem arises when people can’t see beyond their particular faith. There are people who can’t fathom the possibility that they could be wrong, or something might not be exactly as their faith has presented it. I have a friend who got very, very offended and upset during a discussion about Ash Wednesday and Lent, because I brought some form of practicality into the discussion (it also may have been referring to Easter as “Zombie Jesus Day”… I don’t think that went over too well). She is religious, and vehemently defends her religion, but has one up on the people who are all riled up over this book and film: she can identify and separate fiction from fact.

I am all about people’s rights to open voice their concerns about religious freedom and defending their religions. Everyone has the absolute right to believe what they want, and not to allow people to destroy that – one of the reasons I find it amusing that the Catholic Church is so vocal about the offenses in this material, but I’ll get to that later. But what’s happening here is not defensive, because the church is not under attack. Just as the recoveries of the Gnostic Gospels and the newly found Gospel of Judas provide a different look at the time period of the New Testament, The Da Vinci Code provides another side to a familiar story – one people can choose to accept, as they do the New Testament, or ignore. In an age of buffet belief – choose the denomination that most closely represents your personal beliefs – a fiction novel written by someone other than a religious scholar should be completely easy for the church to dismiss. How can the text your faith is based on – The Bible, allegedly a written account of the teachings of your faith’s founder and prophet – be outdone and dethroned by a work of fiction written by a former songwriter and college professor? If this is a significant threat to the church and its doctrine, I would suggest it is less a problem with the novel, and more a problem with the church.

Based on the book’s popularity, there must be something in the stories of the book and film that provides something audiences are missing. The church’s sudden defensive strikes me as an admission that it is something missing from the religious quadrant of life. For that, we’d have to examine what the book has to offer a reader.

I’ve read The Da Vinci Code twice. I’ve also read all three of Dan Brown’s other mystery thrillers at least once. There is more or less one thing Dan Brown has going for him. It’s not the writing, or the characters, or the continuity in plot. It’s the story. Dan Brown is an incredible storyteller. A huge number of the situations Brown presents in The Da Vinci Code (or Angels & Demons, Deception Point or Digital Fortress) are laughable in their believability. They are downright ridiculous. But he tells them in such a way that keeps you reading. You want to know what happens. It’s a natural knack for stringing together events that has gotten Brown as far as he has. And considering that the bases for Catholicism in the modern age are stories… I suppose that is something the Vatican might perceive as threatening.

The church has a long history of squashing opposition, dating back to the assimilation of pagans by the Roman Empire. Some of that is detailed in The Da Vinci Code, which prompts me to be wary of the facts, but this is information found in any history text as well. The only difference is the alleged reason for some of these holy wars and crusades. Given that, steamrolling over a mere book and Hollywood film would be an easy task if they really wanted to. The fact is that the outrage over The Da Vinci Code will do both the book and the church good, and not harm either of them. For the book and film, it’s free publicity and a controversy that will get butts in the seats as people want to find out if it was really worth all the fuss. For the church, it’s a call to arms that serves as a reaffirmation of faith, faith that has been waning due to financial problems in many places (Boston in particular), due in no small part to settlements with the victims of sexual abuse by priests – something else that has reflected poorly on the church and made parishioners question the practices and morals of the ancient organization.

In the end, ironically, it comes down to a matter of faith. If The Da Vinci Code is enough to shake your faith and question something, maybe there’s something to consider there. But don’t look to that work of fiction for answers. Look to yourself and to your church, and if you find questions there that the church cannot answer or that faith cannot satisfy, perhaps it is time for a new direction. On the other hand, if you are strong enough in your faith that you can dismiss this book as fiction – or even better, recognize that the presented ideas have some merit and can assimilate the possibilities into your belief system – do so and move on. I fear the people who are most outraged by these topics are insecure people in the first situation who are not ready to admit that yet.

So go see the film if it strikes your interest. For the rest of you, why ruin our fun? It’s probably not even that good anyway.

Poseidon

2006-05-17T15:48:00.000-04:00

Seen 13 May; Comcast IMAX 3D Theatre at Jordan's Furniture (Reading, MA)
* * * (out of 5)

I have to respect a film that knows its direction precisely, whether or not I agree with that direction. It is very apparent that Wolfgang Petersen set out to make a disaster film with awesome set pieces and sequences of destruction, and after that, well, what happens is what happens. His focus was clear, and in that respect, Poseidon skillfully accomplishes what it strives for, but doesn’t make an attempt to go far beyond that.

On a New Year’s Eve sailing of the mega-luxury liner Poseidon, a party is in full swing with the guests in various states of celebration. Former NYC mayor Robert Ramsey (Kurt Russell), Dylan Johns (Josh Lucas) and “Lucky” Larry (Kevin Dillon) are in a snippy game of high-stakes poker; Robert’s daughter Jennifer (Emmy Rossum) is celebrating her engagement with her new fiancé, Christian (Mike Vogel); Maggie James (Jacinda Barrett) and her son Conor are enjoying the benefits of the captain’s table. Less jovial, Richard Nelson (Richard Dreyfuss) is contemplating suicide after being stood up by his partner, and stowaway Elena (Mía Maestro) is getting antsy in the crew quarters of the chef who let her on the ship. All these moods change when a ‘rogue wave’ strikes and capsizes the massive ship sending everyone into a frenzy. All the above decide they’re not ready to stay in the ballroom and wait for death, so they begin the difficult and dangerous climb up to the bottom of the ship in hopes of being rescued.

And that’s just about as much as you’ll ever learn about the characters in Poseidon. There are no surprises, no revelations or advancements of character. After the first twenty minutes, it is simply a race against time with a couple of different character types, and the audience placing bets about who will survive and who will not.

Read the rest at HBS!

Mission: Impossible III

2006-05-16T15:59:00.000-04:00

Seen May 6, 2006 - AMC Fenway #13
* * * * (out of 5)

Ignore the ridiculous amount of negative press Tom Cruise has recently garnered. Ignore his ego. Ignore the less-than-stellar opening weekend. Ignore people that can’t separate real life from the film world. Go see this film. Regardless of whatever reservations you have about any aspect of the production, the opening sequence to Mission: Impossible III negates all that by grabbing you by the neck and throttling you for three minutes just to make sure it has your attention, and makes sure it doesn’t lose it for the rest of the film.

Make no mistake, this is the epitome of a commercial blockbuster, and producer/actor/Supreme Master Cruise doesn’t really allow anyone else the chance to take the film away from him, but if you can do something well… for an hour and a half, I had a fantastic time in a movie theater, and for this kind of film that is what matters the most.Ethan Hunt (Cruise), superhuman ultraspy, has settled down. Now, he only trains the crazies-with-a-death-wish that work for the Impossible Mission Force, and lets them do the dirty work. He’s even getting married to a sweet, gorgeous nurse named Julia (Michelle Monaghan) who has no idea what he actually does for a living. So when the call comes in that IMF needs him to go into the field to save one of his former students (Keri Russell) from Owen Davian, a sociopathic evil arms dealer (Philip Seymour Hoffman), he says, “Thanks but no thanks,” right? Ha. No, Hunt goes barreling balls first into danger, and lo and behold, captures said evil bastard in a job well done. And then shit hits the fan. Seems Mr. Davian is a little more connected than Hunt or the IMF anticipated, and Davian escapes, determined to wreak havoc on Hunt while pursuing the “Rabbit’s Foot,” a doomsday device with enormous destructive power.

This sounds pretty typical, I know. It is, but in truth that places M:I-3 on solid middle ground between the first two films – the plot of the first film was near-incomprehensible without careful analysis, and the second was laughable and impossibly silly. This time around, the film is actually mostly believable, due in no small part to J.J. Abrams and his writing team, many of whom worked with him on “Alias.” I’m told it shows, as the film follows much of the same pattern as many episodes of Abrams’s show – start with the hero in peril, flash back to how that happened, then work up to the present and find some resolution. It’s simple, but it works very well for one reason. Abrams’s opening sequence is perfectly brilliant. In the three minutes before the opening credits, audiences will connect instantly with Hunt in a way they never did in the first two films, and Davian is immediately established as a force with which to be reckoned. It sucked me into the film like no other I can remember. By the time the title credits rolled, I was hooked, as was my girlfriend, who had been entirely skeptical about seeing the film at all.

Read the rest at HBS!

Silent Hill

2006-05-03T15:54:00.000-04:00

Seen Saturday, April 29; AMC Boston Common #1
* * (out of 5)

I wanted this to be good. Knowing that director Christophe Gans was behind the project, combined with some of the real messed-up images that were coming out on the Web, I had some hope that this would be the project that would break the video game adaptation slum. It’s not.

“Blame” is a hard thing to throw around in this case – it seems like when a film is good, you can pinpoint who was particularly good within it. When a film is bad, you can sometimes sort out who was really bad, who did the best they could with what they were given, and who actually manages to shine through. Here, we have all three.

Silent Hill focuses on Rose Da Silva (Radha Mitchell), the adopted mother of Sharon (Jodelle Ferland). For as long as she has been with the Da Silva’s, Sharon has had periodic fits of sleepwalking and talking, screaming the words “Silent Hill” in her frenzy. Desperate to solve this problem, Rose takes Sharon to the ghost town of Silent Hill, where fires burning in abandoned underground coal mines have left the town empty. In her haste to get there, Rose attracts the attention of badass-cop-in-leather Cybil Bennett (Laurie Holden), who follows her into town. Both vehicles get in accidents, rendering the people involved unconscious. When they awake, they find themselves in a world enveloped by fog and ash, and they quickly discover that any route or connection to the rest of the world has been severed. To top it all off, Sharon has vanished into the destruction that is the ruins of Silent Hill. Naturally, Rose goes after her, with Cybil in pursuit, and hilarity ensues.

Well, not really. The primary thing that Silent Hill does do very well is disturb you. There are some true moments where you’ll look at the screen and say, “Damn… that’s fucked up. I probably would have been happier never seeing that.” These come in the form of monster design and execution, as well as putting vulnerable characters in situations that you as a viewer will not want to see them in – keep an eye out for the line, “Look at me – I’m burning.” Some of the visuals are truly astounding and fantastically implemented. I also like that he doesn’t shoot for horror moments here by having something terrible pop onscreen out of no where. He starts it with some foreboding music to build the tension, shows some reactions, and then plainly and easily shows what the hell they’re looking at. It works really well. You’re not scared and compelled to look away; you’re mildly disturbed and wondering how the in the hell something could get to look like that. Gans has crafted some beautiful carnage.

The problem with this sort of carnage is that there’s really nothing holding it together...

Read the rest over at HBS!

Ben Affleck has me worried.

2006-04-28T16:30:00.000-04:00

So I’m in the middle of A Drink Before the War by Dennis Lehane… I’ve read a few of his other Patrick Kenzie-Angela Gennaro novels, and I love them. They are some of the best pure entertainment reads I’ve had in my hands in a long time – right up there with Da Vinci Code and Angels & Demons. Lehane’s style is so beautifully cinematic; the title “master of the new noir” is perfectly fitting. I can hear Kenzie’s voiceovers in my head, and they sound perfect. I am literally chomping at the bit to see this stuff on the big screen…

… but directed by Ben Affleck, I might not be so eager.

I have to be fair. I’ve never seen I Killed My Lesbian Wife, Hung Her On A Meat Hook, and Now I Have A Three-Picture Deal With Disney, but I think it’s safe to say very few people have – from the sound of it, we’re all better off that way. And since that is Affleck’s only directorial experience, pardon me for being a bit nervous when he is helming the first film from one of my favorite book series. In order for my favorites in the series (Sacred in particular) to come up on the slate, Affleck needs to not mess up Gone, Baby, Gone. Let’s take a look and see how he’s doing.

SETTING: Word is Affleck has been spotted around Rockport, MA scouting locations, and has rented a house in Cambridge to live in while he shoots. No West Coast city posing for Beantown this time around. Lehane’s descriptions are so specific and so contextual that there’s no other way to pull it off. Good move, Ben.

WRITING: Affleck is adapting the novel himself. There’s always been a lot of gossip flying around about how much of Good Will Hunting came out of Affleck, how much out of Damon, and how much was actually a collaborative effort… most speculation points to the script being largely Damon’s. I think that’s an unfortunate result of Affleck’s ridiculous social life (RE: Tom Cruise), and I’m willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. So this’ll be neutral.

CASTING: Ooookay. Here’s where we might hit an issue.

Affleck has cast his brother Casey Affleck as Patrick Kenzie. *cue potential train wreck* Now I’m all for nepotism. If that weren’t around, Bruce Campbell would never be in a mainstream film. But this doesn’t taste right to me. I like what I’ve seen of the younger Affleck – most notably, Ocean’s 11 and Ocean’s Twelve. But Kenzie he is not. He’s far too clean shaven, and way too boyish. From what I’ve read, Kenzie needs to be fairly rugged – attractive, but you need to be able to take him seriously. That might be where I have the biggest problem with Affleck Minor. I just can’t see myself believing him doing a lot of the stuff he’s required to do. Plus, he looks a little too much like Affleck Major. It’s unnerving.
Michelle Monaghan as Angie Gennaro: OK. I guess. I could think of a number of much more inspired choices, but since Miramax is keeping Major on a fairly short leash, budget-wise, I can understand how it might fall to her. I did like her in Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang, because that movie rocked all the way around, so I’ll give her a chance. She’s pretty enough, I suppose, but Angie is supposed to be a fall-on-your-ass knockout. Not quite there.
Ed Harris as “a cop.” There’s a number of people that could be from Lehane's previous books, but Harris lends some credibility to the cast from the get-go. Nice grab.
And then there’s Bubba. Bubba Rugowski is probably the hardest person in this film to get right. Bubba is described as a MONSTER of Polish descent, with a babyface. Umm... Also, with Bubba, it's all about demeanor. Sociopath doesn't really begin to describe him. He doesn't really like talking about pleasant things. He enjoys the bad stuff in life. The only people Bubba actually likes are Angie and Patrick. My only though for a "name" for Bubba would be Michael Chiklis, but I'm not even sure he's big enough (he could definitely be mean enough, though). Other than that, a no name is the only way to go. If I see a name who is unworthy of the name Bubba, there'll be bloodshed.

So I do realize that I haven't come to any conclusion about much of anything in here, but I do feel better for putting my thoughts about it in order. Now if only I could guarantee that Affleck won't mess this up...

V for Vendetta

2006-04-19T12:45:00.000-04:00

Seen Sunday, April 16; Loews Boston Common #10
* * * * * (out of 5)

This movie scared the pants off of me. It’s really, really, really, REALLY relevant to today. In a very frightening way. As the final scene of the film played, I was gripping the armrests of my seat, wondering if any real situation could ever force the public’s hand in such a way. Would we, as a people, ever be forced to march against our own government in such a vehemently defiant fashion? Like the current government or not, that’s a terrifying prospect.
Like the current government or not, that’s a terrifying prospect. And yet, let me back up.

This film is fantasy (and thank heavens for that). It’s a futuristic dystopia that bears a more thematic resemblance to 1940s Berlin than it does modern-day London. And boy, does James McTeigue milk that imagery for all it’s worth, as well he should. If we avoid anything else in our volatile global political situation, we need to avoid anything resembling the rebirth of Nazism. McTeigue draws parallels between Adolf Hitler and Adam Sutler (an infuriatingly good John Hurt) as often as he can, with a very effective result. Sutler is the chancellor of the fascist regime that has taken over London, and rules with every suppression technique and brute force method marginally necessary.

Set against him is V (Hugo Weaving), a masked vigilante with a scarring past who is systematically taking down every member of the government who was involved in the incident that left him crippled and scarred. He’s the equivalent of a Zorro character, but without the personal history. His mask is a reference to Guy Fawkes, who unsuccessfully tried to blow up Parliament in 1605 – known as the “Gunpowder Revolution.” V saves Evey (Natalie Portman) from uncertain punishment at the hands of corrupt cops, and develops something of an obsession. Through repeated encounters, and gradually with V’s prodding and guiding, Evey becomes involved in the revolution to unseat the fascist leaders.

Read the rest at HBS!

Thank You for Smoking

2006-04-06T16:12:00.000-04:00

Seen Friday, March 31; Loews Boston Common
* * * * (out of 5)

It’s been very difficult lately to get a laugh out of a crowd without going significantly over the top (re: high concept stuff like Wedding Crashers or The 40-Year Old Virgin). What makes Thank You for Smoking so very much fun is that it sits very smugly and confidently on the top, and every once in awhile jumps a little bit. The writing is usually nice and tight, and it approaches the ridiculousness of some situations with such a smirking self-assuredness (literally through the perpetual half-grin on Aaron Eckhart’s face) that you can’t help but giggle.

Eckhart plays Nick Naylor, a Washington, D.C. lobbyist for Big Tobacco. When we meet him, he’s fighting a number of wars: the constant PR war with the public; the all-out assault from a left-wing Vermont senator (William H. Macy) insistent on making an example of Naylor and his clients; a dip in cigarette sales forcing him to come up with new marketing platforms (or successfully resurrect old ones); convincing the former Marlboro Man (Sam Elliot), who is now dying from cancer, to drop his lawsuit and public blasting against his former employers; and most importantly, the battle with his ex-wife about how someone who defends a killer corporation can competently raise their thirteen-year-old son. All this while he also balances a semi-relationship with a print journalist writing a story about him – and sleeping with him to get all the best details. The film follows all of these through the end, with a few amusing side plots.

Read the rest at HBS!

Inside Man

2006-03-31T19:44:00.000-04:00

So, off we go to Hollywood Bitch-Slap, but for a taste... Note the new 5-star system for consistency with HBS.

Inside Man
Seen March 26, 2006; AMC Boston Common
* * * * (out of five)

Apparently, Spike Lee isn’t all style. And he’s not just controversy. He can do all that, and make a damn fun movie, too.

Inside Man is one hell of a change for Lee. It’s his most expensive film to date, with a bottom line of roughly $45 million, and it really, really shows. The film has a more polished look than 25th Hour, and even that wasn’t too shabby. He again has the benefit of a giant cast of brilliant character actors to make his film very pleasing to watch – Denzel Washington, Clive Owen and Jodie Foster topline, and they are backed up by Willem Dafoe, Christopher Plummer and Chiwetel Ejiofor. With those names on the top, I was already interested.

Denzel is Keith Frazier, a detective for NYPD who is in hot water because $140,000 disappeared from a case he was working on. But the head detective is out on this particular day, so when word comes in that a major bank is being robbed, the job falls to Frazier and his partner (Ejiofor). At the scene, they meet the officer in charge of the tactical operation (Dafoe) and figure out pretty immediately that this isn’t going to be a typical bank robbery (if there is such a thing). Within the first half hour we meet the perp, Dalton Russell (Owen), who isn’t shy in telling us that he’s planned the perfect heist. We also meet Madeline White (Foster), a person of questionable morality working for the bank’s owner (Plummer) to protect certain interests at this particular branch. Whew! All of this revolves around a safety deposit box that everyone seems interested in, but the audience is left in the cold with Frazier to figure things out as they happen.

That’s what hooked me about Inside Man. It’s a police thriller, sure, but to a certain extent it’s a mystery. And it’s not even hiding anything from the audience. Lee shows actions inside and outside the bank, conversations between Foster and Plummer; everything proceeds normally, but the audience is left without a single answer. It’s a nice feeling to get to play along with the “hero” (we’ll get to whether or not Denzel deserves that title later) for once, and not be smacking your head against the seat while you watch him go do something you know to be stupid.

Read on at Hollywood Bitch-Slap!

Hollywood Bitch-Slap

2006-03-30T16:46:00.000-04:00

So, I got picked up as a reviewer for Hollywood Bitch-Slap, which is going to change the blog a little bit. I think I'll probably (at least for the time being) adopt Jay's style - posting the first part of a review here, and link the rest to HBS. I'll also be going back and truncating some of the longer/better reviews, so I don't look quite so new. So for all 4 of you loyal readers, hopefully the jump to HBS/eFilmCritic won't bother you. One should be up later today for Inside Man.

This is kind of cool, considering Jay has been with them for some time, and has been able to get a press pass to a few events. Someday, perhaps...

Spring Movie Preview: May

2006-03-22T14:16:00.000-04:00

I'm bored at work, so I suppose I can keep going here...

MAY 5
Mission: Impossible III
Say what you want to say about Tom Cruise being crazy - I agree. That doesn't mean his movies are any less entertaining. He was a fine observer in War of the Worlds, and Minority Report is one of my favorite movies of the last couple years. And no one can convince me he wasn't great in Collateral. M:i:III is not a big corner for him to turn, but I'll be damned if it doesn't look kind of fun. The first in the series was well-written, and John Woo blew shit up but good in the second. I'm not sure what to expect from "Lost" creator J.J. Abrams, but the previews look more promising than anything else coming out that week. Also, they caught a good viral marketing campaign with the Global Hunt, which I've been doing for the last several weeks. This movie certainly isn't necessary, but Philip Seymour Hoffman looks like he's having fun. He might just make up for Cruise's lost credibility.
Website: MissionImpossible.com

An American Haunting
I'm kind of excited about actual scary-looking movies coming out. This one looks to be the closest match to last year's The Exorcism of Emily Rose, which scared the begeezus out of my girlfriend... and yeah, of me too. It's a colonial-era ghost story, apparently based on true events, about "The Bell Witch," an evil spirit that took up residence with a settler's family in their home, and is allegedly "the only documented case in U.S. history when a spirit actually caused a man's death." Not too sure about that, but the previews have some nice freaky moments. I can't imagine why more period horror movies haven't happened... it's much harder to get light into those dark, secretive corners when you have to fumble with matches and a lantern to do it in. A solid if smaller-name lead cast of Donald Sutherland and Sissy Spacek headline. I'm hoping for something as fun and as well put-together as Emily Rose, but that benefited greatly from the courtroom drama stuff, so we'll have to see.
Website: AnAmericanHauntingOnline.com

MAY 12
Poseidon
Yeah, it's a remake. But it's a remake with Kurt Russell, so that ought to score it a few points. One of the things I really liked about Red Eye was this very claustrophobic feeling you got from Rachel McAdams for 2/3rds of the movie. Once the plane landed, it lost a lot of the lovely tension. I feel like this has the potential for that sort of build. Yeah, a cruise ship is enormous, but once it capsizes, a lot of that space becomes cut off and unusable. The cast is a bunch of midcarders who have something to prove, which is that they can match Kurt Russell's Cool Old(er) Guy schtick. I'm hoping that will lead to some good performances. The previews make it looks like Josh Lucas is making a bid to steal this movie. Will Snake Plisskin allow it? The effects look pretty fun too, so hopefully they'll get the right feel and tension build to make this one a lot of fun. Wolfgang Petersen is somewhat hit or miss... Air Force One was ridiculous, unrealistic fun, while Troy took things a little too far. Also, A Perfect Storm proved he can handle himself with water, so that's promising.
Website: PoseidonMovie.com

Alpha Dog
I have yet to actually hear anything about this one, but it popped up on ComingSoon's release database. It's got a couple of people I like, and it sounds kind of interesting. Emile Hirsch plays a young drug dealer who begins to move up through the ranks of his ring, eventually becoming the youngest person to ever appear on the FBI's Most Wanted list at 19. After a bad deal, he plots a kidnapping, which naturally goes horribly wrong. Hirsch made The Girl Next Door a little more than it probably would have been with someone less competent. Bruce Willis also shows up, which is cool. And we finally get to see if Justin Timberlake has any acting talent, which I've been holding my breath about for some time now. Good talent at the top, with Nick Cassavetes picking and interesting choice to follow up The Notebook. He also wrote Blow, which isn't the best movie, but I liked it, and it proves that Cassavetes knows what he's doing when it comes to the drug stuff.
Website: AlphaDogMovie.com

MAY 19
The Da Vinci Code
Part of this movie still scares me a little bit. It used to scare me a LOT, until I saw the first full trailer. At least it looks engaging. Dan Brown's book is probably the most well-regarded and popular pop mystery ever written. And deservedly so. It's really, really good. But the minute I started to hear names associated the movie, I got scared. Ron Howard? OK, I'll buy that - I'm not sure there's a genre the man CAN'T do. But Tom Hanks? Ehhhhhhh... I like Tom Hanks as much as anyone, but he doesn't quite match the description of Robert Langdon. He's supposed to be a slightly less kickass Professor Jones. But with the incredible backup cast (and the fact that they took about 10 years off Hanks's look) I am willing to go in with no prejudice. From the moment I read this - actually, from the moment I read Angels and Demons, the first Langdon book - I knew they were bound for licensing and eventual film productions. I just hope they'll be able to maintain the same breakneck pace that Brown captured in his writing. The supporting cast - Jean Reno, Audrey Tatou, Ian McKellen, Alfred Molina and Paul Bettany - is almost guaranteed to keep this one interesting.
Website: SoDarktheConofMan.com

MAY 26
X-Men: The Last Stand
So many unknowns here. I am with a lot of people in my belief that X2 was a great movie, easily better than the original X-Men. And yet everything I've heard about X3 terrifies me. Brett Ratner as the director doesn't send me into shock, as it has some people online (I'm looking at you, Harry Knowles) , but it doesn't get me terribly excited, either. In fact, very little that I've seen has gotten me excited about this movie, except for the inclusion of Beast, and nowI'm not even sold on that. The plot doesn't do a whole lot for me. It's another serum that could "cure" mutants, and Professor X and Magneto have two wildly different views on how to handle it. I'm sorry, but I just don't buy Ian McKellen as a villainous character anymore. Plus, we're kind of lacking progress in this, aren't we? It's basically been the same issue over and over again in all three movies. Plus, I never liked the Dark Phoenix story arc to begin with, so that leaves me feeling pretty meh. But I will probably give it a shot, if only to see how the series ends. Who knows? Maybe they'll prove me wrong.
Website: X-MenTheLastStand.com

So there's May. Look at this, me all on time! Doesn't happen often, but I'll try to keep it up as much as I can. Enjoy.

Spring Movie Preview - March/April

2006-03-21T11:25:00.000-04:00

As of yesterday, it's officially spring. But since I live in Boston, and it is probably going to continue to be cold as hell for an extended period of time, I'd prefer to spend as much time as possible indoors... perhaps in theaters? Let's take a week-by-week look at what spring has to offer. In most cases I'm going to pick the standout per week, but in some cases I might do two. Release schedule courtesy of ComingSoon.net, and I am sticking to wide release dates, not limited or NY/LA. Title links are going to jump to IMDb listings.

THIS WEEK: March 24
INSIDE MAN
The latest Spike Lee joint seems to be a bit more mainstream than his usual fare, but that little touch of Hollywood looks to be creating something interesting. He's putting Denzel Washington and Clive Owen on opposing sides of a bank job that Owen has masterminded. When the "perfect heist" goes to hell, he's forced to take hostages, and Washington is the detective who has to talk him out of doing anything crazy. Sounds pretty typical. The interesting twist comes from Jodie Foster, playing a power broker for unknown parties that apparently have an interest in how this situation plays out. This one has a kickass cast, with a couple of big supporting names as well (Christopher Plummer and Willem Dafoe both show up). I just recently had my first real exposure to Spike Lee watching Do the Right Thingfor a class. This is CLEARLY a different movie, but the previews look very, very promising. It's become apparent that the cop movie is not old and tired - 16 Blocks and the preview for this one make that clear. You just need to put good people behind it to start, and this one looks to be off and running.
Website: InsideMan.net

MARCH 31
Ice Age 2: The Meltdown
I don't need this movie. What I need is an hour and a half of the sabertooth squirrel Scrat trying to get ahold of that damned acorn. Save the Happy Feet promos, the Ice Age 2 teasers make me laugh harder than most other trailers out right now. But I suppose to get my Scrat fill, I'll have to deal with the rest of the cast as well, which probably isn't as bad as I make it sound. I enjoyed the first one, and knew a sequel was more or less a given, but I still don't see it as a good replacement for the 30-minute Scrat TV series that we all really want. But the voice cast is good (Denis Leary, Ray Romano and John Leguizamo return), with a lot of fun people in the supporting cast as well, so all I can do is hope for some funny moments to balance out the rest, and fill in the non-Scrat time.
Website: IceAgetheMovie.com

Slither
I can't quite decide on this one. I sort of like the trailers... except that I've seen one trailer that pushes this as a pretty extreme gross-out horror movie, and another that tries really hard to sell it as a gross-out comedy in horror clothes. So we know one thing - it's gross... which could be fun. Aliens in the form of little maggot-like critters invade a little rural town, turning the residents into zombies in all manner of disgusting fashion. The survivors, led by Nathan Fillion and Elizabeth Banks, have to try and find a way to end the infestation, or get the hell out. I think this might be a nice, welcome break from the string of "real" horror movies that seem to come out every weekend, because there is no indication from any of the promotional stuff I've seen that this movie takes itself seriously on any level. I've also got some loyal to Fillion after his "Firefly"/Serenity days, so that might push me over the edge and get me into this one... but we'll have to see if that extends to White Noise 2 later this year.
Website: SlitherMovie.net

And yes, Sharon Stone's breasts come out to play this week as well, and more power to her for it. I just have no interest.

APRIL 7
Lucky Number Slevin
Another film with a pretty ridiculous cast that should make it fun to watch. Josh Hartnett is the title character Slevin, who gets caught in the middle of a mob war being waged between Morgan Freeman's gang and Ben Kingsley's gang... which I think would be a sweet movie without being fiction. Mix in Stanley Tucci and Bruce Willis as people observing Slevin for different reasons (a cop and a hitman, respectively), AND throw in Lucy Liu as a scenario-muddling love interest, and this is one hell of a start. I've only seen one of the director's films (The Reckoning) which was OK, if a little standard. What that did prove is that he knows how to get good performances out of good people, or how to leave them alone to let those performances develop. I'm more and more a fan of the quirky crime films - Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang and The Matador stick in my head very fondly - and hopefully my general disinterest in all things Josh Hartnett will be disproved and dismantled.
Website: Slevin-Movie.com

APRIL 14
Nothing of any real interest this week. I refuse to write about Scary Movie 4, because that's just unnecessary and ridiculous. The only thing other than that is The Wild, an animated adventure with uninspiring trailers. The voice cast is an interesting mix, though. Kiefer "Jack Bauer" Sutherland heads it up, with Jim Belushi, Janeane Garofolo and Eddie Izzard backing him up. Is it bad that I even think the lion in The Wild is picking up a little Jack Bauer personality? I love Jack Bauer.

APRIL 21
This is probably the best week of this two month period, with a little something for everyone.

American Dreamz
There is nothing more fun to watch than Hugh Grant sleazing it up. The dirtier and meaner he is, the more fun he is to watch. This blatant rip on reality competition shows (and "American Idol" directly) looks to be poking fun at everyone involved, just like a good satire should. Paul Weitz has a good track record for this kind of funny, since he hit the nail pretty squarely on the head in the original American Pie. He got the best out of Hugh Grant in About a Boy, and he can actually be heartwarming and touching a la In Good Company. He pulled the best from all those casts for this one, revolving around an out of touch president (Dennis Quaid) who goes on the "Idol"-esque singing competition to prove he's not crazy. Add in Willem Dafoe in a REALLY funny Dick Cheney costume, Mandy Moore as the star contestant, Jennifer Coolidge and a handful of other people who have worked with Weitz before, and even if this one misfires, there is bound to be some pretty amazing comedic moments in it. I will drop the money just to see the lead-in and follow-up to some moments from the trailer - the President/VP combo of Quaid and Dafoe is sheer brilliance.
Website: AmericanDreamzMovie.com

Silent Hill
That's right. Christophe Gans is going to prove that video game adaptations don't have to suck. And neither do non-remake horror movies. I admit, the survival-horror-videogame adaptations have not been what most people would call "good" (if you saw Alone in the Dark, get off of my blog right now!), but I put any and all faith I have in Gans. He directed Le Pacte de loups (Brotherhood of the Wolf for everyone else), which is easily my favorite foreign film of all time, and pretty high on the general all time list as well. He has a nice, varied and experienced primary cast to work with in Radha Mitchell, Sean Bean, Deborah Unger and Laurie Holden, and some of the pictures I've seen popping up have been downright freaky. Also, the poster is perfect AND the trailer is nice and ambiguous - it gives you the mood and feel of the movie without really giving anything away. Gans is one helluva storyteller, especially visually, and I can't wait to see what he pulls out for this, his first full-blown Hollywood production. I can only hope Mark Dacascos cameos somewhere.
Website: WelcometoSilentHill.com

Honorable mention this week goes to The Sentinel, because Kiefer Sutherland will never play anyone but Jack Bauer with a different name ever again. And he's hunting Michael Douglas.

APRIL 28
Another largely unimpressive week, despite quite a few releases. The most promising is...

Akeelah and the Bee
Who said that inspirational movies had to be about sports? This one follows an 11-year old girl from South LA who enters into the National Spelling Bee, despite a doubtful mother and educational disadvantages. After Spellbound from a few years ago, I suppose it was only a matter of time until a fictional account came out, but this one looks like it could be a winner. It's got a good supporting cast in Angela Bassett and Laurence Fishburne, and Keke Palmer herself has a good list of credits for a 13-year old.
Website: AkeelahandtheBee.com

That's what I've got so far. Hopefully May will go up before May actually arrives, and that could lead into a summer preview too! Enjoy!

The Matador

2006-03-10T12:31:00.000-04:00

The Matador
January/February (ish); Loews Boston Common
* * * 1/2 (out of 4)

If there were a category at some award show for "Best Breakout Performance by an Actor Who Has Worked Successfully for Nearly 30 Years," Pierce Brosnan would OWN that category this year. With this, he firmly severs his ties with the 007 series, and probably betters his reputation because of it. This felt very much like Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang to me, which isn't at all a bad thing, because I loved that movie, too. It's got this not-quite-independent feel to it, but it's small enough to make festival circuits and to slip under the rader of a lot of people. Sad for them. This is a very funny, very dark little movie.

Pierce Brosnan plays the anti-Bond Julian Noble, who is an unforgiving hitman who is starting to question what it is he's doing with his life as his skills begin to give way. He meets Danny Wright (Greg Kinnear) in Mexico while Wright is on a business trip, and after a long exchange in the bar, the two become cautious friends. This is a great dynamic since they couldn't be any more different. After Wright heads home, Noble shows up on his doorstep asking for help with a job. Naturally, this doesn't sit well with the straight-laced, uptight Wright... but he owes Noble. One can only imagine what for.

This is Brosnan's movie. He owns it, he loves it, he wallows in the rottenness. It must have been such a relief to get away from the formulaic spy crap that had been lingering over the Bond series, and that he had taken primary blame for - I didn't like him as Bond, but I certainly didn't think it was entirely his fault as some people did - but he washes all of it away here. Julian is a killer. He likes (or liked) doing it. There aren't perks like Bond had. This is just a cheap thrill. Brosnan very skillfully shows that breakdown from enjoying his job to cowering in fear and self-pity... quite the change from anything Bond ever would have done. And you know what? Brosnan is better at this sort of thing.

Greg Kinnear is here too, and does a good job, but he graciously bows to Brosnan for this one. Kinnear recognizes whose movie this is, and fills out the film where Brosnan cannot. As Noble breaks down, Wright has such a buildup of intensity and insanity that the eventual blowout is so well worth it. The other great thing that I can remember was the soundtrack, featuring nothing I'd ever heard before, but each track fit the featured scene so well that it stuck with me.

If you missed this one, you missed out. The DVD is due out next month, so pick it up. It's a lot of fun, and it will wash The World is Not Gold Enough to Never Die Another Tomorrow right out of your mind. You can thank me later.

Long past due... Brokeback Mountain

2006-03-10T11:58:00.000-04:00

Still not seeing too much in the way of movies... my show is taking up tons of time right now, cause we open next week. Not only time, but that takes me away from working, so I don't have much in the way of disposable income. But I'm bored at work, so maybe I can hammer a few long-overdue reviews.

Brokeback Mountain
Sometime in January; Loews Boston Common
* * * 1/4 (out of 4)

Controversy aside, I had little interest in seeing this one. Previews and all the hype around it made it sound like not at all my type of film. I actually only ended up seeing it because I was at the theater with my girlfriend, it happened to be playing next, and I decided I was in the right sort of mood (no idea what that mood actually was, but it worked). I was nicely surprised - and she was somewhat disappointed, because she had much higher expectations going in.

As everyone knows now, Brokeback Mountain follows two cowboys who meet on a sheepherding job in Wyoming in the early 1960s and form a highly unorthodox and unusually close bond. They return every couple years together to Brokeback, striking a very precarious balance between their home lives (both are eventually married and have children) and the secret they keep with each other, which eventually rips their everyday lives apart through divorce, abandonment and death.

I've had a bad experience with E. Annie Proulx. I read The Shipping News in high school, and it was painful to fight through. So I was very impressed with the fluidity of the story. A lot of what makes the scenes flow nicely comes from the dialogue, more of a credit to Larry McMurtry and Diana Ossana, who have now won Oscars for their efforts, and Heath Ledger, who handled the minimal and dry part of Ennis with grace and obvious emotion. Without these elements to guide me through (assuming all the others were of the same quality) I would not have enjoyed Brokeback as much as I did.

Read on at HBS!

I'm a bad, bad blogger... Oscar thoughts

2006-03-06T12:03:00.000-04:00

Yeah. It's nearly been two months again. Since the last Netflix post, I've rehearsed and performed one play, and I'm now in rehearsal for another, directed a 15-minute piece, and done the normal classes-work-play balance as well.

But last night was the Oscars, which is worth a quick note, I think. Twas a fun show, helped in no small part by the fun little party my girlfriend and I organized (and by the sufficient amount of wine I consumed at said party). Here are a few of my personal favorite moments from last night's show.

- Jon Stewart making a Death to Smoochy joke, and a good portion of the audience not knowing what he was talking about.

- The March of the Penguin guys bringing stuffed penguins to the stage with them.

- Nick Park and Co. wearing Wallace bow-ties, and bringing enough to share.

- Jon Stewart: "Do you think if we teamed up and pulled this statue down... democracy would flourish in Hollywood?"

- The long-overdue admission, acceptance and celebration of the fact that the entire world is in love with George Clooney. A couple Clooney-lights :

- The winner for one of the short categories thanking the Academy for seating her next to George at one of the luncheons.
- The Chronicles of Narnia makeup team: "I'm just glad Clooney doesn't do makeup."
- Clooney's own acceptance speech, starting with, "So I guess I'm not getting best director."
- His part in Jon Stewart's opening montage.
- Finally, in a sea of traditionally garish and overdone costumes (though more subdued this year than in the past), Clooney will still be named the sexiest man there, simply wearing a no-frills black tux.

Still a few things disappointing during the show, though. Jon Stewart seemed nervous, and his typical Daily Show style didn't seem to be playing the crowd too well. I think that was more them taking themselves too seriously than Stewart bombing, cause I thought he was pretty spot-on. Certainly beat the last few years. Also, I am upset about the complete lack of love for Good Night, and Good Luck, which deserved each and every award it was up for (yes, I too am in love with George Clooney). And Crash is NOT the best picture of last year. Sorry. Not happening. In my opinion, it was GN&GL, but I was expecting that Brokeback would shut Paul Haggis down. My faith is misplaced.

So for next year:

- Get Stewart back. Hopefully he can be more comfortable, and really cut loose. Though I did like that he didn't really cut into anyone like Chris Rock did. Stewart was funny, but still respectful.
- Lock Randy Newman in a studio at Pixar so we have some real Best Song nominees. I don't care if he competes against himself. Just no more of that crap from last night.
- Add the Best Ensemble Cast category. I have heard it mentioned by journalists many, many times, but considering how long it took to get an animated feature category, I won't hold my breath.
- Give Clooney an Honorary Oscar for "Most Beautiful, Amazing Thing Ever Created." We all know he deserves it.

Netflix Roundup #2

2006-01-17T13:17:00.000-04:00

Just a small one this time... Sadly, I've had little time for movies the last month or so... also, what Netflix has sent me has been a string of somewhat depressing films that I've wanted to see, but never quite been in the mood for - to that end, Ray has been sitting on my desk since mid-December. Maybe that'll be tonight... anyway, like I said, not a big list this time. Again, based on the 5-star system, and the titles will jump you to Amazon.

City of God: * * * *
As far as I am concerned, this should be the poster child for foreign films in America. The most common complaint is that the language barrier is too jarring, and keeps people from becoming engaged in the film. That isn't at all an issue for this film. Across the board, this is a very unconventional film (as I write this, I am reading the trivia section on IMDB.com, and it's making me appreciate the film even more). Very few of the actors were professionals, and many of them came from the slums around Rio de Janeiro, some even from the City of God. This is, for all intents and purposes, an American mobster movie, but it gets a very nasty edge to it because these are children. There are a number of sequences that are unscripted or improvised because these kids told the director that this is what life was like, and he felt a need to include that. The film is compelling enough as a story, but carries so much more weight with the knowledge that some of this really happens, and only the kids involved could ever have introduced that.

Rushmore: * * * *
I didn't know what to expect at all for this one. This is about as quirky a movie as you can find, and that may very well turn some people away. But most of the characters aren't so quirky as to be annoying, which allows them to create some really fun relationships. Bill Murray was my standout, as Jason Schwartzman inched a little too close to the line for my liking. It's a great cast all-around, with a somewhat ridiculous, over-the-top backstory supporting them, but that's something that Wes Anderson has repeatedly shown he can handle well. He's still a bit unpolished here, but if you've been a fan of anything else he's released since, chances are you'll get a kick out of this.

The Reckoning: * * *
The concept of this really appealed to me - a medieval drama about a traveling theatre group, and the priest who falls in with them. Great idea, great cast, lackluster execution. Everyone pulls their own weight, with Willem Dafoe, Paul Bettany and Brian Cox shouldering more than others, but there's nothing terribly interesting about the script, which might be the reason this one never saw anything spectacular. It might serve as a nice hidden history lesson for theater or medieval enthusiasts, but nothing significant.

Raising Arizona: * * * *
Yeah, this was all kinds of fun. This is Coen Brothers craziness before they established the people they work with on every movie. As such, Nicholas Cage is fantastic in a role that no agent would ever allow him to take now. Admittedly, this is a little more frantic than most of the Coens' later films, but that energy works well with the plot - when you're stealing someone's baby, you may need a little bit of crazy energy. It seemed maybe a little long (even though it's not), probably because the idea was starting to wear thin on me, but the cast pulls it through and keeps it fun. Why John Goodman isn't a huge comedic force outside of the Coen efforts, I'll never understand. This may be another one that fans of the Coens will enjoy more than others, but I think it's worth a laugh from everyone.

The Recruit: * * *
So yes, I saw the end coming the minute the main characters stepped onscreen, but the journey to get there was kind of fun. It's movies like this - movies that I assume a studio picked for him - that make it no question why Colin Ferrell has become the star he has. He is a bright point in this otherwise formula and blah movie. Al Pachino is good as well, but does he really have to try to do these parts anymore? The twists are pretty standard, but I kind of feel like Ferrell's character is a little bit smarter than the average pawn in this sort of film, if only because he KNOWS he's getting jerked around from the very beginning, he's just not sure by who. It's fun once, if you can bookend it with something better.

Closer: * * * *
I'd been sitting on this one for quite awhile, never quite being in the mood to rent it. A shame. This is a lot of fun. The only downfall of this film is that the script comes almost directly from the playscript, and while it is modern enough to be easily transformed, there is still a very presentational style to some of the language. But that isn't enough to seriously hinder the film. The four leads are perfectly cast, and provide some great voyeuristic fun. Anything involving the two men (Clive Owen and Jude Law) is a lot of fun, as they play the animosity perfectly. As for the women, Natalie Portman is adorable (as if she's ever not), and Julia Roberts needs to take more parts like this. She's mean, she's bitchy, and she's actually realistic. At times, I actually forgot I was watching Julia Roberts, which is a difficult thing, considering her name. The actual relationships aren't believable, nor should they be - it leads to some fantastic fights, especially the final fight between Owen and Roberts. In fact, Owen's character is the one to watch in the film, though if I remember the trailers correctly, you'd never know it. It's also very well made, considering there are NO auxiliary characters. There are no more than ten lines of dialogue from anyone other than the four stars. That's hard to pull off. I would love to see this onstage, once the subtlety that film allows has been removed.

Comic Book: The Movie: * * *
This was in my queue for entirely geeky reasons: the Bruce Campbell appearance, and the morbid curiosity to see what happened to Mark Hamill's career. Not a pretty sight. The film is shot like a documentary, starring writer-director Hamill. It's kind of amusing, but it falls short because it's a little too much of the same thing. Someone talks about this Commander Courage character, Mark Hamill does something stupid, the studio gets angry, hilarity ensues. This is funny for a few rounds, but sooner or later you have to wonder why Hamill isn't getting the point. After that, it's just painful. The ComicCon stuff is interesting, just to see the huge variety and organization that go into such an ordeal. If you know about this movie, chances are there's a specific reason you want to see it. If this is the first you've heard of it, then you have no reason to pursue it beyond here.

That's all I've got so far. It's been a pretty lackluster month for movies, and I probably ought to be catching up on likely Oscar noms, but I'm kinda lacking funding as well. Hopefully things will pick up a bit in the coming month.

New look and Amazon

2006-01-13T17:21:00.000-04:00

So as you can tell, I did a bit of revamping. I just decided a bit of a change was in order... this seems a little cleaner to me.

Also, I just joined Amazon.com's Associates program, so if you click through one of the links and end up buying something on Amazon, it'll start building toward gift certificates for me. And that, my friends, is motivation to keep this bad boy updated.

No movies as of late, though a Netflix roundup is probably forthcoming. Stay tuned!

The Producers: The Movie Musical

2006-01-11T14:07:00.000-04:00

The Producers: The Movie Musical
January 1, 2006; Regal Greece Ridge (Rochester, NY)
* * ¾ (out of 4)

Despite being a theater major and my high-school musical theater background, I have always been very clear about my disdain for the form. Theatrical musicals (and the subsequent films that usually follow) tend to sacrifice complexity in plot and character and originality in writing for a nice love song or snappy closing. As my brother has said, musicals are forty-minute plays dragged out to three hours because of melodic shouting. Gross generalization, sure, but a lot of the times it’s true. All that weighed heavy on my mind when I went to see the film version of the Broadway play of the Mel Brooks film.

Now, I’ve always enjoyed The Producers in all its various forms. It’s one of the few musicals I can say I really enjoyed, and that the songs didn’t annoy me. This saddens me even more to look at the movie, knowing that somehow it didn’t transfer well from stage back to screen. All of the elements of the play are there, but that’s just it: this feels like one step beyond setting up a video camera for a performance of the show on Broadway. It’s no longer a play, but it doesn’t yet have the visual scope of a film. Susan Stroman’s camera barely moves once a shot is established, something I would have thought a dance choreographer would have noticed. Not moving the camera isn’t necessarily a bad thing – simple can be good – but shots hold for a little too long at times, with dialogue and especially musical numbers looking more like talking heads than the crazy characters they are.

Of all the complaints I thought I would have about the newest incarnation of The Producers, I didn’t think “There’s not enough music” would be one of them. I can understand cutting some of the songs – Broadway shows are expected to be long and showy, and that doesn’t always work for film. What really bothered me was the blatant lack of a score. Besides the overture at the beginning, there is not a single piece of instrumental music – if someone isn’t singing, there’s no music. And for some shots and conversations where there is little or no background noise, it leaves a very eerie feel sitting in the air. There were a number of times when I kept waiting for something to start up, and it simply never did.

The best reason to see this movie is the cast. They are, to the letter, fantastic. Stroman got the vast majority of the original cast to play their original roles – the only notable replacements are Uma Thurman as Ulla and Will Ferrell as Franz Liebkin. Thurman is especially fun – since the last memorable time I saw her she had a samurai sword in her hand, this is quite the change, and a welcome one. Those two are slightly behind the rest of the cast as far as singing goes, but there’s no issue at all – Thurman’s voice has a very dark quality which makes it fun, and Ferrell’s voice matches his kooky personality.

The stars of the film are great – I’m not sure it’s possible for Nathan Lane and Matthew Broderick to not be good in these parts – but every once in awhile I started to wonder if they might like to be doing something else instead; they’ve been Bialystock and Bloom for quite some time now. The changes to the cast certainly fuel some new motivation – Broderick’s romantic scene with Thurman is particularly amusing, since she has at least six inches on him. As much as I can’t see anyone else play those two parts, I’ll look forward to seeing Lane and Broderick in something different sometime soon.

This is about as on-target of a stage-to-screen port as you can find, and I am disappointed that it didn’t work better for me. The lack of incidental music and clearly inexperienced directing certainly doesn’t overrule the positives from the cast and the script, but it does make their jobs harder. On a happier note, Jay’s review of this ought to be going up relatively shortly. He seemed to enjoy it more than I did, which leads me to believe that maybe having seen the stage musical is NOT beneficial this time around. If you never dropped the money on tickets, this may be the best way to go for you.

Oh, and stay around till after the credits. If you know anything about film, you’ll be looking for certain things throughout the movie. The biggest payoff comes at the end.

King Kong 2005

2006-01-04T11:38:00.001-04:00

King Kong (2005)
December 14; AMC Fenway 13
* * * * (out of 4)

This film worried me, the primary reason ironically being one that excited most people. I was worried because this was from the director of the Lord of the Rings trilogy. Now I enjoyed Return of the King as much as I could, despite being probably 45-60 minutes too long, but getting through each of the previous two was an arduous task that I’ve only done once. When I heard Kong was going to be on the long side, my fears intensified. Considering the original King Kong was only about 100 minutes, what was Jackson finding that warranted a near-doubling of the run time?

And then I saw the first trailer. And all my fears disappeared.

This became akin to my expectations for Revenge of the Sith. For that, I would forgive a lot of things from the previous films and even some in the new ones, so long as I got an awesome lightsaber battle on top of a volcano. And I got it. For Kong, my one demand was an awesome fight scene between a thirty foot gorilla and a tyrannosaurus rex. And I got it. About four times, and every time ruled. Luckily for us, Kong is so much more than a cover for a “King of the Monsters”-type battle. It’s a damn fine piece of cinema.

Pretty much everything clicked for me in Kong. The characters are all there (although most of the development takes place in the first hour, since after that, if your name isn’t Ann or you’re not a giant monkey, your screen time disappears), the settings are gorgeous and serve the script, and Jackson dispelled any fears I had about his directing – to me, this looks more like Peter Jackson of The Frighteners than Peter Jackson of Lord of the Rings. He’s not afraid to play with his camera, or get messy, or let characters have real personalities. That’s also a compliment to the cast, as well. Lots of people had their reservations about Jack Black as Carl Denham, but Black restrains his over-the-top personality JUST enough, and eliminates some of the humor, and Denham is perfect. He’s a kind of semi-sadistic, manipulative schemer who is just enough scary and entirely fun. Naomi Watts as Ann Darrow is also great, but a good portion of her character only exists via her relationship with Kong…

… which brings me to the centerpiece of the film, undeniably the reason people stepped into the theater. KONG. In writing/development and design, he is a masterpiece. He comes off as more sympathetic than his predecessor, mostly because a lot more time is spent showing why he develops this attachment to Darrow. A good chunk of the last two-thirds of the film are spent on just the two of them – the film-stealing scene is when Darrow performs her vaudeville act for Kong; that’s when she first realizes he has no intention of hurting her. Jackson drops little hints everywhere that this is a different sort of beast than the original showed. In a cave on Skull Island, there are glimpses of giant simian skeletons – Kong is the last of his kind. His fur is matted and grayed. He has scars on his body from years and years of fighting. To an old ape, Ann Darrow is something worth protecting, and he has something worth fighting for again, instead of just territory on the prison of Skull Island.
And it’s gorgeous. I won’t waste any time on that, because you can clearly see it in the trailers. It looks even better on a huge screen. Roger Ebert is right – soon WETA won’t even need a director to make an amazing movie.

There is so much in Kong, pulled from so many different types of films, especially romance, noir and (naturally) action. This is also the first three-hour film I can remember seeing that felt like three hours, and that was fine. Afterward, I thought back on the movie, realized the huge amount of stuff I had just watched, and would have had no problem sitting back down and seeing it again the next day. It doesn’t drag, even before the star appears for the first time – Jackson puts enough into every section and every act to make the time worthwhile.

As far as deference to the original goes, there are references and parallel scenes to the original version, but many are taken out of context or intended as a quick chuckle before Jackson goes back to his version. I saw the original the night before I saw the new one, and while I don’t think it is anything that is really necessary, there are a few gags you might not get. While it’s clear that Jackson loves the ‘30s version (he says King Kong is what made him want to be a filmmaker), he has taken the ideas and basic story outline of that film and exploded it into something entirely different. By my standard, this is NOT a remake.

Right now, King Kong is probably my pick for the best movie of the year – yep, beating Star Wars, if only because Kong stands entirely on its own. Thinking back on it now, I cannot name a single part of the movie I didn’t enjoy. It was, for lack of a better term, three hours of bliss. If you haven’t already, get everyone you know, and go watch a masterpiece.

Fun With Dick and Jane

2006-01-04T11:38:00.000-04:00

Fun With Dick and Jane
December 20; Loews Boston Common
* * ¼ (out of 4)

The title is almost accurate. The movie is fun… at times, though not necessarily with both of the main characters. I will admit that the only reason I had any interest in this movie was to see Jim Carrey make a return to the screwball, goofy comedies he started in, which is certainly what the trailer made this one look like. Unfortunately, Fun With Dick and Jane is another case of a movie being bad mispromoted, and the very sad part is that it probably would have been better if it were actually the movie the trailers made it out to be.

All of the kind of funny stuff in the trailers that show Dick and Jane robbing convenience stores and coffee shops? That all comes within a three-minute montage that says, “Look how bad they are at this.” The real focus of the movie is how the two try to maintain their family and lifestyle after the carpet has been pulled out from under them – Dick, newly promoted to VP of Communications, is held partially responsible for the event that sent his company into a nosedive. As he and Jane work through a number of odd jobs and misfires to stay afloat, they begin to discover that there might be more sinister forces at work, something involving the CEO and CFO of his company. And with the backhanding CEO played by Alec Baldwin, you know there must be something funny there, right?

The only funny stuff is when people are directly mugging for the camera, with most of these moments coming from Baldwin and Carrey alone. Not that those two need a whole lot of help. But shoving the two of them in front of a camera and telling them to act goofy is not enough to hold a plot like this together. What is hard here is that Fun With Dick and Jane tries very hard to at least make you think that it presents a deeper message about the evils of corporate America. But the blending of screwball comedy doesn’t quite mix well, because for a good amount of the film, the only reminder you have of the corporate idea is how far the family has fallen. Suddenly, the corporate enemy is huge and looming, and the focus of the film. It is not a well-orchestrated change.

But I think that won’t be important to many people. The big selling point of the movie is that Jim Carrey is doing a full-blown comedy again, for the first time since Bruce Almighty (though some might say it’s been longer than that). And yes, he’s funny, when he is allowed to do rubber-bodied shenanigans or act crazy. But there’s not enough. Alec Baldwin’s painfully funny southern CEO adds a bit more, but that very fact makes me wonder if Carrey is even capable of the unabashed insanity of which he used to be a master. His relative calmness compared to, say, an Ace Ventura, is not necessarily a bad thing, but if we’re never to see anything to that level again, it is a sad loss.

Fun With Dick and Jane is OK… Carrey and Baldwin own the movie, though that isn’t a huge feat, nor is it one that comes with bragging rights. It is a unspectacular comedy, but it seems like that is what happens to comedy nowadays when you don’t have the means or approval for something like Wedding Crashers or 40-Year Old Virgin. It’s just disappointing to see one of the former undisputed kings of comedy dethroned so casually, and even moreso to think that he might not be capable of ever reclaiming that throne.

The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe

2005-12-25T14:28:00.000-04:00

The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe
December 11; Loews Boston Common #2
* * * ¾ (out of 4)

This is probably the huge movie that I was the most skeptical about this fall. I remember reading a number of the Narnia books as a kid. Also, the last play I did in high school, I played Peter in the stage version of this story, and it was a less than spectacular experience. If this film was going to be done right, it really needed to be done correctly. Nothing in the trailers had hooked me immediately, so I was a little nervous going in.

What caught me pretty much immediately was that they did not forget a proper introduction. So much focus has always been on Narnia that I feel like many people forget why these kids are even in this strange house: this is World War II. There are a few great character moments before the mansion is even introduced, especially for Peter. When they’re getting on the train to head to the countryside, he catches a glimpse of soldiers heading off to the front, and you can tell he feels a certain desire or responsibility to join them, one that he can’t express. You see it again during the final battle for Narnia.

The moment that made this movie for me was Lucy’s entrance into Narnia. All of the children are cute, certainly, but somewhat average-looking. There’s nothing immediately unique of defining about them. The moment she steps beyond the fur coats and into the winter forest that simply shouldn’t exist, Georgie Henley’s face lights up in a way that only a child’s can. It was the perfect visual realization of imagination. And that set the visual precedent for the rest of the film. Almost everything worked how I had envisioned it as a child, a credit to both the production team and to C.S. Lewis himself. This is a beautiful film, though clearly New Zealand.

What I liked most is that while they were clearly making a kid’s movie, but they included enough material for those of us who read the book ten or fifteen years ago. My girlfriend told me she had been waiting for this movie since she read the book many years ago, and I got the impression that many people in the theater felt the same way. They hit a great balance of pleasing the fans and drawing in new ones.

None of the performances were particularly fantastic outside of Tilde Swinton, but they didn’t need to be. This is about the story. Everyone in the film played their part in the story, and didn’t overstep. The whole thing was put together very well. This is the closest thing to a Christmas movie this year, and it beats the usual Christmas fare. Take the kids in your life, and then give them the books so they can prepare for the definite sequels. They’ll thank you for it.

Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire

2005-12-25T13:40:00.000-04:00

Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire
AMC Fenway 13
* * * 1/4 (out of 4)

I loved Prisoner of Azkaban. I thought they hit the perfect mood and feel for the book, and also for the age that the three main characters were hitting – that kind of confusing, immediately pre-puberty period where you’re really not sure what to do with yourself. It was just dark enough to facilitate a great transition from being a kid’s book or movie.

The fourth installment picks up the tone about where the third left off. I should also mention that this is the first film based on a Harry Potter book that I have not read. Because of this, I have no idea what’s been changed or cut or added, which is either good or bad, depending on how much you might love the books. That lack of knowledge of the book contributes, I suspect, to my one major gripe in this film.

In the previous films, Harry, Hermoine and Ron were relatively inseparable. Yes, Harry had his own side plots and adventures, but they always seemed like subplots compared to the overall plot that involved all three of them. The other two always made sacrifices to ensure Harry – the star – did what he had to do, but they were major players. I feel like Goblet of Fire is the first time Hermoine and Ron are relegated to sidekick or best friend duty. I understand there was always going to be a point where Harry began dominating the films… I guess I just wasn’t ready for it yet. I enjoy watching the other two so much more than Harry.

Fortunately, Daniel Radcliffe picks up some slack in this one. He does step into his role as the sole star of the film (as a title character ought to do), which is fantastic for him, but character-wise, everyone else suffers for it. I was somewhat shocked to see and hear people behind me crying at the death of one of the supporting characters, because besides being a piece of the Tri-Wizard Tournament that is at the center of the film… he didn’t do anything. At no point did he say or do anything interesting or important. I think this might be one of the places that a character was cut down significantly from the books. The same with the Quidditch World Cup. I’ve enjoyed the quidditch scenes from the previous films, and they teased a HUGE match at the beginning of Goblet, and then never followed through.

The tone was great; they really picked up where Alfonso Cuarón left off. The appearance of Voldemort, which has been getting built for four years, basically lived up to expectations, and I’m looking forward to Ralph Fiennes in freaky makeup in the future. I am, however, very worried about the marginalization of the fantastic supporting cast that the films have built over the last four years – I know it’s Harry Potter’s story, but I have my doubts that it is a burden he can shoulder by himself on film.

Netflix Roundup #1

2005-12-08T17:33:00.000-04:00

So I signed up for Netflix a few months back, mostly hoping that having unlimited access to a collection like that would make me cut back on buying DVDs. Combined with having an income drop, it has done that. Here's a quick rapid-fire set of reviews of what I have seen since I started Netflix. Note: These are based on Netflix's 5-star rating system, rather than my usual 4-star. Also, for the sake of space, if you want to jump to Amazon, click the title.

Finding Neverland: * * *

Oh, the amount that I wanted to love this movie. I am a huge Johnny Depp fan, and after all the buzz this got, for his performance and for the film as a whole, I really wanted it to be spectacular. It just wasn't... I can't even identify a precise problem. Good story, though not incredible; amazing cast, though not quite performing to the level advertised; great directing. I just didn't click with it like other people did, I guess.

The Piano: * * *

Meh... there was just nothing great here. This was the first film I had to watch for a class, and I fell asleep once watching it. Anna Paquin was doing things here that no 10 year old should be made to do, and for that, she earned her Oscar. Harvey Keitel was good, though he seemed out of his element. Holly Hunter, Sam Neill... all good, just... the story didn't appeal at all, nor was I (a 20 year old male) the target audience. If you like period pieces, the book or anyone involved here, check it out. Otherwise, it's a pass.

Crimson Rivers 2: Angels of the Apocalypse: * * * *

Doesn't really hold a candle to the original, but how can you compete with Jean Reno and Vincent Cassel in a Mathieu Kassovitz film? That's tough to top. But the sequel, which brings Reno back in as the veteran cop who investigates the stranger cases that come up, is still a lot of fun, with a nice new conspiracy theory for the backdrop. Reno wasn't trying too hard, and his new sidekick can't touch Cassel, but the story is still fun, if far-fetched, and it's adequately shot. It's a French popcorn movie, which we don't see too many of over here. Good times.

Lovely & Amazing: * *

Also for my film class, and maybe one of the least favorite I had to watch. None of the three main characters have a redeeming, human quality in them. They are miserable people, and miserable in their lives. There's nothing to like about them. And that overrules any message or theme in the movie.

Vision Quest: * *

Bah. Boring. I don't have much to say beyond that. It's possible that overanalysis turned me against this film. I just had no interest. Nice work by Matthew Modine, and to a lesser extent by Linda Fiorentino. Not much here, though.

National Treasure: * * *

This is trying very hard to capitalize on the success on The Da Vinci Code, and it does all right with that. The plot isn't as specific or intriguing as that book, and there are a few pretty decent plot holes, but it's a fun adventure, no doubt. And I don't despise Nick Cage, so that's an accomplishment. It's a popcorn movie and nothing else.

Paycheck: * *

To be honest, I'm not entirely sure I even finished this. I believe I did it while writing a paper, and didn't pay much attention. I wasn't overly impressed. Pretty standard fare from Affleck and Thurman, and John Woo's not stretching anything here. Interesting idea that dies in the execution.

Sahara: * *

Unimpressed. I've no doubt that McConaughey has it in him to be a movie star, and also that the Drik Pitt books could produce some fun, this just wasn't the best place to start. Not a whole lot of chemistry with the supporting cast, and a pretty forgettable plot. I'd see a second outing, but I kind of doubt that this will warrant a sequel.

What's Eating Gilbert Grape?: * * * * *

Amazing. I don't know how I missed this one. Incredible performances all around, and well-deserved praise. This is a great, great story, with incredible dynamic between everyone involved. This has probably become one of my favorite movies.

Lost in La Mancha: * * * *

This is a documentary about the massive failure of Terry Gilliam's Don Quixote film which was slated to star Johnny Depp. It's incredible to watch how far something can fall - just about everything that could go wrong did. It's a sadly comic story, but it's fascinating to watch, especially when compared with the history of other productions. Don Quixote may very well be the film equivalent of MacBeth. A lot of fun to watch, even though it's a shame the film may never happen.

Shallow Hal: * * *

Nothing spectacular - kind of middle of the road lowbrow, and probably one of the lesser Farrelly films. Jack Black is clearly having a good time, and there are some fun moments, but it just doesn't compare to There's Something About Mary or Fever Pitch.

National Lampoon's Van Wilder: * * *

Definitely fun, but ultimately empty. The only reason this film exists is for Ryan Reynolds, and maybe Kal Penn. They're both fun, and significantly hilarious, but they could have been that in something a little better, I think. The fact that there's a rumor that Kal Penn is starring in a sequel saddens me. This was OK and kind of fun once... twice, it might be downright painful.

An Evening With Kevin Smith: * * * *

Yes, this is about three hours of the View Askew leader rambling about various things, but that in itself is pretty interesting. The crowds at the colleges he tours worship the man, and this is the type of forum where geek questions get answered in a fantastic fashion. Smith seems to have no illusions about his place in the film community, and he is quick to self-deprecation. At times, Jason Mewes joins him onstage, which always makes for a good time. This can only be described as a "geek-out," and if you enjoyed any of Smith's movies prior to Jersey Girl, this is worth a look.

The Flight of the Phoenix: * * * *

The trailers for this did nothing for me, and I got it at Jay's insistence that it was fun. He was right. This has a great ensemble cast, with Dennis Quaid leading, and Hugh Laurie and Giovanni Ribisi standing out. Everyone fills their role properly, and the script is pretty tight as well. Some fun action scenes, and when that plane gets off the ground, it must have been one of those moments when everyone in a theater started cheering. Or at least it should have been.

Europa Europa: * *

There are moments in this film that STILL need to be explained to me. This has a very specific goal in mind, and while it accomplishes that goal - showing how a Jewish boy survived the Holocaust by essentially becoming a chameleon - it's a little too stylized for my liking. Just didn't appeal to me.

American Splendor: * *

I hesitate to write much of anything about this one, because I think I only made it about 20 minutes in. I've never been a fan of Paul Giamatti, and nothing I've seen has changed my mind. This one never hooked me, and I gave up trying to force it.

Bottle Rocket: * * * *

This makes it no wonder why the Wes Anderson/Owen Wilson writing team took off as it did. This is a great, fun, quirky caper story - at times it might be a little too quirky, its only downfall. Luke Wilson masters the deadpan, and Owen's neurotic mastermind was all kinds of fun to watch.

Control Room: * * * *

A very interesting perspective, considering the relative media isolation we have in the US. Sure, we can get Fox News vs. CNN, but the biases still exist. The look inside al-Jazeera paint an interesting picture of how international media was treated by the US military during the Iraqi invasion - remember, we were the aggressors, something that tends to be forgotten in the "protectors of human freedom" propaganda that gets thrown around a lot. al-Jazeera seems to ask a lot of questions that US media outlets won't, which makes them a worthwhile subject.

The Crying Game: * *

Another classic that didn't quite sit well with me. I like the story well enough. I just feel like there were sections that got a lot more focus than necessary. The end was also a nice twist. I think it was also very unsettling to see people I recognize (like Forest Whitaker and Jim Broadbent) taking on a role that completely destroys any and all preconceptions, which I applaud them for. It's worth a look for the more liberal-minded, but some things just didn't quite agree with me.

Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism: * * *

I have often said of Fox News that if Rupert Murdoch discovered that monkeys having sex with dolphins would be a big ratings-getter, Fox News would change formats overnight. What people tend to miss with this documentary is that the filmmakers are using the same tactics they claim to dislike in order to indict Fox News. It is no dout an interesting watch, especially looking at some of the characters Fox puts on the air - Bill O'Reilly is always a personal favorite. It is just important to bear in mind that as much as Fox News is conservative propoganda, Outfoxed is liberal mudslinging.

The Exorcist: * * *

I'm being unfair, because at this point I am comparing this to The Exorcism of Emily Rose because I just wrote a paper on the two, and I LOVE Emily Rose. That being said, I never realized how dated this film really was, and yet there's still some pretty impressive moments in it. It becomes even more impressive, though maybe not in a good way, when you add in some of the trivia listed for the film over at IMDb.

That's it for now... a Harry Potter review may be forthcoming, but I have finals and projects upcoming... quickly, I'd say Goblet of Fire is my second-favorite Potter, because I enjoyed the hell out of Prisoner of Azkaban. The style was nailed in that one, along with the fun they were having with character relationships.

The best damn show on TV

2005-11-27T04:26:00.000-04:00

I know I don’t do much in the way of TV here, but I just finished something that I think I need to tell everyone I know about.

It’s “Veronica Mars.”

Watch it, starting from the beginning. Cause that’s basically all I did this weekend, and it was amazing.

My brother Jay has been trying to get me to watch “Veronica Mars” for probably a year. When I asked him for tapes of episodes of “24” or “The Amazing Race” that I missed, he tended to stick one of the first-season episodes on there. I basically ignored him. I told him I had no need or interest for another TV addiction. The aforementioned two series took up enough time between the two of them. I should have paid more attention to my little extras.

“Veronica Mars” is basically the best-written show on TV. The acting isn’t too far behind, either. I think writing for high school shows might be one of the hardest gigs, because everyone who is writing them has usually been out of high school for 5+ years. Doesn’t seem like a long time, but things change. I feel like the VM team hit the nail on the head. They got the priorities right. And the dialogue! It’s so hard to hit current slang and lingo without it sounding painfully forced, but I’ll be damned if they didn’t do it. Give credit to the cast for that one as well.

In fact, give all kinds of credit to the cast. Led by Kristen Bell, who makes Veronica Mars everything Buffy Summers was – but way cooler – they are the most convincing group of high schoolers I’ve ever seen out of a bunch of twentysomethings. And I’ll be damned if they didn’t nail their characters. Keep an eye on Jason Dohring. I expect him to be the first to take off, besides maybe Ms. Bell herself. Dohring hammers his sarcastic material so perfectly; if you hate him in the first batch of episodes… well, good. It makes his character that much more amazing by the end. The adults are good as well, but Enrico Colatoni stands out as Keith Mars. The chemistry between the two of them is perfectly set. Not quite father-daughter, because theirs is not the typical relationship. It just works so perfectly.

But lots of shows have great dialogue and great acting. What blew me away here was the pacing. I’ve heard so much about “Lost,” but the most common complain I’ve heard is that the middle episodes drag, because there’s almost nothing to further the central plot. This is never a problem with VM. In almost every episode, there is an amazing blend of story arcs; almost every hour has a story that spans just that hour, one that continues for 3-5 episodes, and of course the Lily Kane arc that hangs over the entire first season. The integration is almost seamless. This was another show, like “24,” that I put into my DVD player intending to watch an episode, and then realize I’m still there 6 hours later.

I got on a train Thursday morning at 9:45 AM. I had watched the first 2 episodes. By the time I left to catch my train back to Boston today at 1 PM, I had just finished the season finale. 20 hours of “Veronica Mars” in roughly 60 hours. I loved it. I may force this on my friends as a marathon, just to see what they think.

It’s a little bit “Buffy,” but so much darker… a little bit “CSI”, but without the boring procedural standards… other than that, I don’t have much I can compare it to. It is the most interesting teen drama to come out since the first season of “Buffy,” that’s for sure. Give it a shot, either on Netflix or at one of the links below. I promise you, you won’t regret it. Critics love the show, and I seriously don’t understand why the general public is not. Help it out; I don’t want to see WB can this one.

“Veronica Mars: The Complete First Season”: Buy it on Amazon.com or buy it at DeepDiscountDVD.com

OK, that's cool...

2005-11-06T15:36:00.000-04:00

I wasn't big on the Thomas Hayden Church idea for Spider-Man 3, but this just sold me...

March of the Penguins

2005-08-24T10:59:00.000-04:00

Starting to catch up a little now... I hope to be all caught up by the time I move this weekend, so a lot of stuff will hopefully be going up in the next couple of days.

March of the Penguins
Loews Harvard Square
* * * 1/2

I'm not entirely sure what to make of this big documentary push. For one, I think it's great that people have an interest in seeing non-fiction pieces and actually learning. I just wish there was some assurance that the majority of docs ended up being more similar to this one, as opposed to Michael Moore-style firestarting one-sided propoganda (and I liked Fahrenheit 9/11). Penguins hits all the right notes, simply by showing an amazing natural occurence. Nowhere does it try to explain in "human terms" why this happens; it just lets the penguins act for themselves.

The natural occurence is the mating ritual of the emporer penguin, a long and dangerous ordeal that takes the better part of the year. Each year the penguins walk, waddle and slide 70 miles over the Antarctic tundra to the same spot they've always been gathering, choose a mate, and begin to settle in for the long season. Once the egg is laid, the mother passes it off to the father, and begins a series of hand-offs as the parents take turns going to the shore to feed and get food for the chick, each stretch made more dangerous by weather, predators and hunger.

The film is not forgiving in its reality. Despite the G rating, the film shows the natural order of things and the food chain in all its necessity and brutality, though there was a little suspect editing to make seals look a bit more threatening than really required. No one wants to see penguins getting hurt... they're penguins!

The most amazing thing about this film is the proximity. Director Luc Jacquet and his crew got so incredibly close to these animals, it might as well be a zoo. And for the most part, it looked like the flock really didn't care. Usually with documentarians getting this close to their subjects, there is some bit of curiosity on the animal's part, but not here. The cameras may as well not be there at all. As such, they were able to get some gorgeous shot of these animals and the world in which they live, often with implied risk to the crew's health. You have to assume that the same wind and snow that was battering the flock was also hitting the camera crews and equipment. Also of note is the blatant lack of the filmmakers in the shoot. The first time you see a human being in the film is during the credits. They really took care to allow the penguins to tell the whole story

... except, of course, for the narration. Morgan Freeman should do more voiceover projects. He has a fantastic voice for something like this, and he's great here. The script was pretty minimal, with a comment here or there. Well done all around.

It's unusual for good G-rated fare to come around that isn't painfully ridiculous. March of the Penguins may only appeal to those people with a pre-existing affinity for the birds, but then again... who doesn't have one? It's good time spent, enjoyable to watch, and egads! You may just learn something in the process.

The Aristocrats

2005-08-17T17:40:00.000-04:00

Yes, I realize how far behind I am. Some day soon, I hope to have the time to catch up on everything since War of the Worlds, and that includes a healthy mauling of both Hide & Seek and The Island. But for now, I have a few spare moments before work, and this is the one that takes priority.

The Aristocrats
Tuesday, August 16; Loews Boston Common #7
* * * 1/2 (out of 4)

I'll start with what everyone else has said. This is one of the funniest movies made in a long time, and possibly the funniest documentary ever put to film. That being said, what makes it funny is the blatant lack of restraint or remorse with which these comics talk about the raunchiest, dirtiest, filthiest, most tasteless joke ever told. This isn't for the weak of heart, mind, stomach or moral flexibility. It's pretty well documented what those are... and if I were to tell you here, it'd ruin the surprise anyway. If you're easily offended, stay the hell away. No less than 10 people left the theater part-way through the movie last night. If you can handle it, you may just learn something about dirty jokes and the purpose of comedy in the world.

"The Aristocrats" is the punchline to the dirtiest of dirty jokes. What happens before that is entirely up to the person telling it. As such, each of the 80+ comedians featured has an entirely different and personalized version of the joke. And they don't spare anything or anyone. From dirty joke masters like George Carlin and Chris Rock to those who are less famous for their dirty side - Bob Sagat (yeah, the dad on "Full House" is said to have the raunchiest version many have heard - no one cuts any corners.

It's pretty obvious from that description that very few people actually tell this joke onstage. Since it's not hugely well-known to the masses (I had never heard of it before seeing stuff on the web about this movie), the docu becomes more of a backstage look at what comics do with each other in their free time. Competitions with this joke usually test who can tell the longest, the filthiest, the most un-PC... anything to make each other laugh. The joke itself isn't even that funny - it certainly doesn't make any sense. It's all about the challenge of seeing just how far each person will push it, and who will think of the next thing that'll make you cringe and laugh at the same time.

The movie isn't the collection of jokes that I expected it to be. You only hear complete or near-complete versions from five or six comics, and snippets from 25-30 others. More often it's the comics reflecting on why the joke exists, and why it has been able to hang on since vaudeville's day despite so rarely being performed onstage. George Carlin describes it best, saying that for a job where so much of a performer's material is rehearsed, scripted and used night after night, "The Aristocrats" gives the writer exercise. Every time the joke is told, it comes out differently, always trying to top the others.

Despite the focus on the vile, there's a moral here, albeit well-buried in the bowels of the New York Friar's Club Roast of Hugh Hefner, which took place in late September, 2001 - a difficult time to laugh at much of anything. I'll let the movie show and explain the circumstances, but the point is that in the wake of 9/11, comedy had to change. Ethnic jokes had to disappear as they started to hit too close to home. Gilbert Gottfried - tanking with the audience by telling some poorly-timed jokes - reached way back into the vault and redeemed himself with his version of "The Aristocrats."

This is why comedy is important, especially in its vilest forms. America was stunned by something so extreme and unfunny that only something equally extreme could bring the smile back to our collective faces. Gottfried was telling a joke that everyone knew some version of, and yet he had a room full of professional comedians rolling in the aisles with it. It was relief, and it was perfectly timed.

The movie's not perfect... the jumps between comedians are flawed at times, and I would have liked to have heard a few more complete versions of the joke. It seemed like a lot of them were saying the joke existed for the same reason - "It's just... fun!" But if nothing else, that should clue the watcher into the universal love for this thing. It hit everyone. It's also interesting that some of the things common to this joke just aren't as shocking as they may have been ten or fifteen years ago, which scales the humor down at times. But as I watched this, I realized it was less about the content of the joke and much more about the reason it was so raunchy, because sometimes, that's what it's going to take for a smile to crack during the darkest of times. Gottfried exemplified that in New York City.

There will be people who write this movie off as trash, and to an extent, I don't blame them. There's a reason the movie wasn't rated (had it been submitted for a rating, the MPAA would have ravaged it with an instant NC-17), and the choice to not admit anyone under 18 is a wise one. There are some adults who simply aren't ready to accept that this style of humor is necessary. But if you can open up and realize that this is just a joke, you may walk out with a better idea of why you can help but chuckle at the stupidest and lamest of jokes.

War of the Worlds

2005-07-24T21:40:00.000-04:00

Tuesday, July 5; Loews Boston Common
* * * ¼ (out of four)

It’s a little clichéd, but I think it still applies. Every form of entertainment – whether it be a movie, a TV show, a theatre production or a book – will fail if you can’t hook an audience from the beginning. If there is anything Spielberg knows how to do, it’s get an audience to pay attention. War of the Worlds has a hook that basically refuses to let go.

Spielberg’s decision to start the movie with a direct reading from the H.G. Wells classic (with a near-flawless by Morgan Freeman) immediately establishes a sense of foreboding and danger. “Yet across the gulf of space… intellects vast and unsympathetic regarded this earth with envious eyes, and slowly and surely drew their plans against us.” The movie begins with those plans more than adequately drawn, and almost immediately (within 20 minutes) the plans are in motion.

What makes War of the Worlds stand out from other alien invasion movies (Independence Day, Mars Attacks, etc) is that nothing’s really explained. In this case, it’s a good thing. There was no real surprise when the tripods rose out of the ground and starting blowing crap up; it’s pretty standard fare. What got me was that shortly thereafter the exterminations started. War implies that there are two sides involved; that’s not the case here. We (as humans) are getting heartlessly, mercilessly annihilated, with no reason being made clear. And that’s scary.

The range the movie shows enhances that fear. New York has been hit by every imaginable disaster on film, so that’s no so shocking. To see my home city of Boston getting hit, or London, or some small village in Africa (all of which are shown in the film) changes it from an attack on “The City of _______” to an attack on the people of the world. A city is impersonal… but I am a citizen of Earth, and the small time stuff sends the message that the little house that just got trampled could very well have been mine.

I also like how there are no heroes here. Sure, Tom Cruise learns how to be a father and care for his kids in a way he didn’t previously understand, but with the exception of one out-of-character moment, he’s just as terrified and justifiably cowardly as anyone else would be in his situation. His concern lies with his family and with himself, not with the overall safety and security of humankind.

During the promotional stage for the movie, Cruise got a lot of flack for his antics, which I addressed in a previous post. All I will say on him is that I was happy to see him not playing the same caricature of himself to which he is prone. As a father, he’s an asshole, for lack of a better term. He’s more Vanilla Sky than anything else. Dakota Fanning continues to demonstrate why she is (or should be) the most sought-after child star in a very long time. She demonstrated that no one sells pure, unadulterated fear like she does. The only person who doesn’t quite work for me is Tim Robbins. He’s playing a stereotype in a movie that until that point had done pretty decent in avoiding the vast majority. He’s token Crazy Paranoid Guy Who Happens To Be Right, but he doesn’t mix well with Cruise’s family or the dynamic of , and thus forces Cruise into a situation where he has to react in a completely out-of-character way.

The best parts in War of the Worlds are nearly the same as the best parts in Signs, another “normal-guy” alien thriller. These are the parts which show people reacting as real people would, especially when worked into a frenzy. To me, the theft of Cruise’s car is akin in Joaquin Phoenix with tin foil on his head. This is what people do when they are very, very scared. War of the Worlds kept me very scared for a good half hour, because it hits all the right buttons to make you say, “That could be me!”

July 22: THE ISLAND

2005-07-20T18:27:00.000-04:00

The Island

The Story: Ewan McGregor and Scarlett Johansson star as two members of a seemingly utopian society. They are selected to travel to "The Island," the last natural, uncontaminated location on the planet, a supposed paradise. When they find out all is not what they seem, and that they are actually clones used for "spare parts," they escape into the real world with their captives hot in pursuit.

The Good: Great trailers. Two of the hottest stars around right now. A guy with lots of experience in action movies... even if that guy is Michael Bay. I can't quite explain it... this just looks fun. It's got a fun style to it, not just the streamlined future look (at least once they get into the real world). And Scarlett Johansson is really, really hot. Really hot.

The Bad: Michael Bay sucks. And quite a lot. Looking at his IMDb list I find one movie that I enjoyed in The Rock. And every thing else was "Meh" to "Clawing my Eyes Out." It makes me very, very nervous to like a Michael Bay preview. It just feels like I'm setting myself up to be disappointed, and perhaps cry. But maybe, hopefully, please Dear God allow it, he's gotten better. I'd be willing to blame some of his crapfests on writing, and the guy who wrote this one is someone who worked on a few things I thoroughly enjoyed.

The Verdict: Fun, I think. Michael Bay's tendancy to be Michael Bay may get in the way a bit, but hopefully a good script, a good cast, and Scarlett Johansson's hotness can suppress it. She's younger than me!

My Guess: * * 3/4, thanks to the MB factor

July 15: CHARLIE AND THE CHOCOLATE FACTORY and THE WEDDING CRASHERS

2005-07-20T12:11:00.000-04:00

Charlie and the Chocolate Factory

The Story: Tim Burton takes a stab at retelling Roald Dahl's children's book while trying to remake the 1971 classic starring Gene Wilder. Burton's version stars Johnny Depp as the eccentric/downright crazy candymaker Willy Wonka, who has hidden five golden tickets in candy packaging which will allow five children to enter his equally eccentric/downright crazy candy factory. Freddie Highmore plays the title character of Charlie, a lower-class boy who nabs a ticket.

The Good: Johnny Depp is the new golden boy of Hollywood, catapulting to any role he likes after getting a rare Oscar nod for a comedic performance as Jack Sparrow in Pirates of the Caribbean. It's a well deserved distinction for someone who has almost always delivered, and he looks to keep doing it here. The pairing with Burton seems to work, as it did in Edward Scissorhands, and the preview for Tim Burton's Corpse Bride, starring Depp's vocal talents, looks just as promising as the Charlie trailer. It's pretty well known that Depp insisted on young Highmore getting the title role after working with him in Finding Neverland, and I'm willing to take Depp's endorsement. Burton is pretty well proven, if a bit of an acquired taste in some instances. Even screenwriter John August has a pretty good fantastical background, having penned Big Fish and Titan A.E. (we won't hold the Charlie's Angels movies against him... much), and a decent base for characters in those two and Go.

The Bad: Natural and inevitable comparisons to the Gene Wilder version. My hope is that this will prove itself to be an entirely different movie, but that won't stop anyone. And as great as some of Burton's record is, some of the rest is a little more questionable (for everyone's Big Fish, they have a Planet of the Apes). Let's hope this one falls on the right side of the tracks.

The Verdict: Looks to be good. I'm getting remake-cautious, so as long as they demonstrate that this is a new adaptation instead, I'll be happy. I'll see nearly anything Depp is in at this point (yeah, I saw Secret Window), so I expect to be amused.

My Guess: * * * 1/2

The Wedding Crashers

The Story: Uhhh... pretty faint, as I'm aware. Apparently, Vince Vaughn and Owen Wilson play best friends who spend their free time sneaking into weddings uninvited in order to hook up with the single women present. Everything goes awry when Wilson actually starts to fall for one of his marks (Rachel McAdams) and Vaughn nets one that just won't go away.

The Good: Vaughn and Wilson will do ANYTHING for a laugh, and I expect to see a good amount of that anything... on a side note, remember when Vaughn tried to be a serious actor? Aren't you glad he stopped? Helmer David Dobkin doesn't have a lot of experience, but he did have fun with Wilson in the still-kinda fun sequel Shanghai Knights. The inherent chemistry between Wilson and Vaughn should be all different kinds of fun.

The Bad: There are those in the world who might be turned off by the blatant lack of any real redeeming theme or message. Stay away from my movie.

The Verdict: More fun than it probably should be. Vaughn and Wilson is a teams that has needed to happen for awhile. So long as you can forget that someone in the studio demanded some sort of plot, this'll be great fun.

My Guess: * * *

Attention "Ain't It Cool" Talkbackers, Nay-sayers, and general assholes: Shut Your Big Freakin' Mouths

2005-07-10T13:28:00.000-04:00

There's a War of the Worlds review forthcoming, but I've wanted to say something along these lines for months now... ranting ahead...

There are times I really wish people would just be quiet, and let something exist as it is. Between internet posters and ‘journalists’ in local papers *glaring at the Boston Phoenix*, I came dangerously close to losing all interest in Revenge of the Sith, a movie I’ve been dying to see for about 15 years. I realize me basically saying I want people to keep their opinions to themselves is kind of hypocritical, especially when I post it in my review blog. But these were comments made before the movie even came out, where people who hadn’t seen the movie said it was going to suck… despite one of the most kick-ass trailers in a long time. This, if you haven’t figured it, doesn’t make any freakin’ sense. But I let it get to me a little bit, and even questioned my love for the film after I saw it the first time. That was very, very silly of me.

Something similar apparently happened before War of the Worlds. I’m just happy I didn’t hear about any of that crap until after I saw the movie. Tom Cruise makes a jackass of himself on Oprah, and now people say his relationship is a publicity stunt? He’s outspoken and supportive of his chosen religion, and now people say they won’t go see his new movie – which has nothing to do with Scientology? Hell, Mel Gibson went a hundred steps further with The Passion of the Christ, and that managed to make $370 million domestically. Sure, I found Tom Cruise kinda tiresome when he was talking to Matt Lauer, and I’m not entirely sure his arguments stand up the way he wants to believe they do, but if that’s what the man thinks, then that’s that… no longer my problem

So… point being… take the movie for what it is. Let the actor do what he wants outside the film. Would the average business owner want to be boycotted for his religious beliefs if they had nothing to do with his business? Sure, that’s been done on a massive scale before… in Nazi Germany. It still happens today, but it’s not something we ought to be proud of. Support the movie if you want to see the movie… not because you think one of the actors has a big mouth on completely unrelated issues.

KING KONG trailer is up now!

2005-06-28T00:30:00.000-04:00

KONG in Quicktime!

Watch it. Now. Before you go to bed. Dream about it. I'm loving it.

July 8: Fantastic Four and Murderball

2005-06-25T22:49:00.000-04:00

Fantastic Four

The Story: On mission to an orbiting space station, five ordinary people hit with cosmic rays that alter their genetics, giving them extraordinary… err… fantastic powers. Four of them (Ioan Gruffudd, Jessica Alba, Chris Evans and Michael Chiklis) become the widely-known and popular superheroes the Fantastic Four. The fifth (Julian McMahon) becomes Dr. Doom, the widely known yet strangely less popular supervillain. Stuff blows up… clobberin’ time, flame on… you’ve seen this trailer, you know what happens.

The Good: The tiny little look we get at Julian McMahon before the mask goes on. He looks like he has a long and storied future of villains ahead of him. One can only hope he survives this movie to be able to fulfill this. And Chris Evans looks like he’s having a great time. The fire effects look like they’ll be some kind of fun – maybe a preview for Ghost Rider coming up.

The Bad: Just about every piece of footage released for this one so far. And Chris Evans looks like the only one who is having fun, which is something that looks like it may extend to the audience as well. Comic book movies have gone two ways: they’ve been truthful to the books, but still done the movie thing, which turned something into a living, breathing big-screen comic book, a la Spider-Man 2, or they’ve gone shot for shot in a recreation of the comic book, not changing anything they could avoid changing, as in Sin City. Fantastic Four looks to fall somewhere else in between – sticking painfully close to source material in costume and style, but failing to drag something intriguing – like a fully constructed plot – out of it. And after Sin City, you need to work hard to make me not want to see Jessica Alba in spandex for an entire movie.
…
And The Thing’s costume just looks goofy. This better not be foreshadowing Beast in X3.

The Verdict: Will I see Fantastic Four? Yeah probably, though it might be out of curiosity more than interest. This one scares me, and I think you’re looking at a superhero flop the size of The Punisher.

My Guess: * 1/4

Murderball

The Story: This documentary is about wheelchair rugby – before it became an Olympic sport, it was known as murderball. Now, the people who play the sport show the world what it’s really like. In the process, they allowed filmmakers into their lives to see every detail, touching on families, rivalries, sex, honor and competition, parts of the human experience that are alive and well even if you can’t stand upright. The documentary follows the ups and downs of a rivalry between Team USA and Team Canada – the latter being coached by a former USA player.

The Good: Just about everything, so I’ve heard. It won the Documentary Audience Award at Sundance this year, along with an editing award. The trailer makes me very interested. Plus, for all of you suckers for heartwarming stories, these are people who refuse to let their disadvantaged state negatively affect their lives. And they prove that they are still the men they used to be. They just can’t stand up while they do it. Tear-jerking, really.

The Bad: Umm… it’s a documentary about wheelchair rugby. Even with the popularity of docs on the rise, that might still fit in the niche category.

The Verdict: Anyone who sees the trailer ought to be intrigued enough to check this one out. I’ve heard nothing but praise, and I hope/expect to add my own soon enough.

My Guess: * * * 1/2

Bruce Campbell Night!

2005-06-25T14:06:00.000-04:00

Tuesday night was indeed Bruce Campbell night at Coolidge Corner. Everyone's favorite shemp spent the whole night there, from 6PM until well past midnight. He started off with a full question and answer period, allowing the packed house to ask him anything and everything. And that they did.

I have to say, I feel bad for Bruce. If you look at his current projects, it ought to be pretty obvious how far he's strayed from being "that guy in Evil Dead." Yes, he's doing Ash's voice once again in the "Evil Dead: Regeneration" game, but there's also his books, Man With The Screaming Brain, Sky High, The Woods... he's got a lot going on, and he's certainly not living or breathing Evil Dead like some of the schmucks at the Q&A were. Now, don't get me wrong, I love those movies. They are probably three of my favorites of all time. But there needs to be a point when you dissociate the man from the character. Many of them may follow him throughout his career, but it always comes back to "Say groovy!" or something equally inane.

And he wants to talk about other things. When he spoke at Northeastern a few months back, he very eloquently lashed out at the lack of unoriginality in Hollywood. Last night, he drew the crowd into a mini-debate about Batman Begins, because Bruce could barely speak the name without disdain and disappointment creeping into his tone. He says they're selling the same story to us for the fourth or fifth time. "Not interested!" "But it's a good movie!" the fans cried. "I'm glad," he said. "My son loves it, he's seen it twice. NOT INTERESTED." I did love Batman Begins, but the man makes a good point. He emphasizes it via Man with the Screaming Brain, but I'll get to that a little later.

Interesting tidbits to come out of the Q&A:

MGM has expressed interest in Bubba Nosferatu, the sequel to Bubba Ho-Tep. Interest is great, but Bruce put it best. With Sony buying them, "there will be a year of figuring out whose desk is whose. And then everything gets delayed."
Despite all the hubbub, Evil Dead IV is less a matter of "if" and more of "when." "It's our franchise," Bruce said, so naturally they want to do more. Most of it depends on Sam Raimi finding time in his ever-expanding schedule.
Man with the Screaming Brain was originally going to be set in East L.A., but after years of delay, it got moved to Bulgaria because that's where it was cheapest to shoot. Interestingly enough, a woman from Latvia found her way into the audience, and proceeded to rant in her native language, talking over Bruce and frustrating him to no end. After about half an hour, she was escorted out of the theater. We found out later that she apparently was protesting him taking advantage of local workers in Bulgaria to make his film. According to him, Bulgarians make on average about $110 a month. "Bulgarians never had it so good as they did working on Man with the Screaming Brain!"
Bruce and Ted Raimi had a great time doing vocies for the new Evil Dead videogame "Regeneration." Bruce said he likes putting Ted in anything he does "because Ted Raimi makes me look subtle."

That's it for now. Back later with a review of Man with the Screaming Brain. Also continuing the 2005 preview. Stay tuned!

2005-06-24T03:45:00.000-04:00

Man with the Screaming Brain
Seen June 21 at Coolidge Corner
* * 3/4 (out of 4)

I think expectations got the best of me here. I mean, it's a Bruce Campbell movie, written-directed-starring the man himself. Naturally I should love it, right?

I liked it. I did. There were some very funny parts, and the absurdity of it all was very appealing. And hey, it was a brand-spanking-new idea that not many people would think to make a movie of, which is to its credit.

Bruce plays William Cole, a wealthy businessman who travels to Bulgaria to finalize a deal that would mean a huge tax write-off for his company. While there, he is killed in fairly short order, as is the taxi driver/former KGB thug (Vladimir Kolev) he hires to be his transportation. A brilliant-yet-slightly-crazy doctor and his less-than-brilliant-but-more-than-crazy assistant (Stacey Keach and Ted Raimi, respectively) use new technology to combine the brains of both men into Cole's body, and the quest to find the woman who killed them both begins.

I think the biggest problems I have are all technical ones, things pretty far out of Bruce's control. As he said in his introduction, this was made for "hundreds of thousands of dollars," so production-wise, I know I can't expect a whole lot. It was also made for TV, so the transfer over to a projection system might not have been as clean as it could have been. Regardless, I had real problems hearing and understanding anyone who wasn't Bruce or his wife, played by Antoinette Byron. Accents just didn't pick up well at all, and it makes it a little hard to follow what's going on. It also had something of a washed-out look to it. Part of it was just not the best translation from being shot for the Sci Fi Channel to being projected onto a full-sized screen, but it got a little distracting at times.

Other than that, it's just plain silly. That's a good thing for most of it. A scene soon after the two brains are combined involves Bruce and his newly scarred head traumatizing a group of school children in a town square - pretty priceless. Frankly, the movie was worth the price just to see Ted Raimi rapping with a Bulgarian accent. Ted is, in fact, source for lots of silliness in this one... I find it kind of odd to have a purely comic relief character in a generally comic movie. Like Bruce said, sublety is not Ted's strong point, and he kinda beats stuff into the ground, but he comes out no worse for wear. I mean, it's Ted Raimi, here. It was also kinda fun to see scenes in the movie correlate to things out of Bruce's new book, Make Love the Bruce Campbell Way, like the hilariously blatant use of a stunt dummy.

This is a B-movie all the way, as one would come to expect. That's something that it embraces fully, with sight gags galore and silliness abound. It's possible I just wasn't in the right sort of mood, and some other time, I might enjoy it much more thoroughly. It probably didn't help that in order to pass the time during the signing, the Coolidge screened Bubba Ho-Tep, which I love, complete with commentary by "The King," which made me love it a little bit more. It's obvious that this was Bruce's baby and that he's very happy with how it came out. I definitely liked it... it's not the best thing I've ever seen, but it was a fun way to spend an evening, especially with him in attendance. Check it out if you've come to enjoy him in any of his capacities as writer, director, or actor.

2005-06-21T16:21:00.000-04:00

6/29: War of the Worlds

The Story: This one centers on one man (Tom Cruise) who is fairly disconnected from his son and daughter. While spending time with them, aliens happen to execute an invasion plan they've had in the works for a long, long time. Kinda kicks the paternal instinct in when you know your kids are in danger from bad-ass ETs, doesn't it? The aliens attack, and all sorts of chaos ensues.

The Good: Steven Spielberg returns full-force to aliens for the first time since E.T. Between that and Close Encounters of the Third Kind, there's no question he knows what he is doing. It's written by David Koepp, who I think it's safe to say is one of the most successful writers working in Hollywood - Jurassic Park, Panic Room, Spider-Man, Mission: Impossible... he's done all right for himself. It's also been reported that Koepp had a list of things that could not appear in the movie, because they're just too cliched (unnecessarily brutal assaults on New York City, world capitals being attacked, etc), so something original had to be thought of to keep this one moving. Plus the trailers just look like all kinds of fun, with some awe-inspiring destruction. And Dakota Fanning may be the best 10 year old actor around. Like scary-good.

The Bad: Rumors of Cruise's and Katie Holmes relationship being staged have worked their way towards overshadowing this movie and Batman Begins, neither of which need the extra help. Also, I can understand people who might be getting sick of Cruise. He's gotten to the point of playing a caricature of himself unless he's given something good and new to work with (see Collateral).

The Verdict: Unabashed fun. I'm there as soon as I can be. Spielberg dealing with aliens and war in the same film? Who can argue?

My Guess: * * * 3/4

2005-06-20T20:14:00.000-04:00

June 24th: Bewitched and George A. Romero's Land of the Dead

Summer Movie Preview
All ratings out of 4 stars.

6/24: Bewitched

The Story: An actor (Will Ferrell) trying to get his career back on track cast
himself as Darren in a new version of the classic sitcom. The show has been retooled
as a staring vehicle for Darren, but he doesn’t tell that to Isabel (Nicole Kidman),
who he casts as his wife. Little does he know that the slighted actress is actually
a real-life, practicing witch. Hilarity ensues.

The Good: Nicole Kidman tends to offer a minimal level of quality in whatever she
does, so that should be worth watching. Michael Caine, playing Isabel’s warlock
father, looks to be having fun, and he can be very, very funny when he has a good
time with what he’s given – think Dirty Rotten Scoundrels, or even Batman Begins.
Also, Bewitched was written and directed by the sister team of Delia and Nora
Ephron, who put together Sleepless in Seattle, When Harry Met Sally, and You’ve Got
Mail. At the very least, they know how to write romantic comedies.

The Bad: The trailers show Will Ferrell overacting to the point of irritation,
which isn’t anything unusual. He tends to surround himself with good people, though
not much seems to rub off on him. Also, the idea of a Bewitched movie that
recognizes the show as a separate entity fits into the “movies about people who
make movies” category, which I find hard to take in large doses. It’s a little too
close to biting the hand that feeds you, I think.

The Verdict: The strong supporting cast (Caine, Shirley MacLaine, David Alan Grier
and others) will give some laughs, but I’m still not convinced that Will Ferrell
can carry a movie. Especially not something with as weak a starting point as a
former sitcom.

My Guess: * *

George A. Romero’s Land of the Dead


The Story: As if it really matters… George Romero returns to the genre he “created”
for another tale of blood, guts and the walking dead. The last surviving humans on
the planet have taken to a walled city, and while the wealthy ignore the outside
threat, revolutionaries plan to overthrow the authorities. A group of mercenaries
must stop the impending anarchy, all the while dealing with the zombie threat. It
certainly doesn’t help when the zombies start evolving.

The Good: While I don’t know if Romero quite invented the zombie survival-horror
genre, he certainly did more for it than any other single filmmaker. There’s no
doubt he knows what he’s doing. A cast of lesser know but still competent leads led
some support, but the real stars are the latex-covered undead, which look better
than ever. The sheer number of zombies alone should make for lots of fun action.

The Bad: The preview starts off with two of the weaker plots ever conceived. Still,
unlike Bewitched, most people going to see this movie aren’t going to care so much
about the plot. The idea of zombies evolving has me a little worried… doesn’t that
start to violate the definition of “zombie?” It’ll depend what Romero decides they
can do.

The Verdict: Mindless? Yeah, probably. Just like the stars. And that’s what will
make it fun. It’s not going to be something for the ages, but anyone going to this
one will get exactly what they expect – Romero doing what he does best.

My Guess: * * * 1/4

2005-06-20T19:13:00.000-04:00

There's time!

Hey kids...

Now that I have actually found a little bit of free time to write, I figured I might do something a little different. Since this has obviously shied away from being a review blog (based on the lack of reviews), I think I'll do a bit of a 2005 preview to see what's coming up. I'll take a look at the rest of the summer, week by week, and then move into Oscar season at the end of the year to give people a general idea of what's coming up.

Also, thanks to Jay's suggestion, I'm also working on a mini-preview of upcoming shows at the Brattle in Cambridge, and maybe the Coolidge and Kendall as well.

Stay tuned...

2005-06-18T02:19:00.000-04:00

Batman Begins
Seen Wednesday, June 15 At Loews Boston Common #2
* * * 3/4

DC ties the score.

The comic book movie is a strange creature. Most of them get unfairly transformed into action movies (see Blade. See Blade hit things. See Blade put on sunglasses, and hit things harder) because that's the easiest mainstream genre to immediately apply to a comic title. Only twice before have I sat in a movie and felt like I was watching something that came from a comic book - most recently was Sin City, which could be argued was barely a movie since it was nearly panel to frame from Frank Miller's graphic novel. The first time, it was Spider-Man 2, where Sam Raimi not only captured the feel of the action scenes, but also nailed all those little things that happen in between, the parts where Peter Parker is the star of the show, not Spider-Man. It was balanced almost perfectly. While it doesn't quite reach the balance of the webslinger's second installment, Batman Begins succeeds in separating the hero from the man behind the mask, and allowing each to exist in their own right.

Strangely, this almost shifts the other way - this is more a movie about Bruce Wayne than it is about Batman. That's an important distinction, because in the Batman movies of the past, Wayne has been treated like a supporting character, and an aggravating-albeit-necessary one at that. Christopher Nolan, David Goyer and Christian Bale recognized that Batman isn't a superhero in the regular sense of the word - he has no "powers," per se. He's not an alien, he hasn't been exposed to lots of radiation, he hasn't been bitten by something that has, and he's not the next step in human evolution. He's just Bruce Wayne, who was born into a certain amount of privilege, and at a young age had the walls fall down around him and shatter his world. Bruce being a normal (rich, yes, but still normal) guy presents an opportunity that none of the other Batmovies explored - you can competently explain how he got this way. The other situations are convenient, science-fiction write-offs that waive the need for an origin. Things were this way, and now, thanks to this incredibly cool but realistically improbable event, things are that way. Events in Bruce's life are real and unexaggerated, and the team finally fills in the gaps.

Almost everything gets answered: How he learned to fight. Where the Batsuit came from, both theoretically and practically. Where the Batcave came from. Why a bat. And, most importantly, his motivation for doing any of this. The film goes step by step through the origin of Batman, and how Bruce changes when he puts on that suit and mask. One of the other fun things is that at every turn, they consider the consequences. Previous Batman movies had Bruce out all night saving Gotham from the terrors of the world, and then out the next night in a tux, rested and energetic and charming. Bale's version of Bruce Wayne is passed out until 3 PM the day after his first foray as Batman, and he's got the bruises and sore muscles to show for his actions.

I could run the comparison directly, pitting Christian Bale against Michael Keaton, Val Kilmer and George Clooney, but there's not much point. This is a very different person Bale is playing than the playboy-with-a-secret the others all played. He quickly and easily turned away from the previous examples, and made the part entirely his own. He's backed up by an astounding supporting cast. Morgan Freeman and Michael Caine are particularly outstanding, playing loyal Wayne employees, but Gary Oldman, Liam Neeson, Cilian Murphy and Tom Wilkinson don't waste any moment they are on screen either. The other high-profile cast member, Katie Holmes as Wayne's childhood sweetheart (we're talking 10 or 11 year old sweethearts, here), is more or less inconsequential and easily forgotten. Rachel Dawes is nothing special, and is used as a device to get Batman on the scene more than any significant entanglement in Bruce's life.

The only disappointment here, surprising for a big-budget comic book movie, is the action. Watching Bruce train for the League of Shadows, the group that teaches him all his moves and methods, is fantastic, because it's more about how he approaches it, less about the punches and kicks he's throwing. Once Batman has to throw down and fight, Nolan succumbs to the typical frenetic, disjointed action sequences that plague Hollywood right about now. I couldn't actually tell who he was swinging at half the time. There's also a car chase sequence that seems so out of place (and much too long) that even the writers poke fun at the absurdity of it (Alfred: "If this is supposed to be covert, sir, then what do you call that?" He indicates a TV recapping the previous night's car chase between the Tumbler and the police. Wayne "Good TV.") That's all it is. It'sa crowd pleaser for a crowd that's already happy. It doesn't need to be there, and it doesn't help much of anything.

But if that's my only complaint, it's a small price to pay. The action takes up so small a section of the movie that the disappointment is a minor one. Fighting is a distraction from what's going on in Wayne's internal world anyway, so the forgettable action is also forgivable. This is an amazing character reimagining that I can only hope Warner Brothers has the balls to stick with. Should a franchise spawn, it needs to avoid becoming the abonination of the late '90s. So long as the current team stays involved, I don't think that'll be a problem. They redeemed this character and this story, and I would love to see what else they could do with it.

2005-06-17T15:47:00.000-04:00

Star Wars - Episode III: Revenge of the Sith
Seen Thursday, May 19 (12:15 AM show) at Loews Boston Common; Monday, May 30th at AMC Fenway
* * * 3/4 (out of 4)

It took seeing it twice, but I'm sold. As cool as it is to see a movie at midnight, as soon as possible after it's released, it's not necessarily the best way to see it. After working all day, going out to dinner for my girlfriend's birthday, and standing outside on Tremont Street for about 2 hours, I have to admit I was a bit cranky when I finally got into the theater. It didn't help that I got in there at about 11:15, with a full hour to wait until the movie would begin, giving myself plenty of time to get tired as well. After the second viewing, I fully blame these circumstances for my hesitations about the 6th Star Wars movie, something I've been waiting to see for nearly 15 years.

I understand my 15 years isn't as impressive as the near-30 years some people have been waiting, but that's still a huge chunk of my life that I've been in love with something that had no resolution, no closure. That's exactly what RotS provides. The end (in the form of the middle) of the story. All those little tidbits that had been alluded to in the original trilogy materialized; everything that has been building in the prequels came to fruition. It is the missing piece that ties the two sections of story together.

That's not to say it's perfect. Far from. It's long been evident that George Lucas should be kept as far away as possible from anything involving romance, because he simply doesn't know how to keep it from being awkward. At least in this installment, Anakin and Padme seem sincere about their feelings. Even still, Hayden Christensen still plays Anakin pretty stiff... but everyone in the world has bemoaned his portrayal since day one, so I won't reiterate what's already been said. I will give him credit that once Anakin turns toward evil, he does well to keep it a pretty consistent descent into villainy - given his first act as a Sith, it's hard to see him as anything else ever again.

Performances are where this comes up a little short. I blame it on the green screen. The reason Lucas made these prequels now was because the technology had become available to give them the look that he wanted. Unfortunately for actors, that means a lot of work in front of green screens, and I can tell you from personal experience that it can be very hard to give a full-blown performance when you can't see the majority of what you will eventually be interacting with. This is most evident in the first 20 minutes, during which Obi-Wan and Anakin are in the midst of maybe one of the most frantic, exciting, and entertaining space battles ever fought, and yet their tones of voice and demeanors are akin to people on a leisurely drive. Something doesn't quite fit.

On the other hand, Ian McDiarmid, gravely underpraised for his work in any of the films he's graced, solidly cements himself as one of the most heinous villains on film. In this installment, his Senator Palpatine finishes the dark side seduction of Anakin, and despite the serpentine, demonic quality McDiarmid gives him, I can almost understand why. He's evil, but he's that dangerously charismatic kind of evil. McDiarmid absorbs everything, and I think it's a shame he never showed up in more films than he did.

Everyone can say what they want about the prequels. I personally get a tad bit offended by people who say that Lucas is taking them in the wrong direction. I'm not sure how he can take something he created and take it in any "wrong" direction; if this is the direction he intended, then it is the correct one. Regardless, Revenge of the Sith completes a thirty-year story, and solidifies Lucas's world. I think that is what has always amazed me about Star Wars. Lucas was able to do what very few people in the world have the creative capacity to do: he created an entirely separate world. Tolkien and C.S. Lewis did in in literature, and Lucas gave film it's own entirely independent universe, allegorical though it may be. Many fans have lost themselves in it before, and more than the other two prequels, Sith will ensure that many others get lost for a long, long time.

2005-05-19T13:44:00.000-04:00

It's Done

Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith ---- First Impressions

It's that movie. It's the movie I've been waiting to see for fifteen years. The awakening of Darth Vader. The destruction of the Jedi and the Old Republic. The rise of evil. The birth of the twins. Nearly 15 years after I watched A New Hope for the first time, I was finally staring at the giant silver screen, about to hear the answers to so many questions I only thought I had pushed out of my mind.

So why am I not as satisfied as I thought I'd be?

Something's not sitting right. This is the first movie I really feel like I need a second viewing to get an accurate opinion. I was at a midnight show; I was tired, overhyped, stressed, everything... I need to see the movie under more normal circumstances, I think. Of course, at the back of my mind, I am suspicious of myself... I think that maybe the only reason I feel like I need to see it again is because I'm not ready to accept the fact that maybe I didn't like it.

See, I was much more forgiving with Episodes I & II than most fans. Yes, they had significant flaws, but what movie doesn't at this point? Most fans were holding them to the impossible standard set by their memories of the original trilogy, which had 20 years to sit and expand in their minds. I didn't see Jar Jar as nearly as blasphemous as everyone else. Annoying, sure, but he served a purpose, which was a direct appeal to the 21st-century child. It was a sure-fire way to rope them in, and because of the time gap between I and II, they would be matured and ready for II when it was released, and then eventually for III. It's straight-up marketing, and it worked. Lucas didn't need to dump things in there to hook the fans. He knew damn well that we'd all be there anyway. No, the casting wasn't the best it probably could have been... Hayden Christensen is downright frightening in his woodenness at times. But I didn't mind so much, because this was about the story, the world that Lucas created to share with us.

I feel like his focus fell away from the story, and he began to focus too much on how his world would be perceived. The complete CG takeover of Star Wars had become increasingly unsettling, and last night, Lucas twisted the knife. I had heard rave reviews of the gorgeous special effects, but seeing them in action, they made me want to cry. There are sections that just look bad. And Lucas went so far as to fix things that weren't at all broken. Yoda, I understood. He wanted Yoda to have that mobility, and Yoda looks, moves and feels fantastic in Sith. But why C3PO? Why Chewbacca's face? These worked seamlessly using big, gaudy costumes in 1979, why wouldn't they work now? The lightsaber blades only seemed to fit about half of the time.

I like this story. I like the conflict they gave Anakin. They set Anakin on a path that not even Christensen could mess up. His first malicious act as Darth Vader is seriously disturbing, and obviously arranged to test his commitment to his dark oath. And no one can look at him the same way afterwards. He's not outwardly evil like Palpatine is - one of his primary motivating forces is legitimate love for Padme, despite how disjointed the dialogue has been. At least in this movie it seems sincere, if not convincing. He's driven to power out of fear for her life - obviously the less noble pursuits are a draw, but Palpatine promises Anakin something no one else could offer - Padme's life. The conflict in him as he carries out Palpatine's missions - he knows what he's doing is wrong, flying in the face of everything he's ever been taught by his mentor and brother, but Obi-Wan cannot promise to save the woman he loves. It truly illustrates the path to the dark side Yoda has many time described. "Fear leads to anger; anger leads to hate; hate leads to suffering..."

I want to like this. I really, really do. There were moments last night where I was squeezing my girlfriend's hand harder than she probably liked. The coup de grace against the Jedi Order is truly saddening. Anakin post-volcano is the biggest of a number of gruesome yet necessary sections. The brutality in this installment isn't rivaled by anything else in any of the others. At first it didn't seem to fit, but then it became decidedly necessary, showing the real desperation in the faltering Republic's situation. Anakin's first deed as a Sith drew gasps from the audience as soon as they knew what was coming. Darth Vader's first breath inside the suit that terrified me as a child sent chills down my spine. Obi-Wan's last words to his former student were heart-wrenching. There's wonderful stuff here. I just need to know what happened to the presentation.

On a smaller note, Lucas seemed to submit to the Hollywood norms for directing. I really wish he had just pulled the camera back from the saber fights and let us see the battles. This didn't seem to be such a problem in the first two installments. I have to wonder what changed here.

I need to see this again, which I will probably do sometime next week. After that, I may even post a review of it - been awhile since I've done one of those!

2005-03-02T18:40:00.000-04:00

DEAR GOD, AN UPDATE!!

That's right sportsfans, this is me posting a real, honest to goodness movie review. Don't get all teary-eyed on me, now...

Review: Million Dollar Baby
Tuesday, March 1; Regal Falmouth #8
* * * ½ (out of 4)

Following a string of upsets at Sunday night’s Academy Awards, I have to admit I was curious as to how Million Dollar Baby stacked up, especially against The Aviator. I’ve never been a huge Clint Eastwood fan, but if his new brainchild could beat out the obvious favorite for Best Picture, pick up a Directing Oscar for him, and take two of the four acting honors, I figured I needed to give it a shot. Convincing me it was better than The Aviator wouldn’t be hard, but that didn’t necessarily mean the film deserved what it got. I’m glad to say it deserved everything it got, although a lot more hinged on the performances of Hilary Swank and Morgan Freeman (and to a lesser extent of Eastwood himself) rather than Eastwood’s directing.

That was really my only gripe. It was good directing, and the boxing scenes captured what I think of as the atmosphere of a low-grade boxing match – including a lot of the raw brutality that I didn’t expect Eastwood to show – and workout programs. However, I think there were a lot of films this year that presented their settings and subjects a lot more interestingly. Eastwood loved the action scenes, but he also loved the shadows; much of the film’s very emotional moments take place in the darkness of the gym, and not being able to see the faces didn’t quite work for me. I can see how he might use that as a symbol for Eastwood’s inability to open up, but I also think he could have made a few more very powerful moments by showing his own face.

Fortunately for him, Hilary Swank is nothing short of incredible. She plays the female boxer who convinces Burns (Eastwood), an aging boxing trainer/manager, to take her on as a client. She creates one of the most complete characters that I’ve seen in a film in a very long time. This is a character who openly describes herself as “trash” not too far into the movie, and once you are introduced to her family, it’s not hard to see where that distinction came from. It’s a very stereotypical look at life in the south, but it’s also one that is not too far from the truth in many cases. Using her love of boxing, Swank gives the character so much more life and fire than any other character even remotely provides, and when the tragic turning point of the film hits, I don’t see it as at all possible to not feel anything.

Morgan Freeman, this year’s Best Supporting Actor, adds the same from another perspective. He shows one possible path that Swank could follow in her relationship with Eastwood – not good, not bad, just possible. He has everything, from remarkable stories to the tragic twist. His presence serves as a statement on Burns’s character and dedication. These two old men love each other dearly, and they’re each fiercely loyal to the other, despite bickering like an old married couple. Freeman does well to step back in the film and serve his purpose, emerging with complete strength at just the right moments to poke and prod both Burns and (Swank) onto the right track.

This isn’t a boxing movie. Boxing is the gimmick; what Eastwood built is a pretty standard inspirational story that he builds perfectly and then rips away at exactly the right moment. The end is gut-wrenching and heartbreaking, but one look at the motivations of Burns and (Swank) shows it as the only possible solution to the final crisis. Eastwood’s last shot is perfect. This may not be my favorite film of the past year, but the individual elements – all three performances, the script, and Eastwood’s directing – lead to something much bigger than the film overall, and each person fully deserved the recognition they received this past weekend.

2005-02-28T01:35:00.000-04:00

The Winners

Yeah... so that thing I said about getting this thing started again... oops. I've been in a show, and consequently haven't seen many movies/had the time to write about them. I did see Constantine, however, which was so bad it was funny. I just got back from the Oscar party at the Brattle, which was a good time. General comments on the Oscars: Chris Rock good, for the most part; show itself... ehhh not so much. Kinda boring this year. Not a fan of having all the nominees onstage at the same time, though I guess the in-the-audience ones weren't so bad. Beyonce singing most of the songs... never again. For the love of god, please, never again. Anyway, onto the winners... we'll see how well I did, but chances are it won't be good... that whole "Oscar catch-up" thing never quite happened in February.

Best Picture
Winner: Million Dollar Baby
My Pick: Finding Neverland

Tonight thoroughly convinced me that I need to see Clint's baby. Hands down the biggest and most pleasing upset of the night.

Best Director
Winner: Clint Eastwood, Million Dollar Baby
My Pick: Clint Eastwood, Million Dollar Baby

Probably the biggest upset of the night. I thought Scorcese was a lock. Clint has proven himself a resilient little bastard, and good for him. I'm sure Scorcese will have other opportunities.

Best Actor
Winner: Jamie Foxx, Ray
My Pick: Johnn Depp, Finding Neverland

Chances are this is right. I haven't seen Ray (I'll be saying "I haven't seen ____" a lot here... really makes my pics worthless), but I've heard Foxx was spot on. Also amazing that he brought his daughter as his date.

Best Supporting Actor
Winner: Morgan Freeman, Million Dollar Baby
My Pick: Clive Owen, Closer

Yeah... I was just guessing anyway...

Best Actress
Winner: Hilary Swank, Million Dollar Baby
My Pick: Hilary Swank, Million Dollar Baby

I think Swank is going to be a major contender for most things that she does.

Best Supporting Actress
Winner: Cate Blanchett, The Aviator
My Pick: Natalie Portman, Closer

Despite that being a vote out of dire fanboyism, I really wasn't a fan of Blanchett's Hepburn. I'd heard huge ravings about Viriginia Madsen, but... oh well. The Aviator got held in place after this, so it's okay.

Best Animated Feature
Winner: The Incredibles
My Pick: The Incredibles

As if anyone had a bit of doubt.

Art Direction
Winner: The Aviator
My Pick: Lemony Snicket's A Series of Unfortunate Events

I liked Lemony Snicket's style, but The Aviator was pretty, so I'm okay with this.

Cinematography
Winner: The Aviator
My Pick: The Aviator

Yup. A pretty movie.

Costume Design
Winner: The Aviator
My Pick: Lemony Snicket's A Series of Unfortunate Events

I guess I just liked the idea of something being original and creative, not just accurate. Oh well...

Documentay Feature
Winner: Born Into Brothels
My Pick: Super Size Me

Like I said, I had heard great things about this one. Kudos to them.

Documentary Short Subject
Winner: Mighty Times: The Children's March

Little kids and the civil rights movement. Heartstring pulling combination if I ever saw one. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure it's a fantastic piece. Just saying there are certain things the Academy tends to move towards, and without a Holocaust piece, this is the closest thing...

Film Editing
Winner: The Aviator
My Pick: Collateral

Whatever. They should have left another 20-30 minutes on the floor, except that might have made it a little more incomprehensible.

Foreign Language Film
Winner: The Sea Inside, Spain

Makeup
Winner: Lemony Snicket's A Series of Unfortunate Events
My Pick: The Passion of the Christ

As good as Passion's nastiness was, I admit that the stuff they did with Jim Carrey was really amazing. Competition is a good thing.

Best Original Score
Winner: Finding Neverland
My Pick: Harry Potter

This really isn't one I had any right to judge without seeing the movie. At least with visual stuff you can get a sense from previews and such. This is really one that had to be experienced. And I know this isn't Williams's best stuff, so I shouldn't have been so quick to hand it to him.

Best Original Song
Winner: "Al Otro Lado Del Rio," The Motorcycle Diaries
My Pick: "Learn to be Lonely," The Phantom of the Opera

My least favorite part of the ceremony. Only the Counting Crows looked like they enjoyed what they were doing. Beyonce got old very, very quickly, and Antonio Banderas & Carlos Santana wasn't nearly as cool as it should have been. I have no idea why they didn't just let Emmy Rossum sing the song from Phantom. Silly, silly Academy. I'm not a huge fan of this song, but maybe it'd be better if I knew the meaning. Ah well.

Best Animated Short
Winner: "Ryan"

Best Live Action Short
Winner: "Wasp"

Sound Editing
Winner: The Incredibles
My Pick: Spider-Man 2

No complaints with awards going to Pixar's best.

Sound Mixing
Winner: Ray
My Pick: Spider-Man 2

I guess you can't go wrong when you're mixing a movie about Ray Charles.

Visual Effects
Winner: Spide-Man 2
My Pick: Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow, or Spider-Man 2

It's still a crime. But the 2nd-best took it. It was also amazingly amusing to hear someone thank Sam Raimi on the Oscar stage.

Adapted Screenplay
Winner: Sideways
My Pick: Finding Neverland

No surprise here, I guess. All I've heard in the last month is how fantastic the script in Sideways is, so yay, I guess. And they actually said that Before Sunset is based on Before Sunrise. Does this strike anyone else as being silly?

Original Screenplay
Winner: Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
My Pick: Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind

As well it should be. Kudos to Kaufman.

And there you have it. I'm on spring break, so maybe I'll get some actual reviews up here. God only knows...

2005-01-25T15:22:00.000-04:00

Yep. This is gonna be my longest post EVER. Oscar Noms 2005

So the Oscar noominations were announced this morning. I'm gonna shotgun picks right now, as uninformed as I am. Why? Because my class got out early, and I've got an hour to kill. Please bear in mind that I haven't been able to see many of these movies at all. In fact, the only leading film I've seen (and fairly disliked, by the way) was the over-nominated The Aviator. But when the Academy sends me my ballot, I need to be ready, so I'm putting out initial feelers now. The stars are my picks.

Performance by an actor in a leading role
Don Cheadle in “Hotel Rwanda” (United Artists in association with Lions Gate Entertainment through MGM Distribution Co.)
***Johnny Depp in “Finding Neverland” (Miramax)***
Leonardo DiCaprio in “The Aviator” (Miramax, Initial Entertainment Group and Warner Bros.)
Clint Eastwood in “Million Dollar Baby” (Warner Bros.)
Jamie Foxx in “Ray” (Universal)

I'm behind Johnny 100% here. I haven't seen Neverland though it's now on the top of the list. I love Depp, and I think his time is here. I've heard great things about some of the others, however. Only one I've seen is DiCaprio in The Aviator and he was pretty good, though it depends how you look at Howard Hughes as a person. Yep. My vote's Depp.

Performance by an actor in a supporting role
Alan Alda in “The Aviator” (Miramax, Initial Entertainment Group and Warner Bros.)
Thomas Haden Church in “Sideways” (Fox Searchlight/20th Century Fox)
Jamie Foxx in “Collateral” (DreamWorks and Paramount)
Morgan Freeman in “Million Dollar Baby” (Warner Bros.)
***Clive Owen in “Closer” (Sony Pictures Releasing)***

I've heard great things about Church in Sideways and there's the Golden Globe momentum for Owen (not that it really means anything). Foxx's part in Collateral was very obviously a lead, but I guess they didn't want to give him two parts in the same category. I'm putting mine down for Clive Owen. Haven't seen Closer but I will fix that soon.

Performance by an actress in a leading role
Annette Bening in “Being Julia” (Sony Pictures Classics)
Catalina Sandino Moreno in “Maria Full of Grace” (HBO Films in association with Fine Line Features)
Imelda Staunton in “Vera Drake” (Fine Line Features, Alain Sarde and UK Film Council in association with Inside Track Films)
***Hilary Swank in “Million Dollar Baby” (Warner Bros.)***
Kate Winslet in “Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind” (Focus Features)

Kate Winslet deserves the nod for both Eternal Sunshine and, from what I've heard, Neverland as well. Even still, I'm saying Hilary Swank takes this one. That's going mostly off the previews and reviews, but that's my guess.

Performance by an actress in a supporting role
Cate Blanchett in “The Aviator” (Miramax, Initial Entertainment Group and Warner Bros.)
Laura Linney in “Kinsey” (Fox Searchlight/20th Century Fox)
Virginia Madsen in “Sideways” (Fox Searchlight/20th Century Fox)
Sophie Okonedo in “Hotel Rwanda” (United Artists in association with Lions Gate Entertainment through MGM Distribution Co.)
***Natalie Portman in “Closer” (Sony Pictures Releasing)***

As a point of order, my entire soul requires me to be fully behind Natalie Portman on this one, so rooting for her I shall be. I've heard Virginia Madsen is brilliant, so she's probably closest competition for Nat. Cate Blanchett just annoyed me, but that may be because I've never really seen Katharine Hepburn and I don't know what she was like. Laura Linney was good, but nothing amazing, really. Haven't seen Hotel Rwanda. It also goes on the list.

Best animated feature film of the year
***“The Incredibles” ( Buena Vista ) Brad Bird***
“Shark Tale” (DreamWorks) Bill Damaschka
“Shrek 2” (DreamWorks) Andrew Adamson

... I'm sorry... they actually bothered nominating other movies for this? This belongs to The Incredibles, and anyone who questions that ought to be committed.

Achievement in art direction
“The Aviator” (Miramax, Initial Entertainment Group and Warner Bros.)
Art Direction: Dante Ferretti
Set Decoration: Francesca Lo Schiavo
“Finding Neverland” (Miramax)
Art Direction: Gemma Jackson
Set Decoration: Trisha Edwards
***“Lemony Snicket’s A Series of Unfortunate Events” (Paramount and DreamWorks)***
Art Direction: Rick Heinrichs
Set Decoration: Cheryl A. Carasik
“The Phantom of the Opera” (Warner Bros.)
Art Direction: Anthony Pratt
Set Decoration: Celia Bobak
“A Very Long Engagement” (Warner Independent Pictures)
Art Direction: Aline Bonetto

Yeah... where's Sky Captain? I mean, I guess that falls more plainly into Visual Effects, but the whole visual style of the movie was gorgeous and detailed and incredible, despite being almost entirely CG. But anyway... Aviator was pretty, and probably accurate. I'm inclined to go for Lemony Snicket here, just because I liked the design, and I'm pretty sure it's gonna get screwed everywhere else.

Achievement in cinematography
***“The Aviator” (Miramax, Initial Entertainment Group and Warner Bros.)***
Robert Richardson
“House of Flying Daggers” (Sony Pictures Classics)
Zhao Xiaoding
“The Passion of the Christ” (Icon and Newmarket )
Caleb Deschanel
“The Phantom of the Opera” (Warner Bros.)
John Mathieson
“A Very Long Engagement” (Warner Independent Pictures)
Bruno Delbonnel

It's a strange thing to be torn between two movies I didn't like. I can't decide between The Aviator and The Passion of the Christ. For everything I've said bad about them, they were both beautifully shot. Passion's Jerusalem is gorgeous, and the exteriors for Aviator were beautiful as well. I'll go with Aviator which will probably win since this year looks to be nearing a Scorsese spooge-fest anyway.

Achievement in costume design
“The Aviator” (Miramax, Initial Entertainment Group and Warner Bros.)
Sandy Powell
“Finding Neverland” (Miramax)
Alexandra Byrne
***“Lemony Snicket’s A Series of Unfortunate Events” (Paramount and DreamWorks)***
Colleen Atwood
“Ray” (Universal)
Sharen Davis
“Troy” (Warner Bros.)
Bob Ringwood

You know, I'm sure there's a lot to be said for the accuracy found in four of these, but only one of them shows off any real creativity and originality, so I'm going for Lemony Snicket again. Hitting an era's clothing can be done by anyone. I'm glad they do it well, but that's their job. It doesn't strike me as going above and beyond.

Achievement in directing
“The Aviator” (Miramax, Initial Entertainment Group and Warner Bros.)
Martin Scorsese
***“Million Dollar Baby” (Warner Bros.) Clint Eastwood***
“Ray” (Universal) Taylor Hackford
“Sideways” (Fox Searchlight/20th Century Fox) Alexander Payne
“Vera Drake” (Fine Line Features, Alain Sarde and UK Film Council in association with Inside Track Films) Mike Leigh

Unfortunately, I've got little doubt that this is going to Scorsese, though I'm not entirely sure why. Jay makes a good point talking about Sam Raimi's lack of love from the Academy, but I told him that I think they're just holding off his win till they can give it to him for Evil Dead 4, the same year Bruce Campbell gets his Best Actor win. Anyway, I'm rooting for Clint, and hoping for an upset.

Best documentary feature
“Born into Brothels” (THINKFilm)
A Red Light Films, Inc. Production
Ross Kauffman and Zana Briski
“The Story of the Weeping Camel” (THINKFilm)
A Hochschule für Fernsehen und Film München Production
Luigi Falorni and Byambasuren Davaa
***“Super Size Me” (Roadside Attractions/Samuel Goldwyn Films)***
A Kathbur Productions/The Con Production
Morgan Spurlock
“Tupac: Resurrection” ( Paramount )
An MTV - Amaru Entertainment, Inc. Production
Lauren Lazin and Karolyn Ali
“Twist of Faith”
A Chain Camera Pictures Production
Kirby Dick and Eddie Schmidt

Interesting to note that Tupac was definitely released in 2003. Eligible? I'd say no. And, apparently, The Story of the Weeping Camel is fictional, which creates concern too. I liked Super-Size Me well enough, even if it did get a little activist-y. I've actually heard really good stuff about Born into Brothels. I'll give Spurlock my vote for th first-time filmmaker sympathy.

Best documentary short subject
“Autism Is a World”
A State of the Art Production
Gerardine Wurzburg
“The Children of Leningradsky”
A Hanna Polak Production
Hanna Polak and Andrzej Celinski
“Hardwood”
A Hardwood Pictures and National Film Board of Canada Production
Hubert Davis and Erin Faith Young
“Mighty Times: The Children’s March”
A Tell the Truth Pictures Production
Robert Hudson and Bobby Houston
“Sister Rose’s Passion”
A New Jersey Studios Production
Oren Jacoby and Steve Kalafer

There are the nominations. I'm leaving this alone, because I know nothing about any of them.

Achievement in film editing
“The Aviator” (Miramax, Initial Entertainment Group and Warner Bros.)
Thelma Schoonmaker
***“Collateral” (DreamWorks and Paramount )***
Jim Miller and Paul Rubell
“Finding Neverland” (Miramax)
Matt Chesse
“Million Dollar Baby” (Warner Bros.)
Joel Cox
“Ray” (Universal)
Paul Hirsch

I'm going with Collateral, but I think Neverland might displace it. I think it was very nicely put together; I feel like even with cuts I got a pretty good feel of how LA is constructed. And nothing touched the relationship between Foxx and Cruise.

Best foreign language film of the year
“As It Is in Heaven”
A GF Studios Production
Sweden
“The Chorus (Les Choristes)”
A Galatée Films/Pathé Renn/France 2 Cinema/Novo Arturo Films/Vega Film AG Production
France
“Downfall”
A Constantin Film Production
Germany
“The Sea Inside”
A Sogecine and Himenóptero Production
Spain
“Yesterday”
A Videovision Entertainment Production
South Africa

Again, I know nothing.

Achievement in makeup
“Lemony Snicket’s A Series of Unfortunate Events”
( Paramount and DreamWorks)
Valli O’Reilly and Bill Corso
***“The Passion of the Christ” ***
(Icon and Newmarket )
Keith Vanderlaan and Christien Tinsley
“The Sea Inside”
(Fine Line Features and Sogepaq)
Jo Allen and Manuel García

I will actually give this one to Passion. They worked REALLY HARD to make sure you knew that Christ was in all kinds of pain, and they did it well.

Achievement in music written for motion pictures (Original score)
“Finding Neverland” (Miramax) Jan A.P. Kaczmarek
***“Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban” (Warner Bros.) John Williams ***
“Lemony Snicket’s A Series of Unfortunate Events” (Paramount and DreamWorks) Thomas Newman
“The Passion of the Christ” (Icon and Newmarket ) John Debney
“The Village” ( Buena Vista ) James Newton Howard

Can't beat John Williams. Despite his Harry Potter music not being his best, none of these other ones exactly jumped out at me, either.

Achievement in music written for motion pictures (Original song)
“Accidentally In Love” from “Shrek 2” (DreamWorks)
Music by Adam Duritz, Charles Gillingham, Jim Bogios, David Immergluck, Matthew Mallery and David Bryson
Lyric by Adam Duritz and Daniel Vickrey
“Al Otro Lado Del Río” from “The Motorcycle Diaries” (Focus Features and Film Four)
Music and Lyric by Jorge Drexler
“Believe” from “The Polar Express” (Warner Bros.)
Music and Lyric by Glen Ballard and Alan Silvestri
***“Learn To Be Lonely” from “The Phantom of the Opera” (Warner Bros.)***
Music by Andrew Lloyd Webber
Lyric by Charles Hart
“Look To Your Path (Vois Sur Ton Chemin)” from “The Chorus (Les Choristes)” (Miramax)
Music by Bruno Coulais
Lyric by Christophe Barratier

I'm saying it. Trey Parker and Matt Stone got screwed. There were a few different choices in Team America, and I would have LOVED for them to be there to perform one. And see what happens for Pixar when Randy Newman doesn't do the music? NOTHING. Nothing here looks good to me, but I'm guessing Phantom gets this, mainly because they got Webber to write something new.

Best motion picture of the year
“The Aviator” (Miramax, Initial Entertainment Group and Warner Bros.)
A Forward Pass/Appian Way /IMF Production
Nominees are still to be determined.
***“Finding Neverland” (Miramax) ***
A FilmColony Production
Richard N. Gladstein and Nellie Bellflower, Producers
“Million Dollar Baby” (Warner Bros.)
A Warner Bros. Pictures Production
Nominees are still to be determined.
“Ray” (Universal)
A Universal Pictures/Bristol Bay Production
Nominees are still to be determined.
“Sideways” (Fox Searchlight/20th Century Fox)
A Sideways Productions, Inc. Production
Michael London, Producer

Sad that this will probably go to Aviator without most people batting an eye. Had I seen these, I think my vote would go down for Neverland.

Best animated short film
“Birthday Boy” An Australian Film, TV and Radio School Production
Sejong Park and Andrew Gregory
“Gopher Broke”
A Blur Studio Production
Jeff Fowler and Tim Miller
“Guard Dog”
A Bill Plympton Production
Bill Plympton
“Lorenzo”
A Walt Disney Pictures Production
Mike Gabriel and Baker Bloodworth
“Ryan”
A Copper Heart Entertainment & National Film Board of Canada Production
Chris Landreth

I got nothing. A little sad to see that Pixar's Boundin' didn't get one, even though it definitely wasn't their best. Still, it was pretty, and kinda fun. But right now I begin the official campaign to ensure that Don Hertzfeld is on next year's ballot for The Meaning of Life, which premiered last week at Sundance.

Best live action short film
“Everything in This Country Must”
A Six Mile LLC Production
Gary McKendry
“Little Terrorist”
An Alipur Films Production
Ashvin Kumar
“7:35 in the Morning ( 7:35 de la Mañana)”
An Ibarretxe & Co. Production
Nacho Vigalondo
“Two Cars, One Night”
A Defender Films Limited Production
Taika Waititi and Ainsley Gardiner
“Wasp”
A Cowboy Films Production
Andrea Arnold

I got nothing.

Achievement in sound editing
“The Incredibles” ( Buena Vista ) Michael Silvers and Randy Thom
“The Polar Express” (Warner Bros.) Randy Thom and Dennis Leonard
***“Spider-Man 2” (Sony Pictures Releasing) Paul N.J. Ottosson***

I'm rooting for Spider-Man 2. It's unfortunate that something this fun will only get recognized in the technical categories. I've already talked about Raimi, and there are some years you could make a case for a Supporting Actor nod for Alfred Molina. Maybe not this year, but he was no slouch.

Achievement in sound mixing
“The Aviator” (Miramax, Initial Entertainment Group and Warner Bros.)
Tom Fleischman and Petur Hliddal
“The Incredibles” ( Buena Vista )
Randy Thom, Gary A. Rizzo and Doc Kane
“The Polar Express” (Warner Bros.)
Randy Thom, Tom Johnson, Dennis Sands and William B. Kaplan
“Ray” (Universal)
Scott Millan, Greg Orloff, Bob Beemer and Steve Cantamessa
***“Spider-Man 2” (Sony Pictures Releasing)***
Kevin O’Connell, Greg P. Russell, Jeffrey J. Haboush and Joseph Geisinger

Again, pulling for Spidey.

Achievement in visual effects
“Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban” (Warner Bros.)
Roger Guyett, Tim Burke, John Richardson and Bill George
“I, Robot” (20th Century Fox)
John Nelson, Andrew R. Jones, Erik Nash and Joe Letteri
*** “Spider-Man 2” (Sony Pictures Releasing) John Dykstra, Scott Stokdyk, Anthony LaMolinara and John Frazier ***

Yep, this is a what the hell moment if I've ever seen one. Sky Captain owns this category, and yet it's not even nominated. This is probably this year's glaring omission. Jay's right, the lack of love that movie got is astounding. I will be picking up that DVD this week, and I will give it all the love it can handle.

But yeah. Spidey once again.

Adapted screenplay
“Before Sunset” (Warner Independent Pictures)
Screenplay by Richard Linklater & Julie Delpy & Ethan Hawke
Story by Richard Linklater & Kim Krizan
***“Finding Neverland” (Miramax)***
Screenplay by David Magee
“Million Dollar Baby” (Warner Bros.)
Screenplay by Paul Haggis
“The Motorcycle Diaries” (Focus Features and Film Four)
Screenplay by José Rivera
“Sideways” (Fox Searchlight/20th Century Fox)
Screenplay by Alexander Payne & Jim Taylor

Cool that Sunset got nominated, though I have no idea what it's based on. The only thing I can think is that they're saying it's based on Before Sunrise, which is just all kinds of silly. Anyway, I'm hoping Neverland takes it.

Original screenplay
“The Aviator” (Miramax, Initial Entertainment Group and Warner Bros.)
Written by John Logan
***“Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind” (Focus Features)***
Screenplay by Charlie Kaufman
Story by Charlie Kaufman & Michel Gondry & Pierre Bismuth
“Hotel Rwanda” (United Artists in association with Lions Gate Entertainment through MGM Distribution Co.)
Written by Keir Pearson & Terry George
“The Incredibles” ( Buena Vista )
Written by Brad Bird
“Vera Drake” (Fine Line Features, Alain Sarde and UK Film Council in association with Inside Track Films)
Written by Mike Leigh

There's no reason Charlie Kaufman should lose this one. Eternal Sunshine it is.

So that's that. Obviously, I have a lot of ground to cover before the end of February, most notably Finding Neverland, Million Dollar Baby, Closer, Sideways, Hotel Rwanda, and Ray. Hopefully I'll be able to hit at least a few of those, night owl that I am.

I will say that I am gonna try to get this thing going again. The Aviator motivated me to write something less than nice, but I haven't gotten there yet. Also, I have some thoughts about Saved! that I want to put down, because I finally saw it the other day. So stay tuned, and hopefully I'll get back on track.

2004-12-11T22:58:00.000-04:00

Yeech... this has just hit the point of being ugly, hasn't it?

I apologize. My time the last few months, between classes, work, and a play I was in, simply didn't exist. While I have seen a few things I haven't had time to write up, I haven't seen this few movies over a 2 month period for as long as I can remember. Hopefully I'll be able to get back into it soon, but I make no promises...

Here's a quick snap judgment on some of the stuff I did see.

Team America: World Police - * * * 1/4
Funny, funny stuff. There are times when it goes a little overboard, but at least it knows it. I can see why everyone was so concerned about this, but it's not nearly as awful as people made it out to be. Remember: they're puppets.

The Incredibles - * * * *
Just about as good as you can get for an animated movie - or an action movie, for that matter. Perfect casting, fantastic design and writing, and fun for pretty much everyone. Pixar has outdone themselves.

Saw - * * * 1/2
I'm a hard person to freak out, and while I held my ground for most of this, the end got to me. Needless to say, the person I was with decided we needed to watch a happy movie before she was gonna be able to sleep. Fantastic thriller, with better-than-average twists to keep you interested. Gruesome, though. Not for the faint of heart, OR the kids. If I ever see anyone letting their kid under 13 watch this, I'm reporting them to human services.

I Heart Huckabees - * * *
Fun... confusing as all heck, but fun. A great cast shows they can do something other than play it safe. Some background in exactly what existentialism is might help, but isn't required; it'll be somewhat explained. A fun, kooky little movie.

Tarnation - * 1/2
Blech. A sad, sad story that tries to show a sad, sad story. This is being hailed as a huge documentary, but it's hard when your first exposure to the filmmaker is him playing a part; he's an actor by trade, and despite his personal connection to the material, it's hard to tell if he's being honest or playing a part. Unimpressive, and jumpy as hell.

And in the last two months, that's about it, kids. A few things I've seen before (I don't think I need to review Army of Darkness; that's a four-star piece and everyone knows it.) Hopefully I'll get more frequent... time will tell...

2004-09-15T23:40:00.000-04:00

Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow
September 14, 2004; AMC Fenway #12 (Advance Screening)
* * * * (out of 4)

A word of caution before stepping into that theater: do not expect anything. Leave any modern cynicism at the door, because there’s no room for it here. Once the film starts to roll, you will be emerged in the richest, most fantastic fantasy world to be created in a long time, and there’s no point in half-assing it; if you want to enjoy this movie, enjoy it with all of your being. It’ll deliver that much fun, if not a little more.

Sprung from the formidable imagination of first-time filmmaker Kerry Conran, Sky Captain is in all aspects unlike anything I can recall. In writing this, I tried to make comparisons, but nothing fit. Conran crafts a completely unique world, drawing on film noir, a nostalgic view of the 1930s, and comics to give the film a consistent feel from the beginning. His style requires the actors to work doubly hard, since every scene in the movie had some CG effect in it, requiring a massive amount of green screen work. And even though this style is definitely going to be one that viewers will completely love or completely hate, even those who hate it need to hang around and watch the movie. Everyone knows pretty pictures can’t sell a movie on their own.

The film follows Chronicle reporter Polly Perkins (Gwyneth Paltrow), a woman who will do anything and everything to get her story, on the trail of scientists who keep disappearing. When giant robots attack New York and seem somehow to be connected to the kidnappings, Polly attaches herself to old flame Joe Sullivan (Jude Law), a.k.a. “Sky Captain,” to guarantee herself the exclusive. Sky Captain brings with him Dex (Giovanni Ribisi), his trusted mechanic, and enlists the aid of Frankie Cook (Angelina Jolie), another very capable woman from his past. When Dex gets kidnapped in a second attack on New York, Sky Captain and Polly set out on a trek across the globe to find his friend and get the scoop on the missing scientists… and maybe save the world from certain doom on the way.

If all this sounds black and white, good vs. evil… it is. And it’s done almost flawlessly. Law plays Sky Captain as the all-around American hero – not a superhero who needs extraordinary circumstances to aid his climb, but an everyday guy who worked hard and worked towards his goal. Paltrow discovers that as good a career as she’s had, she would have made a killing had she been born at the turn of the century, and been able to play this character her entire career. Polly Perkins in the role she was meant to play. The supporting cast is just as strong, never surpassing the couple who are designated the leads, but adding just the right amount to show that these are the people Sky Captain is fighting for, and as loyal to and protective of them as he is, they are just as devoted to the hero as well.

Sky Captain is also a kids movie in disguise. This is a solid PG, and the kind of swashbuckling adventure that had long since died when I was growing up. The movie ditches any token American cynicism, and looks at the world with a wonder and awe that only children are usually allowed to possess. This is on that level, but that by no means implies that it’s low; if anything, the execution is more sophisticated than most action movies because of the approach. Despite the villains and evil robots, it focuses on the magnificence of the world, the wonders that have been created. There’s no room for negativity in that image.

I pray this movie takes off. Any movie that gets an audience cheering and applauding in the middle (don’t worry – you’ll know the scene when you see it) deserves a huge run and following. Sky Captain is about having fun at the movies again, from the beautiful, fantastical style to the pure heroism of the good vs. evil battle. It resurrects something that’s been missing from the cinema for quite awhile, and if your attitude is open, nothing should stop this movie from putting a smile on your face, no matter who you are.