X Men Origins:  Wolverine

This movie is bad.  I wasn't betting on a prequel movie about Wolverine, perhaps the most overrated superhero ever, to be that good but just how bad it ended up being simply stunned me.  How bad is this movie?  The answer lies in this scene, supposedly the emotional center of the tale.  A pensive and brooding Logan sits in his log cabin living room deep in some of those mountains somewhere in Canada, his lover, the aptly named Kayla Silverfox, stares out at into the night sky and says:

"Do you ever wonder why the moon is lonely?"

Logan plays up the attractively shallow brute, and his lady then launches into a monologue detailing some phony Native American legend not worth repeating and they end up making out. 

AAAAHH!!!  It's just this kind of scene that kills otherwise well-meaning comic book movies.  Upon hearing the above line I could actually feel my brain cells screaming in pain.  It didn't start out so bad.  The audience is first treated to a fun though brief little jump back to Logan's childhood in the 1800s to uncover the original connection between Wolverine and Sabretooth and the reason why Logan is always so dang depressed, both of which boil down to an event that happens in about three minutes.  Then a visually arresting opening credits montage ensues showing the ferrel fréres taking part in every war they can enlist in from the Civil War to Vietnam.  From there they get drafted into a mutant special forces squad doing black ops for a suspicious Colonel Stryker (anyone with that name just can't be a good guy).  Logan gets cold feet about killing innocents, quits the team, runs away to some mountains in Canada, finds a supermodel ditz of a wife and pretty soon sitting around the campfire listening to her talk about about why the frickin' moon is lonely!!!  AAAAH!!!

Of course, things don't stay that way for too long.  All hell breaks loose once Logan's old buddy Sabretooth goes missing and starts bumping off former members of the team.  Cue explosions, about a hundred incidental characters showing off their powers and more really really bad writing.  In parts, the special effects are just bad, which is unfortunate since it's at just those points that the movie is relying on eye candy.  The camera lingers unabashedly on the obviously CG rendered claws as if nothing is screwy.  There's just no reason to CG the dang things.  Prosthetics just aren't that hard!!!  I swear, I'm going to start a list of unnecessary digital FX.  This ranks just behind George Lucas superimposing Temuera Morrison's head onto a completely CGed suit of stormtrooper armor.  I was positively screaming at the screen.  PUT THE GUY IN A SUIT!!!!  AAAAH!  But I digress.  Many other shots suffered.  They got sloppy on Professor X showing up in a chopper to save a bunch of fleeing mutant lab-rats.  It's so clear that neither the set, the props nor any of the actors were in the same place at the same time.  Why?  What's so hard about getting everybody together and shooting a real life shot instead of cobbling together a poor patchwork green-screened images.  It's laziness that actually ends up causing more work for the post-production dept. and costing more money.

There's really not much more to say.  Will. I. Am is horrible, LOST stars Dominic Monaghan and Kevin Durand don't even seem like they're even trying and Taylor Kitsch puts on a crappy creole accent to play fan fave Gambit.  Granted these guys seem to have been given dialogue that was written by a 13 year old taking a screenwriters' correspondence course at a community college so it must be insulting.  Only Ryan Reynolds is able to pull off the snarky Deadpool character, another long-awaited character for fans (though his backstory is seriously tampered with).  But that's 'cuz Reynolds is a huge Deadpool fan.  Likewise, you gotta be a huge Wolverine fan to overlook the long list of aesthetic crimes this film commits.  But it's especially the fans that hate to see their beloved superheroes handled so carelessly.  But perhaps the story is uninspired to begin with.  Wolverine is one of the original antiheroes, and today, antiheroes are all there is.  Films are so saturated with 'the dark side' of our protagonists that there may not be anywhere to go with a character like Wolverine these days.  What more is there to be explored about the exaltations and consequences of revenge and violence that directors like Clint Eastwood haven't already gone into?  How is Wolverine any different from all the other badasses out there?  Here is where the source material fails the film.  Wolverine has always been a two-dimensional superhero through and through and though Gavin Hood and his crew didn't have to butcher the tale so much, he probably found himself without any more interesting direction to go.

But really, "Do you ever wonder why the moon is lonely?" there's just no excuse for that.

State of Play

State of Play recontextualizes a 2003 BBC TV series into a contemporary American setting.  Russel Crowe and Rachel McAdams play two reporters trying to discover the truth behind a murder that might be connected to the contention between an idealistic senator (Ben Affleck) and a corporation responsible for supplying mercenaries to the U.S. government.    Mercenary activity in Iraq and Afghanistan is a spicy enough topic for a political thriller but the film's drama centers more around the rules of reporting and the tension between America's societal institutions than the kinds of thrills one would expect from one of the Bourne films.  Our heroes find themselves at odds with the competing interests of the police, military, congress and even their own newspaper.  The film follows in the tradition of more refined political thrillers like "All the President's Men" and "Breach".  There are more boardroom shouting matches than gunfights.  The film manages to keep a decent amount of intrigue but leaving the murder unsolved until the very end is like dangling a carrot out in front of a horse making the 2-hour runtime feel like an unnecessarily long haul for the final payoff.  

In a thriller like this, actors are little more than placeholders and with the exception of an entertainingly sleazy Jason Bateman, the cast wisely goes no further than that.  Ben Affleck and Rachel McAdams play things close to the belt and Russel Crowe fits right into his role.  There's something to be said for an actor who is best known for epic parts like a Roman gladiator, a schizophrenic mathematician and an 18th Century ship captain, who is just as good at portraying normal American citizens (no small task for a native Aussie).  He's not the flashiest actor in the world but his understatement is his strength.  

State of Play  is cliché, but not boring.  Government thrillers rarely try to shoot the moon with contemporary relevance or emotional depth.  It's good enough to keep the audience guessing and provide a few thrills in a realistic environment.  The problem with State of Play is that it doesn't take the time to construct a solid infrastructure of subplots to adequately support its final conclusion.  The unexpected finale makes an otherwise good film feel slightly careless.  The final plot twist comes so out of left field it would make any attentive viewer groan.  In my view it's better to run the risk of predictability in the interest of a sensible outcome than to ensuring a surprise ending by using improbable leaps of logic.  Still, the film is not bad, and if you can keep your brain from being too offended by the ending, then it is easy to admit that the film is entertaining, though not much else.

Read the Comic or Watch the Watchmen?

Zack Snyder's adaptation of Alan Moore's cult comic book classic is one of the most highly anticipated films since The Phantom Menace. Never before have nerds and fanboys been so eager to see a film and so unforgiving of infidelity to its source material. The comic was long deemed unfilmable due to its wild imagery, esoteric themes and multilayered plot, most vocally by the author himself. Snyder's answer to that was "why not?" and proceeded to make a doggedly faithful adaptation that translates the book to the screen at times word-for-word and frame-for-frame.

A note to the uninitiated: Watchmen is not just another comic book. Watchmen is the comic book. It is equal parts philosophy, noir mystery, apocalyptic black comedy and emotional character drama. According to Moore, one of his goals in writing it was to showcase certain elements that comics could bring to a story that other media could not. Moore uses the picture-book layout of the comic to frame iconic imagery to add thematic depth to the events in the plot. For instance, the image of the familiar yellow smiley face with a blood droplet over its right eye recurs in different forms: a clock with the hand set 5 minutes to midnight and grinning shark with a wounded eyeball to name a few. What does the image mean? Is it a statement about human nature? A countdown to nuclear apocalypse? Is it both? Reading Watchmen is a symbolic journey and the film succeeds brilliantly in recreating the thematically weighty imagery. Snyder makes no attempt to ‘realize’ the movie into a familiar setting or make the characters or plot any more believable than what happens on the comic pages—and it’s pretty wacky. The Dark Knight this ain’t. Watchmen is an ornate mythological tale that appeals almost exclusively to what little right brain moviegoers have left amid the shaky-camera, ‘docudrama’ style filmmaking that currently dominates modern cinema.

But alas, there are problems. Though Snyder hails his film as a labor of love, the result feels strangely soulless though it's not for lack of trying. Snyder's Watchmen is not an adaptation but a re-enactment of its source material which makes it fun to watch if one is familiar with the comic, but as a whole, the film rings hollow as inexperienced actors butcher Moore’s dialogue. After a spunky opening credits sequence, the meat of the film feels drawn out and uninspired as Snyder’s penchant for grindhouse-style violence and sexuality overshadows the story's intelligence.

Understatement is not Snyder's specialty but then again, it's difficult to imagine how any narrative could retain a subtle tenor when its main characters include a nerdy ex-crimefighter, a nihilistic detective with an inkblot face-mask and a fluorescent blue and totally nude demigod. But this is exactly what Moore accomplished in his 1987 comic series; Watchmen is a farfetched 'Twilight Zone'-esque fable about the exaltations and miseries of human nature in a time of apocalypse. In the film we see the comic's weighty and cataclysmic events depicted with cinematic virility, enhanced by a sensational score and perfectly timed editing and perhaps it is exactly this pomp that undermines the cleverness and sharp wit of perhaps the only comic than can truly be called ‘literature’. While reading the comic, one is allowed to muse over the symbolic undertones of the story's labyrinthine plot while enjoying the participative process of interpreting its symbols and taking sides with characters. A film by nature must be more straightforward. The original Watchmen was a pallet for interpretation and inference, but the film is unavoidably concrete.

- B-

Taken

French producer Luc Besson has showed us in the past that there is a way to make a predictable action movie and keep it interesting. The films that have come out of his studio including ‘Unleashed’ and ‘The Transporter’ have shown that skillful directing, snappy editing and careful cinematography can keep something moviegoers have seen a hundred times fresh and interesting. Besson’s longtime cinematographer Pierre Morel seems to have learned little from his colleague in his English-language film debut ‘Taken’, an uninspired thriller starring Liam Neeson as an ex-CIA agent chasing sex-traffickers who have kidnapped his teenage daughter.

Since Morel’s debut, ‘District B13’ was a highlight for European action films, it seemed logical that his first English-language film starring major Hollywood actors would be a prime opportunity to show of his cinematography skills. Unfortunately, ‘Taken’ lacks the camera-tricks and detailed set pieces that made his previous projects so novel. There are a few jumpy Euro-style edits here and there but Morel stays trapped in the stylistic wake of the Bourne films with little originality displayed.

As far as the acting goes, the performances are overall wooden. Neeson is decent as a cool, collected killer but the role forces him to be a little too charismatic, marring his strong, silent mystique. Famke Jannsen’s supporting role as Neeson’s ex-wife is standard boilerplate. Maggie Grace (of “Lost”) delivers a compelling performance as the kidnapped seventeen year old but she gets so little screen-time it doesn’t help things much.

A predictable plot and two-dimensional performances are typical of medium-budget action flicks. The true deal-killer for ‘Taken’ is the inclusion of sex trafficking as a major plot element. Putting such a serious subject into an otherwise cartoonish action film overshadows what few strengths the film has. Filming half-naked women with insufficient reason is cheap filmmaking but making them sex slaves to boot is just disturbing, exploiting a weighty issue to provide a dull film with some ‘eye-candy’.

‘Taken’ is a pedantic and at times inappropriate entry into the growing genre of Euro-style action thrillers. Expect its Box Office position to drop rapidly.

- C

Coraline: A Nightmare Come True

Eight years is an unnaturally long time to develop a film in today’s frenetic entertainment industry. The YouTube generation has made entertainment an instantaneously available commodity and as a result the feature film industry has been recently forced into a more efficient machine often at the expense of good craftsmanship. But for every trend there is an exception. The 3-D stop-motion animated Coraline is proof that even in a digital age patience and hard work still produces some of the best art. Henry Sellick (The Nightmare Before Christmas) has meticulously construction what is without question a visual masterpiece of hand crafted elegance and thoughtful simplicity.

The plot is adapted from a book written by unsung fantasy scribe Neil Gaiman. It’s an eerie tale of a young girl who escapes her boring life through a small door in her house and finds a parallel version of her family in a perfect world that just might be too good to be true. The familiarity of the plot is its strength, adorning the archetypal realm of childhood nightmare with outlandish spectacle.

Coralline is a noticeable step ahead of all previous stop-motion feature films. Though it may lack the nuanced characterization of Nick Park’s Wallace and Gromit series, Sellick makes up for it with a smooth-as-silk frame rate and eye-popping set pieces that must be seen to be believed. Since Coraline is Sellick’s first venture outside of Tim Burton’s guiding influence he seems to have been able to play to his own particular strengths. The tone is noticeably muted, trading Burton’s sensory barrage for a more composed approach. The Nightmare Before Christmas was a clamorous musical, but Coraline is a whimsical bedtime story.

Though the film is also being broadcast in standard format the simple fact is that it must be seen in 3-D. The newly innovated “Real-D” technology keeps the film’s wide range of colors intact and creates a perspectival panorama with seamless layers of illusory depth. The Real-D effect transforms the claustrophobia of stop-motion animation into an expansive moving diorama. This is stop-motion as it was meant to be seen.

Though Sellick tactfully employs a small degree of digital enhancement Coraline is almost entirely hand made. It is a captivating experience that shows how combining new technology with creativity, an old school work ethic and our generation’s scarcest virtue, patience can make good films great and create timeless art from simple ideas.

- B+

The Dark Knight - A


This is more of an analysis than a review. If you've seen the film, you already know how much of a masterpiece it is.

When it comes time to make a comic book movie, all superheroes have a problem fitting into the present. Let's be realistic, most superheroes were created around the happy go-lucky days of brash American boldness and hucksterism; when truth, justice and the American Way was going to save the world. Superheroes were symbols of that power in the world, uncompromising, judicial power, American power. But anyone who reads comic books knows that superheroes have changed greatly since those old glory days. Spider-Man, the first superhero created with actual human impulses changed all that and began the descent of the superhero into where it is today. Slowly, the continuum culminated with Alan Moore's Watchmen in 1987 which delivered an entirely alternate take on familiar heroes removing the moral absolutism of the past. Since that event (a veritable paradigm shift for the comic world) comic scribes have felt the freedom to reimagine superheroes in more speculative ways. Comic series such as Kingdom Come, The Dark Knight Returns, The Ultimates and Ed Brubaker's Captain America have delivered alternate and more human takes on classic superheroes, putting them into our time and space, giving them new life and relevance for our day. Different writers will have different themes they want to explore, changing the characters slightly to achieve their desired effects. As a result, Batman has at times been characterized as a paranoid spook, Superman a self-righteous control freak. There are even some comic series (dubbed 'Elseworlds' by DC Comics) that reimagine familiar heroes in an entirely alternate universe. Gotham by Gaslight takes Batman and puts him in the late 19th Century, Superman: Red Son begins with Superman's rocketship landing on a Russian farm instead of in America, causing Superman to grow up as a Communist. The range of moral questions that comics nowadays ponder has become quite extensive and there is a seemingly endless realm of possible themes that can be explored with the same characters. The problem comes when translating a comic book character out of the freeing medium of the page and into the more potentially embarrassing spotlight of cinema. Superheroes re-entering the mainstream continually suffer from a lack of characterization, simplistic impulses and one-sidedness in the effort to produce a character that will resonate with the original spirit of the superhero without entering the sticky modern realm. The result tends to be little more than escapist fantasy and complaints are leveled that the films ignore the challenges of today and simply focus on special-effects and action scenes. Making a relevant superhero movie is just, well, hard. Christopher and Jonathan Nolan apparently realized this, looked at each other and said. "Well, it's a tough job, but someone has to do it" and then created perhaps the finest superhero film of all time.

Like the comics of today, this film is a radically alternative take on Batman. The Nolan Brothers have really stepped outside the bounds of the traditional superhero film and created their own 'Elseworlds' vision of the Batman mythology, one that intentionally places the Dark Knight into the today's troublesome world in a style they dub 'hyper-realism'. It's even different from their last film, in which Christopher Nolan successfully explored the power of symbol and legend in today's world, that it's not what Batman does to fight crime, but how he does it, using symbolism as a weapon to strike fear into the hearts of the bad guys. In this incarnation, Batman operates something like a high-tech SWAT cop working closely with the police force to bring down Gotham's organized crime syndicate once and for all, so that finally he can take off the mask forever. Gotham City is basically a milieu of stark, grayish shots of Chicago and the plot unfolds something like a noir true-crime thriller than a superhero movie. This is the perfect venue for what the Nolans wanted to do, explore the face of evil that America has encountered since 9-11 (and what man has encountered since Adam and Eve ate the apple), an irrational evil that answers to no one but its own lust for destruction. This is the terrifying insanity of the Joker. I should go ahead and say that despite the hype surrounding Heath Ledger's death and the exaggerative hoop-lah that tends to surround celebrity death, Ledger's performance was like nothing I'd ever seen. Somehow he sticks very closely to the Nolans' script (truly the heart of the film's success) and still manages to steal every scene with a broad range of bizarre emotional sadism, dark comedy and an unnatural drive for mayhem. This is the face of evil unseen by our forefathers in WWII, an evil that surpasses all intellectual process and even uses our own conception of justice against us. Ultimately, the villain's main weapon is the fact that people are not basically good. All he does is wipe away man's illusion of control and release man's inner demons. How does a superhero stop that?

The intricate plot is sometimes tough to follow. If you end the film confused, watch it again (or do like I did and download the script). Believe me, it's worth it. Thematically, I think this is one of the most important post 9-11 films yet made and it has important questions to ask an America still seeking to fight evil and establish justice.

The film begins with the aftermath of the previous one. The mob has been all but eliminated, organized crime is on the decline because of the combined efforts of the Batman, Police Commissioner Jim Gordon, and Gotham's new district attorney, Harvey Dent. He is the film's pivotal character around which the story rotates. Fortunately, he is a stalwart public servant and a staunch defender of truth and justice. Early in the film, Jim Gordon describes him as Gotham's 'White Knight' and obvious foil to the film's title and main character. He is a new symbol of optimism for Gotham, an uncompromising soldier against injustice. The only thing more important than Dent's campaign on crime is that his character remain incorruptible. It falls on his shoulders to be both a protector and an inspiration for good. To drive this point home Nolan lifts a recurrent phrase from Jeph Loeb's Batman: The Long Halloween making it an almost theologically resonant campaign slogan: "I Believe in Harvey Dent." By contrast, we are exposed to the problem of the Batman's inspiration in an early scene in which a gang of hapless vigilantes all dressed like Batman try unsuccessfully to take down a gang of criminals, including the Scarecrow from the last film. After the ordeal Wayne muses ruefully: "This wasn't exactly what I had in mind when I said I wanted to inspire people." Wayne sees early on that a city ultimately needs a higher hope than a mysterious masked man, that Gotham needs an example to follow and Batman is not that. One of the 'copycats' asks an important question after Batman ties him up: "What gives you the right?" Though he's a pathetic figure at this point, he has a point. Does simply having expensive gadgets and martial arts training give somebody the right to take the law into his own hands? What makes a hero? Interestingly, Wayne is smart enough to ponder these questions and decides that Batman's days are numbered and makes it his goal to end them sooner rather than later in order to eliminate the need for his vigilantism by supplanting the Dark Knight with the White Knight and giving the city over to Truth, Justice and the American Way.

The Joker, however, has other plans and begins by announcing his plan to kill Batman. His plan is simple: someone dies every day the Batman doesn't reveal his identity, but trickery is the Joker's ace hand, and it quickly becomes apparent that Batman is only part of what he's after. As the plot evolves, so does the Joker's plan almost as if he's making it up as he goes along, sticking to a main goal: killing Batman, but using it as an excuse to wreak as much destruction as possible. The most interesting thing about the Joker is that just as Batman uses the mob's motivations against them (their greed, desire for power and control), the Joker uses the good guys' motivations against them. Ultimately, his main weapon is people's own desires. He wins over people by simply presenting them with a choice: cooperate with me and survive or sacrifice yourself for others. He takes the utilitarian laws of our society and turns them in on themselves, collapsing the system like a house of cards. The best example of this is when he calls into the television program.

Joker: Mr. Reese, what's more valuable, one life, or a hundred?

Reese: I guess it would depend on the life.

Joker: OK. Let's say it's your life. Is it worth more than the lives of several hundred others?

Reese: Of course not.

Joker: I'm glad you feel that way. Because I've put a bomb in one of the city's hospitals. It's going off in sixty minutes unless someone kills you...Of course, you could always kill yourself, Mr. Reese. but that would be the noble thing to do. And you're a lawyer.

The social experiment with the two boats also touches on this. Prisoners on one boat, 'innocents' on the other. Each has the detonator to the other boat. Blow up the other boat first and you can go free. Don't and everybody dies. The situation makes the other side suspicious and turns people against one another. This is a much more real version of the Scarecrow's "Fear Toxin" from he last film. This time, the poison is in our very souls and in our animal instinct of self-preservation. This is an evil that the system is powerless to defend against because it is based on every human's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The Joker's deconstructive philosophy is exactly the kind of post-modern evil that America is powerless to face. What if humans aren't basically good? Then our systems are powerless to control the true evil that humanity is capable of. We say we believe in justice, but what if that justice costs you your life? We humans might be big on justice, but we're less interested in self-sacrifice. He explains it to a captive Harvey Dent in this scene.

Joker: I'm a dog chasing cars... I wouldn't know what to do with one if I caught it. I just do things. I'm just the wrench in the gears. I hate plans. Yours, theirs, everyone's...Schemers trying to control their worlds. I'm not a schemer, I show the schemers how pathetic their attempts to control things really are.

It's the schemers who put you where you are. You were a schemer. You had plans. look where it got you. I just did what I do best- I took your plan, and I turned it on itself. Look what I've done to this city with a few drums of gas and a couple of bullets. nobody panics when the expected people get killed. Nobody panics when things go according to plan, even if the plan is horrifying. If I tell the press that tomorrow a gangbanger will get shot, or a truckload of soldiers will be blown up, nobody panics. Because it's all part of the plan. But when I say that one little old mayor will die, everybody loses their minds! Introduce a little anarchy, you upset the established order and everything becomes chaos. I'm an agent of chaos. And you know the thing about chaos, Harvey? It's fair.

That last line is probably the most prophetic part of the film. Fairness is chaos. Think about it. A free for all is really the only fair social order as long as every man is an island. Our American system that gives people an unalienable right to pursue happiness basically sets society up for chaos. This is exactly the reason why I have no faith in any social system. It's proof that liberals and conservatives are chasing after the same fantasy, that humanity is basically good and that fairness is the highest ideal. People don't understand that nobody wants equality. An equitable social order just masks the inner desire for survival. I cringe every time someone starts preaching about 'social justice' and 'economic equality', 'gender equality', 'racial equality'. It's not that these things are wrong (or shouldn't be sought after), they're just not enough, they do not save the human soul. Here the Joker scoffs at the supposed morality of people:

Joker: Their morals, their code... it's a bad joke. Dropped at the first sign of trouble. They're only as good as the world allows them to be. You'll see- I'll show you... when the chips are down, these civilized people... they'll eat each other. See I'm not a monster... I'm just ahead of the curve.

So what does? How do you stop the Joker? How does Batman stop the Joker?

As for the Joker himself, first he lulls him into a false sense of security and then totally batarangs him in the face (cool), but to ultimately defeat the Joker's philosophical attack on Gotham, Batman must give up himself. By the end of the film, Harvey Dent has become a monster, scarred and twisted by circumstance orchestrated by the Joker to turn him also into an agent of chaos, dealing out executional justice with the flip of a coin. Batman realizes, standing over Dent's dead body, that people can never believe in Harvey Dent because of the sin he has committed, because of the evil within him brought to the surface by his encounter with the devil. Humanity has fallen once again from goodness and it's up to Batman to preserve that good. This is the role of the Dark Knight, an interesting (and pagan) take on the messiah as someone who covers up the truth: that humans are not basically good, to preserve social stability. He tells Gordon to lie, to report that the he, the Batman killed all the people Dent did instead of telling the truth. I see it more like a picture of Jesus who saw our Two-Faced nature and took our sin on his own person in order to preserve the good in us. It is interesting to compare Jesus and Batman. Normally one might pair Christ with Superman, someone lordly and upstanding. Batman, by contrast chooses lowliness, coming down from his wealthy status nightly to operate at street-level, immersing himself in the darkness of the world and ultimately is punished for humanity's sins to preserve its good side. It's not a theologically sound model to be sure (and at times smacks of the old heresy of Judas being the actual messiah, paving the way for Jesus' martyrdom) but in my mind does show a cool angle of Christ's mission for mankind. Here Batman explains why he needs to be blamed for Dent's transgressions.

Batman: Because sometimes the truth isn't good enough...sometimes, people deserve more.

Well, we don't deserve more of course, but gosh isn't that cool? That Jesus didn't just come down to show us how bad we were, as if reasoning with us would turn us away from evil, he came to do something about it. He knew it wasn't good enough to just reveal evil, he had to defeat it. Through his sacrifice he redeems our lost goodness and gives us a model of how to live, that we too must lay down our lives for others and this is the only way to fight evil, to give up one's life. The boat sequence reminds us who our neighbors are, the prisoners in one boat and the citizens in the other is a perfect comment on the societal divisions of race, class etc. The finale of the movie may seem a bit like a leftover in the overall plot, but it really ties up the film's philosophical problem: how can you do what's right when you realize that chaos is the only social system human beings can sustain, and furthermore it's the only fair social system and every other attempt is just an illusion? You give up your life for the other. You operate outside of societal expectations and fairness. You sacrifice your own life instead of taking another's. This way of life is hard (impossible for the unaided human being), but it is the only way to defeat evil, and the only way one can claim the right of a hero.

Batman and the Joker operate outside the social order, the one to destroy life, the other to redeem it. They are the eschatological figures out of whose war comes most of the film's drama. This is the one of the only places where the film departs from its good theology and dabbles in a bit of yin and yang spiritualism, making good and evil balance out perfectly. Batman won't kill the Joker and the Joker doesn't want to kill Batman. "I guess this is what happens when an unstoppbale force meets an immovable object" Joker says in a depressingly void characterization of evil. Even Satan was good once. But taken in context of the film's emotional center, it could be just another of the Joker's lies. I think it's a tired concept of good and evil balancing out to establish stability, how every hero has to have some bad in him and everything must include compromise. In this way the film falls prey to the same concept of balance that the Joker so effectively disproves.

Alfred burning Rachel's letter was a little weird. I guess it protects Bruce from disappointment and preserves his drive. It's like what Batman does for Gotham. If he knew the disappointing truth they wouldn't believe in goodness any more. I guess I just don't understand why Bruce would lose any faith in Rachel's goodness even though she did choose Harvey. She still passed the Joker's test. She was sacrificial to the end. She wanted Harvey to live instead of herself. Contrast this to the malice of Two-Face as he holds his gun to Gordon's son:

Dent: It's not about what I want. It's about what's fair...the only morality in a cruel world is chance. Unbiased. Unprejudiced. Fair.

The next line could be an interesting comment on trying to justify violence in the name of good.

Batman: Nothing fair ever came out of the barrel of a gun, Dent.

It certainly has ramifications for Guantanamo Bay and Iraq, torturing in the name of justice. I, however am still inclined to agree with Dent's line. Fairness itself turns ugly when you get down to the core of what it is. The only way to fight evil is to beat the hidden tyranny of equality and always choose the scarred side of Dent's coin, dying to self to save others.

After a long hiatus, I have returned to the Record with a review of "Be Kind Rewind" Here it is unedited.




The typical conversation you’ll hear in the audience watching a Michel Gondry movie tends to go something like this: Boyfriend: “I don’t understand what the heck is going on.” Girlfriend: “shhhh! You don’t have to, just watch, it’s so meaningful.” Thankfully, though with his latest film, Be Kind Rewind, Gondry has taken a refreshing hiatus from the existential acid trip love story and has made a film whose story and message is as plain and uncomplicated as the New Jersey neighborhood in which it is set.

The film centers around Mike (Mos Def) and Jerry (Jack Black) two lowly video store employees who accidentally magnetically erase every single VHS cassette in the store. After a demanding customer orders a copy of “Ghostbusters”, the two friends scramble to remake their own twenty-minute version of the film in their own neighborhood using a dated video-camera, themselves and other members of the community as actors and homemade special effects (a process they dub “sweding”). Their film becomes an unexpected success and soon, demand is high for “sweded” films from 2001: A Space Odyssey to Driving Miss Daisy.

It should be noted first of all, that Be Kind Rewind is not nearly as funny as its premise suggests. True, each “sweded” film is absolutely hilarious, but Gondry doesn’t spend as much time on these scenes as one would think. It’s too bad since Black and Def are the perfect opposites, and one of the best conceived black guy/white guy duos in a film to date. Black plays his familiar pathetic freneticism with a touch of racial naivete, a brilliant spark to Def’s sensible good-hearted dullard. The “sweded” scenes are killer, especially Driving Miss Daisy which inevitably places Def as Morgan Freeman and Black as Jessica Tandy (cross-dressing and racial awkwardness ensues).

Aside from these few scenes, the film feels a little off-kilter. The dialogue doesn’t appear to be written very precisely (Def and Black often appear to be “riffing” their lines), and the plot is a bit choppy. The film hops genres as the plot elements change abruptly from understated comedy, to science-fiction to social commentary to warm-hearted family film. Audiences expecting a zany Will Ferrell-esque knee-slapper with non-stop laughs will be disappointed. The laughs are there, however. Comedy is a guessing game. Filmmakers are forced to gamble on what will make us laugh, what is fresh and clever and what is trite. Gondry banks on understatement and character comedy akin to Wes Anderson (but a lot less bizarre).

That said, the film ultimately succeeds in commenting on humanity’s desire for community. Gondry’s observation is that a technological age of DVD and internet leaves people longing to “rewind” to simpler, more personable times. Mike and Jerry’s “sweding” business involves their whole community, and is a wonderful picture of humanity’s deep desire to create our own experiences instead of being sold a consumerist package. The film radiates a “homemade” nostalgia which perfectly encapsulates the spirit of today’s “indie” movement of which Gondry is a pioneer. Unlike his previous film, The Science of Sleep, Be Kind Rewind resists reveling in clever camera tricks, animated scribbly line drawings and stop motion animation in favor of delivering a concise message that should resonate with most everyone: In a world of mechanical precision, imperfection is comfortable, familiar and human.

note: this last post was run through a text recognizer, some typos may occur.

here is my review for "Shoot 'Em Up" as edited by the Record, with revisions (also deemed unacceptable for publishing).

Shoot 'Em Up

Alex Wilgus Staff Writer

Even if you're only a moderate moviegoer, you've seen a good gunfight. Director Michael Davis knows that. However, in his new film, "Shoot 'Em Up," he poses an intriguing question you may not have considered: have you seen a gunfight whilst the hero is also busy delivering a baby?

This is merely the first scene and to give any more details away about the films numerous proceeding action scenes would spoil one of the two entertaining things the film has to offer viewers.

The first thing that "Shoot 'Em Up" explores is just about every possible thing you could be doing when a gunfight breaks out. The other thing is just how many things can be done using a 9mm and an unlimited supply of clips.

Clive Owen stars as a mysterious bystander who saves a newborn child from a gang of ruthless gunmen. Unlike his character in "Children of Men," Owen gets to have some fun while saving a baby from a hail of bullets, this time by turning an arsenal of his own ammunition on a slew of hapless bad guys.

Monica Belucci plays his love interest, a prostitute, and surrogate mother of the child. Paul Giamatti plays the villain. These roles will not win any of these actors any praise, but it is hardly their faults.

Davis's script is so boring that only the most experienced actor could pull an interesting performance out of the lines given him. In this case it is Giamatti who plays a very fun and darkly humorous bad guy. Owen is his usual deadpan and sorely lacking in the mystique that shrouded past action heroes like Clint Eastwood or Charles Bronson. As for Belucci, she is there solely for aesthetic purposes, so it would be unfair to judge her on any thespian level.

Obviously, a film called "Shoot 'Em Up" is not meant to satisfy any sort of artistic intelligentsia. It's a dumb action movie just like the title, so I'll skip past the glaring complaints of how unrealistic the whole thing is and go straight to the point. Shoot 'Em Up is overly violent, overly sexual and lacking in style. It simply does not live up to its recent predecessors in the genre of super-violent action flicks.

This is not a proud admittance, but I did develop a certain cinematic respect for films like Sin City, Kill Bill, and 300 whose visual stimuli were drawn not only from scenes of cartoony violence, but a unique stylistic vision, that used special effects not only to make people's limbs fly off, but to create a context in which such ridiculousness seems plausible.

Davis claims he drew stylistic influence from Bugs Bunny cartoons, a reference that is not so subtle since Clive Owen eats a whole carrot every other scene and Giamatti is given lines like "you wascawy wabbit." This could have been interesting if the references weren't so blunt.

Despite the director's commentary, the film still feels more influenced by more base media. Anyone who has played first-person-shooter video games like "Goldeneye," "Time Crisis" or "Max Payne" will recognize Davis's "artistic vision."

The other annoying thing is that the plot actually involves an anti-gun element. This was probably meant to be clever or ironic, but it comes across as clumsy and stupid.

In the end "Shoot' Em Up" has little to offer. In fact, maybe the only good thing "Shoot 'Em Up" does is to inadvertently show the hypocrisy of human nature when it comes to violence. Davis bombards the audience with a heavy amount of glorified gun-blazing then tries to take a moral high ground about abstaining from the very violence that is the film's centerpiece. One of Owen's lines in the film actually addresses the problem perfectly: "Don't trust anyone who stands to profit from something, they're the bad guys". Maybe Davis should take that quote to heart.

For me this was an interesting opportunity to examine my own Christian convictions about violence. I believe pointless violence to be wrong, but I realized while watching "Shoot 'Em Up" that I tend to find such violence on film incredibly entertaining. What is it about violence that is so appealing? Even those of us who cognitively deny its value are still entranced by it. I recall nights when I and my friends would divide over the theological issue of 'Just war" and how far the commandment "Thou Shalt Not Kill" extends, and another night all joining together in the Fischer basement to watch Kiefer Sutherland rip a guy's throat out in the latest episode of 24. For marty, despite beliefs to the contrary, violence is still a libidinal fascination, and "Shoot 'Em Up" stands to profit from it.

here is my review for "Shoot 'Em Up" unedited by the record

Even if you’re only a moderate moviegoer, you’ve seen a good gunfight. Director Michael Davis knows that. However, in his new film, “Shoot ‘Em Up,” he poses an intriguing question you may not have considered: have you seen a gunfight whilst the hero is also busy delivering a baby?
This is merely the first scene and to give any more details away about the films numerous proceeding action scenes would spoil one of the two entertaining things the film has to offer viewers.
The first thing that “Shoot ‘Em Up” explores is just about every possible thing you could be doing when a gunfight breaks out. The other thing is just how many things can be done using a 9mm and an unlimited supply of clips.
I was reminded of the Simpsons episode in which Homer joins a gun club, buys a .35 7 and uses it to do just about everything, open a beer, get a basketball off the roof, etc. Shoot ‘Em Up takes essentially the same gag and extends it to about two hours with some pretty outlandish results.
Clive Owen stars as a mysterious bystander who saves a newborn child from a gang of ruthless gunmen. Unlike his character in “Children of Men,” Owen gets to have some fun while saving a baby from a hail of bullets, this time by turning an arsenal of his own ammunition on a slew of hapless bad guys.
Monica Belucci plays his love interest, a prostitute, and surrogate mother of the child. Paul Giamatti plays the villain. These roles will not win any of these actors any praise, but it is hardly their faults.
Davis’s script is so boring that only the most experienced actor could pull an interesting performance out of the lines given him. In this case it is Giamatti who plays a very fun and darkly humorous bad guy. Owen is his usual deadpan and sorely lacking in the mystique that shrouded past action heroes like Clint Eastwood or Charles Bronson. As for Belucci, there are two obvious reasons why she was cast and they are displayed prominently throughout the film, so it would be unfair to judge her on any thespian level.
Obviously, a film called “Shoot ‘Em Up” is not meant to satisfy any sort of artistic intelligentsia. It’s a dumb action movie just like the title, so I’ll skip past the glaring complaints of how unrealistic the whole thing is and go straight to the point. Shoot ‘Em Up is overly violent, overly sexual and lacking in style. It simply does not live up to its recent predecessors in the genre of super-violent action flicks.
This is not a proud admittance, but I did develop a certain cinematic respect for films like Sin City, Kill Bill, and 300 whose visual stimuli were drawn not only from scenes of cartoony violence, but a unique stylistic vision, that used special effects not only to make people’s limbs fly off, but to create a context in which such ridiculousness seems plausible.
Davis claims he drew stylistic influence from Bugs Bunny cartoons, a reference that is not so subtle since Clive Owen eats a whole carrot every other scene and Giamatti is given lines like “you wascawy wabbit”. This could have been interesting if the references weren’t so blunt.
Despite the director’s commentary, the film still feels more influenced by more base media. Anyone who has played first-person-shooter video games like “Goldeneye”, “Time Crisis” or “Max Payne” will recognize Davis’s “artistic vision.”
The other annoying thing is that the plot actually involves an anti-gun element. This was probably meant to be cleverly ironic, but it comes across as clumsy and stupid. As stated earlier the only reason this film is entertaining is because it appeals to the male libidinal drive for excessive violence. A director willing to depict blood-splattering on such a scale should be honest about why the film is entertaining and not try to cover his reputation in liberal Hollywood by including an anti-gun bias. It feels hypocritical and silly to take any moral high ground about violence in America after action scenes that make shootouts look like a whole lot of fun. One of Owen’s lines in the film actually addresses the problem perfectly: “Don’t trust anyone who stands to profit from something, they’re the bad guys”. Maybe Davis should take that quote to heart. Maybe the only good thing “Shoot ‘Em Up” does is to inadvertently show the hypocrisy of human nature when it comes to violence. We are constantly speaking out against it, but as evidenced by the financial success that surround films like this one, it still fascinates us deeply.

Ratatouille - A

This is the best movie I've seen in a good while. Pixar has really outdone themselves with a unique story that has everything you'd want in a good animation. It's amazing how much fun is neatly packed into this beautiful piece of computer animation. The film is funny, cultured and even touching thanks to Brad Bird and his brilliant team of animators and writers. This film truly deserves a full breakdown:

First: the story - The slapstick humor, unlikely hero, hilarious villain, and love story are classic Disney elements, but I haven't seen them so well executed in quite a long time (maybe because Disney minus Pixar has put out a decent kids' movie in a long time). Nothing feels contrived, the characters (even those with fake French accents) are totally genuine. Linguini the teenage wannabe chef voiced by Pixar regular Lou Romano is perfectly klutzy and pitiable. Remy the rat chef voiced by veteran comic Patton Oswalt is such perfect blend of animation and voice acting that he deserves to be in the pantheon of classic Disney characters.

Next: the writing: I don't remember the last time I heard such well-written dialogue. Watching talking animals is one thing, but having them resemble and talk like actual people is something else. No line is over-the-top there is no bathroom humor, it's remarkable how perfect every line is. There were a couple of lines that had me in stitches I was laughing so hard. Pixar's uncanny comic awareness has by no means decreased. The article the food critic writes at the end is also an extremely well-written piece of dialogue that sums up the themes in the film nicely

Finally: the animation - Pixar's resolve never to use motion capture (check the certificate at the end of the credits) does them credit as the animation in this movie is particularly convincing. Each gesticulation and expression is finely tuned perfectly conveying the characters' emotions. Not a small feat for a computer animation team. While Zemeckis's studios are focusing on realism in motion capture, Pixar is all about the heart of animation.

Hot Fuzz – B+

Nick Frost and Simon Pegg’s new action comedy is perhaps not as spot on as Shaun of the Dead, but it is still a well-shot, hilarious comedy with many hilarious moments. The setup is that Nicholas Angel, London’s finest cop gets transferred to the quiet country village of Sandford. There his work as an officer is challenged by the complete lack of any crime…for a while. As soon as strange, grisly murders start happening and the entire town passes them off as mere accidents, Angel and his sidekick Danny to save the day.

This movie had me laughing within two minutes. There really is just one great gag after another. Simon Pegg’s face alone makes me laugh, so I guess it didn’t take much. A lot of the laughs come from the film’s brilliant editing which is so overdramatic it is ridiculous. The trippy montage where Sgt. Angel rides the bus to Sandford had me in stitches. The film continues into a great cast of characters including Jim Broadbent as the kindly police commissioner and the two wise-cracking inspectors Andy and Andy (played wonderfully by Paddy Considine and Rafe Spall), and there’s the stereotypical sexually bold female officer whose every line contains some sort of innuendo and a sinister grocery store manager played by one-time Bond Timothy Dalton. There is some startlingly grisly violence that seems part Monty Python, part horror film. It’s pretty gross, but that’s what I expected from Pegg and Frost; it’s one of their trademarks.

The plot may be where this movie was less tight than Shaun of the Dead. It starts out as a fish-out-of water story (big city cop in the country), then progresses into an Agatha Christie sort of whodunit, then ends in a brilliant Bad Boys-esque shootout. Not that there’s anything wrong with genre-mixing, but I didn’t quite get why. I thought the film was going to be a spoof tribute to over-the-top action flicks, but it really is a lot more. I guess there’s nothing wrong with it, it just feels unfocused at times. Plus, the plot takes a long time to develop. The movie keeps you laughing, but I felt like it could’ve been shortened. As it is, the entire film is worth it for the last 30 minutes in which the good guys and bad guys whip out their guns and start unloading on each other in a perfectly shot tribute to Bad Boys or Commando. It’s over the top and brilliant, every line is perfect as the characters hash through the action film script structure. The two Andys become the wisecracking sidekicks, the female cop becomes the badass girl, Danny becomes Martin Lawrence to Angel’s Will Smith and then they all just start shooting. Some shots are just priceless, like a ground shot looking up at Frost and Pegg in full battle armor as a big helicopter flies over in slow motion. Pegg also gets a great scene fully clad with ammo and weapons riding into town on a horse, a completely ridiculous and very funny image.

Hot Fuzz is a lot of things, but mainly a tribute to 80s action cinema. It’s over the top and ultimately very funny. Frost, Pegg and director Edgar Wright are smart filmmakers who like to make punchy action comedies that satisfy on multiple levels. You get great british humor, explosions and gore, and intelligent parody all in one film. Their movies are kind of like a home movie with a budget. Pegg and Frost really seem to just make movies that they’ll have fun making, and fortunately, it’s also a lot of fun to watch.

Pirates 3: A painful lashing with a cat-o'-nine-tails

It’s sad to watch a studio kill a good thing. The series has fallen so far from the freshness of the first film. Pirates 1 was a runaway sleeper hit with a fair storyline, classic swashbuckling action and the memorable character of Johnny Depp as Captain Jack Sparrow. The series has culminated (hopefully) with Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End, a film that stinks of whale anus. There is absolutely no salvation for such an arduous mixing of incomprehensible plotlines and forgettable characters with unrealistic motives.

I’m just going to briefly explain what I think has happened to the Pirates franchise and what should have happened. When Bruckheimer realized that he had a hit on his hands with the first Pirates he and Disney went overboard making sure the next two films were a grand cinematic endeavor. In the spirit of Lord of the Rings, the crew shot the next two movies weaving a huge epic adventure with multiple plotlines and more characters. Pirates of the Caribbean is the last franchise to deserve the epic treatment! It would have worked fine as a Harry Potter-like serial. What should have been done is to take a few common threads around which one can introduce new villains, new allies and new peril with each succeeding episode without altering the formula of the first movie too much. However, Bruckheimer opts for the Lucas approach and makes a trilogy with a definitive beginning and end. This, I believe was a huge mistake. It is rare that a move such as Curse of the Black Pearl can introduce characters that are generic enough to continue on endlessly and interesting enough to enjoy watching onscreen. Heck they could’ve made 5 or 6 loosely connected Pirates films and it would’ve been fine with me as long as you give them all a beginning, middle and end, add some good one-liners and sweet special effects. But no, somehow overblown faux-epic crap tends to sell off of hype alone.

It’s hard to give a plot summary, but it has something to do with the East India Trading Company persecuting the pirates so badly that they are forced to unite and fight back (an endeavor that takes around 2 hours to finally happen!). Then there’s rescuing Jack Sparrow from the dead, Will and Elizabeth are having an ambiguous quarrel, there’s a lady doing a bad Jamaican accent that factors into things somehow, Chow Yun Fat makes an appearance as some Pirate Lord, and Geoffrey Rush as Captain Barbosa is back from the dead…and a good guy! Now imagine out of this entire cast of characters not knowing whether or not any of these schmucks are good-guys or bad-guys! That’s right, it was honestly hard to figure out who was motivated by what, who was double-crossing whom and why. Really by the middle of the film the only good-guy left in the film is Keira Knightly, and I’ve always considered her a bad-guy anyway. The plotlines are tangled up so messily that the entire movie just came across as incomprehensible. After every scene my sister and I just turned to each other and went “what the…?” The film is kind of like coming in on a conversation and not knowing what is being discussed. You get bits and pieces of coherence, but can’t quite put it together. I saw “Dead Man’s Chest”, but I guess I didn’t remember enough of it to tie it in with “World’s End” or maybe they were too loosely connected to make any sense. You, the viewer, are given no exposition or setup for this film at all, it just plunges right in, and then it takes over an hour to get to the first action scene! It’s uncanny just how boring this film was. Even Johnny Depp’s antics as Jack Sparrow fall flat. The film unwisely takes the viewer into what appears to be his now entirely schizophrenic psyche with a few of the dumbest scenes ever. Depp is funny on his own, stop messing with him. Plus, Sparrow isn’t even a major character in this. There is no main character, everyone is just a pawn in progressing the film’s incomprehensible storyline. Director Gore Verbinski has taken every mildly delightful character from the first movie and rendered them completely charmless. Having Geoffrey Rush back from the dead as a good guy could have been a good move (he delivers the same delicious performance as Captain Barbosa) except that most of his screen-time is reduced to explaining what is going on and why all the pirates need to join and fight the British. He ends up being kind of a spare.

Pirates 3 also transgresses one of the hallowed Alex Wilgus laws of sci-fi/fantasy cinema *ahem*: In order for something to be extraordinary, it needs to take place in an ordinary environment. The skeleton pirates in Pirates 1 were at least treated as unusual and scary, but by this film, mutant fish pirates are hanging around with British nobility, crews travel effortlessly to mythological worlds and fantastical things happen without any character blinking an eye. Like the Matrix, the world of Pirates regresses into a reality without simple rules like death or gravity.

The oddest thing about this film is that the last ten minutes are actually pretty satisfactory. After it’s all over, the film actually returns to some of the roots planted by the first film. The romance ends bittersweet and Jack Sparrow returns to the seas as a Pirate errant. It’s funny, because the very last few minutes started to excite me. I was thinking “oh yeah, this whole Pirate setup is kind of cool” then it ended, and I was reminded of the two and a half hours of crap that preceded this ultimately decent finale. If anything this movie made me want to see the first one again and forget that this one or the second one ever happened.

Sentimental Spidey

I’m going to go ahead and get this out there for all you naysayers: this is not a bad movie. I understand if things were disappointing, a little convoluted or not as good as the last two, whatever, it doesn’t change the fact that this movie is still good. It’s not as good as the triumphant Spider Man 2 (a tough act for any comic flick to follow since it’s largely hailed as the greatest superhero movie of all time), and it’s not as fun as the first one, but the simple fact is that there are more things that work in this film than don’t and it is a decent entry into the Spider Man series and a very good entry into the superhero genre as a whole.

The main thing that this movie suffered from was success syndrome. The las two films were so loved by fans and critics alike that part 3 has a pretty tough act to follow, and let it be known that the same director using the same characters being expected to produce a new bag of tricks for every movie in a series that both critics, die-hard fans and the average popcorn-munching moviegoer needs to love is a near-impossible feat. Director Sam Raimi called this the most stressful movie of his life which is not hard to believe considering the amount of villains, plotlines and special effects that went into it. The film does feel a little overstuffed at points, but it does level out in the end and finish what it started.

The setup is that Spider Man/Peter Parker is on top of the world, the city loves him, Mary Jane loves him. He’s so full of himself that all it takes is some alien, outer-space goo to turn him into an overconfident, reckless superhero out to take revenge on all who cross him. The black suit is a physical manifestation of people’s tendencies to be brash and self-absorbed. The metaphor workds really well. The imagery of revenge and self-righteousness becoming like a venomous symbiote that can attach itself to you and never let go is an excellent picture. The 2 ½ hour film sees Peter Parker’s original mantra of power and responsibility being challenged by no one but himself.

But Parker’s dark side is not the only villain, oh no, there are three (count ‘em) villains in this picture, Sandman, Green Goblin 2, and ultimately Venom. Of all of them Sandman is the coolest; it was really great to see such a classic villain come to life so vividly. Harry Osborne’s new goblin has the same weird techno suit, but the chase scenes where he tears after Peter Parker down alleyways and up in the sky was breathtaking.

Anyway, there’s some stuff that didn’t work too. The story felt a little awkward around the middle as the Peter/Harry/Mary Jane love triangle was reintroduced. It felt a little forced, and there was one segment involving Harry forcing MJ to break up with Peter that was never really explained. Anyway, the point was that Peter needs to get pissed at Harry for the rest of the “revenge” story to work. There is also a scene where Peter is consumed by the black suit and in a daze of self-absorption walks down Michigan avenue giving girls winks and shooter fingers. He combs his hair down in a pathetic attempt to look “cool” and even does a comic dance in a Jazz club to spite Mary Jane. Contrary to many, I thought this scene was great. It was very true to Peter’s character. It’s important to remember that he is in his heart a total nerd, and when he is possessed by delusions of grandeur, the result is pathetic, not awe inspiring. This scene was comic genius. The Jazz club scene felt like it was right off Stan Lee’s hallowed pages.

Couple of nitpicks from a fan: It’s annoying to me when Spidey is unmasked in nearly every single fight. I understand how it plays up the humanity, but honestly, everyone knows who he is! Keep the mask on, Raimi!

Also, the villain geneses seemed a little coincidental. Oh man, that crook just happened to fall into a sand neuron quantum emitter experiment!!! Or oh no some asteroid just happened to land next to Peter in a park and the alien symbiote followed him home! Well, whatever, these things are minor.

In the end I liked this movie because it never departed from the natures of the characters and even explores another side of Parker that was stimulating, even if it wasn’t as fun to watch. The story of a hero becoming a villain is not very fun to watch because it leaves you not knowing who to root for. Sam Van Hallgren of filmspotting.net said it best: “Raimi has not given up on sentimentality.” It is true that the end of the film could be called “sappy”, but I thought it was an impressive attempt at making a superhero film more than just a special effects fest (Fantastic Four). Maybe it doesn’t work as well as the first two, but it is refreshing to see a summer movie with more of a heart than just money making action. I do not have high hopes for Pirates 3 in that department, but we’ll see. It’s just nice to hear a major motion picture that includes lines like “a man must put his wife before himself”. I don’t know about Sam Raimi’s faith, but he at least has a much larger conscience than do most action directors.

Pan's Labyrinth - A+

Whether it be through rabbit holes, magic portals or wardrobes, fantasy stories usually offer us a chance to escape from the limitations of the world as we know it to look at the age old human condition from the fresh perspective of an imaginative world. Guillermo Del Toro, however, does away with any explanation of how his magical world is entered and confronts fantasy with reality in a completely new way. The blendiing of the real and the fantastic hinges on its main character, Ofelia an imaginitive young Spanish girl who finds herself caught up in the aftershocks of her country's Civil War in the 1940s (this is a Spanish movie subtitled in English). Devoted to her mother and her unborn brother, but loathing of her evil stepfather, a fascist general, Ofelia finds escape from her bleak surroundings when she finds a faun in the woods outside of their country estate who commissions her to perform three tasks to become a princess and to be transported to her magical kingdom beneath the earth. The faun is not cuddly like Mr. Tumnus, but a gaunt unearthly creature with a more mythical and sinister appearance. The faun sets the tone for the entire movie, wondrous but dark. Pan's Labyrinth is no Narnia-ish romp through a magical world, but a shadowy fable of tragedy, evil and innocence in the time of war. Just because Ofelia has been told that she will become a princess does not lessen the pain of her ailing mother, the evil intentions of her stepfather and the inevitable suffering that war inflicts upon the weak. The fantasy story parallels her real life trials and interprets them through a child's eyes. Thus, Ofelia's fantasy world, though beautiful and imaginative, is no less dangerous than the harshness of real life. One scene involving a child-eating monster takes you right back to every nightmare you had as a sixth year old kid, and a descent into a dying tree to extract a gluttonous toad explores new levels of gross.
At the risk of being labeled a prudish, point-missing Christian I feel a duty to note that the violence in this film is extreme. It occurs mostly at the behest of Ofelia’s vicious stepfather, a Spanish general with a penchant for torture. Not only does Del Toro make no attempt at downplaying the violence of war, he amplifies it. The violent content is disturbing and unrealistic, but also essential to the film’s purpose. Unlike “Children of Men” or “Saving Private Ryan” the outlook on violence is not incidental and heartless, it is personal and vengeful. The camera often lingers on the bloody imagery more like a horror film than a war movie, and it carries a more profound and sentimental effect than the chaotic battlegrounds of other typical war films. Del Toro gives us time with the victims allowing their suffering to evoke a maximal response of disgust and pity from the audience. Ofelia’s mother tells her daughter in one scene “you will learn that the world is a cruel place…even if it hurts.” The violence in “Pan’s Labyrinth”, however, goes beyond a simple portrayal of cruelty. The interpretation of war in Spanish art has always carried a mythical significance. The film's violence reminded me of Goya's etchings which would depict unrelentingly gruesome scenes of torture complete with mythic demons amid a landscape that looked vaguely like Spain, but seemed more reminiscent of hell. Del Toro’s take on war continues in the spirit of Goya, masterfully blending the horrors of reality and nightmare into a seamless whole. Though the two worlds are kept largely separate, they are thematically bound together, and the motivations of the villains and heroes in both realms parallel each other in a profound way.
Aside from the artistic achievements that the casual moviegoer can take or leave, the story is effective and moving. Newcomer Ivana Baquero plays the lead role beautifully with a delicate balance of innocence and rebellion that characterizes the age of transitional age of 12. Sergi Lopez plays her stepfather with a disquietingly cool ruthlessness that makes him easily the most evil villain of the year. The story flows wonderfully and the finale (which I will not give away!) is a satisfying synthesis of tragedy and victory, fantasy and reality. Everyone will have something to take away from this film whether you are a total fantasy geek or someone who just enjoys imaginative

Casino Royale - A

I must preface this review with the confession that I'm not a die-hard Bond fan. It's hard to know where to place Bond films for me: I love spy films, but Bond is more of a superhero than a spy. I love a good action movie, and I'm willing to forego some realism in the interest of kicking tail and saving the girl, but Bond action always seems fettered by the gimmicks and one-liners that have now been satirized by films like Austin Powers. These "cheesy" elements are a part of the "cult" status of Bond films, but I've already the fanboy section of my brain to more compelling film series' like Star Wars or Lord of the Rings, but I've always enjoyed old Bond films as a good popcorn diverstion. Notice I said good Bond films, as in everything up until Sean Connery quit. Roger Moore - no, Pierce Brosnan - no, miscellaneous no-name Bonds attempting to get back to get back to Ian Fleming's original stony character - closer but still no. The main draw of Bond films for me was the classy character of James Bond. The unrealism I enjoy about Bond films is that no one is, in reality, as cool, slick and perfect as he. His gadgets and state-of-the-art weapons should feel more like attachments of his personality rather than the movie's centerpieces. In short, Bond should kick tail, not his hi-tech cars, personalized guns and micro-tracers. This is why I hated Moore's and Brosnan's inability to pull off classy. Aside from being completely anti-physical, relying on their gadgets and trickery, they just didn't fit their tuxes well. They looked, not to sound overly British, common. I was ready to see a new Bond who would revive Connery's dark-eyed cool. The choice of Daniel Craig to fill the role was controversial (a blonde Bond was not acceptable for die-hards, at least until the film came out), but it turned out to be just what the Doctor No ordered.

Craig is fantastic. His severe face you've all seen on the movie posters is exactly the kind of Bond you're going to get. He kills quickly and without ceremony, unless it's necessary. Even his one-liners are bada**. His severity is complimented by his tremendous ego, which is a central plot theme. He is a collected, suave Bond with a dark heart and a penchant for harm and destruction. Craig is the primary reason this movie works and the rest of the film kind of gets out of the way for him to work his mojo, but there are other things going for it. The bad guy, Le Chiffre, played by Mads Mikkelson, Denmark's premiere actor, is supremely creepy, and the love interest, played by the dusky Eva Green, is more than just a bombshell hanging on his arm. The love story in the movie is what most people thought was lame, but I believed it completely. Maybe I just like love stories, but Vesper's offer of a way out of the dangerous and dark world of espionage hooked me completely. The film does romanticize Bond's world to a point with fantastic action scenes and the typical womanizing, but Campbell is careful to show the pricetag attached to his life with a couple of particularly excruciating scenes of undesirable violence, one a torture scene, the other a gang-fight with some Ugandan assassins (one wielding a nasty machete). On the whole I found Bond's world well-balanced, though still not realistic. Director Martin Campbell wisely stays away from giving Bond too many gadgets, though one or two help him out at times; Bond's main weapon is his own iron will. In short a cool plot, refreshing resurgance of class and minimal gimmicks make room for a new era of Bond, i.e. Daniel Craig whose performance is so cool it's simply smashing.

Jesus Camp

The new genre of opinionated documentaries comes with benefits as well as dangers. The documentary film is a powerful medium that can produce a profound effect on viewers who appear to be confronted with simply objective footage. The viewer must be informed that these documentaries are opinions and as such, all of the included footage and editing works toward a message that the director wants to communicate. The goal is not necessarily to paint an accurate picture of the subject at hand. With that mindset one can appropriately watch Jesus Camp, a disturbing film about a children’s summer camp in South Dakota dedicated to training the Christian children of today for the political wars of tomorrow. Although it’s debatable as to whether or not the movie gives evangelicals fair treatment, it does raise important questions about the place of Christianity in America.
Directors Rachel Grady and Heidi Ewing’s purpose is to portray evangelical Christianity as a right-wing ideology that is gaining influence in government, and raising a generation of children that will continue to fight for political influence. The film focuses on Lakewood Bible Camp in South Dakota, a children’s camp led by Becky Fischer, pastor of Christ Triumphant Church in Missouri. She gets most of the camera time, preaching fiery sermons, raising her hands, and calling for kids to pray in tongues. She is the villain of Jesus Camp. All of her footage implies a manipulative, fundamentalist bent on influencing children to be leaders of some crusade to retake America for Christ. Fischer sums up the directors’ intent nicely when she says that this young generation of evangelicals should “make liberals shake in their boots.” This is exactly what Jesus Camp hopes to accomplish through a series of soundtrack-heavy montages in which children seem to be emotionally exploited into crying and chanting for the cause of the religious right.
The weakness of Jesus Camp is that these montages are all there is. It is a documentary that doesn’t really document anything. The worship service scenes are disturbing enough, but there is no purpose to them other than making evangelicals appear crazy. From all of the gasps and sighs of disgust I heard in the theater, the directors’ scare tactics work pretty well, but there is no deeper exploration into the character of these “crazy Christians”, why they believe what they do, and why they are so intent on making others believe the same way.
Watching Jesus Camp as a Christian is a conflicting experience that will likely offend many, but hopefully raise some important questions about the Church in America. As far as the directors are concerned, Becky Fischer speaks for all American evangelicals when it is obvious that her church is on an extreme end of the spectrum. Grady and Ewing did not pick an “average” church to document, but by choosing an extreme, the film paints a plausible picture of what misguided Christianity can become. This film does not simply attack our images (such as comedies like Saved! or Dogma) but delves deeper into our conception of what Christianity is. Fischer’s overzealous personality and fiery preaching style makes her warlike theology seem insane, but why not pursue political representation for Christians? What is so wrong with raising a generation of Christian children by any means necessary? Our mission is “for Christ and his Kingdom”, so why not make America his kingdom? Fischer’s message is clear in one of her sermons when she says “Someone needs to fix this sick ol’ world…so let’s pick up our tools and fix it!” Grady and Ewing wish to point out that Christians “fixing the world” looks frighteningly similar to the bloody crusades of the past ideological regimes whose intent was to make the world a better place. The troubling thing is that they might be right. Jesus Camp is an opportunity for we as Christians to evaluate our mission on earth. What was Jesus’ intent for the Christian life? Was it to “make disciples of all nations by whatever means necessary?” Becky Fischer seems to think that it is. Though it may not be a well-balanced film, Jesus Camp’s message could be important for Christians to consider.

The Black Dahlia


The Black Dahlia is inspired by the true story of the infamous 1947 murder of Elizabeth Short, an aspiring Hollywood actress whose body is mutilated and left in a field. For the LAPD detectives assigned to the case, the murder sparks a series of events resulting in a complicated tale of obsession and betrayal.

The murder itself is the first of the film’s problems. It is supposed to be the emotional center of all of the characters’ conflict, but the viewer is rarely allowed to feel sympathy for the victim. Mia Kirshner delivers a great performance as the tragically insecure Ms. Short whom we see interacting with a faceless casting director on old reels, but those scenes are few and are overshadowed by numerous insensitive shots of her corpse.

The movie’s only highlight is its visual tribute to 1940s style cinema, using layered fade shots and static camera angles to recreate the budding era of Hollywood. There are several impressively directed scenes, one an aerial sweep of a street riot, the other a complicated stage-like shot of a busy Los Angeles intersection. However, the film’s visual strength is offset by its inability to conjure up any feeling in its actors. The acting is fair, but wooden. Josh Hartnett, Scarlett Johannsen, Aaron Eckhart and Hillary Swank seem to be trapped by Josh Friedman’s uninteresting script that, although employs the familiar noir jargon, lacks the freshness and pep of a cool detective movie. The characters certainly look their parts, but as afore mentioned, the visuals are all there are.

Usually, a movie’s objectionable content alone will not ruin it for me, but The Black Dahlia’s R-rated material factored in heavily to my displeasure with the film. I do not unilaterally condemn all strong content in movies because it is often used to develop plot elements, pack a thematic punch or be stylistically appropriate. Sadly, The Black Dahlia has nothing significant to contribute to any of these areas, so it all comes across as excess. The countless sex scenes, including an unedited recreation of a lesbian porn film were more than enough to convince me that, thespian considerations aside, this is nothing beyond gratuitous smut. What makes the violence so disturbing is not necessarily how much is shown, but rather the gleeful treatment it gets. The torturous murder scene is unexpectedly colorful, more like a Carrie than The Untouchables. Someone should remind Mr. De Palma that he is dealing (albeit loosely) with an actual murder victim, and that the unsympathetic violence comes off as disrespectful to the deceased. Save your brain some inerasable images and steer clear of this mindless mess of cheap shock value.

Brian De Palma has pieced together a confusing attempt at film noir permeated with unclear twists and dull characters. The many plot elements are as uninteresting as they are emotionless, and only the film’s excessive violence and sex keep it from being totally forgettable.

Invincible



Invincible starring Mark Wahlberg is the next installment in a long series of inspirational sports movies. Fans of Rudy and Remember the Titans will enjoy the true story of Vince Papale, a Philadelphia bartender who in 1976, became the NFL’s oldest rookie at age 30. Those who are not dazzled by the sports-film formula will be in for a boring 2 hours of predictability. It’s not that I dislike films that are meant to be positive and inspirational, but it seems that every single one falls into the same rut. All of these movies suffer from an overabundance of soundtrack, predictable plot twists and lots of slow motion, but I’ll set those complaints aside and focus on the film itself and not the genre.
Invincible is based on a true story, but the movie visually defies reality. One of the major themes in the film is supposed to be how Eagles football is the hope of a downtrodden Philadelphia, but director Ericson Core’s apparent tendency to shoot everything on sound stages strips the story of a lot of potential soul. With the exception of the opening credits montage and a Rocky-esque “running around the city” scene there wasn’t any effort to include Philly herself into the cast of characters. Even the stadium scenes lacked something experiential. There were a couple of cool computer generated scenes that swooped in over Veterans Stadium, but the game scenes failed to recreate the overwhelming excitement of a pro football game. There actually isn’t much visual style at all, and much of the character development takes place in the form of montage.
On a more positive note, Mark Wahlberg and Greg Kinnear turn in likable performances as the film’s two parallel heroes. My favorite part of the movie was the dynamic between Wahlberg and Kinnear who are portrayed as similar characters. Vermeil and Papale are both unlikely rookies, one a young coach, the other an old athlete. The exchange between Papale and Vermeil sums it up nicely, Vermeil: “mind me asking how old you are?” Papale: “if you don’t mind me asking how old you are, coach”. The rest of the supporting cast is significantly less interesting. Papale’s friends, a horde of beer-drinking football-loving Joes all tend to run together rather than develop individual personalities and Elizabeth Banks explores new levels of boring as an all-too-typical love interest. The positive relationship between Vince and his father, however, was a refreshing diversion. Also, being a Cowboys fan I was treated to a nicely shot scene on-location at Texas Stadium in which the ‘Boys beat the stuffing out of the Eagles in the first game of the season.
All in all, Invincible is a mediocre film that doesn’t bring anything new to the table; however it does deliver a solid story that is respectable for its positive message and relative lack of smut. If you enjoy predictable inspirational stories, then go see Invincible and prepare to be pleasantly unsurprised.

That's the summer lineup! I'll probably continue to write reviews as the films come, but it's not guaranteed what I'll see. I leave for school bright and early tomorrow. Summer '06 has been decent with a few surprises (the perfection of "Prada" and the lameness of "Lady") To all (like 5) of my loyal readers, it's been a pleasure and be sure to check regularly next summer. When you've got a date and you're not sure what film to go to, just remember, Wilgus's Movie Reviews has your ticket in mind!