Oscar Roundup

Hey so I haven't posted on here in a while! I've been doing reviews mainly on Crimson Monkey and lately there's been kind of a lull in movies anyway. I did want to offer up some thoughts on last night's shindig and the main categories, though.

Normally I don't pay a too close of attention to the Oscars. I'll tune in and just kinda have it on while I'm doing other things, root for the couple of movies I actually saw, and (at least the past few years) enjoy the host. This year was interesting because I found myself actually looking forward to the show. Before they had even announced the nominees, my wife and I had already seen (and enjoyed) 6 of the best picture films, so I was already starting to get interested because I had a horse in the race. Well...6 horses actually, but still...I could have an educated opinion. We took advantage of AMC's "Best Picture Showcase," where they show all 10 nominated films over the course of 2 days, to round out the category. Now I actually was excited because I had legitimate picks, and felt like the competition was actually pretty stiff. Now on to specifics:

Overall Production:

...was terrible. The show itself was just bad. I don't understand why you pick people to host a show who really don't "do" hosting. The reason Billy Crystal did it, and did it well, for so long is because he's a natural emcee. Jon Stewart was great...because he's a host. Steve Martin and Alec Baldwin were great...because they're both just naturally funny. Hugh Jackman is about the only exception. Now, I love Anne Hathaway and James Franco...but neither of them ever really seemed like they were supposed to be there. Anne thought that she was doing an episode of Saturday Night Live apparently, and was overacting and basically acting like that loud drunk girl everybody knows who just thinks she's so "fun," while James just seemed like he'd much rather be anywhere else and was probably thinking more about the paper he has to write for class than hosting (although his deadpan delivery was pretty funny a couple times.) The AWFUL writing didn't help matters either. The writing is always bad though...the difference is when you have guys like Steve Martin and Alec Baldwin who are just so effortlessly funny and clever, they can work with the bad writing and ad lib and make something out of nothing. These two could not. Rock bottom moment: the attempt to cash in on the Gregory Brothers' auto-tuned songs by making 'songs' out of some of last years movies...almost made me vomit out of rage.

Best Lead Actor:

I really wasn't sure who to go with on this one at first, probably siding with Jesse Eisenberg out of convenience. But then I saw The King's Speech. I kind of figured the Academy would give it to Colin Firth, just knowing that it seemed like the prefect movie for those guys to go crazy over. Then, after seeing it, I realized that Colin really was absolutely brilliant in the role and I immediately felt bad for anyone running against him. Not only did he have to learn to stutter for the role, but he learned to stutter convincingly...which is much harder to do, while at the same time rounding out a fascinating character. They got this one right.

Best Lead Actress:

Much like in the lead actor category, I felt bad for anyone running against Natalie Portman. The first thing I could get out of my mouth after I picked my jaw up off the floor after seeing Black Swan was "just give her the award now and get it over with." Some people were calling for an Annette Benning upset, but I just didn't see it. The Kids are All Right was a better-than-average movie with some decent performances, and Annette was good in it, but the full range of emotion and the sheer nonstop intensity that Natalie gave made it not even a contest. Incidentally, Black Swan was also easily one of my favorite movies of the year, so there's that.

Best Supporting Actor:

Christian Bale had this one locked for me all the way. Everybody was talking about it beforehand and after I saw The Fighter, I wholeheartedly agreed. Once I saw The King's Speech, I could totally understand if Geoffery Rush were to win this one. They both put in phenomenal performances, but I was glad to see Christian get the nod. I was also glad to see his incredible beard.

Best Supporting Actress:

This one bummed me out a little bit. Melissa Leo did a fantastic job in The Fighter, don't get me wrong, but I was rooting so much for Hailee Steinfeld for True Grit. I really thought she had a shot too, given that her role was more a lead role than a supporting role, and she knocked it out of the park. At 15 years old no less! I guess the Academy just couldn't bring themselves to give the young breakout performance the nod instead of going with the veteran. Again, I don't want to take anything away from Melissa, but Hailee chewed up way more screen time and really owned her role, and probably should have gotten it.

Best Director:

You want to talk about a stacked category, here you go. The Coens, Darren Aronofsky, David Fincher, David O. Russell, and Tom Hooper. Wow. I, along with a LOT of other folks, was a bit disappointed to not see Chris Nolan on that list, but I mean...who do you get rid of on there? In my heart I was pulling for Darren just because Black Swan was so beautiful and masterful, but in my head I was pulling for Fincher. Neither of those guys made it, but I'm not disappointed in the least that Tom Hooper got it.

Best Picture:

As much as I hate the fact that there are 10 movies in this category, there was actually a pretty full list of deserving things this year. I feel like ever since they bumped it up to 10 there's always these 'filler' movies that don't really deserve any kind of nomination, but they needed something to get it to 10. The only film I felt like met the 'filler' criteria this year was The Kids are All Right. It wasn't bad...but it definitely wasn't Oscar material. Like I alluded to before, it's just a better-than-average romantic comedy dressed up with indie flair, with tons of plot holes and underdeveloped characters. While I really did feel like the other 9 films had every right to be in the running, as it always does it really came down to 2: The Social Network and The King's Speech. I was really hoping the Academy wouldn't take the obvious choice with The King's Speech and show a little diversity, but the fact that Hooper had already gotten the best director award, it was pretty obvious. As I've said throughout this post, The King's Speech was a fantastic film and absolutely deserving of best picture. It just would have been nice to see the Academy take a chance on another equally deserving film.

All-in-all, terrible production aside, everything went pretty well. No real surprises, and I didn't feel like anything really got stiffed (although the GLARING omission of TRON: Legacy in the visual effects category still baffles me). I just hope we get as many quality movies this year as last year.

TRON Night!

The TRON: Legacy hype machine officially starts kicking into gear now that the release date is coming up fast, and they held a special event last night across the country (maybe the world, I’m not sure) called TRON Night, where they showed off about 23 minutes of IMAX 3D footage of the film. I was lucky enough to make it out to the event last night, and I was absolutely blown away. I’ll recount some the scenes they showed. For those of you trying to remain pure in the way of spoilers, you may want to look away.

If you’ve seen the trailers you’ve seen all the shots of Sam Flynn meeting with Alan, getting the keys to his dad’s Arcade and finding the hidden office to set off the movie. The first scene they showed was a more fleshed out version of this. We come to find out that Alan has been kind of a surrogate father figure to Sam, and has been grooming him to run the company, and of course Sam wants nothing to do with this, and is more interested in riding his motorcycle around and ending up in jail. Foreshadowing!! Anyway, it was a much more fleshed out scene than I was thinking and sets up a lot for the characters. Important (or not) to note that this scene was in 2D, but the rest of the scenes that took place in the Grid were all in 3D.

The next scene was when Sam has first entered the Grid, and is met by a Recognizer, and is taken into custody as he doesn’t have his Identity Disc (here’s the part where if you haven’t seen the original, you’re going “whaaaaaat??” but my answer to that is: go see the original!). As expected, he gets assigned to the Games Grid, and we see him taken in, and he is given his suit and ID disc by a few lovely assistants, and is thrown on in to the Disc Battle arena. The arena is a LOT bigger than in the original, and it’s in this whole scene that we start to see the changes in the Grid from the last time we’ve seen it. Let me say this: Sam’s disc battle sequence is incredible. The choreography is amazing, and of course it looks beautiful, but they also keep in tact that same feeling of ‘what the hell am I supposed to be doing?’ that we got when the original Flynn first got in there. Sam starts to figure out the system and wins his battle.

Next, we got our first look at a couple of things: the light car, and Kora, Olivia Wilde’s character. Somehow Sam and a mysterious helmeted character have ended up on the lightcycle grid in their light car, and of course are being chased by a couple of lightcycles. Again...it looks absolutely gorgeous, and so smooth. No quick crazy cuts so you can’t see what’s going on. They want you to take in all that TRON-y goodness. The two escape after blasting through the wall of the grid, and end up on some rocky terrain (which the lightcar adjusts for, by popping out some sweet off-road tires), which apparently means they’re “off-grid.” Very interested to see what exactly that means. As they’re driving, the mysterious driver removes the helmet and is revealed to be Kora. She seems like a fun character, and she seems very excited that Sam is there, like it’s fulfilling a prophecy or something (hmm...).

The final scene is in a ‘safe house’ where Kora was taking Sam. It’s a completely white room, with a man dressed in white knelt in the middle within some sort of beam of light. It doesn’t need to be said that this is Flynn. They don’t really explain anything about what Flynn’s role has been during his time stuck in the Grid, but it’s clear from appearances and the way he refers to Kora as his “apprentice” that it’s probably some sort of rebellion of sorts. There’s an emotional meeting of Flynns as they haven’t seen each other since Sam was a kid, and when Sam says ‘it’s been a long time’ Flynn responds with ‘you have no idea’ which, again, raises the question of how long he’s been there.

After that final scene, we got about a minute of sizzle reel stuff that’s been seen before, including the Daft Punk cameo, and some lightcycle stuff, and one thing I hadn’t seen before...light-jets. Rad. All said, I think the event had Disney’s desired effect on me. I was excited about TRON: Legacy before, but now I’m super stoked about it. It really seems like they’re keeping respect for the original’s mythology, and not just updating for the sake of updating. They’ve definitely kept that same sense of wonder as soon as you see stuff in the Grid. I’m very curious to see the backstory of how the Grid has come to this state, for instance why everyone is wearing black instead of the original white, and why it’s always lightning now, and stuff like that. Even more than that, though, I’m just excited to see more awesome blue-light-accented awesomeness in my face. I got my midnight screening tickets on the way out, and you probably should do the same.

End of line.

It starts on a bridge...

It’s always worrisome when someone has a big breakout role then all of a sudden starts showing up everywhere. With the success of The Hangover, I’ve been real afraid that Zach Galifianakis was going to succumb to overexposure and suffer the same fate of Will Ferrell. Fortunately, contrary to what the trailers might make you think, It’s Kind of a Funny Story isn’t a wacky comedy about the antics inside a mental hospital (which is a good thing) but more a light-hearted dark comedy/drama, and Galifianakis handles this somewhat serious role very well.

This isn’t to say that Galifianakis is the main character, because he’s not, but since he’s well-known he’s been sort of the face of the movie. The main character is, in fact, played by a relatively unknown actor by the name of Keir Gilchrist. He plays the role of Craig, a 16 year old going through the stresses of being a teenager in a top tier public prep school on top of being (at least mildly) clinically depressed. Craig has been having suicidal thoughts for a little while, and decides to check himself into the psychiatric ward at a hospital. He of course thinks it will just be an in-and-out kind of operation, but then finds out that there is a mandatory minimum of 5 days in the ward. Also, apparently the teen ward is being renovated so apparently the hospital sees no problem with putting teenage kids on the adult ward along with a whole cast of characters with various...issues. Gilchrist is sort of a poor man’s Justin Long, both in looks and acting style. There were points where I thought that they may as well have just gotten Justin Long for the part, but I don’t know if he can play a 16 year old anymore. Gilchrist does a good enough job though, and really settles more into the role as the the film moves on.

One concern about a movie like this, or any sort of comedy really, that takes place in a psychiatric ward is that there is that possibility of playing up the ‘crazy’ characters for cheap laughs. Fortunately this one avoids that pitfall and actually creates real characters out of the other people on the ward. Of course they have their funny moments, but more in an earnest way rather than a ‘look at the crazies!!’ way. Zach Galifianakis’s character, Bobby, is the most fleshed out of the characters, and I said, he plays his role perfectly. Light-hearted when it calls for it, and completely straight when dealing with his issues like being able to see his daughter while struggling with constantly being in and out of therapy dealing with his depression.

There were a couple things that bothered me about the movie, though. One was that the filmmakers tried to mimic Michel Gondry’s technique of putting in flashback moments and sort of surreal scenarios that are sort of hard to explain. Examples: a rooftop scene where suddenly the sky turns into a bright painting and text reading “Greetings from (insert hospital name)”; a flashback scene with Craig as a child learning how to draw, but instead of a younger actor it’s still full-grown Gilchrist in footie pajamas; animated sequences taking you through a tour of Craig’s drawings. It’s not that they don’t fit, but I just kind of wish they would have pushed these elements a bit further so that they more obviously contrast with the core of the movie, which they do well once with an incredibly well done and very memorable music video scene with the cast singing Queen’s “Under Pressure.”

The other thing that fell a little flat for me was Craig’s friends. They’re all complete assholes. This would be fine if you got some more development into maybe why they’re assholes or at least see that they used to be awesome but they’ve kind of grown into being assholes. Note: you do get this explanation with his best friend, Aaron, but it still doesn’t quite seem enough. One of the big reasons Craig gives for his depression is the fact that he’s been obsessed with his one friend Nia (who is now dating Aaron) for ages, but you never really get a back story of maybe how that happened or how they ended up hanging out a lot and him never making a move. This makes a scene where Nia shows up at the hospital and ruins his relationship with his new love interest, Noelle (played very well by Emma Roberts) seem like not much more than her showing up to ruin his new relationship rather than the culmination of years of tension as it’s supposed to.

Despite its very minor flaws, the film successfully addresses the issue of undiagnosed clinical depression in a way that isn’t condescending nor making light of the subject. It brings up a crucial point that someone can have a very loving family and a group of close friends but still suffer. It doesn’t wrap it up in a pretty bow at the end either which is nice, with Craig still having some work to do, but making progress at getting better, rather than being cured by his adventures in the psych ward. In the end, it’s a well-meaning, well-executed film; and while I didn’t realize it was based on a book until the end credits, it made me want to go out and buy the book, which I would say means it’s a success.

If Your Life Had a Face, I Would Punch It...

In today’s movie climate of so many comic book movies, one of the more interesting debates is how faithful the movie translations should be. It seems that nobody’s found that happy medium of being faithful and taking liberties, or at least found that source material that just lends itself to a faithful movie adaptation. Until now. Edgar Wright’s movie vision of Scott Pilgrim vs. The World not only shows the detail of someone who genuinely loves the source material, but also succeeds translating elements from a book that at first glance you wouldn’t think could be translated to live-action without failing.

Having only read the first of the six Scott Pilgrim books myself, I can only speak to the parts of the movie that deal with that book, but those parts are so spot on it’s ridiculous. It’s kind of amazing how well the characters and the frenetic fight scenes lend themselves so well to Wright’s style of film-making. This is obviously a departure from his previous efforts in Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz, and it’s also his first American film, but he makes the transition flawlessly and still keeps his own sensibilities, eye for detail, and humor in it.

It’s also sort of amazing (both in the book and the film) how we, the viewers, can be so drawn to and even root for characters that are really kind of crappy people. The titular character, Scott, meets Ramona Flowers, who he thinks is the girl of his dreams while he is already dating another girl who he basically just brushes off. Meanwhile, Ramona strings Scott along even though she’s apparently still stuck on one of her ex-boyfriends who she immediately goes back to at the drop of a hat. Nevertheless, we’re left still caring about these people and hoping they can work out their issues and put their pasts behind them.

Even though the idea that everyone has baggage in their past is not even remotely a new idea, this story takes an entirely fresh perspective on dealing with it. In order to be with Ramona, Scott has to literally fight and defeat each of her “7 evil exes” which is obviously a not-so-subtle metaphor for breaking down those walls that people build up with their past that prevent them from moving on. It’s just such a cool idea to see what would normally be boring conversations of rehashing the past turn into video game-inspired fight scenes.

It seems that these days it’s cool and fashionable to hate Michael Cera, and I myself go back and forth on him, since he does tend to play the same awkward kid in everything he does. However skeptical I was going in I think he did a fantastic job as Scott, and going back to the book he plays the dialog exactly how it reads (to me at least). He’s still a awkward, but has a little bit more cockiness (for lack of a better word). Mary Elizabeth Winstead plays a great Ramona as well, and although she and Cera have the obvious lead roles, nobody really outshines anybody else. Everybody really plays their roles well so it feels more like watching an ensemble than watching a couple stars and more extras, which is kind of the way it should be.

Technically speaking, Mr. Wright has a game-changer on his hands as far as the fight scenes go in the film. They’re expertly shot and choreographed, and if there are stunt doubles, they’re edited in so seamlessly that there’s no reason for you to be distracted, instead having the opposite effect and drawing you further into the experience. More importantly though, the cartoon and video game-inspired elements are executed so well that you get that same feeling of “how the hell did they do that?” that you got when you saw The Matrix for the first time. I have a feeling that there are going to be a lot of movies coming out in the near future that borrow from this one.

I’ll be very curious to see how well how well this film does commercially, because I don’t feel like Wright and company really made it for a commercial audience. This has cult classic written all over it. You could definitely still enjoy it having not read the books because it genuinely is a fantastic movie in its own right, but if you’re not at least familiar with geek culture, you’ll leave the theater a very very confused individual. This film is a true geek love letter from Edgar Wright and it’s so refreshing to see there are still people out there making movies because they’re passionate about something and not just because it’s “what they do.”

The First Bite Draws Blood...

The 3-D trend for movies is reaching its tipping point of people either accepting and embracing it or just hating it. I fall into the “I’m over it” camp, because the market is just being flooded with so many “3-D” movies that have no business being in 3-D in the first place so people are being charged an extra arm and leg for a dimension that shouldn’t even be there. There is one exception to this, and that is when the extra dimension is used as a gimmick, because in the end that’s all it is anyway. So if the filmmakers are self-aware enough to utilize it as such, it can come off as a lot more fun. This is the case with Piranha 3-D.

Now, it goes without saying that this film isn’t for everybody. It pushes all the limits of shock, gore, and nudity all in the name of glorious classic B-movie horror campy-ness. So if you’re not a fan of beautiful people getting torn to pieces in new, creative ways (or just by fish) or a plethora of bare breasts, then you might want to skip out on this one. I, however, had a great time with it. This is a true “re-imagining” of the classic 70’s horror movie, aptly titled Piranha, and this updated version still keeps in line with the sensibilities of those exploitation/horror movies of that era. It’s not about watching the hero make it out safely, its about watching whatever the problem is (in this case, prehistoric piranhas) destroying as many people as possible, and then once you think the heroes are safe, finding out that they’re still screwed. And the 3-D just adds to the fun when it’s used as a gimmick, as I said. It’s almost like they’re making fun of the whole 3-D phenomenon, and showing that people are taking it far too seriously.

There is a serviceable enough plot to hold all the mayhem together. A random earthquake in a small Arizona lake town awakens a 200 million-year-old school of thousands of piranhas (as we learn from noted crazy old man, Cristopher Lloyd) that had previously been trapped in an underwater cave, but the earthquake conveniently gives them a way out into the open water of the lake. Unfortunately for the lake town, it’s Spring Break, and apparently the co-eds in this random Arizona town know how to party! The lake is full of beautiful people partying, and unaware of the eminent horrible death lurking under the water, and of course they don’t listen to the warnings of the sheriff who has seen the prehistoric killing machines in action first-hand. Speaking of the sheriff (played by Elisabeth Shue), her son (Steven R. McQueen) is supposed to be home babysitting his brother and sister, but instead he’s off shooting a “Wild Wild Girls” video with scumbag Derrick Jones (Jerry O’Connell, basically playing real-life scumbag Joe Francis of ‘Girls Gone Wild’ fame). So not only does she have to deal with trying to rescue the dying party-goers, she also has to find a way to get to her son. Drama!

It doesn’t take long for the bloody feeding frenzy to get going, and once it does, it doesn’t let up. There are zero slow parts in the movie at all, and if there’s not people getting eaten to pieces on the screen, then there’s a healthy dose of the aforementioned nudity, so there’s really something for everyone. It’d be easy to call this movie misogynistic at first glance, constantly referring to the women as bitches or f*cking whores (and of course...the boobs everywhere). However if you really look at it, the people who are referring to the women in this way tend to get the most brutal of deaths, so in a way it comes back to being anti-misogynist. The whole film could really be looked as an allegory for not being promiscuous. It’s pretty blatant actually: get drunk and start flaunting your body all over the place, and you will be annihilated by piranhas. And the only people who are smart enough to escape death (at least on screen) are the ones who are totally uncomfortable around the debauchery. So really I guess it could be a family movie with morals and everything.

The film succeeds because it knows what it is. It doesn’t set out to be a serious drama murder mystery. It sets out from the get-go to be an over-the-top bloody good time, and in that director Alexandre Aja succeeds. Once again, it’s not for everybody, but if you’re not squeemish, then you will have a blast with this film.

Aim For the Bushes?

It's an interesting thing; It's difficult to get excited about most comedies nowadays since trailers in general have gotten out of control with how much they give away. This is especially true with comedies because recently it seems that all the funny parts are shown in the trailers, and the rest of the movie is just crap. I was very wary of The Other Guys because of this. The trailers were hilarious, but I thought there was no way the actual movie could live up to it, also because I don't think I'm alone in thinking that Will Ferrell seems a bit played out at this point. Fortunately though, I was proven wrong in this case and had a great time.

The plot sort of takes a back seat to the antics of Will Ferrell and Mark Wahlberg, but in a nutshell the two guys play NYPD desk jockeys Allen Gamble (Ferrell) and Terry Hoitz (Wahlberg) in a characiture of a police station. Gamble is the straight-laced accountant, and Hoitz is the guy with the anger management problem who got stuck behind a desk because of a prior incident. The two hotshot cops on the force (played by Sam Jackson and The Rock (I refuse to call him Dwayne)) get all the glory for having car chases and generally wreaking havoc in the name of the law while the “other guys” (that's the name of the movie!!!) are left to file the paperwork. While doing some of said paperwork, Gamble comes across a minor violation involving some ridiculously rich guy (Steve Coogan), and gets him and his partner involved in a huge financial conspiracy that's way above their heads, and hilarity ensues.

I say the plot takes a back seat like it's a bad thing, but it really isn't in this case. The whole film is really just an excuse to put Ferrell and Wahlberg together in different hilarious situations (get it? because they're polar opposites!). The comedic writing is absolutely brilliant. I haven't laughed that hard in a theater in I have no idea how long. You can tell a lot of it is ad-libbed and you really get the feeling that the two guys get along well and are having a great time doing it. It's also very nice change of pace to get a very subdued Will Ferrell performance. After all of his played-out over the top loud parts, it makes his humor in this movie work even better because it's slightly unexpected. And I feel like this is the perfect role for Wahlberg. It's so funny to see him basically poking fun at his typically tough-guy roles he's been playing of late.

Where it falls flat is in the non-comedic parts. It just seems that director Adam McKay needed to find somebody to help him out writing the dramatic elements, or at least spent more time on it. The comedic stuff pretty much writes itself with 2 very talented guys being very funny with pretty much no effort, so it's a shame to see that not as much love was put into the other plot elements. It's like they couldn't figure out what they wanted to do other than be funny. There are parts that make it seem like it's trying to lampoon action movies like the parts with The Rock and Sam Jackson (which I would have loved to see more of), but then there are parts that seem like it's trying to make some sort of point about capitalism and corporate greed, especially apparent in the ending credits, and it just comes off as out of place. Not to mention that the conspiracy that Gamble and Hoitz get caught up in gets so needlessly complicated and convoluted that it's more like McKay just didn't know what he was talking about so he just decided to just keep stacking crap on top of itself to make it complicated, cause that's how conspiracies work, right? It's kind of a shame really, because if they could have picked a direction, especially if that direction was just lampooning action movies, this could have been the next Hot Fuzz.

In the end though, fortunately it's pretty easy to overlook the shortcomings because, again, of the performances. Even the smaller roles were fantastic, like Michael Keaton's continuous TLC references. While it does end up feeling a little long in the end, mainly because that's when all the side stories that nobody cares about come together, it's still a great ride and you really feed off the chemistry on the screen. On a personal note, I'm really happy to see this sudden resurgence in the action/comedy genre. With the A-Team, Knight and Day, and now this being the best of the crop this year (not saying that either of those are excellent examples of the genre, but definitely steps in the right direction), it's like people are finally realizing what they've been missing. We've been so bogged down in romantic comedies mixed with a little bit of action, and it's just not the same as a Naked Gun or a Tropic Thunder or a Shaun of the Dead/Hot Fuzz. This is another, bigger step in the direction of bringing a horribly under-rated genre back to the forefront.

You're waiting for a train...

Christopher Nolan has just officially claimed his place among the elite film directors of the past decade. He has the uncanny knack of incrementally improving on each project he works on, and I would say that Inception is the pinnacle of that build-up, which actually may be a bad thing. I just don’t see how he can improve on this.

One of the main points I came away from the film with (along with many questions to ponder) is that Mr. Nolan took a leap of faith and actually respects the audience’s intelligence, by not having every little thing explained or spoon fed to the viewer. The time period the movie is set in is irrelevant; we know we are in a time and place where somehow people have figured out a way to enter in to people’s dreams and share these dreams with others. It’s hinted that the technology was originally intended for military use (of course) but again, that’s irrelevant. What is relevant is that we are watching a world in which this is possible, so you just have to accept that.

Apparently this dream-sharing process has given rise to thieves ‘breaking in’ to people’s dreams and stealing their ideas. Our protagonist, Dom Cobb (Leonardo DiCaprio) is one of these thieves, and a damn good one at that. He has taken up this line of work in an effort to somehow find a way to get back to his children, not being allowed to simply return because he is suspected in the death of his wife. He finds an opportunity in one last big job...an “inception” job--the planting of an idea, rather than the theft of one. It’s thought to be impossible, so he assembles a crack team to help him pull off the ultimate mind-job. Problems start to arise though when Cobb’s own inner demons start coming to light.

So what we have at its core is basically a heist film (which I thoroughly enjoy anyway) but Nolan succeeds in completely turning that on its head and then spinning it around at breakneck speed. In order to pull of this inception, this team has to go though multiple levels of subconscious reality; basically multiple levels of dreams within a dream. It sounds confusing, and it is, however it is handled so brilliantly that you never really lose your frame of reference as to which level you are currently watching. The effects that the events in the waking world have on the dream world are absolutely fantastic, for instance while a our team is sleeping in the back of a van and that van goes airborne, in the dream world there is no gravity. It makes for one of the coolest and technically fascinating fight scenes since The Matrix.

It’s very easy for such a complex concept to end up having many holes, but really any questions are tied up nice and neat with simple ground rules for how the process works. And here’s the kicker: they actually stick to the ground rules. There’s nothing worse (well there are things worse, but still...) than a sci-fi movie that has rules for how something is supposed to work, only to have some rogue characters or something break those rules as a way to introduce some sort of ‘twist.’ For instance, how do they have time to do all this stuff in the dream? Because your mind perceives time in a dream differently than when awake. While only 5 minutes may pass in the waking world, that is the equivalent to about an hour in a dream, and if you dig down to another level of subconscious, time goes even slower. And so on. You still with me?

One of the things I’ve always been impressed with Nolan for is how he manages to get the absolute best performances out of his actors, and even actors that you wouldn’t necessarily think were capable of such things. Case in point: Heath Ledger. Did anybody really think when he was announced as the Joker that he was capable of a performance of that caliber? He does it again here, with Ellen Page turning in an absolutely captivating performance as the young student-turned-dream-architect, and proving that she’s more than just Juno. And while not having a huge part, Joseph Gordon-Levitt really shines and will immediately trump any memory you may have of The Rise of Cobra (but let’s be honest...nobody has any memory of that). Nolan said that he never considered anybody else but Leonardo DiCaprio playing the part of Cobb, and it shows. I would put this in as one of Leo’s best performances to date, and I honestly can’t think of anybody that could have fit the role any better than him.

One of the main questions I came away with after the film (not related to the film itself anyway) is whether the general public will embrace this film or not. The ratings on IMDB and Metacritic and the like seem to suggest they are, at least so far, but I wonder how long that will last, being a summer blockbuster with a brain and all. I’ll keep my hopes up and if it continues to do well, it may do a lot to restore some faith in humanity. The cool thing about it is that I could give away the ending right now, and it wouldn’t even spoil anything because it’s all about context. I won’t do that, but still...without having any knowledge of how it got to that point, it would make absolutely no sense and to me that is just absolutely genius writing and storytelling. The bar has absolutely been raised for film-making, and I can’t see anybody topping this one for some time to come, and if it happens it’ll probably be Nolan that does it.

Ridiculous....ly fun...

I will say this about Knight and Day: it is 100% as advertised. After first seeing the trailer for this film, I remember saying something to the effect of "What just happened?" And yet I found myself looking forward to it. It's a rare thing that a film actually delivers what the trailer promises, and here via the trailer we are promised ridiculous, over-the-top action sequences combined with a throwaway plot and cheesy dialog...and that's exactly what we get.

I'm a complete action movie junkie, so it's no surprise that the ridiculous-looking action sequences were the main draw of the film for me. My only complaint is that there weren't more of them and that they weren't longer. The action is so unapologetically ridiculous that they just add to the comedy of the whole situation, and you're too busy laughing and enjoying the ride that you don't notice that the special effects are horrendous. I mean seriously, how can you find time to complain about bad compositing when there's a man in front of you who just pulled a knife out of his heart to continue on with his business of kicking ass, only to get thrown through the window of a moving train and, while holding on only by a chain of sausage, gets obliterated by another passing train? The plot is serviceable enough to hold this string of sequences together, but pretty basic. Cameron Diaz is in the wrong place at the wrong time and gets mixed up in the affairs of Tom Cruise, who is a special agent gone rogue. He will stop at nothing to prevent a top secret government project from falling into the wrong hands of another, evil government agent...or will he? You get the idea. Pretty standard stuff.

The weakness of the movie, as if it wasn't obvious, is the part of movie where guys aren't pulling knifes out of their hearts and getting thrown out train windows. The slow parts are just hilarious, in a that-really-shouldn't-be-funny kind of way. This is mainly because there is absolutely zero chemistry between Cruise and Diaz, which could possibly stem from the fact that she's about 4 feet taller than he is. It's interesting, in the slow parts of the movie where I had some time to think, I found myself thinking that if this was a weekly action/comedy TV show I would absolutely watch it. I would completely be on board watching the antics of the crazy ex-government agent every Tuesday at 8 on Fox. This way they would be able to disperse the slow parts of the story over a few weeks rather than getting the equivalent of an entire episodes-worth of boring dialog all at once. I'm just saying...24's off the air now, and Human Target didn't actually wow anybody...so there's room.

If nothing else, this was a way for two people (Tom Cruise and Cameron Diaz) to try to prove that they are still relevant. One of them succeeded. I haven't liked Tom Cruise for quite some time, mainly because I found it difficult to dissociate his ridiculous off-the-screen personality from whatever ridiculous on-the-screen personality he was protraying. Nonetheless I found myself very surprised just how much I enjoyed Cruise's performance. He was his old charismatic 80's/early 90's self again (complete with plenty of aviator sunglasses). And given that (arguably) the last big success he's had was the first Mission: Impossible movie, he needed something to breathe some life into whatever career he may still have. He didn't need to do some serious period-piece, or another Jerry McGuire. He just needed to go back to what got him started in the first place, and I think he succeeded in that. Unfortunately the same can't be said for Cameron Diaz. She really needs some project to show why she should still matter, and if there is one, it's not this one. She just came off as very flat to me, and personally I have zero attraction to her whatsoever as she's really starting to show her age. Again, that's just me.

In the end, I think the endless amount of re-writes and re-shoots ended up absolutely derailing the last third of the movie (they were re-shooting up until mid-May for a film that released in June). When you have a film that's so flimsy to begin with, any bit of doubt just comes through that much more and just destroys the whole thing. That's not to say that I didn't have an absolute blast, but that's just because I was with great company and because I went into it expecting nothing more than the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen. It's definitely no A-Team, but if you go in expecting to just completely turn your brain off and watch Tom Cruise run around like a crazy person, you will have as good a time as I did. Drugs help too.

Futurama's Back Baby!

And so am I! it's been freaking forever since I've posted anything on here...but leave it to Futurama to bring me out of hiding. In other news, I'm also writing reviews and such for the up-and-coming blog CrimsonMonkey.com, so good times! This is the first actual review I've written for em, so enjoy!

Futurama made its triumphant return last night, this time to Comedy Central, and I am happy to report that it is glorious! Sure we've had the "movies," and those were fine, but something about the long format just made them seem a bit...off. That was the very first thing I noticed about the 2 new episodes we were treated to last night. That the return to the short 30-minute format is much, much more successful. They don't have to worry about filler or stretching to fill time or anything, and it's great.

I had a few concerns ever since it was first hinted that the show was coming back, not the least of which was that they were having trouble getting the original cast's contracts worked out. If any show would have come on the air and called itself Futurama without that cast, I would probably throw my DVR out the window and disavow any knowledge of a "Comedy Central." Fortunately for my DVR, they were able to get everybody squared away and they are all right back on point. The other concern was time. When Family Guy was canceled, we had some great seasons of a great show to watch endlessly, and quote way too much. Then when it came back it was like a completely different show, just constantly looking to see how offensive it could be while sacrificing decent storytelling. I did not want this to happen to my beloved future jerkbags. Happily again, it looks like they still know what they're doing, so far at least.

The first episode was, at its core, a fan-service welcome back to the series. It picks up where the last movie, Into the Wild Green Yonder, where the Planet Express ship has just jumped through some sort of wormhole away from Zapp Brannigan and his ship. On the other end of the wormhole, our crew ends up right back at Earth. From here the Professor proceeds to get everybody back to working order, while Bender is forced to keep dancing in order to stay alive. And of course hilarity ensues.

The second episode wasn't quite as strong in my opinion, but still was great. Just like in the history of the show, even the weak episodes are still better than anything else out there. And it was still just so refreshing to see a nice, short, self-contained Futurama story (no, I'm not going to let that go, thank you very much).

The jokes and the timing made me feel like the show never left, and the short format made all the jokes hit that much harder since they came much more frequently. It all just felt like home, as cheesy as that is. Even the new Leela/Fry relationship worked for me. I didn't think it would, since to me, so much of the drama and comedy of the show always came from that dynamic of Fry always wanting Leela and her always turning him down ("so that's why you said you had to go meet that ghost..."). Them being together, at least so far, just seems to just make sense and isn't distracting.

All in all, for me it's like I haven't seen my best friend in a few years, and now we're finally talking again and it's like we never left. Futurama has always been the best, or at least one of the best animated shows ever created, and to make such an incredible comeback just cements that place, and I promise, The Hypnotoad had absolutely nothing to do with that opinion. All glory to The Hypnotoad!

you've lost your...much-ness...

Along with every mallrat Hot Topic shopping teenager, I too was pretty excited about Tim Burton's latest "re-imagining" of Alice in Wonderland. I've always been a fan of Burton and his style, extending into the awesome art he's done (I wish I had a way to get the MoMA in NY to see his exhibit), but lately I've been kind of wishing he would get back to doing more original work. He hasn't put out anything I would say was particularly bad (I even defended his Wonka remake), but it just seems like the inspiration is starting to wane for him.

I will say right off the bat that visually the film is absolutely stunning. All the environments, costume designs, and set designs just ooze Burton's style and it really is beautiful. That being said, I miss Burton's practical effects. With most things I tend to be a big fan of practical effects vs. CG effects anyway, depending on the situation of course. I just love the way real objects draw you into the universe so much more (for example look at the machinery in the lab of Edward Scissorhands...it just makes everything seem so much more real). There are a lot of subtle CG things that he implements very well, like making the Red Queen's head gigantic, and making Crispin Glover somehow even more tall and lanky than he actually is. I understand that nowadays with schedules for films getting more and more demanding that you have to use CG to speed up some processes, and obviously for large-scale things it just makes sense, but it just gets frustrating with Burton because I know he's such a talented artist and to see his amazing trees and things like that not actually existing makes me sad. Also, the Tweedles just look wrong. I don't know how you could make characters that shape and make them look "right," but that is not it. But again, my own personal nitpicks aside, it really does look beautiful.

I think the standout problem to me with the film is that it just seems that it's lacking things. Much the same way as Charlie and the Chocolate factory, Burton based his version of this classic story on the original Lewis Carroll book, but still paid a few homages to the well-known and well-loved Disney cartoon. Now, I admittedly haven't read the book so I can't critique it as a direct adaptation of the book, but even having not read it, I just feel like there was a lot left out. I didn't really get that scale and the scope of Wonderland as a whole. Not that it would be all that exciting to see people traveling from place to place, but it just seemed like they wanted to make sure they hit the highlights, and let the in between things fall through the cracks. For instance I want to know the reach of the Red Queen's power. How did she come to power? If the White Queen doesn't rule anymore, how come she still has a bitchin' castle? You get a hint of the Red Queen using her Jabberwocky to burn one village. How much more did she destroy with that guy? What the hell is a Jabberwocky? Sure they're not necessary plot points, but I think it would add to the depth of scale of the world.

In the same lacking vein, I feel like one of the classic scenes from the animated film (and, from what I've heard, from the book as well), the tea party scene didn't seem to have the intended effect. There were no logical paradoxes, with the exception of "why is a raven like a writing desk?" and it seems out of place without the rest of the paradoxes being there. Those logic problems were a keystone of the whole scene, even the whole story, so it was a shame to see it watered down so much. The scene didn't have the crazy, frantic feel I thought it should have either. I feel like that scene should be the most confusing, sensory overload scene, but instead they just went for confusing. The hare was hilarious, but it just wasn't quite enough. I did very much enjoy the use of the nonsensical Wonderland "language" but for the most part everybody seems to be saying these made-up words under their breath so you find yourself wondering if you're supposed to know what they're saying or not.

It seems like I'm coming down pretty hard on it, but really those are just things that disappointed me, and although I really did still enjoy the movie, if those problems were addressed it could have been a great movie and that's what bugs me. One thing I will say this film actually did better than the animated version was keeping that sense of parallel situations going on in Wonderland vs. what's going on in the real world. Not in a Wizard of Oz kind of way with characters playing the same people in the alternate reality, just situational. It was very interesting and very well done. As I said, visually it was fantastic, and the performances were fantastic as well. Mia Wasikowska was a real standout as Alice, along with Burton's two significant others: Helena Bonham Carter and Johnny Depp. Although I did think it was a bit strange when Depp's mad hatter would randomly become Scottish from time to time.

Again, I did really enjoy it, and I recommend checking it out. It's just a bummer when just some minor tweaks and maybe making the film slightly longer could have turned it from 'pretty good' to 'great.' Hot Topic should still probably make out ok though.

Why are you all wet, baby?

I was pretty excited about Shutter Island, but I got worried when it got delayed by so long for "budgetary" reasons. It just makes you wonder why the studio couldn't come up with the money to promote the movie. Did they feel like it wasn't worth supporting? So because of that, I went in pretty wary and prepared for it to disappoint. It didn't.

By this point everyone can at least agree that Martin Scorsese is a brilliant director, so I won't even bother going into how beautifully shot the movie is. He did make some strange selections in the way of music, however. It's interesting because everything visually on the screen is being used to create this moody, sullen atmosphere, but then at times you're just beaten over the head with this overly dramatic Psycho-esque music. It almost makes you want to find the orchestra playing off screen and tell them to chill out.

The film follows our main character, Teddy Daniels, a U.S. Marshall, who is played by Leonardo DiCaprio. I was very afraid that his attempt at a bah-ston accent would kill it for me but it really didn't bother me too much. I got too wrapped up in the rest of the plot. Anyway, Teddy is coming to the mysterious Shutter Island which houses Ashecliff, a mental institution for the criminally insane, to investigate an inmate (patient) who has apparently escaped under very...unorthodox...circumstances. He is on this mission with his partner, Chuck, played by Mark Ruffalo. Throughout the movie I couldn't figure out why Ruffalo had become such a stiff actor, but once you get to the end you realize his character is probably just bored with the situation (it makes sense, I promise). When the Marshalls get to the island, they are greeted by Sir Ben Kingsly, who plays the chief psychiatrist Dr. Cawley. He then explains the situation to the Marshalls. It really is great to see Kingsly in sort of a return to form. He's been kind of picking some strange projects as of late, but he really shines in this role.

After a short time, the disappearance of the patient takes a bit of a back seat to the real intentions that Mr. Daniels had in coming to the island. I won't go into those reasons for fear of spoilers, but it has to do with Teddy's now deceased wife. Once we get to that point, the pace really takes off and becomes a real thriller mystery movie. It's interesting to me because I felt like the whole cast and the film itself had to kind of settle into itself for maybe the first third of the movie during the exposition. Everybody (not just Ruffalo) seemed a little stiff, or maybe just a little off to me for a little while but then once they settled in the film had my undivided attention. Especially when Teddy makes his way to the mysterious 'Ward C' where the most violent patients are kept. There's some really intense stuff going on in Ward C (including a kickass cameo by Rorschach himself, Jackie Earle Haley...that dude is everywhere right now!) but it never strays into that horror cliche of "gotcha" moments. There are a couple jumpy things but they certainly fit in and don't seem out of place with the rest of the mood.

Throughout Teddy's searching for whatever it is he's searching for, he is constantly having to butt heads with Dr. Cawley and his associate, Dr. Naehring (played by Max von Sydow, who's awesome), and they always seem like they're hiding...something. There's a great side story of the internal battle in the field of psychiatry that Dr. Cawley is involved in between pharmacotherapy (using drugs to treat mental illness) and simply talking to the patients as a way of therapy. It seems like a tacked on bit of information at first but again, by the time you get to the end you realize it is very, very important.

Speaking of that ending...is it the greatest twist ever? Not really, but the execution is expertly done. It's one of those things that you see coming pretty early but they drop so many other little tidbits that make you second guess yourself and wonder about what's really going on right up to the reveal. That's vague I know, but I don't want to be the guy on here saying Bruce Willis was dead the whole time. So, with an odd musical selection and a story that will keep you guessing until the very end, Shutter Island is a beautifully executed film that I really can't wait to check out again to see what kind of little things I missed the first time. I kind of wish I would have read the book it was adapted from, but with stories with twists in them, what's the fun of knowing what's coming, right?

Tuesday Two-Fer, Part 2

Well this was certainly not what I expected. The trailers initially piqued my interest a few months ago because it looked like they were going to take a serious, moody look at the classic Wolfman story. It seems almost like they tried to do that but then somewhere along the line they decided it was way more fun to watch a Wolfman kill some folks. And oh does he kill some folks.

With such a great cast you wouldn't think director Joe Johnston could go wrong, with Benicio Del Toro as Lawrence Talbot, apparently the only non-British member of the Talbot clan. He does a good job brooding and scowling (the two things Del Toro is best at) while he Tries to figure out what caused the mysterious disappearance and eventual death of his brother. Some random old drunks in town apparently have deduced that it was probably some sort of beast that transforms from a man during a full moon, because that's the only logical explanation. Talbot's dead brother's widow, Gwen Conliffe (played by a gorgeous Emily Blunt), seems to take a liking to this stranger who apparently has been away for years and "missed [his brother's] entire life." Talbot's father, played by an always awesome Anthony Hopkins, is just kind of a weird guy who apparently never really cared for...well anybody really, not even his awesome Siek servant. To round out the cast, Hugo Weaving (also always awesome) plays detective Abberline (who you may also remember from From Hell), who, while a great character played by a great character actor, doesn't do a whole lot in the way of plot development other than being frustrated by not catching the "lunatic."

Whilst visiting a Gypsy camp trying to figure out what the deal is with this transforming beast thing, Lawrence has an inevitable run-in with the thing and is bitten, thus setting the rest of the film up for Wolfman mayhem. Everybody knows pretty much how werewolves work considering how hot they are right now, and the movie is called The Wolfman, so it's not like it comes as a surprise when we find out what lycanthropy is. It does set up some very well done transformation sequences though. Also, when we get into the thick of the Wolfman killing sprees, it's almost like the film turns into Final Desination, only this time Death is a werewolf. The violence get's so ridiculous that honestly I have to applaud them for it. They're not afraid to tread that line between gore and just right out cheese, and sometimes cross it. But it works as a great homage to classic horror movies.

I was a little torn on the actual reveal of the Wolfman, though. On the one hand, they do a very good job making paying homage to the original design of the Universal Wolfman without going all out, crazy-CG, Underworld werewolf. On the other hand, the design is dated. The make up is excellently applied, but it's hard not to keep thinking it's just a really good halloween costume. Contrast that with how excellent the bit of CG they did use to make him go from running upright to running on all fours which was just fantastic. Speaking of CG, I think the Wolfman is the only "animal" in the film that isn't fully CG. Seriously, can someone explain why they couldn't get a bear on a leash for one shot and a deer on a leash for another shot?

Back to the point of not developing quite enough in the way of story, we are given little trinkets here and there pointing to the fact that the father Talbot is kind of an asshole. It's obvious from the get-go that he himself is a werewolf, but we never really get any explanation as to why he doesn't care for his son, thus making the moments between them a lot less tense than they should be. Well, there's one exception: the giant father/son all out werewolf battle royale at the climax of the film. And as awesome as that whole fight is, it just doesn't fit at all with the mood of the rest of the movie. I had heard that there were some studio-imposed reshoots having to do with the end of the movie, and this has to be it. I imagine they had sort of a slow-burn ending with some sort of mild square-off between father and son, but the studio said "no way! We need a werewolf brawl! With fire!!" and it was so.

All in all the whole experience is just confusing. It's definitely a far cry from director Johnston's Jumanji days, and it's very predictable and completely ridiculous at a lot of times, but it's still somehow a whole lot of fun, and the good, somewhat serious parts are still very well done. It makes you wonder how it would have turned out had the studio not gotten too much involved, or hell, maybe Johnston really likes those Final Destination movies.