Black Swan - How far would you go to experience perfection?

Darren Aronofsky's Black Swan has been garnering a lot of critical praise for a while now, and we're just a few days from the movie going nationwide.  It's currently playing in limited release.  I was fortunate enough to catch it this afternoon on my last day in NYC for a little while.

Let me say upfront that I'm a fan of Aronofsky's prior work.  A huge fan of Pi and The Wrestler, but I will confess that I've never seen Requiem for a Dream.  I've tried to watch it once or twice and I just can't get through how bleak it is.  It's a critical shortcoming on my behalf, and I plan on fixing that soon...I promise.

I don't think Black Swan is his best film, but it's a hell of a film none the less, and worth seeing for Aronofsky's visual trickery, and a stellar performance by Natalie Portman.  You'd do well to check out the trailer, and consider if the film might be for you after watching it.  I don't think it's a movie for everyone, but it will certainly find an audience, and I think most of the praise it's getting is pretty well deserved.  Though I think it's a bit over-hyped...just a little bit.


Here is the Apple trailers synopsis:
-
BLACK SWAN follows the story of Nina (Portman), a ballerina in a New York City ballet company whose life, like all those in her profession, is completely consumed with dance. She lives with her retired ballerina mother Erica (Barbara Hershey) who zealously supports her daughter’s professional ambition. When artistic director Thomas Leroy (Vincent Cassel) decides to replace prima ballerina Beth MacIntyre (Winona Ryder) for the opening production of their new season, Swan Lake, Nina is his first choice. But Nina has competition: a new dancer, Lily (Kunis), who impresses Leroy as well. Swan Lake requires a dancer who can play both the White Swan with innocence and grace, and the Black Swan, who represents guile and sensuality. Nina fits the White Swan role perfectly but Lily is the personification of the Black Swan. As the two young dancers expand their rivalry into a twisted friendship, Nina begins to get more in touch with her dark side with a recklessness that threatens to destroy her.
-
Just a quick note to say, "Where the hell did Mila Kunis come from?!" She's really good in the film, and I hope we see more of her on the big screen.  (Never would have guessed she was on That 70's Show as I never cared for it...)


Without talking too much about specifics, and spoilers I will say that Aronofsky's ability to unsettle the viewer with disturbing yet often subtle visuals is really, really good.  The twists and turns the plot takes, at points making you wonder what's real versus imagination, continue to grab at every corner and keep your attention.  Some of the visuals go over the top a bit, and even border on comedic at a point or two.  However, they are so brief that the viewer is more often left wondering what they just saw, than really having seen, and understood, it at all.


I appreciate his attention to detail, you get a real feel for what these performers go through on a daily basis.  You come to understand that it's a cutthroat business driven by passion, perfection, excellence, and...fear.  Knowing that your time as a ballerina is finite, that the lights will go out on you eventually, whether you break out of the corps and into the prima ballerina spot or not, is a harsh and unforgiving reality.  The pressures can damage and break anyone.


The film works on a lot of different levels, and Portman's performance shines through in each and every scene.


I do take a bit of issue with the score for the film, more appropriately Aronofsky's insistence on pounding you over the head with it at points of key tension.  Yes, we know, she's stressing out and under pressure, she is losing her grip, we don't need the volume keyed up to 11 to understand that.  I almost wonder if muting things, or muffling them would be more effective.


On the whole I really enjoyed the film.  It'll certainly be the material for some great conversations between friends.


I think it begs the question, how far would you be willing to go to taste perfection and would it be worth the cost?  If you lose yourself on the way to the top, if being the best means finding yourself alone, what have you gained?  What have you won?

127 Hours - Danny Boyle's newest film hits hard and resonates.

I remember hearing the story of Aron Ralston a few years ago on an episode of 60 Minutes and being absolutely floored by what the man went through.  When I heard that Danny Boyle was bringing Aron's story to the big screen in his new film 127 Hours it was a no brainer for me to check it out.  Boyle has a great track record with films like Trainspotting and, one of my favorites of the last few years, Slumdog Millionaire.  Both are excellent films, and they hum with a certain life and vividness that Boyle seems so good at bringing to the screen.  Ralston's story in the hands of Boyle was sure to be an interesting time in the theatre.  I wasn't disappointed.

I'm going to be honest with you here, I don't really know how to talk about this film.  I've started writing this a couple of times now and each time it seems to get harder and harder.  Why?  I'm not exactly sure.  Here's what I know, the film resonated with me.  It struck a chord deep inside me, and I didn't even know I was so deeply invested in the story until the film's final moments.

127 Hours shares some of the same characteristics as the Ryan Reynolds movie Buried from earlier this fall.  Both feature a main character who finds himself in a desperate (and almost incomprehensible) situation.  Both films pretty much rely on the leading man to carry the entire arc of the plot, and are located principally in a single location.  For Reynolds it's waking up to find himself buried alive in a coffin, and for James Franco's Aron Ralston it's trapped between a boulder and a canyon wall.

However, whereas I would call Buried a great movie, I would call 127 Hours a great film.

The difference?  Buried is an exercise reminiscent of some Hitchcock films.  It's a 90 minute exercise in building tension, filling in some of the story, and keeping the viewer on the edge of their seat until the final credits roll.  

127 Hours is a human story, a personal story born of surviving extraordinary circumstances.  It's somehow life affirming, and makes you glad for the people you have that love you, and that love you.  Though at first glance the story appears to be about Ralston's dilemma, struggle, and the steps he takes to get out of the situation, it's actually about something different altogether.  As the story unfolds, and the hours become days, you come to understand that it's all about something bigger for Aron.  The self reliant, tough, capable explorer who's willing to go it alone ultimately causes Aron to find himself isolated from those he loves, and those he has loved and lost.  His "strength" is what gets him into the predicament that he's in, and the revelation that his actions have been holding himself back is what finally allows him to move forward.

I'm sorry to say that I'm not being terribly eloquent on my thoughts here.

Here's what I can say:  We can't do this alone.  We can't do "life" alone.  We are meant to have love, to have support, to seek it out and provide it to others so that they don't have to be alone either.  There is no shame in needing help from time to time, and looking to others for support.  Leaning on those you love can make you stronger, allowing those you love to know your feelings makes you stronger, and that strength will help you tackle whatever comes next.

See the movie.  It will move you.  You will rejoice at being alive.  You will rejoice at life.

Catfish - I'm on the fence?

Before you read anything, click on the picture over there and watch the preview if you don't know about this movie.  Don't worry, I'll wait.

Ok?  Checked it out?  Then let's move on.

It's almost impossible to talk about Catfish as a film without giving anything away, and I really don't want to do that.  As I walked out of the theater I definitely felt a bit rattled by the movie, but not for the reasons that the preview would lead you to think.  Once again I take up issue with how movies are being promoted, even though I understand the necessity of needing to market certain products in certain ways.

You watch that preview and you think, "Holy crap, what happens in the final 40 minutes of the movie?!  It looks like those guys pull up to this old barn in the middle of nowhere and then....what?  Something must go wrong, all hell must break loose....or something....right?"  The entire premise of the film is interesting enough and we can talk a bit about that without giving too much away.  Stop reading here, however, if you don't want to know any more than what's in the preview, ok?

Nev, the film's main character, is a photographer based out of NYC who gets a package in the mail one day from a young artist.  It's a painted version of one of his pictures that was published in a NYC newspaper, and the artist who painted it is an 8 year old girl named Abby who lives in Michigan(?).  Over time, more and more paintings begin to show up and Nev's roommates (who just happen to be filmmakers) decide to document this blossoming friendship.  Abby is apparently talented beyond her years and Nev and the young artist eventually become friends on Facebook.  This new angle of the story is where things really begin to pick up.  Facebook acts as a doorway into Abby's life and we eventually discover that she comes from a talented family of artists, her older sister (Megan in the preview) is a dancer, singer, musician and her mother Angela also has talents.  Friendships and connections develop over a serious of months, all through the very tenuous connections of Facebook, text messaging, and phone conversations.  Ultimately things begin to fall apart, and Nev's curiosity gets the better of him.  He, with friends in tow, decides to visit Abby and her family in rural Michigan.

That, in a nutshell, is the film.

Did I enjoy the film?  I have no idea honestly.  Is it compelling and unique?  Definitely.  Is it, as it claims, true?  I'm not sure, and from everything I've read on the internet no one else is really certain either.  Certain parts of the film seem genuinely real, and other parts of the film seem a little more "Blair Witch Project" than actual documentary.  If the previews piqued your interest then you might want to try and find this one and check it out, but if the whole premise of it doesn't grab your attention then maybe you should give it a pass.

SPOILERS BELOW - STOP READING IF YOU DON'T WANT TO KNOW HOW THIS ONE ENDS.  Click and highlight the inviso-text below if you want to keep reading....

Everybody gone?


Ultimately it's the finale of the movie that is the most unsettling aspect of the entire ordeal.  But it's not unsettling in the way the previews make it out to be and that is where I think a lot of my issues with marketing come back into play.  The previews would have you believe that something ghastly happens when the boys finally arrive at Abby's home in Michigan, or at least it leads you in the direction of thinking that.  What ultimately transpires is not so much ghastly as it is...sad.  Yeah, it's definitely disturbing what the anonymity of the internet allows people to do, but it shouldn't be that surprising to anyone I wouldn't think.  I mean, how hard is it to make a new gmail address for yourself?  Or a new FB account?  It's probably one of the easier things to do on the internet at this point in time.


The sad part, for me, is seeing how this woman struggles to exist within the realities of her life.  The way she fights with the compromises that she has made with herself in order to have a family, and have some sense of security while, at the same time, begrudging those very things for "holding her back from her dreams."  I think the commentary is fascinating.  She builds herself a fragile house of cards knowing that the slightest inspection might cause the whole thing to collapse, and yet she continues with the illusions anyway.  It begs the question however, if she'd made no compromises, if she'd tried to become the dancer/singer/artist/musician that she dreamed of...and failed...would that life be any better?  Would she be any less broken than she is now?

I'd love to hear thoughts from any of you who've seen this one.

Where the hell have I been?!?!

Ok, ok, ok.  I admit it, I've been slacking...ok?  I've seen a whole ton of movies over the summer and now into the start of fall and I haven't written a damn thing since Iron Man 2?!?!  I mean, what the hell, right?  For all 4 of you dedicated readers out there you have my sincerest apologies.  I'm going to try and get back on the horse and ride again (or something like that....)


In truth, I was feeling a little bit like this was a pointless adventure.  With so many reviews and critiques out there I don't see how adding my voice to the din is helpful or necessary.  But you know what?  Screw it.  I like talking about movies, and if some of you want to hear what I've got to say, then all the better.


Now comes the tricky part, how do I proceed from here?  I guess it would make the most sense to just skip the summer altogether as most of the movies I would choose to write about are already out of the theaters and on their way to being pressed onto blank DVDs for arrival at your local Best Buy store over the next few months.  Here's what I will say about this summer, and then I will move on to reviewing a couple of flicks I've seen lately (a few of which aren't even playing yet in your neighborhood!!)


This summer was pretty lackluster on the whole for me.  As I think back on it, only a couple of movies really jump out at me as being memorable.  What were they?  I thought you'd never ask....

For me this summer ultimately came down to 2 movies.  First, Christopher Nolan's Inception was an amazing spectacle for reasons so numerous that there isn't a point in trying to go into all of it here.  Suffice to say it's a mind bending film that takes chances like no other major Hollywood release in recent memory and pulls most of them off skillfully.  It leaves you walking away from the theater scratching your head and wondering about all the various possibilities the story puts forward.  While the characters aren't exceptionally engaging, it's the ideas behind the story being told that are the characters to watch for and listen to.  As soon as this final credits rolled I wanted to watch it again, and I did about 5 days later.  Great performances, fantastic action sequences (The fight scene with Joseph Gordon-Levitt in the hotel hallway is unbelievable) and a hell of a premise make this the most memorable movie of the summer for me.

The other most memorable title of the summer?  Easy.  Pixar scored another home-run with their send off of Woody, Buzz and the gang in Toy Story 3.  There isn't a single wrong note in the entire film, it honors everything that has come before it, and leaves you smiling and a bit teary eyed at the conclusion.  It's a sweet film that has tension, heart, and a lot of laughs.  How Pixar continues to nail each and everything they put out there is something that boggles the mind quite honestly.  (I'm a bit concerned about Cars 2 next summer....but here's hoping!)  This is supposed to be the final movie in the Toy Story saga and it couldn't end on a better note.  I truly hope that no one at Pixar or Disney have the idea of trying to revisit this franchise in a couple of years because I don't know what more there is to tell about these characters.  It's great for young and old alike and lets you walk away from the characters knowing they're in good hands.  If you didn't see it this summer (shame on you) you might be able to find it at a $1 movie theatre near by.  Otherwise you'll probably have to wait till the holiday season to catch it when it finally hits DVD racks.


Honorable mentions for the summer?  Despicable Me  had a ton of heart, Splice was uncomfortably creepy, The Switch was hurt by bad promo.  Was ultimately more drama than comedy, and was a decent enough film with a great child actor as the focus.

Iron Man 2 soars - Just not quite as high as the first.

The original Iron Man came out of left field (not to mention successfully reviving Robert Downey Jr.'s career single handedly) to be one of the best films of the 2008 summer season.  A great story, wonderful cast, excellent villain, and tremendous pacing all came together for a roller coaster thrill ride to start the 2008 summer season right.  Has the sequel followed the likes of X2, Spider-Man 2, and The Dark Knight to turn out even better than the original?  Not quite.  But don't think that the movie is the next Spider-Man 3 or Superman 3 because it certainly isn't.  Jon Favreau has returned to the director's chair to put together the next exciting chapter in Tony Stark's life, and has continued to build on Marvel Comic's greater ambitions for the eventual Avenger's movie (which is probably going to have the longest list of Hollywood superstars ever put into the opening credits of a film.)


SMALL SPOILER ALERT


Let's get the pros out of the way before taking a look at the cons shall we?  Jon Favreau has an impeccable cast and gives just about every single one of them plenty of screen time to display the characteristics and traits that they each bring to the table.  There couldn't be a better choice for Tony Stark than Robert Downey Jr., constantly riffing on others around him, a bit of a womanizer, excellent comedic timing, and great when the drama calls for it, he simply is Stark.  A man who walks a fine line that balances playboy lifestyle, responsible businessman, peace bringing superhero, and an individual who is struggling to come to terms with the legacies left behind by his equally brilliant father.  Don Cheadle takes up the role of Lt. Col. James Rhodes after Terrence Howard was unceremoniously removed from the cast after the original.  I've always liked Terrence Howard and don't really know why he was booted from the project but Cheadle is a great replacement and does seem to fit the part a little better.  Mickey Rourke commands just about every scene that he's in as the vengeful Ivan Vanko, a known method actor you'd have to look pretty hard to somehow find evidence that he isn't a russian ex-con who's spent a lot of years doing some hard time.  Sam Rockwell is a welcome new element in the mix of Tony Stark's world and plays the part of a scheming rival really, really well.  He's sleazy, slick, smart, well spoken, and an entrepreneur looking to fill a void.  He's fun to watch on screen from top to bottom, I think he's an underrated actor who has done some really great work.  Samuel Jackson and Clark Gregg return as agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. and, thankfully, each of them get a little more screen time than the original.  Jackson is hysterical as a man trying to get a narcissistic superhero under control.  Gwyneth Paltrow returns as the able-bodied assistant Pepper Potts, lovely as ever and her rapport with Downey Jr. is as strong here as the original.  Lastly on scene is Scarlett Johansson in a role that, while fun, isn't quite given the screen time it feels like it should have been.  Not at all like the tacked on Venom in Spider-Man 3 who was an add that Sam Raimi didn't want to put in the movie, she fits just fine, and is worked into the plot but just feels under utilized which is a shame.  Hopefully we see more of her in the IM3.


The plot is strong for the most part, and picks up fairly quickly after the events of the first movie.  Stark is dealing with issues on a lot of angles from confronting the American Military industrial machine, to ghosts of his father's past business practices, the fallout of revealing to the world that he is Iron Man, and dealing with the realities of the fact that, at the end of the day, he's just one man in a suit, his abilities and health are all impacted or supported accordingly.  I think one thing that both the original and now the sequel do well is make one think about the realities of weaponry in our world today.  War as a business continues to be a running theme and, even though Stark is out of the business, it shows that there will always be others looking to take up the mantle and continue to evolve it.  That's a scary prospect, and not necessarily a fictitious one.  One of the best elements of the first movie was the humor, Tony Stark constantly cracking jokes at inappropriate times and things like that, and thankfully Favreau and his screenwriters have expanded on that in nearly every area of the film.  There's a lot of laughs to be had and almost none of them feel forced.  A particular sequence in the middle of the film might get a bit hokey, but it's easily looked over for all the other successful humor.  The action sequences are fast paced and intense.  It's obvious that Favreau is getting more and more comfortable with big sequences that involve a lot of elements and characters.  While being chaotic and busy, I still feel the sequences were easy to follow from an audience standpoint.  While the good guys and bad guys look somewhat similar in the movie, it's easy to tell who's who and what's going on at all times (unlike some other movies of late...ahem....Transformers 2....)


After saying all this you're wondering where I find fault with the movie and why I wouldn't say it's quite as good as the original.  Here's why.  I don't feel that the villains found here are quite as villainous as Jeff Bridges' Obadiah Stane in the original.  They're bad guys, no doubt, but I don't feel that either of them get to really explore how bad they might actually be.  Maybe we'll see them in a future film?  I'm sure at least one of them will be around for a few more sequels.  I also felt the story was a little unfocused, or maybe too big in scope?  There was a lot going on with a lot of individuals working towards different goals and, consequently, it felt that some ideas were a little half-baked.  It's a shame because all of the threads are pretty compelling, so to see some of them get shorted is kind of sad.  Without getting into spoilers I think those are my major qualms.


One final note is that I absolutely loved the casting of Garry Shandling as a smarmy US Senator.  I've never been a fan of his, but this bit of casting was inspired brilliance.  He was fantastic in the few scenes that he was in.


Be sure you sit through the credits for the final scene at the end.  It's a brief one, but important as Marvel continues to build towards The Avenger's movie.

Nightmare on Elm Street - Nearly bored to death.

What's most amazing about the Nightmare on Elm Street reboot that just released is how utterly and completely boring it is.  With such great source material, and such an iconic villain in the form of Freddy Krueger, it boggles the mind how the director and screenwriters managed to cobble together a horror film that has absolutely no tension whatsoever.

I enjoyed Jackie Earle Haley in Watchmen and thought he was a good choice to cast as the new Freddy, and he's pretty good in the movie, he just doesn't have much to work with unfortunately.  The rest of the cast seems comprised of kids who didn't make the Twilight call backs and, thus, had some free time in their schedules to work on a watered down, WB knock off version, of an 80's classic horror flick.


I had vaguely high hopes about this flick, as the original was a kind of seminal moment in my early movie watching career (I have a vivid memory of watching the original sitting on the floor at the foot of my parent's bed one sunny afternoon and being scared out of my mind.)  Like the recent Alice in Wonderland, it seems as though the team behind the project decided to cherry pick some of the most memorable moments of the original story (however not the Johnny Depp blood geyser for some reason??) as way of paying homage, but then they decided to cut those moments down to about 15 seconds of screen time (again with no tension) and quickly move right past them.  For the rest of the film's "scary" beats they opt for lame jump out and get you moments that you can see coming from a mile off, or badly edited quick cuts to supposedly "frightening" imagery that...well....isn't.


There's honestly not much more to say.  The first is a far superior film in just about every way.  It's scarier, the plot is better, and Robert Englund is given more time to terrorize.  It's weird because, there is a moment or two right near the end of the film where you can tell that Jackie Earl Haley's Freddy has real potential to be a world-class creep.  The final climactic beats where he's facing off with the new Nancy are, in fact, creepy mainly because this version more directly addresses Krueger's backstory as a pedophile.  However, just as he's getting warmed up the credits roll (after a quick cut to black on a lame final beat.)  It was in these few final moments that I found myself thinking, "Wow, if we'd seen this side of him the whole movie this really could have been something." and instead they went for cheap scares and watered down imagery to frighten you.


Stay home and rent the original.  Now, on to another point I want to discuss briefly....


You know what sucks?  Knowing that this reboot is the most recent in a long, long line of reboots that's just begun with scads more coming down the pike.  This line includes such titles as the recent Wolfman, Clash of the Titans, The Crazies, and the upcoming American Pie, Spider Man, Robin Hood, The Thing (okay it's a "prequel"), Arthur, Fright Night, Red Dawn, I Spit on Your Grave and, (yes Andrew) Footloose.



I understand the idea behind all of the "rebooting", Hollywood figures it's better to bet on a known quantity that's been successful in the past to get people into theatres rather than betting on new properties that are unfamiliar to audiences and, therefore, less likely guaranteed to draw a crowd.  Hollywood has been hit hard by the recession like just about everyone else out there, so the math makes sense.


What pisses me off about this trend, especially what we've seen of the product so far, is that the studios don't seem to give a damn about the material they're rebooting (I will admit that Star Trek was a great reboot....)  To me that's insulting, and a slap in the face to moviegoers.  I'd like to believe that if you're going to try to retell a story that's already been told once successfully, that you'd want to try to not only service the original, but do it one better, add to it in some new and insightful way.  Instead the idea of all of these remakes seem to be focused on telling a rough outline of the original story and filling the rest of the screen time with lame special effects and overblown action sequences that add nothing at all to the story being told.


It's a nasty game to be playing on us moviegoers and I hope that some of the upcoming reboots buck the trend that's been established or the movie going horizon is going to be bleak for the foreseeable future, and that sucks for all of us.  Here's hoping.

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo-An excellent adaptation.

Today was a good day for me in the movie realm. Why? Because after last night's laughably bad experience with Clash of the Titans I had the pleasure of finally getting to watch The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. This is a movie I've been waiting on for a couple of months and I'm thrilled to report that, not only did it wash the taste of last night's debacle out of my head, it was every bit as good as I was expecting it to be. The film has been getting really positive reviews coming out of a number of film festivals (including one right here in Miami a month ago) and they're all well deserved. Between this and The Ghost Writer you've got two great options for thrillers at the theater right now (that is, if you can find them as they're still in somewhat limited release.)

Based on the critically acclaimed novel by Swedish author Stieg Larsson, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo is a complex, dense, thriller/murder-mystery centering around Mikael Blomkvist, an investigative reporter who is tasked with attempting to solve a 40 year old cold murder case, and Lisbeth Salander (the titular Girl) a resourceful, mysterious, and troubled young computer savant who ultimately becomes Mikael's valued assistant as he struggles to find answers for Henrik Vanger, one of Sweden's most powerful businessmen, uncle of the murdered girl.

I'm not going to touch more on the plot, as it's a pleasure to watch unfold on screen, so no spoilers here. You've got the basics, and you know I'm really pleased with it, you'd do well to seek it out if you can.

One of the best things I can say about this movie (among many) is what a faithful adaptation of the source material it is. We all know that books are always better than movies, and that's still the case here. The book is a terrific read without question, but the movie is a really strong interpretation that manages to maintain all of the major plot points, the atmosphere, and juggles a large cast of characters and suspects admirably. It's probably one of the best book-to-movie adaptations I've seen in quite a while, so if you've read the book and are skeptical, fear not, it's well realized.

Larsson has crafted a fantastically complex character in Lisbeth Salander and she's just as intriguing on screen as she is in the book. All of her most compelling scenes from the novel make the translation, and it's something to watch her operated in the real world and not just in one's imagination. Noomi Rapace plays Salander extremely well, and the visual transformation that she underwent for the character is pretty remarkable. She's a pleasure to watch on screen, she seems really comfortable with the character and really brings her to life.

Be forewarned, there is some rather extreme violence and a couple scenes of nudity/sexuality in the film, so if you're not comfortable with those two ideas you probably want to give this one a pass. Also, it's a foreign film with subtitles so if you can't be bothered to read then it might not be for you either, however the titles are brief and simple to read so it shouldn't prove too problematic for anyone.

I can't recommend this one enough, seriously. It's tense, deliberate, well acted, and superbly scripted given how intricate the novel is. It won't disappoint. I hope that the inevitable sequel is put together with the same care. The final book hits store shelves next month, I can't wait!

Clash of the Titans - AKA "Clash of the Suck"

This is going to be a short review because, honestly? There isn't much to talk about. This is battling it out with The Wolfman for lamest movie of the year so far. It's wrong on so many levels that I don't even know where to start. The good thing about this review? I don't have to give a spoiler warning...because there is no plot to spoil. Apparently the director and screenwriters felt that a coherent narrative was a completely optional element of the movie and so, left it out.

Having such a glorious canvas like greek mythology to work with you'd think that putting together a compelling story would be relatively simple. Instead what they opted to do was create the Transformers 2 of myth movies. They went for bigger creatures, faster editing, needless slow-mo action shots (a gold coin skipping on water is interesting why???), and relentlessly paced action scenes where you can't tell who's doing what to who. Half the time I couldn't tell what was happening on screen because they don't really allow you to get your bearings. Complete disregard for the first film is kind of a slap in the face to those of us who look back on the original with fond memories. Yes, it was cheesy, but it was good fun with some really memorable moments and characters, and throwing all of that away while replacing it with nothing positive whatsoever is just insulting. (Those of you who've seen the first and remember the little mechanical owl will be sorely disappointed.)

So now you're saying to yourself, "Well if they didn't have a plot, I bet the special effects were at least awesome, right?" And I'm here to tell you that you'd be wrong. The effects seen on screen are something you'd see in a Sci-Fi Original Movie on a lazy Sunday afternoon and I actually think that the Sci-Fi channel takes more pride in itself and could probably do better. The creature designs aren't terribly compelling, and the CGI work is just plain bad. I don't know if they were trying to pay homage to the stop motion animation of the original flick or what but, in an age when CGI has come so far and become so seamless, to have it look so obviously computer generated is shameful. And the green screen work? What the hell???

Is the acting good? Nope. You can actually see Ralph Fiennes (as Hades) thinking, "God just get me to the Harry Potter set so I can get back to being a real bad guy working with a decent script." And I think that Liam Neeson spends most of the movie phoning it in or looking pissed that he was called off his upcoming "The A-Team" movie for re-shoots. He'd obviously rather be somewhere else.

Lastly is the implied sequel that comes at the end of the movie. The original Clash didn't have a sequel, why does this one need one? Apparently the director has already stated he plans to make at least a trilogy out of this current iteration and you can only ask, "Why??" I mean, if you're not going to bother with plot, coherence, attention to detail, or utilizing your actors, then what's the point???

iPad - Impressions and thoughts

I love Apple's products. It's not a secret. I don't think I'm quite the raving fanatic fanboy that some people I know of are, but I'm most certainly an avid fan, and don't feel that there is any shame in it. I've successfully switched probably a dozen or more people from PC to Mac in the past 10 years and not one of them has ever had a word of complaint after making the jump. I find their products to be reliable, stable, virtually virus free, intuitive, fun and, most importantly, user friendly. There really is a lot of truth to that old slogan "It just works" when it comes to Apple's products. Once you get your head out of the tangled and messy world that PCs operate in, and come to terms with how simple Macs are to operate, they are simply a pleasure to use and returning to a PC is a questionable idea at best.

Having said all of that, I'll be the first to admit that I was pretty underwhelmed when the iPad made its world debut this past January. The man behind the magic, Steve Jobs, hailed it as being magical, and rumor has it that the company spent somewhere on the order of one billion dollars in the development of the product. To me it just looked like a bigger iPod Touch, and I didn't really understand the need for a product like this. It can't do everything that my laptop can do, and it also can't make phone calls, so......what's the big deal, right?

The device isn't magical. But it certainly does have the potential to be revolutionary for a number of key reasons.

1. User Interface - The iPad is incredibly user friendly and intuitive to use. It's a snap to set up, and I don't think in any way intimidating to users who aren't terribly computer savvy. My mom has had one for 3 days and has already paid her bills online with the new gadget. She's now beginning to delve into the wealth of applications that already exist for it due to the iPhone's huge library, and will probably be reading a book on it in the next few days.

2. Portability - Yes laptops are easy to tote around, but they can still be a drag, and their batteries are notoriously short lived. The iPad is basically the size and thickness of a Time magazine, seems to be incredibly rugged, has a battery life of 10+ hours and, if you get the 3G model, can be online anywhere you want to take it. Freeing it from the leash of power cords in a lot of ways, and the necessity to be on your home network. Drop it in your purse or backpack and off you go for a full day of light-duty computing with nary a cord in sight.

3. Web Browsing - It's just better in this venue honestly. Whipping around pages with your fingertips, tapping on whatever link you want to view, zooming in and out with ease, it's just so much more pleasurable and fun than the mouse or trackpad interface.

4. Applications - This is where the iPad is really, I think, going to sink or swim. iPhone has excelled in the manner it has not because of AT&T's phone service (which is questionable at best) but because of what independent developers have been able to create in the way of applications. There are now something like 200,000 applications to be found in the iTunes app store and the sheer variety of them and what they allow you to carry around in your pocket from productivity and games to interactive yellow pages, fitness regimens, and personal budgeting tools is utterly mind-blowing (and can often be overwhelming.) If developers race to and embrace the iPad with just as much enthusiasm then the platform will definitely change the way computers are viewed in the home. Even just the first inkling of iPad specific applications are already pretty stellar....and it's only the first week of public consumption. Programs like Sketchbook, Starwalk, and The Elements: A Visual Exploration are shining examples of how this new platform can be used.

5. Accessibility - This basically echoes my first point, but is worth stating again. The iPad is a perfect platform and vehicle for those individuals who may not be terribly comfortable with computers, or for those people, like my mom, who don't need their computers to do a lot of heavy lifting. Can I run my drafting program on it, can I build a website on it? No (at least not yet.) But I wouldn't want to draft or build a website on the iPad, that's a task better left to my laptop or desktop. But can I email, surf the web, listen to music, look at pictures of my vacation, put together a Keynote presentation for work, watch a movie, play some video games, do a crossword puzzle, play a game of Scrabble with a friend on Facebook, figure out a new recipe for dinner, watch some videos on YouTube, and read the newest Stephen King book?

Yes. I can. And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

To be completely honest, and Steve Jobs has admitted this himself, you can't get a full understanding of how this will change the way you want to use a computer, until you spend some time getting your hands on it. That's the truth of things. It's easy to dismiss as being "a big iPod Touch" if you just look at a commercial or read about it in a magazine, I get that. But once you actually get your hands on it, the attraction of all it can do, and the potential for all it might do, becomes evident pretty quickly.

After all this you're wondering if I've got anything bad to say about it right? I'll admit that the lack of Flash support is kind of a drag. Apple has stated that they've got no interest in supporting Flash, as such, the iPad will only show you a little box with a question mark sitting in it if you try to go to websites that are solely driven by Flash (my own site included, yes, I will be re-tooling it this summer.) But the device is completely HTML 5 compliant, and the future of the web is HTML 5. It's capable of doing much of what Flash already does, so if you just give it time, you're not even going to notice the Flash issues. And many websites are already being altered to rely less heavily on Flash.

I'll also say that the 2 separate models is kind of a downer. One model of the iPad is Wi-Fi only meaning that you need to be near some manner of wireless internet connection to get online, while the model coming out later this month is both Wi-Fi and 3G enabled. The 3G enabled model works on a pay as you go basis with AT&T where you can pay $14.99 per month for up to 250mb, or $29.99 per month for unlimited, internet usage. While I'm thoroughly enjoying this new piece of gadgetry and see it replacing many of the base uses of my laptop in every day usage, the Wi-Fi model I've got does leave me longing a little bit for the 3G model that I could take to the beach, or the local park, or on a road trip where the internet might not be as easily accessed.

Guess my next upgrade will be iPad 2.0 with Wi-Fi and 4G internet, and who knows what that future will look like. I can't wait.

The Ghost Writer

Roman Polanski puts together a densely plotted, tightly woven thriller with his most recent film The Ghost Writer. Polanski, who's probably best known for Chinatown and Romsemary's Baby seems to excel at storytelling like this and this recent effort is no exception. Full of twists and turns, supported by a strong cast, excellent pacing, and delightfully atmospheric music that serves to elevate the tension, Ghost Writer is compelling from the opening frame to the closing credits. It isn't the fastest paced movie you're going to see this year, so if you're attention wanders easily this one may not be for you. But if you like a movie that takes its time, has a clear focus, is crammed full of intrigue and betrayal, and is topical to the world around us today, then you couldn't do better at the cineplex right now than Ghost Writer.

As per usual, if you want to go in with a blank slate then go ahead and stop reading here. I'm just going to do a brief discussion of the plot real quick before wrapping this up. No spoilers this time around.

Ewan McGregor stars as the film's titular "ghost writer" who's been hired to clean up the rough draft of a memoir for ex-British Prime Minister Andrew Lang's life. Lang, played well by Pierce Brosnan, begins the film under investigation for war crimes committed while in office, specifically dealing with the unlawful holding and interrogation of terror suspects. McGregor is asked to come on last minute because his predecessor committed suicide before finishing revisions on the final copy of the book. An apparently talented writer who is known for working quickly under deadline, McGregor feels well suited for the job as he knows little about politics which, in turn, should allow him to get to the heart of what Lang is about. McGregor is quickly whisked away to meet lang and begin work, his publisher wants the final draft in hand within the next fours weeks so there isn't a moment to lose. This is the set up for the film which quickly becomes a sprawling labyrinth with new suspicions and revelations around every turn.

It's an immensely satisfying movie to watch, in a time when we seem to be getting louder, bigger, brighter, flashier, and more explosive in our movie story-telling, it's nice to see a movie that really builds tension by letting the actors do what they do best, act. No cheap smoke and mirrors here, just a really strong plot that we can all relate to a little bit if we've watched news in the last few years. Get to a theatre and check it out if you've got the time. It's not a big release so you might want to look at your local art-house theatre instead of the AMC 24 at the mall, but if you can find it it's well worth it.

How to Train Your Dragon - Dreamworks has a surefire hit on their hands.

Go see it right now. How's that? Have I said enough? Should I quit right there? This movie is a no-brainer recommendation to just about anyone honestly. It's funny, smart, adorable, wonderfully animated, fantastically paced, intelligently written, and has a lot to say.

I'm not exactly sure what the youngest age range for this flick is, but there were tons of kids in the screening I saw this afternoon, and all of them were giggling, cheering, yelling, and completely engaged in every single second of the movie. Some of the kids behind me were making surprisingly astute comments for being no older than age 8 or 9, it was really encouraging to listen to them especially at a time when we're told that kids' attention spans are getting shorter and shorter. These kids were so wrapped up in the events unfolding onscreen that it's a testament to the solid story-telling that the director and screenwriters were able to achieve.

I'm going to go into some plot and other details shortly, but rest assured that you won't be disappointed if you get out of the house for a few hours this weekend and check this movie out. I know that Hot Tub Time Machine is getting a lot of good word of mouth, but if you only have time for a single movie this weekend don't pass this one up. It's a real treat that easily stands alongside many of Pixar's best features and, while Pixar seems to have had the golden touch the last few years, they should be checking their rear view mirror if Dreamworks continues to produce work of this caliber.

SPOILERS AHEAD. As usual, if you want to go in with a clean slate stop reading here, I will be discussing the plot.

Based on a series of children's stories by Cressida Cowell (which I haven't read) How to Train Your Dragon tells the story of Hiccup, a young viking living in the land of Burq who is struggling to gain his father's approval, find a place for himself in the hurly burly viking lifestyle (Hiccup is a scrawny little guy more suited to using his brains to solve problems), and ultimately finds himself befriending one of the creatures who has been terrifying his viking village for generations. At the outset we learn that vikings and dragons are basically sworn enemies and, though their village has been around for hundreds of years, they have new houses due to the fact that dragons are routinely burning them down in attacks that leave the village in ruins. Adding to Hiccup's troubles is the fact that his father is basically the biggest, baddest viking in the land, the viking chief basically, who slays dragons with little effort, thus making Hiccup's lack of brawn and size all the more problematic.

I don't want to completely give away everything that the movie has in store, but I would dare just about anyone to stand this film up against Avatar and tell me straight faced that Jim Cameron's space fantasy has the better, more cohesive story. It doesn't. This script works extremely well on so many levels, it handles the struggles that Hiccup faces with his father, the difficulties he has with being a "different" kid when dealing with his peers whose only goals are to slay dragons like their parents, and the burgeoning awkward friendship he eventually begins to develop with his pal Toothless, that it's not only fun to watch visually from start to finish, but also a treat to enjoy emotionally. Yes we've seen elements of the story before (look to Pocahontas as mis-understood cultures find a way to work together) but it once again shows that, just because a story is familiar, it can still be enjoyable if the story is told well.

The animation seen here is fantastic, with small details and huge action scenes handled with equal care and aplomb. For my money, one of the best features of the movie is the creature design, specifically Hiccup's pal Toothless. Dreamworks took what we think of as "dragon" and then mixed in some house-cat and smart puppy to give Hiccup's fire breathing friend an instant likability that can't be ignored. The little guy is just too cute on screen, and watching the two of them interact and get to know each other is a blast filled with tons of laughs.

I can't reiterate enough how well executed the pacing of the movie is. Exciting action scenes are interspersed with moments of quiet learning and strong character development. Like I said earlier, the kids that were in the theatre with me seemed to love every minute of it, and were even engaged during the quiet parts. I didn't see a single parent take their little ones out of the theatre crying or anything like that, and I think that says a lot.

The voice acting is strong throughout, and I'd hazard a guess that Jay Baruchel (Hiccup), Gerard Butler (Hiccup's dad Stoick), and Craig Ferguson (Gobber) have already been preliminarily contracted for the inevitable sequel, and I'm sure their thrilled that the movie is doing so well by critics.

Last thing I'll say is that I'm actually a bit surprised that Dreamworks released this movie right now. The end of March is a pretty safe bet I suppose, but they had to know that they had a winner on their hands and I'd guess that the reason they didn't push the release back to this summer is that they didn't want to go up against the 400lb. gorilla that will be Toy Story 3 and risk losing some of their audience. After this I'll be curious to see when the next Dragon movie hits the local cineplex, but you can bet I'm going to be one of the first in line when those tickets go on sale. I can't wait to see what more of the Dragon stories have in store for us.

She's Out of My League

Jay Baruchel cracks me up. I absolutely loved Tropic Thunder and, though he isn't the "star" of that movie, he had some great comedic moments riffing off of that casts other, bigger players. So I was happy to see him get a chance at starring in a movie that more directly features him specifically. Though She's Out of My League isn't completely excellent from start to finish, it's a funny movie that's worth checking out if you just want to get out of the house for a few hours (especially since pickings are pretty slim at the local cineplexes right now.)

Baruchel stars as an airport TSA employee surrounded by a motley group of friends of other airport employees, who is down on his luck in life and luck. If you've seen a preview for the then flick you know the basic premise, Baruchel is a middle-of-the-road "5" in terms of date-able guys who suddenly finds himself dating a "solid 10" played by somewhat newcomer Alice Eve. Much to the amazement of his family, friends, ex-girlfriend, and even Baruchel himself this beautiful, funny, sexy, smart, talented girl not only spends time with him, but actively pursues him.

To be fair the movie starts out a bit slow, and most of the jokes that you've seen in the previews are found in the first 20 minutes. At first I was worried because I thought that the movie had given all it had to give right away and we would be in for another 80 minutes of boredom, rest assured this isn't the case. Though it's a bit uneven, and slow, there's plenty of laughs to be had if you just stick with it a bit. The stand out moments involve moments of uncomfortable intimacy with the odd-couple being surprisingly interrupted by the girl's parents, and a particularly hilarious scene involving Baruchel doing some personal grooming.

I think that Baruchel's other guy friends spend a good bit of the movie trying to mimic some of the camaraderie of the guys in The Hangover, and I can't say that they're totally successful on this front, but they're funny enough, and a sweet bunch of guys who really seem to care about their friend when things eventually start to fall apart a bit. Other funny bits in the movie stem from Baruchel's completely overbearing and awkward family, and watching the girl navigate through an afternoon with them is pretty hysterical. Some of this sequence made it into the previews but there is a good deal more to be seen here, and it's all pretty funny.

One of the things that surprised me most is that the movie ends up having a good bit of heart in the finale, though it's trying to sell itself as a balls to the wall comedy, it has romantic underpinnings that will keep your girlfriend happy if you can convince her to go with you. It's not a home-run by any stretch, not as funny as The Hangover, Knocked Up, or The 40 Year Old Virgin, but it's definitely funny enough to take a peek at. I'm looking forward to seeing more of what Jay Baruchel works on in the future.

Whip It - Drew scores in her first effort

I wasn't able to see Drew Barrymore's first directorial effort Whip It when it was in theatres this past fall, I was too busy with work, but I'm happy to say I was finally able to catch it on DVD this past week. Looking down the length of this current blog, I realize that I've been making all of these posts waaaaaaay too long so, in an effort to keep some of you reading, I'm going to aim to keep things a little shorter this time around.

Whip It stars Ellen Page as a teenage girl in a tiny town on the outskirts of Austin, TX. who is struggling with growing up, finding her own identity, dealing with a smothering mom (Marcia Gay Harden), and the difficulties of being a young person with big dreams in a small town. Page is as good as ever in a fun role that seems to be turning into a signature for her, demanding comedic timing, sarcastic wit, genuine emotion, and some serious depth.

Take a look at the picture over there and you'll notice that Ellen is dressed up in full roller derby regalia, and this is where the title of the film comes from. The majority of the plot revolves around Page's character finding a sense of identity, character, and passion amongst the rowdy crowds and interesting characters of the Texas Roller Derby league. Drew Barrymore should be given a lot of credit for making all of the derby scenes fun to watch, and giving the viewer a great sense of the atmosphere that surrounds roller derby.

Though a bit predictable (the life of Page's character starts going SO well past a certain point that you're left sitting there waiting for the other shoe to drop) and containing a couple of overly sentimental moments surrounding her new-found love interest, the plot is fun to watch unfold. Page anchors the movie from start to finish with style and a quirky Austin believe-ability. Having formerly lived in Austin it's also a treat to see how much of the city Drew Barrymore chooses to include in a lot of different scenes. Staple landmarks like the original Alamo Drafthouse, Waterloo Records, and the capitol building all make appearances.

A great supporting cast filled out with Kristen Wiig, Eve, Juliette Lewis, Jimmy Fallon, and Daniel Stern give the viewer a lot of familiar faces to surround themselves with and they all do really solid jobs in their respective roles. Juliette Lewis is good as Ellen Page's arch rival in the rink, and Daniel Stern has some really funny beats and a great change of character near the end of the film that really tugs at the heartstrings if you let him. It's nice to see him again as I can't think of too much he's done since City Slickers or the Home Alone movies. I'm sure he's done a lot, but it's just slipped past me. Drew Barrymore is also hysterical in the movie as an overly violent stoner derby girl. Prone to beating the other skaters up instead of trying to score points, at one point in the movie the team coach looks at her and asks, "If this play were called 'Bongwater' would you pay attention for a change?" Cracked me up.

I'm bummed I didn't see this in the theatre originally and am thrilled that I was finally able to catch up on it at home. It's an easy recommendation, give it a look and enjoy it.

P.S. - The outtakes during the credits are a lot of fun. Stick around to check them out.

Brooklyn's Finest - This ain't New Jack City

If I were to say to you I’ve got a cop drama starring Richard Gere, Don Cheadle, Ethan Hawke, and Wesley Snipes that takes place in Brooklyn and is directed by the guy who did Training Day you’d probably think I had a pretty good movie for you to watch, right? On those merits alone it should be a solid, if not necessarily stellar, movie. It’s a good cast, in a great setting, and it’s dealing with the same type of world that Training Day took place in, and that was a great movie that won Denzel an Oscar. Sounds good, right? Unfortunately Antonine Fuqua’s latest directorial effort is another in a series of passable at best feature films.

Cribbing just a little bit from better films like Crash and Traffic, Finest follows three different and seemingly separate plotlines that center around men in or tied to the Brooklyn Police force. The problem with Finest is that, unlike Crash or Traffic, the varying plots never tie together in any sort of satisfactory or revelatory way. There is a passing attempt at having the main characters interact, but it literally comes down to something like Richard Gere bumping into Don Cheadle on his way out of a convenience store. That’s it. That’s all the intertwining we get from an audience standpoint, and that’s pretty meager.

Beyond the complete lack of interconnectivity, none of the characters in the movie have any redeeming features to speak of. There is little to no effort put into making the audience care about anyone they see on screen. Consequently, when things start to go south for everyone, we as the audience don’t particularly care. Is it a shame that Ethan Hawke has a pregnant wife and three kids at home living in a house that has a toxic mold problem? Sure it is, but we barely see those characters, and he’s such a shady character that when things start to go sour we can’t really feel for him. Is it unfortunate that Don Cheadle is going through an apparently messy divorce? Yep, but again, we never see her character and he’s not exactly the most savory of guys so why do we care about it? Why does the nature of his divorce get any screen time at all? We don’t even know why he’s getting divorced. I guess we could assume that his commitment to the job has led to the divorce, but it’s never even given lip service. He could just say, “Hey you know this job already cost me my marriage!” and then we’d at least have that much backstory but no, it doesn’t happen.

To be honest, the necessity of Wesley Snipes’s character is almost a complete mystery. I guess we are supposed to assume that he is a complete bad guy street hustling gang banger, but we never see any of that in the movie so why is he in there at all? Why make allusions to him being such a badass if you’re never going to make good on them? What’s the point? Furthermore there is no consistency whatsoever with his character. One moment he’s making a choice that would have you believe he’s turned over a new leaf and has renounced his (alluded to) violent past, and the next he’s moving full steam ahead with a big drug buy. For a guy not wanting to risk breaking his parole how does buying 10 bricks of pure heroin fit into that picture exactly? There are instances like these shot through the whole movie, characters make appearances or statements that have little or no bearing on the story being told. They just take up screen time, while at the same time I felt like some of the crucial backstory and exposition might have been left on the editing room floor. I’d be curious to see what the Director’s Cut of the flick will look like, but I don’t think I’m willing to subject myself to it again.

One thing I will give the movie credit for, it does a good job at painting the world that these men live and work in. It’s a dark, mean, gross place and these men have been beaten down by the continual onslaught of despair that’s present in their everyday existence. Richard Gere is just a guy who’s trying to make it to his retirement, and you feel for him at points. But in “just trying to make it to retirement” his character makes some pretty cowardly choices for 90% of the movie, so once again he doesn’t engender much good will. (Never mind the plots of the 2 rookies he gets paired with who vanish from the screen about 5 minutes after they make their entrance, never to be heard from again....)

The movie basically comes down to a scattershot mess of a plot. You can’t care about the characters since none of them is a decent person to begin with, and the plot meanders from point to point without building any real tension. Give this one a pass. Stay home and rent Training Day and New Jack City instead.