The Small Print

An Early Look at The Walking Dead

2010-10-21T17:40:00.002-04:00

So I was able to get my hands on the pilot episode of The Walking Dead and decided to share my thoughts on it. Excited would be an understatement when describing how much I was looking forward to this. After seeing some early clips and pictures, plus the fact that Frank fucking Darabont was creatively involved is what really got me interested. I even went so far as to pick up the compendium (first 48 issues) of the comic and was totally blown away. The incredibly crafted characters and really dark themes it invoked were amazing. There was no doubt in my mind that if staying true to the tone and feel of the comic, then this would be a success. Of course, I shall remain spoiler free.

This was easily the single greatest pilot I have EVER seen. It was only about an hour long but was able to create a familiarity with the world and characters that would usually take 3 or 4 movies to accomplish. Anybody who has seen the trailer or any of the clips knows that it mostly centers around police officer (deputy sheriff to be exact, I think) Rick Grimes as he awakes from a coma to a world infested with the undead. But before it even went that far, it smartly did a perfect amount of set up to both Rick and some of the more important elements of the show. So while we weren't as bewildered as to what was going on as Rick, the sudden change to the entire world was still there. The initial hospital scene where Rick first wakes up was one of the most unsettling scenes in any filmed medium. I love horror movies and find it very hard to be truly disturbed by anything much anymore, but the entire time there was an unquestionable feeling of something being wrong. Then once you find out exactly what it is that's wrong, any time there is any darkness it's extremely unnerving. And not in a pop-out scare kinda way. In a "oh god I truly can't handle what's lurking in the dark" kinda way. Also, this has been said countless times in articles, but this is one gloriously violent series. They don't pull any punches when it comes to showing blood, gore, and all kinds of amazing grossness that we all know a zombie story is capable of. Even knowing all this I was pretty surprised with what they were able to get away with for a non-Starz/Showtime/HBO type series.

The characters were just as strong in the comics. Though it's just an introduction to the entire series and it only focused on a few, by the end you feel like you really know these people. Certain moments were so emotionally strong and connected that is surpassed anything accomplished in a work of zombie fiction to date. This show will easily be the best entry in the entire zombie genre when it's done. It could be successful minus the zombies, that's how strong as an actual story it is. Not to say that the zombies were downplayed, not at all. My biggest problem with most zombie movies is that they never captured the scope of a worldwide outbreak. Even Zombieland, while awesome, it didn't feel like the characters were ever in any danger. That is not the case here. What was so brutal about the comic was the willingness to kill any character at any time. There was an unquestionable feeling of danger that was unrelenting and that has seemed to carry over perfectly to the tv series. Overall the zombie work was incredible. Anyone reading this has probably seen the drive for authenticity with the "zombie school" and it really seemed to pay off. Real quick to address the stupid fan beef of sprinting zombies vs. walking ones. These zombies are walkers. They don't sprint like in 28 Days Later. But don't for a second think that makes them any less dangerous. Morgan said it best, "The may not seem like much one a time,but in a group all riled up and hungry, man you watch your ass." There are some scenes that the entire frame is literally COMPLETELY filled with shambling ghouls. It's such a visually striking image it made me physically react to what I was seeing. You will know the exact scene I'm talking about when it premieres, but it's like being punched in the stomach. It's that real.

That's the best thing about this pilot, it was so real. I realize calling a series about dead people getting back up and trying to eat everyone "real" is a bit silly, but that's why it works. I've always believed that if someone could make something as naturally scary as a zombie outbreak feel real, it would be incredible. Darabont's done that here. The danger, the characters, the feel, everything about this is so easy to see yourself in; which is exactly why it's so scary. I've never had a pilot stick with me like this has. I was genuinely unsettled by what I saw. Going by the comic, that feeling is only going to get stronger as the series progresses. This series is going to blow people away. It's going to take the zombie genre and not only revive it, but make it legitimate. Zombies have always been viewed as silly horror, but The Walking Dead takes to the next level. I've been saying that for a while, but now having seen it, I can confirm it. This series is going to blow people's minds and change the way they look at zombie fiction. I can't wait to watch it again on the Halloween premiere (October 31st, 10:00 on AMC for the full plug) and enjoy everything this series is going to bring. It's gonna fucking rock.

Zack Snyder to Direct Next Superman

2010-10-04T19:13:00.010-04:00

This news just broke (through 'unconfirmed reports' and now a tweet from Snyder himself) that Zack Snyder will helm the latest installment of Superman. Prior to this news, there was a WB/Nolan picked shortlist of possible directors. Along with Snyder, Duncan Jones, Darren Aronofsky, Matt Reeves, Tony Scott, and Jonathan Liebsman were on that list. Personally I think either Jones or Aronofsky would have been the ideal choices, both because I love them as filmmakers and they have a real talent for character driven pieces. Now I'm an admitted fanboy of them both, and giving the subject more thought, the more appealing Snyder seems to be. For some reason he catches a rash of shit from the asshole online community, which doesn't really make sense to me. Dawn of the Dead, 300, and Watchmen were all fantastic films. The Watchmen debate is a rough one, but I personally love what he did and think it was one of the most underrated films of 2009. With both DoD and Watchman under his belt, it seems he has a penchant for taking on (and rocking) properties that are considered sacred in their respective fandoms. I do think he does tend to go a bit hyperrealistic and dark, which worked for something like Watchmen, but might not go so well with Superman. That's the only real concern with him, but don't forget Nolan is "mentoring" this film so he'll have a great deal of say in how it's made. Which is a good thing, because the man is a genius. Him and Synder make for a really interesting combination, especially with something as hard as Superman.

There are a few places I'd like to see the movie go. First of all let's just stop any charade and just cast Jon Hamm as Clark Kent/Superman. The man IS the role. Personally I'd like to see him rock a beard too, but that's just my weird vision of a jacked, bearded, badass looking Superman. Then there's the villain, arguably as important as anything in a comic book movie. Superman is powerful as hell and he needs to be fighting a villain that allows him to show off his powers. There hasn't been a Superman film to date that shows us what he really can do. In a perfect world, I'd love to see an adaptation of the Superman: Doomsday story where he dies and it be a hard R-rating with tons of blood, but that wouldn't make any money and is overall unrealistic. As far as guys who can go punch-for-punch with Superman, there's also Darkseid. He's like a smart version of Doomsday and has become a very well known modern villain. He'd work great in an action context, where he has an all out brawl with Superman, but would be a bit hard to visualize working on screen. His look is very consistent and very alien. That's always hard to do well in a film. There's always the route of 're-imagining' him, but you run the risk of completely fucking up the character and alienating your fanbase. There's also the traditional Lex Luthor, Brainiac, etc. but they really aren't that exciting. I'd love to see Darkseid done if handled correctly, but it won't be easy.

Then there's the issue of Superman himself. He's a really weird character. Classically he's known as the scout boy of the superheroes and with stacking up against other complex heroes like Batman, he comes across as boring. He's only really known as a good boy who helps people. That's not enough for the movie. Superman isn't organically a 'flawed' character, but that doesn't necessarily mean he can't have conflict. It would be really interesting to explore his problems with connecting to the world around him. After all he is an alien and there is nobody else left in the universe like him. Now he lands on Earth and suddenly has to be the savior of the planet? That shit ain't easy. Even for Superman. There's naturally tons of emotional issues that come along with that. Now I'm not saying we should have a alcoholic Superman who drinks to deal. It shouldn't even be a central theme, but it should be the focus of his character. There's no need for an origin story, as anybody who buys a ticket to this already knows Superman's backstory. He's born on Krypton, comes to Earth, yadda yadda. It would just waste screen time and be pretty boring. The golden boy image of Superman really needs to be shed. Nobody wants to see someone who's both physically and mentally perfect on screen for 2 hours. That's boring and frankly nobody cares. Take your jolliness and GTFO. If you look at Superman from a personal angle, what motivates him? Why bother saving all these people he doesn't know or really care about? He'll outlive them all anyways and to him they're

just like ants. That's what needs to be explored in this film.

Why I think Nolan & Snyder are gonna rock this is because of their different areas of specialization. Nolan is amazing at getting into the minds of the characters and will probably do so with a heavy influence on the script. Snyder can make shit look cool so he'll be able to shoot some insane fight/action sequences and makes a lot of sense to direct. A lot of people are already complaining "oh god here comes slo-mo Superman" which A) would honestly look cool in a couple shots; and B) is just silly nitpicking. The single best thing about Snyder is how amazing he makes things visually. Say what you want about Watchmen, the fight scenes were INCREDIBLE. And as much as I love Darren Aronofsky and Duncan Jones, they are very similar in style to Chris Nolan (which is more of a compliment than anything) so it'd be kind of redundant to bring in a guy that would essentially think like Nolan. It's pretty obvious that Nolan's gonna handle the story and Snyder is gonna handle the action, so they'll play very well off each other. That's a dream team when you think about it.

EDIT: Rumors abound of General Zod as the main villain. Make of that what you will.

Batman Forever: Misunderstood Masterpiece or Campy Crap?

2010-09-25T19:25:00.010-04:00

First off let me acknowledge how douchey my alliteration is in the title there, but in my defense I thought it was somewhat witty and if you don't like it feel free to jump off a high building. Alright, on to Batman Forever. I'd like to put it in some context first. Obviously I'm not saying this movie is really a masterpiece and when standing up next to either of Nolan's films, it just doesn't add up. It is what it is and never tries to be anything more. Now that's out of the way, this movie was seriously a masterpiece. When it came out I was about 6, totally obsessed with Batman, and absolutely loved the film. That obviously doesn't mean a damn thing since I also had a poster of Batman & Robin in my room (I was only SIX, okay?). Constantly rewatching the movie again and again and again throughout the years it's really stuck like few have. And I don't mean it resonated with me on a human level or anything profound like that, I mean it's fun/funny as shit and I can never get enough of it. Personally I think it's the best of the non-Nolan Batman films, YES even better than the first Burton one. Now not to go off on a tangent or anything but I do think for a movie that took itself seriously (unlike Forever) the first Burton Batman was heavily flawed. I don't think Keaton was a serviceable Bruce Wayne and after Bale, Val Kilmer played the best Batman.

There are two major reasons why Batman Forever gets a rash of shit from people. The first one is the major departure it was from the previous two films. Burton and Schumacher obviously had different visions for what a Batman movie should be and those differences are rather apparent. I hate to use such an awful cliche, but the differences between the two filmmakers visions really are night and day. Burton went for the gothic, darker Batman and Schumacher wanted to make a silly cartoon. The change was so abrupt and jarring that people absolutely hated it, especially at first. Which is fair enough I guess. A loved figure like Batman has very passionate fans (I being one of them) so when Schumacher's take on the character wasn't as serious as Burton's, people flipped.

Fair enough. Especially for Batman & Robin. I want to make that clear; I'm in no way defending Batman & Robin. That movie was a steaming pile of milky garbage that used an amazingly crafted character like Batman to sell toys. Now while the love for Batman Forever has somewhat lingered, there is still massive amounts of hate for it. Which brings me to the 2nd reason why it's hated; because of what its seen as starting. By that I mean many people saw Schumacher literally drive any Batman film properties into the grave and Forever is interpreted as the start of that. Fair enough. Batman & Robin was utter shit and kept Batman off screen for nearly ten years. BUT Forever was not that bad. In fact it was rather awesome.

Now I've already stated that I feel Kilmer was a superior Batman to Keaton, but he wasn't even the best thing about this film. The best thing about this movie is none other than Jim Carrey and his portrayal of The Riddler. Yes, it wasn't very faithful to the comic and yes it's closer to The Joker than The Riddler but it's also silly as shit and downright hilarious in most parts. I'm not sure if it was mostly the writing or the amazing comedic timing of Jim Carrey, but almost EVERY line he uttered was instantly quotable and accompanied with a grandiose physical gesture of some sort. For those who agree with me (and even for those who don't) some glorious youtuber decided to upload every scene The Riddler is in. I could talk for ages about my favorite scenes with him (the Batcave break-in, the ENTIRE third act) and why they're so amazing and how often I quote/reenact them, but do yourself a favor and watch the youtube videos. Now I understand how fans of the comic/animated series/Batman in general could be upset at what Carrey did with The Riddler. But it isn't the comic iteration of The Riddler. Hell, this isn't even a proper comic iteration of anything Batman, but it's still awesome. It really toed that fine line that Batman & Robin just decided to steamrolled over. It was camp, but it was camp that worked. Once you accept that major difference, it's easier to enjoy the movie for what it is; a ridiculous and silly interpretation of Batman. And let's be serious, compared to the campy roots of Batman, this barely even registers on the Batman camp-radar. Which is something I'm surprised Adam West didn't actually have in that horrible 60's show (I mean shark repellent bat-spray...REALLY!?!?!?).

Now I'm not blind enough to realize that this movie wasn't awful in parts. Two-Face wasn't even that enjoyable as a goof character (though he has his moments, "let's start this party with a bang!", anyone?) and was pretty terrible overall. Good thing he got the lesser amount of screen time of the two villains. Robin was completely unnecessary and just wasn't nearly as enjoyable as the other characters in the movie. And for the record, yes, I thought the kung-fu laundry scene was retarded. Looking at the fact that Marlon Wayans was going to play Robin in the early developmental stages of the movie, it could have been a hell of a lot worse. There is of course the birth of the Bat-nipples and the oddly homo-erotic suiting

up scenes where we are privy to extreme close ups of Batman's crotch and buttocks area for seemingly no other reason than for fodder for Joel Schumacher to tweak his nipples to. Personally I like to act like those two things just don't exist. It's simpler that way and doesn't force me to admit that it actually turned me on (for those of you who don't know me, yes I am kidding). To counter the gaying up of certain elements, there's Nicole Kidman who is an insanely hot in this movie as Dr. Chase Meridan. Easily the hottest love interest in any of the Batman films and actually had a bit of a purpose in the story by helping Bruce past the whole 'my parents died in front of me' thing that he never seems to be able to shake. Yes this movie was the eventual harbinger of doom for the Batman film franchise, but by no means does it deserve the beating it gets. It's stupid, funny, and quotable as all hell. Of course there are some that think Batman should never be any of those 3 things, but to them I say, stop taking Batman too seriously and allow yourself to enjoy this silly ass movie.

The Town Review

2010-09-21T19:27:00.007-04:00

I was a huge fan of Gone, Baby, Gone and was impressed as everybody at Ben Affleck's directorial debut. Say what you want about the man's acting (which I don't think is atrocious as everybody else does, but he has picked a lot of bad roles) but he did a fantastic job with Gone, Baby, Gone. So I was pumped to see him back behind the camera again but in front of it...not so much. It's not that I don't think he's a decent actor, but it's really hard to get all his bad roles out of my head. I mean he's been in some real stinkers and as unfair as it is, those images are hard to not carry over from film to film. So I was mildly surprised to see the amazing reviews The Town was getting (which currently stands at a 94% on RT). Critics as a whole tend to pick on certain people (Kevin Smith) and with Affleck being one of them, I assumed the great reviews were indicative of a great film.

A great film this was not. I walked out of the theater with an overbearing feeling of "meh" about the entire thing. While I realize a grunt is not the best way to critique a film, I think it's very telling about the movie as a whole. First for the positives. The acting and directing were both solid. Affleck didn't blow me away or anything, but he did a good job as the straight man and didn't necessarily rely on his acting chops to carry the movie. It seems like he knows his strengths and weaknesses as an actor, so fair enough. Jeremy Renner was pretty good too. I'm not going as far to say that he had created a classic character or anything but he was by far the most interesting one in this film. He was pretty much a sociopathic gunman who let his insanity get in the way of a lot of heists they have to pull off. There was one scene where he interrupts Affleck's character at a lunch that you may have heard about. I was told it was "the" scene in the movie (much like I heard about the pencil scene before seeing The Dark Knight) and while it was nowhere near as amazing as I'd heard, it was rather nervewracking and did a good job of showing off the insanity of Renner's character. Jon Hamm was of course brilliant as always. For the love of god, can Warners stop fucking around and just throw the blue/red tights and the 'S' on this man's chest already. Jesus, everytime he walked into frame the thought would blare through my head "OMG he should totally play Superman." Okay, digression over. The biggest surprise of the movie for me was Blake Lively. Not having seen a frame of Gossip Girl, it's pretty easy to imagine that she wasn't exactly burning up the screen on that show. So I was rather surprised to see her transform from the perfect girl image she has into this trashy street girl.

My biggest problem with the movie was the horribly boring story. Judging from the trailer, I assumed it would be a crime drama/bank heist movie with a little something to it. It was that, minus the little something to it. The entire time I kept waiting for the hammer to fall and the 'oh shit' moment that made it as amazing as everyone said it was. But it never happened. It was one of those movies where your left angrily thinking "that's it?!?!?!?!?!" as the screen fades to black. The ending fell completely flat. What bugged me the most was the unrealistic nature of it all. Now I realize it's a movie and some things aren't going to be 100% believable. I get that. But it was just too much here. Okay take Affleck's relationship with Rebecca Hall for example. Hall eventually finds out that he's one of the guys that robs her and has a dilemma; to tell the feds or not. Initially she tells him just to GTFO and doesn't wanna deal with any legal aspects of it. Then Jon Hamm comes along and seemingly convinces her to lure him into a trap. Only she doesn't. Her love (which was never actually stated by either character) for him was too strong to lock him away. Which would work if they were married or at least been in a relationship for what couldn't have been more than 3 months. Affleck's character was a giant scumbag and in any real life situation the girl would say 'fuck this guy' and hand him over to the feds. Oddly enough the only character who did the right/realistic thing was the character most portrayed as a dumb whore (Lively). At the tail end during Affleck's voiceover he has a line something like "we all pay for what we've done" but he dealt with no consequences for his actions. He robbed banks, treated a woman he supposed loved like shit, shot at (and assumedly killed) tons of cops, and all he has to suffer through is a bearded vacation in Florida? The sheer ridiculousness of what the ending was trying to say was enough to make me dislike this movie.

Another problem with the lack of depth. The story had nothing to it. It was simply about guys robbing banks and trying not to get caught. That gets old after a while and was the main reason why this came across as so boring. Instead of a big, climactic third act what we got was a job-gone-wrong and Affleck's character escaping. Nothing of any real weight or consequence happened. It annoyed me that Affleck got away. He shouldn't have. That would never in a million years happen. There were cops literally swarming Fenway Park and he simply walked away. That's not a proper ending to a crime drama like this. It was like The Departed minus everything good about it. The characters, while good, failed to really spark any interest and the same could be applied to the movie as a whole. There was just nothing memorable or really exciting about any of it. To sum up, spend your money instead an a much deserved additional viewing of Inception. Moving on to Line of the Week. There weren't a ton of negative reviews out there (which is usually where the shitty blurbs come from) but I managed to find a blurb that dripped with douchiness. It comes from Dana Stevens at Slate, she says, "an autopsy for The Town would list multiple causes of death." ......I don't even know what to say here. I agree with her, but I'm much more offended by the fact that she thought that was a witty and biting statement than anything I saw with this movie. Yes, there were multiple things wrong with the movie. Why don't you just say that instead of coming up with some horrible line that you hope people will chuckle at? Well nobody's chuckling and you look like a douche.

Overall score: 5 out of 10

Bottom line: Though Affleck's film was filled with gunfire, Skeletor masks, and Jon Hamm, The Town still fails to draw any type of excitement throughout it's plodding, anticlimactic story and bloated 130 minute runtime.

Overrated Critical Darlings: The Spider-Man Trilogy

2010-09-09T22:12:00.002-04:00

Decided to cook up a couple ideas for periodical columns, the first one being "Overrated Critical Darlings". Obviously the point here is to talk about movies that undeservedly get all the critical love in world when in reality they're shit or at the very least, shitty. First up is the Spider-Man Trilogy. I include the third one for the simple reason that it's easier to group them all together. So I am noting that Spider-Man 3 got the bashing it deserved, even though the 63% on RT is a little soft. I'm trying extremely hard not to rant about how bad the third one was, but anyone with two eyes and working ears knows what was wrong with that film. Seriously, watching Eric Forman parade around as Venom was like watching a dear friend get raped. Regardless, the first two films didn't get the same harsh treatment. Not only did they make a shitbrick of money of the box office, but were met with nothing but love from critics. It really beats the hell outta me.

Let's start with the first one, Spider-Man. Being the herald of the recent cascade of superhero films, lots of people look at Spider-Man as starting it all. It made studios realize that people love these characters and film adaptations of them will makes tons of money on screen. But looking back, it wasn't that great of a movie. One of the biggest problems was the use of Sam Raimi as director. Now I absolutely love the guy and his work (minus Spidey obviously). The Evil Dead films were genius as was Drag Me to Hell, but what possessed someone to think he had a handle on this character baffles me. With superhero adaptations the director arguably has the biggest effect on how the film turns out. Now that may be true of nearly every movie, but superheroes have such unique worlds that require the director to really understand the character and the world that he resides in. I didn't feel that was the case with Sam Raimi and Spider-Man. First of all Spider-Man is a character that doesn't really need to have a super imaginative world around him. What I mean by that is Spider-Man exists in the real world. He's written as a character that actually web slings around New York City so it should be relatively reflective of how New York really is. Raimi tried to hard to make a "comic book" world and it didn't come off right. It didn't feel real. There was a sheen around the city that didn't really exist in the comics. Simple things like the odd abundance of clotheslines (seriously, nobody uses those anymore) and the odd downtown parade, complete with Macy Gray performance. Now that scene did allow for a cool ass fight on the giant inflatable cartoons, but it didn't feel like Spider-Man. In my opinion, this first one was the least shitty of the 3, but overall was simply not right for the character. It felt awkward, unfocused, and generally did not work for me. I realize that's an incredibly vague statement, but I'll elaborate more as I discuss the rest of the series.

Now for Spider-Man 2. While on some level I can almost understand how non-fans of the comic could like the first one, I do not on any level get why anybody would like this one. Everything the first one did wrong was amplified times 20 in Spider-Man 2. The most baffling part is that this is the most well received entry in the series. It's solidified a 93% on RT with the consensus of "Boasting an entertaining villain and a deeper emotional focus, this is a nimble sequel that improves upon the original." I literally could not disagree more with that entire statement. Let's start with the first part, the villain. Doctor Octopus is arguably Spider-Man's most well-known villain. What they did to this character in the film was a disgrace. Having him be under control of the tentacles is a polar opposite of what happens in the comic. His character had no motivation to be a "bad guy" other than the fact that they needed one for the movie. In the comics, Doc Oc was tortured and abused as a child and had a terrible relationship with his mother. That's what made him such a bad motherfucker. Not some standard science experiment gone wrong that messed with his mind and literally made him into another person. He's a deeply disturbed and emotional character, but the film decided to showcase nearly none of that. Of course there was the oh-so-conveinent ending where he suddenly is back to normal and decides to die a hero. That destroys everything Doctor Octopus is, he would never turn good, even when facing death. And then there's Peter Parker's entire character arc. The whole "superhero loses powers" thing is retarded and never works well in movies. Spider-Man's powers aren't driven by belief in himself, he gets his powers because he was bitten by a spider. They don't randomly go away so the character can "find himself" and then come back just in time to beat the bad guy in the 3rd act. It was a shitty attempt at giving Peter Parker depth and failed miserably. Spider-Man 2 is everything that's wrong with superhero movies. It was simple, shallow, and completely incompatible with Spider-Man's portrayal in the comics. Not only did it completely misinterpret one of Spider-Man's greatest villains, but it managed to make Peter Parker a boring jackoff.

Of course the lack of understanding of Spider-Man's villains was no more evident than with the portrayal of Venom in the 3rd installment. Yes, I said I wouldn't harp on this one, but what the hell, I fell like ranting. It single-handedly took everything cool and awesome about Venom and destroyed it. First of all it casted probably the most un-intimidating actor in the entire planet for the role and decided to show his face pretty much the entire time. Alright for those who don't know, Vemon is a sociopathic murderer who would love nothing more than to eat Peter Parker's spleen (seriously, he threatens to on nearly every occasion). He's a disgusting, drippy, slimy tongued brute who has and will fuck Spider-Man up.

On a basic level his motivations are the same, but the film neglected to mention that a) it was much more than some pictures that ruined his career; and b) he was emotionally abused by his father his entire life. Keeping those character elements away from the movie made his sudden hatred towards Spider-Man seem shallow and rather random. The symbiote first attached itself to Peter Parker it didn't drive him "evil" and it certainly didn't make him dance. The symbiote was a life form of it's own, with feelings and motivations. It controlled Peter while he slept, making obvious problems for him. So he found a way to get it off, the symbiote felt rejected and was pissed so when it bonded to Eddie Brock it fueled his hatred towards Parker. The movie had almost none of that. It made Peter Parker's character laughable and ruined one of the darkest characters in the Spider-Man universe. At the end of the day, I'm happy this turned to reboot. I'm not sure what direction they're taking the franchise in, but honestly anything is better than what Raimi was doing. Plus Andrew Garfield (the new actor playing Peter Parker) is a fucking genius and will own the role. So here's to hoping Marc Webb knows what he's doing.

Machete Review

2010-09-05T22:05:00.004-04:00

For those unaware of Machete's production life, it's rather unique. It all started as a fake trailer behind the Tarantino/Rodriquez double-feature Grindhouse. Along with a couple others, it was used to create a unique feel behind the Grindhouse films. Now besides being an insanely cool thing to do before a movie, it turns out people actually went nuts for it. Usually fans clamoring for a film doesn't mean squat, but in this case it was enough to get the film made. Add to that the absolute bomb that Grindhouse was at the box office (only made $50 mil on a $53 mil budget) and it's nothing short of a miracle that Matchete went into production. Picking up on the success of Machete, plans for a feature version of another Grindhouse faux-trailer have been made. Yes folks, Hobo With a Shotgun got the green light. I'm thinking an in-depth plot outline of this isn't necessary. Personally I love seeing well-done throwback exploitation films as they capture a hilariously odd sense of filmmaking. And since The Expendables was nothing short of a disappointment that took itself too seriously, I had faith that Robert Rodriquez knew what he was doing and would make an awesome movie.

That's pretty much what Machete was. I'm not sure if intentionally shitty is the right word, but it's definitely intentionally laughable. Not having been around when exploitation films were big, I still enjoy the hell out of them and it's a change of pace to the super-serious dramas that tend to dominate movie theaters. This was probably the finest ode to those movies I've seen. Machete didn't take itself seriously. There was graphic violence, nudity, and enough cheesy lines of dialogue and smash cuts to make me think I was in a drive-in circa 1970. Within the first 5 minutes about 5 heads had already rolled and at least one pair of breasts had been seen. Oh and there was also the

'ol pull-the-cellphone-outta-the-vagina scene. To say it was the most hilariously over-the-top scene I've ever had the pleasure of watching in a theater would be an understatement. I cannot imagine what they used to get mulchy digging sound, nor can I imagine how anyone on that set could have kept a straight face during that take. There were two scenes in my mind that summed this movie up perfectly. The first being about a 30 second shot of Danny Trejo texting. That's it. Half a minute of Trejo's nubby fingers punching at a cellphone. The second was again with Trejo, but this time he cut someone's guts out, grabbed onto an intestine and rappelled down the side of a building. If you cannot enjoy the hilarious nature of either of those scenes, then please do not bother seeing Machete, it's not for you.

I think the biggest surprise to me was the number of A-list/high profile actors that were willing to just goof around in this movie. Robert DeNiro, Jessica Alba, and Michelle Rodriguez do not need to take on a project like Machete. They already have well established careers but still signed on for this, which is incredibly cool of them. Watching DeNiro play a hick politician and be essentially a satire on the hard core, right wing protestors on illegal immigration was rather genius. The seemingly random political ads for him were timed perfectly and had me in stitches. Both Alba and Rodriquez should win Oscars for having to do sex scenes with Danny Trejo. I really want to make a mexican pizza-face joke here, but I won't. Lindsey Lohan was of course pretty obviously high as hell the entire time. Her intro scene was of her passed out in the closet of a drug nest. Considering her recent "troubles", I'm not quite sure this was a written scene. Knowing Lohan, she was probably in a drooling, drug induced coma on set and they just went with it. And her obvious body double was annoying for the simple fact that she thinks she's too high-class to do a nude scene. The woman is the very epitome of a crack-whore yet she doesn't want to show her breasts on film. Pity the thought, Lindsey, that you'd give people the wrong impression of you. Dummy. Sorry for ranting, but I really despise that vapid whore. Also kudos to Danny Trejo for getting a lead after a long career and getting to mac on both Jessica Alba and Michelle Rodriquez. All while saying less than 30 lines of dialogue the entire film. I salute you, sir.

For the most part the reviews have been pretty spot on for this flick and I'm happy to see it pulled in a respectable $11 mil on it's slim $20 mil budget. Of course some stupid ass critics took the film as actually having a message and said how offensive it is that it was so obviously pro-illegal immigration. First of all, a film can have any type of message it wants and if you don't like it then feel free to perish in a bus accident. Secondly, it was an exploitation film. Nothing it does is serious. If anything, it's taking the royal piss out of all the controversy regarding the immigration issue. So when dickhead critics get up on their keyboard pedestal and start bashing the film for its message, you're actually proving its point. Moving on to Line of the Week. I actually had to do a little digging for this knee-slapper, since most critics were actually spot on in their thoughts about the movie. I'm still in shock from the mere amount of coherent and correct thoughts about the film in the critic's blurbs on RT. Don't worry little birdies, I found one douche who tried to make a funny. It comes from Lisa Kennedy of the Denver Post, a supposed "top critic" on rottentomatoes and one absolute comic genius, "Rodriguez plans Machete sequels. Here's to hoping the next is sharper and cuts closer to the bone." Oh....I see what you did there, Lisa....sharp and close to the bone....like a MACHETE BLADE. Ohhh Lisa, you're a riot! See it's funny because it's a pun and a criticism all wrapped into one!!! Yuuuuuuuuck. Do us all a favor Lisa, and promise to never say anything witty ever again.

Overall score: 8 out of 10

Bottom line: Being the most fun I had in a theater in a recent memory, Machete was able to capture the tongue-in-cheek, over-the-top vibe to become a perfect ode to the glorious exploitation films of days past.

The Walking Dead Trailer is Here

2010-08-24T14:00:00.011-04:00

Today AMC released the official trailer for the Frank Darabont's latest creation, The Walking Dead. I'm not sure if I've been clear enough in my past mentions of the show, but this is easily my most anticipated production of the year. Yes more so than any movie, tv series, album, book, or whatever. There was a bootleg of it released from Comic Con, but seeing it official is a whole different monster. Saying this looks amazing is an understatement. I really can't bring to words how absolutely fantastic this looks. It's been a while since a piece of zombie fiction has been done well (not including the fantastic novel, World War Z, obviously) and this looks to deliver in ways unimaginable. Sure the Dawn of the Dead remake and 28 Days Later (which technically doesn't have zombies persay) were both great movies, but this seems to make it a seriously done piece on a zombie outbreak. Despite how silly and ridiculous the thought of walking dead people are, zombies are very relevant to our times and if taken seriously can really be something. Hell just look at the recent swine flue scare. Imagine if the swine flu made people come back to life and start eating each other? Yeah, some scary shit, right?

Now obviously I'm a huge fan of the genre and think that's while it hasn't gone down the shitter exactly, there hasn't been the definitive zombie movie/series made yet. With both The Walking Dead series and World War Z film adaptation (though I still think it works better as a mini-series) coming out, this can really set the bar high for what zombie films can be. Of course most people write them off as silly and campy, which can be very true. But I'm of the thinking that they provide a really great medium for social and political commentary on the world. And not just the Romero-esque, "humans are the real enemies" type thing either. Just think about the ramifications of a worldwide epidemic of any fatal disease; it would quite possibly cripple every social and political structure that exists. People panic and with no promise of a cure, it would only be a matter of time before chaos broke out. Now add to that the danger of the victims getting back up and eating people? So not only do you have to deal with the living people going nuts, but the dead people trying to eat the survivors as well. That's a giant mess and not one anybody is or can be prepared for. The only thing I've ever seen capture that tone is World War Z. It is possibly my favorite novel of all time and if you haven't read it, do so immediately. So here's to The Walking Dead and the 90 minute session of sheer zombie ecstasy that will come our way October 31st (Halloween night, how perfect) at 10 pm.

What Happened to Entourage?

2010-08-09T11:05:00.013-04:00

First of all, I don't want to come off like that guy who's bashing something just because it's popular. I hate the hipster douche pontificating about a band/tv or film series along the lines of "their first album was so much better" or "that new stuff is so mainstream, maaaaaaan". A lot of times it's unwarranted and reserved for the people who hate when their little indie whatever gets big. BUT in some cases it's true. Especially with tv series. Once things become popular more is made just because it's profitable, not because it fits the story. Look at Family Guy. Granted, not a story driven show, but before they started making new ones it was the big underground phenomenon. Then the network recognized they were retarded for canceling it and ordered a torrent of new episodes. Now the market is flooded and the show just isn't funny anymore. Another example is The Office. For a while there, it was a really funny show, not as good as the BBC version, but it was quite good. Now we're in an awfully unfunny season 6 with no end in sight. Michael Scott's awkwardness isn't funny anymore and I'm about ready to kill Jim and Pam (but 0ddly Dwight's role has been reduced). Their wedding episode was so horrible I was hoping it would end like Beatrix Kiddo's nuptials. Ricky Gervais is really a genius for knowing when to end his shows. He always leaves his viewers wanting more and ironically enough the american version of his show can't seem to get that. On the other hand, look at a show like Battlestar Galactica. The writers came in with a 4 season gameplan and stuck to it. That show could have ran for 7+ seasons with the ratings it was pulling, but it ended when it made sense to. This is something pretty rare for popular tv shows, as most tend to be overextended because of success. The most recent

example is Entourage.

Entourage was a great show through season 4. It was obviously filled with tits and laughs, but there was a really cool satirical/behind the scenes look at Hollywood filmmaking. The story hangs on the career of Vincent Chase and his buddy's shenanigans. Sure, the side characters are much more interesting, but the show revolves around Vinny's career. It started off really logically and naturally; Vince's rise to the top, a season of success, then gave his career a nosedive. The next logical step in story is the comeback and of course the inevitable Oscar. This is how the story goes. About 6 seasons, culminating in Vinny getting a statue and achieving his dreams, yadda yadda. But around season 5 it took a really odd turn. The comedy and Hollywood satire were gone (but the tits stayed, yay). Instead it became a middling drama with horrible storylines regarding these characters. It felt like it was becoming the Eric Murphy show, and while he's a great character, it's not his show. He works as a strong side character to Vince. Nobody gives a shit about his relationship with Sloan. The quintessential 'jumping the shark' moment came in season 6's finale. Eric and Sloan got engaged. What?!?!?!? This is a show about 4 bachelors living a debauched life and now you're gonna marry off a character? It worked giving them girlfriends every now and again but marrying off E was a terrible move. I'm dreading the inevitable marriage episode, complete with overly dramatic piano playing over cheesy vow recital. Separating these characters is the single worst thing that could happen to this show. I know characters have to evolve and change (case in point, Turtle), but radically changing the tone of the show is suicide.

From the hilarious character of Billy Walsh to the entire Aquaman saga, Entourage had a unique position to poke fun at Hollywood. And they did quite often. But it suddenly stopped. Now with the downpour of "gritty re-imaginings", absolute whoring of 3D, and the out of left field comeback stories (Robert Downey Jr/Mickey Rourke), there's tons for this show to work with. Who wouldn't love to see Ari try to pitch Vince on an unnecessary, shitty remake of something like Lawrence of Arabia? Or watch E fight to keep the movie from being converted to 3D? Entourage stood as the voice of the common moviegoer taking shots at the stupidity of Hollywood. It can't be any more obvious to give Johnny Drama either an FX/AMC style comeback tv series or film. He's the guy everyone forgot about and his character is begging for a comeback. It feels like this show is still on only because people like it. Of course it's become the favorite of every asshole fratboy to say how much like Vince he is or calling one of their "bros" a fag for being sensitive like E. That alone is enough to end the show, but more importantly the story has run dry. This season has been filled with "dark, gritty" storylines with the characters dressing in all black and doing dangerous things. If this season ends with Vince in rehab I'm gonna bite somebody. When I saw the fake shock and concern on the boy's faces when Vince did his own stunt I wanted to punch my tv screen. First of all, there's no way in hell they'd kill off the main character so don't even try to make it seem so. And second, nobody cares. "Ooooh Vince is looking for some danger and excitement in his life, so he's skydiving and fucking Sasha Grey"; "oh no E broke an expensive dinosaur fossil"...WHO GIVES A SHIT?!?!? Really makes me wonder what the hell goes on in the writer's room, I'm guessing something like this.

Of course the show's got another 6 episode season and then is going to be concluded with a film. I'll bet now that the last season and consequent film will end with Vince getting a statue and everything being ok. There's no other way to end this show, but it should be happening this season. Season 5 should have been about Vince having to do shitty, mainstream, studio movies (where the Hollywood parody is endless) in order to be seen as a legit actor again. It's seemingly random that the satire stopped. Could it be because the show doesn't want to piss off studios by making fun of them? I hope not. If so then this show has become the very thing it used to make fun of. The indie circuit was the butt of countless jokes, but there never was the head-up-the-ass studio head to counter the artistic, indie, "maaaaaan" character of Billy Walsh. On a positive note, Ari and Turtle have been developed really well. That's about it. The rest of the story and characters have gone to absolute shit. It's obvious popularity has stretched this show beyond it's natural means and the writing has really suffered. Hopefully it can turn it around with the shortened 8th season and concluding movie, but I'm not very optimistic. In the meantime, enjoy the 30 minute douche chill called Entourage and feel free to hide your boiling hatred whenever some vapid fratboy goes on about how his "bros" are just like E, Vince, Turtle, and Drama. God help us all.

Batman: Under the Red Hood Review

2010-07-29T19:41:00.009-04:00

I first heard about this about a month ago and was shocked to hear it was released so soon. It was one of those on-my-radar things and then someone told me it was out today. Being an adaptation of one of the most powerful Batman storylines, I was more than hyped. For those who don't know the events surrounding this story are among Batman's darkest. It starts where the A Death in the Famliy series ended, with the death of Jason Todd, the second Robin. The issue itself was a really big deal in the comic book world. Most readers really didn't like Jason Todd, so the writers made a brilliant move and let the readers decide if he lived or died. He was voted to die by the smallest margin and was consequently blown up by The Joker. It's possibly Batman's most popular storyline and they adapted it as an animated film. If only one thing it was going to be dark as hell.

And it delivered. Was such a great adaption of a really dark storyline. It explored the dysfuntctional relationships Batman has with the various Robins and really let us into the mind of Bruce Wayne like nothing ever has. Batman films usually circle around the death of his parents, but Robin's death arguably made a bigger impact. This one is actually Batman's fault. He didn't act in time and an innocent boy died. This was also one of the best incarnations of The Joker I have ever seen. That includes Heath's. At first I was bummed Mark Hamill wasn't voicing, but his rather wacky shrilly voice wouldn't have fit. This Joker killed Robin. He beat him with a pipe and then blew him up.

He was ruthless and more sociopathic than I've ever seen him. Hamill's trademark high-pitched voice wouldn't have worked as well. Don't worry though, the cackle is spot on. The final showdown between Todd, Joker, and Batman really showcased was a crazy bastard he is. It was a genuine moment where he wanted them all to die. Including himself. It took that last Joker scene from The Dark Knight and improved upon it. I wish he would have been in it more. He was truly a crazy fuck in this movie.

That leads to my one beef with the movie; the underdevelopment of A Death in the Family. I know this was Batman: Under the Red Hood, but I really wanted to see more of Robin's death. The immediate impact that had on Batman is something that needs to be shown on film. It was alluded to when The Joker remarked on how Batman put him in a body cast for 6 months. I wanted to see that. To watch Batman lose his fucking mind and get as close to crossing the line as possible. When a major character dies it's always incredibly powerful to see how those closest to him react. We didn't get to see that here. The immediate effect of that loss wasn't there. Having this as a two-part series of animated films would have been amazing. Using Robin's death as the climax of the first, then picking up with Batman going apeshit on everybody for the second one. It would have completed Jason Todd's character arc better and shown an insanely brutal side to Batman. I also would have liked to see them ratchet up the brutality. Robin gets beaten to within an inch of his life before he dies, but in this it's only shown in shadows and with minimal blood. We should see Joker with the crowbar, beating the living hell out of Jason Todd. That iconic image on the cover of A Death in the Family, with a broken, bloodied, lifeless Robin in the arms of Batman should be there. I'm only being critical on these points because I really think it could have made this rival live action films in quality. And not just Batman films.

Nearly everything was done perfectly in this. The animation was excellent. All the chase sequences somehow never felt the same, whether on foot or on vehicles. Each character had a signature way of moving that really felt unique and genuine. Nightwing moved like Nightwing. You could tell he was an acrobat. Batman was more smooth and precise with his fighting moves. Todd was just reckless and obviously talented. Nightwing may be the unsung hero of this movie. The way the character portrayed was so spot on to what Dick Grayson is like in the comics. He was a snappy, sarcastic, ally to Batman. They worked really well off one another. And not just in the fight scenes. There was an underlying feeling of familiarity and seamlessness to their interactions. It was more like between brother and brother than father and son. The dynamic between Batman and Jason Todd was brilliant as well. Having those two conflicting viewpoints coming from the same place made for one hell of a final scene. There were tons of little things too that were amazing. Stuff like the Hulk/Superman nods, the very very cool Joker origin sequence, all showed that this was very much in sync with the comics. I really can't say enough about how well this was executed. Easily the best animated film I've ever seen.

Bottom line: Delving into the mythos and psychology of Batman like never before, Batman: Under the Red Hood adapts one of the darkest stories ever and captures the power of the comic like very few have.

Overall score: 9.5 out of 10

How Inception Can Change Summer Movies

2010-07-26T10:46:00.014-04:00

I've already gushed about this movie and how great it was. One of the aspects not really being talked about is what Inception's box office performance can mean for the future of summer movies. It killed on opening weekend, raking in $60+ mil. Of course it had almost nothing strong running against it (unless you count The Sorcerer's Apprentice, which you shouldn't), but that changed this week with the opening of Salt. This was more than just one big movie against another. Inception stands for everything that summer movies should be, visually intense but also extremely original, with creative control in the right hands and using great filmmaking to impress. Salt kind of represents everything summer movies are now, loud, mindless, unoriginal, and relying only on star power. Now I haven't seen Salt, but all the trailers, reviews, etc I've seen have done nothing to persuade me that my perception of the film is wrong. Not trying to bash it here, but it's obviously trying to be The Bourne Identity with a chick. I get annoyed when movies try too hard to make classic characters; even the name Salt sounds like a shitty, made up, action hero name. Now I'm also not saying every movie has to elevate the genre or be as mind blowing as Inception. Some movies are just there to sit back, unplug, and watch. From time to time that's great, look at Taken, it's the best example of a well-done action movie I can think of. Even that caught a rash of shit for being kind of simple, but the big difference is that it wasn't a tentpole. Taken wasn't put out thinking it was going to rake in a ton of money. It was just a cool little action movie that was different enough to get people into it. Of course it also happened to make lots of money. Summer tentpoles have evolved into unimaginative movies that never really blow you away. That's exactly what they shouldn't be.

Take a look at this summer's lineup of big movies. Twilight, Robin Hood, Clash of the Titans, Nightmare on Elm Street, Sex and the City, Toy Story, Iron Man, Shrek, Karate Kid, Predators; there's not an original idea in there. Kick-Ass and Inception were the only two bankable, non-remake/sequel movies so far. The Expendables is the only other one on the horizon and only time will tell how much that makes. Referring to the above list of movies, maybe 3 of them were necessary sequels and the rest could have and should have been replaced with original ideas. Why was Robin Hood remade? There's got to be a similar genre story that isn't something we've seen before. Hell it was such a departure from the character that with a few minor tweaks it could have been completely original. Yet the brand of Robin Hood had to be smacked on it and sold as a "reimagining". Same with any of those up there. Nightmare on Elm Street was barely passable and pretty boring as far as horror goes. Throw that $35 million dollars at an original idea and with the same press it'll probably do just as well in the box office, if not better. It was the only horror movie of the summer after all. There's a real trepidation to roll the dice on anything and it's kind of silly. What's the worst that could happen, the movie doesn't make back it's budget? That's an incredibly rare thing and only usually happens with really shit movies (I'm looking at you, Jonah Hex). Best case scenario you discover new talent, make tons of money, and have the big "it" movie of the summer. Minus the new talent, this is exactly what Inception did and it should be the mold for future projects.

This past weekend's box office performance could strongly indicate a new trend, and strangely enough a new trend that doesn't suck (*cough3d/remakescough*). The only thing studios really care about is money, and fair enough, since most really good movies tend not to do well in the box office so they need the mindless crowd pleasure to finance other projects. I get that. But if something like Inception can not only dominate the box office, but dominate other sure thing cash cows, it could really start to change thinking. While Avatar was both original (I know some would argue that) and made a record amount of money, the takeaway was wrong. The studio takeaway from Avatar was 3D = money. That's not why Avatar was huge. Avatar was huge because people really got into it, they loved the world that Cameron created. That's why the money came, not because it looked pretty. Look, I'm not trying to be all anti-studio, but when Paul Thomas Anderson (who just did There Will Be Blood) has to shop around his next script with Phillip Seymour Hoffman and Jeremey Renner interested, there is a real problem. Add to that the tinkering they did with Clash of the Titans and Robin Hood (which were reportedly castrated by the studio), you have to admit that something's kinda wrong. The money people should worry about the money and the creative people should worry about the creating. Inception can make studios realize that they can make a shitload of money with an original story and without Hollywood-izing the shit outta the movie.

Here's this weekend's box office numbers:

1. Inception - $43.5 million

2. Salt - $36.5 million

3. Despicable Me - $24.1 million

4. The Sorcerer's Apprentice - $9.7 million

5. Toy Story 3 - $9 million

This is a great thing to see. The only real game in town was Inception and Salt. Salt lost out to a far superior movie on it's 2nd week. That says a lot about Inception. Word-of-mouth was HUGE on this movie. Tons of people (including me) saw it last week and couldn't shut up about it. It started debates about the meaning of the ending and nearly everybody was tweeting/facebooking for their friends to see it. That's how a great movie is marketed and that's how you take advantage of social networking. It's been a trending topic on twitter since it came out, that's really really big and hard to do. Sure the trailers and genius billboards it had helped, but when people see it and start raving about it, that does more than any commercial can. Inception was the perfect summer movie and deserves every single dime it gets, and then some. Hopefully it will make studio execs see that original ideas not only make for great films, but can also rake in a ton of money.

Comic Con 2010 Highlights

2010-07-25T09:58:00.016-04:00

No, I was/am not there, but I've been scouring the web like the geek that I am for some footage description or leaked video. I've found some leaked video of the panels and some footage, but they'll probably be taken down quickly. I'd recommend searching "comic con 2010 (project name) leak" if the vids I've linked get removed.

THOR (May 6th, 2011)

There's been some mixed response pre-Comic Con to most of the Thor still releases. The suits have been bashed for looking too plasticy and Power Rangers-esque, while others think they'll look better come on screen with moving action. Pre-panel Comic-Con releases and debuted the helmets of Loki, Odin, and Thor, as well as a display of The Destroyer. They both look fantastic in my opinion, especially the helmets. Saturday was the big day for the panel, with a trailer released and some discussion on how the movie's going to look. I'm a bit bummed they're doing a post-conversion 3D, but I'll be going in 2D anyways so it doesn't matter. I don't know how anyone can not be excited for this.

CAPTAIN AMERICA: THE FIRST AVENGER (July 22nd, 2011)

There's been little to nothing (besides some concept art) out for CA so far. Hell, the suit isn't even done yet. Yet they had a panel with some very raw video and talk about the tone of the movie. It's arguably the most that's been said about the movie so far, but we still really don't know a whole lot. Obviously every movie leading up to and including The Avengers will have to kick ass for this entire thing to work, but Captain America may be the most important. Out of all the Marvel properties, this one should be done in the grittiest way, since Captain America can really get camp if you don't watch it. Joe Johnston still worries me, but the buzz is very positive.

THE AVENGERS (May 4th, 2012)

Up till now, almost everything about this movie has been rumor. Joss Whedon wasn't officially announced as director until he said it himself in his panel with JJ Abrams on Friday and until yesterday we didn't know for sure who was in it. So in geek swooning style, Marvel brought out Samuel L. Jackson/Nick Fury to introduce The Avengers on their panel. It really is pretty damn cool to see everyone up there on stage together. The rumors about Jeremy Renner playing Hawkeye were confirmed true when he came out on stage. Ed Norton had been dropped in his role as Bruce Banner/Incredible Hulk, much to the chagrin of the internet fanboys, but there were rumors of either Joaquin Phoenix or Mark Ruffalo taking his place. I think Ruffalo is great for the role since he plays the everyman very well, and that's essentially what Bruce Banner is. So it was great to see Ruffalo stride out there too. Joss Whedon discussed his take on the relationship between Stark and Captain America, which does nothing but inspire more faith that this man knows what he's doing.

***EDIT: Cast intro.

GREEN LANTERN (June 17th, 2011)

An official still of the suit was released about a week ago and stirred up a rash of shit, like anything comic book adaptation related always does. I kinda like the alien feel it has to it, since ya know, the ring is from another planet and all. BUT this is just one picture and one picture really isn't enough to judge the entire costume. GL's Comic Con expose started off with a display of Abin Sur's corpse, which is just a fucking cool thing to have laying out on the floor of Comic Con. io9 did a cool Letterman like top 10 on the GL panel and got a transcript of the cast's thoughts on the movie. My takeaways from this; everyone seems to know what they're doing. Ryan Reynolds knows Hal Jordan and seems to really love the character. Martin Campbell has a good grasp on how the story can work on screen. And Peter Sarsgaard described Hector Hammond as "the kid that licked the battery." Couldn't have said it better myself. Also Ryan Reynolds recited the GL oath to a little GL fan (go to 1:32 here). It's nice to know that some actors really appreciate their fans and don't mind spouting cheesy oaths to toddlers who adore their character. Hearing that kid ask that question is probably the cutest thing you'll see all year, I would have paid to see the look on his face. Really says a lot about how cool a guy Ryan Reynolds is, I don't think just anybody would have done that.

***EDIT: Got video of the panel.

COWBOYS AND ALIENS (July 29th, 2011)

This is my dark horse for 2011. I really think it's going to be unexpectedly amazing and blow people away. The cast is an assembly of probably the most underrated actors in Hollywood (including Paul Dano and Sam Rockwell, don't worry I won't mancrush on him this post) and has a story that inherently really fucking cool. io9 has a great breakdown of the panel and the footage shown and does a better job than me of explaining why this is going to rock. Being a huge fan of both westerns and sci fi, I think that if done right, this mashup of the two genres can be incredible. Think the 'Knights of Cydonia' music video, about 100 mins longer, directed by Jon Favreau, with Daniel Craig, Harrison Ford, Sam Rockwell, Paul Dano, and Olivia Wilde in it. If that doesn't get you excited than you probably should just kill yourself now.

***EDIT: Found video of the panel.

THE WALKING DEAD (October 2010)

One of the two non-film things I'm bothering to blab about here, this show is going to blow people away. I say that not having seen a frame of it, but from the creative forces behind it (Frank fucking Darabont) and all the pics and positive buzz it's got, there's really no reason not to think this is going to blow you away. It's even avoiding criticism from the asshole commenters on movie blog sites. I literally would have killed a man with my bare hands to be in room 6BCF from 11:30-12:30 on Friday, but a breakdown of the panel will have to do. Darabont has been actively plugging this as very character driven, which gets me even more excited because it means we get to be inside the heads of people during a zombie outbreak. And how can that not be an insane place to be? I cannot wait until October for this. It's gonna blow people away. Video of the panel here.

***EDIT: Found video of the trailer, get it while it's up.

DEXTER (September 26th, 2010)

*spoilers ahead*

The other non-film thing here, Dexter's got a new season coming up and it's got a lot do deal with. Season 4's ending was the biggest 'oh shit' moment I've ever seen on a tv show and dealing with the ripple effect of Rita's death is going to be a tall order. The season 5 trailer shows just how dark this show is going to get. Being that this show is about a serial killer, that means it's going to get really really really dark. A lot of attention is going to be cast on Dexter, since the trailer seems to hint that Quinn thinks Dexter may have had something to do with Rita's murder. And the revelation that "Kyle Butler" is the lead suspect for her death made me squeal with anticipation. This season is going to be nuts and I can't imagine how it's going to end.

There were a couple other cool, low-key panels about some really interesting looking projects coming up. First was SUPER, starring Rainn Wilson, Ellen Page, and Nathan Fillion. Seems a lot like Kick Ass to me, but more focused on the comedy aspect (panel video). Plus is has Nathan Fillion in it, which is enough to warrant a ticket for me as he is the man. Then there's BATTLE: LOS ANGELES, and minus the shitty title it sounds pretty cool. Looks a lot like a war film mixed with an alien invasion. It's kind of striking me as looking like the war aspect of Ender's Game, which is totally awesome. Joss Whedon and JJ Abrams had a really cool and relaxed panel where they just talked about their influences and whatnot. If you stuff like that as much as I do, check it out. Lastly, this isn't a movie or tv show, but a bunch of awesome geeks protested the fuckface asswipe cuntbag Westboro Baptist Church who feel the need to spread their hate even at Comic Con. They put up some really hilarious posters and it's always nice to see somebody fuck with the WBC. If God really hates comic books, then he's just an asshole.

Punisher: War Zone Review

2010-07-20T22:21:00.010-04:00

Didn't have the chance to catch this in the theaters, mostly because of the critical beating and box office bomb it ended up (26% on RT and only grossed $10 mil on a $35 mil budget...yikes). But everyone I talked to who saw it said how insanely violent and silly it was. So of course both the masses and the asswipe critics got it wrong. What a shocker. I really don't have much as far as an introduction goes here so I'll delve right into my rambling.

This movie was a bloody mess. And I don't mean that like an British guy means "bloody mess". I mean a literal mess of blood. It was great. The first action scene was one of the most indulgent, violent, over-the-top bloody sequences I have ever seen. Faces were being kicked in, I don't know how many necks were broken, and body parts were being shot off. The scene consisted of Castle busting into some mob guy's banquet, turning off the lights, lighting a flare, and just going apeshit. This first scene essentially was what the movie was all about. Bullets and blood. There were masses of faceless bad guys just pouring into every scene and getting savagely murdered by Castle.

The movie didn't say why, it just let it go balls to the wall. I hate saying a movie was "fun" because I always envision some douchebag, giggly assholes enjoying something like Paul Blart: Mall Cop, but this movie was fun. When I say fun I don't mean fun for the whole family. I mean fun as in I was cracking up at the cacophony of ultra-violent kills. Two of my favorite scenes was when an FBI agent calls the local cops a bunch of "Krispy Kreme motherfuckers" and some parkour asshole got blown up by a rocket in mid jump.

I was a huge fan of the first one (even though it had John Travolta in it) and was hoping for a direct sequel to that. Obviously that didn't happen, apparently Thomas Jane (who played Frank Castle/The Punisher in the first one) didn't feel like waiting around forever after the numerous delays and rewrites. Fair enough. I really like Thomas Jane as an actor and thought he played an excellent Frank Castle. His acting ability really fit the vibe of the origin story and after having seen this, I don't think it would have worked as well. Ray Stevenson did a great job, but it was a very different Punisher. Hell he didn't have a line until minute 25 of the movie. Not in a bad way though. This was more about the violent nature of the character than his mental issues. Stevenson's better for that. He looks like a bad motherfucker entirely capable and willing to literally punch your face in. Which he did. Literally. Just as I couldn't envision Jane in this one, I can't see Stevenson in the first one. Not a knock on either guys, but it was just a radically different side of the story. Unfortunately, neither of the films did very well at the box office and since that's the only thing that matters in Hollywood, this is probably the last we'll see of The Punisher unless they decide to reboot.

A buddy of mine said it perfectly, "it's the perfect do nothing movie." A movie I could watch anytime and laugh at how silly and violent it is. One thing that annoyed the living hell out of me was the acting by Doug Hutchinson. He played the bad guy's brother and made me want to drive a fork into my eye in every scene he was in. There's a difference between funny bad acting and enragingly bad acting. This was the latter. He clearly didn't know how to intentionally act bad, so there was this almost big tongued, retard quality to him that was driving me insane. He did a terrible Italian accent and had an infuriating snicker every three seconds. It wasn't funny ham acting. It was shit. I guess that's the risk inherent with a movie like this. Some people won't get it. That includes actors too. Same applies to the jackass critics who bashed it because of it's violent nature. It's an R-rated movie, it's going to be violent. I usually don't quote horribly unfunny reviews, but my morbid enjoyment of jokes bombing won out. This gem comes from Clark Collins from Entertainment Weekly regarding Ray Stevenson's performance, "his character could be called the Not-Much-of-a-Learning Curveinator." Get it?!?!? Oh Clark, you card, you!!!

Bottom line: While stylistically different from its 2004 predecessor, Punisher: War Zone knows exactly what it's doing and does it well; rack up a massive body count in hilarious and gruesome ways.

Overall score: 7 out of 10

Thor & Captain America Teaser Posters

2010-07-20T21:47:00.005-04:00

I haven't done an entry yet on Thor or Captain America and being that there's been tons of pics and whatnot out recently, figured all 4 of the people who read this would enjoy my babble about it. Most of the info out has been about Thor. And by info I mean set pics. And by set pics I mean nothing that really tells us anything about the movie. So the point of this post is to really just blab about both movies and make it not look like I only do reviews. It's Comic Con week, which will mean lots of stuffs about both projects, especially in the form of some footage from Thor, which you'll have to scour the internet for as I'd suspect Marvel will be looking to keep the video off the internet. I was able to catch a pretty decent quality leak of the Iron Man 2 footage last year, so Sunday morning I'll be scouring for some Thor video. I never understood why they don't just release the footage, but I guess it takes away some of the exclusivity of Comic Con. Ah well, any Thor footage is good footage. Even if it's shitty phone video quality. Teaser posters were released for both films today and they look amazing. They come across as more concept art, but nonetheless my mouth hung open like the stupid fanboy that I am when I saw them.

First, Captain America:

This pretty solidly represents what Cap is all about. Got that really cool noir WWII era look to it and captures the leadership thing he's all about. Really happy to see him toting a pistol, as I feared Marvel would puss out and make it too light. If this concept art reflects the vibe of the film, then it will be great. I've loved nearly everything I've heard and seen from this so far. Chris Evans was a really good choice and in a recent interview he even poked fun at the shitstorm that erupted after his signing. The only thing that still worries me about this is Joe Johnston. Being the director he's arguably got the greatest creative control over the project and with his recent credits being The Wolfman, Hidalgo, and Jurassic Park III, it doesn't inspire much faith. He's come out and said that this will essentially be a period-piece, which is natural for Captain America's origin, but making it relevant and interesting for viewers is a whole different thing. It's not going to be easy working a guy in a big, stars n' stripes outfit into a realistic film world. Out of all the Avengers characters, I think Cap is easily the hardest to adapt. You really run the risk of him looking just downright silly. Johnston hasn't spoken much about it and I'm hoping he really has a grasp on the character. That's easily the most important thing about comic book adaptations. That being said I think Marvel knows what they're doing and won't let him fuck it up. I hope.

And here's Thor:

Ok now that's just amazing. Of course the doom-and-gloom internet dummies immediately criticized the absence of Thor's helmet, but that's just silly fanboy nitpickery. Excuse my harsh language (get it, I'm being sarcastic, womp womp). Thor doesn't need a helmet and with that voluptuous, flowing, golden mane it doesn't really matter. Loki looks really fantastic here as well, he's really a slimy, shitty, resentful asshole and I'm hoping Tom Hiddleston will display that. Just the thought of Thor duking it out with that hammer makes me all warm inside. Some recent promotional shots of Thor had me kinda worried, since the armor looked very plastic and Power Ranger-ish. Looking back, a lot of that had to do with the lighting and recent set photos haven't cast the actors in such full light so it looks much better. I'm hoping this movie alters people's expectations of comic book movies in a new way. The director, Kenneth Branagh, has done a great Shakespeare film and using that same feel would work with Thor. Giving it that ye olde, regal feel could really help it be very different. This picture captures the epic nature of the mythos of Thor and some battle scenes like this would be great. I've got more faith in this project more than Cap, mostly because I feel the director has a real grasp on the character. Thor is a very god-like, mythic morality tale, where we see this god become humbled and really beat some ass in the process. If Branagh can deliver on that (and I'm sure he can/will), Thor will really catch people off guard.

Inception Review

2010-07-18T10:23:00.007-04:00

After the slew of mediocre summer movies so far (with Iron Man 2 being the only exception) there was a lot of pressure on Inception to deliver. It's Christopher Nolan directing Leonardo DiCaprio, Ellen Page, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Ken Watanabe, and Cillian Murphy in a crazy ass psychological thriller. How could you not be excited? I went into the theater pretty much in the dark about plot specifics. The trailers had been very vague and Nolan himself had said he wanted to keep things unknown. Which was really refreshing to see and hear. Every goddamn movie feels the need to tell the entire story in the trailer. There was a trailer before this with Ben Affleck in it that clearly showed what probably was the biggest "oh shit" moment of the movie. It's retarded to show this much in a trailer, the story should be good enough to whet people's appetites and get them to watch based on that. It's really cool to see a guy like Nolan understand that and market his film in a way that had kept most viewers relatively in the dark. I think that's what makes Nolan such a great filmmaker, he gets it. In the Batman franchise it's obvious he gets the character and with Inception's marketing it's clear he gets how to tailor interest in his films. I'm going to stay extremely spoiler-free here too so if you haven't seen it, feel free to read onward.

I was completely blown away. The story was extremely simple on a logline level, but the details of the plot were really intricate and kept you involved. Not for a single second was I ever "out of" this movie. And not in a bad way, I was so drawn into this fucking insane world Nolan created that it was all I could focus on. The best phrase I've heard to describe this move was a thinking man's blockbuster. It really

was. Had a giant budget from what I've heard (around $160 mil) but for once, really, really deserved it. You can see just from the trailers some of the insane sequences that obviously required a lot of time and money to do. Plus it wasn't vapid or mindless like most $150 mil+ movies tend to be, you had to really pay attention to what was going on or else you'd be lost. Some critics complained that it was too confusing, but for the most part I didn't have any trouble keeping up. Aside from a minor plot point or two, I was completely caught up with what was going on. Without spoiling too much, Nolan did a good job of giving some sort of explanation of what was going to happen before it did so it was easy to keep up. Just don't go into this expecting one of those sit back and turn off type movies. You gotta be really into what's going on screen. And honestly it's hard not to.

The cast was incredible. There were a few Nolan usuals with Michael Caine, Ken Wanatabe, and Cillian Murphy who were all as amazing as they were in the Batman films. But seeing Nolan work with DiCaprio and JGL was an amazing collaboration. DiCaprio's character was really deep and drove the entire story. JGL had a major portion of action in these fantastic anti-gravity type scenes, where he was moving around like fucking Peter Parker. Seeing Nolan turn these scenes into fight sequences was seriously one of the coolest looking things I've seen in a theater. Watching JGL bounce around, completely against logic of physics, beating the shit out of guys in suits was INCREDIBLE. I could seriously just watch a compilation of those scenes for 2 hours and be pleased. The entire film had a really cool, noir type vibe to it, a lot had to do with the wardrobe design, but the lighting and shadows helped give it a completely unique look. As much as I love Batman (and anybody who remotely knows me knows that love is an understatement) it'd be really cool to see Nolan do more work like this. I don't mean like Inception 2, but he clearly has a handle on what looks amazing on screen and to pigeon-hole him as the "Batman guy" would be criminal.

Everything about this move worked well. I didn't feel a second of it's run time and literally just now found out that it was 148 mins. Unlike The Dark Knight, which while amazing did feel a bit long, this movie absolutely flew by. To me that's one of the greatest marks of a film's quality. Even Lord of the Rings, which granted was about 30 mins. longer, but it really felt its runtime. This didn't. It moved from amazing sequence to amazing sequence with a story that literally blew my mind. For someone like me who's really into lucid dreaming it was cool to see a director take a story and shape it in a setting like that. Nolan visually did whatever he wanted with this movie and it worked every single time. I really can't believe I'm saying this, but I'm more excited to see more of his original ideas than the next Batman. If I haven't been clear in this gushing review here let me reiterate: Christopher Nolan is a fucking genius and has just put out the best film of his career. This was easily the most unique and best film I've seen all year. Single-handedly saved the movie-going experience this summer. Hopefully this sets a precedent for what a summer blockbuster can be. I hope this movie makes a trillion dollars, it'll have earned every single penny and encourages more originality in Hollywood. Repeat viewings are a must, not to understand the story, but to re-experience this mind-blowing world Nolan created.

Bottom line: With a perfect mix of stunning visual imagery, science fiction/psychological story elements, and an absolutely amazing cast, Inception sets a new bar for what summer movies can be; mind blowing, intense, original works of art.

Overall score: 10/10

***Note: This is 2nd film in a row that I gave a 10/10 to. I just noticed this. I don't usually give out 10s, it just happens that the last two movies I reviewed were masterpieces. So yeah.

Frost/Nixon Review

2010-07-18T01:08:00.007-04:00

Yeah I know, I couldn't be any later on this but I've got a Netflix queue of about 30 movies that I never got around to seeing. Just throw 'em in the mail and don't think about it. Kind of like "Set It And Forget It" minus the slackjacked white people in the audience and stupid, overexcited Ron Popeil. Anyways, the latest this week was Frost/Nixon. One of those movies that got a lot of hype around Oscar time, but I just never got around to seeing. I was kind of hesitant at first. A movie about an interview...really? But it was Ron Howard and the man is a genius so I it was most definitely worth a watch.

I was completely wrong in thinking this would be boring. Had no idea a movie about a simple interview could be so goddamn compelling. The 120 minutes absolutely flew by and before I knew it the movie was over. Obviously it revolved around the famous Nixon Watergate controversy and the subsequent interview by English TV personality David Frost. Ron Howard crafted this incredible story that highlighted the flaws of each character and made me care about what was going to happen. I'm always amazed when films about historic events can still be really interesting, especially one about an interview about an event. It followed David Frost on his hellbent mission to get this interview made and made well. Nobody believed in him at first, after all he was just some goofy British talk show host trying to take on the biggest political scandal to date. Michael Sheen was able to flip the switch between fake, happy, 'everything's fine' side of David Frost when in public, then immediately digress the realist, depressed, 'everything's gone to shit' side. Then there was Nixon. Frank Langella absolutely nailed the intimidating nature of the character. There were certain scenes where you can see just by a glint in his eye that he knew he was owning Frost. Without these amazing performances the movie wouldn't be what it was.

The saddest thing was that this film only made $2 million dollars over budget. For the marketing and trailer attention this movie got, it grossly underperformed. Which is a damn shame because it was genius. Ron Howard created an intense, visceral feel to the interviews. At times it felt more like a boxing match than two people talking. And I realize I run the risk of sounding like an absolute dick by saying that, but it's true. Frost was getting verbally beaten down by Nixon throughout most of the taping, making it look like a fluff piece and Frost like a complete sissy. Yes, that's right, a sissy. Then Nixon got hammered one

night and called Frost. Essentially told him, I don't give a shit what you try, I'm gonna do whatever it takes to come out on top. Which is exactly what he was doing up till then. Frost found some balls and made Nixon confess that he not only knowingly broke the law, but didn't really give a shit about it. I wasn't even around during the Watergate scandal and I felt the power of his admission. He got the former President to admit that he doesn't think it's illegal for a President to break certain laws. That pretty much sums up what a bad motherfucker Richard Nixon is. He broke the laws, said "suck it, I'd do it again" and walked off into the sunset.

I'm on the verge of going into full on mancrush territory here, but Sam Rockwell was again fantastic in this. He pretty much steals every movie he's in, this is a fact of life. Sam (yeah I call him Sam, we're good buddies teehee) played a devoted researcher who wanted nothing more than to watch Nixon burn. Seeing the intensity he played the character with was amazing. Little scenes like when he completely bitched out of blowing off Nixon and the sheer disappointment on his face when Frost was blowing it added a lot to his character. I didn't even know Rockwell was in it until the opening credits started. He was incredible as always. This film just cemented what a legend Ron Howard is. Of course with Apollo 13, A Beautiful Mind, and Cinderella Man under your filmography you're already pretty much a modern day icon. If for some reason you're an asshole like me and haven't seen this yet go do it. Netflix, Blu-Ray, On Demand, whatever. See it.

Bottom line: Ron Howard found a way to craft an incredibly compelling story around a simple interview; add to that the amazing performance by lead and supporting cast, and Frost/Nixon may be the finest film Howard's ever made.

Overall score: 10/10

Predators Review

2010-07-13T13:37:00.007-04:00

It's July already and honestly, this summer's been kinda shit so far concerning movies. Sure Iron Man 2 rocked, but besides that what really did we have? Two mediocre remakes in Robin Hood and Nightmare on Elm Street, boring high-budget action entries like The Last Airbender and Prince of Persia, and not much else. Compared to last year with Star Trek, District 9, Inglorious Basterds, 500 Days of Summer, and Public Enemies, summer 2010 hasn't been too great. But alas, there's the second push. Predators was first. Initially I wtf'ed at the thought of Adrian Brody as a badass killer, but after the trailer debuted my worries subsided. The Predator franchise was really hurting after the two previous installments bombed. I didn't see AvP2, but I did sit through AvP in the theaters and it atrocious. So when word came out that Robert Rodriquez disciple Nimrod Antal (teehee his first name is funny) was directing hopes were for a reboot in the same vein as the 1987 original.

I rather enjoyed it. Look I'm not delusional enough to look for anything deep or profund here, and as my buddy said before the film started, "there better be some blood." That exactly the type of movie Predators is and it seemed like Antal had a good grasp on that. His directing was pretty impressive here, being a fan of his work with Vacancy, I really enjoyed how he used the environment to constantly give the audience that "oh shit, did I just see a

Predator?" feel. As not to spoil anything all I'll say is "that scene" with Danny Trejo was creepy as shit. I'd love to see Antal get behind another horror flick. The acting was very good too. Adrian Brody was fantastic as the lead and was completely different from anything I've seen him in previously. Gone was the piano playing/Village retard, he was a killer. Though at times I was feeling a bit too much of a Bale-Batman thing going with his voice, he was thoroughly convincing as a black ops/mercenary type. The rest of the cast was pretty great as well. Alice Braga played the killer-with-a-heart role pretty well and seeing Walton Goggins in anything is always good. (If you don't know who Walton Goggins is, go watch the FX TV series Justified, not only is it amazing but he's fantastic in it too). Topher Grace was Topher Grace. I can't stand him (partly because I feel he raped the character of Venom) and is really just annoying. A bit of a spoiler here, but in a rare feat I predicted a little twist with his character. That's all I'll say, but I'm rather proud of myself for not being a blind boob with things like this. Laurence Fishburne had a very cool cameo as a deranged survivor and wasn't extended any longer than the character needed to be.

The story, more specifically, the ending is where I have major beef. First of all what makes this franchise so great is the feeling that anyone can die at any second. I never doubted for one second that the leading man Brody himself could have been wiped off screen if it suited the story. The only problem was that really didn't happen here. The people who you think will survived, survived. It didn't feel very "anything goes" like the previous films did. Don't get me wrong though, the action and the kills were amazing. There's one scene that was something so brutal it felt like it belonged in Mortal Kombat. It's just that the third act felt too Hollywood. I know I'm on the verge of being the "anti-machine maaaaaan" guy here, but this ending really didn't suit the movie. Again, in the heart of being spoiler free, it was as "happily ever after" as a movie like this can get. It felt contrary to not only the feel of this franchise, but the characters themselves. These are ruthless, do-anything-to-survive people, that's why the Predators chose them and that's why they're fun to watch. But some plot points in the end kind of wrecked that feeling. It should have closed with an "oh shit, that was awesome" style ending, but instead it was more of a float into the sunset type thing. So no, it was not as awesome as the maniacal laugh ending of the original. That was one of the fucking coolest things I've ever seen.

It was a much better entry than anything since the original and though it felt a bit corny in parts, it was still very good. The Predators were badass, the characters were awesome, the entire movie was a brutally fun time. I cringe at even saying that last part but it's true. There was tons of action, gore, and pretty much everything that makes Predator movies fun to watch. And thank god they didn't do the obligatory Arnold or Carl Weathers cameo/scene recreation. Remakes/reboots do that shit all the time and it's always terrible. Though for die-hard fans of the series, there's a cool nod to the original in the closing credits music. As far as the future of this series goes, they certainly left the door open for a sequel and I'd love to see one if it's done well. Though it's hard to imagine Antal and Brody would both return and not be on to bigger and better things. It made a respectable $25 mil over the weekend so I guess only time will tell.

Bottom line: Full of kills, gore, and badassery, Predators takes a dying franchise and revives it by utilizing the same elements that made the original so awesome.

Overall score: 7 out of 10

Robin Hood Review

2010-05-21T22:44:00.009-04:00

I think I'm starting to realize how full of shit most critics are. I used to swear by rottentomatoes, but lately I could disagree more. Robin Hood was the latest example. It was #8 on my top 10 of 2010 and I was actually a bit turned off seeing all the bad reviews. Lots of stories are coming out about the inflated budget (some reporting as high as $237 mil) and extensive development issues. The initial script entitled Nottingham, which was about the Sheriff investigating a supposed terrorist (who is of course Robin Hood), went through about 5 or 6 rewrites. There was one version that put a Fight Club/split personality on Robin Hood, which probably would have been horrid, but estimates are putting script prices alone around $7 million. Well after a long and expensive ass production, Robin Hood was finally here.

I was very pleasantly surprised. It was quite obviously an origin story and set itself up as the predecessor to all the Robin Hood films we've seen. The acting all around was superb. Mark Strong was great as the french bad guy and Oscar Isaac played a FANTASTIC King John. King John was an absolute prick the entire movie and it was great. He was a selfish, money/attention/power hungry psycho and it would have been great to see more of him in this movie. Russell Crowe was good as Robin Hood. I don't think

he really 'looked' the part, and while they may be a bit shallow, it took a bit away from the character. It was a radically different Robin Hood than we've ever seen before, but I just had a hard time buying Russell Crowe for the role. His acting was great, but with a character like this look has a lot to do with it. This was more a warrior type Robin Hood than the classic ranger and I guess that's why Crowe got the part. Anyways, it's a minor issue and overall I thought the acting was fantastic.

The felt very torn about the story. It had some really great elements to it. The political undertone of King John's atrocious treatment of the people was a rather big portion of the second half, but it would have been good to see it as a main storyline. You had to know that he was going to go back on his word on the end and it fit the story/character perfectly. There were other elements that were a bit unnecessary. The entire storyline with Robin Hood's father was pointless. There really was no reason for him to not know about his past and it felt like it only existed to fill up screen time. It was lumped in with his posturing as Robert Loxley and together it just felt rather inessential. The dialogue was a bit all over the place too. There were times when it tried too hard to be epic with lines like "Are you ready to be who you are?" and "Rise and rise again, until lambs become lions". They really didn't work and felt really overstated. Conversely, there were a few genuinely funny moments and the interactions between the characters seemed very real.

The only problems I had were the underdevelopment of some elements. Maybe because they were trying to squeeze a lot into it, but there was a lot they could have gone deeper into. Robin's posse for the most part were glazed over for larger roles like Lady Marion, who felt a bit unnecessary. The romantic angle was forced and honestly could have been taken out completely. That being said, I absolutely loved the second half of this film. The faux "coming together" of England just long enough to fend off the French was great. For a while I thought they were going to pussy out and make an 'everything's ok' ending, but they didn't. The tail end with Robin & the Merry Men was kind of forced and went against the naturally gloomy ending. The first half was a bit long and plodding. I would have rather seen them develop elements in the second half. Overall, it was still a really cool movie that could have been absolutely amazing. While it fell short, it certainly wasn't as bad as critics are saying.

Bottom line: Robin Hood brings a radically different take on an old character and while not narratively perfect, some great story elements and an incredibly strong 2nd half makes it much better than some are saying.

Overall score: 7 out of 10

Funny People Review

2010-05-18T21:13:00.008-04:00

Funny People was one of those movies I just never got around to seeing in the theater. I love all of Apatow's work, both film and television. Never been a huge fan of Sandler as a serious actor, he's really one note and honestly not that good. I saw this simply because it's Apatow's and though I think he's a bit overrated, I'm still a fan. The man's brought modern day classics like 40 year old virgin and Knocked Up, but is seeming to take a more dramatic feel to his films. I've noticed both him and Ricky Gervais have been using less comedy in their films, substituting for more drama. Personally I think they should work with what they do best, but it's amazing when a director is able to balance both.

This wasn't that good. It started off fantastic, capturing the life of a stand-up comic in a very funny and real way. When it introduced Sandler's character (George Simmons), it had a rather interesting mentor vibe to it. It obviously something that couldn't be sustained for the length of the film, but it was done really well. Then it shifted focus almost entirely on Sandler's character and all his personal demons. It was ok and essentially necessary for a little while, but it didn't feel right as the sole focal point of the movie. The movie should be about Ira Wright (Seth Rogan) and career as a stand up. Apatow seemed more comitted to making a drama than a comedy. That's fine, but it didn't work. The first act of the movie is so obviously far and above the rest it's hard to see how Apatow saw this as a drama. I didn't care enough about Simmons to visit his past or go really deep into his character. Ira was the main character and the story should have surrounded him.

Having the story about Ira opens it up for all kinds of different directions and characters. Like Raaaaaaandy (yep, count it there's 8 a's in there). Aziz Ansari is fucking hilarious and should have been in that movie a lot more. He plays the stark raving douchebag so well and the character of Randy was a great parody of popular, shitty comics. As someone who loves stand up and hates the amount of garbage comics that are successful (I'm looking at you Jeff Dunham) while hilarious guys go pretty much unnoticed, I found Randy absolutey hilarious. He's spawned off an internet following and rampant demand for a spinoff film, deservedly so. But that's just an example of all the great moments this film missed. Every cameo with random comics (that scene with Ray Ramano was genius) and the intercut standup footage was great. This film naturally occurs in the world of standup comedy, not in the fucked up life of George Simmons.

It got annoying when it became all about Simmons. After a while it was just overkill. We get it, George Simmons is self destructive. It was overstated and took me out of the movie. The entire subplot with his ex-girl was really pointless. I did like how he made Laura drop everything to get back with George, only to realize that he really wasn't any different. It was a cool sentiment on relationships, but it was wrapped up too nicely and handled poorly. Also, fair dues for trying to further you're wife's career Judd Apatow, but please stop giving her lead roles in your films. She's not that great of an actress. This film lost out on developing a lot of great characters to focus on inferior ones. Side characters like Daisy, Randy, Leo, and Mark were all criminally ignored for a cast that simply wasn't good enough to handle hard drama.

Bottom line: Funny People had some really great elements to it, but sacrificed what could have been a great comedy about stand-up for an overlong, plodding, drama.

Overall score: 4 out of 10.

Iron Man 2 Review

2010-05-07T16:41:00.016-04:00

Well, here it is. My most anticipated movie of the summer. Early reviews were somewhat mixed, it's holding about a 70% on RT. That's a solid 20% down from the first one. I must say, this movie was incredible. It felt a lot more like a "comic book" movie than the first. This is catered to fans of Marvel comics. There are tons of nods to The Avengers throughout, culminating in an awesome post-credits scene. It felt like a comic book. I'm positive that's the reason this is getting relatively worse reviews than the first one. This is a movie for comic book fans, it doesn't have the mass appeal that the first did.

I feel the need to mention one thing, Sam Rockwell is an absolute fucking legend and I will watch anything he's in. He was in the running for the role of Tony Stark in the first one, but obviously lost out to Robert Downey Jr. After seeing him play Justin Hammer, I would have loved to see how he would play Tony Stark. I know there are tons of RDJ fans out there, but I think Rockwell would have been the better choice. Anyways, he played a great broke man's version of Tony Stark. Justin Hammer is essentially simply not good enough to be Stark and Rockwell nailed that feeling. He stole every scene he was in and his interactions with RDJ were absolutely brilliant. Alright, enough of my man crush on Sam Rockwell. The rest of the cast was great too. RDJ was again fantastic as Tony Stark and I think Don Cheadle was an upgrade from Terrance Howard. Sam Jackson, Scarlett Johansson, and Mickey Rourke were all really good in their respective roles.

It was odd to see a superhero flick where the hero is out of his suit more than he was in it. Yet the story didn't suffer. This movie was more about Tony Stark than it was about Iron Man. I would have loved to see a bit more of the 'Demon in a Bottle' tone used. That series captured perfectly what a self descructive alcoholic Tony became and while the film showed some of those tendencies, it felt a bit underdeveloped. I wasn't really feeling the scene where he got drunk in the suit. I think there were better ways to both show Stark's personal problems and to get Rhodey into the War Machine armor. It would have been rather dark and wouldn't really have fit with the light feel of the film. Just something about that drunken party scene bugged me. Besides that I thought the story was great. They interweaved Hammer/Vanko as villians together quite well and avoided the cluttered villian problem. There were a few too cliche moments, like when Black Widow said "you've got your best friend back" when she rebooted Rhodey's armor. It was kind of cheesy and overstated, but that kind of stuff is prevalant in comic books so it's forgivable in the movie. Thought the Pepper/Tony relationship was a bit forced and unecessary. Tony's already got more than enough motivation and it doesn't add much to the story. Fortunately, it's taking a back seat and probably won't be a major part of the 3rd one.

There was substantially less action than in the first one. It wasn't about Tony going balls to the wall in the suit, but the two major fight scenes were amazing. The final fight showcased the sheer awesomeness of both War Machine and Iron Man quite well. War Machine was essentially a complete bad ass, splitting drones in two with huge machine guns and the definitive shoulder mounted rail gun. Iron Man showcased a crazy new lasers that pretty much destroy everything they touch. The final final fight with Whiplash was rather short and it could have been an epic finale. I don't get the problems some people have with the pacing, I thought it was perfect. I never once felt like it was dragging and it balanced action with character development really well. I loved all the Avengers nods, they did their job in getting me even more excited for the follow up films too.

Bottom line: Iron Man 2 managed to be a spectacular comic book movie without being dark or gritty, all while catering pretty much exclusively to fans of the comics.

Overall score: 9 out of 10

Serenity Review

2010-05-05T00:31:00.010-04:00

On the heels of the news that Joss Whedon is directing Avengers, I decied to re-watch the Firefly series. Previously, I've said before that I didn't think Whedon was right for the job. But I hadn't seen Firefly in it's entirely and never even seen it's film finale, Serenity. Well after watching the show, I wasn't really changing my mind. Then I watched Serenity. I don't say this often, but I was totally wrong. My goodness can this man direct a film. The reason why I didn't like him for Avengers was because of the way Firefly (just the show) was shot. Of course it was a bit unfair to judge the man working on a probably insanely low budget for a show. Serenity didn't have a massive budget ($39 mil) for a sci fi flick, but it still looked leaps and bounds ahead of the show. Literally within 5 minutes of this movie, I was convinced Whedon will KILL IT helming Avengers.

The lighting and camera work were incredible. Watching the show, and then seeing it full fleshed out in a movie doesn't even compare. Seeing what he could have done with a BSG-size budget would have been fantastic. He took the elements that worked in Firefly and improved them. Shots like the trademark way River was filmed show that he really gets his characters. Serving as the writer too, he really showed off his talent for handling something with huge anticipation. He had every single Firefly fan's expectations to live up and he undoubtedly delivered. That type of hype and anticipation is exactly what he's going to be dealing with in Avengers. There are a lot of ways this could have gone wrong, but Whedon somehow handled the immense hype of this finale.

I always thought Firefly was a bit "light". It felt like we were following these guys on wacky adventures and it wasn't very serious. There were some really heavy elements like The Reavers and all the stuff the government was doing to River, but they weren't really brought to the forefront in the show. I understand everything's not gonna be as dark and hard as BSG, but I like a little realism in my tv shows/films. I can point to the scene were Mal locks Jane in the airlock after Jane tried to hand River/Simon over to the Alliance. That entire scene I just wanted him to flush Jane out of the airlock. I loved Jane's character and it would have been a big loss to a very young show, but it wouldn't have cemented Mal's "I don't fuck around" attitude. Of course, he didn't kill Jane and gave him a "you mess with my crew, you mess with me" speech. Which was good, but it didn't really have much force behind it. Here's where he changed that in the film. 1)Mal shot an innocent man out of mercy while he was gonna be raped/killed by Reavers. It was dark, it was hardcore, and it showed a lot about Mal's character. 2)Wash's jaw-dropping death. Now, Wash is arguably my favorite character on that show and I hated to see him go. But it was powerful and shocked the hell outta me. It would have been cool to have it done earlier, just to set a feeling of "anything can and will happen". I love when writers kill major characters. Wash's death hurt but it was a fantastic writing move. I just wish it would have been Zoe, I never liked her much.

This film was everything I thought the show needed to add. It was great for me as a fan of the series, but translates seamlessly to those new to the story. As a standalone sci fi film, this is near perfect. It ended great (I think JJ Abrams may have watched this before filming Star Trek) and really didn't have moments that I disagreed with. The characters were as great as they were in the show. Whedon proved he can handle serious action and blend in some genuinely funny moments. I completely take back everything negative I said about this man. I cannot freaking wait to see what he can do with the cast of heroes that make up the Avengers and that big ass studio budget. In Whedon I trust.

Bottom line: Building off the success of the series, Serenity provides an excellent farewell for the fans of the show but is equally great as a standalone film to those new to the story.

Overall score: 9 out of 10.

Why I Think Roger Ebert's A Douche (And You Should Too)

2010-04-30T21:09:00.006-04:00

Recently Roger Ebert put out an article pretty much bashing the hell out of 3D. Obviously from the title of this post, you can tell I'm not a huge fan of Ebert. Fair dues on having an opinion, but don't be a pompous ass and tell everyone what to think. Admittedly, I'm not the biggest fan of 3D. I bash it at every chance I get in my reviews and despite wanting otherwise, it's starting to feel like the future. So let's take a look at old jelly chin's thoughts on 3D on a point-by-point breakdown. I'm not gonna quote his entire rant about each point, but just stick with the heading and paraphrase as needed.

1. "It's the waste of a dimension." What the hell does that even mean? Its an awful way to start this off, but I really don't even know what to say to that. And no, I didn't misquote that, he really said "It's the waste of a dimension." Proofread your articles next time, Roger.

2. "It adds nothing to the experience." Bullshit. As much as I thought Avatar was overrated, it was visually stunning. I thought The Dark Knight's IMAX scenes were amazing, but this took visual effects to a whole different level. It really does make it a totally different experience. I can't wait to see it sucessfully used with an equally engrossing story. There's no way you can discount it as adding "nothing" to the experience. That's just silly. He also mentioned "greatest moviegoing experience" and "Precious" in the same sentence. I can't even...

3. "It can be a distraction". I agree, but not for the reasons he stated. He just blabs about visual planes without really making an argument. The reason why I think it's a distraction is becuase of the glasses. Yes, it's petty, but it really bugs me. What I love about film is the ability it has to take you to another place. When I feel glasses on my head, it kinda takes away from that. It's supposedly going to advance enough where the glasses won't be necessary. That'll be BIG for me.

4. "It can cause nausea and headaches." Alright, this is just getting silly now. They said the same thing about Cloverfield, but that doesn't make it a bad film. And if you can't handle sitting in a theater without succumbing to "muscle imbalance" then just kill yourself now. This is such an exaggeration. And how the hell is it my problem if some people can't handle it? That doesn't mean it should go away. If you can't handle a 3D film, then don't go in the theater.

5. "Have you noticed that 3D seems a little dim?" Again, he's on the verge of a point here, but just starts rambling about techincal light differences. The point is, it doesn't work well for darker movies. That's primarily the reason why it looked kinda shitty in Clash of the Titans (that and the post-production rush job). I can't imagine a film like The Dark Knight benefitting all that much from 3D. Sure some sequences would look good, but it just doesn't work with darker environments for some reason.

6. "There's money to be made in selling digital projectors." Not sure what this has to do with the average moviegoer, but okay. He tries to make a point that some studios have essentially told theaters either 3D or nothing. That would be a great point if it weren't for both Avatar and Clash of the Titans being released in 2D. Stop trying to make movie theaters look like little mom-and-pop stores being taken advantage of by big corporations.

7. "Theaters slap on a surcharge of $5-$7 for 3D." Very true. Theaters will permanently raise prices for what is essentially a one-time purchase in a 3D projector. Roger makes his first logical explanation. But still, this is more of an argument against the greedy ass movie theaters than the 3D technology itself. I'll count it though. It's quite shameful how much more they charge, as if the company really is hurting when they buy these new projectors. Please. Just another excuse to rape moviegoers pockets.

8."I cannot imagine a serious drama in 3D." Fair enough. He made his point by referencing Up in the Air (extremely overrated) and The Hurt Locker (which actually wouldn't look half bad in 3D). I do agree it would be a bit silly to see a film like 500 Days of Summer in 3D. But there haven't been any non-effects driven films to have gone 3D. Once they come out with a 3D drama, then start the bitching.

9. "Whenever it feels threatened Hollywood turns to technology." Not sure what he's getting at here. But by referencing advance in technology like sound, color, and widescreen he makes his arugment invalid. Did he really just reference SOUND as an argument against 3D?!?!?! SOUND?? All the advances he listed not only caught on, but it would be impossible to fathom watching a movie without them. 3D will soon be a standard in 10 years and we'll all be looking incredibly silly for fighting it.

A Nightmare on Elm Street Review

2010-04-30T13:32:00.013-04:00

Remakes of classic 70/80's horror films have been pretty popular lately (Halloween, Friday the 13th, Texas Chainsaw Massacre) and A Nightmare on Elm Street is the latest. I had this #6 on my top 10 of 2010 and since Jack Earl Haley is playing Freddy Krueger, at the very least I was excited to see Haley's take on Freddy. Early reviews have absolutely trashed this, it's running at a 12% on rottentomatoes which actually surprised me but kept my expectations quite low.

I'll preface this by saying I've never seen the original in its entirety. I'veseen bits and pieces of all of them, but I've just never sat through one from beginning to end. The character of Freddy Krueger is iconic and completely terrified me as a child. In the originals he was rather hammy at times and it seemed to work. This version went for straight

up scary. There were a few one liners ("how's this for a wet dream?" as a girl is submerged in a pool of blood) and they worked well. Personally it didn't scare me, but not much does anymore. I would imagine as a child this would be terrifying as hell. Freddy didn't have a ton of on screen time, as it centered more around the victims and their search to why he's attacking them. But it worked really well. Haley was great, looked a bit different than the classic Freddy, but it still looked good. It felt hampered at times to be very true to the originals with scenes like Tina's bedroom death reenacted almost shot-for-shot. Besides Haley, the acting was meh. But that's kinda the point of teenage victims in horror films. Nobody's looking for good acting from them, but some of the earlier victims were pretty

horrible. The final two survivors were alright, but the film hinges on Haley's performance and he delivered.

I really don't know why critics were bashing this so badly. I usually can trust RT, but a 12% is pretty awful. The consensus reads, "Visually faithful but lacking the depth and subversive twists that made the original so memorable, the Nightmare on Elm Street remake lives up to it's title in the worst possible way." That is harsh. Most of the reviewers said this "lacked a reason for being" and that it felt very pointless. That makes no sense, the film's "reason for being" was to tell the Freddy Krueger story. It wasn't any more or less pointless than the first Nightmare on Elm. What the hell were they expecting? This wasn't going to be a groundbreaking horror movie, but nobody thought it would be. It was a solid remake of an old school classic. Personally, I didn't find it scary but I wasn't really expecting to be horrified by it. I went into the theater looking to watch Freddy cut teenagers up and that's exactly what it was. It's a modern slasher flick, it's not going to have deep meaning or much greatness in it. Look, I'm not saying it was a great movie, but there's no way this deserves the bashing it's taking. It would have been cool if the played up the paranoid, sleepless factor a bit. That would have opened itself to the more psychological aspects of Freddy's torture. Things like lucid dreams, hypnagogic hallucinations, would have added a lot to this. But I think they were trying to stick very close to the original and not alienate the existing fanbase. Fair enough.

I just don't get why critics are calling this "pointless". There is a point, they're just not getting it. They fawned over Sherlock Holmes, which was lauded for being fun and mindless like it was supposed to be, but bash this. Just like with Texas Chainsaw or Friday the 13th, were watching this for the villain. Every one of these reviews say how great Haley was, but the rest of the film was "unimaginative". How could it not be? This wasn't going to break any genre molds and you're stupid if you expected it to. I really don't get the ridiculous expectations for this movie. I can't stand when reviewers bash a movie without much reason or explanation on why they didn't like it. Same thing happened with Clash of the Titans, Kick-Ass, and Watchmen. They're missing the point of the movie. The point of it is to watch Freddy Krueger cut people up. If you don't like that idea, then don't see the movie. It's not going to be a commentary on society or have any deep meaning. And it shouldn't. Don't look for a genre-defying film here; that's not what makes Freddy so great. What's makes Freddy great is that he kills people in their dreams. And that's exactly what he does here.

Bottom line: Despite the total beating it's taking from critics, A Nightmare on Elm Street doesn't try to be anything more than it is; a solid, bloody remake of the 1984 classic.

Overall score: 6 out of 10.

There Will Be Blood Review

2010-04-24T23:41:00.009-04:00

Okay, I know I'm about 3 years late on this one. For some reason I didn't catch it back in 2007 and decided to Netflix it. DEAR GOD. From the first frame of the film I was hooked. There wasn't a line for the first 15 minutes and I still couldn't take my eyes off the screen. This film had an undefinable quality of magnetism to it. Why this didn't get Best Picture over the highly overrated No Country for Old Men will forever baffle me. Add to that the universal critical acclaim this received and it's a real headscratcher. Its appeared on tons of "best of the decade" lists, in most places being #1. So why in the hell did it not get the Oscar? I really don't get it. It's rare to see a movie for the first time and immediately know without a shadow of a doubt, "that's a classic." This film really had it all. Superb directing, masterful acting, amazing dialogue, and a powerful story.

Let's start with the acting. Daniel Day Lewis as greedy oil tycoon Daniel Plainview was undoubtedly deserving of his Oscar win. He spewed every line with maddening passion that I truly do not believe any other actor could have brought to the part. Paul Dano as the zealot Eli Sunday was great as well. There was an unspoken back and forth throughout the entire film as they were constantly trying to one up each other. That final scene between Eli and Daniel is honestly legendary. Its rare to find a movie instantly quotable too. Of course Day Lewis and Dano are to thank for that as well. In nearly every one of their scenes together there's a great quote. From "I've abandoned my boy!!!" to my personal favorite "I'm a false prophet and God is a superstition!!!" there really is stuff you'll be yelling with your friends in a druken movie talk for years to come. Again why this lost out in the "Best Adapted Screenplay" department will continue to confuse me as well. Its a shame to see something this goddamn amazing to come along and for the most part not get the recognition it deserves.

This film didn't feel anything near as long as it's 150 min running time implies. It really flies by as we literally watch greed and hate consume a man onscreen. I really don't gush this often about films but this impacted me in a way that very very very few films do. I can't believe it's taken me 3 years to see this but it immediately goes up there with the classics of old. Its hard to think a movie about oil could be so damn enthralling but there's a such a mix of themes that it really goes beyond just being about oil. I loved the angle it took with the church. Watching Eli break down in that final scene, having to disown his faith, all for nothing was amazing. Seeing Plainview's sheer joy of finally breaking Eli was great too. The character of Daniel Plainview was just as legendary as the film itself. I can't remember the last time greed/hatred has been portrayed so well. There really is not a single thing wrong with this film. It's a rare breed of sheer perfection. If you haven't already, see this movie right now.

Bottom line: Becoming an instant classic, There Will Be Blood has it all, an amazing screenplay, legendary performances, and incredible directing; culminating in what could be the best film of the decade.

Overall score: 10 out of 10.

Kick-Ass Review

2010-04-16T15:39:00.008-04:00

Okay, I hate to be that guy, but I called it. Chloe Moretz absolutely stole this movie. When I did my top 10 of 2010, I had a feeling that she would break out with one, and it seems she did. Nearly every review has stated how great she was in it and deservedly so. The second I saw the red band trailer with her calling people cunts and stabbing them I knew it was going to be gold. Her chemistry with the surprising good Nicholas Cage worked incredibly well. She played the Cage's daughter who isn't much of a kid. Instead of puppies she wishes for butterfly knives. Instead of playing with dolls she takes shots through a bullet proof vest. I've read some reviews calling the film (and specifically Moretz's character) "morally reprehensible". I don't really see the merit behind it. Yes it was violent, but I've seen much much worse. Sure having a 12 year old girl making cock jokes and stabbing dudes may rub some people the wrong way, but to make such a fuss about this film is ridiculous. I hate "outrage" over any movie, but in this case it's not even understandable. Do people really have a problem with a 12 year old girl cursing? Do they not remember what it was like when they were 12? Being offended when a 12 year old curses would be like being offended when an 18 year old is shown drinking. No 12 year old kid doesn't curse. Stupid ass reviewers who try to say what's ok to be shown in film and what isn't are really presumptuous dummies. Enough ranting, back to the film.

Not to say this film was flawless though. The narrative was a bit all over the place. It made it seem that Kick Ass would be the main character, yet he disappeared for large chunks of the film. A better way to do this may have been a Sin City style chapter breakdown. Each character narrative (Kick Ass, Red Mist, Big Daddy/Hit Girl) were interconnected and strong enough to stand on their own. All the trailers pitched this as a film about Kick Ass and that just wasn't always the case. The stories were all very different. Kick Ass had a Spiderman-style geeky-kid-turned-superhero vibe and Big Daddy/Hit Girl had a Batman inspired revenge tale. This obviously was intentional, but it felt a bit off to throw them all in one narrative. It's a minor problem to a great film, but was the one thing that kept this move away from perfection. The marketing behind this movie sucked too. It was too much. The plethora of trailers showed way too much of the film. A good deal of Hit Girl's scenes were shown in trailers, same with many of the funny moments in the film. I love a red band trailer, but when there's 4 or 5 of them in addition to 3 or 4 regular trailers, it's a bit too much. They were a bit misleading too. It looked like the film would be centered around Kick Ass, and that wasn't the case. It's really annoying when films do that and it takes away from the quality of the film.

The direction was downright incredible. Scenes like Big Daddy's backstory were artfully done (a 3-D comic book sequence) and the action sequences were masterful. The scene where Hit Girl is fighting her way to get to her father who is tied to a chair and burning alive was damn-near iconic. Not only is she straight running through bad guys, but at one point there's a strobe-type blinding flash that she uses that gives the entire scene a crazy unique look. Matthew Vaughn found a way to keep action scenes from being stale and look really good. Kick-Ass found a way to poke fun at superhero film devices, while using them at the same time. Overall the acting was superb. Nicholas Cage found a way to be not be annoying and maybe finally found his niche in non-serious roles. Even when being serious in this film, it's in an acceptably over the top way. I've been a staunch hater of Cage for a while, but even I must admit he nailed his role perfectly in this. The main character of Kick Ass (Aaron Johnson) was great. He was able to portray relative awkardness without being too Michael Cera-ish and lent a lot of realism to the story. He played the every man quite well. Also for the first time possibly ever, Christopher Mintz-Plasse didn't play McLovin. He was a tad geeky, yes, but played it differently enough to not be a rehash of Superbad. He's been typecast ever since being the iconic Fogell and it was nice to see him play a little different character.

It seems that some are missing the point of Kick-Ass. The comic was meant to be a parody of other comics, but not overtly. Its the same with the movie. Its a parody of comic book movies without being obvious about it. Take the final, jetpack-through-the-city scene for example. That was so cliche and comic bookish, it was obviously intentional. I hate being the guy to say it, but people are loving this movie without really getting it. Its great that people are loving it, but a lot of the negative reviews are because the reviewer just missed the point. They fault this for being too cliche when it was trying to be. Something can be a parody with being annoyingly obvious about it, a la a shitbomb like Superhero Movie. Kick-Ass was amazing and go see it right now. Just keep in the back of your mind that it's not being serious 100% of the time.

Bottom line: Bolstered by magnificent acting, an awesome story, and masterful direction, Kick-Ass overcame some narration and pacing problems to become a top notch comic book film.

Overall score: 9 out of 10.

Who Should Direct The Avengers?

2010-04-11T10:49:00.012-04:00

There's been a lot of speculating recently about who'll helm the upcoming Avengers movie. At first Jon Favereau was a heavy favorite until he took himself out of the running. He'll be shooting the very cool looking Cowboys & Aliens so he'll only be exec producing on Avengers. Honestly, he would be the very best choice to direct it. His fantastic work with Iron Man (and the equally awesome upcoming Iron Man 2) is enough to prove that he can handle something like Avengers. It's going to be tricky blending elements from all the different characters stories, a tech-based Iron Man, myth-heavy Thor, and a dated hero like Captain America. The two big rumored names are Louis Leterrier (Incredible Hulk, Clash of the Titans) and Joss Whedon (Firefly, Buffy theVampire Slayer).

Joss Whedon is mostly known for hiswork in television. He is the brains behind the cult hits Firefly and Buffy the Vampire Slayer. His only film credit is Serenity, the conclusion to the abruptly cancelled Firefly series. I'm a huge fan of Firefly (not so much of Buffy or Angel)and think his work there was pretty great. He blended sci fi with western and came up with something very different than traditional space operas. However, as a film director for Avengers I think it'd be a train wreck. He's only directed 3 episodes of his hit Firefly. For me I don't think TV guys usually are right for film. I know guys like JJ Abrams are out there, but Whedon isn't that great as a director. The action scenes in Firefly aren't shot or choreographed very well. I mean the man's most recent credit was an episode of Glee for god's sakes. I know that's gonna piss off a lot of Firefly fanboys but it's the truth. If he was capable of directing films, he would be. I really hope they don't pick him since he's done nothing to convince me that he would make a good Avengers film. I love him for his work on Firefly, but please stay away from The Avengers.

Potential director Louis Leterrier talked about a really really cool concept for a non-traditional release for The Avengers. He proposed a 4-part Avengers film, with each director of the lead up films (Jon Favereau of Iron Man, Louis Leterrier of Incredible Hulk, Kenneth Branagh of Thor, and Joe Johnston of Captain America) shooting a part of a The Avengers. Then release each part for a month over a the summer of 2012. It sounds like an amazing idea in concept. Would be interesting to see how it would execute, but it would make for one hell of a blockbuster

summer for Marvel. Out of the box awesome ideas like these make Leterrier the best out of the two rumored directors for Avengers. He's shown with Incredible Hulk that he can handle a superhero flick and with Clash of the Titans that he can handle more myth based stories so he's a natural fit. He does tend to shoot actors in full frame, which would look a bit weird with an Avengers type movie. It tends to look like the characters are a bunch of guys just standing around, which works fine for most movies but if those guys are in costumes it may look a bit odd. It's kind of nitpicky I know, but while watching CotT I had in mind what it could mean for Avengers so I had a bit of a critical eye. Regardless, Leterrier is the best one to shoot Avengers.

***EDIT***: It's been confirmed that Joss Whedon will be directing/rewriting The Avengers. After watching Firefly/Serenity, I take this all back. Read my review of Serenity and you'll see why.

Clash of the Titans Review

2010-04-10T23:35:00.013-04:00

This was rather high on my top 10 of 2010 (#2) and despite waiting a week after opening to see it and the rather crap reviews, I was still quite excited. Louis Leterrier is looking for a shot at directing The Avengers, so I'm sure the folks at Marvel were quite interested in his take on the cult classic. There's been a lot of negativity regarding it's hasty post-production 3D conversion, but personally I don't care for 3D and despite my best efforts otherwise I ended up seeing this in 3D.

I honestly do not get all the crap reviews this film has been getting. Sure the 3D conversion wasn't great, but I don't think 3D really adds much to a film anyways. I think when people hear 3D, they assume it'll look as stunning as Avatar. So when CotT didn't, they used that as a reason to give the movie a bad review. Sure, the plot wasn't completely devoid of holes but look at this for what it is. It's essentially at tale of man (and a demigod) telling the gods that they don't want or need them. It's not meant to be super serious or any thing else than a retooling of Greek mythology. Sure the dialogue in parts was weak and the ending was a bit douchey, but for the most part this was a solid film. The acting was really good, bordering on great. Liam Neeson absolutely ruled as Zeus. Even though it had been played to death in the trailers, seeing him in that blinding white armor bellowing "release the Kraken" was a movie geek's dream. Ralph Fiennes was also great as Hades. Creepy, scheming, yet powerful he really embodied what Hades is. Sam Worthington proved yet again that he's awesome at playing a brooding, pissed off leading man. The action was shot quite well, too (*hint* give him The Avengers). It wasn't just Perseus rolling around owning dudes, but all the other soldiers were pretty badass too. It was more about his ascension to near God-status and we definitely saw that as the film progressed. Visually I didn't love the design and thought Leterrier could have done a bit more to give it his own look. The fight with the Kraken was a bit anticlimactic, but there really wasn't much else Perseus could have done then throw Medusa's face at it.

My major problem was how this film had been marketed. The absolute whoring of the fact that it was in 3D made me sick. We get it, Warner Bros, titans are clashing in 3D. Now stop trying to capitalize on Avatar's success. I hate 3D and hope that it just goes away. But for sure don't bother converting to 3D post-production like they did here and consider the look of the film. I thought the trailers weren't cut very well either. They should not have shown us the Kraken, it would have made that moment a big reveal in film. The posters were a bit meh (besides the badass banner I've got up top). But the actual film itself was very good. I think all the bad press it's getting is because people expected it to look as pretty as Avatar and when it didn't they tore it to pieces. Side note: funny how they love to tear this film's script to bits but didn't say a damn word about Avatar's, hmm. I also hear that there's a much better director's cut out there somewhere. So you mean to tell me some studio took a good movie and ripped it's soul out to make tons of $$$? No way! (And yes, I know how much of a douche I sound like here but it had to be said)

Bottom line: Despite all the bad buzz Clash of the Titans has received it still turned out to be a solid remake of a Greek myth. Go in with an open mind and you'll enjoy it.

Overall score: 7 out of 10.

Green Zone Review

2010-03-25T08:52:00.009-04:00

Had this on my top 10 of 2010, adding to that the news that both Damon and Greengrass have walked away from the Bourne series, this may be the last time we see a Bourne-like flick for a while. I always hoped they wouldn't do another Bourne, since I felt it ended well with Ultimatum. Seems like they won't, though Damon hinted at a possible James Bond-type direction with the series. May be a good way to go with it, but I'm digressing like a mother. Damon and Greengrass are always great on the screen, so I was expecting a solid action flick.

That's exactly what Green Zone was. The action scenes were very good and it had a lot of unexpected substance to it. To be honest this was more of a political thriller than straight up action. Damon's character Roy Miller plays a soldier who gets fed up of finding nothing from WMD intel and starts digging as to why. That's what most of the movie deals with. Why the intel was bad and Miller's journey in discovering the truth. It was very anti-Iraq war and has caught a lot of flack for it, but it shows Greengrass has some balls. It pretty much said the Iraq War was a farce and there are no WMD. That's the heart and soul of this film. The directing was nothing short of great. I like the shaky cam for action scenes, though I will admit it gets annoying during simple conversation scenes. There was one scene in particular at the end where Miller and another soldier are racing to get to the same guy. Its set in an abandoned marketplace and the camera follows Miller/other soldier as they are literally neck and neck. Its really hard to explain, but was one of the best shot scenes I've seen in recent memory. The supporting cast was great, too. Obviously Matt Damon is terrific in the lead (he's actually not very Bourne-like here), but the rest of the cast was surprisingly good. I saw Greg Kinnear and Amy Ryan (aka Holly Flax from The Office), not thinking they would fit very well in a political thriller, but they were very good. Brenden Gleeson was great as always and worked well pitted against Kinnear's character.

It's sitting at about a 50% on Rottentomatoes, but I don't get why. For some reason I get the feeling that's because they don't like the story its telling, instead of the quality of the film. It would make sense that most reviewers aren't going to give a movie that says the Iraq War is bullshit a good review. Green Zone found a way to tell an old story with a fresh look and feel to it. It also found a way to get its message across without being overly preachy, which is hard to considering the subject. Also was suprisingly un-Bourne like (in a good way). I joked that this might as well be called Bourne 4: Bourne Goes to Iraq, but it was really wasn't. I thoroughly enjoyed this and it really annoys me that it gets a bad wrap because it's telling an unpopular story. Political bullshit aside, this was a really good movie. Wrongly advertised as a popcorn action flick, it had a lot more depth than you'd expect. See it.

Bottom line: Prematurely heralded as Bourne 4, Green Zone creates it's own narrative of an unpopular yet compelling story with great directing and superb acting.

Overall score: 9 out of 10

Chris Evans in Captain America

2010-03-24T13:30:00.006-04:00

Well, it's offical, we finally have our Captain America. There's been tons of rumors flying around the past month or so with names like John Krasinski, Mike Vogel, Channing Tatum, etc. I must say out of all the names put out there, Evans is the best choice. Krasinski is and will always be Jim Halpert in everyone's mind, so he was outta the pitcure. The rest were relatively unknowns and I'm not sure how that would work in an Avengers film with guys like Robert Downey Jr, Ed Norton, and Samuel L. Jackson. Captain America needs to be the leader of the Avengers, so the actor is gonna have to believably stand up to a guy like Tony Stark. I'm not sure anyone on that short list besides Chris Evans could handle that. I can buy Evans sonning a guy like RDJ on screen. They also needed to toe the line in not casting another superstar, yet someone relatively known. Chris Evans fits the bill perfectly. In a perfect world, I think Matt Damon would be great (though he's a bit short). I am just thanking god that no-talent scrub Channing Tatum didn't get the role. He's awful and would destroy this movie. The guys at Marvel continue to make nothing but smart, and more importantly, fitting decisions for their films.

A lot of people have been complaining that since he was previously Johnny Storm/Human Torch in the Fantasic Four flicks, he can't pull off Captain America. Which is a retarded line of thinking. First of all, the Fantastic Four series is headed for a reboot, so he will no longer be part of that franchise. Second, just because he played one superhero doesn't mean he can't play another. Johnny Storm and Steve Rogers are two very different characters, I'm sure he won't bring the same feel to Captain America as he did Human Torch. Since F4 is his only memorable role for most mainstream dummies, everyone is only seeing him as a wise cracking, smartass type. Do yourself a favor, go watch Sunshine. Not only is it a great film, Evans has a great role in it. When I heard him as Cap, that's the first thing I thought of. He played a strong leader, very similar to a Steve Rogers type. He can pull this off. And always remember initial backlash for Heath Ledger as Joker when that news first broke. Never cast an uninformed or premature decision. People are doing both with Chris Evans as Captain America. Trust me, bulk him up and give him the signature blonde locks and he will be great as Steve Rogers/Captain America.

Big Fan Review

2010-03-01T09:19:00.007-05:00

**SPOILERS AHEAD**
This movie has gotten really good reviews for a small indie flick so I checked it out. My expectations weren't sky high, but it did have an 88% at rottentomatoes so I was expecting it to be pretty good. For those who don't know, it's about a rabid Giants fan Paul Aufiero (Patton Oswalt) who really has nothing going for him in life. He lives at home with his mother, works a dead end job at a booth in a parking garage, and lives pretty much only for the Giants. He calls in the Sports Dogg (a great cameo by Scott Ferrall) radio show regularly as 'Paul from Staten Island' and clashes with an equally intense Eagles fan, 'Philadelphia Phil'. While with his best friend Sal (Kevin Corrigan) one night, they run into superstar Giants LB, Quantrell Bishop (QB), who is Paul's favorite player. They follow him to a shady 'stop' in Stapleton, then to a strip club in NYC. The approach him and are intially met with a warm response, but when QB finds out they followed him all the way from Staten Island he loses it. QB beats Paul viciously, who is hospitalized. QB is suspended following the incident, but Paul refuses to press charges or cooperate with the investigation due to the horrible play of his team since QB's suspension. Paul's on air alias is outed by his Philly rival and he heads to Philadelphia for a confrentation. He follows Phil into a bathroom and unloads a clip of red and blue (Giants colors) paintballs on Phil and runs out of the bar. Paul is caught and arrested for assualt. The film ends with Sal visiting Paul in prison and showing him the Giants upcoming schedule. Paul is excited to get out the week the Giants play the Patriots.

Patton Oswalt's acting was as amazing as advertised. Overall, the acting was pretty good, with Paul's family and friend (yes, singular friend) all great in their supporting roles. Oswalt captured the persona of a depressed loser (who seems to be happy being a loser) excellently. I didn't know he had any acting chops, since all I've seen him in was King of Queens, but he was surprisingly good. The plot was definitely original, but didn't feel like enough to fill up a 90 minute movie. They got literally all they could have out of it (the radio bit was really really good), but at times it really dragged. After he gets out of the hospital there is about 40-50 minutes of him deciding whether or not to press charges. It was quite obvious that he wasn't going to press charges, so the entire 2nd act was really slow moving. It started off pretty good but the rest of the movie didn't match up.

Beyond Paul's lonely depression there wasn't much to this movie. After a while I found myself thinking, "Ok, he's a loser Giants fan, I get it" and it really ran that theme into the ground. The direction was kinda erratic, it had some really great shots (randomly intercut slow mo scenes of QB) but also suffered from a criminal overuse of montages. I was not at all surprised to find out it was a directorial debut. The script stumbled at the finish line and ended really awkwardly. Paul's confrentation with Philadelphia Phil was forced and didn't fit with the tone of the movie. This guy was too scared to say hi to his idol in a bathroom but he travels to Philly to assualt some guy from the radio? I didn't buy it. It was supposed to show his rabid fandom, but we were already sold on his love for the Giants so it wasn't necessary. As far as character goes, it was brilliant. As I said before, Oswalt was great and all the supporting roles were solid as well. The story just didn't match up to the acting and I really don't get the 88% on rottentomatoes. It was good, but nothing to rant or rave about.

Bottom line: Patton Oswalt's performance was amazing, but was overshadowed by lagging downtimes and a 'butter scraped over too much bread' storyline.

Overall score: 6 out of 10.

Shutter Island Review

2010-02-23T11:17:00.007-05:00

I had this ranked #5 on my most anticipated of 2010 and was quite excited about it. The reviews were less than stellar (about a 70% on RT), but how could one pass up a Scorsese flick? I'm not a Scorsese nut hugger by any means, but the man is a legend. I'm going to forego the usual synopsis-review format since any comprehensive plot outline would be riddled with spoilers.

That being said, I absolutely loved this movie. It was very different from the usual Scorsese, and having never seen Cape Fear this was my first exposure to him outside of the crime drama genre. The story was amazing. The basic plotline follows Ted Daniels (DiCaprio) and his partner investigating the dissappearance of one of Shutter Island's patients. As they dig deeper into the mystery, DiCaprio starts to suspect that more sinister stuff is going down. The story developed very well. We were told enough to keep to not be confused, but enough was held back were we didn't know how it was going to end. From a script perspective, it was flawless. It relied heavily on the sucess of the story and it payed off big time in the end.

I'm a huge fan of psychological thrillers and psychology in general, and this was the best psychological film I've seen a long time. It relied heavily upon a "what the eff is going on?" feel that ran up until the final five minutes of the movie. There was an opening scene (where DiCaprio first arrives on Shutter Island) that was so creepily bombastic it set the stage for the rest of the film. The soundtrack was perfect, thrown in places that you wouldn't expect, but still worked great. Scorsese did a great job of ratcheting up the intensity with every scene and put us into the mindframe of DiCaprio's character. The direction was intentionally throwing the audience off balance and had many "wait, did I just see that?" moments. The acting was solid, DiCaprio was believable and the rest of the cast fit the bill of psych ward patients/doctors perfectly.

This type of film will split critics down the middle, either you love it or you hate it. It's impossible to walk out of the theater with an "ehhhhh" reaction. While it had a huge twist, it didn't feel cheap or detract from the film. The final 10 minutes were as gripping as anything I've ever seen in a theater. All I could say once the credits rolled was, woah. This is the type of movie that will have people talking for hours afterwards. It was a perfect book adaptation. It kept the key elements, yet added enough action to make it entertaining as a film. Best film of 2010 by far and immediately one of my favorite Scorsese films.

Bottom line: Shutter Island was a masterpiece in the psychological thriller genre due to the amazing story and direction of the legendary Martin Scorsese.

Overall rating: 9.5 out of 10

Tons O' Superhero News

2010-02-11T10:48:00.004-05:00

Lots of Superhero movie news has broken this week. Joe Johnston talking about Captain America, Nolan "mentoring" a new Superman, David Goyer leaving his show FlashForward to write the next Batman flick, the new Marc Webb-helmed Spider-Man reboot getting a release date, and some hints about an Ant-Man movie.

While promoting his new film Wolfman, director Joe Johnston talked a bit about Captain America. Here's the link, but in essence he talked about the direction the film was taking. It sounds like it's an origin story to the core, which is probably necessary for a character like Capt. America. While he's a well known character, not many people know his origin and it certainly hasn't been done well on film before. Johnston confirmed Red Skull as the villian and casting should be expected in the next few weeks. They are going with a relative unknown so the eventual Avengers won't be too cluttered with stars. Problem is, Captain America is the de facto leader of The Avengers and he needs to portray that on screen. If there is an unknown actor that can pull that off, great, but it's not going to be easy to do. Captain America is a tricky character to do, because he's very symoblic and has a dated origin. Translating that symbolism on the screen without coming across as goofy is going to be rough. Johnston hasn't done a lot to make me believe in him, but neither did Favreau prior to Iron Man. But I have faith in Marvel to pull this off right, I am a bit nervous about it though.

Another big story was that Christopher Nolan is going to "mentor" a the new Superman flick. This is greatly huge news, although I'm not sure what they mean but "mentoring", it's probably something along the lines of very very involved producing. Nolan was able to make great Batman films because he really understands the character. Batman works as a "dark and gritty" movie because that's the type of character he is in the comics. Trying to make everyone else "dark and gritty" is a colossal mistake, but not all characters are like that. I think Nolan understands that and won't make a "dark and gritty" Superman since it won't fit. Mark Miller had a great concept on how to do Superman, essentially as a massive, sprawling epic. I love that idea and hope Nolan goes along a similar route. Oh and who else besides me wants Jon Hamm for the Man of Steel? Make it happen Nolan.

On a related note, David Goyer has left show running duties on Flashforward to focus on his film writing career, in specific the next Batman film. Not much to say on this, but it's nice to see the third Batman get going. It has a hell of a lot to live up to, but if anyone is up to it, it's Christopher Nolan. The new Spider-Man has gotten a release date of July 3rd, 2012 so some casting info should be coming soon. I've talked about this reboot already and I'll reserve judgement until more casting info comes out, but it doesn't look good. Oh and it'll be in 3D...ahhhh BOO.

As far as new movies go, Stan Lee's twitter had some interesting tweets regarding early prep work about an Ant-Man adaptation. Ant-Man is going to be a rough one to try and translate on screen, since he's kind of got silly powers, but he's a major part of Marvel's universe. Still, any new Marvel movie news is good news. Also Daredevil is getting a reboot, with no cast or crew attached from the 2003 version. Daredevil's a cool character and I didn't love the first one, so this is pretty cool I guess. Just no Ben Affleck this time. Please.

2010 Oscar Nominations, Part 2

2010-02-04T10:10:00.008-05:00

BEST ACTOR, LEADING
JEFF BRIDGES, Crazy Heart
GEORGE CLOONEY, Up in the Air
COLIN FIRTH, A Single Man
MORGAN FREEMAN, Invictus
JEREMY RENNER, The Hurt Locker
This one is pretty much a lock. Bridges was brilliant in Crazy Heart and there isn't any real competition. Both Morgan Freeman and George Clooney don't deserve to be on this list, it seems like the Academy just likes to throw nominations at both these guys. Clooney's acting in Up in the Air was not award winningly good and Freeman's Nelson Mandela accent was horrible. I don't even want to see them on this list. Renner was great in The Hurt Locker, but the film itself is getting more buzz than his individual performance. Again, I gotta say Moon was robbed here. Say what you want about the film, but you can't say Sam Rockwell wasn't amazing. He was pretty much the only actor on screen for the entire 2 hrs and he was captivating. The difference in the two versions of himself felt like two compeletely different people. I really can't say enough about his performance and he deserves the Oscar. Damn you Sony for not sending Moon out to the Academy voters. /End rant. But Bridges is going to win this, hands down. And he deserves it. PREDICTION: JEFF BRIDGES, Crazy Heart

BEST ACTOR, SUPPORTING
MATT DAMON, Invictus
WOODY HARRELSON, The Messenger
CHRISTOPHER PLUMMER, The Last Station
STANLEY TUCCI, The Lovely Bones
CHRISTOPH WALTZ, Inglorious Basterds
This one is another lock. Christoph Waltz was incredible in Inglorious Basterds and deservedly won the Golden Globe. I've already talked about how great he was when he won the Golden Globe so I won't blabber about it again. But he was great. Really great. I've heard Harrelson was amazing in The Messenger as well and if it weren't for Waltz that he would win it. Again, don't know why Damon is up here for Invictus. But this is Waltz's award, no doubt.
PREDICTION: CHRISTOPH WALTZ

I'm gonna end it there since nobody cares what the women did (just kidding, you silly feminists). I really haven't seen any of the films with the nominated actresses and don't know anything about the categories. I did see Up in the Air and didn't think either of them deserved an award for their portrayals. Their roles were nothing new or groundbreaking and didn't blow me away. So I have know idea who deserves what for best actress.

2010 Oscar Nominees, Part 1

2010-02-04T09:09:00.011-05:00

The nominees for the upcoming 2010 Oscar's have just been released. The Best Picture list has been extended to 10 films (not sure why), yet there were still some major snubs. So here's the list:

BEST PICTURE:
AVATAR
THE BLIND SIDE
DISTRICT 9
AN EDUCATION
THE HURT LOCKER
INGLORIOUS BASTERDS
PRECIOUS
A SERIOUS MAN
UP
UP IN THE AIR
Not sure why they extended the list of nominees to 10 this year. Right off the bat I can eliminate 4 films that don't have a popsicle's chance in hell at winning (Blind Side, D9, Precious, Up). So I don't get the point of doing it. But whatever. Biggest omission here is Moon, by far. It was a huge year for sci fi and Moon was the best. I think The Hurt Locker has the best shot at winning. Out of the list, it was the best film and will probably win. The only real competition is Up in the Air, but its lost a lot of steam as of late. Hurt Locker was amazing and deserves to win. Avatar is only up here because it is the highest grossing film of all time, that alone is enough to give it a nod. Doesn't have a shot though. Haven't seen A Serious Man or An Education but they seem a bit too pedestrian to win. I loved D9, but it doesn't really fit the bill for an Academy Award. It's nice to see some sci fi getting Oscar love, though. I don't even want to see The Blind Side up here. We get it, it's white people helping black people, enough. Now get off the Best Picture list. There are a lot of locks this year, but this category is the biggest toss up.
PREDICTION: THE HURT LOCKER

BEST DIRECTOR:
JAMES CAMERON, Avatar
KATHRYN BIGELOW, The Hurt Locker
QUENTIN TARANTINO, Inglorious Basterds
LEE DANIELS, Precious
JASON REITMAN, Up in the Air
This one is kind of a toss up too. Realistically, it could go to Bigelow, Tarantino, or Reitman. Cameron or Avatar doesn't and shouldn't have a real chance at any of the major awards, it's just a courtesy to the highest grossing movie of all time. Something tells me that Tarantino is going to surprise with a win here. While Inglorious Basterds isn't Tarantino's best film, he hasn't won an Academy yet and we could see a Scorsese/Departed in 2007 type thing. Bigelow or Reitman could win here. Especially since I don't see Up in the Air winning any other major categories, it seems people are itching to give that film awards (god knows why) and this is the most likely catagory. There's been a lot of talk about Bigelow winning and it could very well happen. The only reservation I have is that it will probably win Best Picture and I don't think they would give it Best Director as well. Bigelow probably deserves it the most, but I have a feeling Tarantino is going to finally get his award.
PREDICTION: QUENTIN TARANTINO, Inglorious Basterds

WRITING (ADAPTED SCREENPLAY)
DISTRICT 9, Neil Blomkamp and Teri Tatchell
AN EDUCATION, Nick Hornby
IN THE LOOP, Jesse Armstrong, Simon Blackwell, Armando Iannuci, Tony Roche
PRECIOUS, Geoffrey Fletcher
UP IN THE AIR, Jason Reitman and Sheldon Turner
District 9's the winner here. It had an amazing story that had a heart and depth. The characters were complex and went through complete arcs from beginning to end. The political undertones were a bit overstated, but it still had an interesting way to get its message out. Up in the Air, no. The story was not good. It came across as douchy ("what's in your backpack?"...really?) and Clooney's character was unrelatable. I mean who can relate to a guy who's life mission is to get 1 million flyer miles? Not me.
PREDICTION: DISCTRICT 9, Neil Blomkamp and Teri Tatchell

WRITING (ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY)
THE HURT LOCKER, Mark Boal
INGLORIOUS BASTERDS, Quentin Tarantino
THE MESSENGER, Alessandro Camon & Oren Moverman
A SERIOUS MAN, Joel Coen & Ethan Coen
UP, Bob Peterson, Pete Docter
This one is between Hurt Locker and Inglorious Basterds. The Hurt Locker was a great character piece and stands as the best Iraq-war film we've seen so far. Inglorious Basterds was really well written and story-wise may be Tarantino's best so far. He created two classic characters in Lt. Aldo Raine and Hans Landa. I think it depends how the other awards turn out. If The Hurt Locker gets both Picture and Director, it won't get this. But if my guess is right and Tarantino get's Best Director than Hurt Locker becomes the frontrunner. I'm going to go with the assumption that my predictions are right about Hurt Locker not sweeping both Picture and Director.
PREDICTION: THE HURT LOCKER, Mark Boal

Rational Thinking on The Tonight Show Debacle

2010-01-20T14:14:00.003-05:00

Blame the network. That's really all there is to say. People saying "oh its Leno's fault, he screwing Conan" really don't know what they are talking about. Personally, I find Conan funnier and I will continue to watch him wherever he goes. I also like Leno (the bits with Jim Norton are great and I hope he will stay on when Leno returns to 11:30). It sucks for someone who likes to watch both since that won't be possible anymore. If forced to choose, I'll watch Conan. That's just my personal taste.

Back in 2004 Leno was approached by the network and was told that in 5 years they would be giving The Tonight's Show to Conan. Leno was #1 at the time and has never NOT BEEN #1. So from the start, Leno was getting screwed. He still wanted to work so he started his own show on NBC. So when Conan took over and wasn't doing great, they decided to pull the plug and go back to Jay Leno. Of course Conan's pissed and understandably so. What I don't get is how people make Leno the bad guy out of all of this. Watch what he said last night and tell me how this is a bad guy?? Bottom line is, Jay Leno is a ratings monster and should NEVER have been removed off The Tonight Show. The stupid network didn't want to lose Conan so they decided to replace Jay. Their first mistake was pushing Jay out of the hosting job on The Tonight's Show when he was number 1. So now they prematurely push Conan out and bring Jay back. Conan should have been given more time. Leno will probably come back and be #1 again on The Tonight Show, but NBC will lose Conan.

The real takeaway here is that the execs at NBC are complete morons and don't know what they are doing. They were wrong to pull Jay and they are wrong in pulling Conan. NBC SUCKS.

Golden Globes Pt.2: The TV Edition

2010-01-19T09:37:00.002-05:00

I've already blabbered about the film awards so far so its time to move onto the television awards:

BEST TELEVISION SERIES - DRAMA, Winner: Madmen (AMC)
Big Love (HBO)
Dexter (Showtime)
House (Fox)
True Blood (HBO)
I was kind of taken aback by this one. The feeling was the Madmen frenzy had kind of run its course, and it didn't feel like it had a popsicle's chance in hell. Especially with new hits like Big Love and True Blood. Big Love was my pick as far as a prediction went, since it was in its first season and has crazy buzz. Personally I would have went with Dexter as I think this season it set a new bar as far as season-long character/story arcs are developed from here on out. But being that Dexter already won for Best Actor and Best Supporting Actor, there was no way it was going to sweep. House didn't have a chance either as its an established show at this point and the frenzy surrounding it has seemed to have died down. I thought the same thing about Madmen, turns out I was wrong. Madmen never really has done it for me, but people love it and Dexter had won a bunch of other awards so I'm not completely against this choice. Big Love is next on my queue to watch, I've heard nothing but great things about it and the source material is original and personally appealing.

BEST AN ACTOR - TV SERIES DRAMA, Winner: Michael C. Hall, Dexter
Simon Baker, The Mentalist
Jon Hamm, Mad Men
Hugh Laurie, House
Bill Paxton, Big Love
It was great to see Michael C. Hall finally get an award for his great performance on Dexter. He's been great for 4 seasons and is finally getting some recognition. He's battling a treatable form of cancer (the chemotherapy for Hodgkin's lymphoma is a BITCH) and it was a nice moment to see him up there. Everyone has nothing but good things to say about the guy and nobody deserved it more than him. The only other real competition here was Bill Paxton for Big Love. First season hits get a lot of love come award time and Paxton has joined the recent wave of forgotten actors reviving their careers on TV. No way Laurie was winning as all the buzz around House has really smoldered recently, same with Jon Hamm. I haven't seen Simon Baker in The Mentalist mostly because the show doesn't appeal to me and there isn't much talk about it so I don't know what to think about that. But nobody was more deserving for Michael C. Hall for his portrayal of the serial killing Dexter. I love Dexter as a show and Michael C. Hall as the titular character and couldn't agree more with this choice.

BEST TELEVISION SERIES - COMEDY/MUSICAL, Winner: Glee (FOX)
30 Rock (NBC)
Entourage (HBO)
Modern Family (ABC)
The Office (NBC)
This one was an easy pick. While I don't love the show (I kind of hate it actually) it gets huge rates and has a huge following so it was easy to see this as the winner. The competition wasn't very strong either. 30 Rock, Entourage, and The Office are all great great shows but are more established than Glee, and with the exception of 30 Rock, have really been slacking of late. Entourage isn't the same show it was in the first 3 seasons and The Office isn't what it used to be. I wouldn't give those shows awards for what they've become. Shows don't deserve awards for what they've done in the past and the Golden Globes are usually good with stuff like that. 30 Rock had an amazing 3rd season so that would have been my choice. Modern Family is supposed to be good and I've been meaning to try it out. There was no way Glee wasn't walking away with this award.

BEST ACTOR - TV SERIES, COMEDY/MUSICAL, Winner: Alec Baldwin, 30 Rock
Steve Carell, The Office
David Duchovny, Californication
Thomas Jane, Hung
Matthew Morrison, Glee
This was a complete shocker. While Baldwin is incredible as a network exec in 30 Rock, I didn't think he was going to win. Thomas Jane in Hung was my prediction and should have won. Hung is a hilarious and great new show, really fitting the mold for an award. Baldwin's been great for 4 seasons and already won an Emmy. 30 Rock had a good 3rd season, but it wasn't groundbreaking or outstanding. When an established shows have amazing seasons (see Dexter's 4th season) they deserve awards. Carell has become pretty much one-note in The Office and really didn't have a shot. I don't know much about Morrison or Duchovny, but Glee didn't really have a shot for any awards other than their shoe-in for best tv series. Still, it was a pleasant surprise to see Baldwin get the award (even though he wasn't there, whoops).

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR - TV, Winner: John Lithgow, Dexter
Micheal Emerson, Lost
Neil Patrick Harris, How I Met Your Mother
William Hurt, Damages
Jeremy Piven, Entourage
Another obvious one. Lithgow was creepy and unnerving as the Trinity Killer/family man in Dexter. Watching his non-killing persona fall apart as the show progressed was chilling and by the last episode he was completey unhinged. What made Lithgow's performance so great is his natural appeal as the family man, so his change to psychotic killer was all the more disturbing. During the season we were really able to delve into the psyche of the Trinity Killer and what made him so twisted. There really wasn't any other option, maybe Hurt from Damages, but the other nominees fit into the established franchise roles and weren't real contenders. It was great to see Dexter finally getting some awards as it really is one of the best shows around.

Gonna end there with the TV awards as I don't know jack from the other categories. Overall, it was great to finally see Dexter get some love and Michael C. Hall's acceptance speech was great. A few surprises with Madmen and Alec Baldwin winning, but it was kind of nice to see the awards break the mold of usual winners. This year's Golden Globes have put a lot of new TV shows/movies in my queue to watch and could give us a look at what the Oscar nominations might look light.

Golden Globes Pt.1: The Film Edition

2010-01-18T19:48:00.007-05:00

Last night the Golden Globes were and to be honest this was the first year I sat down and watched it from beginning to end. I had heard Ricky Gervais was hosting and being a huge fan of him, I was really excited. I'm not gonna comment on who looked good and who didn't (althoughOlivia Wilde...DAMN), I'm going to focus on award winners/losers of major categories in which I've seen a majority of the nominated films. I'm going to omit a few categories where I don't have much to say, so don't be surprised if some aren't up there.

Ricky Gervais was hilarious as always and was has done the best hosting job of an awards ceremony I have ever seen. The man is a genius and should do the Oscar's. The opening Steve Carell/The Office rant was hilarious and the ending Mel Gibson joke had me on the floor (click here for both bits). He seemed really relaxed (having a beer in hand helped) and they really could have done with more of him. Ok, enough Gervais man-love, let's move onto the awards:

BEST MOTION PICTURE - DRAMA, Winner: Avatar

The Hurt Locker

Inglorious Basterds

Precious

Up in the Air

I really don't agree with this. I'm not among the group that is drooling over Avatar, but I'm not in the "too cool for the room" anti-Avatar movement either. I find myself somewhere in between. Visually, it was the greatest thing I've ever seen. My beefs are like everyone else's, the story was meh, the supporting acting was pretty bad, and the pacing was quite off. Out of all the nominees listed, I'd say its a toss up between Inglorious and Hurt Locker. I'd go with Inglorious, but I could see either one winning. Now I haven't seen Up in the Air yet, but I'm hearing great things about it. Precious shouldn't even be on this list. Avatar really wasn't the best film of the year and being that Cameron won Best Director I really think they got it wrong here.

BEST ACTOR - DRAMA, Winner: Jeff Bridges, Crazy Heart

George Clooney, Up in the Air

Colin Firth, A Single Man

Morgan Freeman, Invictus

Tobey Maguire, Brothers

*Sigh* Again here I didn't see the award winning performance, so I've got a lot to catch up on before the Oscar's come around. I was surprised to see both Maguire and Freeman up here, also disheartened to not see Sam Rockwell up there for his work in Moon. I did see Brothers and thought that Maguire was pretty good (review here), not award-winningly good, but he was good. Its a damn shame that Rockwell hasn' t been nominated and I'll be pretty pissed if this internet movement to get him an Oscar nod doesn't work. He was hands down the best actor this year. Come official Oscar nominations, I will make it a point to see every film for each major catagory, but so far I highly doubt anyone will top Rockwell's performance. It really was the best I've seen in quite a while.

BEST MOTION PICTURE - COMEDY OR MUSICAL, Winner: The Hangover

(500) Days of Summer

It's Complicated

Julie & Julia

Nine

I thought this was an...interesting choice. I really didn't think The Hangover was going to win, it being a raunchy comedy and all, history hasn't been kind to similar films. I loved The Hangover and thought it was one of the funniest movies I've seen in a good while. Probably a toss up between The Hangover and I Love You, Man for best comedy of 2010. 500 Days of Summer was the best film in this category, no doubt. I would further gush about this film, but I'll just leave it with an "I loved it" and a link to my review of it. Haven't seen the other three due to the sickening feeling the trailer of Julie & Julia gave me and the horrid reviews Nine got. I may see It's Complicated because of Alec Baldwin, but its a maybe. 500 Days of Summer was a superior film to The Hangover, but I'm not outraged about the choice.

BEST ACTOR - COMEDY/MUSICAL, Winner: Robert Downey, Jr., Sherlock Holmes

Matt Damon, The Informant!

Daniel Day-Lewis, Nine

Joseph Gordon-Levitt, (500) Days of Summer

Michael Stuhlbarg, A Serious Man

The first choice I agree with. While I didn't love the film (very run-of-the-mill, mindless action) I thought Downey was great in it. From the trailers I thought he was going to be playing a British Tony Stark, but he took on the role and was the highlight of the film. He was quite funny and brought an odd subtlety to the role. I heard Matt Damon was great in The Informant! and thought Gordon-Levitt was pretty good in 500 Days of Summer. I could have seen it going to Damon or Levitt too and I wouldn't have had a real problem with it. This was a solid choice and Downey's acceptance speech was pretty funny.

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR - DRAMA, Winner: Christopher Waltz, Inglorious Basterds

Matt Damon, Invictus

Woody Harrelson, The Messenger

Christopher Plummer, The Last Station

Stanley Tucci, The Lovely Bones

This one was obvious. Waltz was spectacular as Hans Landa and will get the Oscar without much opposition. His performance was unnerving and he played the psychotic SS officer perfectly. There isn't much else to say here. If you're reading this then you most likely have already seen Inglorious and been blown away by Waltz's performance. From what I've seen from Matt Damon in Invictus, he was good and has me on board for him as Captain America. But Waltz will waltz (hee hee) with the Oscar as well. 100% agree with this and there really wasn't any other reasonable choice.

BEST DIRECTOR - MOTION PICTURE, Winner: James Cameron, Avatar

Kathryn Bigelow, The Hurt Locker

Clint Eastwood, Invictus

Jason Reitman, Up in the Air

Quentin Tarantino, Inglorious Basterds

This is where Avatar should have won. The direction in this film was amazing. What Cameron did visually has set the bar for special effects in films and completely changed what we will come to expect. I also could have seen it going to Bigelow, Reitman, or Tarantino. I felt bad for Eastwood because he had absolutely no shot of winning. I had a hunch Up in the Air wasn't going to get it since it had already won best screenplay, so it was really between Bigelow and Tarantino. Its a shame that The Hurt Locker walked away without any major wins, but something tells me it may have the last laugh come Oscar time.

BEST SCREENPLAY - MOTION PICURE, Winner: Jason Reitman, Up in the Air

Neil Blomkamp, District 9

Mark Boal, The Hurt Locker

Quentin Tarantino, Inglorious Basterds

Nancy Meyers, It's Complicated

This one wasn't a complete shocker. Everyone had a decent shot except Meyers (I refuse to see a "romcom" worthy of an award), but I really wanted to see Blomkamp/D9 take it. It was a great film and should have gotten a best picture award. The premise was original and the story was compelling. I read the script for Inglorious before the movie came out and I knew it was genius. The Hurt Locker was an amazing character piece, so that could have won too. Like I stated before, I haven't seen Up in the Air yet, but I'm not upset that it won. District 9 would have been my personal choice but the majority of the nominee list was great. Man, I really need to watch Up in the Air.

Well that's it for my thoughts on the film portion of the Golden Globes. Overall, I wasn't really happy, but the competition is so stiff it really becomes a matter of taste. Let me know what you think if you agree with me or not. Up next I'll run through the TV portion of the Golden Globes. *hint, as a huge fan of Dexter, I'm a happy camper.

Stay tuned for more...

Brothers Review

2010-01-16T22:49:00.007-05:00

**SPOILERS AHEAD**

I remember first seeing this trailer a while back and thinking, wow that sounds liked one effed up movie. It drives me nuts when trailers blow a good portion of the plot, but for a film like this is was almost necessary. I probably wouldn't watch a movie about a father dying in war and the brother coming in to take care of the family. But once the father comes back all screwed up in the head and accusing his brother of banging his wife??!?!? That's insane. I was immediately on board.

If you've seen the trailer, you know the basic premise of the movie. Sam (Tobey Maguire) goes off the war in Iraq leaving his brother (Jake Gyllenhaal) and wife (Natalie Portman). Some insurgents get a hold of Sam and one of his men and hold them as prisoners. Nobody knows that Sam is alive however, as they only saw the plane go down and were not able to find him. The news is delivered to his family that he's dead and it causes major grief. Tommy steps up and helps Grace with the kids and dealing with the loss of her husband. One night Tommy and Grace share an accidental kiss, but its was obviously a mistake and they don't pursue it. Sam has to go through hell to escape, but eventually makes his way back home. Even though Sam is back, its obvious the trauma of his ordeal has left him emotionally broken to say the least. His daughters pick up on the obvious difference in him and one blurts out how her Mom would rather sleep with Uncle Tommy and how she wishes he stayed dead. DAMN. Even though Tommy and Grace didn't sleep together, Tommy is convinced they did and flips his shit. He trashes the kitchen and goes outside, gun in hand, when the police are called. He's talked down and goes to therapy. The film ends with him finally breaking down and telling his wife what he went through as a POW.

Wow. This movie was messed up.I pretty much knew this going in, but watching it unfold for 100 minutes was really rough.It was bad enough seeing the trauma that the family was going through losing him, but we are also watching all he's going through as a prisoner. Sleep and food deprived, Sam and Private Joe Willis are subject to constant torture. The persecution comes to a head when they tie Willis up and force Sam to beat him to death upon pane of death. Sam snaps and clubs Willis with a violently clubs Willis with a pipe. He doesn't tell anybody what really happened so when he gets home he's carrying al that inside of him. Grace admits to kissing Tommy, but nothing else. So when the daughter has her outburst Sam just melted down. Watching the emotional trauma on nearly every single end of this film was downright exhausting. I don't usually hurt when watching a movie, but this one hurt me. At the end all I could say was, "oh my god". It was just so upsetting.

Technically speaking the movie was excellent. I don't really have anything that I thought was done wrong or would have done differently myself. For what it is, this movie was near flawless. Acting, character arcs, dialogue, directing, it was all great. All the characters had mini-arcs that they saw through till the end. Tommy started off as a misfit disappointed and grew into a reliable father figure that was able to step in for his brother. Sam started off as a family man and was essentially broken in Iraq, only to go through even more hell at home. Its would be near impossible to go back to a normal life after having to kill a close friend to survive. It speaks about the strength of the human spirit and how people will do almost anything to live. On a psychological level it was interesting as well. Seeing Sam's mind pretty much shut down after what he went through was amazing. For me, this film worked on all levels. Its not for all. Expect a really heaving and upsetting movie when sitting down to watch this.

Bottom line: Brothers showcases brutal emotional suffering with great performances and a simple yet fulfilling plot; this movie hurt my soul.

Overall score: 9 out of 10.

The Book of Eli Review

2010-01-16T18:57:00.009-05:00

I've got this ranked #9 on my most anticipated films of 2009 list so safe to say I was quite excited to see this. The trailers looked awesome and I had kept my New Year's resolution in staying in the dark about plot details. Generally I tend to think Denzel Washington is a bit overrated, but he seemed to be working outside of his usual role (angry black man). Seeing Gary Oldman rocking the villain seat again was great and Mila Kunis is well...really hot. Really had a lot going for this and in spite of the so-so reviews (its become the cool thing to do to crap on the post-acopalytpic subgenre), I was optimistic.

For those who don't know, this is a post-apocalyptic film about a world where civilization is pretty much destroyed. Denzel Washington stars as, you guessed it, Eli, one of the few people to have been around before it all hit the fan. He is also in possession of the last copy of the Kings James Bible on the planet. Eli is a loner who survives on his kick ass machete skills and is driven to deliver the Bible to those who would put it to good use. Eli comes across a makeshift town run by Carnegie (Gary Oldman), who would like nothing more than to find the last copy of the Bible. Carnegie knows the power that the words of the Bible carry and would use it to further civilize his town and hopefully to expand. Right off the bat, Eli is forced to drop a good majority of the town's thugs and his skills attract Carnegie's attention. Carnegie wants Eli to join his crew and sends the beautiful Solara (Mila Kunis) to try and "convince him". Turns out Carnegie isn't that nice of a dude as we initially thought (he's got quite a temper on him and pimps out his a good deal of the town's women). The only thing Eli ends up doing with Solara is teaching her prayer before skipping town the next morning. Solara prays with her mother the next morning, in front of Carnegie, who wins the game of who's-got-the-Bible. Solara follows after Eli, who explains that God's spirit tells him to go West. Carnegie rolls up on Eli (cue "send EVERYONE!!!!" imitations) and Solara and a big ass fight ensues. Carnegie eventually gets a hold of the Bible and Eli is content to continue West even without the Bible. Eli and Solara find a city in the ruins of LA who are looking to restore civilization. Carnegie opens the Bible only to find its a braille copy. That's because, wait for it...Eli is blind!!!!! He recites the ENTIRE Bible to one of the men in the city, who copies it down and mass produces it. Of course Eli then dies, but not before giving his awesome machete (and presumably some of his skills) to Solara.

Is it me or do all these post-apocalyptic movies just fall apart at the end? This film suffered from a bad case of the I Am Legend syndrome. The last plot development of him being blind was horrible and the scene of Mila Kunis all in battle gear made me literally laugh in the theater. The film was really good up until that last reveal at the end. Really, he's blind...REALLY?!?!?!?!?! And they dropped hints the entire time that were obvious after the reveal so you would think back and say "ohh so that's why he (insert odd Eli behavior here)". Which was stupid. It's a risky move, holding back key information from the audience. Sometimes it works (see The Sixth Sense) and sometimes its fails miserably (see The Village). It wasn't clever, it was misleading and unrealistic. We are meant to believe that a blind man can really do all that ass kicking that Eli did throughout the entire film? No way. I'm willing to suspend belief, but this was a case of a plot point just plain not working within the world of the movie. The other blind people (some kind of flash caused a lot of blindness) were not nearly as capable as Eli was. Carnergie's mistress was a blind and she had to feel around when walking, ya know like normal blind people.

I liked that the Bible was in braille. That wasn't my problem. Carnegie had been falling down a pit of desperation and he had hit bottom. His sole purpose and drive was to find this book, there was no doubt that he would do anything to get it. And when he finds out that the book was pretty much useless to him, he completely fell apart. The breakdown of the little civilization that was in the city was perfect symbolism for what was going on internally. Carnegie's character was perfect. From the acting to the character arc, really one of the better depictions I've seen in a while. He wasn't cliche in that he genuinely wanted to bring civilization back to the world, but he also craved power and wanted to be the guy to bring it back. The greatest characters have conflict and Oldman's Carnegie was the embodiment of conflict. He had a Caesar-like control over the town, but it was one of the few marks of civilization in an otherwise savage world. Kunis' character was solid too. A good example of a supporting character with a small arc. She went from an ignorant victim of the primitive world to being of one of the harbingers of sophistication. No problems with her, Kunis did her job well. Washington's character was a bit cliche, but was still good. Really good characters on the whole.

Overall, the characterization and acting were strong. The major problem was with the story. Remove the last twist of Eli being blind and this was be a really good movie. Personally I love the post-apocalyptic subgenre and would really never grow tired of it. Some say its being done to death with 2012 (I really don't count that as post-apocalyptic) and The Road (which was great), but entries like The Book of Eli show promise and progress. This film was so close, but fell flat on its face on the end. I can't overlook the big reveal at the end, mostly because this movie was so so close to being amazing.

Bottom line: The Book of Eli was on the verge of greatness with exceptional characterization and a compelling premise, but a senseless final 10 minutes unraveled what the first 2 acts accomplished.

Overall: 6 out of 10.

Moon Not Feeling Oscar Love

2010-01-12T10:24:00.014-05:00

The news broke a few weeks back, via director Duncan Jones twitter, that indie sci-fi hit Moon was not sent to Academy members in the annual Oscar submission. While Moon was independently filmed, Sony Pictures Classics distributed it and is responsible for its absence in submission to Academy members. Every year around Oscar season, distributors will send out special watermarked copies of films for award consideration. Not submitting a film pretty much kills its chances at an Oscar nomination. So Sony is pretty much screwing Moon and its star Sam Rockwell out of a shot for an Oscar.

This is just plain wrong. Moon has been widely accepted as one of the best films of 2009 and Sam Rockwell is on many people's lists in contention for Best Actor. The premise of the film revolves completely on Rockwell's character, and except some voicework by Kevin Spacey, he's pretty much the only guy in the film. I almost didn't realize this until the movie was over. Its an astounding feat to be the only actor for the entire duration of a film and still captivate your auidence. That's exactly what Rockwell has accomplished. Sony is citing money problems as the reason for botching Moon's Oscar campaign, which is complete bullshit. The cost of making watermarked copies of a film is next to nothing compared to what it could do for the film's reputation. For me (and many others), Moon is pushing hard for Best Picture and pushing even harder for Sam Rockwell as Best Actor. He's one of the most talented working actors and he doesn't get many big roles. Its a shame that quality films like Moon and flawless acting like Sam Rockwell's don't warrant a little extra money from Sony. Director Duncan Jones has lead a campaign to get Moon and Rockwell nominated in spite of Sony's apathy. It's been a hell of a year for critically acclaimed sci-fi films (Moon, Avatar, District 9), especially independently produced ones. Giving a film like Moon some Oscar love promotes the genre and will pave the way for more quality sci-fi work.

Moon comes out on DVD January 12th, do yourself a favor and pick up a copy. Also sign the online petition to get Rockwell and Moon some well deserved Oscar consideration. Help prevent a snub of epic proportions. But most importantly, SEE THIS MOVIE.

News: Sony to Reboot Spider-Man

2010-01-11T22:04:00.014-05:00

Both SuperHeroHype and Sony's twitter are reporting that the much convoluted future of the Spider-Man series will be moving towards a reboot. There have been rumors floating regarding Spider-Man 4, mostly casting buzz involving John Malkovich as Adrian Toome/The Vulture and release date delays. Everyone involved with the trilogy thus far is off the reboot, director Sam Raimi and star Tobey Maguire both walking due to 'creative differences'. Raimi had nothing but good things to say, "Working on the Spider-Man movies was the experience of a lifetime for me. While we were looking forward to doing a fourth one together, the studio and Marvel have a unique opportunity to take the franchise in a new direction, and I know they will do a terrific job." Sony plans on a summer 2012 for the reboot.

Wow. Out of the mess that the Spider-Man franchise has become, I did not see this coming. And I like the move. Well, I like it better than continuing with the series as it was. The series was heading from bad to worse and this was the best move. I mean John Malkovich as The Vulture...really?? The Vulture isn't a great character and they already had Dr. Connors/The Lizard pretty much set up. Why do the boring Vulture who is just an old man that can fly? I'm glad Spidey 4 is not happening. The first one was good, not great, but good. It followed the super hero film formula to the tee and in doing so killed off the most interesting character. Spider-Man 2 received critical praise and made a killing at the box office, god knows why. The story and character development was inconsistent with the comics, ruining one of Spider-Man's greatest villains. Spider-Man 3 made even more in the box office, but caught a lot of flack for what it did with Venom (resisting...urge...to rant...) and the other characters. Let's be honest, as a franchise overall this was a moneymaker for sure, but overrated and not up to par with what we've come to expect from comic book films. A change was needed.

They missed the boat on not getting Spider-Man into The Avenger's tie-in (huge missed opportunity) so it seems a bit odd for a 2012 release. What they should do is let Marvel independently produce and do a collaboration with the Fantastic Four reboot. James McAvoy wold make a perfect Peter Parker and it gives them the opportunity to give the character some depth. Peter this time around was shallow and when he did grow, it didn't make sense (the emo hair and dance routine, anyone?). And as far as the story goes, here's a crazy idea, why don't they adapt one of the HUNDREDS of comic book story lines into a film??? A Civil War adapted movie (if you don't know what Marvel Civil War is, here's the wiki page, you'll thank me later) would be downright celestial and very doable seeing the timeline with The Avengers. There's still a lot of story with The Fantastic Four, Silver Surfer, and Galactus, which can all be tied in with Spider-Man. Reboot it, give us a proper Venom (complete with large tongue and threats to eat Parker's spleen), a proper serial killer Carnage, and it will be great. The key is Sony giving up creative control up to Marvel's independent studio and letting them run with it. But according to Raimi, that's not what Sony does best. He reportedly was not happy with a lot of Spider-Man 3 and lost a lot of creative control. There's still a lot of potential for this series, even though it seems quite bleak now. I'm a huge fan of Spider-Man and hope this franchise turns around. Fingers crossed on this one.

Looking Forward:10 Most Anticipated Films of 2010

2010-01-10T13:46:00.018-05:00

We've got a new year upon us and that means loads of hype for films. Just wanna say that I've mostly covered big-budget studio films as I find it hard to anticipate that out of nowhere indie hit. Title links will lead you to trailers/clips.

Honorable Mentions: Predators, Jonah Hex, Toy Story 3, Alice in Wonderland

10. The Expendables: August 20th, 2010

Sylvester Stallone, Mickey Rourke, Dolph Lundgren, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Jet Li, Jason Statham, Randy Couture, Bruce Willis, Terry Crews, Steve Austin, and Eric Roberts. Do I need to say more? I'm not expecting Citizen Kane here. What I am expecting is an ode to old school action flicks, with lots of violence and ass kicking. I'm sure that's what we'll get. Also, first time since Rocky 4 that Dolph Lundgren and Sylvester Stallone are on the same screen. YES.

9. The Book of Eli: January 15th, 2010

I love a good post-apocalyptic movie and this looks to be just that. Denzel Washington is breaking his mold here as a machete wielding, book guarding, badass. I don't know what that book is and I want to wait to see it before I find out (avoiding spoilers is one of my New Year's resolutions). It has Gary Oldman back in the villain seat and the beautiful Mila Kunis both going for it as well . Not much going against this one and I'll be seeing it opening weekend for sure.

8. Robin Hood: May 14th, 2010

There was some worry springing from rumored beef between Ridley Scott and the plot direction, but everything was worked out and the trailer looks amazing. Scott and Russell Crowe are always a good combo and I really like the direction they are taking the story. Some really good hidden cast gems too, Cate Blanchett, William Hurt, Danny Huston, and Mark Strong all great supporting roles. It looks to be more about Robin Hood as a military man saving his hometown from tyranny and corruption than the classic tale of stealing from the rich and giving to the poor. This one is sneaking under the radar and could come to be a very pleasant surprise.

7. Green Zone: March 12th, 2010

Might as well call this Bourne 4. Greengrass and Damon team up again to kick some ass, just under a different title. The premise follows Roy Miller (Damon) as he goes rogue to search for WMD in Iraq. The trailer was very strong and from their previous work in the Bourne series I think we know what we are getting here. Some really good supporting cast with Greg Kinnear and Brendan Gleeson too. The status of Bourne 4 is up in the air (Greengrass has walked), so this may be the last time we see Greengrass and Damon teaming up.

6. A Nightmare on Elm Street: April 30th, 2010

The bigger anticipation for me is to see what Jackie Earl Haley can do with Freddy Kruger. From what I've read of the early script reviews, its much like the original. There's some controversy regarding the look of Kruger since the trailer debuted and the director has said they haven't finalized the look yet. Not sure what to make of that, but this is supposed to be heavier on scares instead of jokes so they need to get the look right. I don't think the 5 seconds we see of him in the trailer is enough to judge the new Kruger face. The trailer didn't blow me away, but I really want to see what Haley will do with the character.

5. Shutter Island: February 19th, 2010

This was supposed to be out late 2009, but Paramount pushed it to 2010 so it could better market the film. Not sure what to make of that, but the trailer seemed very strong and any time Scorsese makes a film (especially with DiCaprio) its going to get attention. I'm trying to stay away from any potential spoilers on this one, as I have my own theories for what's going to happen. It seems like this is kind of sneaking up on everyone, especially taking into consideration the high profile director and star. I'll be in line come mid-February.

4. Kick-Ass: April 16th, 2010

I have to hand it to the team who cut the clips and trailers for this. A friend told me about it and I was really turned off. It had Nicholas Cage in it (ugh) and the plot seemed kind of...well, stupid. Then I checked out the red-band clip. And I loved it. Chloe Moretz was great in 500 Days of Summer and after this should become a much bigger name. Seeing her call a group of bad guys cunts and then proceed to kick their ass had me sold. She's got amazing screen presence for a 12 year old and is going to steal this movie. Plus Nick Cage didn't annoy the crap outta me in what I've seen so far. I guess miracles do happen. Christopher Mintz-Plasse seems to be playing McLovin yet again and even though I feel very been-there-done-that with him at this point, I can get over it. I like everything I've seen from this so far.

3. Inception: July 16th, 2010

"A contemporary science fiction action thriller set within the architecture of the mind." That's all anybody really knows about this film. And I love it. Its become a recent trend to say nearly everything about the film in a synopsis and trailer. Inception is going the exact opposite way. All the attention on this movie is due to the director and that really says a lot about how great Christopher Nolan is. The trailer didn't lend a bit of plot detail, but was still very intriguing. A strong cast, world class director, and an unknown plot are the selling points for this movie. Nolan's last film being The Dark Knight, there's a lot of trust in him to deliver another hit. I have no idea what its about, but I will be in line opening weekend.

2. Clash of the Titans: March 26th, 2010

What's not to like about this film? Sam Worthington as Perseus, Liam Neeson as Zeus, and Ralph Fiennes as Hades are three of the best casting choices I've seen in a while. Worthington struck gold with Avatar and looks great in this. They fixed the god-awful slogan of 'Titans Will Clash' (I know, bleh) to the much much better, 'Damn The Gods'. Seeing Liam Neeson all Zeus-ed out, bellowing, "release the Kraken!!!" almost made me squeal with excitement. Director Louis Leterrier is coming off the underrated The Incredible Hulk and every bit of both trailers have been amazing so far (how awesome does Medusa look?). Leterrier wants to throw his directorial hat in The Avengers ring, so he'll no doubt want to impress here. Plus I've heard rumors that the genius boys behind Muse will be writing the soundtrack. As if I couldn't get any more excited about this.

1. Iron Man 2: May 7th, 2010

Hype started building for this the instant Samuel L Jackson appeared in the post credits scene of Iron Man as Nick Fury. Marvel is brilliantly connecting Thor, Captain America, Incredible Hulk, and Iron Man into an eventual Avengers film. So every movie leading up to that is going to get lots of attention. I really liked the replacement of Terrence Howard with Don Cheadle since Howard was forgettable as Rhodes in the first one. There's a lot of buzz regarding the story, with the inclusion of War Machine, possible appearance of Mandarin, and touching upon Stark's alcoholism. Plus we've got Scarlett Johansson as Black Widow and Mickey Rourke as Whiplash. Also the criminally underrated and underused Sam Rockwell will be appearing as Stark's corporate rival Justin Hammer. The trailer recently came out and it was amazing. Gave us a taste of Whiplash and the last 10 seconds dedicated to War Machine (who looks amazing). There are rumors of cameos from both Edward Norton as Bruce Banner/The Hulk and Chris Hemsworth/Thor, which if true, would be awesome. This is going to make a ton of money and is looking like a proper sequel; bigger and better. Easily biggest movie of 2010 right here and is a legit contender to take New Moon's single day record of $77.7 million at the box office. I know where I'll be May 7th.

News: Green Lantern finds its female lead

2010-01-10T12:19:00.009-05:00

SuperHeroHype is reporting Blake Lively has landed the role of Carol Ferris, the female lead in Green Lantern. Lively beat out rumored competition Keri Russell and Jennifer Garner for the part. The film just got officially greenlighted with Ryan Reynolds as the only other confirmed cast member, the titular Hal Jordan/Green Lantern.

Hmm. I really really don't know about this one. My gut says boo because she doesn't get much work other than Gossip Girl. I have never seen the show, so my only exposure to her was in Accepted and I don't remember her much (which isn't a good sign). Everyone else from that show seems to get work elsewhere (and no that wasn't meant as a jab at Leighton Meester and her sextape) but Lively doesn't. Something tells me thats not due to Gossip Girl scheduling commitments. On the other hand, since I don't have much of her work to go by its hard to say that she can't pull it off. Carol Ferris is the primary love interest for Hal Jordan. She's the VP of her father's aerospace company and eventually becomes the villain Star Sapphire. I honestly can't see Lively as a believable company VP or villain. Sure she's pretty, but something tells me she won't be able to do this. Out of the 3 rumored I would have preferred Garner over Russell and Russell over Lively. I sure hope I'm wrong as I have high hopes for this film. DC needs an answer to Marvel's Iron Man 2, Thor, Captain America, Avengers, etc. Since it seems a new Batman isn't a definite they really can't afford a stinker.

If you are still unconvinced about Ryan Reynolds as Hal Jordan, go watch The Nines, its what convinced me. Chris Pine would have been a better choice in my opinion, as I think Reynolds was born to play Wally West/The Flash. But he'll make a fine Jordan. There's been rumors of Jackie Earl Haley as Sinestro and I hope to god that happens. It's got a nice sized budget of $150 million and begins shooting in March with a June 17th, 2011 release date so expect more casting information soon. Fingers crossed on this one.

UPDATE: SuperHeroHype is also reporting Peter Sarsgaard has landed the role of villain Hector Hammond. Hammond is a scientist that gains telekentic abilites when he comes upon a meteor. Rumor has it that Sinestro still isn't out of the mix for some role in the film. Apparently the studio only wants Jackie Earle Haley for the part. It would make sense to tease Sinestro in the first film, as he is a mentor to Hal Jordon before eventually becoming a villain. It would set up for a nice sequel and would give the potential franchise more longevity. Official word is expected soon.

News: Darabont Taking on The Walking Dead

2010-01-10T10:58:00.008-05:00

Variety is reporting that filmmaker Frank Darabont (The Mist, The Green Mile) is going to be adapting the popular comic series, "The Walking Dead", for a television series on AMC.

I am beyond excited for this. Darabont is one of the best writer/directors out there and is near perfect for this type of thing. The Mist was a great great film and the religious and political undertones presented in that film make me very confident that Darabont can do something similar for the Walking Dead. I'm a little unhappy that its not an HBO or Showtime series, as that would allow a lot of leeway as far as graphic and adult content goes, but it seems AMC knows what they're doing. The Senior VP of Programming, Tom Stillerman said, "The series will stay faithful to the tone of the original novels. This is not about zombies popping out of closets. This is a story about survival, and the dynamic of what happens when a group is forced to survive under these circumstances. The world (in 'The Walking Dead') is presented in a smart, sophisticated way." That statement alone tells me this is a rare breed of TV exec with his head NOT up his ass, *cough,NBC,cough*.

I've been waiting for a good zombie tv series to come a long for a while now. I love the Zombieland, 28 Days Later (yes I know they're not really zombies, but still) type stuff, but a piece of zombie work needs to be done that is more serious. That is pretty hard to tackle in a film and is better suited for a tv series. There was a lot of talk about the great novel World War Z being turned into a film with Marc Forster directing, but there have been numerous rewrites and now Forster has dropped out. WWZ is better lent to a miniseries anyways, since its written like an oral history. The collection of stories in WWZ are amazing and would make for a great series. I'm hoping The Walking Dead will be similar. Now I have not read TWD yet, but it is high on my list now. What I've heard is its a very serious and realistic toned comic, which is perfect for what I've always envisioned a zombie tv series to be. Its not about the zombies, but the people dealing with a worldwide viral outbreak. The greatest threat should be people themselves and how they deal with the situation. The cast is going to be key as well, as it seems they will a follow a single group and the chemistry/dynamic of the group will have to work well. I'm getting the feeling that this is going to be a character and theme driven show, which is perfect. Undertones of religion, anarchy, and survivalism are key for this being good series. I have great faith in Darabont and AMC's backing of his vision for this series. I excitedly await casting/pilot news and will be following this project very very closely.

Pontypool Review

2010-01-09T11:35:00.012-05:00

**SPOILERS AHEAD**

Going into Pontypool I really didn't know what to expect. It had generated buzz from the Festival of Fear in 2008 and for some reason I only recently heard about it. I had a copy of it for a few months and never really got around to watching it. I figured it was just another low-budget zombie movie. Then I read a random interview with the director, he where he insisted the film's virus victims were not zombies, but conversationalists. He further added, "There are three stages to the virus. The first stage is you might begin to repeat a word. Something gets stuck. And usually it's words that are terms of endearment like sweetheart or honey. The second stage is your language becomes scrambled and you can't express yourself properly. The third stage you become so distraught at your condition that the only way out of the situation, you feel, as an infected person, is to try and chew your way through the mouth of another person." Do not go into this film looking for a lot of action and 28 Days Later type of infected chasing. In fact you see very little of the infected. This is an important distinction to make and will help you enjoy the movie more.

The basic setting is in the small town of Pontypool, Canada in a radio station. We follow a radio DJ Grant Mazzy (Stephen McHattie), his producer Sydney Briar (Lisa Houle), and Laurel-Ann (Georgina Reilly) as an unknown plague rages outside the walls of their small radio station. The plot requires a detail heavy description that I can't glaze over, so I'm not going to get into a shot-by-shot recreation of the movie. That being said, it took me a while to really process this film. There was an undeniable creepy and (you'll hear this a lot) claustrophobic feel. A lot of that had to do with the small budget that no doubt restricted the setting to a small radio station but it really helped set a tone. Mazzy was obviously made to be a Don Imus-type, complete with a cowboy hat and old gravelly voice. And he pulled it off quite well. Hearing him take all these eerie and disturbing phone calls really creeped me out.

The very premise of a virus transmitted linguistically is original and a mindfuck to say the very least. The field researcher Ken Loney's phone calls were eerie and gave a wider perspective of what was occurring outside the station. The sequence with the repeating broadcast of Mazzy whispering, "Sydney Briar is alive" while they were walking around the pitch black studio was one of the most indescribably unnerving scenes I have watched in a long time. I honestly do not know why McHattie's repetition was so bone-chilling and is now among my fav

orite horror scenes of all time. Laurel-Ann's infection and death was quite disturbing as well. We were so uninformed about what was happening that we really did not know what to expect from her. There were the frenzied stories and calls into the radio show but nobody knew anything for certain. The problem with most entries in this genre is the parity and familiarity with the infected creatures. This wasn't the case with Pontypool. It wasn't your run-of-the-mill zombie infection. That's what I loved. It was different, chilling, and required some really deep thinking.

The last 15 minutes are quite ambiguous and open to viewer interpretation. Mazzy and Sydney are holed up in the kitchen as Sydney starts jumbling her words. Mazzy takes this opportunity to try and cure her. He theorizes that the infection occurs with understaning of a word and tries to replace the meaning of Sydney's trigger word, 'kill'. He keeps repeating, 'kill is kiss, kill is kiss, kill is kiss' until she seems to replace the meaning of kill to kiss. She then tells Mazzy to kill her and they kiss. Having found an apparent cure, they try and make one final broadcast of random word replacement. Mazzy repeats his 'kill is kiss' excerise with random words. The french military don't take kindley to this and order them to stop since "the man speaking is sick". Mazzy then goes on a crazy rant for the last 5 minutes talking incoherently about people's attitudes and the overall mindset of society. We hear a countdown and the screen fades to black.

I took Mazzy's apparent cure of the disease to be an evolution of the virus instead of a cure. When Mazzy began broadcasting after the kitchen scene he was speaking complete nonsense. That was the manifestation of his infection. Both the word/meaning replacement and his final incoherent rant made no sense at all. The virus knew that it would die in that radio station so it evolved long enough to use Mazzy to spread itself. The british man broadcasting during the credits constantly repeating, "ponty...pool, pontypool, pontypool, pontypool" is obviously infected. There is no other explanation. Mazzy's cure didn't make any sense to me as its impossible to replace a meaning of a word used for a whole lifetime with a few minutes of attempting meaning replacement. His postulation of replacing the meaning of the trigger word is a manifestation of the disease. You really can't (especially intentionally) stop understanding a word. So Mazzy never really found a cure, but he was a means for the virus to evolve and spread further. Obviously, the french military recognized this and decided to bomb the living hell outta Pontypool. I love when films leave a degree of open interpretation and Pontypool used this as a crutch for an obviously budget-restricted third act.

Bottom line: Pontypool exceeds low-budget genre stereotypes with a creepy, unnerving, and claustrophobic tone that compliments an ambiguous third act open for interpretation.

Overall score: 8 out of 10.

500 Days of Summer Review

2010-01-09T01:39:00.012-05:00

I despise most romantic comedies. They are painfully formulaic, poorly acted, and sloppily written. Every one ends the same and fills up women's heads with false ideas of what men and love should be like. Seriously, they are terrible. But every now and then there is a film that takes that genre and does something different with it. The last movie I can remember doing this was Garden State (which has been and always will be an all time favorite of mine). When romantic comedies (I refuse to use the term "romcoms") are realistic and relatable is when they succeed. 500 Days of Summer was another one of those romantic comedies.

It starts off with 2 instant laughs for me. The intro of "the characters in this film are not real life depictions, etc....except Jenny. Bitch." had me in stitches. Some basic, witty, quick, backstory of Tom (Joseph Gordon Levitt, who is great by the way) and we are following his sister Rachel (Chloe Moretz who is going to and should be a household name) going to his house. We open to Tom smashing plates against the counter. We quickly get the idea that Tom is having problems with his girl, Summer (Zooey Deschanel). The film becomes a non-linear telling of Tom and Summer's relationship. Every day is prefaced with a day number, so we never get lost as to where we are in the stream of time. I'm not going into detail about the story as it requires a lot of explaining and I will end up feeling like a middle school girl gossiping during homeroom. And trying to explain what made me laugh won't work and will just end up awkward. This entire paragraph is a testament to that.

I will say how much I loved this film. Nearly flawless. My only beef was the criminal underuse of Tom's sidekicks, McKenzie (Geoffery Arend) and Paul (Matthew Gray Gubler). They were hilarious in every single scene and I would have loved to see them a bit more. From McKenzie getting hammered and singing "I'm Proud To Be An American" to Paul's "job" scene, they were great in their respective roles. What really clicked with me was the instant reality and relation that I felt with Tom's character. Little things like reading into Summer's weekend being "goooooood" way too much and the entire "morning after" dance routine to Hall & Oates are things everyone has done (ok maybe not dance in the street to Hall & Oates) and can relate to. Let me also say the aforementioned Hall & Oates dance scene may be one of my favorite all time movie scenes. It started of as a "ha ha I know that feeling" to an over-the-top Scrubs-esque daydream sequence that had me in stitches. Even if you don't watch the film, at least watch the clip here. Truly great stuff. Summer's character was great in that you never knew what you were gonna get from one scene to another. She played really well off Tom's character who knew what and who he wanted. Their chemistry was instant (Levitt and Deschanel have worked together as leads previously) and made the movie really work on every level. It is rare that I say this, but I am seriously having difficulty finding a legitimate problem with this movie. Everyone should see this movie.

The direction was amazing as well by Marc Webb, who up till now has only directed music videos. It was one hell of a directorial debut as some of the scenes were truly astounding. One such scene is later in the film when Tom is invited to a party Summer is having (at this point they have already broken up but kinda seem to maybe getting back together again). It's a split-screen shot, with an "expectations" screen on the right and "reality" screen on the left. The expectations obviously cover what Tom thinks is going to happen at the party and the reality screen runs on a few second delay as to actually what is happening. Webb manages to make this not confusing whatsoever and provides another "I know that feeling" type moment. Webb again is to be applauded for never once losing me in the constant switching and movement along the 500 day timeline. He threw in some dialogue with the characters on their thoughts about love, which sounds random but was pulled off quite well. Really really masterful directing. He should be up for an Oscar, seriously. I can't say enough about the undeniably talented direction in this film. Again, this film succeeds from start to finish in creating truly great characters and provides some of the best work in its genre to date. A must see of 2009 and without a doubt one of the best films of the year.

Bottom line: A genre defiant "romantic comedy" that is real, relatable, and hilarious on nearly every level. Near flawless.

Overall rating: 9.5 out of 10

Daybreakers Review

2010-01-09T00:46:00.015-05:00

Let me preface this by saying that I was the minority in being quite excited for this film. The trailer first came out over the summer and had me extremely interested. The premise was presented effectively, the use of music was SPOT ON with Placebo's cover of Running Up That Hill (really, really effective for setting a tone to the trailer), and of course had Sam Neil (Dr. Alan Grant in the house!!). Suffice to say those three things made for one of the better trailers I've seen in a good while. So fast forward to this week and the early reviews were quite good, but got worse as the week progressed. As of now, its holding a 65% on rotten tomatoes, pretty good for a film of this genre so I was still pumped for it. And I was utterly disappointed. Let me start by saying it was NOTHING like the trailer had pitched it to be. I expected a serious, well plotted story that gave us a unique vision of a world where humans were not the dominant species. What I got was a B-movie caught between making fun of itself and actually trying to put together a logical film. I'm not against going the tongue-in-cheek B route, I loved Punisher: War Zone. But this didn't commit either way.

It started off very serious and set the stage, albeit a bit overstated and obvious, for a society where vampires are the majority. Then it focuses in on the character of Edward Dalton (yeah I know ANOTHER vampire named Edward, really?) played by Ethan Hawke. He's a blood scientist trying to find a blood substitute, since the human population is dwindling. He works for a mega company, run by Charles Bromley (played by the wonderful Sam Neil), which is supposed to be just a blood research corporation but also farms humans for blood and sells it on the black market. Edward knows this and doesn't feel right about it, apparently he is a human sympathizer of sorts and is trying to ween himself off human blood. It soon becomes obvious that regardless of whether or not they find a substitute, human blood will always be a top seller. So Edward ends up meeting up with some humans, much to the chagrin of his brother Frankie (Michael Dorman) who is enlisted in the army. We get introduced to Elvis (William Dafoe) who is looking for vampires they can trust like Edward to save the human race. Turns out Elvis used to be a vampire but was cured with short exposure to the sun and then immediate water immersion. Edward experiments with this and is able to cure himself. All the while Bromley and Frankie hunt down Edward and the humans, eventually getting to and killing off all but Edward, Elvis and another woman. They soon find out (through a painfully overstated sequence) that vampires are cured by the blood of a cured vampire. So naturally they break into the corporate headquarters and trick Bromley into being cured and so forth and so on. After some hilariously gory scenes we end up with the 3 humans riding out into the daylight...hence the name Daybreakers.

Ok let me start with my problems with the film now. The dialogue was terrible. Cheesy, contrived, and very hack. So much so that much of it was laughable, though I'm not sure if it was meant to be. Almost every line from Dafoe was a cliche. Hawke was meh in his role, he didn't have much to work with but he didn't exactly bring the house down either. The gore was over the top and plentiful (which I liked) but unfitting for a serious movie. Many shots were unnecessary, i.e. the random shrieking bats flying around (obviously for a jump scare). They did not explore many of the more compelling themes, instead content with pushing ahead with a lackluster story. A film like this should be character and theme driven. This was not. The only good character was Sam Neil as Bromley. This guy epitomized the corporate CEO that didn't care for morals, only profitable business. The human sympathy movement was virtually unexplored, as we the only explanation for Edward's feelings were that he would have preferred to die than turn to a vampire. Ok, but WHY? WHY does he not want to be a vampire? WHY does he sympathize with the humans? And WHY work for a company that farms them? All unexplored areas. The human farming could (and should have) been a secret from Edward, as it would have given his character a reason to turn his back on pretty much everyone. Instead it seemed he did it simply because he was asked. There a scene early on where about 4 different people one after another break into Edwards house. This occurs because he habitually leaves the door open, despite repeated automated security warnings, after each break in. I usually don't let little stuff like that bother me, but it was so illogical, obvious, and distracting that all I could think was, "just close the goddamn door!!!!". It was such a terrible device to randomly introduce characters and create tension that I just had to mention it. If you watch this movie, you'll instantly know what I mean.

I would have liked a little exploration as to what the world was like before or even during the outbreak of vampirism. But even that is understandably omitted. Dafoe's character was simply a tool used to show a cure, which is a waste. A character should not exist to only reveal a plot point. And the human woman was one note, unimportant, and a waste of screen time. She had no motives, no emotion, no drive, no nothing. This film lacked a soul and a meaning. It had no reason to exist except to tell a pretty bad story. Nothing is worse than a film that does not provide a relatable or at least understandable motive for its characters (with the exception being Bromley again). This was a giant swing-and-miss for me. So much potential utterly wasted here except for a rock solid performance from Neil and some nice B-movie type lines and gore. Not a good way to kick off a new year of films.

Bottom line: Daybreakers was a poorly executed and mishandled film that had some very nice potential, but ultimately failed.

Overall score: 3 out of 10.

Coming Soon...

2010-01-09T00:42:00.009-05:00

I haven't posted in a while but I've got a boatload of films to review as the end of the year Oscar screeners make their way around. I'm catching up on everything I missed in 2009, which is a surprisingly a lot. So expect a ton of reviews and some of my thoughts on some recent industry news. Stay tuned...

V so far...

2009-11-11T15:57:00.007-05:00

**SPOILERS AHEAD*

Last week the remake of V premiered. I've never seen the original but the concept sounded compelling and there is a vacant hole for sci fi on tv so I decided to check it out. I really really wanted to like this show. The pilot was ok, it didn't rock my world but I thought with some growth it could be a good series. The effects were really excellent, we are talking feature film-quality, great CGI. The intro was great, started off with "where were you when....Kennedy was shot, 9/11, etc." which was a great touch and really set the stage.

But it never really took off. The plotline of the show is that aliens come to earth to help us. Ok, that is some EPIC stuff. That first scene where the alien ships appear over numerous cities across the world should be a "holy crap" moment...but it wasn't. Music choice didn't help at all, and I think that goes a long way when setting the tone. Even for the promos they had Uprising by Muse, a great song in its own right, but not right for the tone of this pilot. And Muse has some epic-ass space rock type stuff too (see Take a Bow from Watchmen, Shrinking Universe from 28 Weeks Later, etc). There was a lot they didn't capitalize on. You've got a character who is a priest, which lends itself to a great theme of religion and exactly how that fits into the fact that there are freakin aliens in the sky. It could have been great conflict for Father Jack Landry, but instead it was kind of just briefly touched upon. They are obviously trying to capture the BSG/sci fi crowd here with both the show itself (remake of an 80's miniseries) and the actors in it (Wash from Firefly and even Tori from Battlestar Galactica with a cameo). So that by itself sets the bar quite high. It sadly never reached it.

There were some really cool story elements that they used oddly and waaaay too early. We find out that the Visitors (aliens) aren't the nice and helpful aliens they seem. They aren't really human in appearance, but instead are lizard-like, just wearing human skin. They've been infiltrating areas of society for years and plan an eventual takeover. So their whole "we are of peace, always" is a sham. That's a great plot development, but it should have been just that, a development. Don't tell us all that in the first freakin episode, let that bad boy simmer! Work the sleeper agent angle a little more and drag that major major bomb over a few episodes. Hint at it a little more don't go and blow it all in the pilot. I understand you have to get people involved and into it, but if you give your audience too much it gets kind of messy. The tone for this should have been a mix of epic hopefulness turning to wary suspicion. Instead we never really got a tone. This carried right over into the second episode, which was quite weak. Not a good sign for only the second episode. On a bright note, I really like the character of Father Jack Landry. Even though a lot more could have been done with this character, he's still really good. This show had a lot going for it, concept, hype, actors, and a timeslot begging to be filled. But it never delivered. I feel very "ehhhhhh" about this series, which is not a good sign seeing that it only has 2 more episodes left and then will be on hiatus until the spring. I'll stick around till the hiatus, but I don't know if I'll be back in the spring.

The Fourth Kind Review

2009-11-09T21:32:00.011-05:00

I first saw the trailer for this a few months back and was really pumped about it. I'll start by saying I love alien flicks and went into this quite ready to enjoy it. Even the 16% rating it held on Rotten Tomatoes (my go to site for movie reviews) didn't dissuade me from going. Let me say I have never been so bewildered leaving a theater. Honestly, this is a strong contender for the worst film I have ever seen in a theater. From here on **SPOILER ALERT** but that's just to be kind. If you've seen the trailer, then there isn't much to spoil.

It starts by claiming to have some "real footage" interlaced with the "filmed footage". I guess this was supposed to sell the reality of the story...it didn't. We have Milla Jovovich playing Dr. Abbey Tyler, a psychologist in Nome, Alaska who is treating patients with similar symptoms, all surrounding sleep deprivation. I'll try not to go into deep plot detail as it will just serve to confuse you. Basically Tyler comes to the conclusion that her patients were being abducted by aliens. Sheriff August (Will Patton) doesn't believe her and thinks she is up to something when things go south (one patient kills himself and his family, the other has brakes his back, and Tyler's daughter disappears). She of course blames all this on the aliens and the "real footage" we are shown supports this...kind of. Any time anything interesting happens, the screen goes all haywire and we only see static. How convenient. Tyler decides to undergo hypnosis after some evidence suggests she had been abducted too. So she has a whole levitation freak

-out and the aliens speak through her (in Sumerian) blabbering on about not giving her daughter back. It ends with her in a hospital bed, with the Sheriff telling her she's crazy and dropping the bombshell that her husband killed himself (we had up till then seen in flashbacks throughout that he was stabbed by "something"). Jovovich appears on screen and talks about the high rate of disappearance in Nome and the high FBI activity. Roll credits.

Yeah, that just happened. This movie seemed to be going into waaaay too many different directions. It tried to end ambiguous and clever, but it wasn't. Either you thought the aliens were grabbing people or you agreed with the Sheriff. Either way, there is NO EXPLANATION as the what the hell happened. Ok so maybe the aliens were nabbing the people up and taking them to the spaceship...why? No idea. What happened up there? No idea. Apparently the director didn't think we needed to know that either. They throw all kinds of "real footage" at us, obviously supporting Tyler's alien theory. Ok, so why even bother putting up another theory as to what happened? If this "real footage" is real, then there really is no argument

otherwise. Sure it was quite distorted footage, but we can obviously see a spaceship above a house and the whole levitating/speaking scenes were quite obviously the aliens handiwork. When Tyler's daughter is abducted, why didn't the Sheriff just ask the officer stationed outside the house what he saw? The officer radios in seeing an object above the house pulling people up into it. So why in the hell is the Sheriff still suspicious of Tyler? Why does he suspect her of breaking her patients back when we can see video of him being lifted into the air and then violently thrown down on the bed? Why did the other witness describe what happened as "something that can't be explained"? What were the aliens doing to the people aboard their spaceship? No answers to these questions. And we don't even get to see the aliens!! All we see are three tall, dark figures come in Tyler's room in a flashback dream sequence. What?!?!?! An alien movie not showing aliens?? Really?

A few positive points, the acting was pretty good (I'm a fan of Jovovich and Will Patton) and it was interesting how the director intercut the "real footage" with the filmed footage simultaneously. And at the very least I got to look at Milla Jovovich for 90 mins, that's always a good thing. But that's it for the good. About an hour into it the other 2 people I was with were ready to leave, but I wanted to see it through. Foolishly giving it the benefit of the doubt, as I thought they had to explain what was happening. But no such luck. This movie's story was a convoluted mess that didn't explain itself and left me with about a billion questions. It wasn't remotely scary as the tone was confusing instead of terrifying. I genuinely still want to know what happened but all the message board/review searching haven't answered my many questions. I wish I could meet this director and just have him tell me what in the world he was trying to do here. How could I filmmaker look at this and say, "yes, I've done what I set out to accomplish"? Unless of course he was trying to confuse the hell out of his audience.

Bottom line: A plethora of loose ends, nonsensical story development, and lack of scares all contribute to the giant botch-job called The Fourth Kind, stay far away from this film.

Overall score: 1 out of 10.

First Post

2009-11-09T21:05:00.005-05:00

Not sure how to start this. I had to make a blog as an assignment for one of my classes so that was the main reason for starting this. I got the name for this blog from a song by a brilliant band, Muse. The song rocks and I thought it's a cool name for a blog. Plus I had NO idea what else to call it. Here's a link to the song, def check it out. I'm not sure if I'm going to add to this besides what I need to for the assignment. I've never blogged before so if I like it I guess I'll keep going with it.

On a side note I wish I could change that logo on the top left of the screen.