Indiana Jones and the...huh?!?

Less free time means fewer movies seen and shorter reviews, but I finally saw Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, and I wasn't missing much.

Given the pedigree and talent of the cast and crew, along with the massive familiarity of the audience with the series, making an awful Indiana Jones movie would be difficult. But Steven Spielberg and company nearly accomplish the task, relying solely on past magic to carry the picture.

The first hour of the movie is decent, with the introduction of a couple marginally interesting characters, played well enough by Cate Blanchett and Shia LeBeouf, and the usual series of globe-trotting adventures. But as a microcosm of the entire movie's problems (aliens?), the centerpiece action sequence starts well before taking a couple bizarrely ill-fitting turns (monkeys?!?) that overshadow the little quality that is present in the movie.

The primary thing that makes the movie worth watching is the familiarity with the title character, and the ease with which Harrison Ford returns to the role. Indiana Jones is an all-time great cinematic character, and Ford nails the part again. Even at his age, he is a joy to watch in this flick.

If the last act of this movie were in a Indy-knockoff like National Treasure or Tomb Raider, it would have been laughed out of the theater. In this setting, it doesn't fit either, but the established familiarity grants the movie enough leeway to make it worth a rental.

Bottom Line: 2 of 5 for quality, 3 of 5 for enjoyability. 5 of 10 for a mediocre move that lives on past accomplishments.

Paul Newman, 1925-2008.

Not to be overlooked amidst all the election and bailout coverage, Paul Newman passed away this weekend. In my mind, he was the 2nd-most iconic actor of his generation, trailing only Clint Eastwood, despite the fact that I've only seen five of Newman's two dozen or so films, and only three from his prime. That alone speaks volumes about his cinematic presence and abilities. In addition to The Sting (an underrated Best Picture winner, if that's possible) and Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid (one of the first and best buddy flicks), the other classic Newman movie I have seen is The Hustler, the best parts of which still resonate with me three years later. Here's my original review...

The Hustler is a classic 1961 film about the shady pool halls of the post-WWII era. Anyone of the three main characters could fill the titular role, whether it be Paul Newman's up-and-comer, Jackie Gleason's man-to-beat, or George C. Scott's behind-the-scenes angle-shooter.

These three stars (all-Oscar nominated) carry the picture, both individually and collectively. The thirty-ish Newman is simply a revelation to anyone (me) who hasn't seen him act much in his prime. He perfectly captures the smooth, in control but on the edge persona of Fast Eddie, who has the physical tools, but not necessarily the mental skills to be a champion. Gleason likewise perfectly fills the body and clothes of Minnesota Fats, with a graceful elegance uncommon to a man of his size. Scott (who declined his Oscar nomination) could easily have been overshadowed in his role, but his subtle and shifty eyes and movements create a character that occasionally outshines his two huge co-stars.

The Hustler reaches its zeniths when at least two of these men are on the screen. The dialogue exchanges of Newman and Scott as they feel each other out crackle with intensity. Gleason and Scott ooze wary respect for each other; and Newman and Gleason combine admiration and competitiveness into one neat package from which the entire film derives its energy.

A film about pool sharks seems to demand brilliant representation of its colorful world. But French cinematographer Eugene Shuftan instead opts for black-and-white, which surprisingly works wonderfully. His Oscar-winning imagery particularly excels in displaying light and shadows, such as the sun streaming into smoke-filled billiards halls. Shuftan accomplishes an exceptional feat, using a monotone style to effectively paint vivid pictures.

Despite high achievement in so many areas, The Hustler suffers from Doughnut Syndrome: there's a hole in the middle. The pool scenes that bracket the story are very good, and one middle scene between Newman and Scott is the best of the film, but the romantic portion of the story flounders. The drifter Newman falls for a fellow drifter (Piper Laurie) for no apparent reason, other than alcohol and the fact that they're both alone. To their credit, they do acknowledge that their relationship is flimsy and depraved, but the movie squanders too much times on this wafer-thin story arc, rather than stick with what works.

Those parts succeed wildly, about as enjoyable as any scenes ever shot, but without adequate buttressing material, the film as a whole falls short of the high watermark left by its parts.

Bottom Line: Phenomenal at times, but subpar at others, the male performances carry the film. Seven of ten, but definitely worth viewing if you haven't seen it yet.

Edit: In my memory, I'd bump this up a notch, because parts were off-the-charts good. But I don't recall the weaker portions, which means they were probably as mediocre as I originally thought.

The Dark Knight

The Dark Knight has received near-universal praise from critics and fans alike. Its Rotten Tomatoes rating is well over 90%. It currently hold the #1 spot on IMDb's Top 250. Amidst the massive praise, I'm here to tell you...that everyone is right, even if they don't know why.

The Dark Knight picks up not long after Batman Begins ended, with Christian Bale's Bruce Wayne living in high society by day and his Batman fighting crime at night. The Gotham City public is still unsure of Batman's intentions, considering him equal parts threat and savior. Into this gray area shoots The Joker, the best screen incarnation of evil I have ever seen.

The late Heath Ledger turns in a performance worth of all accolades he has received, completely disappearing into the twisted role. The makeup aids in the transformation, but more impressive is Ledger's intentional body language, which is utterly creepy in its remarkable precision. The Joker is not the extravagantly villainous psychopath most often seen in comic book movies. Instead he is the worst sort of enemy, measured and deliberate, every bit the equal of any superhero. Alfred sums up what makes Joker unique, pointing out that he has no defined agenda, but "just wants to watch the world burn." Chaos is Joker's goal, making him the best film equivalent of the Devil that I have ever seen. Ledger's death undeniably overlays his jaw-dropping performance with an layer of requiem that evokes an inimitable combination of ache and awe, but regardless of the real-life influences, he owns the role and the screen every second he is seen.

In addition to Ledger, the other not-to-be-overlooked actors are far better than the latest young stars often crammed into comic book movies. Bale's fierce intensity matches Ledger's show-stopping performance with a range of emotions so effective that his turn will likely be underappreciated. Maggie Gyllenhaal is a brilliant choice as Rachel Dawes, displaying more acting chops in her first thirty seconds on screen than Katie Holmes did in two hours of the prequel. What Gyllenhaal may lack in traditional beauty she more than makes up for with her carriage and attitude. As the never-quite-trustworthy district attorney Harvey Dent, Aaron Eckhart brings the precise amount of slickness, leaving the viewer riding shotgun with Batman, appropriately unsure of Dent's motive and actions. Add in Gary Oldman and Michael Caine, who are both again perfect in their roles as the world-weary cop and the eye-twinkling butler, and the result is a cast perfect for this brooding drama.

Some have labeled this the best comic book movie ever. I will call it the best such comic book adaptation (perhaps not movie), but TDK transcends superhero flicks, morphing into a massive crime drama that is more Heat than Spider-man. TDK elevates the genre with masterful filmmaking and acting. The story is an impressively choreographed roller coaster that scarcely relents over two and a half hours. If the film has a weakness, it might be the flawless complexity of the plot, but given the perfection of the characters, that potential issue is easily overlooked.

Gotham City is once again a bleak world in which hope seems nearly lost, a dark place both figuratively and literally. Although a cloak of evil threatens to overwhelm both the city and the viewer, the blackness is shattered by two shafts of light. One inspiration is of course Batman, who parallels Joker's diabolical plots with his drive to save an ignorant people from their bleak situation. Batman's determination and actions subtly call to mind a greater savior from 2,000 years ago (thanks to Ben N. for that one). The other stems from from a surprising late decision made by endangered Gothamites. These two sparks of optimism provide a dawn to the dark night that dominates the film.

On top of TDK's quality and the extra layer that Heath Ledger's death adds to the proceedings, I aver that that these redeeming qualities are a strong reason for the film's immense popularity. Without a small but vital sense of optimism, The Dark Knight might veer down a depressing trail blazed by movies like Sin City. Instead, the threads of good woven into the fabric of the story leave a pleasant aftertaste and elevate TDK to a level never before reached by comic book movies. Like classics such as Star Wars and Raiders of the Lost Ark, The Dark Knight possesses an admirable soul that stirs emotions in ways that ordinary films can not.

A perfect confluence of events have made The Dark Knight a phenomenon, more cinematic experience than mere movie. But had the film itself not matched the massive hype, even the intriguing subplots of anticipation and reality could not have salvaged it from plunging into the abyss of disappointment. Instead, the high production value, equally impressive performances, and positive spirit amplify the expectations into an all-encompassing appreciation for what may be the best film of the year.

Bottom Line: 10 of 10, equal parts quality and entertainment. Movies don't get much better than this.

The Happening.

As Jasien commented on my Top Ten of 2007, I have a weakness for M. Night Shyamalan movies, so I was eagerly anticipating his latest film, The Happening, which promised something appropriately bizarre and mysterious.

Similar to Steven Spielberg's War of the Worlds, the film follows on a primary protagonist through a catastrophic event. Instead of Tom Cruise surviving aliens, Mark Wahlberg faces an unknown pandemic that is causing people to kill themselves.

I liked several things about The Happening, most of them Shyamalan-specific. I love the way he shoots films, with long, dramatic takes and extended reactions. These enrapturing skills ratchet up the tension and tug the viewer along. His premises are also clever, expanding simple ideas into bigger stories that impact people on a personal level.

Both skills are present in The Happening, which does have its moments. Normally mundane shots are transformed into moments of dramatic terror, aided by effective music that borders on cheesy. Seeing the reactions of normal people in extreme circumstances is always evocatively fascinating, even if the arc of emotions is somewhat predictable.

But even these great techniques aren't enough to save the movie, which doesn't possess the rich layers present in most of Shyamalan's work. The story may be too simplistic, and the characters are largely one-dimensional, not helped by Shyamalan's style of minimalistic acting. As a microcosm of the entire cast, the usually solid Mark Wahlberg does not exhibit the ability of a Willis or Gibson to subtly create emotions. Without the personal connection, a movie that relies on making that connection fails to intrigue as it should.

In the hands of a different director, The Happening might be considered more of a success, an entertaining movie that really isn't very good. But Shyamalan has set the bar so high for himself, that fair or unfair, the built-in expectations are not met.

Bottom Line: I enjoyed the experience, but the movie simply wasn't very good. 4/5 for likability, 2/5 for quality. 6 of 10 overall, and that's coming from a huge M. Night Shyamalan fan.

Prince Caspian.

I've said this before, and I'll say it again. The Chronicles of Narnia are my favorite books ever. I love them. However when it comes to the movies, I understand that changes need to be made to make them more movie friendly. A strict faithfulness to the books might result in uninspired adaptations like the first two Harry Potter movies, which were okay, but lacked the cinematic wow factor of the third. A balance between loyalty and license must be found, and that's always a difficult tightrope to tread.

Having said that, I'm going to discuss Prince Caspian two ways: First comes my attempt at a traditional review, largely void of book comparisons. Then more of a movie-book open forum, filled with SPOILERS, with thoughts on the various similarities and differences. Here we go...

In case you haven't seen the trailer, Prince Caspian occurs one year after The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe. One year of time in the Pevensies' world, but over a thousand years in Narnia. The four children soon get to Narnia, where they soon find themselves in the midst of a conflict between Narnians and the Telmarines, an enemy intent on their destruction. The titular character is a young Telmarine who sides with the Narnians and hopes to restore their glory, although he is still learning about their plight and history.

Much like its predecessor, Prince Caspian effectively creates the world of Narnia, complete with anthropomorphic creatures, both familiar and mythical. With improved CGI, the wizards at WETA have created several impressive characters, like Trufflehunter the Badger. Others, like Reepicheep and Pattertwig, seem more cartoonish, but some of that can be chalked up to the mere curiosity of large talking rodents. Establishing this world is vital, because the entire appeal of the movie, to all parties, depends upon this engaging culture.

The movie generates several fantastic movie moments ranging from a rearing centaur to Lucy's wide-eyed face of wonder. The ability to do both big and small moments well keeps the film moving from start to finish. The battle scenes are generally impressive, longer and more intense than LWW, but still lighter than Lord of the Rings, which is obviously a model for this movie. What makes Caspian interesting are the soft scenes in between, when you learn of characters' inner turmoil and motivations, and you are more likely to hear the smile-inducing beauty of familiar lines quoted directly from the book. Having said that, nearly all of the characters could use a little fleshing out. Most of them find their key note or two and play it a little too often, and conflict seems occasionally forced. With five primary characters plus several key supporting roles, the screen time for each is limited, a necessary but unfortunate evil that results in the partial misrepresentation of a few participants.

Without delving too deeply into the comparisons (see below), I will say that during the movie, many of the deviations from the book seemed to make sense cinematically, and a few other creations were executed well enough despite their seeming betrayal of the book. In the end, the pure Narnia-ness of everything overpowered the occasional raised eyebrow and allowed me to enjoy the unique world portrayed on screen.

LWW was clearly a better movie for those who had cherished the book. In many ways, Prince Caspian is the opposite. Book loyalists may be driven mad by the variations, even though the movie itself is cumulatively better.

Bottom Line: I loved the movie, not in a this-is-the-best-movie-ever sort of way, but because of how much the story and characters mean to me. But it was still a pretty good movie. 8 of 10.

Ratings note: There's no way this should have been rated merely PG. Many thought LWW should have been PG-13, and this is much more violent. With the exception of a semi-seen decapitation, it isn't very graphic, but it is violent. Don't take young kids.


Now, on to more entertaining things...

***MAJOR SPOILER ALERT!!!***

There were plenty of changes, both big and small. Although the big ones will gain more notoriety, the small ones bugged me more. Let's take a look...

--As I mentioned above, on the whole, I'm okay with most of the changes. Quite frankly, a straightforward adaptation of the book would have been fairly dull. There isn't much conflict, on an interpersonal or intercultural scale, which would have made for a movie that would interest the book-lovers, but alienate the general public. I don't agree with everything that was altered, but I do understand the cinematic reasons behind many of the changes.

--While much of the book is told in flashback, the movie runs the stories parallel, which is a very good decision. The opening sequence of Caspian fleeing the castle is excellent, quickly sucking the viewer into the world of Narnia.

--The most obvious addition is the raid on Miraz' castle, which in the book is merely a quickly discarded suggestion by Reepicheep. However it worked very well in the movie, allowing for some sweet scenes involving eagles/griffins and various other fighting Narnians. It also eliminated the one weakness of the book, which is the deus ex machina feel that the Pevensies bring when they quickly end the succinct conflict. The battle and its fallout also adds to the contrived Peter-Caspian issues the movie portrays. I was okay with this whole sequence, because it worked well within the movie, and it was entertaining to see familiar characters in new and exciting circumstances.

--When the trailer showed the White Witch, I was a little concerned, since the only mention of her in the book was when Nikabrik fondly mentions her as a possibility of their cause. In the movie, that comment is expanded into a scene in which two creatures use Dark Magic to revive her. With lines pulled straight from the book, they nearly seduce both Caspian and Peter into her trap. This scene was brilliant, a great dramatic addition. It also let Edmund pull off perhaps my favorite swordfighting move of the film, when he raced up a couple steps before whirling and crashing his sword down on the head of the pursuing werewolf, before going on to save the day.

--My only problem with this scene is one that pervades the movie: Edmund is more Peter than Peter is. While Peter does make one bad decision in the book, it is an anomaly, not a character flaw. The movie plays Peter and Caspian off each other frequently, and Peter is usually portrayed in a less flattering light. He should be the High King, demanding and giving respect, not making multiple ill-fated choices. To me, these alterations are more disappointing than adding a massive battle, because they violate the spirit of the book, the maintenance of which is the key in adapting literature to the big screen.

--C.S. Lewis was very intentional not to include Susan and Lucy in battles. Maybe this seems a bit old-fashioned now, but I was still cringing as Susan again waded into the thick of war, going all Legolas with her bow and arrow. Even Lucy became slightly involved, which was even more disturbing. I admit that Susan's role in particular was consistent and worked fairly well, but like the tweaks to Peter's character, felt that it violated the spirit of the book a good deal.

--Caspian himself is played around age 20, which is about six years older than he is in the book. But given the movie that was being made, he had to be 20. A 14-year old Caspian would not have fit into the more violent movie. I think he also should have had golden hair, per Voyage of the Dawn Treader, but I can't say that bothered me much. Lucy was also blonde in LWW, but I always thought of her as brunette for some reason. Plus Georgie Henley captures her sense of innocence and wonder so perfectly that I could care less.

--From reading one message board, plenty of people are bent out of shape by the Caspian-Susan romantic angle, particularly by her goodbye kiss. I would also rather the whole arc have been omitted, but at least it didn't come out of nowhere at the end. Like many other changes, it was executed well enough via numerous hints throughout the film. I was perhaps more annoyed that Susan would flat-out lie to the boy at the train station. I suspect that Lewis would frown more upon a character violation of that ilk.

--I know there were plenty of other omissions, but most were logical. Yes, it would have been great to see the dance on the lawn or the party that Susan and Lucy had with the woodfolk. But scenes like that, although fascinating, would not have advanced the story much. When a book, even a short one like Prince Caspian, is compressed into a 2:20 movie, scenes like that have to go.

Had Peter been portrayed better (it may have something to do with the actor, who never struck me as exceedingly Peter-like) and his invented conflict with Caspian played better, I might have been perfectly content. As it was I was still satisfied. I am extremely excited for Voyage of the Dawn Treader, which will feature the two younger Pevensies, the most likable of the quartet. I think Voyage is the most movie-friendly of all the books, with plenty of opportunities for exceptional scenes and sequences, driven by both action and dialogue.

Top Ten of 2007.

With the summer movie season upon us, I figured it was time to remove the Best of 2007 sword that has been dangling over my head for over two months. I have been very slow getting this out for a couple reasons. There was that whole get-married-and-move-across-the-country thing, which was and is wonderfully time-consuming. Equally causing the delay, though, was the overall mediocrity of movies in 2007. There were a few potentially list-worthy movies I wish I had seen (notable exclusions might include Across the Universe and Into the Wild), but I still took in all five Best Picture nominees and saw a similar number of movies, my usual assortment of blockbusters and indie flicks.

As I slowly compiled this list, I realized that I could make a legitimate case that NONE of these ten movies would find a place on last year’s Top Ten. That’s not quite an argument I fully believe, but the mere fact that the case is close enough to be considered speaks volumes about my tepidity toward the movies of 2007. Most years, I have to whittle down fifteen to twenty movies to my final Top Ten. This year, I had a legitimate five or six movies that I wanted to include, then had to reluctantly fill in the holes. Even the top of the list didn’t feel as grand as in recent years. When I put together my Top Ten of the Decade in a couple years (and don’t think I haven’t started already), 2007 may not be represented at all.

So although I was tempted to leave a big empty spot in the middle of the list, I trudged through and came up with a final cut. Here’s to a better 2008. Without further ado, here (finally) are my Top Ten Movies of 2007. (I guess.)

Honorable Mention: There Will Be Blood. This may have been the finest crafted film of 2007. Everything about the movie was done phenomenally: directing, acting, music, cinematography...everything. But I didn't like it at all. This will be a prime example used when I divulge my newly tweaked rating system. On with the show...


10. Live Free or Die Hard. As the latest in one of my favorite movie series, this one had the inside track to be the year’s best movie. But it still had to deliver, and did so in fine style. Following Bruce Willis’ cue, humor was naturally woven into the movie, not forced like too many movies do. The action was big and physical, even a little over-the-top, but the whole thing was so much fun that it didn’t matter. This is as good as popcorn flicks get. Best movie of the year.

9. The Mist. I didn’t particularly like this horror movie, which was adapted from a Stephen King novel, but I cannot deny its craftsmanship. It effectively executes staples of the genre such as suspense and things attacking. What separates Mist from most of its tripe-infested relatives is its psychological side. King has long been a master at invading the human mind in print, but that aspect has not always made the journey to screen. Director and screenwriter Frank Darabont incisively translates King’s material, adding an edge that is simultaneously fascinating and disturbing. This is NOT a movie I strongly recommend, and please don't show it ANY kids. But I was riveted by its tense dive into the human psyche.

8. Away From Her. An interesting study of what happens when half of an older couple gets Alzheimer’s. The leads are quite good, and it’s a fascinating observation of love and what one does for it in extreme circumstances. The movie feels like a ridiculously well done educational film, and I mean that as a compliment. It’s not a light movie, and tears may very well flow, but it will make you think about life and love like few other movies will.

7. Once. To be honest, when I first saw this movie about a street musician who finds his muse, I thought it was okay, a nice indie film propelled by enjoyable indie music. Since then, I’ve been swayed by numerous friends who have loved it, and by the infectious songs that carry the delightful movie. It’s not a great piece of cinema, but it does avoid the pitfalls that likely would have derailed a mainstream movie. The largely untrained actors mesh well with the movie’s budget-induced style, producing a sweet, watchable story that plays extremely well on DVD.

6. Atonement. This is a somewhat speculative placement for this love story stretched across class and war. Although I only saw the movie once, I believe that a second viewing, with a few things known, would make the film even more powerful. The typewriter-laced score is the best film music of the year and actually plays a role in the plot as well. The rest of the film’s technical aspects are solid too, particularly a massive and lengthy single shot that reminds of last year’s Children of Men work. Although the romantic angle struggles at times, once the entirety of the picture is seen, the whole can be appreciated as well as its parts.

5. The Bourne Ultimatum. While Live Free or Die Hard is a better movie, this is a better film, the best action-powered one of the year. From the breakneck pace of the opening scene to the series’ trademark fight and chase scenes, the third installment of Bourne is nearly as good as the original. Strong supporting turns from veterans like David Straithairn and Joan Allen buttress Damon’s underappreciated work and help shape the solid plot that plays the role of backseat driver, pushing the movie along via the various exhilarating action scenes. This probably won’t be the end of the Bourne saga, but it would be a worthy close to a very good trilogy.

4. Sunshine. This movie was almost completely ignored, which is an utter shame, because it is the best sci-fi movie since 2002’s Minority Report. It’s the story of an eight-person crew on a dangerous space mission (is there any other kind?) to reignite the sun, and the various physical and mental effects of their journey. The characters are well-rounded enough to be very likable and engaging, and a pervasive element of mystery drives the movie forward for its entirety. If you want a good ride of a DVD, you won’t find much better from last year.

3. Ratatouille. Although it is not an action movie in the vein of The Incredibles, this latest Pixar accomplishment is an amazingly kinetic movie. Focusing on the adventures of a rat named Remy with a culinary flair, the movie traverses the French countryside and cityscape. from Remy’s perspective. Pixar’s trademark sense of humor and morality is everywhere, as is a European flavor. The movie expertly incorporates clever dialogue, slapstick comedy, and visual jokes that take advantage of the gorgeous animation. Pixar keeps setting the bar extremely high, but they keep also clearing it easily. Ratatouille might not be quite as kid-friendly as some of their movies, and it's almost boring to put it so high, but it is that good.

2. No Country for Old Men. I went back and forth on the order of these top two for a long time. Ultimately it settled here, even though this is the best made film of the year, deserving of its Best Picture Oscar, and may have a better chance of making a best of the 2000s list. For an old-fashioned, slow motion chase movie set along the Texas-Mexico border, the movie possesses perfect pacing and sublime acting performances. The characters, both primary and secondary, are fantastic. Aside from the nebulous finale, which didn’t bother me that much, the only drawback is that while the film is enjoyable, it isn’t easy to like. It lacks a soul, despite Tommy Lee Jones’ best efforts. That’s what sets it apart from…

1. The Kingdom. While it may not be the year’s best-made film, I liked it more than any other, and that affinity pushed this story of Middle East conflict to the top of my list. I love the way that it combines white-knuckle action with social exploration and human drama. Played by familiar actors in unique roles, the characters are much deeper than most, with real emotions pouring out of protagonists, antagonists, and those in between. Kingdom raises many questions and answers enough of them to result in a satisfying movie experience. The end is not neat or convenient, but still manages to leave a small smile on your face, and the subtle music captures the story’s poignancy in hauntingly fine style, allowing the film to linger long after the credits roll.


A few miscellaneous awards...

Worst Movie: Transformers. I say this with no exaggeration: Transformers is the worst movie that I’ve ever seen in a theater, a movie by which all future bad movies will be measured. From the melodramatic opening voiceover, it was sliding down a slippery slope to failure. Not even impressive special effects could salvage the catastrophic script.

Batman & Robin Award (Worst Sequel): Pirates of the Caribbean 3: At World’s End. At least the series is over now…right? Please?

Unbreakable Award (Best Trailer): I Am Legend. This was the definition of a fantastic trailer. It showed the situation the main character was in, but didn’t explain how he got to be there or what happened next, piquing interest without revealing ANYTHING. Well done, and it would ordinarily be the best trailer of the year, were it not for…1-18-08, which elevated the trailer art form to a new high. Too bad the movie wasn't that great.

Catch Me If You Can Award (Best Opening Credits): The Kingdom, where superb and necessary background information was provided in entertaining fashion through maps and timelines. They properly set the stage for a great movie.

Snake Eyes Award (movie that took a dive in the last act): 3:10 to Yuma certainly could have won this prize, with its ridiculously improbable shootout of an ending. But even a decent close would not have made it a great movie. I Am Legend, on the other hand, could easily have been one of the year’s five best had its third act measured up to its previous two.

The Interpreter Award (movie that did the least with the most pedigree): Charlie Wilson’s War. Somehow a movie written by Aaron Sorkin, starring Tom Hanks and Julia Roberts, and featuring a stellar supporting turn by Phillip Seymour Hoffman, all as larger than life characters, failed to engage much at all. I still haven't figured this one out.

So there it is, finally. Iron Man and Prince Caspian have 2008 off to a good start. Let's hope it continues.

I am Iron Man.

And so it begins. The summer movie season is upon us. Let's roll.

(My Top Ten of 2007 is coming...I promise.)

Marvel Comics continues its assault on the big screen with Iron Man, a different sort of superhero movie that successfully finds a unique niche within a genre bordering on staleness.

I think that for the majority of moviegoers, myself included, the character of Iron Man does not possess the potent mythos of more popular characters like Batman or Superman. There haven't been crazy successful films or television shows to enhance Iron Man's legacy to my generation. I knew the ten-word backstory -- Tony Stark...rich, smart guy...caught in a war...supersuit -- but that was about it. So the movie's challenge was seducing fence-sitters like me, to succeed where heroes like Spider-man and The Fantastic Four failed. In the end, the anonymity may have helped, luring people in as the movie revealed the story of an intriguing hero.

The movie's appeal stems from its star, Robert Downey, Jr., who seems like an odd superhero choice initially, but given the playfully dramatic tone of the movie, he is a perfect fit. Stark is no gentleman, but rather a Bond-esque playboy, wild yet likable, appealing to the bad boy in everyone, and Downey drills the part. From his work blooms an irreverent tone that encompasses the whole movie, all the way down to the electric guitar-infused soundtrack. Downey brands the movie with his humor, but rounds it out with his dramatic ability. One particular mid-movie scene is mesmerizing as Downey explains the reasons and emotions behind Stark's decisions. That scene exhibits what separates Iron Man from most comic book movies: the sincerity of the serious moments. Adding to the singularity is the way that Downey lends an element of high society that mixes oddly with the harsh reality of the war in Afghanistan. It is a strange juxtaposition, much different than the consistently dark world of Batman or the idealized world of Superman. Although jarring at first, the end result is that the realism grounds the movie, eliminating any pretentious air while also preventing a descent into camp.

Origin stories frequently make for the best comic book movies, because the required background tales add dimensions and levels of believability, as they do here. The origin story in Iron Man enhances the overall pacing, which is excellent, beginning at the beginning and building throughout to a timely final act. The movie clocks in at just over two hours, perfect for a good piece of entertainment like this.

Let's hope that the rest of summer's promising slate lives up to the hype as well as Iron Man.

Bottom Line: As the first movie of the summer season, Iron Man may get the benefit of a doubt, but so be it. It's a great ride. 8 of 10 on my newly revised (and soon to be explained) rating scale.

Cloverfield.

Cloverfield is the brainchild of producer J.J. Abrams, the man behind other cult-ish media like television's Lost and Alias. The exceptional first trailer established the simple premise. Something attacks New York City; chaos ensues. That preview combined with a well-executed buzz-inducing marketing strategy to create the rare eagerly anticipated January release.

What is Cloverfield? Much of the movie’s entertainment is derived from its mystery, so all you get is: something attacks New York city; chaos ensues. If you're worried about this being an I Am Legend retread, forget about that. In a way this is the opposite of I Am Legend. Much of that movie was a slow build, not so much about the action as the psychological side of isolation and determination; this is different. The first half hour is far too long and uninteresting as it introduces the main characters, a group of twenty-something yuppies at a going-away party in New York City. You could show up thirty minutes late and not miss a thing. Then a seismic event occurs, triggering mild panic that soon morphs into complete bedlam, and the fast-paced remainder of the movie unfolds in quasi-real time.

All of this so far may sound (and is) mildly interesting, but the selling point of Cloverfield is this: the movie is shot in the first person, as though from a personal camcorder. There are no wide shots, no big pictures to set the scene, and nothing to relate the scope of what might be happening. The camera is always held by one of the characters, unless it is momentarily dropped or set down. The movie even features cut-in portions of what was previously on the tape before the fateful day's events were recorded. The shaky picture often makes Bourne Supremacy look stable and provides only a partial view of the various occurrences, a clever technique that is both intriguing and annoying in its unconventionality. Though the idea is not completely novel (see: The Blair Witch Project), such an approach is unique enough to entertain on its own merit. It’s actually the best part of the movie, even though the lack of full information is often frustrating. Since the camera tracks the same people throughout the movie, the humanity should be a main hook. However none of the main characters are remotely interesting or sympathetic. Thus the human drama is disappointingly minimal, and the narrative power of the movie is almost non-existent, nowhere near the brilliant concept’s potential.

With its handheld camera and viral internet marketing strategy, Cloverfield is undoubtedly trying to capitalize on and connect with the YouTube generation. The approach fails in part because handheld shots work far better in a secondary or tertiary role. As the primary method of informing, such a process can be as bothersome as it is creative. With that aspect inconsistently entertaining and the catastrophe never entirely explained, the movie's momentum occasionally falters, forcing one to more deeply ponder what the heck is happening.

The anticipatory bar is set high enough that Cloverfield has very little chance of living up to the hype. But the problem is not the massive buildup, but that the movie itself is simply not very interesting beyond its excellent cinematographical gimmick and the big question of WHAT IS IT? Perhaps those who have absorbed themselves in the web chatter surrounding the movie will think otherwise.

Bottom Line: Cloverfield gets a borderline recommendation for the filmmaking experiment, but the story sinks otherwise. 5 of 10.

P.S. Rumors are that a sequel may be in store, with the intent of showing the entire debacle from a different person’s video camera, which would be another interesting experiment.

Juno.

Independent films are an interesting breed. Made outside the mainstream studio structure, the best ones compensate for their lower production value with a better story and characters. Every year an indie or two does captures the collective fascination of critics and the public by doing so. This year's darling is Juno, the name of the newly pregnant teenage girl around whom the simple story revolves. (Audio review here.)

Like many such films, Juno's strengths lie in its unique characters. Foremost among them is the titular one, who has a singular vernacular and attitude that carries the movie. As she decides what to do with the child, she must also deal with the various reactions from her family and friends. But rather than become depressed or reclusive, Juno instead chooses a positive approach, dealing with her issues directly and responsibly. This leads to a relatively sunny take on subjects often approached in a dark or politically charged manner. The movie does tell you what to think about issues; it does not argue strongly either way; it just tells you what characters are doing, and gives a little of their rationale, somewhat like Clint Eastwood's phenomenal Million Dollar Baby a few years back.

On one hand, making light of serious situations like abortion and divorce feels wrong. Conversely, the ability and opportunity to laugh at potentially overbearing situations is a relief, and it is part of what makes us human. While such reactions likely would not be appropriate in reality, movies are not reality, but an escape in which a little levity is more than appropriate.

From the guitar-laced harmonic strains of its soundtrack to the aforementioned quirky characters, Juno is a quintessential indie flick. Like Garden State, it has a few transcendent glimpses into the human soul, but they are too few and far between to carry the movie to extreme heights. Like Little Miss Sunshine, it places quirky characters into unusual and often comic circumstances, but the humorous moments here do not approach the hilarity of Little Miss Sunshine. Most of the comedy is based upon the unique dialogue or the continual series of culture clashes between Juno and everyone, which are amusing throughout.

Some critics (Roger Ebert) are hailing Juno as the year's best film, which is a drastic overstatement. Such grand labels are a joke, and a statement on how monotonous comedies have become. Its ipseity amidst the dramatic leanings of most Oscar contenders makes the movie better and more enjoyable than it actually should be. Juno is a cool breeze drifting through an open window, not an eye-popping blast from the air conditioner. It is enjoyable and well-crafted, not the best film of the year, maybe a fringe contender for the top ten.

Bottom Line: The movie is equivalent to its main character: cute and likeable, but lacking in a few areas. Recommended primarily for indie fans. 7 of 10.

Side Note: As I mentioned in an earlier comment, after this year's Oscars, I'm blowing up my rating system and starting anew. I'm tired of giving everything a seven.