Slake

Hope springs eternal, even for the Royals.

2011-02-14T07:33:00.001-05:00

"Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies." -- Andy Dufresne

The Royals pitchers and catchers report today, marking the start of another baseball season. Although the spring in spring training doesn't mean much when there are still piles of snow taller than Randy Johnson around, the more important portent is hope.

Even for Royals fans who fully expect their team to lose 100 games this season, hope still exists. Hope for a championship or merely a playoff berth...heck, even an 80-win season...is extremely minuscule, but hope still exists.

Hope exists in the little things like the green of the grass, the elegant simplicity of the KC logo, and Alcides Escobar's glove. Hope exists in big things like the crown scoreboard and Billy Butler's bat. And hope exists in between, in the spray of the fountains, the smack of ball into glove, and the hook of Joakim Soria's curve.

Hope exists because sometimes hope is rewarded, by the playoff push of 2003 or Zack Greinke's unforgettable 2009 season. No one expected Joey Votto to be the NL MVP last season. No one thought the Rangers would get to the World Series. No one thought the Giants would win it. Sometimes hope triumphs.

And so we Royals fans hope. Maybe Luke Hochevar will harness the potential he flashed in his 80-pitch complete game. Maybe Lorenzo Cain is the truth in center field. Maybe Alex Gordon will finally turn into Alex Gordon. Perhaps a few vaunted prospects will be shining by the All-Star Break. Perhaps by season's end, the bright future of 2012 will be blinding.

Maybe none of those things will happen. Maybe they all will. As camp opens, the beauty lies in the brilliant possibilities of the unknown. That's why we believe. That's why we hope.

The Fighter.

2010-12-25T20:44:00.002-05:00

As expected, The Fighter is a sports movie. The basic story is familiar to anyone who's seen a sports movie, and little is surprising along the way. All of which makes the superior nature of the film even more remarkable.

The Fighter succeeds because it does everything well, particularly the acting and the pacing. The performances are what make the movie, as the familiarity of the genre allows the actors to shine. The Fighter would have been good with lesser actors, but the strong leads and stellar supporting cast elevate the film to Oscar contender.

Christian Bale will justifiably win awards for his masterful portrayal of the drug-addicted former boxer Dicky Eklund. Amy Adams will rightfully earn plaudits for sassily playing against type as a hard-edged bartender turned determined muse. The supporting cast is pitch-perfect in their various quirky roles. Amidst all the characters, Mark Wahlberg is the glue of the film as the titular Micky Ward, who battles adversity both in and out of the ring. Several other roles are showier, and the part may not be a big stretch for the Boston-born tough guy, but Wahlberg holds the story together with his more-difficult-than-it-looks combination of fierceness and likability.

In a cinematic age with too many bloated films, The Fighter moves steadily along, avoiding the superfluous scenes that plague most movies. Yet director David O. Russell hits all the necessary notes flawlessly and still finds time for beautiful small moments, from a tender hand holding to the jotting of a number to a passionate celebratory kiss. These poignant instants put the finishing touches on a thoroughly enjoyable drama.

The Fighter is more than just a good sports movie. It's a great movie regardless of genre, featuring numerous outstanding performances. 9 of 10, which feels high, but I don't think anything could have been done better.

The Voyage of the Dawn Treader.

2010-12-12T17:31:00.002-05:00

The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe will always be the best Narnia story, because it's the original. But Voyage of the Dawn Treader has long been my favorite, due to a seamless blend of mysterious adventure and thought-provoking morality. With its episodic island-hopping, Dawn Treader always seemed the most cinematic book of the series, although I think it would make an even better single season of television.

Similar to the film version of Prince Caspian, Dawn Treader largely fails to capture the book's true spirit, which is the main element I ask for in an adaptation. By adding a singular theme of good and evil, the movie does drive forward more easily, but inserting the layer of intentionality ends up depriving the story of its wide-eyed adventure, particularly when the climax doesn't match the buildup. In trying to make Dawn Treader a more conventional tale, the filmmakers neutered too much of the narrative's soul.

Traces of the book's heart do shine through occasionally in small but thrilling moments involving Lucy's smiles, a dragon's tears, Reepicheep's valor and Aslan's words. Even filmmakers who don't truly understand the book can't screw up these remarkable moments, which make the movie worthwhile for Narnia lovers. Perhaps the best part was the credits, which featured colorized versions of the book's original drawings. Those were fantastic.

I suspect that those unfamiliar with the book will still enjoy the movie, perhaps even moreso. Dawn Treader isn't a bad watch. Frankly, it was about what I expected, though less than I hoped. 6 of 10.

One other side note...

I can usually understand why changes are made to source material, even extreme changes like those in Dawn Treader. I get that they wanted a more substantive antagonist. Fine. Reepicheep should have had darker fur...but maybe a lighter color looks better on film. Caspian should be blond...I guess he looked better as a brunette. I can even accept bigger things like Ray Liotta batting from the wrong side as Joe Jackson in Field of Dreams; he was the perfect actor for the part otherwise. Okay, I get it. What I'll never understand is why small things are changed. For example, in the book Eustace puts the bracelet on his left arm, not his right, as he does in the movie. In HP4, why is Hermione's dress pink instead of blue? Why can't filmmakers get simple facts correct? What legitimate reason could there possibly be for changing those things? Maybe it's just laziness or apathy, but that inattention to detail is too often a microcosm of what frequently separates movies like these from phenomena like The Lord of the Rings.

Inception.

2010-08-10T21:47:00.002-04:00

Inception is yet another extremely well-made film by Christopher Nolan**. A fascinating idea executed perfectly by a strong ensemble of actors and a high-caliber technical crew.

The visual effects are very impressive and occasionally wow-inducing, so seamless and story-serving that they are almost overlooked. Avatar is a drastically different movie from Inception, but each uses visual effects perfectly, integrating them as part of the narrative rather than mere flashy eye candy.

Given the vibe of confusion emanating from Inception's buzz, I expected a labyrinthine story but was pleasantly surprised by its simplicity. The basic narrative structure is complex but fairly straightforward. It requires attention and thought but not to a painful degree, creating an excellent cinematic experience for those who want a dose of intellect with their entertainment. The production team deserves significant credit for that, as the various unique visuals made it easy to track the different arcs occurring simultaneously.

The film's primary shortcoming was the relatively weak emotional link. While most all the characters were likable, only one was fully three-dimensional, and his main emotional arc was more intriguing than engaging, interesting more as a plot device than for emotional reasons. Perhaps another viewing would enhance the emotional ties, which were overshadowed by the compelling main narrative. Inception was still a magnetic thriller despite that flaw, which speaks to how strong the mental and visual pulls were.

Inception may have been undone a bit by its own expectations. Despite reading little about it, but the positive buzz was unavoidable. I expected at least an 8 out of 10, so when I got exactly that, I wasn't underwhelmed; I was simply whelmed. Just like the United States soccer team, the movie met expectations so precisely that more seemed possible.

The best films execute inherently great emotional narratives in near-flawless fashion. Inception was a great story executed in that way but lacked power-infusing themes. 8/10 for the best film thus far this year (okay...it's actually the first 2010 movie I've seen in a theater).

**Can we discuss how ridiculously good Christopher Nolan is? Look at his six major films. Memento and The Dark Knight were two of the ten best films last decade. The Prestige and Batman Begins weren't far behind. Insomnia was well-made and decent, though a couple notches behind the other five, including Inception. That's an absurd career-opening run. He's the Albert Pujols of film directors.

Rich Heyroth, 1977-2007.

2010-08-05T12:24:00.000-04:00

Bumping this on the three-year anniversary of the day I lost a friend...

(Audio version here)

Before Monday, I did not know Death. We had never met. He visited my neighborhood a few times, draping elderly relatives with his dark blanket, but that's about it. Until this week. Losing a good friend has been a difficult new experience, nowhere near as tough as it is for those closer to him, but difficult nonetheless.

People have a tendency to lionize the deceased, emphasizing the good qualities while ignoring their shortcomings. Somehow every single athlete who dies was the epitome of a family man, and all victims of tragedies powerfully transformed those around them. I tend to look at these flowery obituaries with a raised eyebrow, wondering about the shadows behind the praise. My point in saying this is not necessarily that those hagiographies are contrived, because extreme situations spawn extreme emotions. I merely want to emphasize that I do not throw the following cathartic words out lightly.

Rich Heyroth had an easy-going manner that allowed him to tread the line between friend and authority, both in and out of school. He was three years older than me, but was also deeper in life, already married and working on a child. We were in a Bible study together for a couple years, one that he led without coming across as a leader, but as more of a facilitator. He would often share the struggles of his life and marriage, not in a lecturing or warning manner, but in a simple, matter-of-fact way that oozed honesty. This ability continued when he and Elizabeth had a son last spring. He delighted in fatherhood, eagerly relating stories and lessons that Ethan created. As marriage loomed as a possibilty for me, I relished his encouraging thoughts. He was excited that I was getting married, and I was excited to learn more from his adventures and to share experiences of my own.

His gift of compassionate teaching was evident in the classroom and on the soccer field as well. By watching or reading media coverage or perusing comments on this page, one senses that Rich was the same person regardless of his surroundings. As the de facto Shawnee Heights soccer beat writer this spring, I observed his interactions with the girls team. He was the quintessential likeable assistant coach juxtaposed with the hardline head coach. He could joke and laugh with the bench players and managers with one breath, then bark instructions to a midfielder with the next.

A few years ago in our Bible study, we churned through the Book of Ecclesiastes with the help of Tommy Nelson's excellent book, The Problem of Life with God. Our Sunday School class went through Nelson's video series, A Life Well Lived, shortly thereafter. Appropriately enough, this Sunday we were to finish another run through it. Rich loved Ecclesiastes. As recently as a week before he departed this planet, we glanced at each other after the video, with a smile and a nod that expressed what we both knew: This is great stuff.Little did I know that a few days later, Ecclesiastes would serve as a great comfort. There is a time to be born and a time to die. Apparent injustices will occur, but God is in control. All we can do is be wise, be poised, be bold, and live life to the fullest under what our study termed the umbrella of God. Simple but profoundly insightful instructions.

Rich Heyroth was not a perfect man. Nor did he pretend to be. One of the things that made him so beloved was his ability to recognize his faults and ridicule them. In our fantasy leagues, the race to make certain comments about Rich was not only between Carrs and Congdons, but also against Rich himself. With a good sense of humor in hand, Rich worked hard at his jobs and roofing his house, and played hard when he had spare time, cherishing soccer, softball, and Band of Brothers. My earliest memory of Rich stems from playing chess at a lakehouse one summer. That scene epitomizes him, enjoying the freedoms of summer while actively seeking a challenge. He lived life well, and now he is partying in heaven, Twinkies in hand.

If you're interested in making a donation in Rich's memory, you have plenty of options. Contact Topeka Bible Church for information on donating to a family fund or a memorial fund. You can also participate in this fundraiser.

World Cup Report: Final Musings.

2010-07-11T05:07:00.001-04:00

The end of the World Cup is near. One game remains. I've been in South Africa for over five weeks, living in a hotel, taking a bus back-and-forth to work, watching every single match, Skyping my wife. It's been a bizarre existence.

I've been doing de facto preparations for over two years, since before Euro 2008 and the United States qualifying process began. This feels like the end of an extremely long season. The closest emotional approximations for me are the end of college or perhaps the end of my high school basketball career. I know that I'll wake up tomorrow, and things will be a little different, in a good way.

In the short term, that means getting back to my remarkable wife and spending the next two weeks with her, away from everything. She has been amazingly supportive, and I am blessed beyond words to have her in my life. In the long term, I don't quite know what's next for me professionally. That's a little unnerving, but I know that God has me where I'm supposed to be, which is perhaps the most reassuring feeling in the world. In the longer term, who knows what lies ahead. Maybe another World Cup in four years...maybe not. A lot can change in four years.

During the 2006 World Cup, I was traveling Israel with good friends, perfectly content, but at the same time curious about the future. Little did I know that I had already met my wife-to-be, and that 10 months later I would be engaged. Little did I know that my pipe dream of attending the 2010 World Cup would begin to take shape a year later when I e-mailed a job application to ESPN. Little did I know the massive changes my life would undergo in the next four years.

I can only imagine what changes may occur by the time the 2014 World Cup kicks off in Brazil. Some potential changes seem obvious. Others are fuzzier. Others aren't even in the picture, at least not in my picture. But God has a bigger picture in perfect focus. Hallelujah for that.

In the much smaller picture, there's a game today. Netherlands. Spain. One of these countries will lift the trophy for the first time, ending decades of could've-would've-should've frustration. The emotion will be palpable before, during and after the game. There will be tears of both joy and sorrow. There will be memorable moments and iconic images. Today is the World Cup Final. Today is what's great about sports.

LeGone.

2010-07-09T19:21:00.001-04:00

The LeBron James saga isn't a big deal here in South Africa, but (for better or worse) it became such a big deal in the United States that we even did a promo for it during World Cup coverage. I don't care much about it from an NBA perspective, since I have no rooting interest in the league. I don't think I watched even a half of total NBA coverage this past season. I haven't read much about The Decision. It wasn't on TV here, and I was asleep anyway. But I am intrigued by the decision-making process of one of the best athletes I've ever seen, along with the implications of James stabbing a fanbase in the back by going to Miami.

I'm not necessarily saying that he should have stayed in Cleveland. The Cavaliers have proven that they don't know how to build a team around the most talented player in the league. Then again, it took the Bulls seven years to win a title with Michael Jordan (James just finished his 7th season). But from a pure basketball perspective, nothing made more sense than going to Chicago. He would have one of the best young point guards in the league (Derrick Rose), one of the best power forwards (Carlos Boozer), a very good role-playing center (Joakim Noah), a solid two-guard (Luol Deng), and a promising new coach (Tom Thibodeau). That would be the best starting five in the league, and there's decent talent filling out the roster as well. The only downside is that he will never be Michael Jordan in Chicago. He could win 10 titles there, and he'd never surpass the Jordan legacy.

But that argument can't be used as a reason for choosing Miami, which is Dwyane Wade's town. James will never own the city while Wade is there, and the Heat will never own the city the way the Bulls owned Chicago, which is an exponentially better sports town than Miami. Not to mention the basketball factor, as he's now on a team with three other players (Wade, Bosh, and Chalmers), a few draft picks, and almost no cap space. I'm not convinced that half a dozen minimum-salary guys can fill out a championship roster.

(On a side note, who's happier about all this than Chalmers? He's suddenly running point with two of the five best players in the league, and he owns the number 6 that LeBron wants. What's he going to get for that? A six-figure car? A second home? A small island?)

Putting on my amateur psychologist hat, look at the teams James allegedly roots for: Yankees, Bulls, Cowboys. Notice a common theme? They all had dynasties in the late 1990s, when James was an adolescent. He grew up in a sports-mad state, yet didn't root for any of the area teams. Admittedly, the mediocre Browns were gone for a few years, but the Cavaliers and Indians were consistently in the playoffs. To me, this says that James was missing a father. He didn't and doesn't have that invaluable male influence in his life, someone to teach him things both frivolous and serious, from sports teams to life lessons.

Now this paternal absence is rearing its ugly head again. Much like Tiger Woods since his father passed away, James lacks anyone who will tell him the unvarnished truth with no fear of repercussions. He's surrounded by lifelong friends, which is admirable on one hand and frightening on the other. None of these people appear to have the guts to be straight with him, for fear of losing their hanger-on status. They let him follow this seemingly ideal path to a glamorous Miami Beach lifestyle of fame and fortune without offering any true advice on loyalty or class.

I can hear the whole process...Hey, we should let all these NBA teams treat us like rock stars...then maybe we can get an hour-long special on ESPN to make the announcement...we'll even give the money to charity to look good...you didn't get recruited to college...we deserve all this...who needs Cleveland...they never respected you anyway...let's go party in Miami! Faaaaantastic.

When James played for Cleveland, people outside of Ohio rooted for him (or at least the team). It was a great potential story: Ohio kid grows up to break the Cleveland Curse and lead the hometown Cavaliers to multiple NBA titles. Now what? He's going to a two-decade old team with minimal history in a middling sports town. Outside of Miami, who's going to root for him? NOBODY! Michael Jordan and the Bulls sucked in casual fans from around the country (like me), and James was going down the road. I've watched playoff games simply because he's playing, for the possibility of seeing him do something great. James won't do that in Miami. This whole ridiculous process will make people actively root against him. I hope he fails miserably.

LOST: The End.

2010-05-24T08:15:00.000-04:00

The LOST finale was like a good chunk of the whole series. Characters: great. Powerful moments: ridiculously great. Throwback moments: deliriously enjoyable. Storyline: a little dicey.

I thought the finale was off-the-charts phenomenal until the last few minutes. The highs still greatly outweighed the ambiguity, and the episode still felt right and satisfied on the whole, with a slight aftertaste that wasn't bitter as much as perplexing. But I've always enjoyed LOST more for the characters than the Byzantine plot. If you wanted questions answered, I suspect you were severly disappointed, even angry.

In some ways, LOST reflects life. We don't always get answers, at least not ones we want, and I accept that.

Au revoir to LOST, my favorite television show ever.

Best Films of the 2000s: No. 3.

2010-05-03T10:47:00.001-04:00

No. 3

Million Dollar Baby

Call this the Clint Eastwood representative in the Top Ten. If I expanded the list to 20, I might find room for four more of his films, but this is his best of the decade and thus the only one in the Top Ten.

I didn't know what to expect from Million Dollar Baby. At the time, I was just beginning to discover the greatness of Eastwood. I had loved the previous year's Mystic River, and I knew Baby had excellent reviews. But I still didn't know what I was in for.

Baby turned out to be the most enjoyable drama of the decade, filled with beautiful characters who are never perfect but always engaging. Eastwood is a flawless mix of tenderness and grumpiness as an aged boxing trainer and gym owner. Narrator Morgan Freeman plays the familiar role of wise and reliable friend. These two alone could have carried the movie; they are joy to watch, talking about anything from bleach to socks. As a young lady eager to learn boxing, Hilary Swank impressively meshes with these legends through her fierce determination. The story follows her boxing journey, and more importantly, the trio's various relationships, as they each deal with potent themes of loyalty, forgiveness, and love.

In the final act, Baby journeys to an unexpected moral marsh, one that could easily have overshadowed and swallowed up the preceding greatness. But Eastwood handles the situation delicately, and while a key decision may be overwhelmingly controversial on its own, it works within the film's context merely as a choice that was made.

Like much of Eastwood's directorial work, Baby possesses an elegant simplicity in every element from lighting to cinematography to music. The film plays like a visual symphony, with an engrossing assortment of crescendos and stillness. It's a ideal blend of character and story, guided confidently by the ever-steady hand of Clint Eastwood, who delivers yet another masterpiece.

Best Films of the 2000s
10. Harry Potter & the Prisoner of Azkaban (2004)
9. Memento (2000)
8. Traffic (2000)
7. The Incredibles (2004)
6. Ocean's Eleven (2001)
5. The Dark knight (2001)
4. Cast Away (2000)
3. Million Dollar Baby (2004)
2. Coming soon...

Best Films of the 2000s: No 4.

2010-04-30T08:50:00.001-04:00

No. 4

Cast Away

I can hear Ben screaming already. Too bad, buddy. I love Cast Away in so many ways.

Cast Away is a story of survival, both physical and mental. It's the story of a busy man who must adapt to being stranded on an island, then re-adapt to society once he escapes.

I was annoyed the first time I saw Cast Away, annoyed that the trailers revealed that Tom Hanks gets off the island, annoyed that not enough time was spent on how he re-adjusted, and annoyed at the nebulous ending. But that was a case of not getting what I wanted from the movie rather than understanding and relishing what the film provided.

Upon a second viewing, I fell in love. I fell in love with the beautiful yet terrifying tropical island, with the roller coaster of emotion that Hanks rode, with his undulating determination. No other actor could have or would have attempted what Hanks did (though Will Smith did an admirable imitation in I Am Legend). Not only did Hanks lose 50 pounds for the role, he spent the entire middle half of the film as the only human on screen, co-starring with rocks, trees, and a volleyball. His was one of the best performances I have ever seen. The only reason Russell Crowe won the Oscar was the Academy's ridiculous unwillingness to give Hanks a third statuette.

The filmmakers ultimately made the right decisions in the final act, allowing Hanks to react with appropriate bewilderment at life's simplicities as he re-enters society. Yes, more such scenes would have worked, but I admit they weren't entirely necessary. Their absence allows for one of the most heart-rending scenes of the decade, as Hanks and his former fiancee Helen Hunt figure out what should happen next. The closing scene is a perfect denouement, an ideal reflection of Hanks' mental state.

Cast Away is filled with nearly as much physical and emotional beauty as anything in the 2000s. The film was riveting, impossible to take your eyes off, lest you miss a priceless moment, of which there are plenty. Perhaps the 2000s had a few other films that were better made (The Dark Knight), but I loved Cast Away more.

Best Films of the 2000s: No. 5.

2010-04-25T16:50:00.004-04:00

After creating one of the best origin stories ever with Batman Begins, director Christopher Nolan somehow raised the superhero movie to an entirely new level with The Dark Knight. He crafted a film that transcended the genre. It wasn't just a great comic book movie; it was a great film.

Heath Ledger's requiem performormance as the Joker gets all the accolades, and deservingly so. He embodies the villainous role is a possessive way rarely seen on screen, commanding attention with a breath-taking presence. But Christian Bale's titular character should not be overlooked, for he matches Ledger's intensity throughout. As they engage in a raging physical and emotional battle, each rises to meet the other, forming as great a pair of on-screen rivals as I've ever seen. A strong supporting cast adds significant depth, and the brilliantly dark art design holds everything together perfectly.

The Dark Knight is the Godfather of its kind, a sweeping epic that envelopes the viewer in an dramatic new world. As much psychological crime drama as superhero movie, the film is a vivid cinematic display of good versus evil, surpassing even its own mountain-high expectations.

Best Films of the 2000s: No. 6.

2010-03-27T22:21:00.003-04:00

No. 6

Ocean's Eleven

This is the second movie in my Top Ten featuring Steven Soderburgh as director and cinematographer. Ocean's Eleven couldn't be much different than Traffic. Both are beautifully photographed, and the similarities end there.

Ocean's Eleven was pure fun, and no movie in the 2000s was more rewatchable. Clooney, Pitt, Roberts, and all the actors clearly enjoyed making the movie. More importantly, their experiences translate perfectly to the screen, propelling a story that crackles along at a pace that matches the twinkles in their eyes. The star-studded film is superficially a great heist movie, but is laced with sneaky humor, brilliant writing and beautiful underrated images that elevate the film beyond mere popcorn status.

I've seen Ocean's Eleven dozens of times, and nearly every time I notice something different. Perhaps a glance or a throwaway line, a subtle gesture or a breathtaking camera angle. Piling all of these layers on top of a good piece of entertainment makes for a great film that should be regarded as a classic.

Best Films of the 2000s
10. Harry Potter & the Prisoner of Azkaban (2004)
9. Memento (2000)
8. Traffic (2000)
7. The Incredibles (2004)
6. Ocean's Eleven (2001)
5. Coming soon...

Best Films of the 2000s: No. 7.

2010-03-26T22:38:00.003-04:00

No. 7

The Incredibles

Call this the Pixar representative on the list, as both Wall-E and Finding Nemo were both strong candidates as well. But ultimately, Incredibles won me over the most with a deft combination of action and humor. It's a superhero movie with a Pixar twist, adding clever family dynamics to familiar comic-book action and characters.

The whole film takes known superhero stereotypes and churns them into into a delicious blend of characters that form the foundation of the movie's superb and often subtle comedy. Everyone knows about the practically impervious superhero (Mr. Incredible), but making him a married father of three turns convention on its head. Like Raiders of the Lost Ark, the entire film seems to be winking at the audience, simultaneously paying homage and parodying the superhero genre through all elements, ranging from a witty script containing terms like "monologing" to the wailing horns of the Bond-ian score. For fans of both comic-book movies and animated features (like me), this film hits all the right notes, clearly understanding and utilizing the possibilities of both genres to the fullest extent.

Like all Pixar films, The Incredibles entertains kids with its basic story, but its true achievement extends to all ages, as the film's youthful exuberance and wry sense of humor make it a classic.

Best Films of the 2000s
10. Harry Potter & the Prisoner of Azkaban (2004)
9. Memento (2000)
8. Traffic(2000)
7. The Incredibles (2004)
6. Coming soon...

Best Films of the 2000s: No. 8.

2010-02-22T20:26:00.004-05:00

No. 8

Traffic

Traffic was the first "grown-up" movie I remember seeing in a theater. You know...one of those serious and dramatic Oscar-nominated films that teenagers never see. Well, I saw it because it had a good cast and an interesting trailer that promised multiple intertwined storylines.

I walked out wowed by the way that a film could balance three different storylines in a manner effective enough to produce gripping drama without much action. Doing that with one story is difficult, but each of Traffic's layers could easily have been its own movie. With their powers combined, they make ensuing films like Crash or Babel seem like mere wannabes.

Director/cinematographer Steven Soderburgh executed a clinic on how color palettes can play a supporting role, as each arc was imbued with a unique look that enhanced the narrative and functioned as a scene-setter. In telling these three frighteningly realistic stories, Soderburgh also expressed the multi-faceted bleakness that the illegal drug industry spawns at so many levels. Most impressively he did so without preaching or resorting to melodrama. Instead he simply told good, complex stories and told them exceptionally well.

Best Films of the 2000s
10. Harry Potter & the Prisoner of Azkaban (2004)
9. Memento (2000)
8. Traffic (2000)
7. Coming soon...

Best Films of the 2000s: No. 9.

2010-02-14T14:59:00.002-05:00

No. 9

Memento

I wanted to re-watch Memento immediately after the credits finished, because it took the movie's entire running length to figure out exactly what is happening. When it ended, I wanted to see it again to be sure. The film's single story is edited non-linearly, cutting back and forth between two different portions that are moving in opposite direction. The narrative starts at the beginning and end, and the two arcs meet in the middle at the movie's end.

Because of the film's back-and-forth non-linear nature, some decry the film as little more than a gimmick. But this isn't just some twist at the end. The non-linear nature makes the film. You can't separate the method from the story. No one complains that Godfather II is only great because it bounces between two stories that are decades apart. The brilliant interlacing of narratives is part of what makes that film great, and the same thing applies in Memento.

The unusual story-telling works because of Guy Pearce's short-term amnesia. The viewer sees things as he does, largely unsure of what has previously happened. Pearce nails the part with his various tics and habits, and his mindset vacillates beautifully between certainty and uncertainty. He is an ideal conduit through which the audience can experience the movie.

I saw it twice in four days...during Finals Week. That's how intriguing the movie was. No other film this decade bent the mind like Memento. Period. It might even be better than a few movies ahead of it, but I didn't love it with my heart as much as my mind.

Best Films of the 2000s
10. Harry Potter & the Prisoner of Azkaban
9. Memento
8. Coming soon...

Best Films of the 2000s: No. 10.

2010-02-12T15:06:00.002-05:00

Taking a look back at the last decade of movies is an extremely enjoyable yet difficult task. To me, the list is far more than merely ordering the best films from each of the last ten years. For better and worse, the passing of time makes this list more objective, eliminating some of the in-the-moment passion, but also more subjective, as personal connections elevate great movies past others that lacked a connection. Rewatchability is also a factor, making certain films more powerful, memorable and enjoyable. Ultimately, the list emerges from a confluence of the best films and my favorite films.

Before getting to the Top Ten of the 2000s, here are a few movies that won’t be included, because they were released in the 1990s: Saving Private Ryan, The Sixth Sense, The Matrix. I would love to work them into a Best of the Decade list, but their time has passed. I feel old.

Now, on with the show...

No. 10

Harry Potter & the Prisoner of Azkaban

I still remember the thrilling moment early in Azkaban when I realized that director Alfonso Cuaron wasn't following in Chris Columbus' footsteps by merely telling the book's story with moving pictures. He was making a film, a clinic on how to adapt books to the screen. Take a good story and infuse it with cinematic flair. Use lush visuals, camera movements that breathtakingly sweep through the epic landscape of Hogwarts, vivid transitions that could almost be short films, and heartfelt moments that provide a massive yet concise narrative with a viable and visual soul. This was far more that just the best Harry Potter movie. It was a great film.

Up in the Air: a brief commentary.

2010-02-11T10:21:00.001-05:00

This isn't a review as much as a commentary on Up in the Air, which addresses the classic dichotomous ideals of the American male.

The self-sufficient, independent male is an archetype that has reigned in cinema through stars ranging from Bogart to Wayne to Eastwood, and now to George Clooney, who has previously embodied versions of that persona in numerous movies including Out of Sight and Michael Clayton. He reprises elements of those roles in role in Up in the Air*, as his Ryan Bingham can live on the road 320 days a year, eschewing his spartan one-bedroom apartment for a cavalcade of keycards. There's an allure to this lifestyle. Isolation would be an easy and enjoyable choice, void of much of the world's pain and suffering.

*This familiarity doesn't mean that his performance isn't noteworthy. I would argue that it makes his turn all the more impressive, as he uses subtle facial expressions to brilliantly express emotions in ways beyond the capacity of mere words.

Isolation might be easier, and such a persona may be ideal in theory. But that doesn't mean it's better, and like Communism, it doesn't usually work in practice. Up in the Air explores this, as Bingham churns through the inevitable sequence of attitude-adjusting events. He eventually realizes that to some extent, everyone needs someone. If even the callous scribes of Hollywood admit this, musn't it be true?

Like the countless movies with this formula, Up in the Air doesn't necessarily have a life-altering happy ending, but the film also features introspective realizations that life is more than just oneself.

Maybe that's the ultimate lesson. The lasseiz-faire attitude is an idealistic veneer, one that can even be functional for a while and might be necessary at times. But in the end, a man needs more than himself. He needs others. He needs God.

Where Men Win Glory.

2010-02-04T09:58:00.002-05:00

Where Men Win Glory: The Odyssey of Pat Tillman is a fascinating account of Pat Tillman's life and death, along with the inexplicably bad decisions made by the military/government before and after. Tillman was filled with a contagious verve, and though he didn't appear to find the right path, his thirst for life and knowledge can be an example for everyone.

If you want a short version of the book, Gary Smith's superb article in Sports Illustrated captures Tillman's remarkable essence and impact admirably well.

Avatar. Wow.

2010-01-10T16:21:00.002-05:00

At their best, movies are an escape, an opportunity to experience times and places disparate from one's own life. These adventures can take the audience to a nearby country, or maybe a different era, or even just plant them among a different class of people. Plenty of classics like The Godfather and Casablanca excel by atmospherically yanking the viewer into a world not wholly unfamiliar at the time, then adding a resonant story involving grand and powerful themes.

Good fantasy movies have an inherent ability to enrapture like nothing else, because they create entirely new worlds often set in entirely different times, novelties that are best understood and experienced by fulling giving oneself to the story. Plenty of fantasy movies have failed miserably, and all the money in the world doesn't guarantee that the effects and images will enthrall audiences (The Phantom Menace). When done well however, fantasy is not only for geeks, but for any open-minded person willing to spend a couple hours in a new place. In Avatar, that new place is Pandora, a distant Earth-like moon where humans involved with both science and the military are attempting to learn more about its unique inhabitants and possibilities.

Director/producer James Cameron escalates the built-in fantasy advantage by adding the element of 3-D, which has been used in many movies, but rarely with much success. My goodness, does Cameron ever know how to use 3-D. From the opening shot, one realizes that this is no ordinary film. As the movie continues, the camera maneuvers deftly around rooms, rustles through the brush, floats amidst the trees, and soars between mountains. When used well, good camera movement adds a strong dynamic to traditional shots. Cameron goes beyond that, presenting breath-taking new angles with enhanced perspectives that reach out and envelope the viewer in stunning fashion. There's probably something about wearing 3-D glasses that subconsciously adds to the experience as well. I have never felt as physically connected with a movie.

Words can scarcely describe how enrapturing the visuals are. Their power cannot be overstated. I spent half the movie gasping, wide-eyed and open-mouthed at the countless Did-You-See-That! moments. For most of the drive home, I was shaking my head, in awe of the entirely new world on the planet Pandora. It was like watching the documentary series Planet Earth, but in three dimensions and (believe it or not) with better imagery. Movies often trumpet that they are unlike anything you've ever seen, but Avatar can justifiably say precisely that.

I can count my transcendent cinematic experiences on one hand. By transcendent experience, I mean more than just a great movie. I mean an engrossing movie that thrills the senses. Something so atmospheric that it seems to engage more than merely eyes and ears. Avatar joins the list, as its three dimensions create an almost tactile experience amidst the beautiful flora and fauna of Pandora. Perhaps the greatest compliment is this: the political and environmental subtext is fairly obvious and potentially irksome, but I was so immersed in the spectacular world that I didn't care. That's how I knew Avatar had me.

Overshadowed by the remarkable look and feel of the film is the less groundbreaking story. In one sense, calling it a weakness is an overstatement, because the narrative does its job. It provides a framework to supports the stunning visuals, by tweaking familiar arcs enough to keep them fresh. On the other hand, the story is laced with great themes of love and sacrifice, but lacks the powerful ancillary ideas that might have pushed the film to a more exclusive stratosphere. If the unprecedented visuals were buttressed by a better story, Avatar might have been on an extremely short list of all-time greats. Or perhaps such a potent narrative mind have distracted from the eye-popping pictures. Either way, a week after seeing the film, the unforgettable world lingers and resonates far more than the story.

Bottom Line: I've seen better movies in my life, but I've never had a better cinematic experience than Avatar in IMAX 3-D. 9.5 out of 10.

(500) Days of Summer.

2009-08-03T08:27:00.009-04:00

(500) Days of Summer is not a typical indie romantic comedy. As the poster accurately states, this is not a love story, it's a story about love, which makes for a unique movie experience, through both content and manner of storytelling.

The movie traces 500 days of the relationship between Tom (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) and Summer (Zooey Deschanel), but does so in an nontraditional way, bouncing from point-to-point in their romance by use of a scene-opening counter, which displays the day and stage of the relationship. The non-linear method of storytelling is a tool that provides the movie with a layer of poignancy absent from most romantic comedies.

The movie effectively captures the various moments of life and love: the highs, the lows, and the in-betweens. By leaping back-and-forth through time, these snapshots are uniquely juxtaposed in a way that keeps your emotions on a yo-yo, yanking you back to a happy moment when things look bleak, and reminding you of what is and could be ahead when all seems perfect. This shunning of the usual smooth story arc is disorienting initially, as you try to mentally collect and sort the pieces you have seen. But you soon relax, realizing that the flow of events is self-explanatory enough that the precise order is not necessary.

Given the unusual nature of events, which provide the movie with a slight fairy tale feel, a few other filmmaking twists are also used effectively. The movie occasionally breaks from reality, sticking in a song-and-dance number to joyously show the excitement of new love, and a brilliant use of split-screen that simultaneously shows expectations and reality much better than any after-the-fact dialogue could have done. In a straightforward movie, these techniques would have been jarringly out of place, but since the primary method of storytelling is already off the wall, these even zanier choices feel no more unusual, adding to the freshness of the tale.

The movie is much more than cinematic gimmickry, due to the likability of the two lead actors. Gordon-Levitt continues to grow wonderfully as an actor, bringing to the role a youthful maturity often missing in similar films. Deschanel is excellent as always, with her wide-eyed quirkiness that perfectly fits Summer's perspective on love. The two have the precise amount of chemistry for the relationship, nailing the distance or lack thereof at every point along the way, and their infectious exuberance keeps the viewer interested throughout.

(500) Days of Summer is in no ways a typical movie, either in story or method. In this way, it accurately and beautifully mirrors the roller coasters of life and love. Life is not perfect. A love story doesn't always unfold in three acts. Everybody doesn't necessarily live happily ever after. That does not mean imperfect experiences are not worthwhile. The ability to reflect and learn from the past is part of what makes us human, and this film is a first-class exhibit of that aspect of humanity.

Bottom Line: A refreshingly creative change-of-pace that accurately reflects the tumultuous vagaries of life and love. 8/10.

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince.

2009-07-18T22:47:00.002-04:00

When I see and review movies that are adapted from books I've read, I try not to get wrapped up in the similarities and differences, because I think doing so can ruin the cinematic experience by distracting from the movie, which often must tweak the story to translate it to the big screen. Having said that, this review is a bit of an exception, because many of the weaknesses of the movie are precisely the strengths of the book. That may not be entirely fair to the movie, but so be it...

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (HPHBP) is the story of Year Six at Hogwarts, where our trio of heroes returns to school as a strengthening Lord Voldemort and his army of Death Eaters begin to wreak havoc on both the wizarding and Muggle worlds.

Getting right to the point, the movie's primary problem is that nothing drives the story. The book is propelled by three main questions: What is Draco up to? Who is this Half-Blood Prince whose book Harry possesses? Why is Dumbledore showing Harry the various memories? These three interwoven storylines, combined with a side of romance, effortlessly carry the book through its 700+ pages, sprinting to the finish in an absurdly entertaining final five chapters. But the movie mishandles these three major questions and fails to carry much of this palpable drama to the screen.

In the movie, the answer to the first question is made apparent to the viewer early in the movie. The main characters don't learn the answer, but the audience does, an odd cinematic choice that deprives the narrative of its usual protagonist-based power. The second question is a continuing arc that is given short shrift throughout, to the extent that when the riddle is answered in the final moments, it's merely an "Oh."-inducing throwaway line rather than a "Wow!"-inducing culmination of 2+ hours of mystery. The final question does move the movie along somewhat, but the numerous omitted memories rob Voldemort of his explanatory traits, as well as Dumbledore of his motives. Voldemort thus feels like a typical two-dimensional villain rather than the vortex of evil he ought to be, and Dumbledore seems to be more of an uncertain guide instead of a presciently powerful wizard. As for the romance angle, those scenes are executed well enough, including a few poignant teen moments, but neither one of the potential pairings seems fully fleshed out. They don't necessarily feel wrong, but they do feel inadequately supported.

On the bright side, the highlight of the HPHBP is undoubtedly its not-so-bright look. With its washed-out appearance that borders on black-and-white at times, this colder version of Hogwarts is an appropriately stark contrast to the warm and cheery home portrayed in the first two films. But aside from the look, which accurately expresses what the tone ought to be, given the lurking evil, the tone itself doesn't match.

The best part of Order of the Phoenix was the way that director David Yates captured the spirit of the book, effectively displaying the magical and dangerous wizarding world yet also taking time to show smaller moments of laughter and friendship, which were to be treasured as the dark times approached. Yates is not nearly as effective in HPHBP. The vivacity is largely absent, and while some of that is understandable due to the nature of the events, it's still a world of magic. Too often the movie seems to forget that. I will say that the cave scene in the final act is quite magical and quite good, though still a bit rushed. Finally at that point the movie seems to have a purpose, even if it isn't entirely clear what that purpose is.

Without the aforementioned compelling story arcs or the brisk pace of OOTP, the film meanders throughout, running in place for two and a half hours and failing to build momentum as the narrative leaps between arcs, as though not sure where to go while killing time until the climactic final movies. Despite this, the 150 minutes rarely seem to drag, which speaks to the potency of the source material and the attachment that book readers have to the characters.

In the end, the movie's focus is shallow and wide, rather than deep and narrow, leaving the entire work feeling weak, like there wasn't enough of everything. The danger never felt real enough. Dumbledore wasn't confident or wise enough. Harry wasn't eager enough to figure out where Dumbledore was leading him. And a certain late scene, which is the most jaw-dropping in the entire seven-book series, is shockingly underplayed. The result is an experience that satisfies marginally, leaving this Potter fan disappointingly underwhelmed.

(Though I haven't spoken to anyone who has seen the movie without reading the book, I suspect that those people would enjoy the movie less, not entirely understanding many parts and being confused by multiple short scenes that seem included merely to satisfy fans.)

Bottom Line: Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince is the penultimate book, with a superb story that aggressively drives toward the inevitable showdown between good and evil. Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince is also the antepenultimate movie, with a weakened story that gradually wanders toward a lukewarm conclusion. 6 of 10, only that high because I already had the true power of the story ingrained in my head.

P.S. I'm slightly terrified that David Yates is also directing the last two movies. I hope he doesn't ruin them.

P.P.S. Why wasn't Felix Felicis gold in color? I don't understand why moviemakers screw up simple-yet-obvious things like that.

Indiana Jones and the...huh?!?

2008-10-23T11:02:00.000-04:00

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.

2008-09-29T16:06:00.004-04:00

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

2008-08-11T15:08:00.000-04:00

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.

2008-07-26T09:37:00.000-04:00

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.

2008-05-26T12:31:00.000-04:00

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.

2008-05-20T02:47:00.001-04:00

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.

2008-05-10T01:14:00.001-04:00

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.

2008-01-25T16:23:00.000-05:00

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.

2008-01-18T20:42:00.000-05:00

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.

No Country for Old Men.

2007-12-28T21:47:00.000-05:00

No Country for Old Men is a not an overhyped blockbuster movie. If you have seen the trailer, you probably thought it looked rather strange. You would be right, but in a wonderful way. (Audio review here.)

The movie is difficult to pigeonhole, but the story, set in 1980 in rural Texas, is fairly straightforward. Josh Brolin plays Llewelyn Moss, a rugged native who stumbles across a deserted murder scene where he discovers and absconds with a case full of money. From that point on, two men head up two very different methods of pursuit. Tommy Lee Jones is small town sheriff Ed Tom Bell (phenomenal name), who is trying to figure out what happened. Javier Bardem, whom you might recognize from The Sea Inside or a small role in Collateral, is a ferociously single-minded individual who has been hired by less than scrupulous people to track down the missing cash.

The movie is directed by the Coen Brothers, who have put together high quality offbeat films like O Brother Where Art Thou, Fargo, and Blood Simple. In those movies and many of their others, the brothers combine familiar movie elements into a single amalgam that defies being defined as a single genre. With No Country for Old Men, they have done the same thing, creating a movie that might be best described as a neo-western. Its deliberate pace, scenic framing, and South Texas location call to mind classic westerns. The tagline for the movie is that "There are no clean getaways," which implies that this is a heist movie. There are parts of that genre, and there are major components of a chase picture, all tweaked to fit the technologically crude era of 1980.

Now, that's the setup, but is this offbeat movie any good? The critics sure think so. Plenty of critics societies have already named this the best picture of 2007, including groups from from New York, Chicago, Boston, Dallas, D.C., and the National Board of Review. It's also probably the current favorite to win the Best Picture Oscar, for praiseworthy reasons that are easy to spot and completely justified.

The three lead performances have grabbed the headlines, and understandably so. Javier Bardem is absolutely terrifying in his atypical villainous role. There is no gimmicky mask or superpower, just pure evil. With merely a look or a stride, he exudes menace, more force of nature than mere bad guy. He is a bad dude, both fantastic and frightening. Because Bardem is so good, he overshadows Josh Brolin, who disappears into his self-confident Texas denizen, playing the chasee with a confidence that makes him an excellent anti-hero. Tommy Lee Jones is stellar as usual. He embodies a world-weary sheriff with one of the best combinations of drawl and lingo that you will ever hear. His drawl is accompanied by a script that is taken in large part directly from the book on which the film is based. The words are rife with a vernacular that could not be more perfect, eliciting grins from the viewer with both their humor and suitability. Even when you don't know what is said, you know precisely what it means. Of these three turns, Bardem has won many awards already, and will almost certainly be nominated for and win an Academy Award. Even though Brolin and Jones have not yet received many accolades, both are worthy of such honors; the problem being that that they are frequently eclipsed by Bardem's chilling portrayal.

Due to the magnetic acting of the leads and the character actors, who are great as they look and sound as though they have spent their entire lives baking in the dry heat near the Mexican border, the movie is extremely compelling despite a deliberate pace and almost no background music during its two-hour running length. Most chase-type movies are fast-paced and action-packed, leaving little time for suspense to grow; this is the opposite. There are no quick-cutting action scenes, but instead heart-pounding scenes that slowly ramp up the tension. Those intense parts are complemented by quieter scenes of conversation or investigation that maintain a foreboding dramatic undertone of upcoming conflict. While the film loses some of its building momentum late in the story, and the denouement does not quite match the brilliance of the preceding hundred minutes, the closing moments remain appropriate for a movie that doesn't offer any easy questions or answers.

All in all, this is a movie that is definitely worthy of the countless honors that it is receiving from critics across the country. Assuming the writer's strike doesn't waylay the Oscars, I suspect that this will be the frontrunner for Best Picture, and I'd bet a good chunk of money that Bardem will snag a Best Supporting Actor trophy. His performance and the film on the whole stand out from the year's crowd and are worth seeing, not for the popcorn movie crowd, but for fans of good, well-crafted cinema and story-telling.

Bottom Line: One of the best of the year. 8 of 10.

Disclaimer: This movie is rated R, for pervasive blood and brutal violence, and to a lesser extent, language. DO NOT take kids to this movie. Some adults won't want to see it either.

You are not alone.

2007-12-21T20:37:00.000-05:00

I Am Legend debuted last weekend with a monstrous $77 million weekend, but is an atypical Will Smith blockbuster, largely bereft of the slam-bang action and/or comedy common to his big movies like Men in Black or Enemy of the State. (Audio review here.)

As learned from the tagline and excellent first trailer, the premise is simple: Smith is Dr. Robert Neville, the last man left in a desolate New York City, but he is not alone. Someone or something lingers, a mystery that drives the first hour, which is absolutely fantastic. With the exception of a few flashbacks that gradually answer the hows and whys generated by the plot progression, Smith interacts with no one except Sam, his loyal German Shepherd.

In this regard, I Am Legend is a cousin to the amazing Cast Away. While their respective tones are drastically different, both are set on islands void of humanity. Instead of a volleyball, Smith anthropormorphizes a dog. Hanks wrestled with inner demons on his deserted island, Smith confronts outer demons of some sort. The difference in supplies is noteworthy, and the two main characters are driven by widely disparate motivations, but the isolated survival instinct is similar, and watching Smith stretch himself as an actor is extremely enjoyable. Smith's character still possesses elements of the cocky, wise-cracking nature that moviegoers know well, but with merely a glance or a twitch, his confident veneer often cracks to reveal the effects of his time spent alone. Seeing that uncharacteristic vulnerability is initially disorienting, because we're not used to seeing a hero crack like this, but the awkwardness soon yields to awe at the powerhouse solo performance.

Aside from Smith's turn, the highlights of the movie are the breathtaking shots of a desolate New York City. We've seen the empty streets of a booming metropolis before, in movies like Vanilla Sky and 28 Days Later, but this is different. Not only is everything deserted, but also overgrown and eroded by nature and time. The minimal music and slow-moving cameras allow for an eerie and appropriate quiet within the movie, creating a game of I Spy in which one's eyes dart about, searching for familiar landmarks like Jumbotrons or Broadway signs.

The only downside to all this quality is that it doesn't last throughout the entire movie. Without giving too much away, I can say that following a key plot development, the third and final act transforms into a more familiar, action-type of movie, leading to a finale that satisfies, but doesn't quite match the preceding hour-plus. This dissonance is very reminiscent of 2004's Collateral, which similarly enthralled throughout before wimping out at the end, like a color scheme that matches at first glance but clashes upon closer inspection.

If you know what you are in for, you will enjoy the movie more thoroughly. I Am Legend is much more Cast Away than Independence Day, more Signs than Bad Boys. In his best performance yet, Will Smith proves that he has the acting chops to match his pretty face and ripped physique, deepening his own cinematic legend as he frequently carries this movie to great heights.

Bottom Line: Two-thirds of a great movie plus one-third of an average movie equals a good movie. 7 of 10.

Bee Movie and Batman.

2007-12-15T09:21:00.000-05:00

As is evident from the trailer, Bee Movie is essentially what might happen if the public persona of Jerry Seinfeld were placed into the three-part body of a bee. Main character Barry B. Benson is Seinfeld, complete with wry comments, high-pitched excitement, and a slight disdain for authority. Unsurprisingly, the plot is a tad strained, but does provide a framework stable enough to sustain the various inevitable punchlines. The movie tastes sweetest when using Seinfeld's jabbing humor to poke fun at either the industrious efficiency of the hive or the oddities of humans. In this regard, Seinfeld shines as usual, leaving the engaged viewer smiling consistently, chuckling frequently, and roaring occasionally.

Determining whether or not you will like Bee Movie is a simple process. If you like Seinfeld's blend of comedy, you'll enjoy it. If you don't care for his observational humor, steer clear. It's really that simple.

Bottom Line: 6 of 10, plus one because I like Seinfeld.

Since the review was truncated, here are two fantastic new Dark Knight movie posters

I particularly love these two as a pair, with the contrast of menace and protection, frozen in what could conceivably be the same moment. Next year, this movie, Indiana Jones 4 (more on that soon), and Prince Caspian are all scheduled within a month. WOW!

Do you have any hope at all in humanity?

2007-12-10T22:59:00.000-05:00

I haven't read any of Stephen King's books or stories, but I have learned two things from his movies. He possesses phenomenal insight into the human mind, and he is a freak. The Mist proves both points fully with a simple story: a mist engulfs a small New England town, and a few dozen of its denizens are isolated in a grocery store, forced to deal with enemies both outside and inside the store, both strange and familiar.

The best and brilliant parts of The Mist are the explorations into the psyche of the various trapped townsfolk. If someone's character is truly exposed when under pressure, then the extreme circumstances of this movie strip souls down to their essences, with frightening results. There are heroes and villains, leaders and followers, stalwarts and cowards. In previous uses of King's source material, writer/director Frank Darabont burrowed into the heart of hope in The Shawshank Redemption and delved into faith and the supernatural with The Green Mile. Both movies placed normal people into extreme circumstances, and did so exceptionally well. In that general thematic regard, Mist is similar to those two excellent films. More specifically though, it varies greatly, stressing the negative aspects of humanity rather than positive traits. Along the way, plenty of complex issues arise, and they are most frequently addressed with a rough, dull blade that gashes boldly through the moral fiber of civilization. The results are rarely pretty, but always compelling.

Lest you think this is a philosophical art house movie, let it be known that as a horror flick, independent of any deeper meaning, Mist consistently entertains, with a handful of superb knuckle-whitening scenes enhanced by an excellent cast. But a dark decision in the final act makes it impossible for even the most casual moviegoer to completely ignore the thick subtext of King and Darabont.

What prevents The Mist from being a great movie is the frayed nature of that subtext. While the story is rife with interesting points, the commentary fails to coagulate into a comprehensible bigger picture. In a sense though, the fractured themes better befit such a moody picture, one that strikes its audience at many levels, leaving the mind spinning in a mist of its own.

Bottom Line: 7 of 10 for a movie far smarter and deeper than the glut of recent horror releases.

A darker movie and a Dark Knight.

2007-12-05T08:54:00.000-05:00

1) Prince Caspian trailer. May 16th, 2008. I'm stoked.

2) The Dark Knight. July 18th, 2008. I'm stoked.

Gone Baby Gone.

2007-11-07T18:58:00.000-05:00

As I am federally mandated to point out, Gone Baby Gone is the directorial debut of Ben Affleck, a fact that is impossible to overlook while watching the movie. Sometimes I wish I could watch a movie while completely ignorant of its director, but that's another post. Anyway, Affleck clearly cares about this crime drama, both in content and location, and his loving fingerprints mark the film with a unique raw edge.

For a multitude of reasons, Gone Baby Gone can succicntly be described as a light version of Mystic River, which was likewise based on a Dennis Lehane novel. The subject matter is equally heavy and thick, also exploring family dynamics through a painful crime involving a child. Both movies are set in Boston, and the one thing that Gone does better, largely due to Affleck's devotion to his hometown, is capture the seedy bizarreness of the local culture. Beyond that, Gone trails River in every aspect, not to an extent that makes Gone a poor film, but merely a decent one that does not remotely reach the great heights Clint Eastwood achieved four years ago.

First, the story itself is weaker and more transparent, due in slight part to a bit of foreshadowing. The moral waters here are equally murky, but shallower once fully explored. Secondly, the cast is weaker; that's not so much a swipe at a solid troupe includes the always good Morgan Freeman and Ed Harris, but rather reminds how loaded River was with proven, veteran talent (Penn, Robbins, Bacon, Fishbourne, Linney, Harden). The younger faces here, like Casey Affleck, Michelle Monaghan, and (especially) Amy Ryan, acquit themselves well, but they do not possess the gravitas that can make such a film so much better. They are simply in a different league, the NFC versus River's superior AFC. Similarly, Affleck's movie sports an effective rough look and a less effective uneven flow, as opposed to the smooth and polished texture of Eastwood fluid masterpiece. For a first film though, Affleck's end product is impressive and worth watching for fans of the genre.

Bottom Line: Always decent, sometimes quite good, but it's nowhere near Mystic River. 7 out of 10.

The Kingdom.

2007-11-01T19:27:00.000-04:00

I'm not going to get a full review written for The Kingdom, so these condensed thoughts will have to suffice. (Insert joke about time, marriage, etc.)

As the season has shifted from summer to fall, so too shifts the tone of cinema, from a noisy, adrenaline-infused summer to a dramatic, Oscar-contending autumn. Bridging that gap skillfully is a contemporary action-drama set in the divergent cultures of Washington, D.C. and Saudi Arabia, the latter of which is known by natives as The Kingdom. A team of FBI agents are thrust into this foreign world when something goes horribly wrong, and the movie tells that story with a facility that nearly minimizes the film's quality.

What Kingdom does extremely well is create a realistic world with well-rounded characters. The movie reveals strengths and flaws of the good guys and the bad guys, whether they're American or Arabian. It also offers a (to my knowledge) solid representation of the Arab world and presents their point of view in a fair and reasonable manner. Aided by docu-style cameras and a sandy color palette, Kingdom adds multiple moments of white-knuckle tension, with and without action, that rival anything put on screen in recent years. The lead actors are all solid and likable, and threads of humor and casual music run through the film, preventing it from becoming overbearing as it promotes pensiveness. This is one of the best action-dramas of this decade.

Bottom Line: Assuredly among the year's best films. 8 of 10.

Whoa...

2007-09-18T11:52:00.000-04:00

Sort of looks like Anakin. I hope he's less petulant.

I remember everything.

2007-08-04T01:45:00.000-04:00

One of better movie series of the last decades possibly concludes with the release of The Bourne Ultimatum, the third movie that follows super-secret spy/assassin Jason Bourne as he attempts to track down his past against the wishes of the United States government that trained him. The original, The Bourne Identity, was one of the best pure action movie in recent years. The sequel, 2004's Bourne Supremacy, was unsure and not quite as polished, but still solid. Now comes the series third installment, which just about wraps up the summer movie season.

The storyline follows a natural progression from the previous two movies. Now that Bourne has figured out who he is now and atoned somewhat for his sins, he wants to know who he was. In order to do that, he must race the government to various people who know the secrets behind his black-ops work.

Few cinematic characters are as perfect for action movies as Jason Bourne, from both an action and narrative standpoint. As he learns his past, he takes the audience along for the ride. But that process is not tedious backstory or mediocre character development, as is often the case in such movies. Instead, his quest is the story, which makes for a rapid-fire flick that simultaneously entertains and enlightens. Matt Damon's determined yet understated demeanor is ideal for the role, and the no-frills approach never distracts from a driving story that is filled with plenty of high-tech action.

In a lesser movie, the technological implausibilities might weaken the movie or distract from the storyline. But Ultimatum dodged that bullet in two ways. First, the story moves quickly enough that the viewer barely has time to think about what might or might not work before the flick is on to the next frenetic sequence. Secondly, the movie does not use the technology as a dominant point of the movie, like Enemy of the State. Instead the devices are merely a means to an end.

Also overshadowing the technology is another strong supporting cast. The always-good Joan Allen returns this time, joined by Scott Glenn and David Straithairn, from Good Night and Good Luck. Strathairn and Allen are compelling in every scene, particularly when they are together. Their exchanges crackle without flying over the top, and their restrained focus is as intense as any shouting match. They add a layer of gravity to the goings-on that separates Ultimatum from other summer action like Live Free or Die Hard.

Other differences between this and Die Hard lie in the technical aspects of the film. Director Paul Greengrass also helmed Supremacy, and he and his crew remedied one of the main problems of the second movie, which was the overly shaky camera work. Most of the shots are still handheld, but they are more static than before and pulled back a little in the fights. The music is surprisingly good too. As Bourne trots through Europe and Africa, the music travels along, mixing in pulsing strings, African drums, and even going completely silent when appropriate.

Ultimatum often echoes Identity, which is a good thing. Both possess a similar driving intensity interspersed with quiet moments that allow humanity to leak through. This one lacks the originality of Identity, but replaces it with the satisfying resolution that Bourne is seeking. On the whole, as the summer movie season wraps up, this is the best action film of the last few months. It's better than Die Hard, although it doesn't provide as much fun. It's a better film; Die Hard is a better movie, if that makes sense.

Bottom Line: Better than the second; not quite as good as the original, but still a bang-up way to end the summer movie season. A slightly generous 8 of 10.

Oh, I'm detecting nuttiness alright.

2007-08-02T22:29:00.000-04:00

Ratatouille is the latest computer-animated release from Pixar, the company that has produced the best animated films over the last decade. The odd title is the name of vegetable stew and doubles as a pun on the main character, a rat named Remy. (Audio review here.)

Remy is no ordinary rat though. He resides in France amidst a colony that lives as rats do, thriving on the garbage and remnants of others, Remy is the exception because he has a finely-honed sense of smell and loves cooking. Through a series of fortunate events, Remy finds himself in Paris at a fine restaurant, where he learns how to interact with a kitchen boy named Linguini to create magnificent meals. Things of course get complicated, as Remy attempts to balance his passion with his family, and Linguini must handle being a celebrity through no talent of his own, while dealing with a sinister restaurant critic.

Like all of Pixar’s work, Ratatouille looks phenomenal. The rats in particular look good, with fine detail paid to fur in various states. The humans are not the most hyper-realistic creations seen on screen, but neither are they intended to be. This is a cartoon, and the artists seem to know that, because most of the characters border on caricature. The slimy French chef is ridiculously short and sports a pencil-line mustache. The critic has long and angular features that scream evil. Even though the movie is made with the most modern of technology, it is a throwback to the classic days of Disney and Looney Tunes, when merely a glance at a character would explain everything about a character. The bad guys look bad; the good guys are goofy but likable, and the gray characters share attributes of both, leaving the viewer guessing for a while.

One thing that separates Ratatouille from most of its Pixar brethren is the pervasive kinetic energy. Plenty of other movies, like Cars and The Incredibles, were drenched with action and movement, but it feels different here because the scope of the movie is centered on a rat. When you watch Remy race through a kitchen or up a building from close-up, it feels much wilder and more dangerous than watching a human make the same thirty-foot trek, which is appropriate since it is more hazardous for a rat to make that trip.

The question about all Pixar movies is twofold: how well does it play with kids, and how well does it play with adults? I suspect that Ratatouille may not be as accessible to kids as most of the rest of the Pixar library, because many of the characters are rats. Rodents are not as marketable or over-the-top memorable as a giant furry blue monster or an innocent little clown fish. Nor is the story quite as simple as some others. But the pace is brisk enough, and the story is understandable enough, thanks in large part to the brilliant animation, that kids should still enjoy the movie. Adults should enjoy it too, with the fine images, clever humor, and various twists and turns of the story. On the whole, Ratatouille is not as memorable as Finding Nemo or either Toy Story, but it is good enough to be tucked right behind them with Monster's Inc.

Bottom Line: 7 of 10 for the best family film of the summer. What the heck, call it 8 of 10.

We're in this together.

2007-07-11T13:17:00.000-04:00

After a summer of movies filled with second, third, and fourth sequels, the most anticipated follow-up is finally here, and it is a fifth installment. Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix is the story of Year Five at Hogwarts for lead characters Harry, Hermione, and Ron, although a large portion of the movie occurs outside the grounds of the teens' school. More than a children's book, this episode builds upon strong themes of fear and friendship to create a solid piece of cinema. (Audio review.)

(Note: I have read only the first five books.)

Order of the Phoenix (OOTP) tracks the ongoing saga of the interactions between the dark Lord Voldemort and Harry Potter, who is aided by the titular order, a sort of wizard Joint Chiefs of Staff. Many in the wizarding community doubt Harry's story that Voldemort has returned, and the Ministry of Magic has it in for Dumbledore, all of which means that Harry feels more alone than ever, despite the presence of people and places he loves. As always with a movie adapted from popular literature, two questions must be answered. 1) Was it a good movie, and 2) Was it a good adaptation of the book? Pleasantly, the response to both questions is yes, though each affirmative requires unique qualification.

Having read the book, judging the movie strictly on its own merits is very difficult, because gaps on screen are filled in subconsciously by knowledge of the book. But this movie seems to succeed apart from those pages. Relatively unknown director David Yates keeps the story Harry-centric, giving it a brisk pace and making the main arc easy to follow, although a few other truncated storylines and characters will be enjoyed more by those who know them fully. Expanded motifs of Harry's anger and loneliness are expressed clearly but not heavy-handedly, through both pictures and the words of multiple characters. As was the case with the previous two installments, viewing this movie without first reading the book may result in confusion or at least a lesser understanding of everything, but having seen the first four movies will be plenty to let one comprehend this episode to an enjoyable extent.

The latter question is more complicated. Many people will complain about plot elements that vary from the book. Those objections are true but invalid. Maybe a beloved character was axed, tweaked, or minimized. Perhaps a treasured moment was omitted or included in a disappointingly disparate manner. Make no mistake about it; many things were altered. But when an 870-page tome is being condensed into a two hour and eighteen minute movie, cuts must be made. Much like time constraints demanded that The Lord of the Rings focus largely on Frodo at the expense of favorites like Tom Bombadil, this story must focus on Harry Potter. There are reasons that he is the title character. So no one gets to see Firenze teach or Ron and Hermione fight or anything about Quidditch or prefects. Looking objectively at the modifications though, the primary story arc does advance satisfactorily without those missing parts. Perhaps the galloping pace could have slowed to a canter, as the movie was indeed a rarity that could easily have been twenty minutes longer. But the purpose should then have been to expand upon the elements already in place rather than to add missing ones.

The more important goal is that the movie be faithful to the spirit of the book, and on that level, OOTP hits its mark. Prisoner of Azkaban displayed the world of wizards better than any other Potter movie because of two key inclusions: the little ways magic was used in the background and the fantastic scene-setting shots. Yates nearly recaptures Alfonso Cuaron's brilliance, approaching it with elements like kittens wandering around in pictures and spectacular zooms over Hogwarts. Of equal importance, he also executes small moments even better than the source material, wonderfully depicting simple enjoyments like laughter and friendship are a stark contrast to the lurking complex evil of You Know Who. These small interactions imbue the movie with a soul that adds substance and humanity to an adventurous and magical universe.

OOTP suffers slightly from middle-film-in-a-series syndrome, but in a good way. Much like The Two Towers or The Matrix Reloaded, one gets the feeling that it picks up and ends mid-story, with only a necessary modicum of resolution, as though setting the stage for something grand. That promise of something huge just ahead actually enhances the power of the movie. It leaves one desperately awaiting the next chapter more so than any other Potter movie. Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, the next in the series, screams to be (re-)read before the seventh and final book is released next Saturday.

Ultimately, viewers who have not read the book should be able to follow along easily, and the movie should quench the appetites of fans with reasonable expectations. The gist of the book is explored in numerous ways, resulting in an experience that will leave one with a few thrills and chills, and a smile on one's face.

Bottom Line: A concise return to the spirit of the book, capturing the world with a proper dose of cinematic license. 7 of 10 for the second best movie in the series.

Edit: Oh yeah, like most all of the adult cast, Imelda Staunton rocks as Dolores Umbridge, worthy of hate mere seconds after appearing on screen.

Edit #2: Here's an interesting interview with Michael Goldenberg, the screenwriter who adapted the book.

Yippee-ki-yay...

2007-07-06T15:49:00.000-04:00

If you're worn out by the relentless parade of movie heroes sporting tights or transforming into robots, good news currently awaits you at the theater: Live Free or Die Hard, a physical, action-packed antidote to comic book movies, which is the fourth chapter in the cinematic adventures of Detective John McClane. Having already survived Germans at Nakatomi Plaza, revolutionaries at Dulles Airport, and more Germans in New York City, McClane (Bruce Willis) is once again in the wrong place at the right time, as his simple task morphs into yet another odds-defying assignment. (Audio review here.)

Willis brings back his familiar character with a pitch-perfect blend of world-weariness and cocksure attitude. While he's saving the country, McClane has an innate ability to blend comedy with capability, willingly hurling unsavory nicknames and spewing determined anger rather than blandly yet skillfully executing his mission. Live Free separates itself from traditional action/adventure movies by organically working the humor into the fabric of the movie, rather than lazily relying on comic relief characters or contrived situations. Justin Long, perhaps most recognizable as the Mac guy in Apple's television ads, plays off Willis well as he is sucked into the chaotic events, with a defensive sarcasm and semi-rebellious side that effectively embody his role as a twenty-something computer hacker.

The comedy isn't the selling point of the Live Free though. The trailer promised huge effects, and the movie delivers in a BIG way. Oversized vehicles ranging from semi trucks to fighter jets are involved in adrenaline-pumping confrontations, and of equal importance, they bob and weave in relatively sensible ways. As opposed to the incomprehensible massive chaos of Transformers, there is an elegance to the action here. It's still over-the-top, but in an linear, choreographed manner that is easily followed and relished. Even though many of the stunts undoubtedly use CGI, the old-school physicality provides a sharp and enjoyable contrast to the digital attack the enemy is unleashing on the United States, as well as the cartoon-ish nature of many comic book movies.

Live Free has its share of improbability, as characters survive dangerous falls and endure endless physical abuse, and the technology sometimes seems all too easy. But in a movie like this, such conveniences are accepted if not expected as part of the genre. This isn't a serious Oscar contender with grand themes or undertones; it's summertainment, a popcorn movie designed as a diverting escape. In that regard it succeeds wildly, inducing winces, yells, and cheers from the audience.

One interesting note is that this rendition of Die Hard is rated ''only" PG-13, no doubt in an attempt to lure the lucrative teenage demographic. Some will be outraged by this apparent neutering of a franchise that was largely defined through the the R-rating earned by the pervasive vulgarities of the first three installments. Even the signature line (Yippee-ki-yay...) is obscured by sound effects. On one hand it's disappointing that Hollywood acquiesced to the almighty dollar. On the other hand the absence of a constant barrage of language is scarcely missed, as McClane's aggressive attitude is still intact, accompanied by plenty of derogatory terms that are not quite as profane. Maybe he mellowed with age.

Bottom Line: The best action movie so far this year. A rock solid 7 of 10.

Less than meets the eye.

2007-07-02T03:21:00.000-04:00

I have low expectations for summer movies. I realize that they are often mindless entertainment with minimal plot and multiple explosions. That's fine. There is a place for such flicks, and I watch them without much hope of something grand. Remember that as I say this with no exaggeration: Transformers is the worst summer blockbuster I have ever seen. Let me take you through the anatomy of this horrible movie. (Audio review here.)

From the stiff opening voiceover that details the backstory, you sense trouble. Thirty minutes in, you're still waiting for the movie to gain traction, even though a big action sequence already happened. As the action wanes, the awkward dialogue blares through. You realize this isn't Shakespeare, but George Lucas could have improved this script. Simple words in the midst of action are one thing, but as the focus of several too-long scenes, the lame dialogue is painfully amplified. When you're not sure if the humans are delivering their lines better than the robots, that's a bad sign.

But you know more transformers are coming, so you wiggle your feet impatiently while anxiously awaiting their arrival. Finally the rest of the good guys show up. "Wow, those are sweet looking robots!" you think. You begin to settle in for a rip-roaring second half, until you realize there's not much else to them. It's like finally getting a date with that hot girl you've been crushing on, then realizing how unbelievably vapid she is before the main course is even served.

By then of course you're stuck for the remainder of the evening. You deal with the ill-fated attempts at creating drama. Every ten minutes, you wonder what the heck is happening or question the movie's logic, which is awful even for the genre. You laugh several times, though the causes are largely unintentional. Is that John Tuturro wildly out of place? Does Tad Hamilton actually have a leadership position in the military? You hope desperately that the show might end with something redeeming like an epic battle. Here come all the bad guys (out of nowhere), this could be good...but no. The final clash is big and loud, but also confusing and by that juncture, pointless. Emotional attachment isn't necessary in a popcorn movie, but there needs to be at least a minute level of curiosity. You don't care if they kill the humans or kill the robots or kill all of them. Whatever.

You sit through the credits, unsure of whether or not you want to be rewarded with a bonus scene. Yep, there's one. Yoikes, that was bad. At least it was short. Wait, there's one more, a final reminder of how miserably the movie failed, like the last rock that always crushed Wile E. Coyote.

The worst part is that Transformers has potential, as the trailer proves. Vehicles turn into giant robots! How is that not cool?!? But the flick scarcely if ever delivers on that promise. The visuals are representative of the whole movie. Well done, occasionally impressive, but too often fights or transformations are seen either from a distance too great or too close, depriving the audience of the true scope of the shot, and of any interest in the movie.

Perhaps a knowledge of the source material, with which I am only passingly familiar, would make the movie more palatable, but I doubt it. Director Michael Bay, whose projects have steadily declined since 1996's The Rock, has reached a new low.

Bottom Line: Please don't encourage a sequel by seeing this movie. 2 of 10.

Fantastic Four

2007-06-21T23:21:00.000-04:00

Five movies into the summer of the sequel, the first release that is not a third installment is finally here. The Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer is merely the second in a series, following 2005’s original that introduced moviegoers to Mr. Fantastic (Ioan Gruffold), The Invisible Woman (Jessica Alba), her brother The Human Torch (Chris Evans), and The Thing (Michael Chiklis). (Audio review here.)

The story in this follow-up is basic superhero stuff, picking up not too long after the last one ended. Mr. Fantastic is getting ready to wed The Invisible Woman, then bad things happen, and The Fantastic Four are called upon to remedy the problem, which involves the Silver Surfer destroying the planet and Dr. Von Doom doing whatever it is he does.

From there the heroes do their hero thing, which is accompanied by just enough side story to form slightly rounded characters and plot. Like its predecessor and the comic books on which they both are based, Silver Surfer is a different breed of superhero movie, one that varies in tone and content from recent renditions of more popular heroes like Batman, Superman, and Spider-man. With its multiple lead characters, Silver Surfer occasionally reminds of the X-Men flicks, but does not match the gravity present in those movies or other recent hits featuring the aforementioned main characters. Those are serious, more intense movies that can create wonderful cinematic experiences that feel more “real”. Not that any of these kinds of movies are truly real, but both of the Fantastic Four movies have a more cartoon-ish feel that distances them from reality.

This is both a blessing and a curse. On the downside, Silver Surfer does not have the emotional attachment that other superhero pictures have or at least desire, which limits the scope of the movie’s power. A surprising side effect is the everyday levity that is provided. If you and your buddies had bizarre superpowers, wouldn’t you frequently be making fun of each other’s gifts and using your own for not entirely kosher reasons? Movies with solo protagonists are rarely able to capture such interactions, but with its tight-knit lead characters, Surfer can and does, with degrees of success that vary like most attempts at humor, from clever and hilarious to flat and unfunny. Nothing is brilliant or profound, everything just creates a casual surface relationship between movie and viewer.

The minimal depth also allows for a streamlined hour and a half movie that has cursory side stories, unexplainable technology, and vague villainous motives, all of which is completely fine, if not preferable. Just as popcorn should not be loaded with substantive fruits and vegetables, popcorn movies like this one should not be loaded down with messages and complications that don’t enhance the story.

The shallow story and characters possessing only one or two dimensions means that the movie never has much chance of succeeding on multiple levels, so if you expect a serious action movie, you will be disappointed with Rise of Silver Surfer, as you likely were with the original. If you expect mindless superhero entertainment and a near carbon copy of the first installment, then you will leave the theater content with what you saw.

Bottom Line: There is a place for movies like this: DVD rental. 5 of 10.

Analog players in a digital world.

2007-06-14T21:47:00.000-04:00

The latest movie in this summer of the sequel is a departure from the first three heavyweights of Spider-man 3, Shrek the Third, and Pirates 3. Aimed more at adults than adolescents, Ocean’s Thirteen is the clean-up hitter this summer. In baseball, a clean-up hitter usually has power. Ocean’s Thirteen has star power, perhaps more than any other release this summer, and the movie wields its weapons well. (Audio review here.)

While Julia Roberts and Catherine Zeta-Jones are not back for this installment, all the men of Ocean’s Eleven and Ocean’s Twelve do reprise their roles. George Clooney and Brad Pitt head up the gang of thieves, aided by Matt Damon, Don Cheadle, and the rest of the crew that moviegoers have come to know over the last six years. The biggest addition to the cast is a name bigger than all of them, and his character is the catalyst for the caper that drives the entire film. The man is Al Pacino, playing a flashy casino owner who incurs the gang’s wrath by betraying Elliott Gould’s Reuben Tishkoff, setting the stage for the rest of the revenge movie.

The first film was a modern classic that thrived on the energy of Las Vegas and the cool confidence of Clooney and Pitt. Twelve lost much of those factors by bouncing around Europe and putting the band of thieves on the run. Thirteen returns to the franchise’s successful roots, taking place predominantly in the colorful world of Sin City and also placing the heroes in control most of the time.

In restoring those two key elements, Ocean’s Thirteen recaptures the spirit of the original. The dialogue isn’t as crisp or smart, but it’s close, and elements of the past glory are present. Things like con-man lingo and everyone bilingually communicating with The Amazing Yen provide well-done unexplained humor. Writers Brian Koppelman and David Levien (who penned quality guy flicks like Rounders and Knockaround Guys) do overuse the borrowed elements, as though they decided to repeat the good parts of the original’s script as often as possible, and the resulting jokes wear a bit thin over the course of the movie.

Returning to Vegas is a wise choice that simplifies the plot. Though staples of heist movies, like double-crosses and sleight of hand, are present, the story is largely straight forward. You know what the guys are going to do; you’re just watching to see how the crew overcomes the various inevitable obstacles. This makes it slightly less entertaining, but also makes for a very comfortable viewing experience, despite the required suspension of disbelief. The cinematography of Steven Soderbergh (under the pseudonym Peter Andrews) helps too; the pictures and transitions are not to the impressive level of Eleven, but they have their moments, as do the quirky uses of titles and graphics.

As is the case in many sequels, the cast slides effortlessly back into their roles. Clooney and Pitt are smooth; Damon is trying to prove himself; Bernie Mac is a fast-talker, etc. As the new guy, Pacino effectively joins the fray with a surprisingly underplayed part. He’s not the big, bold, brash near-caricature that he has morphed into through movies like Scent of a Woman and The Devil’s Advocate. He still looks the over-the-top part with his deep tan and vibrant suits, but he is more kniving than bombastic, which is a very appropriate choice for the movie.

Ocean’s Thirteen is the cinematic version of a lazy river ride at a water park. You hop in your inner tube and cruise around the lengthy pool, admiring the view, chatting with friends, and generally enjoying the laid-back experience. Unlike many of this summer’s blockbusters, it does not bombard you with loud effects or action scenes. It won’t shock and awe you by pulling wool over your eyes with a mind-blowing twist. Instead, gentle turns and reveals are sprinkled throughout, providing an enjoyable two hours spent with familiar and entertaining characters.

Bottom Line: A good summer diversion that returns to the roots of the series. Not as good as the first, but better than the second. 7 of 10.

The Trailer Park.

2007-06-07T12:32:00.000-04:00

First some news. I've started writing a movie blog for the Topeka Capital-Journal's website. It should contain roughly the same content that I've been putting up here for a couple years, but with more consistency. I hope for a review a week, plus another post or two. For my first non-review thoughtsI made the first of what should be a series of posts entitled The Trailer Park, a collection of movie trailers. If anyone has trailer suggestions or ideas for posts, feel free to let me know. Unfortunately I don' think there is an RSS feed specifically for me, just for all the CJOnline blogs. I will likely cross-post that stuff here, but I would appreciate a click-through to bump my my hit count. You can even comment if you like, although you will need to register with the site to do so. Just behave.

Now, the first installment of The Trailer Park...

I love movie trailers. They're the cinematic equivalent of baseball's spring training. Just as most every team (except Kansas City) thinks they have a chance to make a playoff run, most trailers promise at least a diverting two hours in the theater, and many offer harbingers of greatness.

On a semi-regular basis, I plan to comment on the underrated art of trailers and share the best (or worst) trailers that I can find. Some will be for soon-to-be-released movies; some will be farther down the road; some will be blasts from the past.

As a side note, the term "trailer" originated back when movie previews used to be shown after feature films. The name stuck even after the previews were moved for obvious reasons. People would simply walk out after the main attraction was over.

Roll film...

Ocean's Thirteen--This week sees the summer's fourth straight big release that is the third in a series (no, the 1960 version doesn't count, because it was impressively boring). Judging strictly from the trailer, it looks like those involved may have recaptured the irreverent humor that made 2001’s Ocean's Eleven so good, rather than imitate the mailed-in Ocean's Twelve. We can only hope.

Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer—Earlier this week, a new trailer was released, revealing mildly intriguing new subplots. News also leaked that the movie will be rated PG, which is a little surprising since that rating will sometimes alienate older adolescents who think it too tame. The original Fantastic Four was just okay, worthy of a DVD rental. The pieces seem to be there to make this franchise huge, but something doesn’t quite click about the humor and superhero relationships.

Bee Movie--Jerry Seinfeld stars as the lead voice in this animated movie that appears to be aimed primarily at adults. If you like Seinfeld's brand of humor, you'll like the second teaser trailer, which is the better of the two. I'm not convinced that his shtick will play as well over a full-length picture, but I’ll definitely give it a shot in November.

Across the Universe--This is the best (or at least trippiest) trailer of the year. It’s helmed by Julie Taymor, who directed Titus and Frida, but is better known for directing and designing costumes for the Broadway production of The Lion King. This movie looks like a Vietnam Era love story synced with a Beatles soundtrack, which promises to be a great if offbeat theatrical experience. A September 28th release date is set.

Saving Private Ryan--In honor of Wednesday's 63rd anniversary of D-Day (which was ridiculously underplayed in the media), here is a glimpse at the war movie that changed war movies. When I saw this at age eighteen, this film struck me to the core more than any film had before or has since, as I tried to fathom storming Normandy before I could drink. Saving Private Ryan was completely deserving of the Oscar for Best Picture...that inexplicably went to Shakespeare in Love in perhaps the worst decision the Academy has ever made. Yes, I'm still bitter.

Close your eyes and pretend it's all a bad dream.

2007-06-01T19:47:00.000-04:00

Batting third in the summer of the sequel lineup is Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End. Shot simultaneously with last year’s Dead Man’s Chest, this one picks up where that one left off. Which is to say…I have no idea. (Audio review here.)

Okay, that’s not entirely true. When last we saw Johnny Depp's Captain Jack Sparrow, he was being swallowed by the giant sea monster Kraken, which means that he's now surrounded by himself in a strange sort of purgatory located, that's right, at world's end.

The story initially involves getting Jack back from Davy Jones' locker, which is necessary in order to save pirates from extinction, because (if you remember from the second one) the British Navy is holding Jones’ heart hostage, and thus forcing him (he's the octopus-faced undead pirate) to exterminate the remaining pirates. If you were able to follow all that, good, because that's the most comprehensible portion of the plot. It's the trunk, from which plot lines and motives sprout like Hydra heads from every possible location, layering on additional story arcs that only complicate things. Hammering out all the whys and hows would take far more time and effort than such a movie is worth. Too often, the details of what's happening are fuzzy or uncertain, which is most frustrating because the plot is actually relatively simple.

Fortunately, that barely matters, because the point of the movie is to create moments and imagery that awe and enchant. On this level, Pirates 3 succeeds wildly. There are battles with visual effects so stunning that they are scarcely noticed. There's a great scene accompanied by wailing electric guitars that calls to mind the classic westerns of Eastwood and Wayne. The dramatic score is again filled with hard-driving strings and horns that rile adrenaline and make for an over-the-top movie experience. Keira Knightley and Orlando Bloom are still beautiful people. There's a great cameo by a legendary rocker, and Depp still owns the idiosyncratic Captain Jack in every way possible. Just look at that poster! Is that not the epitome of cinematic coolness?

All these similarities to the first two are good, but also part of the problem. Some sequels (Shrek the Third) get ripped because they are too different from their predecessors. Others get downgraded because they are too similar, which is the category that Pirates 3 falls into. Many of the parts are good, but essentially it's is just more of the same, with an emphasis on the MORE. There is too much here in the almost three hour movie. Continuing the tree trunk analogy, the movie is an out-of-control tree that needs to be pruned back. Clip off those stray branches. Trim the bunny trails and betrayals. Shape the tree into a more presentable and palatable two hours plus.

Bottom Line: Pirates 3 had its moments, and wasn't a bad experience overall, but the exhausting length constantly throws needless curves and double-crosses into the relentless fray. As my dad said at the end, "I hope they stop." 4 of 10.

Where is Shrek?

2007-05-19T15:50:00.000-04:00

The first Shrek came out of nowhere, an offbeat fractured fairy tale with a story suitable for kids and jokes aimed at adults. Shrek 2 contained more of the same, particularly the latter, with an emphasis on MORE. The story was cruder, with images and humor that I wouldn't want my kids to see, and overbearingly bloated with gags, as the writers stuffed aural and visual pop culture references in like Mark Mangino at a buffet. Watching the sequel felt like being bludgeoned with a comic hammer that screamed Look what we can do! That progression leads to Shrek the Third, batting second in the summer of the sequel, featuring an underwhelming trailer that threatened to continue the slide of the series. (Audio review here.)

Not unexpectedly, this is the worst of the three, but the reasons for its limited appeal are surprising. The creators heeded the complaints about Shrek 2 containing too many psuedo-clever jokes, which is good. Specific allusions like Mission: Impossible or Lord of the Rings have been largely replaced by general parodies of events like high school life and Broadway musicals. This alteration in humor is welcome but too severe, stripping the franchise of its definitive irreverent nature, which is bad. Shrek 3 swings the comedy pendulum from the in-your-face extreme of the second past the moderation of the first to a unpleasantly safe converse. It frequently feels more like a less saccharine Disney movie than a Shrek movie, complete with a schmaltzy moral at the end.

That's not to say that the movie isn't funny. The writing occasionally crackles; excellent comic timing is pervasive; and the sundry offbeat appearances of noteworthy characters like Captain Hook and Snow White are still entertaining. But on the whole everything feels restrained, like a kid who was reprimanded for doing something wrong and is now afraid to do much of anything. As much as I didn't like all of the prequels' base humor, this one needs more of it. The less flamboyant nature of the movie also diminishes its appeal to children, as does the metamorphosis of Shrek himself from rambunctious troublemaker to calmer father figure, a transformation that makes him more accessible to adults than kids.

In the end, the movie ends up feeling much like the main character. Just as Shrek himself feels that the confinements of the crown prevent him from being himself, the movie feels muzzled, neutered by knee-jerk reactions to the second movie. It isn't gratingly bad, but neither is it actively good. Shrek the Third (good title, by the way) merely idles its way through a rightfully short eighty-seven minutes.

Bottom Line: Third verse, different from the first (and second). Not quite the same, and notably worse. 5 of 10.

2007-05-10T21:31:00.000-04:00

Courtesy of the New York Times, here is a meandering but good and interesting collection of thoughts on summer blockbusters, which are generally panned by critics. I don't think I'm as nearly as pretentious as many highbrow critcs, but then again, my Top Ten of last year only contained one or two big releases: M:I-3 in the ten spot and maybe Lady in the Water at number six. I'd like to think I reside in the cinematic mean between art and pop, capable of enjoying both.

There is definitely a place for what I call summertainment. I'm excited that the summer movie season has begun. I don't mind spending a couple hours watching cinematic eye candy like Spider-Man 3. But I have reasonable expectations; I don't anticipate being taken to new heights by any of the sequels in the next few months, but I would like to see good filmmaking. It's like going to a sporting event. I don't always expect phenomenal accomplishments, but I do expect to be diverted for a while, and I want to see teams and individuals play well. For me, good filmmaking or athleticism are part of being entertained. Just because my rating isn't high doesn't mean I didn't enjoy my time. Keep in mind though that like the author mentions, spectacle at its finest is buttressed by substance, as exemplified by films like The Matrix and Batman Begins. Movies like that are too few and far between. That is a shame.

A couple other movie notes: Shrek 3 will be my next movie. Apparently the running length is only 87 minutes. That will almost certainly be its strong point. Conversely, Pirates 3 is nearly twice as long, TWO HOURS AND FORTY-SEVEN MINUTES! Looks like a classic situation of the-trailer-is-better-than-the-movie. That may need to be one of my miscellaneous awards next year. I just need a namesake.

This could be the end of Spider-Man.

2007-05-05T22:36:00.000-04:00

Buckle your seat belts. It's time for the summer movie season. Let's get this out of the way first: this is the summer of the sequel. Of the ten most hyped movies in the next four months, eight of them are sequels, and seven of those are at least the third in the series. Sequels are a tricky business, because there are often massive built-in expectations and points of reference. They can't be too similar to the prequels without risking boredom, but if they stray too far from the tone of the original, they risk alienating their audiences. Like last year's summer season, this year kicks off with the third movie in a blockbuster series. In 2006, the first out of the gate was Mission: Impossible 3; in 2007, it is Spider-Man 3. (Audio review here.)

When we last left Spidey three years ago, he had rid the world of Doctor Octopus, and had his identity revealed to his two closest friends, his girlfriend Mary Jane and his buddy/enemy Harry Osborn, whose father was the Green Goblin in the original picture. SM3 picks up not long after, in a New York City where Spider-Man has gone glam, with his name and image plastered all over the media. Peter Parker relishes his newfound fame, so much that it begins to impede his relationship with Mary Jane. As that hits the rocks, he finds himself vulnerable at an inopportune time, which leads to the chaos that forms the crux of the movie.

One strong point of the movie is that is has the same principal cast as first two and also possesses a continuous story arc. Both features (think about it) are actually rarities among superhero trilogies. That definitely helps in the continuity department, because the characters, locations, and relationships are familiar. On the downside, the similarities amplify the fact that little of the movie is original. We've seen Spidey swoop and soar through city canyons, and we've seen him fight nasty villians. With the exception of an early chase scene, nothing is particularly different, either in style or content. That's disappointing, as a Spider-Man movie begs to be exhilarating. Say what you will about the vastly different styles of the three Mission: Impossibles, but each of them had a unique feel that individually defined each movie and made like events more interesting.

While the lack of novelty is disappointing, the most significant attempt at being unique provides the most unusual portion of the movie. As Parker/Spidey undergoes a transformation in the middle act, the movie takes a bizarre turn into romantic comedy. The idea is commendable; too few movies take too few chances. But this one doesn't work. For twenty minutes you understand what is happening, but still can't quite believe it. It would be like if Golden State had gone into a stall offense when they were up 20 against Dallas last night. Sure, it makes sense given the circumstances, but it still feels completely wrong and out of place.

The bigger problem is the end consequence of the emotional speed bump. It's something very rare in superhero movies: Peter Parker is not likeable. Granted, that is part of the point, but when one starts disliking the title character, one loses interest in the movie, and that is huge strike against this kind of flick.

Like the later Batman installments, SM3 also has too many characters and stories for one movie. Instead of completely marginalizing the hero like Batman & Robin did, SM3 races through the stories of the antagonists. Two of the three could easily have filled the requisite two-plus hours in finer fashion. Then the villains' stories could have been fleshed out better to create the rare well-rounded superhero movie. Not only that, but Peter Parker's issues could have been expanded as well, in a manner more like its predecessors. One of the taglines for the movie is The Battle Within, and that promising fight unfortunately is not fully addressed, though in a pleasant surprise, numerous positive themes of responsibility and choice are.

Having said all that, I must provide the disclaimer that Spider-Man just doesn't do it for me. Batman does; Superman does; but Spider-Man doesn't. Maybe it has to do with Tobey Maguire's relatively diminutive stature, that I don't believe he could be a butt-kicking hero. Maybe the face-covering mask dehumanizes Spider-Man for me. Whatever.

People won't care that much; Spider-Man 3 will still make a webful of money. If you like the other two Spider-Man movies, you'll enjoy this one, which isn't painful to watch. There are plenty of characters and eventually plenty of action. But Spider-Man 3 matches its predecessors ways it shouldn't and doesn't match them in ways it should.

Bottom Line: 6 of 10 for the first big release of the summer and perhaps the final Spider-Man movie. Not bad, but nothing special.

Vote for Summer.

2007-05-03T22:06:00.000-04:00

With the film industry apparently on the same schedule as Pepperdine, the summer movie season begins tomorrow, four days into May. But after the cinematic desert of the last two months, this oasis is more than welcome.

Here is my take on the big releases of the summer, ordered by how eager I am to see them. Links are to the trailer whenever possible...

Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix--If I could pick one movie to see this summer, this would be it. And I haven't even read the book yet, so NO SPOILERS PLEASE! Just the trailer is enough to get me juiced though. I'm psyched for my Two Weeks o' Potter. (July 13th)

Live Free or Die Hard--Nudged out mostly because this at this point I don't know what will happen in Harry 5. Bruce Willis will undoubtedly be good in the role he invented, and the trailer looks sweet. It probably won't be great, but it will be great fun. (June 27th)

Ocean's Thirteen--The trailer makes it look as though the cast has gotten back to the irreverent nature that made the original so much fun. Good. (June 8th)

The Bourne Ultimatum--Jason Bourne seems like a nice guy; he's just misunderstood. Now he gets his revenge. Or something. Should be a good ride. (August 3rd)

Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End--No, the second one wasn't that good, treading water for three hours. But the third one promises to go places in a big way and provide big summertainment en route. Plus Keira Knightley actually looks like a woman. I'm excited. (May 25th)

Spider-Man 3--I've said it a billion times. Unlike Batman or Superman, Spider-Man doesn't do much for me. Just check out my review of #2. But with two or three or four quality villains and strong interpersonal conflict, this one oozes potential. And I'm going to the midnight showing in four hours. Woo. (May 4th)

Ratatouille--I haven't bothered to learn much about this one yet, but it's the latest from Pixar, so I'm sure it will be good. (June 29th)

Transformers--It's like Independence Day, except with giant robots instead of aliens and Shia LeBeouf instead of Will Smith. Those are both negative substitutions, but this still seems like a classic Fourth of July movie in which the planet unites against mechanical forces of evil. (July 6th)

Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer--I'm not exactly sure why, but this appeals to me. Maybe it's the slight twist of the villain being in the title. I didn't even see the original in theaters, and this one really seems more like a classic see-on-DVD release. But I'm intrigued. (June 15th)

Evan Almighty--Steve Carell first caught the eyes of movie-goers in Bruce Almighty, and now his plastic-faced character gets the sequel treatment as the man God (Morgan Freeman) commissions to build an ark for all the pairs of animals. I like the concept, but I'm not convinced it will be very good. (June 22nd)

Rush Hour 3--I wasn't wild about either prequel, although both were passable. Releasing a third movie six years after the second one, when neither star is on the rise, seems like a bad idea. (August 10th)

The Simpsons Movie--This one shouldn't actually be that bad, but I'm not a big fan of The Simpsons, so I probably won't bother to see it. But if you're a fan, go for it. (July 27th)

Shrek the Third--I think the best thing about this will be its unique title. The trailer was cringe-worthy, painfully packed with pop culture references and bad jokes. This one promises to officially put the franchise in neutral, if not reverse. I'm not paying money for it. (May 18th)

If I missed anything, feel free to elaborate. Otherwise, enjoy the summer.

The Dime Bag, volume VIII.

2007-04-28T21:24:00.000-04:00

I haven't done one of these since last August, so I figured I'd better clean it out before the summer season starts next week. I hope to get a bit of a preview up before then, but who knows. So here are some brief comments about some of the movies I saw during my Oscar rush, plus one new figure skating parody...

Blades of Glory--Eight words: Will Ferrell, Jon Heder, men's pairs figure skating. Any additional description is superfluous. It is consistently funny, but isn't often as incisive as it could be. Like most movies of this ilk, this one is half an hour too long, with a few unnecessary scenes and a few that last too long. The flick only makes about five jokes, though it does them well and in about every manner possible. If you like Ferrell's others, you'll like this one. (5)

Cars--Though just as clever as it's Pixar predecessors, this one didn't quite have the charm. Still good entertainment, but it didn't have the universality of Finding Nemo or The Incredibles. Maybe Pixar's saccharine tendencies have worn a bit thin. (7)

Hollywoodland--This story about the rise and fall of George Reeves, TV's Superman in the 1950s, started well, but floundered as it resolved. Diane Lane was excellent as usual, and Ben Affleck was actually decent. Too bad the script mailed in the latter half. (5)

Babel--Another multi-layered drama in the vein of Traffic or Crash, but not as good as either. One story arc that didn't mesh at all, and the rest were only mildy interesting. Well-made, but not particularly likeable. (6)

Once in a Lifetime--A great documentary about the New York Cosmos, a 1970s soccer team comprised of international superstars. The archival highlights alone make it worth watching for soccer fans. The rise and fall of the team's fortunes are very engrossing as well. (8)

The Devil Wears Prada--A fairly predictable but enjoyable flick about a young woman (Anne Hathaway) who somewhat accidentally finds herself as the assistant of the wicked witch of the fashion world (Meryl Streep). It's really worth watching just to see Streep gleefully vamp her way through the movie. That and the great clothes of course. Or something. Let's just move on. (7)

Pan's Labyrinth--A great fairy tale set during one of the countless Spanish Revolutions. The contrast is gripping, and the debate of reality versus imagination is pleasantly unsolveable. #8 for 2006. (8)

Letters from Iwo Jima--Like I said in my Top Ten, it's a little tough to connect with this Japanese perspective on the WWII battle for Iwo Jima. But it's still Clint Eastwood at his finest. The film looks phenomenal and is surprisingly powerful. #5 of 2006. (8)

The Illusionist--This magician tale starring Edward Norton and Paul Giamatti might have been better had it not been overshadowed by that other magician movie, The Prestige. Illusionist isn't bad, but the production values aren't nearly as good, nor is it nearly as gripping as Prestige. But you could do far worse if you want something to rent.

Tsunami: The Aftermath--This is a two-part HBO movie that relies heavily on raw emotion as it relates the stories of a father (Chiwetel Ejiofor) and a journalist (Tim Roth) in the...uh...aftermath of the tsunami that crushed Thailand two and a half years ago. The emotion is palpable and is enough to make this a very good television special. But there's a reason it was "only" a TV movie and not a big screen feature. It just doesn't have that extra power to deserve such treatment, but it's still solid. (7)

One Shining Moment.

2007-03-30T16:31:00.000-04:00

The Final Four starts tomorrow, and if you've been anywhere near any sports media, you know that it promises to be a great one. All four teams are very good, and each matchup has plenty of juicy storylines. I'm taking Florida to shut down UCLA again, Georgetown to overpower Ohio State inside, and the Gators to simply be more complete than the Hoyas in the final. It should be a great weekend, topped off by one of the year's great sports days on Monday, when the Royals open the season at home against Boston, followed by the national title game that evening. Good times.

But the real reason for this post is to share one of the greatest blog posts you will ever see. Someone deserves a medal for this. Here are the last ten renditions of One Shining Moment, CBS's annual musical montage that recaps the NCAA tournament. It's overwrought; it's cheesy; it's melodramatic. I love it. The college basketball season is not officially over until the song has played. I feel very strongly about this. I will never, EVER watch How I Met Your Mother because of its cheap promo that parodied this esteemed song. Doogie Howser should be dragged around in the street. Maybe he'll move to Wyoming.

But I digress. Enjoy One Shining Moment, one of the highlights of my sports year.

This is madness!

2007-03-24T18:14:00.000-04:00

Sorry, this isn't a 300 review. I've been a little distracted lately by basketball and...uh...stuff, so I haven't gotten to a theater since the Oscars.

My bracket is basically screwed, although I do have three of my Final Four (KU, Georgetown, Florida) left as of this post, along with my national champion (Gators). But my key upsets (Texas, Notre Dame) didn't work out, nor did my "dark horse" Final Four pick (A&M). I also chose the wrong year to take all four 10-seeds and three of the 12s, since none of either seed won. The only decent surprises I predicted were VCU in the first round and Vandy into the Sweet Sixteen. Therefore I'm done in all my pools.

The tournament so far has been solid, even though I did miss much of the best action last weekend for a wedding. But here's the best finish to any game that will happen this year. It's the Division II national championship game. Defending titleist Winona State (in white) has a 57-game winning streak on the line. They led Barton by seven with 45 seconds left; the video picks up with the Warriors at the line, up five, with 35 seconds left. And...play!

Unbelievable.

...with honors!

2007-03-09T11:47:00.000-05:00

Here are my miscellaneous movie awards for 2006. Enjoy...

Unbreakable award (best trailer): The Prestige. Not even close. The trailer breathlessly presents the three acts of a magician's trick, which conveniently parallel the film itself. It leaves the viewer with a sense of awe and excitement without divulging much of the intricate story. If only more preview editors could do the same.

Best Movie Moment: United 93, when the titular flight departs the runway. Despite knowing what had to happen, I found myself hoping against hope that somehow the plane might not get off the ground. When it did, my heart was ripped from my chest as a combination of pride and sorrow delivered chills through my body.

Kangaroo Jack award (worst trailer): Let's Go to Prison. Can we put the makers of this "movie" in jail? Here's how the pitch must have gone…

Dumb Writer: Okay, let's get that guy who hasn't done anything good since Punk'd, throw him in prison, and make it like a bad camp with every overdone jail joke possible.

Dumb Producer: Great idea. And let's put a bar of soap on the poster…just in case the audience doesn't pick up on the dozen gay jokes we put in the thirty-second trailer.

Unbelievably Dumb Executive: Sounds great! Let's do it!!

Baseball award (best documentary): Once in a Lifetime. I thought about placing this in my top ten, but lumping documentaries in with traditional feature films is too complicated for me. This one tells the story of the New York Cosmos (1970s soccer team), wonderfully capturing the era with an olio of period music and graphics. The fantastic, sometimes grainy soccer footage is often impeccably edited in rhythm with the music or narration, creating a sense of humor that seems appropriate given the ridiculous extravagances in which the team indulged. Any soccer fan needs to see this.

M. Night Shyamalan award (most underrated movie): Lady in the Water. Obviously. On Premiere's annual Critic's Choice list, this was dead last out of one hundred movies rated. Dead last. Rarely have critics completely whiffed on a movie this badly. Two words: BEDTIME STORY! Stupid people.

Ocean's Eleven award (best overall look): Children of Men. Seconds into the movie, the entire mood of the bleak futuristic world is entirely evident, and it never wavers throughout. Throw in pitch-perfect world-weary roles from a solid cast, and this film is the epitome of how cinema can create new environments for their audiences.

King Kong award (best theater experience): Casino Royale, with a couple dozen guys, was good, particularly the chair scene. Little Miss Sunshine was quality, with gales of laughter and even tears. But the start-to-finish winner is easily Snakes on a Plane. The serpents bite just about every human body part, and are killed in equally diverse ways. That induced countless cringes and screams from the people I was with, topped by Doug's "That was not necessary!!" Good times.

Yogi Berra award (movie that triggered déjà vu all over again): Glory Road. A few decades back, a coach takes over a struggling team and controversially integrates it. As they overcome persecution and their own differences, the team manages to learn a ton about the game and themselves, propelling them on a Cinderella run through their sport's biggest tournament. Remember the Titans? Nope. It's Glory Road, which was also a Bruckheimer production. I can't wait until he reworks the baseball version about Jackie Robinson so that Brooklyn wins the World Series in his rookie season.

Showgirls award (worst movie): The Last Kiss. I didn't see any completely horrid movies at a theater this year. So I'll give this award to a movie with a completely horrid foundational premise, that marriage is a transient and meaningless thing. Morons.

Deep Blue Sea award (wholly enjoyable movie that wasn't that good): Superman Returns. Almost all of this movie's quality was derived from imitating the original two movies, and the primary original storyline was a little sketchy. I wholly enjoyed it, but not entirely for its own merits.

Catch Me if You Can award (best opening credits): Casino Royale. Typical Bond opening credits, with girls dancing and guys shooting, except these were two-dimensional scenes composed largely of the four playing card suits. Good stuff, and a great stage setter for an enjoyable escape of a movie.

Harry Potter & the Prisoner of Azkaban award (best closing credits): The Fountain. Nothing too fancy here, but instead of merely scrolling through the names, these credits faded them in and out on different parts of the screen. Accompanied by appropriately ethereal music, the credits matched the tone of the film perfectly.

Snake Eyes award (movie that took a dive in the last act): The Departed. Yes, Scorsese put together an excellent film…for two hours. But the final twenty minutes are very unsatisfying. My bitterness has waned since I originally saw the film, as the close does seem more appropriate. But it is still unsatisfying, prevented the movie from being an all-time classic.

Batman & Robin award (most disappointing sequel): Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest. I have a hard time believing that there were actually parts cut from this movie to include as deleted scenes on the DVD. Underworld: Evolution was pretty bad too, but it had less to live up to and was significantly shorter.

Shakespeare in (expletive deleted) Love award (movie most overrated by critics): The Queen. This was the #1 movie of the year according to Premiere's annual panel of critics. The two lead performances by Helen Mirren and Michael Sheen were worthy of such acclaim, but the film had very little technical merit. Absent the two leads, it would be nothing more than a decent TV movie, far from an Oscar contender.

Thanks for reading. As usual, I leave you with a few movies I'm anticipating most in the upcoming year. I find it interesting and sad that most of them are sequels of the third degree or more (and I didn't even list the third Spider-man/Shrek/Pirates/Bourne), but I suppose the best original films often lack the buzz until their releases are nearer. For what it's worth, 2006 was filled with a similar number of unoriginal ideas, but only one made my top ten.

Ocean's 13. June 8th. Judging from the trailer and set reports, the cast and crew seem to have recaptured the irreverent spirit of the original without getting lazy or gimmicky like the second one.

Live Free or Die Hard. June 29th. A current front-runner for best trailer and movie of 2007. Yippee-kay-yay, !#$%^*@###^&.

Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix. July 13th. That's right, it's a Friday. The possibility of reading three Potter books and seeing this movie over the course of a few weeks is fairly invigorating.

Across the Universe. September 28th. The always innovative Julie Taymor directs this 1960s love story. The sweet trailer makes it look like a sort of musical set to Beatles music, which promises to be a trippy experience.

Be there. Aloha.

I hate Billy Packer.

2007-03-05T13:46:00.000-05:00

As I've said before, March is the best sports month of the year. There is only one glaring problem with it: the annual resurfacing of Billy Packer. Since he primarily does ACC games during the regular season, I rarely have the misfortune of listening to him until tourney time or a big game late in the year, like yesterday's Duke-Carolina contest. As you can see on the video below, with scant seconds left in the game, Gerald Henderson of Duke (he's the black guy) hammered UNC's star player, Tyler Hansbrough, on a putback attempt. For the five minutes that it took to sort things out, Packer adamanty insisted that Henderson was going after the ball...WHICH WASN'T EVEN ON THE SCREEN WHEN HE SWUNG! Obviously I just gave away my stance on the incident, but I'm willing to listen to someone reasonably try to explain otherwise. Conversely, Packer won't shut up about how Henderson was clearly trying to block the shot, intimidating his too-polite partner Jim Nantz into an awkward silence that screams disagreement, or at least evenhanded-ness. The lesson, as always, is that Billy Packer is an idiot.

As for the foul itself, admittedly, Hansbrough probably shouldn't have been a 12-point game with fifteen seconds left, but that doesn't mean that Duke gets to crush his face. At the very least, Henderson's play was sloppy and irresponsible. Realistically, I think his cheap shot is as dirty a play as one can make in a basketball game, and is more than worthy of any suspension he might get. (I can't believe I'm defending Carolina.)

The best of the best of the best, sir!

2007-03-01T18:47:00.001-05:00

For whatever reason, Blogger decided it hated me, not allowing me to upgrade my old blog to the new version. I suspect racism. Anyway, thus the new URL (and some new features). If you're looking for something I put up before this month, you'll still have to go to the old site, which I link to down there on the bottom right.

To kick this new blog off in style, here are my Top Ten Films of 2006, which some of you may have received via e-mail. I'll throw the miscellaneous awards up here in a few days. Enjoy...

Like most years, 2006 was an interesting cinematic one. I didn't think I'd seen nearly as many films as I usually do, although I did watch all five Best Picture nominees. Upon further review though, the number is virtually identical (about 40) to the last couple years. The difference appears to be that I didn't make it to quite as many "films", but saw more "movies". My initial thoughts were that that 2006 was not a great cinematic year, but looking back, I see several decent flicks that didn't make my list, along with seven films in my top ten that were brilliantly creative and well-executed, plus my heart-wrenching top selection. I think these top eight films could hang with any octet from any year. Go see them. Now.

Without further ado, here is my Top Ten of 2006, in reverse order, with links to my full reviews if possible. Remember that the rankings may not directly correspond with the ratings I doled out upon initial review, because a top ten list should be more fluid than simply organizing films by number…

Warning! Mild Spoilers Ahead!

10. Mission: Impossible III. In the spot reserved for the best movie of the year (a popcorn movie with no pretense of Oscar) comes Tom Cruise's adrenaline fest, which is nearly exhausting with its unrelenting action. A classic MacGuffin only accentuates the point that this is not a grand film, but pure summertainment featuring beautiful people in extreme, life-threatening circumstances with the fate of the world on the line. That's what a summer blockbuster should be, and that's what Cruise and director J.J. Abrams deliver.

9. The Departed. The fact that Martin Scorsese's work makes my list despite an unsatisfying final act reveals just how riveting the first two hours are. The all-star cast is as good as expected; six different viewers could easily come away most impressed by half a dozen different performances. Scorsese doesn't put this one on cruise control though, using creative editing to maximize the medium's capabilities. Since no other film captured the hearts of Academy voters, the film was able to snag a few big Oscars, including Best Director and Best Picture; I can accept that. It felt too seedy and occasionally cartoonish to sneak too far up my list, but after an initial poor aftertaste, Departed regained my favor enough to land here.

8. Pan's Labyrinth. Set six decades ago during one of the countless Spanish civil wars, this movie is dominated by the contrasts between the brutal realities of the conflict and the tender imagination of a young girl, blurring the line between fantasy and reality in the process. How much of the film is real is quite debatable, but ultimately doesn't matter. Similar to Finding Neverland, the point is that the imagination is a powerful tool that is particularly and wonderfully useful in the darkest times.

7. The Prestige. With its powerhouse combination of actors (Bale and Jackman), director (Christopher Nolan), and production value, it seems that this tale of dueling magicians should be higher on the list. Maybe I did not possess the proper mindset when I saw it. Perhaps everyone achieves excellence so effortlessly that it nearly goes unappreciated. Seeing clips from the film still gets me excited, and I can't find much wrong with this picture except the lack of any personal connection.

6. Lady in the Water. Anyone complaining that M. Night Shyamalan is a one-trick pony with his surprise endings can stop talking now. There is no big twist here, just a tense children's tale that persistently entertains with its creative characters and imaginative storyline. Had someone else made this film, it would have been received with much more open-mindedness, but because too many people have preconceived notions about Shyamalan's work, his films' reviews suffer. It is a shame that more people do not understand what he accomplished with this fine movie.

5. Letters from Iwo Jima. Clint Eastwood directs the story of the battle for the titular island from the Japanese perspective. From a technical standpoint, this is every bit the equal to Flags of Our Fathers, but connecting emotionally with a Japanese race that has been eternally portrayed as the enemy is something that takes a good chunk of the film to work through. The fact that the movie is still so potent is a sign of its remarkable quality. A similar film about Americans may have hauled in even more accolades, but this one is an equally noteworthy accomplishment.

4. Little Miss Sunshine. This quirky dark comedy was the funniest movie of the year by several bus lengths. I was literally crying from laughter by the end, when the movie smartly got out promptly and on top. The eclectic family was played superbly by the ensemble cast with an appropriate combination of gravity and humor that is often difficult to capture. As hilarious as Sunshine is, it also addresses many serious subjects in ways better than many dramas. Well worthy of its Oscar for Best Original Screenplay, you won't find a much better blend of comedy and poignancy.

3. Flags of our Fathers. As it explores an American angle on the fight for Iwo Jima, Flags quickly establishes that this isn't just another war movie. Utilizing multiple layers of flashbacks, it concentrates on the psychological impact that being hailed as a hero can have on different people, a fascinating contrast to the Vietnam era, when returning soldiers were often vilified. The nearly monochromatic color scheme is fantastic for the black sands of Iwo Jima, as Eastwood's sure hand guides what isn't his best movie, but might be his most important one.

2. Children of Men. Director Alfonso Cuaron helms the finest-crafted picture of the year, featuring a rock-solid performance by a stoic Clive Owen. With several lengthy shots that literally made my jaw drop, Cuaron creates a movie that entertains wildly through its technical achievement while enhancing rather than distracting from the film itself. Even without being aware of them, the long single takes subconsciously spawn tension, gluing the viewer to the screen, scarcely allowing a chance to blink or breathe. Combine that technical quality with a fascinating premise (all women in the world are now infertile), and the result is a film that is worthy of my top spot, but was nudged out by a once-in-a-lifetime type of work.

1. United 93. As its Oscar snubs may indicate, future generations may (erroneously) not rank this film among the year's best. It isn't the best made film of 2006 (though it's close), but it is the year's best and most moving cinematic experience. By using handheld cameras and eschewing dramatic music, director Paul Greengrass recreates the story passionately but without prejudice. Taking shots at the various inadequacies of the military and the FAA would have been simple, but instead the natural drama of the slowly building confusion is allowed to frustrate, perplex, and disappoint without being condescending. United 93 reaches people in ways that most films cannot, because it draws the viewer's emotions into the picture without being manipulative, and those genuine feelings are far greater than anything even the best films can generate on their own.

Thanks for reading. Ben has the first comment in three...two...