The Unicellular Review

Most Anticipated - 2012

2012-02-12T08:25:00.000-06:00

It's been a long time coming, but a month late is about as good a time as any to examine the outlook of 2012 in film and see what it has in store for us moviegoers. As with any year, not every movie will live up to expectations, and a few will surpass expectations. At this point last year I thought X-Men: First Class was going to be a joke and Super 8 was going to be amazing, and the opposite happened on both counts, so just because a movie is highly anticipated does not mean it is guaranteed to be any good. With that said, 2012 has a plethora of exciting movies coming out, a few original ideas, mostly adaptations, sequels, and reboots though.

There are still a great many question marks out there that I am anticipating, but I am not entirely sold on yet. For example, Terrence Malick's untitled project starring Ben Affleck. Malick -- who finally released his opus, The Tree of Life, in 2011 after being in production for nearly a decade -- is notorious for taking years to complete a project, and having one so soon after the other has me a touch wary. Then there is Robert Zemeckis' first live action film in over a decade with Flight. Does he still have the magic he once had? His animated offerings over the past decade, like Beowulf, aren't a good sign, but I still love Back to the Future.

Other major question marks: Ang Lee tackling the bestseller, Life of Pi, and Baz Luhrman attempting to make a definitive screen version of The Great Gatsby with Leo DiCaprio in the lead. Not to mention, Joss Whedon's modern day adaptation of Much Ado About Nothing, which was shot for next to nothing. Can the guy who made The Avengers a big budget reality go macro and reinterpret Shakespeare? Then there's a potentially too soon reboot with The Amazing Spider-man, starring Andrew Garfield as Peter Parker. Time will tell if director Marc Webb's more realistic take on the material will fall flat or fully realize the webhead like never before, but the trailers definitely look promising. I'll still consider it a surprise if the movie sweeps me away like the Sam Raimi movies did.

But enough of this, what are the movies I feel most moviegoers should be anticipating in 2012? That is the real reason for all of this. So here is my list of my 10 Most Anticipated Movies of 2012:

10. John Carter
I have very little knowledge of the Edgar Rice Burrough's novels upon which this movie is based, but the trailers at least paint this flick as an enjoyable sci-fi adventure like Star Wars or Avatar (which both films were inspired partially by Burrough's books). A Civil War hero falls asleep in a cave and awakes on the planet Mars where he has superhuman strength and joins forces with the natives in an epic war. Pixar animation director Andrew Stanton is making his live action debut with this movie, and if this same guy can give us Finding Nemo and Wall-E, then that is enough for me to want to see this movie.

9. Prometheus
Director Ridley Scott makes his first sci-fi flick since Blade Runner, about a bunch of explorers who find themselves on a distant planet that holds clues to the origins of Earth and mankind. The story keeps flopping back-and-forth between is it or isn't it a prequel to Scott's own Alien, but no matter what it really is, I really wanna see where this one goes. The premise seems to have genuine promise, and with LOST showrunner, Damon Lindeloff, as writer, this one definitely has the talent.

8. Rush
Formula 1 driver Niki Lauda narrowly survives a car crash, and then only a few weeks later he manages to fight his way back behind the wheel to race his rival, James Hunt. Director Ron Howard seems to be a perfect match for the material, but what has me most excited is to see Thor himself, Chris Hemsworth, do his first dramatic role as Hunt.

7. The Avengers
Who isn't excited for this one? Captain America, Iron Man, the Hulk, and Thor, all fighting evil in the same movie. The box office is already getting prepped and ready to explode come May 4th. Whether or not writer/director Joss Whedon manages to find the characters behind all of the surefire explosions and CGI craziness is still yet to be seen, but just the sheer scale and scope of this movie has never been seen before. Avengers assemble!

6. Lincoln
With Steven Spielberg directing and Daniel Day-Lewis starring, this tale about Abraham Lincoln and the Emancipation Proclamation couldn't be in any better hands. This has been a project long in development for Spielberg, with Liam Neeson once attached to play Honest Abe, but now he has to make due with Day-Lewis. How terrible! (Sarcasm, I know). With such talent in front, and behind the camera, this could be a major Oscar play come next awards' season, not to mention it's Spielberg, the same guy who nailed Schindler's List and Saving Private Ryan. A film about American history has never been in better hands, at least in my lifetime.

5. Gravity
Reports of the opening shot lasting twenty minutes with zero cuts, lets you know you are watching an Alfonso Cuaron film. Gravity is Alfonso Cuaron's first film since Children of Men, and it is a simple enough premise, but one that I wanna see. Sandra Bullock stars as the only survivor of a botched space mission, trapped in outer space, trying to return home. With support coming from George Clooney, the cast is up to par, but Cuaron is the real reason I am so amped to see this. His imagination in terms of story and shot design has left me speechless with his previous work, so here is hoping.

4. Skyfall
Daniel Craig as James Bond, again. Sold. Craig has become the greatest James Bond in my mind aside from Sean Connery himself, and this new Bond flick promises to be more like the old 1960s' Bond movies in style, but keep the depth of character found in Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace. With Road to Perdition's Sam Mendes directing, and a story promising to question Bond's loyalty to Judi Dench's M, this should be a great thrill ride, with the Craig-era finally getting a Moneypenny and Q. And I must say, Q being a young 20-something has me intrigued.

3. The Hunger Games
Based on one of my favorite books of recent years, the epic story of kids from the ages of 12-18 being forced to fight in a fight to the death battle by their tyrannical government, may not sound like it has much more than carnage and mayhem, but The Hunger Games is a story about so much more than that. It's a story with full three-dimensional characters, all fighting for what they believe in, all fighting for love in order to protect those they most care about both in the ring and out of the ring. However, it is also a fascinating view on government and politics, and how a rebellion forms. If the movie does the books justice, moviegoers will see why this is not just another Twilight, but is something worth their while.

2. The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey
The much anticipated prequel to The Lord of the Rings finally makes it to the big screen, and it's only taken a little over a decade since The Fellowship of the Ring to make it. What has me so excited for this movie is that it isn't just another retread of what we've already seen. This is the story of how Bilbo Baggins became a hero and found the one ring. While we will run across many familiar characters from Gandalf to Gollum, it stars many characters that we do not know (unless you've read the book). As well, the book itself is more of a kid's adventure story than it is an epic tome, and early looks from the movie show a style that is less dark than The Lord of the Rings and more whimsical. I couldn't be more excited, and Martin Freeman is perfect casting as Bilbo.

1. The Dark Knight Rises
This is the final outing for director Christopher Nolan and actor Christian Bale. No more Batman movies after this one. With a budget that is rumored to be north of $250 million, it puts TDKR in the upper echelon of most expensive movies ever made, but seriously, after how good Batman Begins and The Dark Knight were, who wouldn't put that much money behind the finale to Nolan's trilogy? The biggest question is: can Tom Hardy's Bane live up to be as memorable of a villain as Heath Ledger's Joker? I managed to see the first six minutes of the movie in Imax last December, and from those six minutes, I think, yes. As well, the more I see of Anne Hathaway as Catwoman, the more I buy it. As of this point, I'm no longer a critic, I'm just an eager fan who wants to see how this particular Batman story comes to an end. With intriguing twists, such as the return of Ra's Al Ghul and the League of Shadows, and the story taking place eight years after The Dark Knight, TDKR promises to be another one of a kind moviegoing experience. It's gotta top the two greatest superhero movies of all-time, but who says there can't be three movies that vie for that title rather than just two?

Predicting the Globes

2012-01-15T08:16:00.000-06:00

I rarely know where to stand with the Golden Globes -- one of the major precursors to the Oscars. What makes the Globes unique is that it is the Hollywood Foreign Press Association who vote on these awards, in short it is an organization made up of men and women from other countries voting for their favorites from this year in American film. Another thing that makes the Globes unique is how it divides films into two categories, Comedy and Drama, so that it is harder to get a grasp as to what movie or performance is trending come Oscar time. As well, the Globes don't meander into tech categories like the Oscars, nor do they separate Original Screenplay from Adapted. So basically, anything can happen with the Globes, which is why I tend to have a worse track record at predicting them, but I love this type of game, so I'm gonna do it anyway.

Same as the past two years, Ricky Gervais is hosting again. Will he offend nearly everyone in Hollywood? Yep. His schtick is getting sort of old now, and I don't seem to get why the HFPA are so keen on him. The Globes had been without a host for nearly two decades and was highly entertaining, why Gervais was brought on two years ago, is beside me. Regardless, you watch these shows for who wins and to see your favorite film folk, plus, as an added bonus the Globes dish awards for television. Now, I don't watch enough TV to really be informed enough to do good predicting, so I steer clear of those categories. As such, the Globes have a tendency to go with big names rather than smaller ones, so I'm taking that into account in my predictions. So without further ado, here they are:

Best Original Song - "The Living Proof," The Help
Best Original Score - Ludovic Bource, The Artist
Best Screenplay - Woody Allen, Midnight in Paris
Best Director - Michel Hazanavicius, The Artist
Best Supporting Actor - Christopher Plummer, Beginners
Best Supporting Actress - Octavia Spencer, The Help
Best Foreign Language Film - A Separation
Best Animated Feature Film - The Adventures of Tintin
Best Actor-Comedy or Musical - Jean Dujardin, The Artist
Best Actress-Comedy or Musical - Michelle Williams, My Week With Marilyn
Best Motion Picture-Comedy or Musical - The Artist
Best Actor-Drama - George Clooney, The Descendants
Best Actress-Drama - Viola Davis, The Help
Best Motion Picture-Drama - The Help

So I'm predicting a big night for The Artist and The Help. Even though The Help did not get a screenplay or directing nod, I think there might just be enough of a love for the movie itself to get it the big win (as well, the Globes love populist fare, just look at two years ago when Avatar swept the show). As for Tintin for Animated, just another wild hunch, with the character being so popular overseas, perhaps enough childhood memories of the voters gets him a win. Plus, The Artist just seems unstoppable at this point, and with it being a French production, I foresee the HFPA being very kind, allowing it to usurp John Williams in the score category.

Find out what really happens tonight at 6 p.m., central time. NBC gets the honors of seeing if I can improve on my 7 out of 14 tally from last year.

Movie Review: "The Descendants"

2012-01-09T16:49:00.004-06:00

Director Alexander Payne's The Descendants is a star vehicle for George Clooney. Here Clooney portrays a Hawaiin father who must deal with pulling the plug on his wife in acoma whilst trying to learn how to take care of his two daughters and learning at the same time his wife was having an affair. All just peachy. The brilliance of Clooney's performance shines in his ability to make the transitions from his character, Matt King's dealings with his wife dying and caring for his daughters to him hunting for the man his wife was seeing on the side. By handling these transitions so deftly, Clooney and Payne manage to evoke humor and pathos in these moments, just as it very often emerges in real life, and it is always believable. It can be seen in Clooney's eyes when a line or action triggers his change in emotion, such as when he follows the man home and learns that he has a wife and kids, there is a noticable reaction due to this visual trigger. Of course, Clooney gets stellar support from the acting ensemble, in particular his potty-mouthed seventeen-year-old, played authentically by Shailene Woodley. While the resolution drags, resolving the major conflicts a touch too early, the emotions on display here are so real that Alexander Payne's deglamorization of the Hawaain lifestyle never fails to keep one watching.

I give The Descendants an A!

Review Roundup: Marilyn Monroe, a "Dragon Tatto," and a "Zoo"

2012-01-07T10:44:00.001-06:00

I've gotten backed up on my reviews recently, but what can I say, there's been so many movies come out that I've wanted to see I've spent more of my time watching movies than writing about them, which is how I prefer it. As it is, over the past two weeks or so I've been catching up on movies that I missed from the earlier part of the year, while catching some movies just now reaching my neck of the woods and finishing up with all of the major holiday releases that I wanted to see. Even still, I have at least four or five more movies I wanna see before I feel I can effectively finish my year end list of my favorite movies from 2011, and this is just another step in that end game with my reviews of: The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo, My Week With Marilyn, and We Bought A Zoo. So bear with me, my 2011, Year in Review is coming, as I am aiming for next Friday, a week from today.

****

Movie Review: The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo

The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo is not a kiddie movie, but a fell-fledged aberration from what is acceptable in modern culture. Tons of nudity, sex, and violence, infiltrate the senses within the two-and-a-half hour runtime of David Fincher's adaptation of the bestselling novel, of a hacker enlisted to solve a fifty-year-old cold case. The senses are barraged with so much of what is typically not seen as socially acceptable, that it is often hard to find a grasp as to the story and the purpose of why our senses were barraged to begin with. Not only that, screenwriter Steven Zaillian gets a bit carried away with the adaptation, with so much of the story focused on Lisbeth Salander, the titular girl with the dragon tattoo (who is played well by Rooney Mara), rather than focusing on Daniel Craig trying to solve the murder. The thing is, Salander plays no real importance to the plot till halfway into the film, and that first half could have easily been shortened had so many scenes of Lisbeth not been included that did little to add to the story or to her character, but simply add to the barrage on our senses. Well acted, with moments of genuine suspense, but is filled with too much excess to find any real traction to keep one engaged in the story or its characters.

I give The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo an F!

****

Movie Review: My Week With Marilyn

My Week With Marilyn is almost a forgotten Marilyn Monroe classic in its own right, but rather than playing the traditional blond that she was known as, Marilyn is simply herself. My Week With Marilyn is only a small slice of Marilyn Monroe's life, transpiring over the four month filming of the movie, The Prince and the Showgirl in 1956. The primary story follows 23-year-old Colin Clark, played naively by Eddie Redmayne, the third assistant director on the picture who becomes friends with Monroe, and perhaps more. The movie is based upon the true Colin Clark's memoirs from the set of the movie, and what is so brilliant is how the movie hints at the larger issues in Marilyn Monroe's life, relaying things such as Marilyn's desires to be taken seriously as an actress and to be a mother through how actress Michelle Williams plays Monroe, and never wastes time showing us her entire life story, keeping us in Clark's experiences with Monroe and simply letting that shape the picture of who the woman was. While the subplot between Colin and wardrobe assistant, Lucy (Emma Watson), is shortchanged for the Colin-Marilyn relationship, the film as a whole is just a fascinating marvel for a lover of film history. Plus, it sure is a kick to see Kenneth Brannagh as Sir Laurence Olivier.

I give My Week With Marilyn a B+!

****

Movie Review: We Bought A Zoo

Few movies are as genuinely good-natured as We Bought A Zoo, and sometimes it's just fun to watch movies about the human spirit and to realize that life truly is beautiful. In We Bought A Zoo, Matt Damon portrays Benjamin Mee, a widowing father who is now having to care for his fourteen-year-old son and seven-year-old daughter on his own, so what is his solution when his son is expelled from school, to buy and renovate a zoo, of course. What We Bought A Zoo captures so effortlessly is grief and love, how both can often be the same, yearning for lost love, and how one can conquer the other and help a person to carry on with life. Benjamin and his family rediscover love in their newfound home, love with the zoo staff -- from Scarlett Johansson to Elle Fanning -- to the animals themselves, and also rediscover their love for one another. We Bought A Zoo is just honest and true in how it portrays relationships, in how Benjamin tries to figure out his relationship with his distant teenage son, and how he tries to keep his daughter from having to grow up too quickly and help her remain an innocent child. The real winners here are the actors, Damon, Johansson, the kids who portray Benjamin's children -- in particular the too-cute-for-her-own-good Maggie Elizabeth Jones as Rosie -- I especially loved Thomas Haden Church as Benjamin's older brother who lends some of the largest laughs of the movie. Simply what director Cameron Crowe has achieved here is a movie that is funny, touching, and genuinely makes you feel good. Of special note, the music by Sigur Ros' Jonsi accentuates all of the right moments and never misses a beat.

I give We Bought A Zoo an A+!

The Year in Comics - 2011

2011-12-27T11:51:00.001-06:00

This simply was one of the best years of comics in my lifetime. With DC Comics relaunching every single title with the highly enjoyable New 52, while also wrapping up their old continuity with flurries of emotion, this was a banner year for DC. Where as Marvel sort of got lost in the shuffle this year with their predictable event after event nature. Even so, both companies managed to make some good comic book story arcs this past year, and both companies have not shied away from taking their characters into unexplored territory and effectively changing the status quo. Whether it is Barbara Gordon returning as Batgirl, or the X-Men splitting into two separate teams, this has been a great year to be a comic book fan. So here is my year-end awards of the best that this year's comics had to offer.

Best Writing - Geoff Johns for Aquaman - Volume 7
Leave it to Geoff Johns to re-invent Aquaman for the New 52, and effectively make Aquaman cool again. He actually addresses -- through jokes -- the cheesiness that is often associated with Aquaman, while also showing us Aquaman's undervalued powers and how they work. Just huge props.
(Runners-Up: Judd Winick for Batwing - Volume 1; Kyle Higgins for Nightwing - Volume 3; Jason Aaron for The Incredible Hulk - Volume 3; Scott Snyder for Detective Comics - Volume 1)

Best Art - Ben Oliver for Batwing - Volume 1
There is a stark sense of realism to Oliver's work on Batwing. He draws with so many lines in the faces, penciling intricate details in body language and expression in each and every panel. But what makes the art stand out is the painter-like simplicity of the backgrounds and the environments juxtaposed to the realistic human figures.
(Runners-Up: Ivan Reis & Joe Prado for Aquaman - Volume 7; Marc Silvestri for The Incredible Hulk - Volume 3; Eddy Barrows & JP Mayer for Nightwing - Volume 3; Yanick Paquette for Swamp Thing - Volume 5)

Best Story Arc - "Grounded" from Superman - Volume 1
Trying a 12-issue storyline in comics is always dicey, because obviously certain issues will be stronger than others from month-to-month, but the overarching idea of "Grounded" kept me riveted from month-to-month. Superman, feeling disconnected from the human race after the destruction of his Kryptonian brothers on New Krypton, walks across the United States trying to reconnect with the world he calls home. Along the way Superman interacts with Batman, the Flash, Wonder Woman, Lois Lane, Jimmy, all of the regulars in his world, but where this arc succeeded was in telling a Superman story without big, flashy action, and was a character story about a depressed Superman rediscovering himself.
(Runners-Up: "Asunder" from The Incredible Hulk - Volume 7; "The Black Mirror" from Detective Comics - Volume 1; "The Trench" from Aquaman - Volume 7; "The Court of Owls" from Batman - Volume 2)

Best Individual Issue - Aquaman #1 - Volume 7
As said above, Geoff Johns made Aquaman cool again, and he did it with this very first issue of Volume 7. When Aquaman lifts that armored car with his trident, I was sold that this was not going to be the cheesy Aquaman of old, but a new, hardcore version of the character that updates the age-old mythology.
(Runners-Up: The Amazing Spider-Man #667 - Volume 1; Superman #710 - Volume 1; X-Men: Schism #1 - Volume 1; Superman #713 - Volume 1)

Best Series - Superman - Volume 1
No other series this past year had as much of an emotional impact on me. I think what made Superman so great year-out, was the, "Grounded," storyline. Having Superman re-evaluating his views on, "Truth, Justice, and the American Way," was the right thing for this cynical time. So many people have felt Superman has lost touch with modern times, and Superman over this past year has only helped to show how and why Superman is still needed in the modern superhero landscape. He is a moral compass for these jaded times.
(Runners-Up: Batwing - Volume 1; Nightwing - Volume 3; The Incredible Hulk - Volume 3; Aquaman - Volume 7)

Movie Review: "War Horse"

2011-12-26T16:17:00.009-06:00

How does war affect individuals? Civilians caught in the midst of infantry, soldiers embroiled in battle, and the horses that lead the Calvary? War Horse is the story of a horse named Joey, sold into the British Army at the start of World War I. What director Steven Spielberg does is weave a tapestry of war from Joey's point-of-view.

Throughout the flick, Joey changes masters multiple times due to the horrors and atrocities of war, the only constant in all of these scenes is Joey, and Spielberg manages to convey what Joey is thinking or feeling through the camera movement and juxtaposition of shots. Through breathtaking scope, solid acting from the rounded cast of character actors, and the exquisitely realized, highly kinetic action sequences that is Spielberg's forte, War Horse gallops across the screen with verve.

Where the flick works best is the vignette's of each person that Joey deals with across his journey: from the British boy who raised him, to the British Calvary, to the German Army, all the way to a French farm girl and her grandfather. War Horse is an examination of war and how compassion survives within toughest times. The compassion that the individuals who meet Joey show for the horse, often saving his life, to the compassion between the individuals that Joey meets and how they feel for one another. Ultimately, war is ugly business that those involved are not fighting for their country's victory, but to keep themselves alive as well as those that they love, shown by two German brothers who desert the German Army to ensure that they stay together.

Simply put, War Horse is compassion. Throughout all of mankind, one of the most overwhelming bonds that exists is the love of a pet, a dog, a cat, or even a horse. People remember them, love them, treat them as if they're human, and will fight to ensure their safety. Even years later, they hold those animals in their hearts, and are united with others due to compassion that all share for the animals that they once loved or still love.

I give War Horse an A+!

Movie Review: "Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol"

2011-12-23T22:02:00.009-06:00

Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol is a whiz-bang, breezy fourth installment to a storied franchise that has never been quite as good as James Bond, but has always managed to deliver entertainment, and this fourth installment does just that, but little else.

Tom Cruise is back as Ethan Hunt, whose IMF team is now having to do the true impossible, when they are believed to be behind a bombing at the Kremlin in Russia. The biggest difference from the other three films in the franchise is that director Brad Bird treated Hunt and his team, just as that, a team, working together to prove their innocence. From Simon Pegg to Paula Patton to Jeremy Renner, Bird made sure that Cruise would not be stealing the spotlight from the rest of his team (even if he is still given the best action bits).

There are plenty of laughs throughout the story, and the plot unfurls at a nice click, constantly keeping the viewer on their toes. However, there is not much emotional depth to the movie, with a subplot involving Ethan and his wife only hinted at in a handful of scenes until the end, and when we are supposed to have an emotional payoff, I was left cold. But seriously, this is Mission Impossible, not Shakespeare, you watch it for the impossible action and adventure, right?

So what if the villain is an underdeveloped psychopath who only gets like two lines of dialogue (and I am not joking, we see his face and are told he's evil, but we never see or hear him do anything evil). When you get right down to it, the action is well directed, Pegg is on top form here, Michael Giacchino reworks Lalo Schifrin's theme into a score that is clearly his own whilst paying homage, and Cruise still proves that he isn't too old to hang off the tallest building in the world. If these things do not allow one to switch off their brain for two hours of simple fun, then you shouldn't accept this mission.

I give Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol a B!

Movie Review: "The Adventures of Tintin"

2011-12-21T16:34:00.014-06:00

Like a Saturday morning cartoon, The Adventures of Tintin is brisk entertainment that is easily digestible, with plenty of excitement and laughs. Director Steven Spielberg crafts a children's film about a young intrepid reporter, named Tintin, and his uber-smart dog, Snowy, working to unravel a mystery involving sunken treasure. Simple enough concept, and Spielberg rarely strays from it to delve deeper into the emotions of the characters and add anything beyond standard stock characters -- in particular Tintin and the villain, Sakharine. However, The Adventures of Tintin flies by at a nice pace, with just enough missing pieces to the mystery -- and some highly imaginative action sequences every few minutes -- to keep the audience from zonking out. Spielberg deserves huge props on the masterful staging of a sequence where two construction cranes battle, smashing into one another. They cross in midair like large sword blades, one piloted by Sakharine, and the other by Captain Haddock, Tintin's sidekick. The imagination on display here and the near flawless animation and motion capture work from WETA, make The Adventures of Tintin an enjoyable thrill ride. Even if there is a lack of suspense cause we are never given enough time to delve deeper into characters and develop any real emotional connection, The Adventures of Tintin is a theme park ride. Short and enjoyable, but the thrills will most likely be forgotten a short while later.

I give The Adventures of Tintin a C!

Movie Review: "Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows"

2011-12-20T22:37:00.011-06:00

There are three things that make for a good sequel: more, more, and more, and Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows does just that. Is there more action this time about? Yes. Is there more character and relational development? Yes. Is it more faithful to its literary counterpart? Yes.

Robert Downey, Jr. returns with charisma as the sleuth, with Jude Law not far behind as Dr. Watson, the straight man of the duo. Watson is getting married this go-around, which does not sit very well with Holmes, conveyed well by Downey, Jr without ever coming across as unnecessarily jealous. However, Watson's whole Honeymoon runs amok when him and Holmes must embark upon one final case to prevent Professor James Moriarty from manipulating the world powers -- via acts of terrorism -- into starting a World War.

Moriarty is every bit Holmes's equal, and Jared Harris manages to be as cool and collected as Downey, Jr. is as Holmes. However, what makes both portrayals work, is the emotions flashing behind their eyes that are masked by their demeanor and the way they deliver their lines, resulting in a lot of sophisticated set pieces that are more Hitchcock than what one tends to associate with the films of director Guy Ritchie.

The flick has fewer plot holes than its predecessor, though it lacks much of the crackling pace and energy of the first installment, often moving a touch slow for such an action heavy piece. Same as the first installment, there are a few scenes that just felt unnecessary and bogged down the flow of the story, such as the scene with Holmes's brother, Mycroft, in the nude.

Even through all of the slow moments, Ritchie manages to keep the audience in the story through the verbal sparring that is always enjoyable between Holmes and Watson, and taking us into Holmes's mind by not just hearing Holmes's thought as to how he is deducing his environment, but by also visually representing these things through camera movement and reactionary point-of-view shots.

The action as a whole develops organically throughout the story, with the story dictating the action rather than the action dictating what the story is about, and this is where A Game of Shadows is a step above so many other action films. The action is cleverly woven to where Ritchie can do a breathtaking chase sequence through the woods entirely in slo-mo, detailing every minor graze of a bullet and explosion, and then dial back to have a chess match between Holmes and Moriarty as the climax in a Hitchockian fashion. It is in moments like these that A Game of Shadows is the most successful, and it is why it builds upon the framework of its predecessor and surpasses it.

I give Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows an A-!

Top 10: Spielberg Moments

2011-12-18T21:00:00.024-06:00

A, "Spielberg Moment," is not quite a, "Kodak Moment," but is rather a moment from a Steven Spielberg film that touches the viewer on an emotional level. Whether that emotion be hope, wonderment, excitement, sadness, fear, or even a combination of all of these things. Spielberg has been creating some of the finest moments in cinema since the '70s, and no other director in movie history has directed quite as many moving and memorable sequences as Spielberg has. For this, he gets his own list. The Top 10, "Spielberg Moments," has been culled from my personal experiences I have with all of his films, funny thing is, so many of these moments have affected others in similar ways all across the world, and rather than my yakking and wasting so much time, I've decided to just let these individual moments speak for themselves. So reminisce with me as I count down:

10. UFO Duet from Close Encounters of the Third Kind

9. The Indianapolis Speech from Jaws

8. E.T. Comes Back to Life from E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial

7. T-Rex Attack from Jurassic Park

6. E.T. Abandoned from E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial

Due to stupid copyright issues and whatever, I couldn't find this clip online. This scene is the opening of E.T. E.T. goes venturing off from the spaceship and is chased by government agents. Then the spaceship takes off, stranding E.T. on earth... Now, scared and alone.

5. The Desert Chase from Raiders of the Lost Ark

4. Normandy American Cemetery and Memorial from Saving Private Ryan

3. Saving the Slave Children from Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom

The only other clip I couldn't obtain. This is the scene where Short Round has just saved Indiana Jones and has just given Indy his hat back. Then Indy hugs Willie and she says that they should get out of there. Indy goes, "Right. All of us." Cut to the kids in the mines, and Indy standing in the mines entrance, blocking the mine cart track, with a face saying, "I'm gonna beat the crap out of you bad guys."

2. "It's a Dinosaur!" from Jurassic Park

1. Saying Goodbye from E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial

Watch Pulp Fiction in Chronological Order

2011-12-16T18:15:00.002-06:00

Top 10: Performances in Spielberg Films

2011-12-14T15:03:00.016-06:00

With two new Spielberg films releasing over the next week and a half, I figured I would do some lists related to my favorite filmmaker of all-time. Last week I did my ten favorite scores by John Williams, and this week I am gonna count down my ten favorite performances by an actor in Steven Spielberg films. While Spielberg films are usually not known for their acting, with the score, cinematography, directing, and his usual hesitance to cast well known actors in starring roles, typically keeping the acting below the surface. But what I've learned is if you dig beneath the characters, you will find some marvelous performances. Here, I've pulled back the layers on every Spielberg film to find the ten greatest performances he has ever directed. Without further ado, the list:

10. Whoopi Goldberg as Celie Johnson in The Color Purple
What strikes me about this performance is how uncharacteristic this performance is for Whoopi Goldberg. It is a dramatic performance where she says next to nothing for two whole hours! All doubts are laid aside, though, when her character comes into her own in a scene that is rife with the scenery chewing that one tends to associate with such a prestige picture. However, what is most astonishing about this performance is how Goldberg conveys so much without words, her eyes and facial expressions relaying the emotions of Celie. Of special note, this was her first ever film role, and it still stands as one of her career best.

9. Tom Hanks as Carl Hanratty in Catch Me If You Can
Tom Hanks has given many great performances in Steven Spielberg films, his roles in Saving Private Ryan and The Terminal both having their moments that made them worthy enough to find traction here, but this is my personal favorite Hanks-Spielberg collaboration. Hanks sports a fantastic Midwestern accent, and never slips, but it's how he develops a father-son-like relationship with Leonardo DiCaprio in this film that makes this performance one of the best in his career.

8. Robert Shaw as Quint in Jaws
A movie showing the story of the U.S.S. Indianapolis would be tense, frightening, and heart-wrenching to watch, however a movie simply telling the story of the U.S.S. Indianapolis is more tense and frightening from the images Quint's monologue creates in your mind. This is often seen as the most important scene of Jaws, and it is because it gives the back story of Quint's character, and makes Robert Shaw's performance all the more nuanced when you understand why he is the way he is. He is the tough guy with an utter hatred of sharks. Not fear, but hatred.

7. Giovanni Ribisi as T-5 Medic Irwin Wade in Saving Private Ryan
To many this may seem like a bit part, but to me Ribisi's performance is the crux of the whole story because of two scenes that he gets to show off his chops. Here's the thing, there is not a single performance in Saving Private Ryan not worthy of recognition, but Ribisi captures the tragic states of mind of soldiers on the battlefield, separated from their families. The scene in the church where he tells the story of his and his mother's relationship, and then in his death scene, you see real film acting. His eyes do not lie, real thoughts are flashing behind them, and he takes his time, rather than rushing through his dialogue, he sits and lets his emotions bubble underneath and finally overflow.

6. Richard Attenborough as John Hammond in Jurassic Park
"Spared no expense," one of the many quotable lines from Jurassic Park, this one uttered by eccentric John Hammond. Attenborough makes the most out of the role of John Hammond through the sheer energy he takes to the role. He is like that kind of grandpa that would always slip you a twenty everytime you see him and then take you to a dinosaur park. The greatest thing about Attenborough's performance is the scene where Hammond talks about his flea circus he once had, this scene gives all of Hammond's eccentricity believability.

5. Leonardo DiCaprio as Frank Abagnale, Jr. in Catch Me If You Can
Leo needs to do more films like this. What DiCaprio does here in Catch Me If You Can is play an exaggerated version of his playboy persona, and in playing a role that is so similar to himself, it gives the performance authenticity. The character is like a child in a pair of his dad's clothing, and that is because the character Leo is playing is under eighteen. Leo's boyish features help to make this gap in age of character and actor seem believable. Though, it is the genuine emotions of fear, loss, excitement, and regret, that Leo manages to tap into that made not just this performance, but this movie.

4. Roy Scheider as Chief Brody in Jaws
Roy Scheider's performance in Jaws is the ever crucial role to a movie like this. He is the everyman, his reactions are those of ours. When he is arguing with the mayor to close the beach because of the shark attacks, the mayor will not listen. We as the audience know he is right, and yet no one in the movie seems to know it. Scheider makes Brody a likeable family man, whose own star persona never overshadows his performance because he seems like he could have been your best friend's dad or something.

3. Harrison Ford as Indiana Jones in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade
Harrison Ford as Indiana Jones is one of the finest action heroes of all-time, but his best performance comes with The Last Crusade, his third adventure. The performance gives Ford more to deal with than in most of the other Indiana Jones movies, and it is because this is the Indy flick that delves most into his past by introducing his father, as played by Sean Connery. The nuances that Ford brings to the relationship between him and his fictional father allows Ford to work through deeper feelings than an ordinary action hero goes through. Feelings of regret, anger, and ultimately, the fear of losing his father, making the moment where he makes the leap of faith so wondrous.

2. Ralph Fiennes as Amon Goeth in Schindler's List
How a man can play a monstrous role such as this and not lose himself in the process is the mark of a magnificent actor. Fiennes is the Nazi officer who snipes Holocaust prisoners from the watchtower, who shoots them at point blank range with a lack of utter emotion, and for an actor to collect his emotions to perform certain scenes, is just fine acting. Then add so many layers on top of all this, such as how his character has a sniffle-like cold the entire movie -- and try pretending to have a cold, it's not easy, especially while playing such a tough role -- you have a brilliant performance that is tough to watch because it is so believable.

1. Henry Thomas as Elliott in E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial
Spielberg is known for being one of the finest directors of children in the history of film, and Henry Thomas's portrayal as Elliott in E.T. is the best example of his talent. Spielberg took a relatively inexperienced actor who is still just a child in his thoughts and emotions, and managed to extract a performance out of Thomas that is as deep and emotion-filled as any adult actor could ever deliver. It is through the emotions of Thomas, the way he looks at E.T., that makes this movie credible and allows the audience to believe in the magic of E.T.

Top 10: Scores by John Williams

2011-12-06T19:44:00.029-06:00

Christmas week marks the release of two brand new Steven Spielberg movies in The Adventures of Tintin-Secret of the Unicorn on December 21st and War Horse on Christmas Day. With Spielberg being my favorite director, I've decided to do a series of four lists over the course of the next three weeks.

Week one I've decided to count down my ten favorite scores by John Williams, Steven Spielberg's frequent collaborator. Then next week I am going to list my ten favorite performances in Spielberg movies, followed up by a list of my ten favorite moments in Spielberg movies, ending up with an updated version of my ten favorite Spielberg films of all-time. However, today is all about the music of John Williams.

John Williams and Steven Spielberg have been working together since The Sugarland Express in 1974, and since then, the only Spielberg film that John Williams has not scored is The Color Purple. However, John Williams has also written scores for a high multitude of movies by other directors, from George Lucas to Chris Columbus to Oliver Stone.

Often hailed as one of the greatest film composers of all-time (if not the greatest), he is known for creating material that is highly melodic and utilizing it as themes to associate with characters, places, and situations. It is in his ability in utilizing these themes, cementing them within the hearts and minds of the viewers, that almost every movie he scores is only as good as the score he wrote for it.

This was a tough list to come up with. Such iconic works as Close Encounters and a few of the sequels he scored just missed the cut, but alas there were only ten spots. So with all of this said, the Top 10 Scores by John Williams!

****

10. Catch Me If You Can (Dir. Steven Spielberg)

A jazzy interlude for Mr. Williams. In Steven Spieleberg's 2002 film, John Williams captured the innocence of the story with a sense of whimsy. All of the music was written in a style befitting of a jazz band, with the light-hearted moments of the film underscored by bouncy woodwinds, the suspenseful moments underscored by staccato saxophones and marimbas, and the tragic moments given to smooth sax solos. This is one of John Williams' scores that is least like any of his other film scores, falling into a category with Memoirs of a Geisha, during the period in the early 2000s where he experimented a bit more with his traditional style. Obviously it payed off, giving the movie an identity that set up how cool and slick it was in the opening credits.

9. Jaws (Dir. Steven Spielberg)

Duh, duh! Easily one of the most recognizable pieces of music of all-time (and one of the most parodied), and it is only two notes! This was John Williams' stroke of brilliance. You don't even see the shark till the final thirty minutes, but John Williams created the shark as this malevolent force of nature that was unstoppable through what you hear, not what you see. By using these two low notes and having them swell louder and louder while accelerating in speed, it makes one's heartbeat race as the music goes, and it still works to this day. As well, the music of the three men hunting the shark is as equally stirring, adventurous, and just as well written as those two notes.

8. Star Wars: Episode VI - Return of the Jedi (Dir. Richard Marquand)

Everyone knows the, "Main Theme," they can probably hum the music even if they haven't seen a single Star Wars movie. Having scored every single flick in the saga, John Williams is as much the identity of Star Wars as George Lucas is, and that is saying something. With Jedi, John Williams showed how to compose a score for a sequel. He revisited all of the previous themes he had written for the two preceding movies, while adding on new ones like, "Parade of the Ewoks," and, "Luke and Leia." What follows is a score that has a theme to associate with every character, and it lets you know with the first few notes how you should emotionally feel about that said character. Brilliant composition.

7. Superman: The Movie (Dir. Richard Donner)

When the trumpets blare the fanfare to the, "Main Title March," I swear you can almost hear the trumpets saying, "Superman!" This is the pure brilliance of John Williams. He manages to take four or five notes, and associate them to a character, to where whenever we think of that character, we hear those notes in our minds. This is what makes this score so special. It is heroic, and it still to this day embodies everything that is fantastic about the character of Superman. Add on to the fact that, "The Love Theme From Superman," is a stirring romance theme that creates the sensation of flight through the strings and dainty woodwinds. As well, the hilarious, but also menacing, "March of the Villains," which is an odd combination of comedic instrumentation with the theme repeating itself over and over till it gets more hectic and creates that menace of Lex Luthor.

6. Raiders of the Lost Ark (Dir. Steven Spielberg)

This is in so many ways the quintessential John Williams' score. The action cues are filled with heavy brass instrumentation and the themes are never lost in all of the bombastic action. What's so marvelous is that when the action slows down to give some romance and mystery to the proceedings, he still never loses the themes, and what great themes they are. "Raider's March," is one of the most iconic pieces of music ever composed, it makes one feel heroic and wanna punch some Nazis, and that is all John Williams' doing. However the film also features a great romance theme in the form of, "Marion's Theme," and the music when the Ark of the Covenant is opened at the end is both mysterious and frightening.

5. E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial (Dir. Steven Spielberg)

Music is so invaluable to this movie, with the last hour playing almost like an opera. Here is what I love so much about this movie, it hints at the primary theme for E.T. throughout the entire movie, starting out with soft strings and mallet instruments, and then when Elliot and E.T. finally fly through the night sky over an hour into the movie, the theme comes in full as the magic of E.T. is fully realized. However, it is also in how John Williams manipulates the viewer through when he chooses to comfort you with E.T.'s theme, and when he chooses to withhold it and laden you with lingering strings to create tension, so when the theme returns, your heart leaps into your throat.

4. Jurassic Park (Dir. Steven Spielberg)

I think the, "Theme From Jurassic Park," is easily one of the most beautiful pieces of music ever written for any movie. It reflects on the elegance and majesty of these once extinct creatures. What makes this score brilliant is how John Williams goes from showing how beautiful dinosaurs were and then goes straight into showing us the dangers of living in a world with both dinosaurs and man. His heavy use of the lower bass instruments whenever the raptors appear rattles your rib cage if you have the low end going on the stereo system, and he manages to perfectly balance the majesty with the suspense to create a score that is not his most original, but is one of his more memorable and entertaining to listen to.

3. Star Wars: Episode IV - A New Hope (Dir. George Lucas)

John Williams' score does as much to create the world in Star Wars as George Lucas' directing did. Williams used the swelling french horns to call Luke to adventure, he wrote that awesome cantina music that was otherworldy, but also made you wanna dance, and he created the heroics through the blaring trumpets. His score tells the story of Star Wars, it gives the moments feeling, and lets the viewer know whether or not to be excited, sad, or tense. This is something he did for all of the other five films in the saga, but there is still something special about that initial moment of Luke staring off into the twin sunset, with the french horns doing a crescendo as the rest of the orchestra joins in and plays the theme that is usually considered the hero's theme in these movies (even though I am not sure if it has a title or not).

2. Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (Dir. Chris Columbus)

On a similar token, John Williams created the world of Harry Potter with the first notes of, "Hedwig's Theme," coming in under the WB logo in the opening of the film. Those cascading strings and woodwinds created a sense of magic, mystery, and wonder, that establishes all one needs to know about Harry Potter. He goes on to show the majesty of the Wizarding World through his clever use of brass, in particular heavy emphasis on the trumpets and french horns, whenever we are seeing something far beyond what exists in our world. Who can forget the moment, "Hedwig's Theme," bursts into a full orchestral piece when Harry and his friends first glimpse Hogwarts whilst crossing the lake. Though, what makes this score stand out is that it manages to maintain a level of innocence, and sweetness. The score accentuates Harry's yearnings for his parents in the softer, more heartfelt moments of orchestration that take us deeper into Harry's heart, such as in the scene with the Mirror of Erised.

1. Star Wars: Episode V - The Empire Strikes Back (Dir. Irvin Kershner)

I feel Empire Strikes Back is Williams' best work on the Star Wars series. Here, Williams expanded upon the themes he introduced in the original Star Wars, but he also introduced themes into the canon that became as iconic as the, "Main Theme," with, "Yoda's Theme," and, "Han Solo and the Princess," being some of the more unforgettable tracks off the score, but I think the single greatest piece John Williams wrote for the entire Star Wars saga originated out of Empire. It was, "The Imperial March," often misconstrued as Darth Vader's theme, that became the iconic Star Wars piece, and possibly the most iconic in John Williams' career.

The Oscar Tidal Wave

2011-12-04T10:45:00.001-06:00

I saw Hugo last week, and as evidenced by my review, I was not a fan. However, the critics have been exceptionally kind to the movie, and I think the only real reason is because it is Martin Scorsese, but that is a different story. The thing is, after seeing the movie my friend said it was a sure Best Picture nominee for the Oscars, and I said, "There's no way," but does that still hold true?

The early reviews coming out of the New York Film Fest a month or so back were mixed, yet when the movie opened and more than a select few critics saw it, it seemed as if more and more people were going head over heels for the movie, not really on the merits of the movie itself, but simply because it was a passion project for Scorsese (once again, not the point of this conversation here, though it is the reason why I feel so many critics have given the movie a free pass). Now, this past week Hugo had good showings from the New York Film Critics Awards and winning Best Picture from the National Board of Review. Now, while both of these bodies tend to not be huge predictors for the Academy, it does beg to question: Is Hugo a potential Best Picture nominee now?

Right now, I would say 100% yes, but there is still a whole month and a half till nominations day. It is far from a done deal. Here is the thing I am getting at. While Hugo is getting a lot of love now, I feel it is simply because it is the freshest film on these people's minds. Now, I know there are a ton out there who genuinely love Hugo, and I am not trying to tear the movie down here, I am just trying to say this race is far from over. See, here's the thing to keep in mind. The tide of who is the Oscar frontrunner has changed at least four or five times already in this year's Oscar race, and it is more than likely going to change again.

Back before Cannes, it was all about The Tree of Life, then after Cannes The Tree of Life fell to mixed word of mouth and it became about The Artist. Then, at the end of the Summer, The Help became the one that was getting all the buzz. Then came Telluride and Toronto, where The Descendants started to receive all of the buzz. And even to a lesser extent, when The Adventures of Tintin premiered in the UK last month, it got a huge uptick in Oscar chances, however now, Hugo is getting all of that buzz that these movies all once had.

Here is the thing, and it's something that I fall victim to every year, it is foolish to try and predict the Oscars until January rolls around. That is when the nominations are actually made, so whatever is trending in May, August, September, or even early December, does not matter, what matters is what is trending come January.

This is why so many movies released before the months of September or October tend to have an uphill battle in getting nominated for an Oscar because their time in the spotlight has already come and gone and when all of these Oscar bait movies hit at year's end, they benefit from critical generosity because they are fresh on everyone's minds. It's a simple science, and it can be seen on a macro-scale and a micro-scale.

As I mentioned, Hugo is trending now, but we've still got a month's worth of well received movies to change the tide once more throughout December: Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close, The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo, The Adventures of Tintin, War Horse, and the further expansion of festival hits like The Descendants or The Artist. So while Hugo is winning the battle now, it is too early to name it a sure Best Picture contender. However, I will say this. With the events of the past two weeks and Hugo coming out of the gate far stronger than what most had been led to believe, it is firmly back in the Oscar hunt, and I wouldn't be at all surprised now that it has found such critical appreciation to see it crop up come January when the nominations are announced.

So folks, this is just a lesson to show how easily the Oscar game can change for those of us who have nothing better to do than follow every minor step along the way. A month ago, I would have said no way to Hugo, even a week ago, but now, I say yes. How easy it is for the tidal wave to change, and oddly enough I am loving it. After the past three years, where we pretty much already knew who was going to win Best Picture by this point, it's fun to see that there is no clear frontrunner and that the Oscars are still entirely up in the air. It could be anything come February, as far as I am concerned at this point. War Horse, Hugo, The Descendants, The Artist, The Help? Whoever is riding the wave last I feel will be the victor, and I for one am excited to see what happens.

Movie Reviews: "Hugo" and "The Muppets"

2011-11-24T13:25:00.010-06:00

This been a busy two days, what with Thanksgiving and three major releases this week that I wanted to see. I still have yet to see Arthur Christmas, I plan on seeing that sometime soon, and hopefully the sneak peek of potential Oscar contender, We Bought A Zoo. I still managed to get out and see two new release movies these past two days, one I loved, the other, not so much. Guess which one: Hugo or The Muppets? Read the reviews:

****
Hugo

The art of adaptation is tricky. Often filmmakers manage to find nuances from the book and expand upon those nuances to make a movie that is as deep and affecting as the book, unfortunately Hugo is not one such movie.

This adaptation of Brian Selznick's enchanting novel The Invention of Hugo Cabret lacks the taut structure and emotional heft of its source material, resulting in a cinematic experience far from enchanting. Director Martin Scorsese did put together a nice ensemble of craftsmen to create some breathtaking sets, costumes, and cinematography, but the thrill of the expertly crafted crafts only lasts for maybe ten minutes, then one would think the story should draw the viewer in, but it never does.

Hugo is an orphan living in the walls of a 1930's Parisian train station, winding the clocks whilst rebuilding an automaton that his father found before he died. Here is the thing, the actors do the best with what they were given, but the script lacks any real life and feels like a workman's paycheck. Time is never given in the editing or the pacing of scenes to let the audience reflect on the emotions of the moment, so we never see the actor's reacting or showing any emotion to the events transpiring.

For example, after Hugo's notebook is taken by the owner of a toy shop booth that he has been stealing from to get parts for the automaton, he should be devastated, right? But instead we see Hugo, immediately after, winding the clocks and watching people in the train station, laughing at their humorous situations. Not to mention, these attempts at comedy always fall flat, in particular with Sacha Baron Cohen's Station Inspector, whose antics just take too long to develop and fills up far too much screen time. The script by John Logan is just poorly paced, with scenes going from high tension and a hankering for a huge pay-off, to the brakes being hit to deliver a laugh.

While Scorsese obviously shows his penchant for film history near the end with a nicely put together ten minute mini-doc in the movie that details the life of pioneer filmmaker Georges Meilies, ten minutes of enchantment do not make up for a haphazard hour and fifty minutes before all of that. As much of a fan I was of Selznick's novel, Hugo is an adaptation that perhaps should have never happened.

I give Hugo an F!

****
The Muppets

Did I have a grin on my face throughout the entirety of The Muppets? Yes, I did. Did I nearly cry at times? Yes, I did. Is The Muppets worth your time? Yes, it is.

The Muppets is a classic getting the gang back together story told via the point of view of Walter - the Muppets' biggest fan - who after over-hearing an oil tycoon's plan to tear the old Muppet Studios down to drill oil, appeals to Kermit and the gang to put on one last show and prove the world hasn't forgotten them. Does the basic concept feel formulaic? Yes, but screenwriters Jason Segel and Nicholas Stoller keep the flick from having a predictable ending, a true feat when dealing with such a standard Hollywood story.

Kermit and the gang have never been funnier, with great new additions like '80s Robot as Kermit's butler, and as usual, Fozzie the Bear is my personal favorite (plus, who doesn't want to travel by map now). However, it is Kermit who carries the emotional weight of the film on his back. How does one apologize to old friends for not staying in touch with them? How do they reforge a broken relationship? These are real human themes that Segel and Stoller chose to deal with here, and director James Bobin manages to somehow make it work within the world of puppetry, where their eyes never blink!

While the script juggles around a few too many characters and plot lines, where near the end certain moments lack tension because the story is constantly shifting from character to character to keep their plot lines going, The Muppets manages to keep the train on the track and arrive at the station on time. Ultimately, the emotion always comes through, with great aid from the fantastic songs, in particular "Pictures in my Head" and "Man or Muppet."

I give The Muppets a B+!

Top 6: Muppet Movies

2011-11-23T06:53:00.002-06:00

In honor of the release of The Muppets today, I have decided to rank the Muppet movies from my least favorite to my personal favorite. I love the Muppets and every single one of these movies have their moments that make me laugh and wanna cry, but some are better movies than others, and this is where the deciding factor lies. Hopefully after today The Muppets will top this list, but as you will see that is no easy task. (Note: I only included the theatrical release Muppet movies, not the made-for-TV or direct-to-video movies). As well, I included my favorite quote from each Muppet movie underneath each movie. So here it is, the Top 6 Muppet Movies of All-Time!

6. Muppet Treasure Island
The Muppets tried to repeat their success they had adapting famous literature with A Christmas Carol by adapting Robert Louis Stevens' classic. The problems with Muppet Treasure Island is that the story simply focuses too much on the Muppets playing caricatures of the Treasure Island characters rather than having moments to be the Muppets as created by Jim Henson. As well, the songs and the gags are probably the weakest of all the Muppet movies.
"We've got cabin fever!" - Crew Members

5. Muppets From Space
The last time the Muppets appeared on movie screens till now, and unfortunately this may have been the reason for their long hiatus. While the story features a great character exploration of Gonzo, with a great cameo by Ray Liotta, the use of modern music rather than specially written song-and-dances and the constant modern references to late 1990s culture, just hurt what makes the Muppets the Muppets: They are pure and timeless.
"What, have you been tap dancing on the barbecue again?" - Rizzo the Rat

4. The Great Muppet Caper
Possibly some of the sharpest comedy in almost all of the Muppet movies, however the story features sluggish pacing and shallow characterizations, never taking enough time between gags to let emotions stir between the characters. However, with this case, even through the slow-moving paces the laughs keep coming, so that keeps this one enjoyable.
"It's plot exposition. It has to go somewhere." - Lady Holiday

3. The Muppet Christmas Carol
One of my personal favorite Christmas movies of all-time, unlike Muppet Treasure Island, here the Muppets re-enacting a literary classic actually worked to their advantage. The Muppets are not simply trying too hard to fit into the roles of the Charles Dickens' classic, they are allowed to be their Muppet characters first while still serving the character roles of each character as written by Dickens. Not to mention the narration by Gonzo and Rizzo is hilarious, the songs are catchy, and Michael Caine shines as Ebeneezer Scrooge.
"Light the lamp, not the rat, light the lamp, not the rat! Put me out, put me out, put me out!" - Rizzo the Rat

2. The Muppet Movie
What can you say, this was the Muppet movie that started it all and the reason why there have been so many Muppet movies, and this one definitely earns its importance. The songs are the best of any Muppet movie, with, "Rainbow Connection," and, "Moving Right Along," being the two best Muppet songs of all-time. Not to mention, the movie utilizes the novel approach of telling the Muppets' origin story, so seeing these characters first meeting one another, forging their friendships, and learning to live with one anothers' eccentricities is both funny and heart-warming.
"A bear in his natural habitat. A Studebaker." - Fozzie the Bear.

1. Muppets Take Manhattan
This is the finest Muppet movie simply because it has the best mixture of character development, story, musical numbers, and gags. This is the most emotional Muppet movie as the Muppets all embark on a journey where they break up and then have to come back together again. We actually see the relationships between the Muppets tested for the first time, and so when they manage to pull it back together in the end, you almost forget you were watching a movie with the Muppets because you had gone on such a well-crafted journey of character. Not to mention, the scene in the restaurant with Liza Minnelli is one of my favorite Muppet moments of all-time.
"I didn't know this cave was co-ed." - Fozzie the Bear

A Filmmaker's Blurb About Charlie Chaplin

2011-11-21T12:19:00.004-06:00

The other night I watched the Charlie Chaplin movie, Limelight. It was one of his final movies to be made, and one of his first to be made after he moved permanently to Great Britain, after coming under McCarthy scrutiny post-WWII. This movie is one of the rare Chaplin works that is a talkie, and in so many ways I think sound finally lends Chaplin's ideas a clarity that his silent films never had. This leads me to my biggest point here. The thing that separated Charlie Chaplin from all of his silent companions like Buster Keaton, is that he actually had something to say when the time came.

Chaplin was known for making movies with messages in them, but his characters were always slight archetypes in his silent days, and even in some of his early talkies. With Limelight, Chaplin plays an aging stage comedian in London whose career has all but ended, he just cannot seem to get work, and when he does the crowd doesn't laugh anymore. However, all changes when he meets a suicidal ballerina and the two of them work together to rebuild their fallen careers.

This movie, being somewhat autobiographical for Chaplin, is one of the few Chaplin movies that has genuine character development to it. Perhaps it was the added bonus of dialogue, with the characters saying one thing but the actors' faces saying another, but I really think it is primarily because with this movie he just had so much to say.

He was always a political guy who seemed to have his own opinion on everything, but out of all of Chaplin's movies that I have seen, this one seemed the most personal. The movie never really dabbles into politics like Modern Times or The Great Dictator, or even City Lights, the movie is simply about the pursuit of art, something Chaplin knew better than just about anything. It is very easy to be political and make statements from your mind, but it is very hard just to go from your heart, which is what Chaplin did here with Limelight.

It truly is, I think, Chaplin's masterpiece and needs to be seen. The two primary characters are just so deep, with fleshed out backstories doled out by dialogue (which is something that silent films struggled to deliver and make you feel when it was usually just relayed through text screens). However, the sheer passion that every frame of this movie exudes, is just an inspiration for me as an aspiring filmmaker.

It simply feels here that Chaplin made what he felt at the time, rather than what he was thinking or thought what people wanted to see, and that means all the world to me. It is something I want to do every single time I get behind a camera and shoot a movie, and it is something that I am not sure I have ever fully done. Turning off one's brain is the key. Go with your heart, not your mind. That is what I have learned from Charlie Chaplin, and I am going to try and apply that from now on.

What defines a Cult Classic?

2011-11-18T16:54:00.005-06:00

In terms of movies, literature, television, pretty much any form of entertainment that revolves around storytelling, there are those stories that seem to only ever find appeal with a certain key demographic -- i.e., cult classics. Some of the more popular cult classics of recent years have ranged from things like Scott Pilgrim vs. The World to more esoteric fare like anything that has come from director Lars Von Trier. But where do you draw the line between what is a genuine classic and what is a cult classic? In essence, what defines a cult classic? I've decided to try my hand at answering this question.

This past week there was an internet uproar because BBC commissioned a feature film version of the Brit. show, Doctor Who, to be scripted in hopes of hitting theaters within a few years. Obviously, the diehard fans of Doctor Who were outraged, because the movie will have no continuity ties to the show and will not feature the Doctor from the TV series either. In some ways I feel the idea of those involved is to take a fairly popular British show and turn it into a popular film series Worldwide, and it makes sense that a clean slate is the best place to attract new fans. For me, both points of view are understandable, and obviously the bigger question isn't the stupidity of rebooting a franchise that is still currently healthy (which is my biggest point of contention with this), but is: Is Doctor Who a classic or a cult classic?

To me, this always makes the difference when it comes to remakes. Remaking Star Wars is one thing, remaking a little known sci-fi flick from the '50s may frustrate a few, but to the larger public it's fresh and invigorating. While I am always one for originality in movies, usually the reason a movie or TV show relegates a cult status is because it is a flawed piece of entertainment, or it was because the entertainment in question just was not acceptable enough to a mass audience and only appealed to a small demographic. Case and point, The Last Man on Earth starring Vincent Price and then I Am Legend starring Will Smith. Both are based off of the same novel, but I feel the Will Smith movie is a better movie simply because it is more accessible to a casual moviegoer.

And here is the thing with Doctor Who, the TV show appeals to its key demographics, but there is something about British film and television that can often be off-putting to American audiences. Whether it be the dry humor, the often slower pacing, or even something as face value as the lower production values. This is why Doctor Who does not have a bigger fan base in the States, and it is why to many, this Doctor Who movie may be the best thing to expand the fanbase. Case and point, compare the original Star Trek TV series to the Star Trek movie from two years ago. The original Star Trek took a slower, campier, and more philosophical view, where as the movie amped up action and adventure. Both are good, but the movie found a reach beyond just science fiction fans; this is very much how I see this Doctor Who situation. Of course, this still does not answer the question as to whether or not Doctor Who is a classic or a cult classic.

The thing is, there are very few movies, TV shows, and books, that are generally agreed upon by everyone as classics of the form (like: Gone With the Wind, I Love Lucy, or The Great Gatsby). But there are a ton of movies, TV shows, and books, that have devoted fans and think that they are classics even if the casual audience does or does not. What I am trying to get at is that a classic is only a classic in the eyes of the beholder. I mean, I consider the movie Johnny English a classic, but that does not mean it's a classic to the larger entertainment population. At best, it's a cult classic. And I believe the same can be said for Doctor Who, at least in America where its popularity is not quite as high as it is in Britain.

The thing is, worldwide the show is not as big as a Star Wars or even an Avatar. People see a lightsaber and know immediately what it is, but when they see Doctor Who's sonic screwdriver, more than half wont know what it is, unless you are in the appropriate setting. This is the thing, would it be awful if the movie managed to go beyond the fans of Brit. TV or sci-fi buffs? I personally don't think it would be. The bottom line is, even if the movie is bad, the fans will still have the TV Show to comfort them. No harm, no foul. I mean, I did not like Spider-Man 3, but does that decrease my love of the first two Spider-Man movies? No. In fact it makes me realize just how lucky and special they are.

The bottom line is, there aren't enough American Doctor Who fans to stage a boycott or nothing, casual moviegoers will still go see it if it has tons of explosions and a big name. As is evidenced with the successes of countless movies like Fantastic Four, which found fan ridicule, but box office success. And the fanboy audience is not big enough to sell a big budget movie alone, which is why it is impossible to make a David Tennant Doctor Who movie, because he has no name recognition and the movie would flop. I mean, studios relied on the fanboy crowd to sell Scott Pilgrim vs. The World, and look at how badly that one crashed and burned at the box office. This is why studios are now putting less stock in things like Comic-Con because fans will eat it up on a convention floor, and they think this is gonna be a hit, but then when it comes out the movie never had enough of a straight appeal to catch the average joe moviegoer.

So whether or not a Doctor Who movie is made, is simply irrelevant. If you believe the show is a hallowed classic, then, good or bad, this movie cannot destroy your love of the show as it already is.

What If Harrison Ford Had Played Alan Grant?

2011-11-01T12:50:00.014-05:00

Jurassic Park is what I believe to be a masterpiece of filmmaking. It is one of those rare movies that I feel the script was perfect, the directing was perfect, the acting was perfect, there just is nothing I do not love about the movie, but as always with any movie there is the, "What If?" What if this actor had done this part? Or what if this director had chosen to do this movie rather than this director? As it is, I find it almost impossible now to see anyone other than Sam Neill as dinosaur expert, Alan Grant, but that was not always the case. Spielberg's first choice for the role was none other than Indiana Jones himself, Harrison Ford. Now, Ford turned the role down for still undisclosed reasons, but that is neither here nor there. The real question is what would Jurassic Park be like had Harrison Ford portrayed Alan Grant rather than Sam Neill? This is what I am going to try and figure out through some good ol' speculation.

Now, for a frame of reference, the early 1990s was Harrison Ford at the peak of his career. He was one of the world's biggest box office draws, after successfully starring in three Indiana Jones films and Star Wars films, then nabbing a new franchise in the form of Tom Clancy's Jack Ryan series, he was a hot commodity (not to mention he was coming into his own as an actor in films like Regarding Henry and The Fugitive). On the other side, there was Spielberg, the most financially successful director to ever live, having previously worked with Ford on all three Indiana Jones' flicks, offering Ford the lead in his new sure-fire mega-hit, which Jurassic Park was, surpassing Spielberg's own E.T. as the highest grossing film of all-time.

Taking into account Ford's star status at the time of Jurassic Park's making, I believe that the movie itself would have remained the same, but the audience perception of the movie would be different. Ford has never really been the sort of star who argues over screen time or whatnot, so I do not think he would have wanted Alan Grant to of been in every single frame of the movie, and as it is, I feel he would have knocked the role out of the park, having already played similar roles of curmudgeonly guys with kids in movies like Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom and Witness. But what Sam Neill ultimately brought to the role was a face that you felt like you knew and could trust, but with a name that you did not know unless you loved movie credits.

Ford's star power would have overpowered Jurassic Park to where the star of the movie would have become him, rather than the dinosaurs. When Indiana Jones and Star Wars was made, Ford was much like Neill was when Jurassic Park was made, but by the time Jurassic Park came around, he was a household name. I think it is safe to say, the dinosaurs are the stars of Jurassic Park and the humans are there to give emotional weight to the proceedings. I believe had Ford been in the movie, the dinosaurs would have played second fiddle, rather than being the thing that drives the audience through the story.

Just imagine for a second if Ford had been Alan Grant, what would the marketing have been like? It probably would have had Harrison Ford's face front and center on the poster with his name in as large lettering as the movie's title, rather than this great poster showcasing the dinosaurs:

This would have more than likely changed the entire perception of the movie, that this is not a movie about this fantastical situation and how human beings have come so little since the days of dinosaurs. People leaving the theaters would had more than likely raved about Harrison Ford, rather than telling their friends how awesome the dinosaurs looked and how crisp the action was. Ford might have even overshadowed Jeff Goldblum's brilliant performance as Ian Malcolm!

Looking back on it, I am happy that Ford did not portray Alan Grant. While I can see him in the role, Sam Neill is the perfect Alan Grant, and always will be because he was just that, a face and not a name.

Oscar Watch: Part 2

2011-10-31T12:34:00.006-05:00

The world of predicting the Academy Awards is always shifting. As Fall moves along, more and more hopefuls fall off the radar into obscurity while a few here and there maintain the anticipation, and some even overcome any preconceived ideas of quality to be real contenders in the Oscar race. Today, I wanna catch up on my thoughts as to how the Oscars are shaping up at this point. We are still about four full months out from the actual ceremony, but only three from nominations day, and this is generally the time where campaigning starts to kick in full force.

So far, many of the movies I predicted to not stick their landing very well, have done just that. Clint Eastwood's J. Edgar, while still could surprise in Best Picture, will be lucky if it can wrangle Leo a Best Actor bid. Where as another biopic, My Week With Marilyn, starring Michelle Williams as Marilyn Monroe, has found traction, not just for Williams' performance, but for Kenneth Branagh's performance as screen legend Laurence Olivier. This would be a perfect way to cap off a big year for Brannagh (having directed Thor), and I am gonna go ahead and say it, the way My Week With Marilyn has been playing and pleasing crowds so far, this is the dark horse Best Picture contender of the year. This does not make it a lock, this flick still has a long way to go, but I just wanna let it be known that it is slowly bubbling on the outside of the pack.

As for the movies that are still holding strong: The Artist is still a bona fide contender, same goes for The Help, as well as The Descendants starring George Clooney. There is still question marks about Clooney's The Ides of March figuring into Best Picture, I don't buy into it, but I am starting to warm up to the idea of Moneyball squeaking in there. With so many movies failing to meet lofty expectations, a safe bid like Moneyball could fill up a 6th or 7th slot in the Best Picture ballot, just saying. As for Stephen Daldry's 9/11 flick, Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close, there are still too many variables to consider before slinging it into the Best Picture race. While a Daldry film has never missed out on a Best Picture nod, there is always a first time for everything, so I'd toss this in the same hat as My Week With Marilyn.

As it is, the year of Steven Spielberg seems to be gaining momentum as we get nearer to year's end. The Adventures of Tintin recently opened across the UK to fantastic reviews, creating the thought that this might squeak into the Best Picture category like so many of Spielberg's populist flicks have done in the past (Raiders of the Lost Ark, E.T., need I continue). Now, being animated, and not by Pixar, may hold it back, but right now I am saying yes to a Best Picture nod. As for War Horse, it continues to grow in anticipation, still looking like typical Oscar bait, but the kind of Oscar bait that will stick around come the end of the year -- plus it just looks like a really good Spielberg movie.

Recently, Martin Scorsese's Hugo finally showed its face at the New York Film Fest., and the initial reactions were lukewarm at best, which is a shame, since I loved the book so much. As it is, I think Scorsese's latest may have found itself out of the race here, same going for Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy. Reviewers call Tinker a well-crafted British production, but seeing the Academy, who tends to vote toward sentiment, vote for a slick, reserved spy movie, is almost impossible at this point, though I wouldn't count it out just yet (besides, it's pretty much a given this one will sweep the BAFTAS -- Britain's Academy honors).

So there you have the race as I see it right now. I only mentioned here the movies that were contenders at one time or still are, so is it possible something like The Tree of Life could get a last minute push in campaigning? Yes, but it is rare. Now, if you remember, last time I only predicted a scant five Best Picture nominees, this time I'm widening the field a bit to six. Here are my predictions at this juncture, with Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close and My Week With Marilyn waiting in the wings:

The Adventures of Tinin: The Secret of the Unicorn
The Artist
The Descendants
The Help
Moneyball
War Horse

As the race continues and I see more of these movies, I will get more in depth in the acting categories and tech. fields, so just stay tuned for my first predictions in the next month or so for Best Actor, Best Actress, and maybe even Best Director. Till then, I leave with the trailer for My Week With Marilyn. See what y'all think about its prospects:

Comic Book Reviews!

2011-10-28T09:43:00.013-05:00

Sorry for the long hiatus, it has been a busy few weeks, but I have still been reading many of the latest comics, but since I've missed a week of reviewing, I'm gonna try and do two weeks' worth of reviews in one post! In what I am gonna call, Rapid Fire Reviewing! I've never done this before, so let's see how it goes.

First off, the releases from the week of Oct. 19-25:

Batman #2 - Scott Snyder introduces a new villain that ties in with Gotham City's history and the Wayne family's past, evoking Bruce Wayne's intense detail-oriented mind in revealing internal monologues, proving why he is still the right man to write The Dark Knight. A+!

Justice League #2 - Geoff Johns' voice for Batman still feels uncomfortable, but he is clearly having fun here, with the way he is bringing the JLA together feeling fresh and exciting. B+!

Green Lantern, Corps. #2 - Peter J. Tomasi is one of my favorite writer's in comics, he entertains while putting the pieces together as to who is chopping off the fingers of Green Lanterns and stealing natural resources from unsuspecting planets, but he forsook some of the strong character work from issue #1. B!

Nightwing #2 - I feel no shame in saying Dick Grayson is one of my favorite comic book characters of all-time, and I am really loving Kyle Higgins' run here, delving into Dick's past with the Haly's Circus to take him into the future with tons of action and emotion; not to mention, highly magnificent art, and I rarely say that. A+!

Next, the comic book reviews of this week, Oct 26-Nov. 1:

The Amazing Spider-Man #672 - Dan Slott's hit-and-miss Spider-Island event finally comes to a close here that recaptures some of the magic from the first few issues of the event, while still feeling a bit too focused on the entire Marvel Universe rather than just on Spidey (but hey, MJ's confession of still being in love with Petey at issh end was magnificent). C+!

Superman #2 - While not as strong as the first issue, George Perez continues to show Superman's great wit as he has to outsmart a villain everyone can see but him, making this run entertaining so far, but where is the character development? B+!

Wolverine and the X-Men #1 - Jason Aaron redeems himself here after Schism, with Wolverine back in New York, reopening the school. Wolvie is Headmaster with Kitty Pride as his Headmistress. There is a ton of humor here and some nice focus on the struggles that mutants have in trying to run a school, which manages to find a few unique strides we've never seen before, but the art by Chris Bachalo often jumps around so much in angles that it is disorienting and hard to find your place. A-!

Green Lantern: New Guardians #2 - I am still waiting for some development in Kyle Rayner's character that has been promised, but this book is so entertaining so far with such a great hook at the end, I wanna read more. B+!

The Incredible Hulk #1 - Since I was so cool on Jason Aaron's Schism, I didn't know what to expect with him writing Hulk, but he has created a great starting point for new readers to come to the Big Green fella. Hulk and Bruce Banner have literally been split in two, with Banner supposedly gone mad according the gov. and they want to enlist the Hulk to stop him. A nice turn of events, showing us how the Hulk actually thinks rather than how Banner thinks. Not to mention the amazing art from Marc Silvestri that keeps the reader focused at all times. Best book of the month! A+!

New Comics: Oct. 12-18

2011-10-12T13:35:00.033-05:00

X-Men: Regenesis One-Shot

We saw the X-Men split in two with Schism, and now it's time for the mutants to choose whose side they will be on: Wolverine or Cylcops. Ultimately, the issue is just an overly long book that gives obscure mutants a page each to decide where their loyalty's lie. It's dull and tedious work just to reach the final moment where we know who goes where. Any dramatic emphasis that could have been placed on this situation is lost because the story is constantly speeding by just to get to the next mutant's decision. As well, who are some of these mutants? Unless you have read every X-Book over the past two decades, will you know who these mutants are, their importance to the X-Men universe, or even simply, their powers? Cause I don't. I mean, would it have hurt them to give us the emotional reactions of the mutants we all know, like when Beast sides with Wolverine rather than Cyclops? How does Cyclops take it? Regardless, there was some potential here, especially with the constant visual references back to tribal caveman days, but like Schism, Regenesis lacks any believability in it's character's motivations. Ultimately, this whole idea of splitting the X-Men in two may have just been either too ambitious to tackle, or too haphazardly put together, choose your position. Grade: F!

****

Green Lantern #2

The story continues with Hal Jordan's arch-nemesis, Sinestro, having been chosen to wear Hal Jordan's Green Lantern ring after Hal had it stripped away from him by the Guardians. The whole interest of this run has been seeing Green Lantern's greatest villain as a Green Lantern once more and seeing whether or not the ring made the right choice in choosing him or if it has indeed made a mistake and there is a greater conspiracy afoot. The thing about Sinestro is he seems to really want to make a difference in the universe, but he sides with whatever power will help him to do that (which is why he originally left the Green Lantern, Corps. to form his own). Often his agendas are extreme, even if at the core there is a genuine desire to make things better, and I think this is what writer Geoff Johns is showing us here. He is adding new layers to Sinestro that I did not even know could exist, such as when Sinestro saves a collapsing bridge, albeit Sinestro does so by nearly jeopardizing the lives of every person on that bridge. Right now, it's hard to tell whether or not Sinestro will return full-time as a Green Lantern or not, but the deeper exploration of the character is what is truly fascinating by this current run. Grade: A+!

****

Ultimate Comics: X-Men #2

Right now, the new volume of Marvel's Ultimate line is failing to do anything for me. The government has been ousted for creating the X-gene in the first place that created the first mutants, and with the recent flooding of Manhattan by Magneto and the death of Spider-Man, mutants and heroes are more feared than ever. Great premise, but so far it has been stale. What Marvel is trying to do here is give us the younger X-Men: Kitty Pride, Iceman, and the Human Torch (wait, he's not a mutant!), and try to show how these younger mutants will bring back the X-Men. As of right now, it's just tedious work and is nothing I haven't seen before. The mutants are hunted by Sentinels, they are feared by everyone and must be in hiding, blah, blah, blah. For a new volume promising to be a new chapter in the X-Men, this is going nowhere new right now, even if the action is crisp and the writing is solid. Grade: C!

****

Batman & Robin #2

Writer Peter J. Tomasi remains to be one of my favorite writers currently working in the industry. His expertise at crafting action-packed stories mixed with character development continues to excel in this issue. The whole issue follows Bruce Wayne as he tries to curb his son, Damian's aggressive behaviors, while trying to be a good father to him. So far, Tomasi has gone the angle of a father-and-son story with his latest run, and I am digging it. With Bruce questioning his own fatherly skills, Alfred trying to mentor Bruce to be a father, and Damian actually trying to get past his bloodlust and be a good Robin and son, it feels fresh. What is so fresh about this is that we've seen Bruce as mentor, as older brother, and as father figure before, but we have never seen him as biological father and witnessed him questioning his own abilities as a father. While the larger story arc of this villain hunting down members of Batman, Inc. has been underdeveloped in the first two issues, the cliffhanger at the end of this issue promises to finally flesh out this story in issue #3. Grade: A!

****

Ultimate Comics: Spider-Man #3

New Spider-Man, 13-year-old Miles Morales still lacks the overpowering character personality that made Peter Parker the true-blue Spider-Man; three issues in and I have no real clue as to Miles' character. I was always able to predict Peter's reaction to a situation, and I don't know how Miles will react, which is okay for a first issue, but troubling by issue #3. Even still, one has to commend Marvel for trying something new here. Brian Michael Bendis is scripting these stories in a very realistic fashion, and is introducing us to some nice new characters, like Miles' best friend Ganke, and is trying to make this story more grounded in how real kids act (as opposed to the over-the-top antics of most teens in comics). It's a different interpretation on Spider-Man, which so far has been entertaining and exposes some intriguing social commentary, but is nothing on par with the energetic first three issues of the initial volume of Ultimate Spider-Man. Grade: B-!

****

Batgirl #2

Gail Simone's run on Batgirl has been a great character piece so far, with heavy emphasis on what happened to Barbara Gordon at the hands of the Joker. Arguably the biggest change the New 52 has ushered in is the fact that Barbara Gordon, the original Batgirl, can now walk again, after being shot and paralyzed by the Joker over two decades ago. In the new continuity, she was in a wheelchair for three years, but now she is not. This still has not been explained, how she can now walk again, but the psychosis that Simone has brought to the character in her fears of getting shot again and trying to cover up the fact that she was once paralyzed to her new roommate has been nice touches. The new villain, Mirror is highly intriguing, and I am extremely interested to see where Simone goes with him. I just have one question, why hasn't Bruce dropped by to see how Barbara is doing? Surely with her being like a daughter to him he would have talked to her about her accident and how she is now able to walk again. Grade: A-!

KIng of the Zombies

2011-10-11T20:48:00.004-05:00

With the premier of The Walking Dead fast approaching, I have decided to watch some of my favorite zombie flicks, as well as a few that I have not seen. George A. Romero is credited with being the man who invented the modern zombie. By this, I mean the "walking dead" that feed on flesh and a single bite can infect the victim and turn them into a zombie. Before Romero terrified audiences with his now iconic Night of the Living Dead, zombies still existed in film, but they looked a lot different. In earlier zombie films, the creatures were not the by product of infection or alien virus, but rather were magically created through the use of voodoo.

Lets take a look at the 1941 film, King of the Zombies. Rather than being a straight horror film, King of the Zombies mixes the genre with a generous portion of comedy, thanks to actor Manton Moreland, the token black character. While it was not outside the norm to have black characters play to such strong stereotypes, it is still disconcerting to see played out on film nonetheless. While some reviewers would compliment Manton on his comedic timing, his comedy is still built upon the fact that his character frightens easily and is less intelligent that his caucasian counterparts. Don't get me wrong, he is a great actor, but it is shameful to look back on the way we wrote, and at times now, still write minority characters.

What is actually more interesting about this film is the fact that the films villain is obviously Germanic and the the story flirts around the idea that he is a Nazi. The plot focuses on the antagonist Dr. Miklos Sangre, as he tries to zombifies prominent war officials to gain military knowledge. Since the film was produced and released before America's involvement, you don't see the characters fighting in the war, but you do see some sentiments that old Hollywood and most of the US already had about Nazi Germany.

The film can be viewed for free here. It is worth watching if you enjoy campy old horror films or exceptionally racist films.

New Comics: Oct. 5-11

2011-10-08T13:01:00.000-05:00

A new series on the Review, I will be reviewing all of the latest comic book releases of each week here on the Review. Now, obviously I cannot read everything, but I usually read at least three to five books a week, so I will review what I can, and hopefully manage to sell or not sell you on a particular title. So let's get going!

****
Batwing #2

This second issue detailing the adventures of Batman, Incorporated's latest Batman -- Batwing, the Batman of Africa -- proves that last month's #1 was not a fluke, Batwing continues to be one of the New 52's strongest titles. Writer Judd Winick scripts a fascinating story as Batwing hunts Massacre, a mass murderer hunting down the members of a disbanded African team of superheroes, the Kingdom. I especially love how Winnick is constantly slipping in flashbacks and references of how Bruce Wayne, the original Batman, trained and still aids Batwing in his early days under Batman, Inc. As well, the action is crisp, the dialogue is far better and more believable than what Winnick usually delivers, and the art by Ben Oliver mixes gritty realism with a painterly sensibility, resulting in some of the best art in any comic currently on store shelves. Grade: A+!

****
X-Men: Schism - Part Five of Five

Schism has been Marvel's latest X-Men event. Unlike many events in comic books, I definitely feel that the changes that Schism has brought to the X-Men universe will stick for a long time, at least until the next big event, but the end results were somewhat disappointing after the kickfire start of the series. In Part 5 we finally see the X-Men split ways, as Cyclops and Wolverine finish their epic battle started at the end of Part 4 and decide to get a divorce (bad time for some humor, I know). Writer Jason Aaron should be commended for attempting a change to the status quo as drastic as this is, but the believability started slipping through the cracks in issue Part 4 when the reason for Wolverine and Cyclops' battle is an argument over sending the X-Men's students into battle (which haven't they been doing for over three decades of comics now). It's just hard to see how after years of far bigger conflicts between the two characters, that that was the straw that finally broke the camel's back, leaving me feeling emotionally cold when the split finally happened because I did not believe in the why. So what can I say, a disappointing end to what was a promising event. Grade: D!

****

Detective Comics #2

Tony Daniel's second issue of Detective Comics does more of the same that the first issue did, with some awesome grade action and a nice hint at the new villain, but lacking in the great character development that Scott Snyder is currently bringing to Batman. Daniel's artwork is again his greatest strength, giving Gotham luscious detail and the characters, ranging emotions. As for his writing, I am loving how he is portraying Gordon and Bat's relationship, as well as Bats and Bullock's. The hints at the new villain, the Dollmaker, show a potentially creepy, Hannibal Lecter-type villain for the Bat, with enough questions left unanswered to keep the reader coming back next month. Even if Daniel simply puts his foot on the gas and doesn't let off, he nails the excitement. Grade: B+!

****

Action Comics #2

Grant Morrison's stories are always divisive, you either love 'em or hate 'em, there is no in-between, and luckily I am in the former category in regards to Action Comics. Grant Morrison has re-invigorated the Superman character, and continues to show us the new, "angry" Superman, so to speak. Morrison's young Superman is rash, impulsive, a little cocky, but still has that perfect moral compass that guides him. He has no shame in smashing up the baddies, which I like, and Rags Morale's art really works to evoke the Golden Age-era Superman with so much clarity. While Morrison's Lois Lane still seems vastly underdeveloped, his Lex Luthor gets some more shades in this #2, and anyways Morrison has always been known for the slow burn story, letting things develop over time. In my history with Morrison, his work is best when not looked on an individual issue basis but as a larger collective, so the real impact of Morrison's Action Comics probably wont be seen till at least a year from now, but as for now, it is an entertaining ride with a fantastic cliffhanger at issue's end. Grade: A!

Movie Review: "Real Steel"

2011-10-07T16:03:00.007-05:00

It is rare, when there is so much smashing of metal against metal, to actually find some humanity and a story to go along with it, and Real Steel does this to great effect.

In the near future where humans no longer box against fellow humans, robots do the boxing for them. This leaves the human boxers as washed up robot trainers, like Hugh Jackman's Charlie Kenton. Down on his luck, forgotten his passion for the sport, and an absentee father, Jackman plays the role honest and true, making Charlie the kind of scumbag that doesn't deserve good luck. But when Charlie's ex-girlfriend dies and his son, Max, is thrust back into his life, Charlie's bad luck is turned around.

The real charm of Real Steel is how Dakota Goyo's Max uncovers an old sparring bot named Atom in a junk heap. You believe that Dakota Goyo actually thinks that Atom has a soul. As Max fixes Atom and Charlie trains him, the two embark on a journey to the Championship Ring as father-and-son. This just highlights the true charm of director Shawn Levy's work. The story mixes these great human elements with fantastical action. There is genuine drama, drama in the strained relationship between Max and Charlie, drama in the ring as Atom fights, not because we believe that Atom is a magic autonomous being, but because Max does, and he is the one we root for.

Real Steel's robots are brilliantly designed, with it unnoticeable when the filmmakers switch from the real, on-set animatronics, to the CG-robots. This coupled with the acting from all involved, from Hugh Jackman selling this sport with conviction and Dakota Goyo having that glint in his eye of Atom's magic, to the brilliant effects work, it suspends the viewer's disbelief and allows one to be wrapped up within these metal slug fests as if they were two humans duking it out in the ring.

Ultimately, Real Steel is all about redemption. Charlie Kenton redeems his relationship with his son, his relationship with his oldest love, Bailey (played charmingly by Evangeline Lily), and he redeems himself, finding his passion for boxing once again. Call it hokey, sentimental hogwash, but this is the kind of story that makes me love movies. Time is taken to create emotional investment. The story starts slow, lays it pieces, rather than bombarding the viewer with action, and then when it reaches the action, we are invested. From the watered eyes to the shivers shooting down our spine, we care, because the story took time to develop itself before rushing a pay-off.

Simply, Real Steel pulls no punches, leaves nothing in the ring, every blow lands and succeeds in making me feel like a 7-year-old kid again, when there still was wonder left in the world.

I give Real Steel a perfect A+!

Movie Review: "50/50"

2011-10-05T13:23:00.006-05:00

Adam is an ordinary 20-something: he has a job that he is passionate about, he has a girlfriend that his best friend despises, and he just happens to get diagnosed with a rare cancer that leaves his life chances at 50/50.

50/50 is a rarity of the cinematic landscape. It deals with cancer in not a sentimental, Bucket List kind of way, but rather in a way that feels authentic. Adam does not embark on a vast journey to live his life to his fullest, he actually deteriorates before our eyes, having moments where he is happy due to the rapport and humor he has with his best friend Kyle, and at other times he is exceedingly grumpy.

To be honest, the real star is writer Will Reiser, who wrote the story from his own personal battle with being a guy in his mid-20s diagnosed with cancer. This is what makes the story authentic. The dark humor that is sprinkled throughout, only a person who experienced this would be able to write from such a real perspective, rather than making everything dramatic. The thing is, in real life, no matter how bad the situation, there is still levity, there is still smiles and laughter, and Reiser captures that while also stirring the emotions through his screenplay. But don't go thinking 50/50 is a writer's showcase. The film sports a truly fine acting ensemble that brings Reiser's words to life.

Joseph Gordon-Levitt gives not his most controlled performance, but uses his everyman charm to make Adam a character worth rooting for. The biggest thing, is it is rare for me to see something with Seth Rogen in it and like it. He is perfect as Adam's friend, Kyle, who thinks the cure to cancer is using it to pick up chicks, but you really see how true a friend he is as he stands by Adam every step of the way. Anna Kendrick shines as Adam's young, 24-year-old therapist, who knows everything a book can teach but has no life experience, while Angelica Houston manages to steal the few scenes she is in as Adam's doting mother who is trying to deal with her son's cancer diagnosis whilst taking care of Adam's father with Altzheimer's (who Serge Houde makes the most out of simple reactions). And I know he's not an actor, I just wanna mention Michael Giacchino's magnificently refined score. Giacchino, known for big, verbose scores that sweep the viewer up in masterful uses of strings, keeps it simple here with soft electric guitar and piano, resulting in a soothing musical score that fits the piece perfectly.

Now, being fair, 50/50 was not without its faults. This is director Jonathan Levine's sophomore effort, and one can tell he is still young. There are times where his use of soft focus overpowered the performances of his actors, and he drew attention to his directing trying to create the emotion through the shot rather than through the actor's performances and the shot just being an aid. This is seen throughout the movie as he rarely sits on a close-up long enough to give the audience some time to read the actor's facial expressions and feel their performances. This is a weakness to the story, but one that does not keep Reiser's screenplay and the fabulous ensemble from pulling the viewer through, thanks to the sheer emotional landscape going from laugh-out-loud humor to tear duct-filled drama.

I give 50/50 an A-!

The New 52, Here to Stay

2011-10-04T12:00:00.000-05:00

So taking a break from the movie action for a moment to delve into the world of comic books. September has come and gone, and the first month of DC Comics' New 52, relaunching all of their comic book characters, from Superman to Batman to even Aquaman, has come and gone. All of this has been a reboot of sorts for the entire DC Universe, trying to streamline the characters to where there is not so much baggage weighing them down, so a new reader could pick up the book and know exactly what is going on and who this character is. But let's get some history on the event first.

In the past, DC has always operated with three separate parallel universes; in each universe there were subtle, and sometimes even, major differences in the origins of characters and whatnot. What the New 52 is doing, is taking the best parts of all three universes, then getting rid of what no longer fits, and consolidating it all back into one universe, so there are no more parallel realities. The idea, as said above, is to make the comics less confusing and more accessible. So even though it is a reboot, it is a reboot that DC has needed to do for nearly thirty years now (after their first attempt at simplifying, Infinite Crisis, ultimately just created another Universe rather than expunging the old). So obviously, certain characters have changed a lot, in particular Superman, who is more in line with his initial appearances in the late 1930s. Even so, certain characters, like Batman, simply pick up where they left off when the old DC Universe ended in August. But where is the New 52 going, now that it is not so new, and has it succeeded?

I have become a comic book junkie as of late, trying to read as many of the New 52 number one issues as possible, even still I have only collected 18 out of the whole. The comics have been flying off of store shelves, and if you snooze, you lose. I mean, you seriously have to make it to the comic book store within its first few hours of operation if you wanna get the comic before it sells out, these things have been selling so well. Even still, I have read everything from the Green Lantern books, to the Superman books, to the Batman books, and I even gave some things a shot that I never normally would, like Wonder Woman, Animal Man, and Swamp Thing. I still haven't managed to get my hands on The Flash and Aquaman, but I'm working on it.

The first thing I've noticed in reading, is that the New 52 books are some of the more exciting I've read in a long time. Even if DC doesn't manage to succeed in ultimately consolidating everything back to one universe, the quality of the stories and the sheer energy that the writers and artists have been bringing to the books has been the best I think I have ever seen in my lifetime. I mean, each week there are at least three treats waiting for me when I head on over to the comic book store. But what is so brilliant, is that DC has not just consolidated these books, but they are re-exploring and re-introducing these characters.

The two seminal books of the New 52 are Action Comics and Justice League. Action Comics is highlighting the tales of a young, brash Superman who fights against social injustice, and protects the little guy, while still a mystery to Metropolis. The story of Action Comics takes place a few years before Justice League, and Justice League takes place five years before the rest of the New DC Universe. What Action Comics is showing is the rise of the superhero, through the eyes of Superman, because as is alluded to in Justice League #1, superheroes are still a new phenomena and are feared by most. And Justice League is promising to show the rise of the superheroes as Earth's protectors and how the Justice League ultimately forms. These two comics are the history for the New 52, so they are the two must reads of the New 52, if you can only afford two.

After that, everything is business as usual in most of the other books. I mean, in Batman, Batman is Bruce Wayne, Robin is his son, Damian Wayne, Dick Grayson is Nightwing, and Tim Drake is Red Robin. It's almost as if Batman wasn't even restarted, aside from the fact that Dick is no longer in the cape and cowl, even though in Batman & Robin, they allude to the time that Dick and Damian spent fighting crime together as Batman and Robin, so Batman's death is obviously still included as a part of the New 52 Universe. And you see a lot of this in the other books. I mean, Blackest Night still happened, and The War of the Green Lanterns still happened, as Green Lantern picks up with last month's surprise of Hal Jordan being stripped of his power ring by the Guardians and the ring choosing Sinestro as the new Green Lantern of Sector 2814.

I think the greatest thing about the New 52 though, is it is not just re-imagining these characters or re-enforcing their greatness, it is also expanding on their universes. Green Lantern: New Guardians proved to be the most entertaining read of the New 52, with noble, pure of heart Kyle Rayner (my favorite Green Lantern of Sector 2814) tapped to head up a team bringing together six other Lanterns from the six other emotional spectrum's (Red, Orange, Yellow, Blue, Indigo, Purple). Or DC steering ahead with Batman, Inc. by introducing Batwing, the Batman of Africa, in quite possibly the most surprising book in the New 52 line-up. And Supergirl was a genuine delight, with the book promising to serve up the Kryptonian history for the New 52 that Action Comics seems to be avoiding in order to focus more on the human aspects of Superman.

The biggest detractor of the New 52 simply is, it doesn't feel that new. With the exceptions of Justice League and Action Comics, it feels like business as usual in the DC Universe. There and again, DC tends to favor the slow burn approach nowadays with their stories, so more will be revealed in time as to what all has really changed and what has remained constant. I for one have enjoyed every minute of it simply because one can tell the writers are jazzed about essentially having a blank slate to go from, but as I said earlier, we'll see where things go from here. So with September over, I've decided to drop down my top 10 faves of the New 52, so you guys can check 'em out if interested:

10. Supergirl
9. Justice League
8. Detective Comics
7. Superman
6. Batwing
5. Green Lantern Corps.
4. Batman & Robin
3. Batman
2. Green Lantern: The New Guardians
1. Action Comics

Contagion

2011-10-02T14:02:00.004-05:00

Contagion is a star studded film that unravels a story of international turmoil, as a deadly virus sweeps across the globe, indiscriminately ravashing populations and morphing peoples psyche's to points of hysteria usually reserved for zombie flicks. Much like Crash and Babel, Contagion's plot is approached from multiple vantage points, giving the viewer a more complete picture of the catastrophe at hand. While this method of storytelling is useful in this way, it results in a choppy storytelling that leaves much to be desired in terms of character development. Just as soon a character begins to take shape you are thrust into a new story arch. This also results in a high amount of musical montages. With a such a large cast to command and the film already running over 100 minutes, it is only natural that such measures would be taken. The cinematography in Contagion is excellent, and does wonderfully at drawing the viewers attention to every mundane action that results in touching the various items we all touch in our day to day lives. What makes Contagion worth watching is how it frames the human race when faced with such an epidemic. While the films stars are given such limited screen time, and their characters have such little time to develop, this allows the virus itself to exist as a sort of esoteric character in and of itself. From start to finish, the virus is a sort of drifter with a mysterious past, passing through our planets history with a an agenda to challenge our planets resolve. My final conclusions about Contagion is that while it is generally flat, and missed several opportunities in character development, it is a much more relevant and impressive film than most of what is in theaters right now.

Movie Review: "Drive"

2011-10-01T15:00:00.000-05:00

The guy just likes to drive. Is that too much to ask for? Why can't gangsters let him be and get with the girl? Well, so is the life of the Driver in Drive, the tale of a Hollywood stunt-car driver by day and a getaway driver by night.

Drive is relatively simple filmmaking that is complex and complicated due to the depth of the performance from Ryan Gosling and the psychological directing of Nicholas Winding Refn. The Driver falls in love for his next door neighbor, Irene, portrayed by a refined Carey Mulligan, but yo ho, complications arise when her husband is released from prison and the Driver must aid this family that he has grown to care for when Irene's husband must pull off a heist to pay off a debt. Refn and Gosling work in tandem to do so much with so little. Gosling does not show much emotion, but rather his eyes show that he is thinking about the events transpiring, and Refn just keeps the camera on him, letting us as the audience meditate whilst slowly dollying in at all of the right moments to bring us into the Driver's mind. The cinematography by Newton Thomas Siegel is definitely a highlight that helps all of the proceedings, and Refn and Siegel are in for potential Oscar noms.

However, Drive is a tale of two halves. The first half deals with the Driver living his odd life simply wanting to drive no matter what he is doing, whilst getting to know Irene and her son, which was a lot stronger in terms of character; where as the latter half forsakes all of the strong character work in the first half for gratuitous violence. While Refn and Gosling manage to keep it together in the few quiet moments near the end, the action often overwhelms the characters and they get lost in the shuffle. So what? Even if Drive shifts from a spectacular contemplative drama to fairly standard thriller midway through, Refn delivers the thrills in pulse pounding, Hitchcock fashion to make Drive a thrill throughout.

I give Drive an A-!

Shot Design: Why?

2011-09-22T11:09:00.006-05:00

So often in film school, we are only taught the scientific aspects of film theory as opposed to the creative or psychological. When being taught on shot design, we are preached the basics, so that we will know the standard rules of moviemaking. Never cross the 180 line. If someone looks off in a direction, give the reaction POV shot of what they're seeing. Or if you're filming a scene of dialogue between two characters sitting at a table, you are taught to do coverage: establishing shot showing both characters in frame, two over the shoulder shots showing each character from waist up, then two close ups showing each character's face. For beginning filmmakers, this is the sort of theory they need to know. One needs to know the rules before they can be broken, the problem I have found is that upon learning the rules, I'm left at a now what. How do I take my own shot design from Hollywood hack standard, to Steven Spielberg-cinematic wonderland?

As film students, once we learn the basics of shot design, we don't know what to do beyond that. There is nothing that distinguishes or movies from anything else you see on TV or in theaters. What can distinguish your work? I think the answer is asking yourself a simple question: Why?

Why am I placing the camera over here rather than over there? Why am I favoring this character in the frame when this scene is really about the emotional impact on the character in the background? Why am I giving this reaction shot when I want what the character is seeing to be a mystery? Why am I sticking with standard coverage, giving each character equal screen time when in fact the scene is about one character? Why not move the camera in toward the character the scene is about and not cut back or show the other character? Why?

Let's watch two similar scenes from movies and diagnose them:

Both scenes are from great movies, but one scene is more emotionally involving than the other. Why is that? I believe that the scene from Shadow of a Doubt took the basic ideas of coverage, but then threw that all out the window when Hitchcock started dollying in on Joseph Cotten. The thing is, the scene from Catch Me If You Can is spectacular because of Christopher Walken's performance, not because of the directing. The scene from Shadow of a Doubt is a tour de force. It is spectacular not just because of the acting from Cotten, but it is a spectacularly directed scene as well. When the scene was just chit chat, Hitchcock used standard coverage, but when it became about Joseph Cotten, and him alone, Hitch pushed the camera in towards Cotten, getting us so close it was uncomfortable. See what I'm getting at here?

Another fine example is in Frank Capra's Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. Jimmy Stewart talks to Sen. Payne's daughter, who he has a crush on, and rather than showing us their faces, Capra only showed Stewart nervously fumbling around with his hat in his hands. Capra told us through this creative choice that the dialogue is not important, what is important is how awkward and nervous Smith is when he is around beautiful women, or even women in general. This clued the audience into the idea that maybe Mr. Smith has never even dated before. Watch:

The thing is, it is creative choices like the scene from Mr. Smith and Shadow of a Doubt that makes not just a great filmmaker, but great films. Now, I am not saying you always have to be innovative in shot design, sometimes less is more can lead to great films because of great performances and great writing (The Help being a recent example of this). While there are some more visually stimulating scenes from Catch Me If You Can, the idea I wanted to get across was this is what we are taught in film classes, which is great when you are a beginner, but we are never taught how to break or bend the rules, let alone told when it is best to go less is more and when you need to be fancy to create an emotional connection or crutch for the audience. Hitchcock bended the rules in the Shadow of a Doubt scene, and Capra just straight up broke the rules with the Mr. Smith scene.

I think this all boils down the question: Do you want to make scenes that are memorable, like the Mr. Smith hat scene, or make a scene that is just like every other scene of dialogue you've ever seen? Ask yourself why this shot stays static, rather than dollying in on the actor's face at the most emotional moment? Ask yourself why are you even showing the other actor's face when it is the face of your lead that we need to be focusing on? Movies aren't just talking heads, sometimes we need to know what the audience should be focused on, what they need to know or feel at that moment for that scene to work. In essence, a filmmaker is a manipulator, a manipulator who breaks the standard rules and draws importance to something, like a hat or a particular character, when the greatest moment of emotion is required to be felt. Just ask: Why?

Star Trek v.s. Star Wars

2011-09-19T12:25:00.001-05:00

What a horrible debate to enter into with a room full of die hard fans. This argument ranks up there with politics and religion, but like both of those this debate is equally as subjective and the argument will never cease. This video popped up on my RSS Reader this morning, and I was intrigued to say the least. I have read, watched, and listened to countless debates on which franchise's mythos truly is superior and I have had the discussion myself whilst downing beer and realizing that resolving this feud is, as the Borg wold say, "futile." Nevertheless, this may be the first time I have watched an actual participant from one of the universes give a truly biased answer and explain it himself.

I want to start by saying I find myself as a moderate in this discussion. What I want to argue is how William Shatner is way off base in this particular case (based on the interview below), and as you will see in the video below, attempts to make the argument that Star Trek is in fact better, based solely on its philosophical importance, the roles of stronger women in Star Trek, and the vulnerability of the characters. My aim is not to crush Star Trek, but to reel back Shatner's comments so that we can put Star Wars and Star Trek on more of an even playing field.

Let us start with the philosophical debate. Star Trek has long been examined for its philosophical content and I would not deny the show its importance in that regard. The ideas behind Star Trek may be some of the most influential on Science Fiction, and I believe it is the one show that elevated Sci-Fi from its drive in theater -- cheesy -- roots. However, to make the claim that Star Wars has no philosophical content is way is off base. SW is less up front about its message (keep in my mind this was a major Hollywood blockbuster) but it does explore old themes of good and evil, which in looking back throughout literature is one of the oldest themes since the Epics. Shatner likes to say that Star Wars was derivative of Star Trek, but let's take a more global look at it.

Star Wars and Star Trek are both derivative of ancient religious texts, epics, Shakespeare, and classic literature. Before I get ahead of myself, let's explain what I am not saying. Star Trek is more philosophically heavy, however I think Shatner's base is on the original series, which does explore these themes, but I believe most of the heavy handed intellect that he feels the show bears has actually been applied in retrospect by fans of the show. During its initial run, Star Trek's foremost goal was to entertain with exciting adventures, much like Flash Gordon (of which Lucas did admit to pulling influence from). Now, Shatner could make his argument stronger if he was using Star Trek: The Next Generation, which by that time realized the impact science fiction could have on exploring philosophical themes. If Shatner was arguing from a stance of Patrick Stewart's character, Jean Luc Picard, he could have defended this statement better.

Second, let's look at the claim that Star Trek presented stronger female characters. I have to say that this is the most laughable comment made by Shatner, and the one point I don't mind ripping to shreds. Let's start by looking at Kirk's relationships with women: he is a misogynist. The original series, especially, had women in the show solely for something for Kirk to hook up with. Uhura was nothing more than legs and a skirt no matter how you slice it. Sure she held a position on the bridge, but so did Troi, and how convenient that she was used as the emotional sensitive telepath. A more balanced approach could have been to swap Troi and Geordi's roles on the show, making her the engineer and Geordi the telepath. Regardless, Star Wars gave women a voice in Sci-Fi that women never had before. Princess Leia starts as the damsel in distress, but what is her first statement to her heroic male rescuer? "Aren't you a little short for a stormtrooper?" She immediately emasculates him, takes his gun, and improvises an escape plan.

Princess Leia became a role model for young girls all over the world, and her presence is still seen in the science fiction of today.

Finally, I just want to touch on the idea that the characters in Star Trek were more human or vulnerable in anyway. This statement really seems to have no real basis, except that Shatner seems to believe that the existence of the Force somehow makes the characters immune to death or real problems in Star Wars. First let's look at who in the original trilogy actively uses the force in battle: Luke, Obi-Wan, Yoda, Vader, and The Emperor. Four of those characters are dead by the end of the trilogy. It would seem that the Force did not prevent these characters from meeting their demise. While the Force does exist in everything in the galaxy, it does not make any characters in the films any more invincible than the characters in Star Trek.

In short, Shatner is full of himself and applies some very shaky support to this endless argument. I would like to again make it clear that I do not take sides here, but rather I appreciate what both franchises have done for the genre. It is a shame that these films get so unjustly compared all the time, and many times just because of the similarity in their names.

"Missing Pieces," A Visit from Kenton Bartlett

2011-09-15T13:29:00.007-05:00

I was in for a genuine surprise today as I arrived at my Advanced Screenwriting class this morning. We had a guest lecturer, Kenton Bartlett, 23-year-old Alabama native who recently directed an $80,000 independent film called Missing Pieces, starring Mark Boone Junior and Melora Walters. The movie had a preview screening at the Sidewalk Film Festival a few weeks back, and is currently playing at the Rave-Patton Creek 15 in Hoover, AL, for one week only to qualify for the Independent Spirit Awards. While the movie is still currently searching for distribution, they're hoping that if the critics who have already been vocal about the movie will speak up and get the movie some nomination at the Spirits, then a buyer may come along.

What I found so interesting about this morning is that Kenton was not so much different than me. He was only two years older, had an obsessive love for movies constantly referencing other directors rather than talking about himself or his own methods. He was simple and humble and just wanted to make a good movie. He went to the American University in Washington, D.C., which he said he double majored in Journalism and Business, only taking a few Video Production classes and learning most of what he knows from DVD commentaries, books, and How-To podcasts. Once again, his self taught approach really just struck a chord with me and inspired me.

Here was a guy who did not go to a major film school, came from a middle class suburb in Birmingham, AL, and yet he has made a real movie that actually looks like a Hollywood production with Hollywood actors that are actually good actors and not just people who were some guest star role on a TV Show once. The real kicker was when I learned that none of the cast and crew wanted money, they all simply liked the script and did the 108 day shooting schedule for free (granted the crew was just three people, Kenton and his two college friends as DP and audio).

What I really enjoyed about this morning was just getting to ask Kenton questions and hear how he did these things. This was where the most interesting things came. Such as when he talked about writing the script. He did not write a script that he knew he could not make. Before he wrote a new scene with a new location, he thought realistically about whether or not they could actually find and shoot at a location like that, and he said that is why most scenes take place outside during the day, so that they could use natural lighting. As well, he went on to elaborate how he studied other low budget independent films and found that they used few locations and only a small handful of characters to tell their story.

What I found most interesting, is Kenton's democratic approach to directing. He was talking about how he never really dictates what the actors do, he typically communicates with them and simply takes their ideas or the ideas of a crew member to make the scene and characters work. Like he said there was a scene where they blew up a boat in a field and he did not know how he was gonna shoot it, so he had fire crews and bomb crews there with no clue what to do, and actor Mark Boone Junior just suggested shots and Kenton took those and shot it. I for one am usually too stubborn to accept suggestions that often change what I see in my head, even if their suggestion really is better. Like when Mark Boone Junior wanted to sit an entire scene, Kenton wanted him to stand and be active, but Kenton ultimately said the scene was better with Mark Boone Junior's character simply sitting there and meditating. While he did say such an open method of communication did have its drawbacks when his lead actress rarely did the scene the same way twice, resulting in a good deal of jump cuts in her scene, which he says that the critics have all mistaken as brilliant artistic choices!

There was just an honesty to Kenton that I liked. He owned up to the fact that he truly did not know everything he probably should have known to make such a large scale project, but yet he did it, that is more than anyone else can say. He made mistakes, he recognizes them, and wants to correct them on his next project.

As for how they got an $80,000 loan, he had simply assembled a reel of clips from other movies and tried to assemble a vague sense as to what the movie might seem like and put it on the website they created. The clips would show action from No Country for Old Men and then show sweeping vista shots from another movie. This led to a person with a presumably good credit report who just co-signed on a loan, and lo and behold, they had the $80,000 they had figured it would cost to get the movie made.

Even more interesting is how Kenton found locations. He simply flipped through Discover America books and found pictures of locations that he'd like to film at, he typed in where that location was on Google, and found it on Google Earth. And if he needed a specific location, like a playground, he simply searched all playgrounds on Google Earth in the Birmingham area (where 75% of the movie was shot, till they went up to Kansas, Nebraska, Colorado, and Utah, on a road trip to finish).

As for actors and crew... He simply posted notices on Craigslist and got youtube audition videos, as well as sending scripts to the agents of the pro actors he wanted. Then he also managed to nab a professional composer from England, who was so eager about the movie, he assembled over 15 members from a string orchestra in Sussex, England, and scored the entire movie, communicating with Kenton via emails and quicktime video files. He said it was funny, that he and the composer did not actually even talk in person till after the score was completed.

Then when it came to the camera, rather than renting and paying $1,ooo a day for a RED Camera, they just bought one and shot the movie on that, putting pantyhose over the lens and sliding another, empty, lens over it to hold it in place to give the movie a softer, more film-like look.

Kenton was just a nice guy who loved movies, and the way in which he is mostly self taught in filmmaking from reading books and watching DVD special features really mimics how I've been taught to make movies for the most part. To see a guy who simply was determined to do something and did it, at only 23 is astonishing, and inspiring. It actually instilled in me that I'm not wasting my time making movies and writing scripts, and that I could actually do something with my obsession and possibly have a chance to make it to making the big budget Hollywood movies I want to someday make.

If you're interested in more on Missing Pieces, check out the website or watch the trailer below:

The movie will be playing at the Patton Creek Rave in Hoover, AL, through Sunday. The next time is 7 o'clock tonight, followed by 10 A.M. both Friday and Saturday mornings and then a final showing Sunday night at 7. Support this movie, cause it actually looks like it has a shot to be something bigger.

Have comic book movies had their day?

2011-09-14T11:32:00.003-05:00

When I was a 12-year-old, the prospects of seeing every comic book hero I loved on the big screen seemed so awesome, and yet not all that likely to ever happen. Now, nearly ten years later, within the past decade, I have pretty much seen every comic book hero I desired get a movie, and many of which having varying shades of success. While I loved Spider-Man and Spider-Man 2, Spider-Man 3 was just awful, same goes for the first two X-Men movies in relation to the third one and the Wolverine spin-off. Then you have the comic book movies that failed to do anything, like Daredevil, Hulk, and more recently, Green Lantern.

Back when I was 12, there was maybe one comic book movie every year, a reasonable number. The market was not over-saturated as it is now, and so when we got Spider-Man, when we got X-Men, they were truly something special. They weren't movies that felt like they were just being pumped out for the quick buck that a comic book movie is almost guaranteed. Great care and time was taken to make these adaptations the best movies possible, and over the years this attention to detail has been lost in most comic book movies.

The problem now lies in the fact that movies like Spider-Man and X-Men established a formula, and Hollywood took that formula and made the mold of the comic book movie, where this happens at this point in the movie, then this happens, then this, all to tie together at the end. They did not care about making the best adaptations possible anymore, wanting instant gratification, just seeing how many comic book movies they could make and gross money from. This is where we are now.

As much as I enjoyed Iron Man and The First Avenger: Captain America, these movies were simply products of the comic book movie mold, no innovation, just straight forward, repeating the same formula that they did with X-Men and Spider-Man. While the formula can be comforting, there are no more surprises in the stories, and the movies tend to now be so rushed with haphazard casting and directing that they have lost any real sense of awe and wonder, which is the whole reason we see these fascinating fantasies play out on the silver screen to begin with. Now, with the big team up movie, The Avengers coming next Summer, promising to unite Thor, Captain America, and Iron Man, with the Hulk, all in one movie, I cannot muster any excitement. Why?

When I was 12, the idea of The Avengers movie was so preposterous, but now it is a reality, less than 10 months away from release, but I'm not excited. Sure, I'll see it, probably even enjoy it, but the chances of me being wowed like I was by Spider-Man 2 or The Dark Knight upon first viewing is very slim. This is all because these movies have just become cookie cutters. To think that this movie will be any different is just wishful thinking.

What is worse, when a genuinely original take on the comic book movie comes around and shakes things up, like Spider-Man 2 or The Dark Knight, then everyone just wants to make a new mold and copy those movies. I mean, look at the trailer for The Amazing Spider-Man, coming out next year. It looks so much darker and grittier, more realistic, trying to stay in lines with Christopher Nolan's Batman movies. Or when after Spider-Man 2 came out in 2004, it seemed like every comic book movie that came out over the few years after were all just out of the same mold. The thing is, what made these comic book movies succeed, is: A.) they did not adhere to the molds of the traditional comic book movies, creating their own molds; and B.) they tailored these movies specifically to their respective characters.

The reason the gritty look and feel of Christopher Nolan's The Dark Knight worked for that movie is because Batman is one of the grittier, more realistic superheroes in existence. Where as the reason Spider-Man 2 was so rich in character exploration of Peter Parker with a nice mixture of over-the-top melodrama and humor is because that is the essence of the comic book upon which it was based. While The Amazing Spider-Man looks to include the necessities to make it a Spider-Man story, and hey, it may even be fantastic, but the first trailer paints a picture that is not Spider-Man but a copycat of Christopher Nolan.

Honestly, I am burned out on comic book movies. I still like them and watch them, I may even occasionally find one original enough from the rest to love (like X-Men: First Class), but with the same movie essentially being made and released every three months, how can I muster up any excitement? Sure, I'm excited for The Dark Knight Rises, but that is because of the originality and innovations of Batman Begins and The Dark Knight, and not just because it is another comic book movie. The saddest part is too, is that there have been many filmmakers over the years that have tried to break that mold, but the studios pulled the plug, choosing not to innovate. I mean, check out this article over at IGN about all of the great unmade comic book movies. I for one would have watched Supermax, or J.J. Abrams' Superman Flyby, and I would personally rather see Joss Whedon's take on Wonder Woman as opposed to him sticking to the formula with The Avengers.

To argue for innovation in comic book movies is essentially a moot point, seeing as how nothing is going to change until that day that comic book movies start to fail at the box office, which we're already starting to see a little bit of decline in box office results of these comic book movies. While the studios try to spin the numbers, the bottom line is, Iron Man 2 did not make as much money as its predecessor, and that none of the comic book movies from this Summer crossed the $200 million mark, which used to be considered a given if a movie was a comic book movie, with the best going above and beyond $300 million! With movies like Thor, Captain America, and X-Men: First Class, barely making back their budgets, have comic book movies had their day?

As I said, the studios are trying to spin these numbers as successes, but you have to know when these same studios were once making twice as much money on comic book properties, they are deep down worried. And why shouldn't they be? It's just like when the Blockbuster first sprung into existence. At first, every Blockbuster released made buckets of money, whether or not it was any good was a different matter. Now, there are so many, people have to pick and choose, so a movie having a Blockbuster budget is no longer a sure bet that the movie will makes oodles of money. The same is happening with comic book movies. I mean, The Dark Knight was huge, but Thor barely scraped up enough cash to be 1/4 as successful. But notice, the more innovative comic book movies make more money. At least, that's my observation, so maybe the studios may wanna brush off some of those unmade scripts and make amends with the directors to keep comic book movies from fading into obscurity.

Doctor Who-"Night Terrors" and "The Girl who Waited"

2011-09-14T08:42:00.005-05:00

As promised on The Unicellular Blog, in my Dragon Con recap, I am giving a review of the Doctor Who episode Night Terrors. Of course, I am a week late, but what else is new. Since a full week has passed, I will also comment on this weeks episode, The Girl Who Waited.

I had the pleasure of seeing the US premier of Night Terrors at Dragon Con in Atlanta alongside a room of over a thousand Doctor Who fans. Since Stephen Moffat has taken over the reigns from Russell T. Davies, Doctor Who has gone through some major changes. Visually the show has changed in format and adopted a more muted and dark color pallet, alla shows like Battlestar Galactica, however it is the stark difference between Moffat and Davies storytelling that has altered the shows over all feeling the most. It would be silly to complain that a show coming up on its 50th year has changed and been altered (there are still people who refuse to watch something that doesn't have Tom Baker), but I have truly missed one thing that Davies Doctor Who regularly utilized: The "Monster of the Week" episode. Moffat seems fixed on telling an epic, over-arching storyline centering on the “inevitable” demise of the Doctor at Lake Silencio(quotes around inevitable since The Doctor will surly find some loophole around this conundrum). I am not criticizing the story arch per se, but I am expressing my disappointment for the lack of some of the Doctor’s more self contained story lines. Night Terrors has satisfied that itch, at least for now, with a creepy and excellent story. What stands out most about this episode of Doctor Who is its strikingly different Cinematography. The entire episode carries the look and feel of a creepy horror/suspense film; not like a typical slasher, but something closer to The Shining. Not to be ignored, was the creepy industrial noise soundtrack that accompanied the episode as The Doctor, Amy, and Rory explore the defunct apartment complex. Overall this was a fantastic “Monster of the Week” episode.

This weeks, The Girl Who Waited, was actually more disappointing

than I excepted it to be. Early reviews set an expectation that this would be an emotional roller coaster that would leave me weeping. While the episode was definitely dramatically heavy handed, it was not nearly as emotional as I felt the writers wanted. While this was also a nice departure form the Doctor’s Death arch, it just lacked the zing that I felt the episode could have had. FOr one the action felt rushed through much of the episode. Granted this was an Amy-centric episode, I definitely feel that more time could have been spent exploring the world of the Two Streams facility. Most of what the viewer gets about the facility and the predicament that leads to its creation was picked up on some quick passing dialogue. Personally, I felt that this would have been a great two part episode, that really could have evolved into a much more rich story. I realize I will probably find myself in the minority in criticizing this one, but I really can’t give high marks for The Girl Who Waited when I feel that the story could have executed more perfectly. On a more positive note, Karen Gillian really showed off her acting chops by playing the older version of herself by altering her way of talking, characters attitude, and even body language. Also major props to the hair and make up department for making her transformation even more believable.

Next weeks The God Complex looks to be a trippy and creep good time.

Are we stalking each other?

2011-09-13T17:17:00.002-05:00

I know Christian does not have a twitter account, but as you eagerly await my witty, clever, and often time harsh reviews, you should keep up with me on Twitter. Also, stay tuned for the Unicellular Review Podcast coming soon as well as The Unicellular Show, our own web comedy series. Stay up to date by following me here.

Oscar Watch: Part 1

2011-09-12T13:33:00.002-05:00

Well, we're about halfway there. The Oscars are only about six months away, and I think it's good time to offer up my first thoughts on this year's Oscar race. I like to consider myself an amateur Oscar analyst, and I have tried to keep my ear to the ground about anything and everything Oscar over the past few months, from big movies, to small movies, to Cannes, all the way to Venice and Telluride. I have assembled a little bit of a picture as to how I feel the Oscars for this upcoming year are shaping up, so I decided to share my thoughts with you guys and see how you feel about them.

First off, I think the big story is The Help. A modestly budgeted studio movie that managed to make a big splash with critics, audiences, and Academy members alike. The performances from Viola Davis and Octavia Spencer are almost all but assured Oscar nods at this point, where as Jessica Chastain could get some notice for her portrayal as Celia Foote. With Chastain in so many things this year and winning over nearly every one in the film industry with her broad talent, the Academy may want to recognize her for something, and The Help may be it. As for the movie itself, while some want to down play its potential as a Best Picture hopeful, I think it has a legitimate shot. The Academy loves these sorts of movies, and it is not very hard to assume it will get the right number of number one votes to get in, with so many, especially older Academy members, head over heels in love with the movie.

Moving on to some of the independents that have sprung out of the festival circuit. Terrence Malick's Tree of Life was so divisive that I think it will be lucky to possibly wrangle an SFX nom, much else is just wishful thinking. As for Woody Allen's Midnight in Paris, the almost inevitable screenplay nom and its box office haul is its win. Then there is Drive, a genre movie that managed to find critical traction. We'll see next week how the casual moviegoer feels about Ryan Gosling's performance, but the movie's director Nicholas Winding Refn did manage to impress the tough Cannes crowd and win Best Director, so he could be a dark horse contender to watch for in the Directing category.

Then, there is the George Clooney one-two punch of, The Ides of March and The Descendants. The Ides of March seems like a soft lob compared to The Descendants, while Clooney directed March and the political subject matter should appeal to many in the Academy, the movie's initial response has been lukewarm, where as The Descendants has been a grand slam so far. Critics love it and are raving that Clooney gives the performance of his career (which I think he did two years ago in Up in the Air). While I am not a fan of director Alexander Payne, Clooney will more than likely show up with a Best Actor nod for the movie, and the movie itself a Best Picture contender.

As for other Oscar contenders that have recently come out of the woodwork. Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy, has everything going for it. A respected director. A mega weight cast. And well loved source material. The movie has been playing well with critics, and its slick stylishness should be enough to get it in the Best Picture field, and Gary Oldman I hear owns this movie. Could he finally bring home the Oscar I have wanted for him for so many years? Character actors rejoice! Where as David Croenberg's A Dangerous Method has found very little traction in its festival screenings, being blasted for its uncinematic interpretation of the play upon which it was based, having to solely rely on the performances of Michael Fassbender and Viggo Mortensen to get it through the award's season. Same goes for Roman Polanski's Carnage, featuring Kate Winslet, Christoph Waltz, John C. Reilly, and Jodie Foster. Though, there still are plenty more Oscar hopefuls out there.

The Artist is one of the biggest contenders in the race thus far, the stylish Cannes' hit that recreates the Old Hollywood before talkies by being a silent film like old Chaplin. While some don't appreciate the straightforward charm of the concept, enough respect it to make this the only surefire Best Picture nominee of the year so far (save for maybe The Descendants). While there are rumors about Warner Bros. wanting to push Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part II for Best Picture, it wont happen. Why? Cause in order for a series like this to get recognized, the other chapters would have had to of had a stronger presence, and seeing as how none of the other movies in the series really made a splash with the Academy, WB should not waste their time (same goes for Rise of the Planet of the Apes, with many wanting Andy Serkis to get a nod for his mo-cap work, but it wont happen, the SFX nod and most likely win will be the story for this one).

Then there's the flicks coming in the next few weeks: Warrior and Moneyball. Both will play well with critics, but Academy attention will be sparse for these movies, both playing more for audience approval than Academy approval. Same goes for We Bought A Zoo, coming in December. Cameron Crowe has had some Oscar success, but his past few flicks haven't been up to snuff. As well, I am getting nothing from Jason Reitman's Young Adult, and as for Clint Eastwood's J. Edgar, Leo Dicaprio may get some notoriety, but the movie itself probably wont strike it rich with the Academy. Eastwood's movies have been beaten by the ugly stick as of late, and I don't see this one changing the trend the Academy has shown over the past few years, even if Eastwood seems to be getting better with age. The real dark horses of the Fall and Winter are Hugo and The Adventures of Tintin.

Both are family entertainment from two of the greatest living filmmakers, one Martin Scorsese, the other Spielberg. I have a feeling one of these will strike with the Academy, and the other will be relegated to box office success only. While I would like to say it's Spielberg, Tintin has yet to grab me with its marketing, where as Hugo's sheer scope of its production already has tech categories galore in the backdrop of the Oscar race. Will it manage to rise to Best Picture contender, time will tell. But don't go feeling sorry for Spielberg. At the moment the race is his to lose. If War Horse delivers in the way that I am hoping it will, this could be the movie that runs the field, and is easily one of the few movies yet to be seen that I believe will be a Best Picture hopeful. And what about Stephen Daldry's Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close? The tale comes on the 10th Anniversary of 9/11, as well, Daldry has never made a movie that didn't get nominated.

So this is how I see it all playing out so far. With the rule change, there wont be 10 nominees this year. Depending upon how many movies get 300 number one votes, anywhere from 5-10 nominees will be named and right now I only see five. The way everything has shaped up so far, to hope for any more than that is just wishful thinking. Here they are:

The Artist

The Descendants

The Help

Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy

War Horse

Casting "Uncharted," The Movie!

2011-09-09T09:00:00.007-05:00

I was late to the Playstation 3 party, not picking it up till this past May, but this also means I had four years worth of great games at my disposal that I can discover for the first time, such as the Uncharted series. The adventures of Nathan Drake, fortune hunter extraordinaire (basically a modern day Indiana Jones), have attracted tons of attention from Hollywood. The games already feature rich characters and stories that are so cinematic that they engross the gamer in its world and make you feel as if you are actually experiencing a Summer blockbuster. While there has never been a great movie made based on a video game, Uncharted could change all of that with Universal really wanting to make the transition perfect. Whether or not the movie will ever see the light of day, I don't know, but I decided to do something fun and try to cast the movie as if I was the director.

Nathan Drake - Bradley Cooper

The big role. Drake is clever and cocky, but has a genuine heart. What makes Nate such an unforgettable character is his ability to find humor in even the most dire of circumstances and his ability to put the lives of his friends above his own. There has been a ton of interest in the character from many actors, with Mark Wahlberg at one time attached to play the part, and Richard Castle himself, Nathan Fillion expressing on Twitter how much he wants to play Drake in the movie. While Fillion is a fan favorite for the role, he is about 10 years too old to play Nate Drake, same goes for other fan favorite David Boreanaz and Nolan North (who voices and does the mo-cap work for Drake in the games). Meanwhile Bradley Cooper has recently been connected to the role since director Neil Burger (Limitless) signed on to direct. I loved Cooper as Face in The A-Team and I think he has the chops to create a Nathan Drake that respects Nolan North's interpretation, while making him his own. Cooper has that awesome ability to slip into that everyman role that Drake so personifies, while also having a charm about him that Drake needs. Nate has to be likable, otherwise he's just an annoying smart elic, and only so much can be done in writing, you need a genuine personality, which is Cooper

Elena Fisher - Emily Rose

This one is so easy to call. Elena is as smart, as clever, and as genuine and pure in heart as Nate is, which is why this reporter is Nathan Drake's true love interest. The great thing about Elena though, she is not simply the damsel, she kicks butt alongside Drake on all of his adventures, often saving his life, and in my mind no one else but Emily Rose should play this part. Rose, who voices and does the mo-cap work for Elena in the game, is one of the the only actors from the game that I think could pull off their live action counterpart. The thing is, she actually looks like Elena, unlike so many of the other actors who work in the game, not to mention she fits the age that Elena must be. When you could get the actress that has already been portraying Elena for close to five years now, and has made countless gamers fall in love with her, why not cast her in the movie if she looks the part as well? I say, do it.

Victor Sullivan - J.K. Simmons

Nate's trusted sidekick on all of his adventures, Sully is a man old enough to be Nate's dad, hardened and cynical, but is Nate's steady right hand man when needed. Sully is a tough one to cast. Cast poorly, he comes across abrasive and offensive with his occasional slurs that evoke much of the humor from the character within the game. While there are many actors in the age range who could play the character, from Bryan Cranston to Stephen Lang to Rober De Niro, Sully is a true challenge to cast, with some fans wanting everyone from J.K. Simmons to Bruce Campbell! I'll be honest, I have been on the fence as to who should play Sullivan, and as much as I sometimes like to go against fan suggestion, J.K. Simmons would make a fantastic Sully. If his J. Jonah Jameson from Spider-man is any indication, he knows how to sugarcoat comments that would be offensive from any other actor and make them funny. It takes a certain amount of talent and charm, and Simmons has that.

Chloe Frazer - Gemma Arterton

An even more difficult character to cast. This Australian beauty tempts Nate on his second adventure in the game series, and while she is worth the fling, Elena is where his heart is at. Simply, Chloe goes where the greatest opportunity is at. When it is Nate that has the upper hand, she is with him, but when it is someone else, she has no shame in double crossing Nate to stay alive. Not only does the actress that plays Chloe have to have a lot of confidence in her body to parade around as Chloe does in the game, issuing innuendos like no one's business, but she also has to have the body in order to earn that confidence. Not only that, Chloe is a very tan Australian, not a lot of actresses meet this description in Hollywood. Luckily, there is Gemma Arterton. Already having the Bond girl experience behind her, and a few more meatier roles that hit well with critics, she has everything to play Chloe. While she is British, not Australian, there is no doubt in my mind she could pull off the role. Now, just get her a tan, and she is Chloe Frazer.

Harry Flynn - Jude Law

There is no one else who can play the double crossing fortune hunter Harry Flynn. Flynn is only interested in what ever furthers his own interests. British and charming, the part just screams Jude Law. Jude Law is charming, he manages to often hide his emotions behind his performances, enabling him to be Nate's one-time friend, then rival Harry Flynn. Not to mention, Jude Law is British, too. He's got it all. Of course, this is all assuming Harry will be included in a film version. Harry is not yet confirmed to be returning for Uncharted 3, unless he knows how to return from the dead.

Eddy Raja - James Sie

Another character like Harry Flynn. He actually died in the first Uncharted game, but in a lot of the comic books, Eddy Raja has had a huge presence as the thorn in Nathan Drake's side, as Drake's dumber fortune hunter competitor (and one time ally in Eye of Indra). Eddy Raja is the leader of an Indonesian pirate gang, only interested in money and more of it. If the movie were to take place in a different continuity than the games, or be a prequel to the first game, I could definitely see Eddy playing a big role in the adventure, which is why an actor willing to ham it up on camera is necessary for the role, and in all honesty James Sie, who portrays Eddy in the games is really the only one I wanna see do this role if included. He takes what is this simple two-dimensional character on the page and gives him a life his own, which is why James Sie should be Eddy in the movie, though his inclusion is not all that likely.

And just to give an idea as to what Uncharted is all about, check out the most recent spot for Uncharted 3 coming out in November!

Who should host the Oscars?

2011-09-05T10:03:00.001-05:00

It's about that time of year again, when the Academy names their host for the year's upcoming Academy Awards' Ceremony. Rumors are flying that producer Brett Ratner is wanting to play up the comedy route this year with offering the gig up to Eddie Murphy. Personally, I don't hate this, but neither do I like it. Murphy is often funny, and he will definitely be a welcome departure to the past two year's bad slate of hosts (Steve Martin & Alec Baldwin and James Franco & Anne Hathaway), but Murphy seems to lack the class that one typically wants of their Oscar host.

The thing is, a good Oscar host is more than just a person who can be funny or deliver the song-and-dance routine, but they are someone who has the ability to command a stage and exude the class that is associated with the classiest of all awards shows. The Oscars are a celebration of Hollywood, where it has been, where it is now, and where it is going, and the best Oscar hosts tend to be the ones that embody that Hollywood charisma that is reminiscent of those from the Old Hollywood. Great hosts like Bob Hope, Billy Crystal, even Ellen Degeneres (reminding me of Lucille Ball) and Hugh Jackman. They had what it took, and so I'm gonna offer up my own thoughts on who should host the Oscars. As we learned last year, you just can't toss someone up onstage because they're funny people, you have to have more than that, and these choices do I believe.

Hugh Jackman
Okay, I know this is a repeat, but he did such a fantastic job two years ago hosting the big show. With his song-and-dance routine and natural charisma, he headlined an Oscar ceremony that was entertaining, and actually felt as if there was an emcee and not just someone that popped up on stage to deliver a stupid political joke to segue into the next award. Jackman used his broad skills as an actor and showman to make the show feel alive and classy, something I would love to see him do again.

Tom Hanks
I've mentioned him before, but I really think Tom Hanks has what it takes to be a good Oscar host. First off, he's just flat-out likable, so likable that he is charming in the way that Jimmy Stewart was. But unlike Gary Cooper or Jimmy Stewart, Tom Hanks has a killer sense of humor. Just watch his appearances on any late night talk show for proof. Give him some freedom to let him run wild, and his combo of self deprecating humor and humbleness will win an audience over. Not to mention, Tom Hanks is one of the few modern day actors who I actually feel could have made it in the Golden Age of Hollywood, and it is simply because he is a class act. A class act who is loved by Hollywood, film fans, and everyone else not included above.

Robin Williams
All right, this could get ugly, but Robin Williams truly is one of the funniest men alive. Not just that, he is a classy movie star in his own right, but his background in stand up makes him a prime candidate to host the show. Now, how can this get ugly? Have you watched his stand up? He is dirty. Real dirty, and often political, two things that tend to irk me in comedy, but if Williams were to stay away from such things and deliver a family friendly atmosphere, he can't be beat. He always kills it whenever brought onstage at these shows, usually upstaging the host, so let him go for it, I say, and see what happens. I mean the guy could probably make a joke about a chicken crossing the road actually be funny.

The Muppets
Yes, the Muppets. Who embodies everything we want out of an Oscar host more so than Jim Henson's creations? They sing, they dance, they tell jokes, and they're charming, lovable, and know how to command the variety show style of an award show (look no further than The Muppet Show for proof). Kermit could emcee. Fozzie could be his comedian wing-man. Miss Piggy could constantly be trying to break into the act. And the two old geezers in the balcony could actually be in the balcony cracking jokes about the latest award winners. The thing is, the Muppets are also seen as classy. Critics love them. The film industry love them. I mean, why else do so many big name stars line up to get a cameo spot in a Muppet movie? The Muppets would create a show that is both original and entertaining, making an Oscar ceremony unlike any other. Waka, waka!

Why, George Lucas? Was it something I said?

2011-09-03T22:49:00.008-05:00

Okay. I love Star Wars, and George Lucas deserves all credit for being one of the most visionary filmmakers of all-time, but why can he not just leave his classics alone? There is a shocking new trend in Hollywood that has cropped up over the past decade or so, with filmmakers revisiting their classics and tampering with them to try and meet their "visions," starting back with George in the '90s when he did the Special Edition of the original Star Wars trilogy. In all honesty, the Special Editions are small potatoes in regards to what came next. Over the years we have seen guns stripped from E.T., replaced by walkie talkies, old Anakin replaced by young Anakin at the end of Return of the Jedi, and now we've got the Lion King and Titanic being re-released in 3-D. But wait, more changes are to come to the Star Wars saga as George continues to try and "perfect" his story that, to majority of fans, has been perfect for over 30 years!

George Lucas is finally releasing the Star Wars movies on Blu-Ray, but you know what, I wont be buying it after getting wind of these latest changes. Now, get this. Ewoks will now blink. A dug like Sebulba will blatantly appear in Jabba's palace. Puppet Yoda in Phantom Menace (one of the last movies to utilize great puppet tech.) has been replaced by CGI. Oh, yeah, and to really make fans not wanna watch the end of Return of the Jedi: not only did George start by replacing the Yub Nub ewok song in the Special Edition, then switching out Anakins with the DVD release, but now he has added Darth Vader's much hated, "Noooo!!!" from the end of Revenge of the Sith to when Vader saves Luke from Palpatine. Take a look:

Now, compare with the original scene:

The original scene is so much more powerful! Film is a VISUAL medium. The original scene does so much through the shots and editing that there is no need to add anything to that moment. It was emotionally powerful as it was. And get this, he's even changing things just for the heck of it, like Obi Wan's screech in A New Hope that scared away the Sandpeople. Why change it? There's no justification.

You know what is stupid? I was actually looking forward to buying these movies on Blu-Ray, but I just don't think I can justify the price of the set now. Sure, these changes may seem minor, but when you have grown up with these movies as they were initially made, there is nothing but frustration when someone wants to change even the most minor of details. I mean, you replace Jeremy Bulloch's voice as Bobba Fett with the DVD release in 2004, and I grinned and bore it, even Hayden Christensen replacing Sebastian Shaw at the end of Jedi, but a CGI Yoda replacing puppet Yoda? If you replace puppet Yoda in Empire and Jedi, that is it George, I am done defending you.

Just leave these movies alone, George. I beg of you. I have defended you so many times to friends in arguments, giving you the benefit of the doubt, but enough is enough. Just stop! You have stuff going with the likes of Red Tails and the Clone Wars show, there is no need to go back and change these classic films just because you want to. Fans don't want this. I don't want this. Realize this, please, George, before the damage is irreversible. You don't see people adding things to Casablanca or Gone With the Wind, and you wanna know why? Cause they're CLASSICS! If it ain't broke, don't fix it, and irregardless to your perfectionist tendencies, the Star Wars movies are perfect to so many film fans around the world. Just do something for the fans. For once.

Sorry, George if you read this. I still love your movies, but I just have to let you know that I am disappointed.

Movie Review: "The Debt"

2011-09-02T08:20:00.002-05:00

Few movies are as perfectly cast as The Debt. It's just unreal how believable it is that Jessica Chastain is a young Helen Mirren, that Sam Worthington is a young Ciaran Hinds, and that Marton Csokas is a young Tom Wilkinson.

The Debt is a movie that takes place primarily in the past, as the older counterparts of three Israeli Mossad agents reflect on their secret mission in the early '60s trying to apprehend the Nazi Surgeon of Birkenau for war crimes committed against the Jewish nation. Majority of the action transpires in the past, while majority of the present is purely the characters reflecting on what happened when they were young. Seeing why these characters are reflecting (via flashbacks) is more satisfying than the moments where their older counterparts are simply reflecting, but the two wind up complimenting one another and forming a complete whole in the end, and the climax with the older Helen Mirren is as suspenseful as any of the moments with the young Jessica Chastain.

While Israeli accents often slip amongst the actors, in particular Sam Worthington, the performances of the cast are pure and emotionally authentic, while director John Madden infuses the scenes of the past with so much raw tension that The Debt often rivals Hitchcock classics, and then the scenes in the present are so marvelously played by the older actors conveying so much with simple looks. There is a richness to character in The Debt beyond the usual thrills of a thriller like this, and it is what makes The Debt so special and enjoyable. Even if the present is less exciting to watch than the past, the two work in tandem, with the past delivering the thrills and the present the emotion of the events.

I give The Debt an A!

Sidewalk Film Festival 2011

2011-08-29T20:06:00.015-05:00

I have always drug my feet when it comes to updating this blog. In fact, outside of a couple of random post early on, my presence on this blog has been non-existent. My brother Christian has however kept this blog filled with posts on his thoughts and feelings on film of today.

He does however, tend to shy away from Documentary and Indie film. As mentioned in his last post, he is a lover of old Hollywood, heart warming plots, and happy endings. Nothing wrong with that, but I tend to like the grittier,violent, controversial, and all around more bleak films. The more sex, drugs, and rock n' roll the better.

With that said, I want to share my experiences of the Sidewalk Film Festival that transpired this weekend. This was the 13th year of Sidewalk, and my 6th year to attend. This festival has only gotten better in the years that I have attended and participated in it. Some of my favorite Indie films of the last several years I saw at Sidewalk. Living in Birmingham , AL, can be very disconcerting for a film fan who isn't just interested in the standard thoroughfare of Hollywood money makers that populate our major chain theaters. Sidewalk provides a gateway to a world that is typically only accessible through Netflix, putting you months behind the film community and hopelessly out of touch.

The only bad thing about Sidewalk is trying to cram as many films into a short two day period as possible. For me, that means cutting out most of the narrative films and focusing on documentary, which Sidewalk consistently serves up some of the most poignant and well made non fiction films that I have seen.

Before I get started talking about the Documentaries, I will start with the opening night film, The Innkeepers. Directed by Ti West, the film focuses on two employees of the Yankee Peddler Inn during its final nights of business. Pat Healey plays Luke, a paranormal enthusiast and amateur web designer who firmly believes that the hotel is haunted and works to compile all of his evidence in between trolling the internet and viewing porn. His co-worker Clair, played by Sarah Paxton, shares Luke's determination to document definitive proof that their place of employment is possessed. The film develops much of the same way as most haunted house films, but the cast could easily have been pulled from a Joe Swanberg movie: directionless twenty somethings, working a dead end job, and evoking what it means to be stuck in small town America. Luckily the dialogue is delivered without the jaded acting style that defines the mumblecore genre. In fact, the one thing I feel the film is a champion of is its ability to not succumb to being a cliche genre film. At its core, The Innkeepers is a haunted thriller, peppered with comedic moments and character drama that is more commonly seen in European films. Paxton evokes the indie charm of Zooey Deschanel with the comedic timing of Amy Poehlor, and Healey could easily fit into one of Edgar Wright's scripts along side the likes of Simon Pegg. Thrillers and horror are hard genres to do at a festival, and especially hard to put as an opening night film, but The Inkeepers was a fine start to the festival.

Holy Rollers, directed by Bryan Storkel was the first documentary film I saw, and was an excellent start to Saturday. I will not go to in-depth in this post, because I intend on a more in-depth analysis later this week. The film follows a Black Jack team that comprises of only Christians. The immediate contradiction is, "How can Christians justify gambling?" The founders of the team believe that this question is answered in their desire to take money from casinos, who would otherwise use the money for, "evil things." The participants in the film in turn use the money to support their ministries. Regardless of the noble intention, many contradictions arise throughout that paint a different portrait of the team. As I will discuss in my forthcoming post, the film presents two strong metaphors that I noticed concerning the nature of God in the new church movement and humans desire to create community. Storkel is a self-proclaimed Christian who did a great job of being as unbiased as possible. Holy Rollers is still looking for wider distribution and is definitely worth checking out.

You've Been Trumped was by far my favorite film of the festival and director Anthony Baxter is definitely someone whose career I will watch diligently. First, if you don't already hate Donald Trump enough, then this film will put you over the tipping point. Baxtor chronicles the struggle of the residents in Abersheen, Scotland, as they desperately cling to their homes that are threatened by Donlad Trump's quest to build a billion dollar golf course. Trump's relentless bullying of the residents of Abersheen is despicable and Baxter's tenacity to represent them is nothing short of heroic. Faced with limited access and a larger than life nemesis in Trump, Baxter uses all of the best run and gun camera techniques and utilizes all the best that new digital filmmaking has to offer, including giving one of his participants a camera of her own. I had the pleasure of talking with Baxter that night after his film had played, and was able to pick the directors brain about his thoughts and feelings on his personal feelings towards Trump and documentary filmmaking which was a real treat. The film also is treated to the gorgeous music of Jonsi, which provide s perfect music bed for the beautiful shots of the Scottish coast.

Dragonslayer was my least favorite film of the festival this year. This portrait documentary follows professional skateboarder Josh "Skreech" Sandoval in his small SoCal suburb, getting kicked out of empty pools, falling in love, and taking his his son (from a failed relationship) on trips to the zoo. What made Dragonslayer so lack luster was that this character has already been done in film, both narrative and documentary, and done so much better. The gutter punk aesthetic has grown stale and Sandoval becomes another face in the crowd of slacker documentary subjects. The one redeeming quality of the film is that a lot of the footage is simply pretty to look at. If you are looking for a slacker film that is more entertaining, I recommend the mockumentary Fubar.

The biggest surprise for me at the festival was the bio Documentary on race car driver Ayrton Senna, titled Senna. Comprised of only archive footage, Senna is a heart pounding portrait of one man's life and career, which is as complex and entertaining as any narrative film. Racing teammate Alain Prost is the perfect antagonist to Senna as he rises to super stardom in the racing world, and the thick backdrop of racing politics draws the viewer in up till the final moments of the film. I am not a fan of sports films, but Senna transcends that generalization.

Where Soldiers Come From is an intimate portrait of young men from Northern Missouri as they embark on their journey in the United States Army reserve. The group have been friends since childhood with strikingly unique personalities. When the group travels to Afghanistan to help disarm IED's, they are changed men. Interestingly these changes are strikingly different based on who they were before going to war. While no one in their group is seriously wounded or killed they still have been transformed after their 9 month deployment. From severe concussions to skewed views of Middle Easterners, the men have a very difficult time readjusting to their old lives. The film itself does not stand out in the plethora of post 9/11 war films, however it is a well made one and shows a very personal side of the Americans fighting in the Middle East. The only thing I think that could have made the film better would have been a larger sampling of people from different areas of the country and different Socio-economic backgrounds. However it is clear that the film is committed to just these boys' story.

The final film I saw was Septien, by Micheal Tully. The filmmaker was present for the screening and offered no set up for the dark southern tale of the return of a prodigal brother (played by Tully), and the aftermath of his return. Frightening, bizarre, and funny at times, Septien manages to ride no higher than absurdest storytelling with limited subtext. Much like the film Rubber, which I recently viewed, Septien left me with an empty stomach when I really wanted a 7 course meal. Both films have some enjoyable "Lynchian" moments, but suffer from the inability to take these far out scenes and storytelling any further.

Besides the films, Sidewalk did and excellent job at hosting the filmmakers, Guests, and VIP, to excellent After Parties. Especially noteworthy was the Good People Brewing Company Party, with loads of free Microbrew's and was an excellent chance to meet the filmmakers and get further insight into their films. Sidewalk will continue on into its next year and is definitely a festival to check out for something different.