The Studio Has a Few Notes

Review: District 9

2009-08-15T16:34:00.004-04:00

Every once in a while, a movie comes out with a lot of buzz around it and yet not all that much "hype" (in the form of ubiquitous trailers and/or set reports that have given away every little detail about the plot already). When that happens, if the film's subject matter looks interesting to me, I like to see it on opening weekend before hearing too much about it online or through the grapevine. Such was the case with District 9, from producer Peter Jackson and director Neil Blomkamp. Thus I ventured out, on Opening Night, in search of what all the indistinct chatter was about.

Watching District 9 was an experience unlike any other, for at least one reason: it manages to combine many of the attributes usually associated with an independent film - unknown actors, unconventional style, absence of a comfortable and obvious through-story that assures you that you know exactly where things are headed, and heavy doses of quirkiness - with some top not-notch CGI work that you'd expect from a $100+-million dollar release (District 9 apparently cost $30 M). And even beyond the special effects, all of the acting is rock solid, if not spectacular, and with not a single wink to the camera regarding the offbeat storyline.

And for those who don't know, what District 9 is ostensibly "about" is the continuing fallout from an arrival nearly 30 years earlier that just sort of... happened. A large alien ship appeared over the city of Johannesburg, South Africa 28 years before the film begins, we're told in flashback-documentary fashion, and when we humans got tired of waiting for the visitors to show themselves, we cut our way in and found a million or so intelligent, man-sized "Prawns" making like your typical huddled masses inside: dirty, tired and hungry. They were then brought down to the planet and set up in a makeshift ghetto directly below their seemingly-useless vehicle. Now, after years of them causing problems large and small in their interactions with the residents of Johannesburg, they're about to be relocated several hundred miles away. That's where District 9 moves from documentary style to more of a ground-level, sometimes shaky-cam action flick, though at that it's far from conventional in its approach.

There are a handful of characters who take centre-stage by the time we're halfway through the proceedings, and I was amazed at the film-makers' ability to manipulate our emotions toward several of them. I was reminded of The Lives of Others - a very different indie sort of offering - and the way I was constantly forced to re-evaluate my take on its main figures as it went along. We're so used to cardboard cutouts for movie heroes and villains, I guess, that it's still refreshing to meet up with something different now and again.

I liked just about everything about District 9, including the fact that it provides more questions than answers. I wanted to know a lot more about the fascinating backstory - Why did the aliens come to Earth? Why did their ship malfunction immediately upon arriving, or was it actually doing exactly what it was supposed to (and if so, what was that)? Why did the mysterious fuel have the effect that it did on a human? And why didn't the Prawn do more about their plight over those 28 years, given the weaponry they brought with them? - and yet I still left the theatre highly satisfied with what I'd been given over the two hours. (The movie certainly left itself open for an intriguing sequel, should it prove to be a blockbuster in terms of ticket and/or DVD sales.) Perhaps most importantly, it raised the uncomfortable question of, Would we really treat a second intelligent species as badly as we did in District 9? I suspect the answer to that one isn't as sunny as some of us would like to believe.

Rating: *** 1/2

Review: Mystic River

2009-07-13T09:51:00.003-04:00

Mystic River is one of those movies where, as I neared the end of it, I was fairly impressed... until the final credits rolled and I really started thinking about it, at which point my opinion of it fell off quite a bit.

The biggest asset of this Clint Eastwood-directed motion picture is the acting. With a cast made up of heavy hitters like Sean Penn, Marcia Gay Harding, Lawrence Fishburne, Tim Robbins, Laura Linney and the sometimes-interesting Kevin Bacon, that's hardly surprising. While Penn seems a bit over-the-top at times here, virtually every one of the actors provides a note-perfect portrayal of a complex character. Penn and Robbins both won Oscars for their work (Lead Actor and Supporting Actor, respectively) and the latter, in particular, really shines.

Where the movie really goes off the rails, at least upon reflection, is in the storytelling. There are simply too many coincidences and convenient lapses of judgment as the events roll along. Mystic River revolves around three men (Penn, Robbins and Bacon) who were childhood friends in a poor part of Boston. One day they had mischievously begun writing their names in a fresh slab of sidewalk concrete only to caught in the act by two men in a car, pretending to be police officers. One of the kids - Robbins' character - is forced into the car and taken away. Four days later, after suffering hinted-at but never specified abuse at the hands of the men, the kid escapes and returns to his family. He's regarded as "damaged goods" by one of the adults in the neighbourhood at the time, and it's pretty clear that he never fully recovers from his trauma.

Thirty years later, the three have drifted apart to varying degrees but all still live or operate in the same part of Boston. Bacon's now a cop with relationship issues, Penn is an ex-con "gone straight" and Robbins has a wife and child but is living within a mental shell that he's constructed to allow himself some small measure of peace after what he went through during those four days. Penn's eldest daughter, and the apple of his eye, is brutally murdered, and that tragedy (in the first of many contrivances) brings the three of them back together. Suspicion begins to fall on "damaged goods" Robbins as the result of yet another series of events which, by film's end, you can't help but realize were completely implausible. Bacon and his cop partner (Fishburne) are the detectives investigating the murder (no conflict of interest there, I guess) and at one point they get their hands on a particular piece of evidence that, in any cop show I've ever watched, would have sealed the deal one way or another in terms of Robbins' involvement... and yet nothing comes of that. Somewhat later, though, the pair do break open the case, but just as they do so another terrible mistake occurs elsewhere that makes their discovery both ironic (I suppose) and moot. Because, you know, things that important always happen at the same time as each other... when they're written really badly!

It's a little difficult to convey just how gripping Mystic River was, as I watched it. I wasn't really questioning anything that happened in it, because the acting was so tight and the direction was top-notch. But it definitely suffered from a lack of coherence and needed another draft done on the screenplay. When I think of the revelation at the end of John Sayles' Lone Star, how that forces the first-time viewer to reconsider earlier events in the film in a new light and realize that all of the bizarre choices made earlier by one of the characters actually makes complete sense now, then I can't help but be disappointed with something like Mystic River. It felt, at times, like it was building up to that same sort of crescendo, but completely failed to deliver on it.

And, to make matters worse, there's a very unsatisfying epilogue that leaves you wondering why you bothered investing as much time in it as you did. It probably needed to end one scene earlier, although even that would only have redeemed it slightly.

I recommend Mystic River for the acting alone. Just don't go in expecting too much of it to hold together by the time it's all over.

Rating: ** 1/2

Review: Changeling

2009-04-26T10:34:00.004-04:00

Changeling is occasionally hard to get through, because of the heart-wrenching nature of the subject matter, but it's well worth the perseverance. Both a well-structured, fascinating story and a great (Oscar-nominated) performance by its lead actress reward the viewer's willingness to bear witness to a set of circumstances that no parent would ever wish on anyone.

I didn't know a whole lot about the film before watching it on DVD last night, and I think that's just about the perfect way to go into this (and therefore I won't spoil it - much! - for anyone else). Here's what I went in with: The screenplay is by J. Michael Straczynski (TV shows Babylon 5, Crusade and Jeremiah, along with comic series Amazing Spider-Man, Thor, Rising Stars, The Twelve, etc.), the film is directed by Clint Eastwood (Unforgiven, Million Dollar Baby, and Flags of Our Fathers, among others) and it stars Angelina Jolie in the lead role of a mother in the 1920s whose son goes missing. When the police tell the distraught woman a few months later that they've found her lost boy, she's overjoyed... until she sees him and declares that he's not her son! That's the setup, and you really shouldn't need anything else - except maybe a few tissues - to enjoy this very entertaining tale.

OK, I lied (a little bit). I'd also heard that JMS spent months researching the details of the true story upon which Changeling is based. He had hit the various archive locations in and around Los Angeles, and was struck by just how much information about the events was on record, nearly 80 years later. Again and again he came across news clippings or court transcripts that contained kernels of data that, had he made them up, no one would have believed could ever have happened. Having seen the film, I can say that it really is quite an amazing story!

Jolie is fabulous in the role of Christine Collins, to the point where I had to continually remind myself that it was actually her under that hat. She's given the daunting task of presenting a quiet strength as Christine goes about the thankless and frankly quite embarrassing chore of convincing people that this youngster isn't her son. Theories abound that she's an irresponsible single parent who enjoyed the freedom that his disappearance gave her, or that she's psychologically unequipped to deal with the changes that several months of unknown experiences have wrought on the young boy. Against all of that, Jolie is superb in her ability to convey true anguish without tearing up the scenery or losing track of her own need to be persuasive in the process. It could so easily have gone off the rails, and it's a testament to Jolie, Eastwood and Straczynski that it instead worked beautifully.

There are a lot of tear-jerking scenes in the film, and I can easily imagine that it was probably a tough script for Straczynski to write. But one moment in particular practically took my breath away. A child was recounting an especially poignant series of events to a hard-boiled, initially-disinterested police detective, and for several minutes we're shown what he's describing in the form of a flashback. As the boy finishes his tale, we're brought back to "present day" (actually, 1928) by way of a shot of the detective's previously-lit cigarette... now just one long ash, still held between his fingers as they rest on the tabletop, indicating that he hadn't moved one inch while the youngster spoke. That shot perfectly sets up the follow-up that shows the look of sheer horror and disbelief that's now etched across the face of the man who thought he'd seen and heard it all by that point. I'm sure the "long cigarette ash shot" has been done before in cinema, but perhaps never as effectively as it was in this graphic context, representing, as it does, one of the major turning points in the story.

JMS also stuck in what I assume has to have been a conscious tip-of-the-hat to Alan Moore's V For Vendetta comic series, as it exactly echoed Evey's final moments of captivity and signaled loud and clear that her transformation out of victimhood was complete (and serves the same purpose here in Changeling).

This is a very strong film that probably didn't get as much attention as it deserved when it made the theatre rounds.

Rating: ****

Review: Let the Right One In

2009-04-11T11:21:00.006-04:00

Let the Right One In is one of the oddest films I've seen in a while, but also one of the most interesting. After watching it last night, my entire dream cycle was occupied with variations upon what I'd just experienced, and it was the first thing I thought of when I woke up this morning.

I'd never heard of this Swedish film (based on a Swedish best-selling novel) until my daughter Tammy gave me a copy on DVD last month for my birthday. She wanted to see it with us, and so it took nearly a month before we had an opportunity where all three of us - including Vicki - were together and in the mood for a vampire movie. As it turns out, Let the Right One In is unlike any other vampire flick I've ever seen. The closest comparison I can draw, and it's not a particularly good one, would be how I felt when I watched Salem's Lot on TV in 1979 (as a 16 year old). At that point in my life, I thought that I pretty much knew what to expect from vampire fiction (having read Bram Stoker's Dracula, dozens of Dracula comics, and seen many schlocky vampire movies), and yet that quirky TV event threw me for a loop. While the quality may not have been all that high, it definitely made an impression on me and opened my mind up to just how much more potential existed in that sub-genre than I'd imagined up to then.

In the case of Let the Right One In, I think the film-makers succeeded on both fronts: delivering superior craftsmanship, and expanding the range of vampire lore. It's all presented in a way that expects the audience to figure things out, rather than having it all delivered at the end of a spoon. Many of the relationships shown have to be inferred, with the implication being that you may, of course, come to the wrong conclusions in some cases. Because so much is going on, and yet so little is being provided to the viewer in a paint-by-numbers fashion, I found myself drawn more and more into the story because I wanted to make the connections myself. That's always a sign of an outstanding work of fiction, in my mind.

One of the most fascinating reactions I had, as the event rolled along, was trying to decide whether I could really justify rooting for the bloodsucking co-lead. I realize that that sort of dilemma is at the heart of much of the recent and current Nosferatu-fic (Anne Rice's work, Twilight, and even Spike and Angel of the Buffyverse) but here it's done in such a matter-of-fact manner as to make those others look almost cartoonish, by comparison. There's drama in Let the Right One In, but no melodrama. "I live off blood," says the undead creature at one key juncture, neither apologetically nor with any sense of pride. In order for her to live, others have to die. (And, in fact, if she doesn't kill them after feeding, she simply ends up making more like her! Therefore, is her act of murder actually one of compassion?)

At the center of the story is a 12 year old boy named Oskar, who's being bullied at school while the adults around him remain oblivious to it. He befriends a new neighbour named Eli, who describes herself as being "around 12." As we learn later on, she means that she was 12 when she was turned into a vampire and has been "around" - frozen at that physical age, though it's difficult throughout to get a good read on her emotional development - for an indeterminate number of years, decades or even centuries since. She knows all about sticking up for herself, and is therefore just the right type of person for Oskar to meet at that "coming-of-age" point in his young, beleaguered life. Except, of course, that she's exhibiting her "right to survive" by killing people in Oskar's town and thereby casting a pall of terror over the region. What's a 12 year old boy, experiencing love for the first time, expected to do in a head-scratching situation like that?

It took me a while to warm up to the film, as I spent the first 15 or 20 minutes bothered by some of the directorial choices. Some scenes are maddeningly-framed such that it's hard to even tell who's speaking, but eventually you either get used to that or come to realize why it's being done. It also didn't help that the DVD defaulted to "English dubbing," which featured some of the worst voice acting this side of a 1950s Godzilla groaner. Fortunately my brain eventually unfroze and I realized that I had the technology to switch us to the original Swedish audio track with English subtitles, after which the experience was exceedingly more pleasant. By the halfway point, I'd decided that I liked what I was seeing. By the end, I thought that I might just have loved it. I'll probably have to watch it a second time, in a year or two, to really know for sure. It's definitely worth watching, though, and I heartily recommend it to anyone looking for something a little different than the standard fare.

Rating: *** 1/2

Battlestar Galactica finale

2009-03-22T21:09:00.004-04:00

So Galactica was the B-Ark?

Review: Watchmen

2009-03-07T10:40:00.006-05:00

It wouldn't be an exaggeration to say that I've been waiting for this film for most of my adult life. I was 23 years old when the 12-issue miniseries by Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons debuted on the comic shelves in the late Spring of 1986, and it wasn't long after it wrapped up the following year that the talk of a Watchmen movie began. Just to get my credentials - or, rather, the details of my intense relationship with the subject matter over the intervening 23 years - out of the way up front: I own 4 different printings of the comic series (original serialized format, two different trade paperback editions and the oversized Absolute Watchmen volume that came out a few years ago); I've read Watchmen, in one form or another, nearly 10 times over that stretch; I place it, along with Alan Moore's other magnum opus, V For Vendetta, at the very top of my favourite comic stories of all time; and I own a page of original artwork from the book. For all of these reasons, and many others, this is not just another movie for me.

With a running time in excess of two and a half hours, I knew going into the viewing last night that we wouldn't be shortchanged, at least. This was not going to be "Watchmen Lite", in which most of the secondary arcs were excised in order to focus our attention on just one or two plot lines and get it to fit within a comfortable ninety-seven minutes. As it turns out, screen writers David Hayter and Alex Tse, along with director Zack Snyder, retained about 80% of the original material and something like 90% of its spirit.

Not surprisingly, what's missing is much of the ironic nature, subtlety and complexity of the Moore/Gibbons masterpiece. The first clue that I got to that fact came early: several times in the first half hour of the film, various members of the "superhero fraternity" refer to themselves as "the Watchmen." Anyone with only a passing familiarity with the comic series or less would probably say, "Uh... no duh! That's what they're called!" But in fact, that's not the case. Despite the series being titled Watchmen, there is actually no group within its pages who go by that name. Instead, it refers to the spray-painted slogan that begins to show up in the mid-1970s, once public sentiment turns against the costumed adventurers as the result of a police strike (which comes about when the cops decide that vigilantes are making their jobs too difficult). When long-haired hippies cover tenement walls with crimson red graffiti asking "WHO WATCHES THE WATCHMEN?", it's not a literal reference to any super-team in existence (as would be the case if someone scrawled "WHO AVENGES THE AVENGERS?" in the Marvel Universe, for example) but rather an alarm bell sounding in the words of the poet Juvenal (who wrote, "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" in Latin), from nearly two millennia ago. It essentially demands to know, "If they're operating outside the law to guard against our misdeeds, then who's guarding against theirs?" That's one of the central themes throughout Watchmen, and yet I can't help but believe that you water that message down considerably if you make the mistake of believing that "Watchmen" is simply the group name for the heroes (and again: it's not, simply or otherwise). Either the film-makers didn't get this distinction, or they decided that their audience was too stupid to. In any event, something was lost in the process.

If that seems like nit-picking, well... it is! What you'll likely find, if you happen to come across reviews of this movie by fans of the comic (like me), is that much of what we'll devote our attention to are nits. I could point out, for example, that Rorschach's backstory is weakened, ever so slightly, by the change imposed upon it in his fateful scene with the child-murderer. In the comic, Rorschach handcuffs the wretch to a furnace pipe, leaves him a hacksaw with which to cut off his own arm, and then starts the man's home on fire. He thereby gives him a chance to survive, albeit with ridiculous odds. In the film, however, he uses a cleaver to kill the man. Again, as with the point noted above, this suggests a lack of understanding on the part of the film-makers. Watchmen is a very dense piece of literature. Every single thing in it happens for a reason, and an adaptation that (out of necessity) removes or alters bits needs to do so very carefully. My reading of that scene has always been that it was that encounter, that moment in which Walter Kovacs had no choice but to stare into the abyss, only to discover that "the abyss stares also," that transformed him from "Kovacs dressing up as Rorschach" to "Rorschach posing as Kovacs in order to move through the city unnoticed." That metamorphosis, from a world view that allowed at least some grey areas in it to one that could no longer abide them, required more than the swing of a meat cleaver to complete. It was his choice to torment the killer with his own slim chance at salvation, and then to stand on the street outside and watch it all burn, that completed his rebirth. (Fire as a transformative elemental power also shows up in V For Vendetta, when V emerges from the concentration camp while it all goes up in flames around him.) Less of that breath-taking energy comes across in the film version, unfortunately. And I can think of at least a half dozen other places where I similarly winced to see an impact lessened by what I'd characterize as an unfortunate tweak.

So yes, there are details aplenty for die-hard Watchmen fans to complain about (and we will!). But there's also a whole lot to love about this adaptation. Moore and Gibbons were geniuses at creating a fully-realized, internally-consistent world of 1985 in which to tell their tale, and that aspect is on display here as well. It's not really the same look and feel as you'll find in the comic book, as the electric cars, hover bikes and funky cigarette holders are nowhere to be seen when the story begins. But a very effective credit sequence, under the always-welcome sounds of Bob Dylan's "The Times They Are A Changin'," sets up the premise that men and women decided in the 1940s that dressing up in gaudy costumes and catching crooks might be fun, and that makes it easy to just roll with that conceit as the story progresses. The divergence between our history and the events in the Watchmen universe become poignantly apparent when the god-like Dr Manhattan ends the Vietnam War in a matter of days. In one of the most spine-tingling lines from the comic series, the Comedian tells Dr Manhattan, "I mean, if we'd lost this war... I dunno, I think it might have driven us a little crazy, y'know? As a country." Seeing that sequence, in flashback form, even the Watchmen-neophyte has no choice but to conclude that "This is no version of history that we've ever seen!"

As far as creating the physical world with that history, I'd say that the special effects were somewhat hit and miss. I loved seeing Archie, the owl ship in action, and most of the visuals involving Dr Manhattan worked for me (and for the women in the audience: full frontal male nudity!) but several of the costumes looked ridiculous and I simply couldn't buy most of the Mars architecture. I had expected to hate the "slow mo" scenes but I take my hat off to Snyder and the rest: they actually dazzled me, seeing them in context like that.

Less dazzling were some of the performances by the ensemble cast. First, though, I want to say: every single one of them seemed committed 100% to their part, and that's not always the case when dealing with the dreaded "comic book material." There were no winks at the camera, no one hamming it up or going over the top... but there were also no "star turns" that I could see. Now, it's more than possible that Heath Ledger's mind-boggling take on the Joker in The Dark Knight has raised the bar to the point where I simply now expect some sort of break out performance when the material is so strong. Don't look for that here! Jeffrey Dean Morgan ("Denny", for Grey's Anatomy fans) was fine as Edward Blake/The Comedian, but he didn't really fill out the larger-than-life, completely-amoral character that inhabits the comic book. I wanted to see a man who truly didn't give a shit what anyone thought, and instead I saw what looked like a man who wanted us to believe that he didn't care. Again, though, maybe the fault here is really Ledger's... so to speak.

On the flip side, I thought Jackie Earle Haley completely nailed Rorschach, both in and out of costume. Fans of the prison scenes in Watchmen will be delighted to see Haley's affect-free delivery during his interview with Dr Malcolm Long and his encounters with Big Figure and friends. His gravelly, Christian Bale-like narration style bothered me at first, but then I came to enjoy it and eventually realize that he had to sound like that. He's Hill Street Blues' Mick Belker on steroids, after all... as shown in the flashback scene where young Walter Kovacs bites off part of a bully's face!

Matthew Goode, as Adrian Veidt/Ozymandias, seemed to strike the wrong note from his first appearance on, and at no point came across as "the smartest man on the planet." I was surprised to see Matt "Max Headroom" Frewer in the role of Edgar Jacobi/Molloch, but he made the most of his limited screen time. Both Malin Akerman (Laurie Juspeczyk/Silk Spectre II) and Patrick Wilson (Dan Drieberg/Nite Owl II) sold me on their characters, but they suffered from the same problem that most of the cast did: it felt, for most of the film, like they were more focused on the words that they spoke than the emotions behind them. If anything, perhaps the actors held the source material (which all of them supposedly read, and re-read) in too high a reverence... after all, it wasn't just the dialogue of the original Watchmen that fascinated us, but also what it revealed about the people at the bottom of the speech balloons. Too often, the people on screen didn't seem to get that. Or, maybe this criticism, as well, stems from what Heath Ledger showed us in last year's comic book blockbuster.

I loved the famous faux-cameos throughout, which must have kept the casting director busy, searching for celebrity lookalikes. You'll easily spot JFK and Jackie, Mick Jagger and David Bowie, Ted Koppel and Henry Kissinger, as well as an unimpeached Richard Nixon, of course. There are others, as well. I thought that their inclusion worked well at re-anchoring us, reminding us at different points that while this is an alternate history on screen, it's still the planet Earth and some things didn't change (including Glam Rock in the 70s and early 80s, apparently!).

If anything worries me about someone viewing the movie without having read the book, it's that both of the big revelations toward the end of the film seem to come almost entirely from left field. To avoid spoilers, I won't give them away here. But in one case, an unknown relationship is revealed, while in the other it's the villain's motivation and master plan that are laid bare. Unlike in the printed version, though, we don't get the slow build up to them here. We aren't provided all of the clues, as Moore and Gibbons did so effectively, to make us slap our foreheads at the moment of reveal, and say, "Of course! Why didn't I see that coming?" Instead, I imagine that many will react with, "Huh? Where did that come from?" Which is too bad, because those were a couple of Watchmen highlights for me, even on subsequent re-readings where I could pick up on new examples of foreshadowing that I'd never noticed before.

I suppose, "inna final analysis," (as Bernie the news agent says in the comic), while we didn't get a perfect Watchmen movie, we probably got about as close to one as we could reasonably expect. Gone is the symmetry of opening and closing the story with Rorschach's journal (ruined by the addition of a largely unnecessary sequence showing the Comedian's death as the film begins); lost is much of the incredible juxtapositioning of dialogue to visuals; removed for the sake of brevity are many of the third-tier character bits that would have made us care more about the climatic world events that occur near the end. But what's left is still a very large chunk of a literary masterpiece. It's a very good film adaptation of perhaps the greatest comic book series of all time. Anyone intrigued by the film who seeks out the source material will find layers and depth not even hinted at within the frames of Zack Snyder's production... and that's not necessarily a bad thing!

I'm not sure that I'll view Watchmen the movie as many times as I've returned to Watchmen the comic... but at the moment, at least, I'm looking forward to seeing it a second time.

Rating: *** 1/2

Dollhouse Isn't All Fun And Games

2009-02-14T13:07:00.012-05:00

Last night finally brought the premiere of the eagerly-anticipated new Joss Whedon series, Dollhouse. Thanks to previous creations Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Angel and, to a lesser degree, Firefly, Whedon has developed a small but devoted fan base that will follow him anywhere (something that he shares with J Michael Straczynski and J.J. Abrams, but which is far from the norm in TV circles). I like each of those earlier Whedon-vehicles enough that I'd try practically anything that came out with his name attached, and so I was there, butt in seat, for last night's 9:00 debut on Fox. (I continue to be amused by the rather-clever marketing move of combining Summer Glau from Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles with Eliza Dushku in promoting Fox's Durable Dame Doubleheader.)

Many of the reviews that I'd read beforehand were pretty rough on Dollhouse. One of the most common complaints expressed - that the audience can't bond with or invest in a main character who's essentially a cipher in terms of personality (i.e. she doesn't have one of her own) - is something that I think probably will hurt the series, over time, if it's not addressed. Sure, it's going to be fun to see Eliza Dushku take on vastly different characters as Echo every week. In the premiere, she first plays a lovestruck party-girl who's convinced that she's just met "the one" in the person of some spoiled rich brat (ironically named "Matt") who really just wanted a perfect weekend of sex and adventure with a disposable hottie. When the clock runs out on Matt's birthday present to himself, Echo's de-programmed and then later re-built as a super-competent, no-nonsense hostage negotiator who's being rented by an ultra-wealthy Mexican expatriot whose 12-year old daughter has been kidnapped. The two Echo imprints couldn't be less alike (although even an all-business attitude, updo and glasses do little to diminish Dushku's hotness in the latter role) and so the show very quickly establishes its premise. But we're still stuck with the original problem: we want to, but can't, get to know the real Echo. (In story terms, there is no "real Echo," but you know what I mean!)

We do learn that Echo is far from unique in her existence as a new rewritable memory format, though. When not out "on assignment," she resides with the rest of the "agents" in "the Dollhouse," which is some shadowy organization that's run by Adelle DeWitt (Olivia Williams, who you may remember as Bruce Willis' wife in The Sixth Sense). Ms DeWitt's motivations, as well as her resources and credibility, are suspect as the show begins, but her stated stance, at least, is that she's "helping people." We see other men and women in various stages of "dollification" (I just made that word up!), making it clear that having your original memories and personality ripped out of you and tossed in the garbage isn't actually as easy a process as... well, a really stupid person might believe it to be! Each agent gets "dolled up" in a high-tech chair that's (I'm sorry) way too similar to the one used in NBC's My Own Worst Enemy (which not only beat Dollhouse out of the 2008/09 gate by about 5 months but also managed to get canceled before the Fox show had even debuted!). They also get reset to semi-blankness in the same impressive-looking recliner after completing their assignment, at which point they apparently get to wander around the Dollhouse aimlessly, engaging in coed showering and mindless chatter until climbing into slots in the floor and going night-night.

There's a line early on about how the authorities would surely shut down the Dollhouse and toss its management into jail if its existence was ever found out, which of course means that there's already an FBI hunk Paul Ballard (Tahmoh Penikett, "Helo" of Battlestar Galactica fame) on the case. Whedon's sometimes a little too "by the book" for my tastes, and the pilot of Dollhouse suffers more than a little from that weakness. Besides the various points of conflict being immediately established and beaten over the head with a hammer - not only is the FBI agent in conflict with his own superiors over his pursuit of the mysterious "Dollhouse" urban legend that he's tracking with unprofessional zeal and career-limiting tactlessness, but as that conversation plays out, we're shown shots of Ballard in a boxing ring with another man! and no, I'm not making that up! - there's also one flashback scene with a pre-Echo Dushku voicing the Whedonistic refrain, "every action has consequences." It's the sort of thing that seemed fresh and exciting on TV 10 years ago but which comes across more like a crutch when I see it used by the same guy, over and over again. (One bit of Whedon schtick that was mostly absent from the pilot, and which I didn't miss at all, was the use of humourous dialogue to undercut, and sometimes undermine, tension. I personally hope that it makes no more than cameo appearances as the series progresses, as I find that it takes me out of the scene more often than not.)

There are also some credibility gaps that need to be filled, if the show is really going to last. We need to find out why these people would agree to essentially commit suicide in order to become tools-for-rent (which I imagine we will), how any private organization could ever expect to pull off an operation of this size in total secrecy when they're renting their services out to anyone who'll pay (not exactly a top-secret approach, that!), where the ground-breaking technology itself comes from (and I'm hoping that we're not really expected to believe that it's the work of the one annoying hot-shot genius that we've seen so far) and why anyone wealthy enough to afford the Dollhouse's services wouldn't simply hire actual experts instead of "dolled-up" ones.

Those criticisms aside, I actually quite enjoyed a lot of what Dollhouse offered up in its debut. Amy Acker (Fred Burkle/Illyria in Angel, as well as Kelly Payton in Alias) plays Dr Claire Saunders, a scarred woman with what's certainly going to prove to be an interesting backstory. I'll freely cop to being a big fan of the actress, as I think she's lit up the scene every time I've come across her. Rather than trading on her good looks to play the same character each time, Acker has ranged from Southern small-town science nerd (Fred) to cold-blooded killer (Kelly) to other-worldly god-in-human-form (Illyria), and I've bought it each time. I can hardly wait to see what Dr Saunders has in store for us in future episodes.

I also liked that there's some moral ambiguity in place right from the start. One of the handlers (played by Harry Lennix), for example, is already beginning to question the neutral stance that the organization takes in matters involving innocents in harm's way. That sort of thing may get tiresome quickly, though, if there isn't any evolution. And as I said to my wife at one point, viewed one way the Dollhouse is really nothing more than a high-priced whorehouse. If I'm rich and can therefore rent Eliza Dushku to use as my sex toy before tossing her back, how is that anything other than prostitution? Hopefully the show will deal with that angle before long.

Overall, I'm intrigued enough by what I saw, as well as trusting enough in the Whedon track record, to sign up for more Dollhouse. I think I read that 13 episodes were ordered by Fox, so we'll at least get that much. Whether the show follows in the footsteps of Buffy (7 seasons) and Angel (5 seasons) or goes the way of the late, lamented Firefly (13 episodes) remains to be seen. I think that it needs to step its game some to stick around, but at least it got off to an interesting start.

Review: The Bourne Trilogy

2009-02-09T19:43:00.004-05:00

I don't usually lump movies together for review, but I'm making an exception in this case, for a number of reasons.

For one thing, I watched all three Bourne movies in relatively quick succession this year. I'd seen Identity once before, but Supremacy and Ultimatum were both new to me this time around. Because of that, the three films have blended together in my head, ever so slightly, as I reflect back on them now.

Another reason to regard them as a whole, at least for the purposes of reviewing them, is the formulaic nature of the films. They really do tend to be cookie-cutter productions, as I imagine the original Robert Ludlum novels were, as well. Each of the movies begins with Jason Bourne experiencing some kind of partial flashback, the significance of which even he doesn't fully understand until late in the proceedings. We learn early in the first installment that he's the result of a blacker-than-black ops program that turned him into a government-sponsored assassin with a photographic memory, heightened reflexes, incredible fighting prowess and an uncanny ability to instantly read any situation he finds himself in, among other, similarly-handy traits. One of the mainstays of each movie, then, is the inevitable scene in which he has to battle his opposite number in the form of yet another product of that same "super-killer" program. It's Bourne versus his mirror image, to the death... or something close to it, anyway. There's also the big reveal at the end, where we (and Bourne) finally discover exactly why he's been wracked by the specific memory fragments that have been shown throughout his travels. And travel he does, to exotic locations like Paris, London, Madrid, Moscow, Tangiers, Berlin and even New York City.

I think in some ways the Bourne movies came along at exactly the right time to maximize their appeal. Superheroes are all the rage in Hollywood right now, after all, and Bourne fits that description rather nicely. Everything about him requires that comic book-ish suspension of disbelief that allows us to believe that a man from a doomed planet can fly, or that one billionaire would choose to fight crime in a bat-costume while another pulls it off by building himself a suit of armour out of missile parts and bailing wire. Bourne might just have found the audience slightly less accepting of his shenanigans if these other heroes weren't out there, helping to soften the ground for all concerned.

As for the individual components of this trilogy, I'd definitely say that each successive chapter seemed less enjoyable than the one before it. I was very impressed with The Bourne Identity, even seeing it for the second time. I thought that the action was very well done, with a nice balance between plot, character and stunts. The romance between Jason (Matt Damon) and Marie (Franka Potente, of Run Lola Run fame) was completely believable to me, and developed slowly enough that I became invested in it. Not that anyone would mistake this picture for a romantic comedy, but within the action genre, the interplay between these two characters worked very well.

The best thing about The Bourne Supremacy was the addition of Joan Allen to the cast. She added an element that had been missing in the original (an authority figure you could empathize with and actually root for) but in most other ways the second Bourne adventure seemed diluted compared to the first. Once the character of Marie was written out early on in the movie, Bourne's single-minded determination to fill in the latest gap in his memory lacked any kind of human backdrop upon which to really care about it. I did love the final scene, though, in which Bourne confronts the daughter of two of his past victims and provides her with some closure.

The Bourne Ultimatum, in comparison, felt somewhat hollow and contrived. Perhaps it's just the fact that it's all just "more of the same" by this point, but I actually found myself bored during parts of Ultimatum. There's also at least one logic gaffe in the plot that took me right out of the experience (the idiotic part in which Bourne actually tells a certain character that he's sitting in the other man's office when there was absolutely no need to, which results in Bourne being chased across the city when he could simply have walked away at his leisure had he just kept his mouth shut) but mostly I'd just grown tired of the sameness and craved a bit of variety. The Julia Stiles character, returning once again ("Nicky Parsons" shows up in all three installments), seemed destined for something more here... only to be sent off to Siberia (figuratively) just when her role finally got interesting (albeit disturbingly similar to Marie's circumstances, two films earlier). Not a terrible film, all things considered, but just as certainly not up to the level of its predecessors.

Overall, I was glad to watch all three, but will probably remember the first one the longest. As an interesting bit of trivia, the 2nd and 3rd films were directed by Paul Greengrass, who was on tap to direct Watchmen before that earlier attempt fell apart. Will Zack Snyder's version of that classic comic book series, in theatres in less than a month now, make us all happy that Greengrass didn't get the chance, or will we be left to wistfully wonder, "What if...?" once we see what Snyder's come up with? Only time will tell, I guess.

Rating (The Bourne Identity): *** 1/2
Rating (The Bourne Supremacy): ***
Rating (The Bourne Ultimatum): ** 1/2

Review: Frost/Nixon

2009-02-01T16:23:00.003-05:00

35 years after Watergate, it's hard to adequately convey just how significant those events really were. I remember, as a pre-teen, hearing the word "Watergate" on the news every night, and eventually being so disappointed when it turned out that it was "only" a building in Washington where some burglars working for one party (Richard Nixon's Republican administration) had bugged a political headquarters belonging to the other party (the Democratic National Committee). My young mind had expected Watergate to be revealed as the codename for some secret branch of the Nixon government that was assassinating political rivals or wiping out foreign countries. Little did I know that it would be another decade still, amid the shadowy rule of Ronald Reagan, before we'd get those sorts of conspiratorial charges leveled at a sitting president!

As history has shown, Nixon's greatest mistake was his decision to try to cover up what had transpired at the Watergate office. He apparently valued loyalty above all else, and so made what could only be described as an ill-considered attempt to make the whole mess go away, obstructing justice in the process. Or, perhaps, he was simply corrupt through and through, and had actually initiated the dirty tricks himself. That latter scenario was never reliably proven; the cover-up, on the other hand, became increasingly obvious as the days fell off the calendar between the break-in in June of 1972 and his resignation (the first ever by a U.S. President) 26 months later. Eighteen and a half minutes of missing White House recordings (all of the conversations were taped in those days, thanks to President Lyndon B Johnson) seemed to confirm that Nixon had done something that he didn't want the world to know about, as did his initial refusal to turn the tapes over at all. Over that two-year stretch, even the staunchest Nixon supporters were pushed to the breaking point, and the United States of America endured perhaps its greatest loss of trust between its people and its government (despite George W. Bush's best efforts to top Nixon). If you're under the age of 30 and have taken it for granted your entire life that "all politicians are crooked", you can lay more of the blame for that bias at the feet of "Tricky Dick" Nixon than with anyone else.

With all of that as background, I went into Frost/Nixon with a great deal of interest sprinkled with a healthy dollop of doubt. After all, the Nixon interviews that David Frost conducted in 1977 came long after the excitement had died down to some degree: Nixon had resigned 3 years earlier, Ford had replaced him and promptly pardoned his former boss, and Jimmy Carter had swept Ford out of office in the 1976 election (meaning, incidentally, that Gerald Ford had operated as both the VP and President of the United States without ever once being elected to either position!) I therefore couldn't help but wonder: what manner of heat could there really have been around the matter of the ex-president giving a series of interviews to a British TV personality known mostly for puff pieces?

And, in fact, that's exactly the question that Ron Howard's film sets out to answer, in an amazingly-entertaining fashion. We see that David Frost had a terrible time drumming up any interest from advertisers or the American TV networks, to the point where he had to self-finance it with some help from his friends. While Nixon himself drooled at the six-figure payment that he would get out of it, virtually no one outside of Frost's inner circle was enthusiastic in the least about the project. Ford had declared the U.S.'s "long national nightmare" to be over when he took office, and Carter had actually made that a reality when he whisked Nixon's pardoner out the door. So naturally the only people who wanted to ever see Nixon's face again hoped that it would come to them from behind bars (which Ford's "stay out of jail for free" card had precluded) or in some frank admission of guilt. And what were the chances that a lightweight like Frost could ever get that out of Tricky Dick?

I found Frost/Nixon to be a thrilling trip back through time, filled to the brim with reminders of just what our part of the world was like in the 1970s. It also provides a great deal of suspense - some of that muted, unfortunately, by the decision to show what is undoubtedly the film's key emotional turning point in just about every talk show appearance made on behalf of the movie - as well as standout performances by Michael Sheen and Frank Langella in the two title roles. Langella, in particular, absolutely inhabits the former president in every way: voice, demeanour, body language and presence. Despite not really looking all that much like Nixon, I caught myself several times having to look for clues that it wasn't archival footage that had suddenly been spliced in.

If you're a history buff at all, then I think that you'll love Frost/Nixon as much as I did. But for those who prefer a faster pace and lighter fare in your entertainment, I imagine that this one may not be your cup of tea. It is, after all, very tightly focused on one specific moment in history: two men, each attempting to rejuvenate his career at the expense of the other. It's quite the intense battle, but at no point does a gun get fired or any bombs go off. And yet I still couldn't take my eyes off the screen!

Rating: ****

Review: Wall-E

2009-01-11T12:53:00.003-05:00

So... is Wall-E an eye-poppingly gorgeous animated feature, a humourous "kid flick" with cute robots in it, a cautionary tale about mankind's current excessive tendencies, or a heart-breaking romance?

Well, as it turns out: it's all of those, and more! I was in the camp of doubters when it came to Pixar's latest offering, as I couldn't believe that it would actually measure up to the hype being heaped upon it (including several reviewers claiming that it was the best film of 2008). Now that I've seen it, though, I'm firmly (and proudly) atop the Wall-E bandwagon. Watching the movie itself, followed by some very entertaining special features on the DVD, were several of the best hours that I've spent in the last few months.

The amount of creativity in this animated film is staggering to me. Whether it's the visuals themselves (which are some of the best I've ever seen), the use of sound effects to substitute for dialogue, the sheer scale of several scenes (aboard the Axiom itself as well as back on Earth), the humanity that Wall-E himself was imbued with, or just the number of humourous references... this "cartoon" is a true feast for the eyes, ears and minds of its audience! In virtually every scene there appeared to be more than one thing going on, promising a rewarding experience for additional viewings later on.

And if anything is ever going to turn the tide on the obese-itizing of our culture, maybe Wall-E, with its hapless chair-bound, 400-pound models of humanity will be it. Hopefully that message wasn't too subtle for most of the fans of the movie, but I guess we'll have to wait and see on that one.

For those who took the time to watch the credits, there were two special treats: a wonderful new song by Peter Gabriel ("Down to Earth") written specifically for Wall-E, as well as adorable vignettes of Wall-E, Eve and Mo scampering around the edges of the frame. I love when film makers come up with innovative ways to keep the audience watching the credits, and Wall-E's creators hit the ball out of the park in that regard.

If you haven't seen Wall-E yet, you're missing out on great deal of fun. Check it out, and I don't think you'll be disappointed. And, if you're at all like me, you may even end up shedding a tear or two before it's over!

Rating: ****

Review: Quantum of Solace

2009-01-11T00:25:00.002-05:00

The latest edition of the Bond series. I haven't been out to the theaters for awhile, other than Wall-E, and this was a nice straight-forward film to go see. Especially during this "awards season" and all that means. This film is pretty much out of theaters so this isn't a cutting edge review. I found the film enjoyable on the whole. The type of action was interesting and the pace was snowmobile-into-the-fence fast. I really like Dame Judi Dench as M, I think it is one of the things that holds the series together since she's been on board. The earlier (Connery, Moore, etc eras) were held more by Q than M, but Dame Judi really is the strongest presence. This change is also reflected in how the movies use technology. The tech in this film is shown as a tool of management, not the playthings of the field agent. I like Daniel Craig, but this film portrays a much more wooden Bond that is charming but flat. Not 1-dimensional - just flat. There is no place in the film to look into the Bond character. I think a little more character building would be something that Craig could pull off nicely and it would add to the films.

I'm not sure I like the whole shaky-cam, follow-the-person style of action sequence. The Bourne films really did that well and I like the action and the gritty nature of the sequnces, but that technique is feeling old. I'd like to keep the fast pace, improvisational nature of the action, but with a camera that isn't bobbing and weaving.

I went to see this film with a friend and his first comment at the end was "There's no SPECTRE anymore, so they needed to have something new [Quantum]." I think it was a good thing. The attempt to tie environmentalism with coups and nation-manipulation was half-hearted. I'm guessing they didn't want to hit us over the head with these ideas so they can play them out over the next few films. I like the theme that ran through saying that as one grows old, right and wrong don't seem so different. Nice to see that maturity even in an action film. I'd recommend this film for anyone who is looking for entertainment without a huge effort.

Rating: **1/2

What exactly is the Cylon plan?

2009-01-10T14:59:00.004-05:00

At the risk of further inflaming Denis McGrath, and perhaps further proving his point (see "EDIT" at the bottom of that post), this 94-item list of unanswered Battlestar Galactica questions might be part of the reason that "fanboys" have a problem with shows that purport to have continuing storylines. (Heroes is another one that's run into continuity problems, and has seen similarly negative reaction.) Moore came up with a realistic "re-imagining" of the original series that held a lot of promise, but over four (or is that six?) seasons the show has set up so many threads—ropes, even—that have been left hanging that it's hard to see how that promise can be kept.

I enjoyed the first season of Galactica, but as it's worn on the questions that seemed so intriguing to start with have been replaced with more of a feeling of "what nonsense are they going to come up with this week?" That feeling definitely contributed to my comment a few days ago that "Weird is good, but generally best in moderation." Would The Prisoner be as highly regarded now if it had run for three seasons instead of one, and we found out that Number Six's memory had actually been removed by the aliens that sent him from space so he could objectively evaluate the effectiveness of the mind-control virus they'd distributed in the 14th century that, through an unforeseen side-effect, was the real cause of the Black Death, and that the ever-changing Number Two was an insane Catholic priest who had developed shape-changing abilities after sneaking aboard the aliens' spaceship during the initial landing 600 years ago and was just biding his time until he could take revenge on Six's father (the commander of the mission) for messing up his plot to overthrow the Pope?

Actually, you know, I might watch that....

Ironically, The Wire Set Now Resembles East Baltimore Even More

2009-01-08T13:31:00.007-05:00

The remains of Baltimore's alternative Homicide Division after the Wire's close of production. Wish I could have taken McNulty's inbasket or some other keep sake.

More here

Over the holidays, Cathie, my shorty, started watching. She devoured Seasons 1 and 2 like a dockworker and is now peppering 'mo-fo' into everyday conversation.

Re-up for the greatest program in the history of television.

Time warp time

2009-01-07T20:16:00.004-05:00

I'd heard rumblings about AMC's remake of The Prisoner, but it didn't really make an impression until now:

The new series may be months away, but starting today fans can now view (in full screen, no less) all 17 full episodes of the originals series online at The Prisoner 1960s Site.

(via Wil Wheaton)

What a way to promote the new series (although mere Canadians are shut out, as usual... sheesh).

At least we'll get to see the new series. AMC was a recent addition to the Rogers cable lineup, and between Mad Men, Breaking Bad, and now The Prisoner, it's become my favourite U.S.-based channel.

As for Canadian-based channels, you can probably guess at my favourite. Check out Being Erica on Mondays at 9; the premiere episode that aired this week shows a lot of promise.

This is the end... the end... of... the beginning

2008-12-31T23:59:00.002-05:00

Happy New Year all!

(via Denis McGrath)

About 100 Seconds To Whet Your Appetite

2008-12-15T23:26:00.000-05:00

Review: Aliens Vs Predator - Requiem

2008-11-30T22:16:00.004-05:00

When this film came out in the theatres just under a year ago (Christmas 2007, as a matter of fact), I really hoped that it would warrant some good reviews so that I could justify going to see it on the big screen. Instead, the critics generally made like a chest-burster and ripped it a new one (14% on Rotten Tomatoes). Having now watched Aliens Vs Predator - Requiem on DVD, I can see why.

I should first say that I'm a sucker for Alien-related stuff, and have a soft spot in my heart for Aliens Vs Predator because of the first video game bearing that name (also known around here as the product that introduced me to online gaming). We've now had six editions in the Alien lore on screen, counting both of the AVP movies. Of that half-dozen, two were truly great (the first two, obviously), while the rest have fluctuated between entertaining-but-flawed and just downright bad. AVPR doesn't waste any time at all fitting into that last category.

The whole production is a mess, from scenes that are shot so darkly as to be indecipherable, to characters who seem like they just stepped out 90210. Consider the gravitas of the members of the Nostromo, back in the original Alien, and then look at the cardboard cutouts that we get here. There's the bully, and the over-protective big brother, and the teenage beauty queen with the heart of gold. Dallas, the commander of the Nostromo, certainly had his flaws, but he was a thousand times more believable and interesting than the paperweight of a Sheriff that AVPR has to offer. Even Reiko Aylsworth (Michelle, of 24 fame) is mostly wasted in her Ripley-lite duties as a military mom home just in time to see her husband eviscerated by an Alien while her young daughter looks on.

While I'm no expert on the length and breadth of the mythology, having skipped most of the comics and all of the books based on Alien, I thought I sort of understood how they worked... until I watched AVPR. Specifically, I was under the impression that full-fledged Aliens came from face-huggers (after being implanted in a host), face-huggers came from eggs, and eggs were laid by a queen. Simple, right? Except, as far as I could tell, there's no queen in AVPR, and yet the handful of face-huggers that arrive on Earth via a Predator ship somehow grow into thousands of marauding adults. There are lots of disgusting scenes in the film, but the worst has to be the one that showed a maternity ward in which full-term women were somehow used to produce "litters" of newborn Aliens... which made no sense whatsoever to me. Were the expectant mothers all carrying triplets or something?

The film also sports a Predalien, which is to say a hybrid of the two species. We've seen and heard of those before (including in the AVP video games) but this one's simply thrown out there with no real examination as to what it is or why it seems to act more intelligently than a regular Alien. Of course, it's entirely possible that I'm already putting more thought into the script than anyone involved with the actual production did

I'd have to say that this was the worst installment in the saga so far, and yet I still cling to the forlorn dream that someday, someone will rehabilitate it, just as Christopher Nolan did with Batman after Joel Schumacher drove that beloved franchise into the ground. Hope springs eternal, as they say!

Rating: *

Review: Honeydripper

2008-11-30T02:57:00.003-05:00

John Sayles' 16th feature film isn't one of his very best... but that's less an indictment of Honeydrippers than it is a recognition of just how high some of his previous work, including Lone Star and Passion Fish, have set the bar for whatever comes after them. In point of fact, Honeydrippers is actually a very good movie which just happens to be a few minor flaws short of greatness.

As the opening credits finished rolling by, I sighed contentedly as "Written, directed and edited by John Sayles" appeared on the screen, and said to my wife, "Those are seven of the most wonderful words in the English language." In an industry that's infamous for its tendency toward creating movies by committee and using focus groups to determine which ending to go with, it's a rare pleasure to watch a story where the writer, director and editor all actually saw the same picture in their head. That unity of vision, accomplished quite simply by virtue of one man doing all three jobs, is probably one of the reasons that Sayles' films are typically so immersive for the viewer. Whether it's the 1919 Chicago / Cincinnati World Series (Eight Men Out), coal mining in 1920s West Virginia (Matewan), or just trying to make a living in modern day Alaska (Limbo), you're not only transplanted to somewhere else in time and space during a John Sayles movie, but you're also given every impression that your tour guide, Mr Sayles himself, is a native son of whatever subject is presented. Honeydripper is no different, as the atmosphere of the poor, black community of Harmony, Alabama in 1950 feels painfully real throughout. Each black character in it, meaning the vast majority of the cast, has two personalities to show, even if the differences are sometimes subtle: there's the way that they act among friends and family, and then there are the mannerisms and posture that they're expected to assume when white people are present.

Not that Honeydripper is about racism, though. Telling this story would be impossible (or, at the very least, completely insincere) without at least acknowledging how white America treated its former "slave race" in this context, but the film is much more interested in music than race. As one character laments, late in the proceedings, this tale takes place just as one generation's music is being pushed aside to make room for the next. Earlier, Sayles had deftly juxtaposed the more staid "minuet" type of piano music with the gusto and verve that was in vogue as the 50s began, but even the energy of jazz was about to be overshadowed and outdone by none other than rock and roll itself. Each of these forms get its moment to shine over the course of the film, though, and the musical numbers are almost all top-notch and of the toe-tapping variety.

As for the plot itself, it's quite simple: down-on-his-luck tavern owner Tyrone Purvis (Danny Glover) is about to lose his business unless he can turn things around and start drawing crowds to the Honeydripper for a change, and he bets it all on a New Orleans hit-record attraction, Guitar Sam. Tyrone's in hock up to his eyeballs when he discovers, on the morning of the big show, that Guitar Sam's laid up back home in the hospital and won't be coming to Harmony (or the Honeydripper) anytime soon. Desperate, Tyrone conceives a plan that involves duping people into thinking that Guitar Sam is still appearing, and that's one of the weaknesses of an otherwise-fine production.

At times it all feels just a little too "caper-y" for a Sayles piece, including one or two characters who are, perhaps, writ just a mite too large. I found Nadine (Devinia McFadden), for example, somewhat over the top, with her unrelenting "3 times a day" urges that apparently needed expression (not to mention satiating) every time she showed up. There were more coincidences than you'd usually find in a film by John Sayles, whether it be the fortunate arrival on the scene of a second young guitar player who happens to know all of Guitar Sam's hits by heart, or the passing of one character just after Tyrone had set his sights on her as a possible money-source. (Although, to be fair, perhaps that latter development was intended to suggest that she died of a broken heart after Tyrone told her that she wouldn't be singing in the Honeydripper anymore, in which case it was less a clumsy coincidence and more of a too-subtle poetic license, I suppose.)

In spite of any of the little off-notes, however, Honeydripper is mostly right on-tune. Yaya DaCosta (shown above) and Lisa Gay Hamilton are both great as the step-daughter and wife, respectively, of Danny Glover's Tyrone. Each of them is stuck, to a certain degree, within the orbit of Tyrone's gravity, to the point where China Doll (the younger) is limited to being traipsed around town by her step-father as "bait" to attract young black men to the club, while Delilah (her mother) struggles to rationalize her husband's character foibles with what the preacher has to say about those who will ultimately experience "the glory of God." Neither of them is having a very easy time of it, a fact of which Tyrone remains mostly oblivious.

There's also a fascinating character with supernatural overtones, in the form of a blind guitar player who seemingly appears and vanishes, largely at will. When asked how old his guitar is, he says that it's "the second one... the Devil got the first one!" It's significant that only Tyrone and Sonny (the "replacement Guitar Sam") actually see and interact with this figment, perhaps suggesting a connection between the two of them in the way that they regard music. After all, of anyone in the story, it's those two men, a generation apart, who seem to embody the purest and least judgmental love of the craft. To them, music is a calling, even if Tyrone has clearly lost that perspective as we first meet him.

Stacy Keach gives a good turn as the Sheriff of Harmony, managing to strike a middle ground somewhere between Charlie Wade and Buddy Deeds (both of Lone Star), but closer to the former, unfortunately for Tyrone, Sonny and the rest of the black community. He's a little bit racist but not out-and-out evil, if that's even possible.

Glover's good but does mumble his way through too many of his lines. On the other hand, his Tyrone is 100% believable and every bit as multi-faceted as you'd expect from a Sayles main character.

All in all, Honeydripper is a must-see for the Sayles fan (duh!) as well as anyone interested in the music of that era.

Rating: *** 1/2

Battlestar Galactica Trailer Is Up...

2008-11-26T17:28:00.001-05:00

... and just a click away!

For The Star Wars Fan... Or Movie Fans In General

2008-11-07T18:05:00.001-05:00

Thanks to the Newsarama blog for finding this one...

Shake-Up Among The Heroes Writing Staff

2008-11-03T09:50:00.003-05:00

Apparently, heads have started to roll in response to the negative reactions (including my own!) toward this year's season of Heroes. Despite having liked some of his early comic work (such as Superman For All Seasons), I've grown increasingly turned off by Jeph Loeb's output of late. Because of that, I can't help but applaud his removal from the TV show that once exhibited so much potential.

Sarah - The One Who Isn't Evil! - Gets A Second Life!

2008-10-18T23:04:00.004-04:00

After the last thing that I'd heard about the future of Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles was so dire, I didn't expect to read this great development (the second season will go the distance!) The show has been excellent this fall so far and it would've been a crime if they'd cut it short. What's not known is what impact this great news will have on Joss Whedon's Dollhouse psychodrama, since I believe that it was supposed to take over the Monday slot from Sarah for the latter half of the season.

Battlestar Galactica Returns Jan 16/09

2008-10-16T10:26:00.004-04:00

This article provides the Sci Fi Channel's launch date for the final half-season of Battlestar Galactica (Jan 16/09)... I guess those of us in Canada will have to wait to see just exactly when we'll get it (probably within a few days of that date, I'd suppose).

I'm hoping that somewhere in the remaining 10 episodes we'll find out what the Cylons' big plan has been all along, as lately they've appeared somewhat disorganized (a civil war will do that, though!) and it's almost as if the plan has been forgotten. Then again, that same article references the Caprica spin-off movie as potentially being called "The Plan" so maybe that's where that ground will be covered?

Sarah Connor, On The Other Hand...

2008-10-02T17:44:00.002-04:00

Oh, Lordy, this is not good news at all!

So, a recap:

Fringe? Doing well!
Terminator? Not so good!

Fringe Fans Rejoice!

2008-10-02T15:02:00.001-04:00

We'll get a full season of the X-Files-ish new series, according to this report.

September: The Loneliest Month

2008-09-28T23:10:00.002-04:00

Unless one of the seven other contributors to this blog posts something in the next 48+ hours, I'll be the only one to have put anything here in the month of September. Now, it can't really be that no one else is watching TV or movies at this time of the year... can it?

Some Reasons Why Heroes Still Ain't All That Good

2008-09-28T22:40:00.004-04:00

Never mind that the Heroes Event Special last week, kicking off the third season of the show, made it sound like Heroes was the greatest thing since sliced bread (that, despite an almost-universally panned second season)... the two-hour premiere that followed it was enough to put the lie to that opinion, all by itself!

There were some good moments in it, but let's consider just a few of the aspects that made it somewhat sucky:

Peter from the future should have not only all of the powers that we've seen him accumulate so far (in the present) and any that he'll encounter over the next few years, but also should have had lots of time to perfect the use of them (consider how far he's come already in that regard)... and yet he's still running away (rather than teleporting, freezing time, turning invisible or any of the many other uses that he could make of his abilities)?
Are we to believe that Hiro is mentally, not to mention emotionally retarded? He receives a "message from the grave" from his father and all he can think to do is immediately disobey the old man by opening a safe that he's been told holds a secret that could destroy the world? What is this guy, 6 years old? He's certainly written that way...
Speaking of whom, wasn't it just wonderful to watch him blame Ando for something that hasn't happened yet?
And while I can appreciate the visual coolness of having Hiro able to touch the "speed lines" trailing behind the superspeedster, did no one on the writing staff understand that those things are simply visual tricks (the blurred after images of something moving very quickly) rather than physical matter?
Will we ever find out how the speedy girl could possibly have known that Hiro opened the safe so quickly after it happened? Will they explain how she travels across water so quickly (is it, like the Flash, that she runs across the water like a skipping stone?) Is this a show where answers of that sort are likely to ever be given?
Did anyone buy Nathan's sudden conversion to "messenger of God" or whatever that nonsense was? Are each of the main characters in this show slightly deranged to start with, or should we just assume bad writing?
When Claire hid in the closet while Sylar stalked her, all that was missing was the theme from Halloween and a hanger that the teen could unwind and shove into Sylar's face! Horror movie homage, or shameless rip-off?
The time travel "theory" in this show is starting to make my head spin, as it seems as if they subscribe to both the notion that trips to the past can change history (Peter coming back to stop Nathan's outing of himself), and can't change it (various attempts by Hiro across the first 2 seasons)! Pick a horse and ride it, for Pete's sake!

I could go on, but you get the gist...

Review: I'm Not There

2008-09-28T18:24:00.002-04:00

If you're a fan of the music of Bob Dylan, and/or you can handle films that are incredibly thought-provoking but not necessarily all that... linear (to put it mildly), then I'm Not There may just be a hit with you!

I really enjoyed both the Todd Haynes film itself and the DVD extras that came on the "Two-Disc Collector's Edition," but I'm not sure that they're for everyone. The soundtrack features an impressive array of Dylan songs, many of them reinterpreted and covered by others (including Calexico, who deliver a haunting version of "Goin' to Acapulco" from The Basement Tapes), but of course if you're not into Dylan's material, that's hardly a selling point. Also noteworthy were "Pressing On" (from Dylan's gospel period), "When the Ship Comes In" (sung emphatically by young lead actor Marcus Carl Franklin) and "Ballad of a Thin Man" (which I'd always thought was called "Mister Jones" until I watched one of the Special Features on the DVD... the things you can learn from these little discs!). It isn't very often that I'm inclined to buy a movie soundtrack, but this time I just might.

As for the "storyline" (such as it is), it gets high points for its uniqueness, even if there weren't anything else to recommend about it (and there is). Writer/director Haynes takes a metaphor - the singer's shape-shifting-like penchant for reinventing himself every few years - and makes it flesh in the form of six "faces" of Dylan's: Christian Bale, Cate Blanchett, Heath Ledger, Richard Gere, Ben Whishaw and the aforementioned Marcus Carl Franklin all personify aspects of the man. It's an original approach that has to be seen to be appreciated, but it's also uneven at times. The Richard Gere scenes featuring an aging outlaw named "Billy the Kid," in particular, seem to require more than a passing familiarity with the folk/rock/gospel singer's background to really see the point of. On the other hand, I absolutely loved the Blanchett, Bale and Ledger parts, and eventually developed some fondness for what was going on with Franklin.

I went into the film more than a little curious as to how a woman (Cate B) could play the part of a male singer (Bob D), and came out of it thunderstruck by what an amazing casting choice that turned out to be. As Haynes says on one of the DVD interviews, Dylan exhibited such a feminine, skinny, folded-into-oneself persona around the time of his poorly-received conversion to electric music (to the cry of "Judas!" in one famous concert) that having him portrayed by a female made perfect sense. And Blanchett is note-perfect in I'm Not There, well deserving of her Best Supporting Actress Oscar nomimation. The flat voice that she employs throughout was an excellent device for helping us forget that "that guy's a chick" and just focus on the acting display.

There are no shortage of great scenes, including Jude Quinn (the Blanchett-Dylan) and Allen Ginsberg (played by David Cross) delivering one-liners to a huge Christ-on-a-crucifix statue up on a hill ("How does it feeeeel?" and "Why don't you do your early stuff?") and Bale as Pastor John, preaching to a group of a couple dozen faithful before breaking into song.

If you can open your mind and get past the need for a coherent story thread (which you won't really find, or at least I didn't) then you'll have a great ride, complete with outstanding tunes. On the other hand, if that doesn't sound like you, then I'd say stay away from I'm Not There and look elsewhere for your kicks.

Rating: *** 1/2

Fringe Has An Outside Chance To Make Me Want To Believe

2008-09-10T23:15:00.008-04:00

I want to like Fringe, and I'm happy to give it a few more chances to win me over. But that pilot episode that was on last night definitely had me laughing at all the wrong moments. It was obviously going to suffer from comparisons to X-Files, and it did. If we remember that earlier Fox show the way it started off - and not get sucked into focusing on how badly it ended - then I'm not sure Fringe does much to improve upon it.

When we're first introduced to who we expect will be the "Mulder & Scully" of the show, they're already doing the nasty between the sheets. That can't be good, as clearly no TV writer in his right mind would have the two leads start off in a happy relationship, unless something bad is going to happen to one of them. And sure enough, it's not long before the square-jawed hero is blown up and lying in a coma, while his flesh disintegrates off of his body. Ouch... that's going to leave a mark!

There are twists a-plenty to be found, including how one character is presented to us in a Hannibal Lector-like role initially, only to later become "suddenly sane" and join the main Scooby gang! He seems like he'd have fit right into Alias when it was on, with his crazy-brilliant knowledge of science and pseudo-science that a decade or two in a loony-bin have somehow done nothing to diminish. And it's that sort of turn-your-brain-off vibe radiating off the show that had me chortling when I was probably supposed to be oohing and ahhing. I think there's an interesting premise at the core of the show, and I hope they can draw it out as they go along. I'm willing to give them another three or four episodes, just out of blind optimism for what the series could be.

On the positive side, at least nobody had a sister who'd been abducted by aliens...

Sarah Connor Kicks Butt In Season Two Premiere

2008-09-08T23:06:00.005-04:00

Tonight's second season opener of Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles was pretty damn fine, indeed! This show waxed and waned for me a bit in its inaugural season, but ended strong with a good mix of action and the "small stuff" like John Connor getting to meet his father (as a little boy). The finale back in May left me feeling that they'd have to up the ante in the second season, and if tonight's episode is any indication: they're going to! While the series can be uneven at times, there are clearly some good writers on staff who know how to tell a compelling story. They seem to get that they're going to have to stop telling us how great a leader John Conner is in the future and start showing us how he gets there, in the present. Tonight's scene with Cameron, and the gun, was a great example of the latter. Instincts like that don't come along every day! And just who exactly do we really think offed the reprehensible Sarkissian? Was it Sarah (who Derek had claimed in Season One didn't have it in her to kill people), or was it maybe John's first kill?

The first season finale had a very exciting climactic scene that was dubbed over with the great Johnny Cash, singing "The Man Comes Around," echoing Agent Ellison's earlier remarks about the Book of Revelations. Tonight, bookending that was an opening montage put to the music of a female performer who I didn't recognize, foreshadowing both the literal house-burning that was about to happen as well as the extended family's figurative house (of unified purpose) that would melt down as a result of Cameron's new situation. It's not exactly Alan Moore- or Grant Morrison-subtle, but it's still pretty high-brow by mainstream TV standards. And it shows a willingness to experiment a bit with their form that goes against the norm for action-based series. I continue to hold out high hopes for this somewhat-brainy gasoline-powered show...

Review: Courage Under Fire

2008-09-02T20:36:00.004-04:00

How much should we really expect of our military personnel, when they're caught in a life-threatening crisis? That's the central question of Courage Under Fire, the 1996 film starring Denzel Washington, Meg Ryan, Matt Damon, Michael Moriarty and Lou Diamond Phillips.

One of two characters put under the microscope for how they reacted while literally under fire is Colonel Nat Serling (Denzel Washington), who was commanding a platoon of tanks during a Desert Storm invasion of Iraq when an enemy tank inserted itself into their midst. As the Yanks started taking fire from within their own ranks, Serling gave the order to blast what he thought was the T-72 responsible for the attack... only to discover moments later that he'd actually shelled one of the American vehicles, killing his own officer and friend.

He'd been up for promotion going into that battle, but that's the last thing on his mind as he returns home months later, haunted by memories of his gaffe and the price that was paid for it. Rather than being bumped up to General, though, (is that what's above Colonel in U.S. Army rank?) he's given the demeaning task of investigating another officer, Captain Walden, who's being considered for the Medal of Honour. What makes this more than a routine assignment, though, are three things: Serling soon learns that Captain Walden's first name is Karen, meaning that she'd be the first woman to ever receive the honour; she's being considered for the award because of her actions during an attempted rescue during another point of Operation: Desert Storm, but some questions exist as to how she actually comported herself during the crisis (painfully reminding the Colonel of his own mistake under similar circumstances); and the medal, if awarded, will be given posthumously, as Capt Walden (played by Meg Ryan) died during the rescue. That last point means that Serling can't interview Walden herself, but instead has to rely solely on the testimony of others who were there.

The parallels between Serling's situation, as he drifts further and further away from his wife and children thanks to the guilt that he's not able to deal with, and the emerging tale of just what happened to the helicopter that Capt Walden was piloting, are perhaps a shade heavy-handed in parts. Overall, though, Courage Under Fire is an engrossing study of human bravery and weakness, with very good performances by Washington and Ryan, the latter of whom is naturally only seen via flashbacks. That limitation, along with the fact that we get to know her through the sometimes-contradictory accounts of others, leaves us with an unfinished set of feelings toward Ryan's Capt Walden, which seems appropriate in such a Rashomon-like approach to her story-within-a-story.

Among the other cast members, a very young Matt Damon plays one of Walden's copter-mates, and he delivers the goods in a final scene that requires more range than we usually see out of Damon. Phillips is appropriately slimy as another member of the crew, and Moriarty seems a bit off throughout as Serling's superior officer, General Hershberg, but by the end of it you come to realize why. Scott Glenn has a small but pivotal role as a reporter who starts off as Serling's nemesis before evolving into something much more interesting.

One of the clever bits of storytelling that impressed me was the way in which the final resolution of the tank battle that opens the film is held back until late in the proceedings, but is done in such a way as to make you think that you've already seen everything there is to see (when, in fact, you should have realized that you hadn't). There's also a nifty little "reveal" about what happened with the helicopter crew that I didn't see coming at all.

I didn't know what to expect from this 12-year-old offering, but it definitely provided solid entertainment, a compelling story, some good performances, and a few moving moments.

Rating: *** 1/2

Review: Mirrors

2008-08-26T09:14:00.006-04:00

Keifer Sutherland plays Ben Carson, a New York City Detective currently on sick leave after an "incident" a year earlier that still threatens his career and his shakey marriage.

Determined to get his life back together, he takes a job as a security guard at an old burned out department store. Why would an abandoned building require security? Who knows? Only in New York!!

Before long he realizes that something is inhabiting this building which is riddled with mirrors. And not long after that, horror ensues as the mirrors, both in the building, and elsewhere (where ever reflections exist, in fact) begin attacking the people closest to him.

Of course, everyone thinks he's lost his mind completely (he is on leave after all because of mental issues associated with the "incident").

But the detective in Ben prevails as he solves the mystery that existed for decades and cost the lives of many. He figured out what the mirrors wanted (or rather, what was accessing our world through the mirrors).

In the final "battle", I started to get a little annoyed. It seemed contrived and kind of silly. However, at the VERY end of the movie we were handed a bit of a twist that I wasn't expecting. Maybe it was predictable and I just didn't pick up on it right away, but I remember saying to myself, "...that's kind of cool..."

It was indeed entertaining for those that like horror movies. And as far as I was concerned, it was far better than "The Ruins" which I had seen earlier this year.

Rating: ***

Review: Disturbia

2008-08-17T11:29:00.004-04:00

A strong start, a sag in the middle and a very suspenseful finish... that's the arc of Disturbia in a nutshell.

Shia LeBeouf plays troubled 17-year-old Kale, who a year earlier survived a personal tragedy that he's yet to come to terms with. As a result of that event, his behaviour has been on a downward spiral, culminating in his lashing out at his Spanish teacher during class. That particular misstep - not his first! - lands him in court and gets the young man sentenced to 3 months of house arrest. As such, he can't go further than his own yard without risking jail time. Cabin fever soon leads to voyeurism, and before long he's convinced, in true Rear Window fashion, that one of his neighbours is a serial killer. And there you have the setup for Disturbia, similarly in a nutshell.

Parts of the movie require a good helping of disbelief suspension - like when one person who's been acting terrified suddenly decides to pull a prank! - but the first several minutes and the last hour or so make up for the occasional goofiness in the plot. When Kale's first learning to deal with his home-incarceration, I found him pretty hard to take (as I'm sure we're supposed to). LaBeouf hits all of his standard notes, as his acting repertoire seems to consist of: smart ass comments, a heart of gold that takes awhile to reveal itself, and a willingness to risk it all in the name of love at some point (here, the objects of his affection are neighbour Ashley, played by Sarah Roemer, and his struggling mother, a still-pretty-hot Carrie Anne Moss). Prior to the extended climax, Kale's big moment comes when he confesses to Ashley that he has, indeed, been spying on her from his bedroom... but what he says about what he's seen of her shows that he's done the exact opposite of objectifying her, and in the process he wins her over (and us, too, I suppose).

Besides the places where your common sense is assaulted, there are also aspects of the story that just never seem to pay off completely. One character who had all the earmarks of being introduced to play a significant role later, for example, then simply serves to become another victim of the killer (accomplishing nothing in the process). Similarly, I expected some sort of closure on the trauma that opens the film, but nothing in the resolution of the main plot really echoes back to it. I think a defter hand on the screenplay could've tightened it up just a bit, and transformed this into a really first-rate thriller.

David Morse is appropriately creepy as the shady neighbour, although I wish I wasn't always seeing him in roles that are quite this dark! Moss is also fine as Kale's mother, given that she doesn't really have all that much to work with. Aaron Yu, as best-friend Ronnie, provides some of the funniest moments, but also a few of the least believable.

The two women with whom I watched Disturbia were literally squirming in their seats throughout the last third of the movie, and not from boredom! The tension during that portion of the story is very well done, and definitely reminds the older film fan of Hitchcock's Rear Window, while not being in that same class, overall, of course. It was definitely worth the couple of hours of my time that it took up, though.

Rating: ***

Journeyman Answers Provided

2008-08-09T09:21:00.002-04:00

For those of you who, like my wife and I, got hooked on TV's Journeyman last season, only to have it unceremoniously canceled out from under you in a Drive-like fashion, there is this. It may provide some small amount of closure for you (personally, I haven't even read the whole thing yet... but I'm sure my wife will!)

Cloverfield

2008-08-06T14:24:00.006-04:00

I finally got around to watching this movie recently. I'm happy to report that I enjoyed it. I was worried that I might not enjoy it based on the hype leading up to its release.

For those that know me, I like the idea of our protagonists being up against an enemy that you just can't beat. That's what made the Borg on Star Trek: TNG so appealing to me.

So here we have a big monster destroying New York and at the same time dumping mini monsters in the street to "share the destruction". It was kind of cool to watch.

And taking a page from "The Blair Witch Project" in the camera work made it more real for me.

The ending kind of left me wanting more, or should I say....SOME! But I guess it was done like that on purpose.

All in all, an enjoyable flick for those that like monster movies.

Rating: ***

Review: V For Vendetta

2008-08-04T23:28:00.004-04:00

Seeing The Dark Knight twice in the past two weeks made me hungry for more comic-based movie fare, and so we watched V For Vendetta on DVD this evening. I'd seen the film at the theatre when it came out in 2005 and have owned the DVD for awhile now, but hadn't gotten around to re-watching it until tonight.

As anyone who's seen my favourite comic stories of all time would know, V For Vendetta - the comic series - rates pretty high up there with me. In fact, the only work of that sort that I like better is Watchmen, which is also now in the process of being movie-ized even as we speak. Because of this, I'm probably harder on the film version of VFV than I maybe should be, but there you go. The reality is that the source material that the Wachowski brothers and James McTeigue drew on in creating V For Vendetta - the film - is among the most intricate, dense and rewarding to be found in the "four colour medium." Given that, I'd say that what they put on the screen was a reasonable, though certainly not outstanding, distillation.

The scene that devastates me, every time I read the comic or (now) watch the film, is the one where Evey emerges from captivity. I wrote about how that revelation moves me elsewhere:

"But the shocker in that story, the one that put the whole tale in a different perspective for me, happened when Evey was released from her prison and wandered upstairs to find that her captor and tormentor had been V all along. The gravitas this turn of events lent to the larger canvas of VFV was incredible, for me at least. We knew full well how much V cared for Evey, so seeing the lengths he'd go to in order to, in his words, remove her blinders, was shocking and revelatory. I can still remember the sensation of reading those pages for the first time, realizing what had happened, and having tears run down my cheeks as it sunk in and everything changed. Definitely one of the most powerful scenes in comics history that I can think of."

And for their inclusion of that scene, as well as how beautifully they pulled it off - and all that leads up to it - I have to give the film-makers full credit. That aspect of the story works, and works well. Also effective are the shots of V doing his thing, and the progression of his relationship with Evey throughout.

Where the movie version fails, it seems to me, is in its choices to deviate from the blueprint laid out by the Alan Moore/David Lloyd comic. And I don't mean that simply from a purist point-of-view, although I'm sure it must seem that way. Rather, I think that our suspension of disbelief, which Moore is a master at playing with but never betraying, gets stretched past the breaking point with some of the coincidences and pleasantries that are introduced into the silver screen script. Having Evey work at the TV studio that V uses to broadcast his message, turning the citizens of London into V-wannabes, and even the plot near the end to turn one of the insiders against the "high chancellor" are all examples of Hollywood writing stomping all over something much better than that. Moore's story is full of ambiguous greys, unanswered questions and unsolvable mysteries... which I suppose someone decided just wouldn't be palatable to a movie-going audience.

What I think V For Vendetta accomplishes, though, is perhaps this: it may cause people to seek out the graphic novel upon which it was based ("Illustrated by David Lloyd," as the credits tell us, because Moore demanded that his name be removed from the film). If that happens, then those lucky souls will find a superior masterpiece that was only hinted at by this passably entertaining flick. And that's not a terrible outcome, indeed.

Rating: ***

Review: 3:10 To Yuma

2008-07-27T14:47:00.004-04:00

This makes the 3rd review of 3:10 To Yuma to appear on this blog, which must mean something... I'm just not sure what!

I watched this Christian Bale / Russell Crowe testosterone-fest last night in splendid Blu-Ray, and found it to be quite an immersive - not to mention entertaining - experience. It's a familiar enough tale - gang of bandits terrorize region in post-Civil War Arizona, leader gets caught by law and has to be transported across country in order to stand trial, while gang members plot to free him - but sparkling performances by Bale, Crowe, Gretchen Mol, Peter Fonda and several others make it all come alive.

I always find westerns to be a little hard to take, and can count the ones I've enjoyed on the fingers of one hand. 3:10 To Yuma now joins that group, along with Unforgiven and... well, if I'm allowed to include Seven Samurai by Kurasawa (the inspiration for The Magnificent Seven, a western which I've actually never seen), then that may be about it. However, I think every movie genre has at least a few masterpieces in it that have crossover appeal for those who wouldn't normally enjoy a ______ (western / musical / romantic comedy), and Yuma seems to fit that bill here. As long as you can stomach the "ah, shucks, ma'am" dialogue, you'll find a fairly deep story here.

Bale and Crowe are both excellent, and the story is really all about them, as two sides of the same coin. Both undergo transformations over the course of the film, ending up more alike than different by the time it's all over. While that progression wasn't exactly unexpected, it was still pulled off remarkably well. The eyes of both actors carry one particular scene late in the proceedings, the significance of which is that each of the men - bitter rivals up to that point - begin to re-define themselves in terms of their relationship to the other. Bale's hapless rancher can finally earn the respect of his eldest son by doing something that no one else has been able to - bring Crowe to justice - while the other has finally met a truly good and honourable man after a lifetime of not believing in the mere possibility of finding such a thing in an era of such utter desolation and lawlessness. The ending may be corny to some, but I bought it and basked in the emotion of it all.

If anything bored me about 3:10 To Yuma, it was the formulaic setup in the middle of the film where the group of men transporting Crowe were clearly going to be picked off, one by one, in a tradition immortalized in countless horror movies over the past several decades. It's impossible to see that begin to take shape and not start guessing who'll go first, and who will be the last men standing (not much of a contest here, as it turns out). I hoped for some surprises along the way, but while the details were entertaining, the overall arc wasn't particularly unpredictable.

Still, the two lead actors were able to carry my interest throughout, and as the final credits rolled I felt that it'd been a couple of hours well spent.

Rating: *** 1/2

Review: The Dark Knight

2008-07-22T19:57:00.005-04:00

Incredibly... almost impossibly... this movie actually lives up to the hype!

In preparing to brave the crowded theatres for the already-critically-acclaimed The Dark Knight, wife Vicki and I took in our third or fourth viewing of Batman Begins over the past weekend. Christian Bale's first turn as the Caped Crusader has been one of my favourite movie-watching experiences since I first took it in three years ago, but I couldn't help but wonder: how would you ever top it? I mean, BB is the ultimate origin story, cut together perfectly by director Christopher Nolan as a series of flashbacks-within-flashbacks (almost but not quite venturing into the sort of territory that initially caught our attention within his first masterpiece, Memento). It does such a great job of making us believe that a childhood trauma, of the sort that befalls poor little rich boy Bruce Wayne could truly lead to a life of obsessive, not to mention dangerous, behaviour. And while the Scarecrow was a bit on the lightweight side as Bat-villains go, you can't beat Ra's al Ghul in terms of grandeur and scope. So with that kind of a kick-off, where could this latest Batman franchise really go, but down?

As it turns out, Nolan really was just getting started with Batman Begins (making the choice of titles all the more appropos). He took what could've been an onerous task - setting the stage for Batman to play upon, including an origin, a living, breathing Gotham City, and a stable of supporting characters, some old and some new - and turned it into an outstanding Bat-relaunch. But it's now apparent that Nolan, along with brother Jonathon and comic writer David S. Goyer, had much bigger tales to tell. And TDK is a huge movie: it takes larger risks, it plays for bigger stakes, and it asks so much of its viewing audience's intelligence and attention to detail that you'd better be able to control your bladder for a hundred and fifty minutes or you'll be left behind!

The last movie that I can remember ever holding me in its hands the way The Dark Knight did last evening was Alien, when I saw it for the first time in 1979. Back then, I went to the theatre expecting to watch a nice little science fiction film and instead got broadsided by one of the best horror flicks ever made. With The Dark Knight, I went into the experience with high - though somewhat skeptical - hopes, and had my mind blown by what I saw on the screen. I've gotten awfully used to watching comic book movies and knowing, more or less, where they're going... often because I've read most or all of the source material! But last night I was almost literally on the edge of my seat, waiting to see just what turn the story would take next. Yes, there's a bit of The Killing Joke in there, and fans of bank heist movies will recognize a cliche or two from that genre, but the vast majority of the plot came at me with the originality and wonder of earlier Nolan works, Memento and The Prestige. Almost every surprise was rewarding to me, none of which I'll spoil here for the uninitiated. As much as I loved Iron Man - and I did, and do - this latest Batman offering simply operates on a different playing field.

Somewhat paradoxically, the heart of The Dark Knight rests with the Joker. I'd heard rave reviews of Heath Ledger's grandiose performance here, but always assumed that he'd be acting in the shadow of Jack Nicholson (1989's big screen Clown Prince of Crime). About twenty minutes into the festivities, though, I came to realize that it's now the other way around. Nicholson was certainly very good as the Joker, but Ledger eclipsed him almost right out of the gate. This is an incredible, immersive acting job that may just have driven the actor insane. His body language, the unnatural rasp of his voice, his facial expressions and even the very cadence with which he speaks, all blend together to create a character that could believably push an entire city population to the edge of insanity themselves. The level of terror created in this film, obviously paralleling some of what's occurred in the U.S. since 9/11, provides the perfect antithesis to the sort of "comic book violence" that usually fills movies in the genre. Nolan touched on this theme in Batman Begins, with the fear gas that the Scarecrow and Ra's al Ghul unleashed on "the Narrows," but here it's cranked up to a terrifying new level, with the Joker acting as the maestro / social commentator / cynic of it all. There's one scene in particular, toward the end of the film, where a look of resigned disappointment spreads over Ledger's make-up encrusted face, and damned if I didn't sympathize with him ever so slightly!

Whether you go to see Heath Ledger as the Joker, Aaron (Thank You For Smoking) Eckhart as heroic District Attorney Harvey Dent, another great set of performances by Bale, Caine, Freeman and Oldman, or just for the incredible action sequences, I don't expect that disappointment will spread over your features at any point. This is an amazing movie, in an unbelievable year for comic book movies, and I can hardly wait to see it again... maybe even in the theatre!

Rating: ****

Dr Horrible's Sing-Along Blog

2008-07-12T22:46:00.004-04:00

Fans of Joss Whedon's wonderfully-warped mind - you know who you are, and yes I'm one of you - will almost certainly want to check this out. Right now it's just a trailer, but then over the course of next week 3 video installments of Dr Horrible's Sing-Along Blog will be available, before disappearing again after July 20. Looks like something worth giving a few minutes of attention to, anyway...

Review: The Incredible Hulk

2008-07-05T21:46:00.003-04:00

Marvel Studios is on quite a roll these days...

While not quite as engrossing or funny as Iron Man, The Incredible Hulk, under the direction of Louis Leterrier and starring Edward Norton (Bruce Banner/The Hulk), Liv Tyler (Betty Ross), William Hurt (General "Thunderbolt" Ross) and Tim Roth (Emil Blonsky/The Abomination), delivers the goods! It's a great mixture of what we used to get from the old Hulk TV show - a fugitive Banner, always on the run from the authorities as he roams from town to town - and what we'd expect from modern day, big-budget film-making. That last bit can be summed up in two words: Hulk smash! And there's lots of that to be found here (with nary a Hulk-dog nor super-villain Banner, Sr to be seen anywhere, thankfully!)

Liv Tyler is gorgeously emotive as Banner's love interest, although I wish they'd spent a little more time building up some credibility around her role as brilliant scientist. Roth is fine as gonzo would-be Hulkbuster Blonsky, despite being upstaged in the final act of the movie by a CGI-proxy. The two stand-out performances, for me, though, were Norton as Banner and Hurt as his army nemesis. Neither one of them has a great deal of deep material to mine - did I mention that Hulk smashes?! - but both stellar actors make the most of what they're given. True to the comic book character, "Thunderbolt" isn't really the villain of the piece: after all, he thinks that he's making the world a safer place with every action he takes! And Norton's Banner is appropriately conflicted between wanting to help at every turn and being afraid of what will happen if he gets too hungry... I mean, angry! (That's an in-joke, for those who've seen the film.)

The real jewels of the film were the many nods made to past and future moments: Lou Ferrigno's cameo, a brief appearance on-screen by the late Bill Bixby, Robert Downey, Jr's continuity-enforcing walk-on as Tony Stark, references to the Super Soldier serum (and its description of being "on ice," which all comic fans know relates to how Captain America transitions from World War II to modern day), as well as setup moments involving "Leonard" (who should eventually become "Doc" Samson) and "Doctor Samuel Sterns" (who begins the transformation into Hulk arch-villain, the Leader). I thought it would've been cool if the "Mr Blue" that Banner text messages with in the film had turned out to be Reed Richards (as happened in the comics), but I guess that would've been asking too much (and potentially crossed studio lines, as I'm not sure who produces the Fantastic Four big screen adventures right now).

It's a fun film, with no shortage of big fight scenes. I'm not sure where they'll go in a sequel, as "the U.S. army versus the Hulk" motif was already beginning to grow old even this time around. But I'm sure they'll think of something.

Rating: *** 1/2

Got Some Time To Kill?

2008-07-05T16:11:00.002-04:00

You could do worse than spend it here, watching trailers for upcoming movies!

How can I possibly watch the trailer for the remake of The Day The Earth Stood Still and think that it's going to be anything but garbage (compared to the exquisite original)? Well, I guess I can... for now!

Review: Breach

2008-06-30T23:27:00.004-04:00

Chris Cooper will probably never find another role as note-perfect as Sheriff Sam Deeds, nor a film as perfect as Lone Star. Fortunately, though, he hasn't given up trying, and he managed to come close to both of those high-water marks playing real-life FBI leak Robert Hanssen in last year's under-appreciated gem, Breach.

As we watched Breach tonight, I was reminded of Kevin Costner in No Way Out, but not in a way flattering to Mr Costner (or anyone else involved with that 1987 thriller). Both films involve a trusted agent betraying critical secrets to the Russians from within the midst of the U.S. government itself, but where No Way Out opts for thrills and chills by lining up coincidence after coincidence to keep you from thinking too much about the improbability of it all, Breach rewards its audience's intelligence by delivering deep and complex characters. It probably also helps that one was a work of fiction whereas the other was based on a high-profile case in the real world.

The story in Breach builds slowly, as we're first told one thing - along with Ryan Phillippe's character, Eric O'Neill - only to discover that there's more going on than we've been lead to believe. We expect to cheer against traitor Robert Hanssen, especially after meeting him and his surly attitude, but then we can't help but start to like him, at least a little.

All of the actors in Breach do a terrific job, but special mention has to go to Cooper and Laura Linney, who plays FBI chief Kate Burroughs. The two of them don't actually share any scenes together, which is kind of a shame considering the sparks that might've flown between their characters. Linney's Burroughs is appropriately tough as nails, but also shows just a hint of vulnerability when discussing her unsatisfying personal life and how much it would mean to her professionally to put Hanssen away. As for Cooper, his great scenes are numerous and showcase his amazing range as an actor, but none can top his "meltdown" moment when he implores his subordinate to respect him when he intones, "I... matter... plenty!"

As with other great movies like The Contender and even Lone Star itself, I suspect that some people won't find the material in Breach fast-paced enough to hold their attention-deficit-depleted interest. If that's true, then it's sadly their loss.

Rating: ****

EW Lists

2008-06-23T20:35:00.003-04:00

I like lists... a lot. So the latest issue of EW focused on "New Classics" and other amusing lists (which is transcribed without comments here, and with comments for the Movies set displayed in four sets here) I might actually have to purchase or something.

I think the TV list is highly questionable, but the Movies list is pretty decent.

Review: Juno

2008-06-21T18:58:00.005-04:00

Juno is a fun little film that, like its title character, gives as good as it gets.

Most of the people that populate the movie start off seeming more than a little caricaturized, from the smart alecky Juno (Ellen Page), through the too-tightly-wound Vanessa (Jennifer Garner) and too-cool-by-half Mark (Jason Bateman), the childless couple who react to teen-and-pregnant Juno's "generous offer" in ways that telegraph the eventual outcome. Having said that, though, the appeal of Juno (the film and the character) lies not in the plot basics but rather in the fun that's had along the way.

In a manner reminiscent of Little Miss Sunshine, the characters of Juno come together to create a world in which you end up more interested in the people themselves than in what's happening around them. That's not to say that I didn't care at all about the precarious marriage of Vanessa and Mark - it was just too obvious from the start that it was headed for disaster - or that I would have been just as satisfied if Juno hadn't found true love in the end. Not at all; but I was definitely more entertained by the dialogue and interactions. I loved watching Juno's step-mother (Allison Janney, from West Wing), who clearly cared more about her husband's child than most Hollywood evil-step-parents are ever allowed to, as she ripped into the ultrasound technician who dared to look down her nose at the pregnant teen. Similarly, Olivia Thirlby, as Juno's unflappable best friend Leah, shone in every scene she appeared in, including the one where the parents get "the news" while Leah looks on, chews bubble gum, and helps not one bit!

I was initially less convinced of the appeal that Paulie Bleeker (Michael Cera) supposedly held for Juno, seeing as he's pretty much a nebbish for most of the film. But by the end of the story, I got it: love's supposed to be blind! We don't have to see what Juno sees in him; we just have to accept that she does. His love of Orange Tic Tacs (which I happen to share), his timid nature, and the fact that he probably doesn't have a pretentious bone in his body... those are all significant contributing factors to why he's the perfect match for Juno - who never met a person she couldn't cut to ribbons with a well-placed zinger or two. Because we've watched Juno dissect and eventually discard nearly everyone she's come in contact with, it's all the more telling when she finally says, "Frig it!" and admits to herself that she might actually be in love... I mean, how corny can she get!?!

If you're looking for some laughs and a great mix of slightly off-center characters, you could do a whole lot worse than rent Juno. I'm happy to say that I went all the way with Juno... umm, I mean: I bought the Special Edition DVD, including the original script!

Rating: *** 1/2

Wanna Know More About Upcoming TV Show, Fringe?

2008-06-21T18:49:00.002-04:00

Going here might be a good place to start.

Review: Away From Her

2008-06-09T21:59:00.004-04:00

There's a recurring line early in this film, in which Julie Christie's Fiona asks her husband Grant, played by Gordon Pinsent, how long ago a certain event occurred, expecting the answer to be a year or two. When Grant patiently reminds her that it actually happened over twenty years earlier, she gives him a look that's equal measures of disappointment and resignation, and says, "That is shocking." Equally shocking, to me, is the fact that twenty-something Sarah Polley, who we watched grow up in Atom Egoyan gems like Exotica and The Sweet Hereafter, is able to both write and direct a story so intensely real about love and separation between two characters in their twilight years.

In all the ways that you'd expect, Away From Her is sometimes a hard story to watch. It's achingly sad at times, but the subject matter requires it: there's no fun way to watch someone lose their memory and fall further and further away from the people they loved... and who still love them. Pinsent and Christie are both up to the task, as they deliver some great laughs while still retaining every ounce of grace that you'd expect from actors of their calibre. Both are blessed with the sorts of faces that you could lose yourself in, and that's an important asset to a film with as many long, quiet shots as this one has under Polley's exquisite hand. The action that heartbroken Grant takes in the final act of Away From Her would seem completely improbable and "written"... unless you'd just watched all of the events that lead up to it, in which case any other outcome would be inconceivable.

There are lots of unexpected surprises to be found, like the institutionalized Winnipeg Jets play-by-play man, who can't help but provide commentary to everything going on around him. When Grant turns down the television's volume during a Leafs game at the home, such that everyone can more clearly hear their companion's monologue rather than what the CBC had to offer, you can't help but cheer along with the rest of them. And anyone who's ever had someone they loved go into a hospital for an extended stay can relate to the character of Nurse Kristy, who forms a bond with Grant that's above and beyond the call of duty, and yet oh-so-typical of what you can find among Canada's nursing profession.

The other aspect of this story that I really loved was just how complicated it made everyone in it seem. We tend to think, especially when considering "old people," that everyone else has lived these storybook lives where everything went according to script and now that they're old they're simply ready to die. Here you see many of the imperfections of their earlier deeds, just as grown up children often do with their own parents, aunts and uncles. Affairs happened, and were forgiven... or simply moved beyond. We're reminded that everyone old was once young, and acted every bit the same way young people have always behaved.

I think you should watch Away From Her, whatever age you might be today. As one of the characters says in the film, you may think that you know where your life is going to end up, but you never really do. And remembering that, while you're still young enough to get some value out of that bit of wisdom, could make all the difference.

Rating: ****

The Incredible Hulk Movie? It May Actually Be Good!

2008-06-06T21:43:00.003-04:00

I've now read two reviews of the new Hulk movie that's going to debut next weekend, both written by "genre" critics (in other words, people who know something about comics, as well as movies) and both were very, very positive. One claimed that this one's as good as Iron Man - high praise, indeed! - and the other said it was in the same class as that recent gem. With all of the news about supposed clashes between Ed Norton and the studio (no, not The Studio!), perhaps some of us have drawn unwarranted conclusions about the quality of the work itself.

All of a sudden I'm a lot more interested in going to the theatre to see The Incredible Hulk than I used to be. Maybe we'll finally get something to wash away the bad taste left by Ang Lee's crapsterpiece...

Review: Indiana Jones And The Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull

2008-06-01T22:19:00.004-04:00

Let the Lucas/Spielberg-bashing begin! Oh wait, it already has... never mind!

Here's the thing: I like each of the first 3 Indiana Jones movies to varying degrees, but even the least of them (Temple of Doom) is entertaining enough to make me want to watch it every few years or so. And the best of them (Raiders of the Lost Ark)? Also entertaining enough to make me want to watch it every few years or so. I don't think a single one of them is a great movie, any more than I think any of the six Star Wars films are all that great... they're all just great fun, and that's all I expect from them!

And so it is with Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. It's got some nice parts, including nods to the earlier films in the series and some intentionally-laugh-out-loud bits of dialogue; and it's got its fair share of scenes that don't work at all if you think about them for more than half a second. But you're not supposed to give them that much thought: this is popcorn movie-watching at its purest. Could Indy really survive a 1950s nuclear test within a lead-lined refrigerator that was shot up into the air and bounced across the ground at tremendous speed? Probably not, but in this comic book-ish sort of a movie: of course he can! And he doesn't even suffer any broken bones or contract terminal cancer in the process!

As a young adult, when I saw Return of the Jedi for the first time (that's the one with the Ewoks in it, right?), I had to finally give in and just turn my brain off during the scene where various characters zip through the forests on air-bikes at impossible speeds without hitting anything (except where the plot called for the bad guys to be taken out in that way). Those sorts of things make no sense at all, if you actually believe that they're happening, but of course they aren't (and you know it). And the same thing applies here, in the not-one, not-two, then-I-stopped-counting chase scenes that move the story along - or not! - in Indiana Jones blah blah blah Crystal Skull. It's high octane fun, and you either love it while your brain is off making up tomorrow's work schedule or you get up and leave the theatre.

Did it bother me that aliens (or trans-dimensional beings) were brought into Indy's world? Well, anyone who balks at that turn-of-events probably has a much stronger belief than I do in the mumbo jumbo that filled the first three films. For me, it's all magic and hokum, with aliens actually managing to seem slightly more likely than holy grails, mystical tablets of deadly energy and hearts that can continue to beat after being plucked from your chest. They're all right up there with guys from Krypton and thunder gods!

As for the actors, how can you not love Harrison Ford as Indiana Jones (no matter how old he is now)? He was in fine form, Karen Allen had lost some of her spunk but still seemed OK, and I was shocked to find out that I didn't hate Shia LaBeouf like I'd expected to. It's almost impossible for me to say anything bad about Cate Blanchett anytime I see her, and this was no exception. She brought a lot of malicious energy to her Comrade Bad-girl role, and I loved it!

Bottom line for me with this movie was that it probably belongs in the lower ranks of the (still-growing) Indiana Jones oeuvre, along with Temple of Doom. But really, the difference between the top and the bottom, in this case, is probably not much wider than the brim on Indy's trademark hat. And that's just fine by me. But your mileage may vary...

Rating: ***

Two and a Half Big Lost Theories

2008-05-31T11:03:00.004-04:00

The recent "writing staff crossovers" between CSI and Two and a Half Men/The Big Bang Theory got me wondering: if Chuck Lorre and Lee Aronsohn were to write an episode of Lost, would we find out that the mysterious organization on the island is actually the Dharma and Greg Initiative? Would Abrams, Lieber and Lindelof et al have Sheldon move Charlie's house to the north pole?

Any other mashups you'd like to see?

Want To Read That Comic From Lost?

2008-05-27T21:39:00.003-04:00

Some fans of Lost were so intrigued by their glimpse of Mystery Tales # 40 on the show recently that they decided to buy their own copy of it on eBay... and now are posting its interior pages, page by page (slowly). While I don't normally support or even condone scanning and posting entire comic stories online, this is a comic long out of print and not available in reprint form, as far as I know.

Sydney Pollack, 1934-2008

2008-05-26T23:31:00.004-04:00

I was going to post something different about Recount, but just read that one of its executive producers, actor, Oscar-winning director and producer Sydney Pollack, died this afternoon. He was responsible for a lot of great films, and it's sad to see him go.

Here's Roger Ebert's remembrance.

Dr. Dorian and Dr. Jones

2008-05-19T00:01:00.007-04:00

Two recent tidbits from "writer boy" (and The Border scribe) Dennis McGrath. The first is his comments on an interesting no-punches-pulled interview (excerpt: "Total harsh buzz of not giving a s--t") with Scrubs creator Bill Lawrence. The second is DMc's agonized scream upon reading Salon's two-star review of Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull... which is one of the higher ratings I've seen for the film. (Spoiler-free excerpt: "about as unfocused and meandering as the title itself".)

The latter isn't particularly surprising, but I'm still disappointed.

(Monday, 9am) OK, here's a surprise: 3.5 stars.

The Office (Season 4)

2008-05-11T21:41:00.005-04:00

In the interest of satisfying some that would have more posts here, I bring you some comments about the current season of the Office:

"We really got gipped this season." [Ed: because it was so short.]

"Toby used to be cool, but now he's just a creepy jerk."

"They should have written in Angela's pregnancy because she has super-bloaty-pregnancy-face."

"Stupid NBC for making everyone think that the Office would be on when instead it was some stupid Donnie and Marie special. ...Donnie and Marie should be dead..." [Ed: this was followed by rant about how the FCC should fine NBC for colluding with the digital guide providers to trick people into watching Donnie and Marie by falsifying listing data which indicated that the Office was on during the aforementioned "stupid special".]

These comments were lovingly crafted by my wife for local consumption. I found the living room too confining for such wisdom and shared it with you. And, I admit, I felt the need to pad my posting total.

30 Rock Season Two Ends With A Bang

2008-05-11T18:32:00.003-04:00

I almost couldn't process just how funny the season finale for 30 Rock was this week. Part of the reason for that reaction, I guess, is that generally Season Two hadn't been quite as funny - for me, anyway - as the inaugural year. At times in the second season it just felt like they were trying too hard, whereas the laughs had come free and easy when no one had had any expectations about the show a year earlier.

Although there were too many hilarious moments in the finale to list them all, I have to give special mention to the following:

Jack lifting the shade off the government office lamp to reveal a candle
Liz defending herself by saying that she's "been sexually active since I was 25"
the look on Jack's face as he listened to Liz's many voicemails about her attitude toward being pregnant
Matthew Broderick scratching out a phone number with a paperclip because his government agency can't get any pens ("We're not in a recession!"), and answering the phone by lifting it up and putting it back down again
the reveal that ex-boyfriend Dennis, the epitome of all things messed-up, is actually an Islanders fan! (it explains so much!!)
the scene where GE's new CEO pulls the toy car out of her mouth, in her office filled to overflowing with stuffed unicorns

I'm sure the fact that Tiny Fey wrote this episode had something to do with how wonderful it was.

Captain Sheridan And Other Heroes

2008-05-08T22:01:00.005-04:00

I'm not sure how well it'll all work out, but one of TV's greatest space captains - John Sheridan, from Babylon 5, known by some in this century as plain old Bruce Boxleitner - is coming to Heroes next season. TV Guide has the story here.

So what do we think about Heroes? Will Season Three be good like Season One or uneven like Season Two? Lost certainly picked up its game after the supposed "sophomore jinx," and then cranked it up even more for the current season. But can Heroes follow suit, or has that shark already been jumped?

"Quantum" Leap

2008-05-05T01:24:00.007-04:00

So apparently Amy Winehouse won't be doing the theme song for Quantum of Solace. This to me is a good thing. A friend tried to turn me on to her music before all the hype kicked in, and I just couldn't get into it. Not that the Bond themes have ever been the height of musical accomplishment....

Regardless of theme song issues and accidents filming the stunts, I have every reason to believe that the movie will be released on time this winter.

How's that, kimota94? :)

Review: Iron Man

2008-05-04T12:24:00.003-04:00

This is the Iron Man movie that most fans of the character have waited their entire life for... and never really expected to see! Director Jon Favreau, who does double duty by appearing on-screen as Harry "Happy" Hogan in several scenes, has delivered a passionate love letter to Iron Man followers everywhere, for which we all owe him a great big "thank you."

One of the best indicators of how well a superhero movie works is how it's received by viewers who know nothing about the characters before the lights go down. That's hard to measure with well-known icons like Superman, Batman, Spider-Man or even the Hulk (thanks to that 1970s TV show with Bill Bixby and Lou Ferrigno), but Iron Man? He's practically tabusa rasa for most non-comic folks. For example, my wife Vicki recalls that I bought Tales of Suspense # 39, ol' Shellhead's first appearance, more than a decade ago at The Dragon Lady in Toronto on a snowy day during which we had to walk and walk to find an Automated Banking Machine in order to get some cash for the purchase... but that was about the extent of her Tony Stark background going into the theatre last night. (Not quite true, as she pumped me for a few bits of trivia as we drove there, fearing that she'd be lost in the film. She needn't have worried!) Driving home afterward, all she could talk about was the movie and how good it was, and this morning one of her first comments to me was that she really appreciated how intelligent all of the characters were (for a change, by implication). In fact, we ended up catching a very late showing - 10:30 p.m. start - and I'm not sure I've ever seen my early-to-bed wife so awake and animated at 1:00 a.m. as she was when we got home!

For the comic book fan, the movie is a treat on so many levels. From the inclusion of all three of the early armour versions - grey, gold, and ultimately the now-standard red and gold - right through to the goosebump-inspiring final scene that rewarded those of us who stayed through the entire final credits, Favreau and the screenwriters just hit right note after right note. Iron Man's 1960s origin in the jungles of Viet Nam has been updated to modern day Afghanistan, but it still works! Professor Yinsen is still there, working at the American inventor's side, and providing the cliched-but-vital sacrifice that catalyzes Stark's transformation from hedonistic playboy into conscientious do-gooder. And if memory serves, the first mention of the word "superhero" in the movie is accompanied by Tony saying something along the lines of, "Me, a superhero? Why, that's just too fantastic an idea!" in an obvious nod to Marvel's flagship foursome.

In the casting department, Robert Downey, Jr seems like he born to play Tony Stark, both in his initial cavalier incarnation and then later, as the heroic-but-never-boring man inside the machine. He has enough range to make us like the character at the start and still believe that he'd undergo such a drastic change of heart (no pun intended, for those who know the story). I totally bought Downey as Stark, every second of the way, and that's quite an accomplishment, seeing as I own probably close to a thousand appearances of his in comic form!

I went into this one expecting a lot from the male lead, but had some doubts about what kind of job his opposite number would do. Within a few short scenes, though, all of my reservations about Gwyneth Paltrow as Virginia "Pepper" Potts were blown to smithereens. She's played smart and sexy (but never easy!) throughout, and thankfully isn't turned into the "girl hostage" as so often seems to happen in the other comic movie franchises. You can almost feel her love for Tony and the pain she endures each time he brings his latest trashy conquest home (before moving on to the next one), and the scene where she echoes an earlier confession of his about them only having each other really said it all.

Terrence Howard, as Jim Rhodes, doesn't get a lot of material to work with, but one scene in particular seemed to suggest that bigger things await him. (War Machine, anyone?) Jeff Bridges is good as Obidiah Stane, and kudos to him for shaving his head for the part! Everyone pales beside Downey, though, as he owns every scene he's in. Just owns them!

Particularly fun was the section of the film where Tony Stark works to master the use of his new armour. Some of the biggest laughs I've ever heard in a comic-based movie came during those scenes, and fortunately they each came exactly where they were supposed to! Who knew Iron Man could work as slapstick?

I personally can't wait to see what this franchise has to offer over the next several years. I'd say it's off to as good of a start as Spider-Man was after the first installment, and almost as good as the current Christopher Nolan-helmed Batman series. It's nice to see a Marvel character done so well in the first release that the company's studio was involved with... I just hope The Incredible Hulk can keep the bar from dropping too much! Iron Man is probably one of the 10 best comic movies made to date, and that's a very good sign.

Rating: ****

The WGA Strike Was The Best Thing to Happen to Canadian Television in the Last 5 Years

2008-04-27T15:29:00.010-04:00

Let's see what's on Canadian TV. Well there's Hockey and then there are American Pay TV imports. I like Hockey, but love Big Love. And Dexter, and the last season of the Sopranos and the Glen Close legal drama 'Damages', and the fact that Intelligence may turn into a Fox re-make all simply because those pesky American writers chose to stand up for their convergent media rights!

Big Love, Thursdays at 10 on Global has got me. About half the first season has been broadcast with the wonderful tale of Bill Henrickson's brood, wives and hardware coming to a great conclusion. I tell you, to see Harry Dean Stanton and Bruce Dern chew up the scenery is fantastic and I would like officially to invite Jeanne Trippelhorn and Ginnifer Goodwin to join me in a plural marriage. With God and the Prophet's blessing, Cathie and I can make it work. Honest.

Oh, while looking for Big Love jpegs, I found this:

Also like to thank God and the Prophets that 30 Rock is back.

Review: King of Kong - A Fistful of Quarters

2008-04-27T14:26:00.015-04:00

I don't play video games. Ever. If I did, I would be divorced, broke and possibly a ward of the province. I do keep up with things absentmindedly; which console is winning the 3rd gen wars and what games are fun, but my aversion to actually playing video games is purely a self defense mechanism. If I started say World or Warcraft, or Mario Kart, my muscles would atrophy and my vision blur in an addictive flurry of killing, clicking and point harvesting.

Which brings me to Billy Mitchell, Steve Weibe and the documentary King of Kong: A Fistful of Quarters. The movie portrays the many tribulations of a 2005 contest over who holds the most points in Donkey Kong. Compulsion and addiction go hand in hand and to watch the battle for Donkey Kong supremacy is personally very scary, but oh so entertaining.

Like most docs, this is best viewed as a DVD. Also like most docs, there is a strong agenda that is only explained and 'the other side' allowed to come out in the special features. There are a lot of special features - close to 90 minutes, with the history of Kong, and segments on each of multitude the truly strange , but true to life championship gamers. These characters have to be seen to be believed; it's like the best Christopher Guest ensemble piece taking a medication holiday.

Latest news on King of Kong is that it will be adapted into a feature film. Heads or tails on whether the adaptation will be a success. I remember the brilliant skateboarding documentary Dogtown and the Z boys was turned into a non-brilliant major motion picture, obscuring its source. Hope that doesn't happen to the bizarre denizens of King of Kong, so before this story is overshadowed as a Jim Carrey blockbuster, rent King of Kong. Now.

Rating: ****

Del Toro Directing The Hobbit With Peter Jackson Producing?

2008-04-24T20:52:00.003-04:00

Um... yes, please?!

Read all about it here.

Summer Glau Fans: Rejoice!

2008-04-22T20:32:00.003-04:00

Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles have been renewed for a second season!

Haven't I Seen This In A Movie?

2008-04-17T23:08:00.002-04:00

No, but really, doesn't this seem familiar? Like, maybe we've even seen multiple versions of it, in film form, from 1956, 1978, and 2007, to name but three?

I'm going to be keeping an eye on my cats for the next little while...

Iron Man Trailer To Be Expanded Into Feature Film?!

2008-04-15T22:33:00.005-04:00

Have I ever mentioned just how much I love The Onion? Well, how can I not, with contributions to popular culture like this?

If the video at that link doesn't make you laugh, you may be dead and just not know it yet...

"Film school in 3 lines or less"

2008-04-14T23:05:00.001-04:00

Love it.

14th Hour Of Lost Season Four Getting Closer To Reality

2008-04-12T14:13:00.003-04:00

Now it sounds like the fourth season finale will be a three hour affair, with the first hour airing in the middle of May, and the final two hours arriving two weeks later. It's still not official, but you can read what the rumours are right here.

There's also a very exciting trailer for the April 24th "return" episode to be found at that same link.

13 Is Such An Unlucky Number Anyway

2008-04-09T22:39:00.003-04:00

A rumour has surfaced at TV Guide's site which suggests that we just might get 14 episodes in Lost Season Four, instead of 13 (abbreviated from 16, by the WGA Strike). No firm word yet, but at least it's being considered/discussed by the show creators.

So we either have 5 more episodes in Season Four to look forward to, or possibly 6. In any event, the fun resumes just 2 weeks from tomorrow (Apr 24th)! What's not to like about that?

I Hate Heidi Montag

2008-04-07T22:20:00.005-04:00

...and not just her, either. The entirety of The Hills can ROT IN HELL as far as I'm concerned.

Pardon my out of the blue rant - apparently the hormones have caused my wife to pick up worse than normal TV viewing habits. Everyone knows that you don't argue with a pregnant woman, especially one that has her mind set on something - and Ally has somehow become hooked on The Hills.

Why must she inflict that torture on my unborn child?

I know I sometimes like to go against the grain - I've been a proud follower of some less than popular shows in the past. Like my stint hooked on the first 9 or so seasons of Survivor (i still swear that season 1 is the bar they could never hold a candle to) or my defense of Bob Saget and his role on America's Funniest Home Videos (let's not go there again, ok? but new Saget truely is awesome). I just can't take this MTV "reality" shit!

Please, God, don't let her find any reruns of Laguna Beach!

How do you give a rating to something that has taken braincells that you will never get back? Oh well, at least the cast is easy on the eyes...

NBC's Fall Schedule?

2008-04-03T19:03:00.001-04:00

Click here and all shall be revealed.

Unless I screwed up the link, of course.

Heroes Returns But Origins Is D.O.A.

2008-04-03T18:14:00.003-04:00

Big plans are underway for the third season kick-off of Heroes but those eagerly awaiting the promised Heroes: Origins mini-series may now begin crying in their beer.

Read all of the details here.

Review: No Country for Old Men

2008-03-22T23:35:00.004-04:00

If this was the best picture of 2007, then apparently it wasn't what I'd call a great year for films!

That's not to say that watching No Country for Old Men is a bad way to spend two hours - it's actually an entertaining and captivating film - just that it didn't qualify as "great" for me. I had heard a lot of comparisons between this Coen Brother offering and their earlier gem, Fargo, but I'd have to say that I wouldn't put this in the same category as 1996's North Dakota masterpiece. While Javier Bardem delivers a very affected performance here - enough so, in fact, to win over Oscar voters in the "Best Supporting Actor" race - and Tommy Lee Jones is appropriately wistful in his role as a Texas sheriff unsure of what to do in the face of an emerging drug trade in his neck of the woods, there was nothing to be found here to compare with Frances McDormand's much more endearing Marge Gunderson, or even the laughably flawed Jerry Lundegaard, as played by William H. Macy. Fargo had a lot of heart, despite the occasional gore; No Country for Old Men seems almost entirely lacking in heart.

On the other hand, the story is gripping, and there's an attention to quirky detail evident throughout that's reminiscent at times of Blue Velvet. Why is Bardem's psychopathic character behaving the way he is, as he cuts a path of mayhem through several Texas counties? Who knows, but he certainly does find interesting use after interesting use for his converted cattle-killing device. Similarly, Josh Brolin's almost-hero has a studied approach to every situation he finds himself in, except for the final one... which we sadly don't get to see!

And that's the other major complaint I have with this "Best Picture" winner. Without giving too much away, let me just say that very little closure is provided. So much setup is given to several of the key plot lines, and yet each of them ends with the dramatic equivalent of a whimper (rather than a bang). I'm sure that all of them were carefully thought out by Ethan and Joel Coen, but this particular viewer found the entire experience quite unsatisfying. I guess you could say that I was waiting for the wood chipper scene... and got nothing remotely rewarding. If nothing else, though, I'm more primed than ever to watch Fargo again!

If you like your movies stylish, and don't really care what happens to any of the characters, then No Country for Old Men will likely be just perfect for you; otherwise, you may find that the last half hour of the movie has left a sour taste in your mouth.

Rating: ***

Lost Season 4: Midseason Discussion

2008-03-21T11:03:00.004-04:00

How about a Lost mid-season discussion thread? (you might want to stop reading now if you haven't seen the latest "Meet Kevin Johnson" episode)

What I really liked about last night's episode was that it provided closure to something that had previously been left wide open. It's the only episode that I recall where the flashback/flashfoward was the majority of the episode - not much jumping back and forth (which I'm still not sure if I liked or not)

So I thought we were still waiting to hear who the last of the "Oceanic Six" were. Did anyone else watch the trailer at the end?

"All of the Oceanic Six survivors have been revealed" ... so that means Kate, Jack, Hurley, Sayid, Sun and ... Aaron? I thought Aaron didn't count since he wasn't a passenger?

And what's with this "The Island won't let you die because you still have work to do"? If it kept Michael from killing himself, is The Island also responsible for Jack not killing himself on the bridge? Locke not killing himself when he was in the pit of death? Desmond from dying when he turned the key in the hatch? Were there any other suicide attempts? Thankfully The Island allowed for Charlie to die :)

And who killed off Karl and Rousseau? Was that Ben setting them up to be ambushed so that he could get Alex back (my suspicion) or have other others infiltrated the island?

Let's discuss...

Star Wars: The Clone Wars - can't Lucas just let go?

2008-03-21T10:20:00.004-04:00

Reading through digg I came across this story about the return of Star Wars this summer.

Lucas offered a glimpse into the latest creation in his sci-fi universe at the theater-owners convention ShoWest on Thursday, showing a sequence from "Star Wars: The Clone Wars," a computer-animated movie due in theaters August 15. It will be followed by a TV series of the same name, to air on the Cartoon Network and TNT this fall.

I get it now - this movie really just a publicity teaser to get an early viewer base tied in to the TV series before it's debut.

"It's like 'Band of Brothers' in space, with Jedi," Lucas, 63, said. "You can tell lots of stories. They come up all the time."

And this quote makes me think Lucas has just gone nuts - Band of Brothers is one of the best TV series that I've ever watched - it received critical acclaim and won a handful of Emmys and other awards. Does he really think that riding out the previous success of the Star Wars franchise really puts this series/story in the same league as Band of Brothers?

Personally, I'd prefer to get my Star Wars fix with crappy youtube videos.

Indiana Jones Fun Facts

2008-03-13T10:42:00.002-04:00

Courtesy of the folks at EW, a little something to tide you over till May.

Review: Shake Hands With the Devil

2008-03-10T22:08:00.004-04:00

I bought this movie without having seen it for a few reasons. The first was that I have heard pieces of Romeo Delaire's story and heard this was a good film version of that story. The second is because I like Roy Dupis. I liked him in the made-for-cable spin off of "La Femme Nikita" titled "Nikita" - though we always called it "The Michael Show" after Dupis' character. That and the biography "Maurice Richard". I know it sounds like I'm going on and on about this guy, but he is central - essential - to this film.

This is a difficult film, but one everyone should watch. I knew I was going to write a review within the first 10 minutes and so I've been thinking about it over the course of a day. I realized that this film provoked the same sensations as Shindler's List, but somehow more personal, drawing the viewer into the story. The real life tale about a soldier doing his best with the resources he has. The general is depict has a model soldier - strong, stoic, resourceful. That is the acting genius, that I could recognize the public figure Delaire under the subtle facade projected by Dupis.

The film shows how the stunning beauty of Rwanda seizes Delaire, but the tragedy of the situation unfolds with the an informer, the death of U.N. troops, the widening massacre around them they are powerless to stop and finally to the floating bridge that breaks the general.

The film does a good job of telling the story without nationalism, pointless history or racism. There are no loud heroics, no charging into the fray - just quiet, stubborn defiance of a few and the suffering of many. The only parties that may be slighted in the telling are the diplomats - the U.S., French and of course the U.N. administration. I cannot say how accurate this tale is, but the movie aligns with my existing opinions in the matter so I tend to think it is an accurate portrayal. The general is shown with his faults and all the decisions are laid out before us.

I think everyone should watch this film. It will make you uncomfortable and it doesn't have a silver lining. But it should be watched, simply to recognize all those people that died.

Rating: ****

Review: Passion Fish

2008-03-10T11:01:00.013-04:00

Passion fish, we're told in the film of the same name, need to be squeezed tightly between your fingers while you "think about somebody you want some lovin' from." One of the two women being schooled in that particular Cajun mythology replies, "I don't need it that bad!" and hands her little fish back, but her companion, permanently paralyzed from the waist down after being on the losing end of an auto-meets-body accident, quietly squeezes hers for all she's worth. That scene, understated, poignant and perfectly framed by the events that precede - and follow - it, epitomizes John Sayles' 1992 gem.

Passion Fish is a Litmus test for anyone who watches it, like so many of the movies of John Sayles. If you're hoping for gun battles, car chases, explosions, sitcom humour or characters whose every move you can predict within the first five minutes of meeting them, then you'd best keep looking. What Sayles delivers here is the story of two women, played impressively by Mary McDonnell (of Battlestar Galactica fame) and Alfre Woodard (from St. Elsewhere and many, many other movies and TV shows) who are both at turning points in their lives. (McDonnell earned an Academy Award nomination for her role here as May-Alice Culhane, while Sayles's original screenplay also grabbed an Oscar nomination.) The two of them are thrown together by circumstance, and theirs is an unlikely alliance right from the start... and indeed, right through the final scene of Passion Fish. After all, these are real people that Sayles is showing us for 2 hours, not cardboard cutouts.

At one point, while the two women and Louisiana tour guide Rennie (David Strathairn) are gliding through the Bayou in the dark of night, Woodard's fish-out-of-water character Chantelle, born and raised in Chicago, asks, "Now are we lost?" Rennie, who knows the waters of that part of the world better than he knows his own children, simply responds with, "No matter where you at, there you is." We're not hit over the head with the applicability of this message to the passengers of his boat, but it's also not lost on us. May-Alice is having to learn how to redefine her life within the bounds of a wheelchair, and her live-in nurse Chantelle has possibly lost everything - in the form of a secret so painful that she initially can't even bring herself to talk about it - thanks to some poor decisions made in her past. Each of them provides something that the other needs, whether it be nursing care or a steady income, but the real point of the movie seems to be that it's the friendship each can maybe offer the other that's really going to make the difference... if anything can. As May-Alice confides to another woman, "I almost feel like we could be friends... only there's so much garbage between us!"

One pair of scenes stands out for the beautiful symmetry that Sayles brings to them. The women head into town so that May-Alice can visit her physiotherapist for a session. On the drive there, May-Alice spots Rennie with his wife and kids, and is temporarily distracted by her own thoughts of longing toward the man who's captured her heart (and for whom she was so vigourously squeezing her passion fish earlier). Later, on the drive back home, it's Chantelle who's lost in reverie, recalling how she'd spent the "down time" in town with a local man named Sugar who's slowly won her over. She "don't need it that bad," indeed, because, unlike her employer, Chantelle is already getting "some lovin' from" who she needs. This is a beautifully-drawn parallel as only a master like Sayles could pull off without calling attention to itself.

The musical choices for the movie are as perfect as everything else about it, providing genuine Cajun flair to the proceedings at several points. That's just one of the trademarks of a John Sayles film, as his chameleon-like ability to take on the appearance of whatever setting he shoots in is once again on display. If I didn't know any better, I'd swear this movie was made by someone from Louisiana, just like Lone Star had to come from the mind of a south Texan, Limbo from a long-time Alaskan, and so on, down through his filmography. That's part of the package that you get when you watch a John Sayles production, and it's one of the reasons I keep coming back, again and again.

If you get nothing else out of Passion Fish - and that's a highly unlikely prospect, I'd say - at least you'll learn why a certain fictional soap opera actress "didn't ask for the anal probe." That scene alone is worth the price of admission!

While not quite at the same level as Lone Star, Passion Fish is nevertheless a nearly-flawless example of engaging and endearing film-making.

Rating: ****

Review: Spider-Man 3

2008-03-09T14:21:00.005-04:00

I first reviewed Spider-Man 3 after seeing it at the theatre in May of last year. Last night, I finally got to see it on Blu-Ray in the comfort of my very own home, and I have to say, I enjoyed it even more!

There's so much to like about this movie that it still boggles my mind that some people didn't take to it at all. The effects are amazing, whether it be the sand formations that brought the Sandman to life, the creeping black goo that becomes Venom, or just the mid-air acrobatics of Spidey and Goblin, Jr in their various scenes! As I said to my wife, it's so incredibly well done that, very quickly you forget that they're special effects and just accept them as being real! Some of the scenes toward the end, with the giant version of Flint Marko towering over the crowd, or Venom being separated from his second host, were just jaw-dropping in their ability to bring concepts like that to life.

The dance scenes remain my least favourite, but that's hardly surprising for someone who hates musicals! Having said that, I actually bought the Peter-as-dancing-king moments this time around, since I knew it was coming and could therefore get past the jarring aspect of it more easily. That look on Gwen's face as she realizes that the whole night was about Peter's feelings for MJ, not her, and her reaction of going up to the stage to apologize to the other woman for her unwitting part in it, provided the sort of depth that you don't normally get out of comic book movies.

And let's face it: Spider-Man 3 is a comic book movie. Unlike Batman Begins, which is a great story that just happens to be about a bunch of comic book characters, each Spider-Man film only works if you accept the rules of that particular comic book universe. So having three supervillains, one of whom is Spidey's best friend, another of whom is his uncle's killer, and the last of whom is his workplace rival, despite taking place in a city of tens of millions of strangers, is accepted. (Just like having the main bad guy in the first movie be his best friend's dad, and in the second one a scientist who he'd just befriended, was just taken for granted.) Similarly, the notion of a character suffering a blow to his head that gives him selective amnesia, which conveniently only lasts just long enough to set up a new plotline before wearing off, would be laughable in the real world... but happens all the time in comic books (and certain TV shows).

For pure laughs of the intentional variety, it's hard to beat the moment when the crowd is imploring the hero to kiss the girl (Gwen Stacy) and there's the one young kid screaming, "Don't do it, Spidey!" followed by a look of pure revulsion when the Web-Slinger plants one on her! That's simply the way things work in the Marvel Universe, and you're just along for the ride!

Topher Grace was suitably slimy as Eddie Brock, Thomas Haden Church struck exactly the right note as Flint Marko, and of course Bryce Dallas Howard absolutely killed in her all-too-few appearances as Gwen. What you realize in the climax, though, is that the first three Spider-Man films were really about writer/director Sam Raimi's notion of the "holy trinity:" Peter, MJ and Harry. While I don't share his reverence for that dynamic, I give him full credit for embracing that approach and going for it! This trilogy, taken as a whole, tells a very compelling tale of love, friendship, perceived betrayal and eventual redemption. And anyone who doesn't buy Harry's change-of-heart toward the end of Spider-Man 3 had better not claim to be a big fan of the original Star Wars trilogy, what with mass murderer Darth Vader coming over to the light side just before dying. At least in Harry's case, he had a lot less on his conscience to be forgiven for!

And speaking of such things, I was much more moved this time around by the final exchange between Peter and Flint. Having seen Parker venture so far into the darkness, thanks to his contact with the symbiote, it was all the more telling of his strength of character when he said, "I forgive you." That was probably the single most heroic thing that he did in the entire movie!

As the credits rolled, my wife Vicki asked, "How could people not like that movie?" She took the words right out of my mouth.

Rating: *** 1/2

Review: Lady In The Water

2008-03-02T19:44:00.005-05:00

M. Night Shyamalan's Lady in the Water probably isn't the worst movie I've ever seen, but it's certainly in the running for that dubious honour. It wasn't just the laughably crappy plot, the amateurish camera work that often seemed to be out of focus or simply poorly-framed, or the pervasive feeling of "oh, look, here comes yet another colourful character who's completely unlike anyone you'd ever find on the face of the Earth" - although all of those criticisms are, if anything, too kind - but also the fact that this writer-director is responsible for one excellent movie (The Sixth Sense) and two very good ones (Unbreakable and Signs). Was Shyamalan on crack when he wrote, directed and produced this, or simply recovering from a serious head injury? What else can we conclude from the fact that, in addition to everything listed in that earlier sentence, he also cast himself in a key role... as the writer of "The Cookbook", a political novel that, we're told solemnly, will eventually change the course of human history (for the better, too! Whew! He's one fine writer, that guy!)

I get that this was supposed to be a modern fairy tale. It came with its own set of rules - fortuitously provided to lead Paul Giamatti thanks to the placement of someone within his apartment block who'd conveniently heard the tales as a child - and the patented M. Night twist-a-ramas, which in this case were that nobody was actually playing the role that they themselves thought they were. But oh my, this is a steaming pile of poo! In a better film, I might have been taken out of the story by the scene in which Giamatti swims down about thirty or forty feet into some sort of "Narf chamber" and spends several minutes underwater, exploring. Oh, but Shyamalan is so very clever and shows the man finding an upside-down shot glass with air trapped under it so that he can get a burst of oxygen - never mind that, up to that point, he seemed capable of holding his breath effortlessly for three or four minutes (try that sometime). But again, this was all just more coal to Newcastle by that point in the proceedings.

The Village, Shyamalan's previous offering, was quite a letdown from his original three features. It has to be said, though, that Lady in the Water accomplishes the near-impossible, by making The Village look like High Art by comparison! And the "everything happens for a reason" ending of Signs, which I quite enjoyed, is absolutely undercut and rendered ridiculous by this travesty, especially when the guy with the "one strong arm" comes back on-stage near the conclusion so that he could wield a pool skimmer against the evil grass-wolves (if only I were making this crap up!)

It's sad to see Bryce Dallas Howard wasted in something like this, but I guess everyone's entitled to one turkey!

Run, don't walk, away from Lady in the Water!

Rating: 1/2

Review: Knight Rider (2008 edition)

2008-02-17T21:04:00.004-05:00

Repeat after me:

"Thank you, Peter.

"Thank you for subjecting yourself to the wooden acting of Justin Bruening, Deanna Russo, Sydney Tamiia Poitier, Susan Gibney, and even Bruce Davison.

"Thank you for listening to them actually improve on David Andron's obvious, painfully-bad script, as hard as that may be to believe.

"Thank you for not turning off the television as soon as you saw David Hasselhoff's name in the guest-star credits, and for actually staying around until his mercifully-short-yet-still-too-long self-aggrandizing cameo.

"Thank you for sitting through the crapfest that was Knight Rider so that we don't have to subject ourselves to it, and if, through some horrible twist of fate, it actually goes to series, for warning us that it's not only as bad as we thought it could be... but worse."

Review: The Departed

2008-02-17T11:53:00.004-05:00

Fifteen months after seeing The Departed at the theatre with daughter Tammy, I watched it a second time, thanks to the magic of DVDs. I'd say that I enjoyed it slightly more on the return trip, although overall my reaction was about the same. Here are my thoughts from November 2006 before I add to them:

"I'm not a big Martin Scorcese fan, as I've had mixed results with his movies. Among his films that I've enjoyed are Taxi Driver, King of Comedy and The Last Temptation of Christ; but on the negative side of the ledger are Raging Bull, Casino, and The Aviator. And since I generally don't like gangster movies, I've never even tried Goodfellas. So I'd say I'm somewhere in the middle on Scorcese, in general.

I'd heard that The Departed was essentially a remake of another film I hadn't seen, Infernal Affairs. But the film it reminded me of was No Way Out. Both stories involve the search for a mole within an organization, although there are actually two moles in The Departed. In each film, the key element of suspense revolves around the question of whether the traitor will be found, and if so, how? In No Way Out, leading man Kevin Costner is put in charge of the search, and a series of coincidences and poor decisions by him make it apparent that he may in fact implicate himself as the mole, although the actual identity of his quarry isn't revealed until the end of the film (and I'm not about to spoil it here).

In The Departed, we know from the get-go that Matt Damon is a crooked cop on the payroll of big-time badguy Jack Nicholson, while state trooper Leonardo DiCaprio is sent into Nicholson's organization early on to infiltrate it on behalf of the staties. Once again, though, the coincidences start to show up as they had in the other film. For example, both men fall for the same woman, despite the fact that the two moles don't know each other. The plot also asks us to believe that she'd be attracted to two such different personalities, out of all the men she meets in the course of her day. They learn of each other's existence around the same time, but of course don't know who is who. They each use cellphones to check in with their real employers, and yet manage to shield that fact at every turn, even to the point of DiCaprio text messaging the cops while sitting the back set of Nicholson's car while it speeds to their destination. Similarly, Damon sends off a warning text message from the midst of a big gathering of cops in a crowded room just as they're about to catch Nicholson red-handed in a criminal act. In other words, lots of symmetry around the two leads, which frankly stretched my credibility a little bit.

But overall it was a very compelling story, and moved along at an impressive clip. Tammy pointed out the movie was almost 3 hours long (a little more than 2.5 hrs, actually, at 152 mins according to IMDB) but it certainly didn't seem to drag at any point. Most of the acting was first-rate, even DiCaprio who I normally don't like. I thought Damon basically just re-cycled the same smart-ass character he put on the screen in Good Will Hunting, but that may just be me (I didn't like that character then; and I didn't like him here). Nicholson was fun to watch, as he almost always is.

The final several minutes were a bit much, with too many dramatic events happening machine gun-like, one after another. The audience we saw it with laughed out loud at one scene that was clearly not supposed to be funny (people died). I think that was just a reaction to the over-the-top nature of the final act. It didn't seem to be of the same high quality as the rest of the story.

I expect any Scorsese fan will love The Departed. Others will likely enjoy the suspense and top-notch acting, may be put off a bit by some of the violence, and will find the ending a bit of a let-down. But I doubt they'll be bored!"

The coincidences actually bothered me a bit more this time around, as so many of the events seems to rely on the symmetry between the two young lead roles and there's really no plot-supported reason for it. The reveal at the end, of a second mole within the police force, also seems to come out of left field.

So why did I enjoy it more than the first time I saw it? Well, I could appreciate the acting more now that I wasn't having to work so hard to follow the twists and turns of The Departed. Martin Sheen and Alec Baldwin, in particular, really shine in their supporting roles. It really is an ensemble piece, and every one of them stepped up and delivered solid performances.

Rating: *** 1/2

War Is Over (If You Want It Or Not)

2008-02-15T21:56:00.005-05:00

It's looking more and more like the High Definition DVD Format War may be all-but-over. I've certainly been pulling for Blu-Ray ever since buying my PS/3 over a year ago, but in that time I've only invested in about 4 movies in the new format, for fear of being stuck with a Betamax library in a VHS world. A few recent, high profile business decisions that have favoured Blu-Ray just may have pushed the debate past the tipping point and knocked HD-DVD down for the count. If things continue in this direction then the prospects of me buying Blu-Ray movies and favourite TV shows in the future will go up substantially.

Indiana Jones IV Trailer

2008-02-14T21:23:00.003-05:00

The wait ain't gonna be easy, either!

SMG to appear at Buffy Reunion

2008-02-13T12:50:00.005-05:00

After years of refusing to be involved in any Buffy-related events (both during and after the show), Sarah Michelle Gellar has agreed to attend the reunion event at the Paley Festival (what I hear is TV's version of Cannes) in March. This news left me with mixed emotions. Happy that she's agreed, and sad that I'm not going! Hopefully someone puts the video on youtube!

Confirmed attendance:
- Amber Benson (Tara)
- Nicholas Brendon (Xander)
- Emma Caulfield (Anya)
- Charisma Carpenter (Cordelia)
- Eliza Dushku (Faith)
- Sarah Michelle Gellar (Buffy)
- Seth Green (Oz)
- James Marsters (Spike)
- Michelle Trachtenberg (Dawn)
- Joss Whedon

Yet to RSVP: Willow, Giles, Angel.

The Host (2006)

2008-02-12T18:03:00.000-05:00

The Host surprised me. About fifteen minutes in, I was beginning to write the film off : the characters seemed buffoonish, stereotypical, and a bit like they'd wandered out of a sit-com. Perhaps this was considered side splitting to some, but my patience was starting to wear thin. If I was supposed to relate to this hulking idiot and his subservient father as they worked their snack bar alongside the Han River, it was becoming increasingly clear that I wouldn't. Enter the idiot's perfect little daughter (of course she's perfect!) and I let out a sigh of loss--my loss of time having watched the film this far, loss at the money I'd spent to see it.

Then as the idiot takes some cooked shrimp to a customer sitting on the lawn near the river (because the idiot had eaten one of the customer's previous shrimp legs, and the father had to make it up to the customer, this lesson passing the idiot son by), someone sees something hanging off a nearby bridge.

Then things go very, very horribly wrong. And suddenly all that pretence of goofiness that went before was revealed as the misdirection that it was. I sat up straighter on the couch. Here we go, I smiled.

Like Cloverfield, The Host is a monster movie that focuses on how this would affect 'normal' people, instead of the usual approach of barking generals and worried scientists. As the dysfunctional family (the idiot, the father, another alcoholic son and a slightly self destructive daughter)try to regain what they've lost, the film kept surprising me with unexpected moments of heartbreaking sadness. Of scenes where the simplest mistake can carry such horrendous consequences. And of how in any disaster, the moments of true heroism are the ones no one sees.

Even now, three days on, certain scenes keep replaying in my head. I can now see why this film made so many top ten lists, both in North America and abroad. I just pray that no one tries to remake it for American audiences...or did J.J. Abrams already do that?

*****(5 out of 5)

What's The Post-Strike TV Landscape Going To Look Like?

2008-02-11T21:29:00.001-05:00

It's all conjecture at this point, but it still makes for interesting reading!

Review: 49 Up

2008-02-10T16:21:00.001-05:00

It's almost as much about you as it is about them, when you come right down to it.

I've previously raved about 35 Up and 42 Up, the (respectively) fifth and sixth installments in the incomparable Up Series from director Michael Apted. The magic continued in 2006, with the release of 49 Up. In fact, there's probably no other film franchise that has delivered so consistently on its promise to entertain and delight its viewers. I've yet to hear of anyone who's given this amazing documentary series a look without coming away suitably impressed, and so I continue to recommend it every chance I get.

This time around, the Up subjects are staring down the barrel of the big 5-0, and there's a noticeable mellowing to be seen in their attitudes. Several of them are now grandparents, and couldn't be prouder. Some of the marriages from seven years earlier have ended, while others are stronger than ever. One of the men who refused to participate in 42 Up - John, he of the snooty upper class sneer and disdain for the entire proceedings - has returned, once again with the explanation of wanting to draw attention to his favourite charity of choice. All of the other regulars are still in the game, although former "chain-smoking neurotic turned salt of the Earth mom" Suzy vowed on-camera to make this her last appearance. Here's hoping that she changes her mind by 2013!

One of the many emotional scenes comes when wiser-and-more-confident Sue (not to be confused with Suzy) takes film-maker Apted to task for what she perceives to have been an inappropriate question that the director asked her while making 21 Up. At that time, as viewers of that installment will recall, the somewhat plain faced young lady was asked if she'd yet had enough sexual experience to warrant getting married. Presumably that question, and the embarrassment that it caused her both in the moment and ever since, thanks to the film series, was something that she finally got up the nerve to call him on. And to Apted's credit, that exchange made it into the final cut of 49 Up.

The crossover event this time around involved Simon and Paul being re-united (with supportive wives in tow), approximately four decades after they'd both been situated in a charity home together, as recorded in the original 7 Up broadcast. Seeing just how far each of the two men had come from their humble and limiting beginnings, both in terms of finding happiness and some small amount of material wealth, provides one of several emotional payoffs this time around.

Along the same lines, I almost wanted to cheer out loud at the news that physicist nice guy Nick, whose wife had refused to participate after being cast in what she considered a negative light - I'm ungenerous enough to feel that she just didn't like what she saw of her own unvarnished flaws, there on the big screen - was now free of her! Better still, he'd moved on to a much sweeter woman whose biggest worry seemed to be that she'd unintentionally cause Nick to change his ways in his earnest attempts to make her happy! From all appearances, this seemed to be a clear case of him marrying up, made all the more ironic by the fact that apparently Wife # 1 had dumped him!

As always happens when watching one of these updates, it's impossible not to think about your own life, and how you'd come across if someone were interviewing you every seven years along the way. How does your lot compare to Neil's, Bruce's or Jackie's? What's changed in the past seven years that would shock, thrill or sadden someone who'd last checked in on you that long ago? And was your current personality really all that apparent in the seven year old version of you, as seems to be the case with each of the individuals in the Up Series? These are the sorts of questions that few films are ever going to make you consider!

The DVD for 49 Up includes a fascinating interview of Apted by none other than film critic extraordinaire, Roger Ebert. (This must have taken place not long at all before Ebert's first surgery for his ongoing health problems.) Hearing the two men discuss not only the metatextual significance of the series but also the individual subjects and how much they've all come to mean to both of the grey-haired gentlemen was very touching, to say the least. A notion that occurred to me while watching 49 Up - that the entire franchise will make an incredible historical document for generations to come - was touched on by Ebert, and it was fun to watch the director's reaction to a suggestion that his work might hold a relevance long beyond his own natural lifespan.

I hope that all of the necessary stars align such that, five years from now, fans the world over can thrill to the release of 56 Up. Even if that doesn't happen, though, the seven existing chapters in this series have already achieved the status of high art and are true "Must See TV" for students and casual observers of the Human Condition everywhere.

Rating: ****

Tentative Deal In The WGA Strike

2008-02-09T09:39:00.000-05:00

Read all about it here.

Rabble Rousing From Whedon

2008-02-07T18:42:00.000-05:00

I very much enjoyed this diatribe by Joss Whedon over at the United Hollywood blog. He argues passionately for the striking WGA members to hold fast to their anger toward the studios, right up until that moment - if it ever comes - at which an agreement is reached. As you'd expect from the creator of Buffy, Angel and Firefly, it's all written extremely well, but this is my favourite part:

"And the studios? Well, the Oscars provide advertising revenue and a boost for the films that win. But the studios have shown impressive resolve in ignoring short-term losses in order to destroy us. I don't hear any knees knocking in the Ivory Towers over that night of programming. Hey, I wish I did. I wish, like a lot of people, I could hear anything from in there besides that weird clicking sound Predator makes."

That last bit... made me laugh out loud!

Worst Movies of 2007

2008-02-03T19:54:00.000-05:00

(according to me... my apologies for the very short write-ups. at this point, if i don't do it like this, i won't do it at all.)

1. Spider-Man 3

Unfocused, contrived, a disgrace to the wonderful films that came before it.

2. Elizabeth: The Golden Age

Poor knowledge of history, over-acted, passionately awful.

3. Pirates 3: At World's End

I am one of the few that actually liked the second Pirates film. I found it driven and slightly captivating. This film resolves little, makes no sense, and is generally a waste of time.

4. Ocean's 13

Just sort of blah.

5. Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix

Perhaps my favorite book of the series, yet definitely the worst movie (so far). None of the excitement, edge-of-seat action, or epicness or the book translates.

Some things worth mentioning:
- Although in principle I don't object to the concept of sequels or reduxes, all of these films are just that.
- #3-5 I saw while on my voyages through Europe. While they were certainly a welcome respite from the heat, and a piece of home - they all sucked.
- Best lists (1-4 of 2006, and 1-10 of 2007) on the way... hopefully.
- Today I saw a film that resonated personally more than anything has since Lost in Translation. I look forward to writing about it.

Ebert's Top 10 of 2007

2008-02-03T19:22:00.000-05:00

1. Juno
2. No Country for Old Men
3. Before the Devil Knows You're Dead
4. Atonement
5. The Kite Runner
6. Away from Her
7. Across the Universe
8. La Vie en Rose
9. The Great Debaters
10. Into the Wild

I've seen: #1,2,4,10. No particular interest in the rest, but I'm sure they're good if he says so.
As for my own list, I still have to finish 2006!

Once Again: Is The WGA Strike Nearly Over?

2008-02-03T18:04:00.000-05:00

Things have looked promising on this front before, only to come to naught, but maybe this time will be different. There's a good summary over at the United Hollywood blog. Bottom line: several major media outlets are reporting that the two sides are close to making a deal, with a resolution expected as early as later in the week.

I'm keeping my fingers crossed... after all, I want a full 16 episodes of Lost this year, not just the 8 that have been written and shot so far!

Review: Sicko

2008-02-03T11:57:00.000-05:00

There's a good reason why most people tend to either love Michael Moore's films, or absolutely hate them. And it's not because he's overweight, smug in his beliefs, or from Flint, Michigan (although he is all of those things).

Well, OK, maybe the smugness has a little to do with it! But mostly it's the fact that he's willing to both stand behind what he believes and shame the Hell out of anyone who's on the other side of the argument!

In case anyone is wondering, I'm definitely in the "love his movies" camp, although I can't help but acknowledge many of the flaws that keep him from qualifying as a true documentarian. His anecdotal approach to film-making, for example, always leaves him open to criticisms of selectivism, which I think are very valid. His over-the-top storytelling style, while every bit as entertaining as a dozen clowns crammed into a Volkswagen Beetle, often undercuts the seriousness of his subject matter. And his condescending narration probably doesn't help, either.

But had his Fahrenheit 9/11 film had the intended effect and cost George W. Bush his re-election bid in 2004, Moore would have transcended the level of "dispassionate documentary maker" and actually affected history (sadly, it wasn't to be). Now, with Sicko, he's trying once again, but this time on a more personal front: he's championing the fight for universal health care within the United States of America. And as such, he's set his sights squarely on the ironically-named Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs) who've successfully shifted American medicine's focus away from saving lives and onto saving money.

Along the way, there are a lot of great scenes in Sicko, although the subject matter tends to weight it more toward the heart-wrenching than the comedic. I suppose some might find a dark humour in the contrast between the American man who had to choose which of his two fingers to have re-attached (one was going to cost $12,000 and the other $60,000, and the poor guy had to... sorry... foot the bill himself) and his Canadian counterpart who had all five fingers saved after they'd been severed (total bill: $0, courtesy of OHIP). Me, I could only think how sad it is that those types of scenarios are playing out on a regular basis in the country just a few hundred kilometres to the south of us.

And Sicko is full of tableaux of that sort, including a young girl who died because she couldn't be treated at the hospital that she was initially taken to (the HMO insisted that she go to a facility under their control, by which point she'd gone into a coma), a young man who needed a bone marrow transplant to save his life but couldn't get his insurer to approve the operation even after his younger brother was found to be a perfect match, and the senior citizen couple who had to move into their daughter's basement storage room after losing their life savings to medical bills. The film is a litany of tales that citizens in "every other Western country" can't help but regard as something akin to a horror movie. Moore visits Canada, England, France and even Cuba, and of course he casts those health care systems in a little too unrealistically-perfect a light... but one has to remember just what he's comparing them to!

One of the more pointed segments of the movie deals with the American doctors who go to work for HMOs and whose bonuses are then tied to how many health insurance claims they help deny! That raises the question: Is there still a Hippocratic oath, or are they all just hypocritical oafs? Moore actually missed an opportunity to really drive that point home when he interviewed a British doctor who described how his salary structure rewarded efforts like early detection and preventive medicine. There was a chance to show how both of those systems ultimately save money for the insurer; it's just that the English one does it while also serving the best interests of the patient, whereas the American HMO model focuses purely on profit and loss. I wish that the film-maker had drawn that parallel a little more clearly, as it's a powerful (and positive) message that shoots to Hell the notion that you have to choose between either saving money or saving lives.

Sicko is a must-see movie, as far as I'm concerned... but as I said earlier, I'm a bit biased. If nothing else, it certainly paints a picture of just how screwed up the American health system is, and should help those of us who live elsewhere appreciate just how well off we really are, at least in comparison!

Rating: *** 1/2

Review: Syriana

2008-01-27T12:04:00.000-05:00

When John Locke finished watching that first Dharma Orientation film in the second season of Lost, his immediate reaction was both emphatic and understandable: "We're gonna need to watch that again!" I suspect that many of the people who've ventured into the complex and dense world of Syriana may have come away with that same feeling. (I know that my wife and I both remarked on it!)

At its heart, Syriana is about the oil business. As such, the film focuses on a Middle Eastern region that's embroiled in a big, controversial oil deal, an American business analyst (Matt Damon) who becomes tangled up in the ambitions of one of the region's princes, a past-his-prime CIA operative (George Clooney) tasked with assassinating that same prince in order to further an American agenda for the area, a high powered law firm associate (Jeffrey Wright) who's supposed to investigate the aforementioned deal and uncover just the right amount of dirt to appease the Department of Justice's concerns about any malfeasance surrounding it, and a Pakastani father and son who lose their migrant jobs as a result of the transaction. And to be honest, that's really only skimming the surface in terms of the many intertwined plot threads to be found within the two hours of entertainment that Syriana provides.

Like Babel a year or two after it, this ensemble piece thrusts the viewer right into the thick of things with little or nothing in the way of a guidebook. You are, quite literally, expected to figure it out as you go along. And I don't mind that sort of approach at all, as long as it pays off in the end. In my opinion, Syriana does just that. The pieces do all come together, although certainly there's a desire at the end to watch it all over again, in order to make sense of many of the earlier scenes.

With all of the balls that the story has to keep in the air simultaneously, it still manages to deliver some memorable - and powerful - lines. When Wright's lawyer character brings his first hint of a bribe to a government official, the other's reaction is to launch into a diatribe against the naivete of the lawyer's outlook:

"We have laws against it precisely so we can get away with it! Corruption is our protection! Corruption keeps us safe and warm! Corruption is why you and I are prancing around in here instead of fighting over scraps of meat out in the streets! Corruption is why we win!"

Thousands of miles away, Damon has lost one of his two young sons due to an electrical malfunction within a swimming pool owned and operated by the family of Prince Nasir (played by Alexander Siddig, familiar to fans of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine as Dr Bashir) and as a result his firm has been awarded a seventy five million dollar real estate deal by the Prince. Faced with that news, Damon responds in deadpan fashion with, "Great! That's great! How much for my other kid?"

An eerie scene later in the film shows Damon's marriage beginning to disintegrate, as his wife (Amanda Peet) continues to grieve for their lost child while the analyst seems to have moved on. The surviving son plays in a fountain - echoing the watery death of his older sibling - while his parents argue on a nearby park bench. During that scene, there's a second child shown to be playing with the son, but he's only seen from one perspective and not the other. Perhaps it was a simple case of coincidental casting, but it very much looked to me like the other boy was the dead son, and that only Damon could see him (not the wife). One possible interpretation of this scene, of course, is that Damon's character is still mourning the loss in his own way, despite what his wife thinks. Or maybe it was nothing at all.

The tale of the young Pakastani (Mazhar Munir), whose employment, along with that of his father, was cut short by the impending oil acquisition, is probably the most moving in the film. He's easy prey for a Muslim terrorist cell, who first appeal to him on religious grounds before filling his head with thoughts of martydom. The script thankfully casts him in a positive light throughout, bucking against the current trend to paint such characters as ignorant, hateful or alien. And really, as Syriana clearly shows, he ends up in the only other booming business in the region besides oil, and the link between the two is pretty conclusively drawn. The videos made by the martyrs-to-be are particularly chilling and serve very well to remind us that these are simply young men who've been lead astray by forces every bit as compelling and destructive as drugs and crime are in our environment.

A powerful case is made, throughout the film, for why American interests may talk about wanting democracy and cultural advancement in the Middle East, but their actions speak louder than words. After all, it's much easier to suck the resources out of a mostly-ignorant region than it ever would be to do so if that region had invested in building up its infrastructure and educating its people.

All of the acting in Syriana is first-rate, and with a budget as small as I suspect that it was for this movie, that's an impressive feat. William Hurt provides a couple of outstanding cameos, and Chris Cooper threatens to steal every scene that he's in (as usual). He kills with the line, "I'd be real careful. You dig a six foot hole, and you'll find three bodies. But you dig twelve, and maybe you'll find forty." Who can hear that terrific pronouncement and not be reminded of Sherrif Sam Deeds, in Lone Star? Not me, that's for sure!

Syriana is a great movie that rewards you for paying attention, and for figuring out what another film might've spoon fed to you instead. I tried to think of some aspect of the production that didn't work for me, but came up empty. It's just strong from start to finish.

Rating: ****

Quantum Of Solace? I Didn't See That Coming!

2008-01-25T22:40:00.000-05:00

The name for "Bond 22" has been announced: Quantum of Solace. I had to go look up "quantum" to even figure out what it meant (a quantum is "the smallest physically realizable unit of something") and I'm guessing that I won't be alone in that ignorance. Since "Bond 21" (aka Casino Royale) concluded with 007 seeking vengeance for what happened to Vesper Lynd, it sounds like he'll find only what the title suggests. As such, I suppose that's not too bad of a name for a Bond film.

Review: Cloverfield

2008-01-24T21:48:00.000-05:00

If The Blair Witch Project had sex with War of the Worlds (2005), the product of that unholy alliance might just be named Cloverfield.

When I first caught "Cloverfield fever" back in July of last year, I had it pretty bad. That initial trailer, with the "We'll Miss You, Rob" partygoers segueing into increasingly disturbing scenes of hysteria, and punctuated by the sequence where the head from the Statue of Liberty bounces off a building and then comes bounding toward the viewer... yeah, OK, it really grabbed me! I loved the intimacy of the scenes that were shown, mainly because they seemed to draw you right into the action with every bit of the disorientation that you feel while in the midst of an actual crisis. That seemed like a pretty powerful device to use in providing a thrill ride of the type that I usually like in the big disaster flicks.

Well, tonight I got to sit in that ride for almost ninety minutes, and I've decided that a little of that goes a long way! I'm not sure just what more the entirety of the movie added to my experience from the trailer six months ago. Sure, I got to see more scenes of people running around, a few reasonably clear views of the monster(s) and enough herky-jerky camera work to last me - and I'm not kidding here! - for the rest of my life! But it didn't really add up to all that much more than the trailer itself, in terms of explaining what's going on, why it happened now, whether it's an isolated event or part of something bigger, or even what form the resolution to the story takes!

That last point is really the crux of Cloverfield, and as such, you'll either love it or hate it. As with Blair Witch, the storytelling device is a handheld video camera that provides the movie viewer's only access to what's happening throughout. At times, that's effective (as the trailer conveyed) but for much of the film it was more frustrating than entertaining. Whether it was the crappy perspectives on the scenes that you really wanted to see, or the tendency to throw you out of the moment every time that a character-in-danger nevertheless had the presence of mind to point the handheld in the right direction, I found the central conceit of the "camera POV" increasingly in the way of my ability to enjoy the experience. Twice in the movie, characters are killed who we're supposed to care about, and yet the only way that I knew they were dead was through subsequent lines of dialogue... which kind of weakens the dramatic impact, if you know what I mean!

Having gotten that off my chest, though, there are definitely some exciting moments in Cloverfield. The first appearance of the... smaller threats... is done very well, although the punch that it might've delivered is watered down just a bit by some news footage shown on a TV screen shortly before that. There's a perilous journey from one high-rise to another - made possible by the fact that one of the buildings has tipped over onto its neighbour! - and it's reasonably effective, but once again I couldn't help but think of how much better it would've been if we hadn't been tied to that one stupid camcorder! I had to laugh out loud when two of the main characters survived a helicopter crash with nothing more than cuts and bruises (the chopper itself was a twisted, smoking wreck!) but some of the amazing shots from inside the vehicle just moments before that probably made up for it!

Overall, I'm glad that I saw Cloverfield in the theatre, because you really do get the full impact of the intimate cinematography that way. I think that War of the Worlds (2005) probably did a better job of showcasing the "man on the street" perspective within the framework of an "Oh my God this can't really be happening" set of events, with its iconic images like the sinking of the ferry, the flaming train and the last ditch assault by the military, but on the other hand it's pretty tough to top the Statue of Liberty's head lying amidst a pile of midtown rubble! I think the nausea-inducing camera work will turn many off, but if you can handle that without losing your dinner, Cloverfield represents a mildly entertaining hour and a half ride.

Rating: ** 1/2

Heath Ledger Dead!

2008-01-22T22:04:00.001-05:00

Very sad and shocking news today that The Dark Knight's very own Joker, Heath Ledger, was found dead in his home today. I'm sure that all of the details will come out over time, but at 28, it can't be considered anything but a life cut prematurely short.

JLA Movie MIA

2008-01-17T20:20:00.000-05:00

In case anyone other than me cares: the Justice League of America film that George Miller was set to direct has been put on-hold pending the WGA strike. If I had any high hopes around this project, I'd probably be disappointed to hear this. But seeing as I expect it to be a train wreck, this may actually count as an "act of mercy." And no, I don't really know who George Miller is, and can't even be bothered to look up his filmography (though I suspect I'd be underwhelmed if I did).

Those truly desperate to read all about this development can do so here.

Review: Terminator - The Sarah Connor Chronicles

2008-01-13T21:13:00.001-05:00

Tonight saw the premiere of the - OK, I'll say it! - "highly anticipated" new TV series that spins out from the events of the first 2 Terminator movies. Nowhere to be seen are the Governator or Linda "the former Mrs James Cameron" Hamilton in the roles of the cyborg from the future and the titular Sarah Connor, having been replaced by a no-namer and Lena Headey, respectively. That's no surprise to anyone who knew anything about this series coming in, but it probably still bears mentioning, given the popularity of the movie series.

In fact, that legacy from the movies is one of the stranger aspects of tonight's series premiere. At several points, I wondered what sense a viewer could make of the proceedings if they'd never seen a Terminator movie before. As we all know, time travel is the cause of headaches for many, and while the premise of the Terminator film franchise is standard fare for science fiction fans the world over, what about someone raised on reality TV and sitcoms? Would they simply give up in frustration or stick with it in the hope that all would be made clear eventually? A little more backstory might not have been a bad thing for the first episode, beyond what squeaked out in a few lines of dialogue. In general, the beats of the 2nd movie are simply repeated here more or less, at least for the first two-thirds of the episode.

In addition to those gripes, I was mildly bothered by the way in which Sarah and John Connor were repeatedly tracked down as they moved around from location to location, with little in the way of explanation given. One of the many outstanding aspects of Terminator 2: Judgment Day was the way in which the plot moved along very tightly, with no leaps of faith or contrived events needed. Every getaway in that movie was clean, and then something would happen to explain how the pesky T-1000 would catch up with them once again. I hope that what we saw tonight isn't indicative that the series will play fast and loose with such things, as it'll surely get very tired, very quickly.

Putting those complaints aside, I liked what I saw. Summer Glau is an interesting choice in the "good Terminator" role, and it's great to see her again after the ill-fated Firefly series (and Serenity movie). I fear that we're going to end up with human-Terminator romance between Connor and the shapely cyborg, but I'll reserve judgment for now. The writers still need to work harder to make us believe that she's super-strong, which should be all the more shocking if and when it happens, considering her slight frame and doe-like eyes!

The rather significant twist near the end of this episode was quite impressive, and unexpected by me. Most of the episode takes place in 1999, two short years after the events of Terminator 2: Judgment Day, but then the three main characters jump forward in time to 2007! Besides moving the action to current day - and thereby sparing people like me from spending the episode looking for anachronisms in the 1999 scenes - this development opens up all kinds of possibilities. By skipping ahead 8 years, the character of John Connor can stay a teenager while pushing the "rise of the machines" date into our future, which of course is important to the current set of viewers (we already know that Skynet didn't come online in the past, for example). It's unclear whether the show will deal with it or not, but the leap into the future also provides some potential for paradoxes, as we can assume that "future history" has been changed by that action. Lots of food for thought there!

Fortunately, if the pilot is any indication, the worst aspect of the second Terminator movie has been avoided, as this version of teenage John Connor is fairly easy to take. Similarly, his mother Sarah is still desperate, driven and full of piss and vinegar, but not all-out mental like her earlier incarnation had tended to be. I had wondered, when I first heard about this series, just how that level of intensity could ever be sustained in a weekly TV drama, and it looks like they're dealing with that problem by dialing it down just a bit. I consider that a wise choice, personally.

While I wouldn't call the premiere of Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles a rousing success, it entertained me thoroughly for an hour, and put more effort into it than, say, Bionic Woman, ever did. I expect to stick with this series for the foreseeable future, or until Fox cancels it and then refuses to air the last several episodes...

Rating: ***

Review: 3:10 To Yuma

2008-01-13T13:06:00.000-05:00

I have a certain taste when it comes to Westerns. Give me Deadwood over Silverado, for example. I don't want to see Roy Rogers singing to Trigger--I want to see tired cowboys trying to be good men, but still eyeing the whore at the end of the bar, knowing it's a hundred miles of dirt road until the next town. I don't want bullets to simply cause a gash in an arm--I want to see guts blowing out the back, septic infection, and the fear that hits a man when he's been gutshot. That's my Western.

3:10 to Yuma is almost my kind of Western.

At it's heart, 3:10 is about honor--the honor of a man towards his family, and the honor that can exist among men. And yes, that sounds trite, but it's a fundamental component in the narrative structure of most good Westerns.

In the film, Russell Crowe plays a murderous bank robber called Ben Wade--a rock star of his time. Everyone knows of him, most kids want to be him, and he's very comfortable in his role as villain. Because of his own weakness (strength?), he ends up being captured, and has to be transported for trial. Signing on to accompany Wade is Christian Bale's Dan Evans, a Civil War veteran who is watching his family drown beneath debt as his attempts at farming fail and fail again. With a paycheque of $200 coming his way if Wade makes the titular 3:10 train to Yuma, Evans is doing what he feels best for his family. Unfortunately, Wade's gang--a bloodthirsty pack of amoral monsters bound only by their loyalty to Wade--will do anything to rescue him.

The highpoint of this film are easily Crowe and Bale. Crowe is superb as the dark hearted villain with depth (he quotes from Proverbs, and has no use for people who don't read)while Bale shows a determined exhaustion to do what's right. Some of the scenes hint at political statements regarding the present day (in one scene, Wade is tortured with electricity, which is denounced as 'immoral'). But this doesn't overpower the film, leaving the morality tale to unfold as it should.

Yet there's an oddness to the film. First, hardly anyone swears. Secondly, director James Mangold veers away from showing too much gore, even though the film does have some very violent scenes. It felt a bit contrived at times. Even with an R rating, it doesn't feel like it deserves it. As well, I wondered at one character taking a gutshot, having the bullet removed (one of the film's rare gross out scenes), and be up and riding the next day. No, I really don't think so.

The action scenes are well filmed (a rarity these days in the flashcut editing of the Bourne films and anything by Michael Bay), and the sound is very satisfying--the gunshots have a nice solidity to them. The soundtrack is perhaps a little too cliched, but still evokes the necessary loneliness.

Overall, 3:10 to Yuma is a very good film, and should be on the shelves of any well thinking Western film fan. We have to support films like these if we want this genre to continue, and not just settle itself with Silverado II.

Rating: ****

Why They Write

2008-01-07T23:42:00.000-05:00

Why We Write is a series of essays by prominent - and not so prominent - TV and Film writers which hopes to inspire and inform all writers during the strike, and perhaps beyond. So far most are by the "prominent" side of the equation (like Damon Lindelof and Bill Lawrence) but there are a couple of less-well-known contributors around as well. (via WIL WHEATON dot NET: In Exile)

And speaking of writers... perhaps I'll post later about CBC's The Border, which premiered tonight. I mention the show because at least one of its writers has a blog: Denis McGrath's Dead Things ON Sticks is a site I visit from time to time, and he's always got interesting things to say about the job, the product and the industry.

WGA Starting To Win The War Of Attrition?

2008-01-05T19:05:00.001-05:00

First there was David Letterman's Worldwide Pants making a side agreement with the Writers Guild of America that allowed Dave's production company to work with WGA writers on a couple of late night TV shows. Now Deadline Hollywood is reporting that something similar is about to be announced with United Artists. In both cases, what's happening is that the group in question is essentially giving the WGA exactly what the Guild had asked for in the last bargaining agreement, which the AMPTP rejected out of hand at that time. In other words, splinter cells within the AMPTP are starting to break formation and accept the terms that the WGA's been asking for all along. At some point, you have to ask: "Why did the WGA even need to go out on strike?" It's looking more and more like they were asking for very reasonable concessions all along and this has just been about 'principle' with the harsher representatives of the AMPTP.