Movie Review: Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides

In the 4th installment of the action/adventure series, “Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides”, Captain Jack Sparrow (Johnny Depp) is reunited with an old lover: a feisty pirate named Angelica (Penelope Cruz). He catches her impersonating him in order to build a crew and mount an expedition in search of the Fountain of Youth. After being taken prisoner by her father, the evil pirate Captain Blackbeard, Jack is forced to guide the pirates to the location of the Fountain. Unbeknownst to them, there is a rival group, led by Captain Barbossa (Geoffrey Rush), who are looking to capture Blackbeard and bring him to justice. Along the way there are adventures involving zombies, mermaids, and the Spanish army, who are also looking for the Fountain.

The original “Pirates of the Caribbean” was one of the great entertainments of the last decade! A pirate movie in which the pirates had to return a treasure (because it was cursed), instead of taking it, was a refreshing twist on the pirate movie genre, which had walked the plank a few years earlier with the box office disaster “Cutthroat Island.” In addition, there were also great actors like Depp & Rush willing to lend their respectable acting crafts to a big-budget Disney movie produced by mega Hollywood producer Jerry Bruckheimer (“Crimson Tide”, Armageddon”, & “Black Hawk Down”), which gave the movie an even classier edge (despite being inspired by a Disneyland theme park ride.) After the astonishing success of “Pirates”, it was inevitable that there would be sequels. The sequels, while not as good as the original, still had their moments and now we get the 4th movie, which is, admittedly, the weakest entry in the series. Having said that, in its own harmless B movie way, I kind of enjoyed it.

A significant reason why I enjoyed it was Depp’s performance as Jack Sparrow, arguably one of the most popular movie characters of the last 8 years (so good he received an Oscar nomination for the 1st one.) Sparrow is the kind of hero with far more personality & humor than most modern action movie heroes, and Depp still seems to enjoy playing him. Also fun is Geoffrey Rush, who continues to enjoy himself as he chews the scenery with real affection as Barbossa. There are also some new characters this time. Cruz brings plenty of fetch & fight to her role (she was also pregnant when she shot her scenes), and it’s interesting to see Depp & Cruz as lovers again (the last time was in 2001’s electrifying drama “Blow.”) Also very good is Ian McShane as Blackbeard. He brings a truly menacing presence to the legendary pirate, but one of this movies great failings is that it doesn’t make much use of him. After he is established early on, he is saddled as another supporting character and consequently keeps the movie light on a having a good antagonistic force.

This brings me to my biggest problem with the movie: there doesn't seem to be any real stakes for finding the Fountain of Youth. Sure, everyone has their motives, but none of them really creates enough momentum to keep the story engaging. Instead, I found myself entertained mostly by individual scenes involving the characters, rather than being too caught up in the plot. There is plenty of action to be sure; some well choreographed sword fights, precipitous leaps off cliffs, and an opening chase involving horses, carriages, and a funny cameo by Keith Richards, who utters one of the movies best lines ("does this face look like its been to the Fountain of Youth"?) My absolute favorite action sequence, though, involves a suspenseful attempt to capture a mermaid. This turns into a sexy, but scary, sequence in which a group of pirates are ambushed by mermaids who make Ursella in "The Little Mermaid" look like Daryll Hannah in "Splash." It’s the only action sequence in the movie where there appears to be any real threat to the characters, which is another reason why it works so well.

Director Rob Marshall ("Chicago") fills in for Gore Verbinski, who directed the first three “Pirates” films, and he does a competent job. The movie looks very good, mostly because he chose to shoot much of it on real locations in Hawaii & Puerto Rico. He doesn’t quite have the knack for strong imaginative visuals that Verbinski has (see “Rango” for a more recent example of Verbinski’s brilliance), but he fills in nicely and keeps the tone light & fun. It is also a nice touch that he chose to shoot the movie in 3D, rather than post-convert it later. The 3D is is good, mostly because it’s noticeable, unlike most of the post-converted cash-ins we’ve seen post “Avatar.” There is a cool spatial depth between the foregrounds & backgrounds (vines in the jungle literally seem to hang right in front of your face) and there are even a few “sword-in-the-eye” moments (but the movie wisely doesn’t overuse them.) The drawback to the 3D is that the darker scenes are harder to make out because of the tinted 3D glasses. This is a repeating problem with 3D glasses and the most common complaint I've heard from fellow moviegoers & critics.

Overall, despite its many flaws, I enjoyed the new “Pirates." However, one of the more unforgivable flaws involves a love story between one of Blackbeard’s pirates & a mermaid. Every time this subplot reared it’s misshapen head the movie dragged to a complete stop. The entire time I kept asking: why would these two fall in love? They have absolutely no conversations of any depth beyond “are you all right?” I guess the man just wanted to get it on with a mermaid. Maybe my problem was with the actor who played the young pirate; he plays a fairly bland character while surrounded by far more colorful pirates who would've eaten this man for breakfast had this been the real thing! However, despite all of that, I had a good enough time, once again, in the company of Jack Sparrow & Barbossa, as well as most of the new cast of characters. Also, a special shout-out to composer Hans Zimmer who, once again, elevates all of the visuals with his amazing musical themes, old & new (his Blackbeard theme, in particular, stands out as my favorite of his new ones. Sample it on Itunes.)

Movie Theater Experience:

I saw “Pirates” at the midnight sneak preview on Thursday, May 19th. It was a lot of fun! My friends Matt & Tonny came dressed as pirates and they looked very cool. Overall, despite the projectionist starting the wrong movie (the mighty THOR almost intervened), it was a good experience. However, Marcus Theaters have just implemented a new policy in which all future midnight sneak previews must be reserved seating. Meaning, if you want to see the movie while sitting next to your friends, you’d better all buy your tickets at the same time! I am still not sure how I feel about reserved seating in movie theaters; on the one hand, it is nice to know you can show up whenever you want and still be assured a good seat. On the other hand, what if your reserved seat ends up right in front of the obnoxious person who feels the need to vocally share their every observation of the movie with everyone around them? All I can say is then the theater best be handing out blow-dart guns tipped with a sleeping agent.

Have you seen "Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides" yet? If so, what did you think?

Movie Review: Bridesmaids

In the comedy, “Bridesmaids”, Kristin Wiig stars as Annie, a person so down on her luck that her own mother mistakes her of hitting rock bottom long before she finally does. She has just lost her baking business, is about to be kicked out of her apartment by her bizarre sibling roommates, and the man she is seeing (played wonderfully by Jon Hamm as a woman’s worst nightmare) is not interested in pursuing anything more with her than the occasional bedroom visit. On top of all of that, her best friend (played by Maya Rudolph) has just gotten engaged and wants to make Annie her maid of honor in the wedding. Unfortunately, Annie finds herself incredibly jealous of Maya’s other friend, a beautiful and rich party planner named Helen (played by Rose Byrne, who has a lot of fun being slimy), who seems to be making a move toward Annie’s maid of honor duties. Also, the movie wouldn’t be called “Bridesmaids” if there were not three other women who also get caught up in the raunchy shenanigans, which involves everything from awkward sexual positions, drinking, and a very messy run-in with food poisoning.

Now, I know what a lot of you guy readers are thinking: “this sounds like a chick flick! No way am I going to see that!” I understand that thinking but, I completely disagree with it. What separates “Bridesmaids” from most romantic comedies is the talent involved, on-screen and off. The movie is produced by Judd Apatow (director of the “40 Year Old Virgin” & “Knocked Up”), whose distinct brand of raunchy humor, awkward situational comedy, and heart, is stamped all over this movie. Also, it's directed by Paul Feig who, prior to this, had directed some television (“Arrested Development”, “The Office”, ect), but his real claim to fame was co-creator of the cult favorite “Freaks & Geeks.” Feig, and Wiig as co-writer, are not afraid to let an uncomfortable situation play itself out into shocking hilarity. Yet, they also understand when to pull back on the mischief and focus on making the character real.

“Bridesmaids” also boasts an impressive cast of leading ladies, all of whom go above and beyond, especially when it comes to the hilarious no-holds-barred comedy. I have been a fan of Wiig’s for a long time (her wacky brand of humor on “SNL” has always made me laugh) and, despite only playing bit parts & supporting roles in other comedies (my favorite being her bit part in “Knocked Up”), this movie positions her as a terrific leading actress. She is funny, charismatic, and also able to be quite vulnerable in the more dramatic scenes. Also hilarious is Melissa McCarthy who steals every scene that she’s in by playing one of the bridesmaids as a tough talking woman whose antics left my jaw on the floor! “SNL’s” Maya Rudolph is also charming & funny as the bride, as is Chris O’ Dowd who plays a nice police officer who becomes interested in Wiig’s character.

Overall, “Bridesmaids” has a lot of great laughs! It is not merely some “Bride Wars”/”Hangover” clone. Instead, it strives for a lot more than the usual mindless humor by focusing on its characters and making them all feel like believable people. It is also not really a love story about romantic relationships. At its heart, “Bridesmaids” is a touching story about how true friendship can stand the test of time between people who, as they grow & embark down different paths, can still maintain that special bond that they always had. It is also genuinely hilarious, well cast, and quite endearing. Despite being only 2 hours, my only complaint is that the movie does begin to feel quite long. This might have to do with the fact that certain gags tend to go on for quite awhile (although, far more of these gags hit than miss.) However, I still really enjoyed “Bridesmaids” and I cannot wait to see Kristin Wiig in her next leading role!

Movie Theater Experience

I saw "Bridesmaids" with my awesome Mom at the Marcus Oakdale theater. I've said this before, and I'll say it again: this is my favorite movie theater, hands down! The popcorn is always good, the staff is courteous, the theaters are clean, and the film projection always looks and sounds great. My Mom & I went to the 4:45pm show on Sunday and I was reminded why I love seeing comedies with a packed theater audience. When everyone is laughing, it can be truly infectious. 

Movie Review: Thor

In the Marvel comic based action/adventure, “Thor”, there is a world that exists beyond Earth’s “realm.” This world is called Asgard, and it is ruled by King Odin (Anthony Hopkins) who, along with his sons Thor (Chris Hemsworth) & Loki (Tom Hiddelston), maintain their world as a peaceful kingdom. That is, until an unprovoked attack from an old enemy propels the arrogant and mighty Thor foolishly into a battle that sends Asgard to war. For his reckless behavior, his father strips him of his powers and banishes him to Earth to learn about controlling his anger. On Earth, he meets a cute scientist (Natalie Portman) and her team as they try and retrieve Thor’s weapon (a hammer containing the source of all of his powers) before sinister forces threaten to destroy both Asgard & Earth.

I realize that if you are not familiar with the Thor comic book (created by Spider-man creator Stan Lee) this movie might look kind of, oh lets just say, cheesy as all getup! The image of a Viking warrior swinging around a hammer while Anthony Hopkins chews the scenery in his gold-plated armor made me unsure what to expect (I was also not familiar with the comic book.) Having said that, “Thor’ is a LOT of fun! Sure, it has its cornball moments (hearing Oscar winner Anthony Hopkins warn about the dreaded “freeze giants”, the sworn enemies of Asgard, is quite comical) but what really makes the movie sizzle is director Kenneth Branagh’s (known for his Shakespearean epics & for playing Gildaroy Lockheart in “Harry Potter”) ability to find just the right tone in mixing action & spectacle with a surprising amount of heart and humor.

There are a lot of genuinely funny moments in this movie, particularly Thor’s fish-out-water behavior when he gets to Earth. He finds himself truly surprised as, being a mighty warrior like himself, he is taken down by an Earth-bound taser. In addition to the humor, there is a love story between Thor and Portman’s characters in which Thor slowly begins to understand the nature of human compassion but, don’t fret! There is still plenty of room for him to smash his enemies with his hammer all the while flashing a devil-may-care grin as he prepares to battle hordes of bad guys (wait till you see him take out a giant death-ray firing robot!)  And ladies, & gentlemen too, wait until you get a look at Chris Hemsworth when the armor comes off! Even a hereto-sexual male like myself had to admire (and reconsider that Lifetime Fitness gym membership.)

Branagh is also given some nice assists from a good cast. The aforementioned Hemsworth as Thor does a great job portraying what could’ve been a very silly character. One can only boast, "I am the mighty Thor!" with a straight face for so long, but Hemsworth manages to bring a real warmth and humor to the role (in addition to making him truly badass in the action sequences.) He is a hero that most men will want to be & most women will just want! Also, Tom Heddelston does an excellent job as the villainous Loki. He portrays a man whose jealousy of his brother inspires a scheme to rid Thor from Asgard so that he may take his place as the King. His deceptive nature doesn’t stop there, either! Throughout the movie, I was never quite sure what he was up to; this is a testament to Heddelson's ability to bring both subtlety and grandeur to the role. In addition, Portman, Kat Dennings, Stellen Skarsgard, Idis Ebra, and Clark Gregg all bring something to the table as well. 

Overall, I had a great time at "Thor"! It has everything I love in a good popcorn movie: action, spectacle, humor, and, most importantly, heart. When all of the hammers and swords have been swung (and the “freeze giants” and robots have been fought), “Thor” is a story about a young man who refuses to let his reckless temper be his downfall. Only when he discovers the value of compassion and wisdom, through love and honor, is he then able to unlock his true potential as a leader, and successor to his father’s throne. Unlike a lot of big action adventures, in which sparks ignite during the action, but not the human interaction, the dramatic sparks in this movie are allowed to fly between lovers, brothers, and a father and his sons. "Thor" is a lighthearted action/adventure that should please kids of all ages. Finally, it is no secret that Marvel Studios is planning an "Avengers" movie for next summer which will team up Iron Man, Captain America, the Hulk, and Thor (among others.) After seeing "Thor", I cannot wait to see how Marvel pulls that off! If you are also anticipating the upcoming “Avengers” movie, be sure to stay through the end credits!

Movie Review: Fast 5

“I think what keeps it going is that it’s not really about cars. At the core, Fast and the Furious is about family and how to create them.” – Justin Lin, director of “Fast 5.”

The fifth installment of the “Fast and the Furious” saga, “Fast 5”, opens with stars Vin Diesel and Paul Walker as fugitives on the run from federal agents (led by a shiny biceped super cop played by Dwayne Johnson.) Together, Diesel & Walker lead an elite team of street racers (which includes series returnees Tyrese Gibson, Sung Kang, Ludacris, and the very sexy Gal Gadot & Jordana Brewster) as they prepare for “one last job”: a high-stakes heist in Brazil that involves stealing a vault, literally, out of a fortified police station. If they can accomplish this seemingly impossible mission, they can use the money in the vault to buy their freedom (and completely stick it to a corrupt business man who set them up in a train-car heist that, literally, goes south earlier in the film.) That is, if they are not first captured by Johnson, who mounts an all out assault through the slums of Rio De Janeiro to apprehend all of them. He even gets to utter that direst of commands “…NEVER let them near cars!”

Now, I know what some of you are thinking: "why do we need a 'Fast and the Furious 5'?! Did they not say all that needed to be said in the first 'Fast and the Furious'? How about '2 Fast to 2 Furious'? 'Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift'? How about plain ol' 'Fast and Furious' (not a reboot, but the 4th chapter!) What is the appeal of this series, anyway?” I highly doubt it is the family dynamics Linn mentions in the above quote (can you see any of these guys choosing a family station wagon over an American muscle car? Don't think so.) For some, it might be to see if all of the blatant bromancing will lead to more than just that (judging by the way Diesel & Johnson are looking at each other in the above pic, you could cut the sexual tension with a spork!) All kidding aside, maybe much of the appeal can be attributed to one thing: eye- candy. This is a series that sells eye-candy better than most commercials sell it. When a ticket is purchased for “Fast 5”, here is what is guaranteed: cool guys, sexy babes, badass attitude, and enough absurdly cool stunts to make me want to get in my little Chevy Impala and “Tokyo Drift” out of the movie theater parking lot. Although, a disclaimer in the end credits prevented me from realizing this fantasy: "the following stunts were performed by professional stunt drivers. Please, do not try this at home." OKAY, ya talked me out of it!

The franchise seems to be making a fast dash away from the street racing and car culture that has come to characterize the franchise up to this point. Instead, they seem to be heading in the direction of the heist genre (think "Oceans 11"). Why change a franchise that has currently grossed almost a $1 billion worldwide? Maybe the previously successful “Furious” outings were just too limited in their box office reach and Universal Pictures felt like they needed to expand the franchise into something more. Whatever is made of it later (a "Fast 6" is already being planned) the heist aspects worked for me. Where most series are winding down at the 5th entry (tiresomely repeating the same shtick over and over again) the "Fast" series gets points for at least trying to mix in some new genre blood (although, there is no shortage of car action!) It also helps to have a pretty good returning cast: Vin Diesel's chisled biceps and charisma continue to command the screen, Tryrese Gibson brings some much needed comic relief, and Kang, Brewster, Gadot, & the sexy Elsa Pataky (as one of Johnson's cops) are all serviceable; meaning they deliver exactly what is required of them. Though a special kudos to Dwayne Johnson, who fully embraces his cheesy character by playing it completely straight, yet also permitting himself a goofy smile every once in awhile; he seems to be genuinely having fun! And those oiled biceps of his, I mentioned earlier, never appear un-glistened! I was surprised he never tried to blind anyone with them while in one of his many fights scenes (his muscles should really be credited separately; let's put it this way, his biceps are so big they have their own gift shop!) 

Overall, I really enjoyed "Fast 5"! It's big, loud, & dumb fun that goes really good with a large soda and popcorn (the more butter, the better!) Director Linn deserves an especially big bucket of win with his truly audacious flair for action (especially the final car chase which manages to top, in sheer mass destruction, the chase in Michael Bay's "Bad Boys 2") and it is always refreshing to see real cars being employed in stunts (as opposed to obvious CGI.) Also, if you ever wondered what a fight scene between Diesel & Johnson would look like, then look no further; Linn stages a brutal Clash between these Titans which left me exhausted by the end of it (and also wanting to work out!) Yes, the plot is total nonsense, the dialogue is simplistic & cheesy, and the action sequences make the expression, "over-the-top", sound subtle. Yet, "Face 5" kept me entertained for 2 hours with a big silly grin on my face throughout. Side note: if you are at all a fan of this series, stay through the end credits!

Blu Ray Review: The Cable Guy

The macabre dark comedy, “The Cable Guy”, stars Jim Carrey as a wacky cable TV installer who, one day, meets Steven Kovacs (played by Matthew Broderick) on a “routine installation.” Steven thinks that by offering him $50, the cable guy will in turn give him all of the movie channels for free (“even the dirty ones!”) Of course, the cable guy (who calls himself Chip Douglas) is happy to oblige, and even does it free of charge. What Steven doesn’t realize is that he has just entered a pact with a desperate, lonely, and twisted (did I mention pathologically unstable?) man who very carefully insinuates himself into every aspect of Steven's life. He is a complete nightmare of a friend: he leaves dozens of phone messages (daily), shows up randomly when Steven is out with other friends, and even buys him elaborate gifts ("...a big screen TV, deluxe Karaoke machine, and THX quality sound that would make George Lucas cream in his pants!", Chip proudly declares.) Eventually, Chips sinister motives become clearer as Steven realizes that Chip is a man who will stop at absolutely nothing to a have friend.  Thus begins the incredibly dark and funny rollercoaster ride infamously known...as “The Cable Guy.”

For some context, I want to pause for a minute and allow you, the reader, to accompany me back in time to the year 1996. This was the year that Al Gore was doing the Macarena, Alanis Morissette had the #1 album in the country, and “E.R.”, “Seinfeld”, and “Friends” were the top shows on TV. Also, of course, the biggest box office star on the planet (indeed the universe) was funnyman Jim Carrey. Carrey previously had starred in an impressive succession of blockbusters with “Ace Ventura: Pet Detective”, “The Mask”, “Dumb and Dumber”, “Batman Forever”, and “Ace Ventura: When Nature Calls.” Because of his proven track record, Carrey became the first actor to be paid $20 million when he signed on to star in Ben Stiller’s “The Cable Guy.” Yes, I said, BEN STILLER. Yes, THE Ben Still from “There’s Something About Mary”, “Zoolander”, and “Tropic Thunder.” Many of you may not know that Stiller directed “The Cable Guy” (also produced and co-written by Judd Apatow who would later direct the “40 Year Old Virgin” and “Knocked Up”), but he did. Anyway, the film was released in the summer of 1996 and was the subject of a lot of hype and publicity (mostly surrounding Carrey’s record making salary which set a precedent in Hollywood's deal structuring with future stars.) It was a summer that also touted blockbusters like “Twister”, “Mission Impossible”, and “Independence Day.” Carrey even hosted Saturday Night Live for the first time in his career, and to highly rated success. Yes, “The Cable Guy” was being positioned as the motion picture comedy event of the summer.  Why, just look at this trailer:

Some of you are probably thinking, “It looks pretty wacky; like a Jim Carrey movie usually does.” Yes, the Columbia Pictures marketing team did their best to sell this movie as another slapstick comedy (in the vein of Carrey’s other hits.) However, “The Cable Guy” was not really in the vein of those films at all, instead adopting a much darker tone (with Carrey playing less a loveable goofball and more a creepy stalker); instead, it was something much more unique. It was a dark satirical attack on how watching too much television could lead to violent anti-social behavior. Yes, the above trailer does not suggest even a HINT of that message, but it is pretty clear by the end of the movie. Carrey’s Chip Douglas is revealed to have been a person for whom the TV was always a babysitter. We see him as a child asking his mother when he will get a brother to play with. She responds (while dousing her hair with hairspray), “That is why Mommy is going to Happy Hour!” Not being adjusted to a normal family life (or even socializing with other kids) leads Chip down a dark path of social alienation, so troubling that…his real name isn’t even Chip Douglas!  He makes up names for himself (based, no doubt, on the TV programs he consumed as a child) whenever he meets a potential new friend.

The new friend that he wants so desperately to possess is Steven, a man whose girlfriend has just dumped him and who also finds himself watching a lot of TV. At first, Steven can sense that Chip is a little odd (on their first “Date”, he takes him to see how the giant cable satellite works.) Over the course of their several adventures (including jousting at a Medieval Times themed restaurant and having a karaoke party where Chip covers “Somebody to Love”, by Jefferson Airplane) Steven realizes that Chip is far too clingy and may be causing more trouble than he is worth (especially in the scene where he finds out that the woman at the party that Chip sets him up with…was a prostitute. “You think a girl like that would hang out with us if we weren’t paying?” Chip asks matter of factly.) Chip desperately tries anything to keep from losing Steven, even violently assaulting another man interested in dating Steven’s ex-girlfriend (played by a hilariously smarmy Owen Wilson.) Eventually, Steven tells Chip “I just don’t have any room in my life for a new friend.”  Steven parts ways, leaving Chip alone in the middle of the pouring rain (rain always being a visual metaphor for somber feelings in the movies.)

Soon, Steven’s life is turned completely upside down as Chip orchestrates a series of schemes that successfully get Steven fired from his job, thrown in jail, and even made to look like a complete jackass in front of everyone who cares about him most (including his best friend played by Jack Black, in a very straight role.) Finally, Steven must confront Chip once and for all (in an action climax comically inspired by “Goldeneye”) if he is ever going to get his life back to what it once was. One of the most interesting aspects of “The Cable Guy” is that the plot could be something out of any number of obsessed-stalker thrillers which were very popular in the 90’s ("Cape Fear", “The Hand That Rocks the Cradle”, “Single White Female”, “Unlawful Entry”, ect.) Yet, this film is still able to successfully incorporate dark comedy, and some darker thematic elements, into it's thriller plot. The whole film seems as if Carrey, Stiller, and Apatow were intentionally, and courageously, trying to go against everything we, as the audience, had come to expect in a Jim Carrey movie (at that time.) Carrey brilliantly plays a character that couldn't be more different than any he had played before (Even Ace Ventura would find Chip Douglas to be an obnoxious pest.) Carrey’s performance paints a sad portrait of a man so lonely and consumed by television media that he is almost pathologically incapable of grasping what is considered acceptable human behavior. That he does this while also keeping the character funny, albeit darkly, is a testament to his brilliance as an actor. This performance would later pave the way for his best performances: Truman Burbank, Andy Kaufman, and his character in “Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind.”

It’s really unfortunate that the initial reception of this movie was so bad. Maybe it was the expectations most people had for what they expected from a Jim Carrey movie; maybe some thought it was just too soon to make the biggest star on the planet play such a deeply troubled & unpleasant character (is this what they pay stars $20 million to do, some asked?) It was a minor box office success (but still coming no where near the numbers of Carrey’s previous hits) but was met with mostly negative critical reviews (Roger Ebert called it one of the years 10 worst movies! Although his partner, Gene Siskel did like it.) I’ve always concluded that “The Cable Guy” was a vastly underrated film; a film with a great cast (in addition to Broderick, Black, and Wilson, there is also Leslie Mann, Eric Roberts, Janeane Garofalo, and even Still himself) accompanied by a wildly courageous performance from Jim Carrey and a strong offbeat visual style in Stiller’s wonderful direction. Yes, It’s dark; its thematic undercurrent, satirizing the evils of watching too much TV, is troubling. But it is also a sharp, edgy, manically funny, & wickedly subversive comedy whose satirical targets also include the media's seemingly never-ending coverage of celebrity scandals, popular TV shows & movies, and finally, the wisdom of turning off the TV once in awhile, and reading something. 

Blu Ray Details:

"The Cable Guy" looks and sounds terrific on Blu-Ray! Yes, there's going to be a little graininess (it was made in 1996!), but it is not distracting. There are some very interesting special features including:

-Deleted Scenes

-HBO First Look

-Gag Reel

-Rehearsal Footage

-A Jerry Cantrell Music Video

But the best special feature is an audio commentary recorded by Judd Apatow, Ben Stiller, & Jim Carrey. These three guys need to do more commentary's because they are equally hilarious and informative. Not only do they talk about the movie, but they also talk quite openly about the notorious backlash that came afterwards. Needless to say, they remain proud of their work. This is an excellent commentary and worth the price of the Blu Ray, especially if you are a fan of this movie!

Movie Review: Scre4m

The fourth installment of the horror francise,“Scream” (spelled Scre4m), picks up 10 years after the events of “Scream 3” (spelled 3cream?). Survivor Sydney Prescott (played by Neve Campbell) returns to her small town of Woodsboro only to find herself wrapped up in yet another bloody massacre, orchestrated again by a demented man (or woman?), wearing a black robe and a ghost face mask, who likes to call their victims and taunt them with movie trivia questions (preferably of the horror movie kind) before dissecting them quicker than they can dissect the horror genre itself. David Arquette & Courtney Cox also reprise their roles as Dewey (now the town sheriff) and Gale Weathers, former hard nosed journalist turned wife of Sheriff Dewey. There is also a whole new assortment of characters, fresh for the filleting, and a new generation of horror movie rules that most be followed in order to survive.

There is a word being thrown around a lot these days in the movie blogger world; it’s called “meta.” This is not exactly a new word but it’s used to describe any kind of movie that is so self-aware of its very being that it seems to transcend the idea of simply being a movie itself, and becomes more of a commentary on the idea of being a movie. Well, “Scream 4” takes this definition to its logical conclusion by being a movie that is SO self-aware that at times it feels more like a parody of itself, rather than a horror movie. Every step of the way, characters (including the killer) make numerous references to horror movies (even the idea of reboots and sequels that go on far too long) that it is very difficult to really give this movie much of a review because it has already premeditated the criticisms.  It already knows that it is a sequel merely cashing in on the success of the previous films (11 years later); it already knows that when characters say, “I’ll be right back” in a horror movie, they won’t be right back. And that is the problem with “Scream 4”: It is so savvy about the rules of the game that there never really is a game. It’s just one long running commentary about…itself.

The original “Scream” was something of a rarity in 1996. Before that, horror movies seemed to have run their course. They had recycled just about every clichéd scare while also repeating them in an endless string of sequels. Horror movies began playing in emptier & emptier theaters (Freddy & Jason were “dead” and Michael Myers would soon be) until “Scream” came along and proved that there was still some fresh blood left in the genre. Unlike a lot of what came before, this one had a fresh take: what if the characters had all seen every horror movie and were aware, not only of all of the clichés, but also how to use this knowledge to outwit a killer who was patterning himself on horror movie conventions.  What could be more “meta” than a horror movie about a cast of characters who know they are in a horror movie?  Also, what could be more unsettling than a horror movie that dared to ask the question, "can movies be blamed for violence in our society?" But the difference between the original "Scream and "Scre4m" is that it actually took itself (and that question) seriously enough to work as a scary horror movie. "Scre4m", most of the time, takes itself as seriously as a Mad magazine parody of itself which all but kills any semblance of horror. 

To be fair, a lot of the dialogue is very clever (more than most horror movies even) as characters dissect the conventions (or the ‘rules’) of horror movies and apply them to their current situation (being the latest victims of a deranged psychopathic murderer who is patterning themselves after a killer from the previous movies.) There are discussions here that comment on torture porn, “Asian ghost horror”, remakes, reboots, and even the “found footage” genre that has inspired recent films like “Cloverfield” & Paranormal Activity.” The movie does away with the slickness and gritty realism of recent horror movie reboots (notably “Halloween”, “Friday the 13^th, & “Nightmare on Elm Street”, which this movie also comments on) in favor of a jokier and more self-referential tone. At times this works great (particularly in the opening scenes which, while not scary, are quite funny!) Also, it is fun to have the original cast back; Neve Campbell & Courtney Cox seem to be the only ones acting as if they are in a horror movie (while David Arquette comes off having less fun as the bumbling sheriff; Maybe his recent separation with Cox had affected his mood. Although, his "Axel F." cell phone ringtone is a nice touch.) Other notable standouts include Rory Culkin (as a cinema geek who knows the new horror movie rules) and Hayden Penettiere as a fellow cinema fan, but far to gutsy to just be a geek.  

Yet, for all of its wit, "Scre4m" is completely devoid of anything scary. The movie seems far more interested in commenting on itself than it does providing anything closely resembling the frightening opening sequence in the original “Scream”. In that, Drew Barrymore played a teen that gets a frightening phone call asking that immortal question, “What’s your favorite scary movie?” before she is brutally attacked for getting the question wrong about who the killer was in the original “Friday the 13th.” In "Scre4m", there is never really any suspense because the characters never seem to act like they are in any real danger; they aren’t in a horror movie so much as in a horror movie ABOUT horror movies. They constantly comment on it as if they were providing their own running commentary of the movie. But maybe this is the movies point: have we, the horror movie audience, become so familiar with this genre that we have also become numb to its tricks? That “Scream 4” works so tirelessly to stay ahead of an audience so savvy of it may be why it completely fails at being scary or suspenseful. If this series is going to continue, they’d better pull back on the self-awareness just a bit and take the scares a little more seriously (or at least have the characters pretend that they are in a horror movie.)

Overall, “Scream 4” had enough fun moments to make it an all-around decent flick. It is a lot smarter and more interesting than most films in this genre. Also, the ending brings the 90’s franchise into the modern world with a savagely perverse twist that effectively skewers our whole media-obsessed culture. I just wish the movie had a couple of decent scares! It is inevitable that the long-running horror franchises devolve into self-parody; the more familiar with them we become, the less scary Freddy, Jason, & Michael Myers become. The last really scary movie I saw was “Paranormal Activity” because it relied, not on stylish filmmaking or special effects, but on good ol’ fashioned mystery for its scares. One rule of franchises that “Scream 4” did not point out would easily apply to itself: with all of the great horror franchises, that element of mystery is there in the beginning. However, that mystery is eventually diluted by a parade of never-ending sequels and reboots that render our most frightening movie monsters no scarier than a cheap rubber Halloween store mask of their likeness. 

. 

Movie Review: Hanna

The action film “Hanna” tells the story of a 16-year-old girl, Hanna (played by Saoirse Ronan), who lives in hiding with her rouge government operative father (played by Eric Bana.) Together, the two live off the grid in a harsh Finland arctic environment where Bana teaches his daughter to speak several languages, hunt with a bow and arrow, and to defend herself when that inevitable day comes when her growing curiosity about the world (informed largely by an encyclopedia and some Grimm fairy tales) finally inspires her to leave home. When she finally does leave, she discovers that the real world can be a bit harsher than her fairy tale version of it led her to believe as she finds herself being pursued by other government operatives (led by Cate Blanchett) who will stop at nothing to apprehend her (for reasons she will learn later.) In order to survive, she becomes a full-on killing machine who proceeds to decimate any operative scum who threatens to get in her way.

If the plot feels like a familiar mash-up of “Leon: The Professional”, “La Femme Nikita”, the “Bourne” movies, and “Kick-Ass”, it is, but only on a surface level; but it is not what a movie is about, it is about how it goes about it. Joe Wright’s “Hanna” goes about it in all of the exciting ways. It has a surprising amount of sophistication, particularly in how it reflects the Grimm fairy tales into aspects of its plot. But at its heart, the film is really a coming-of-age story about a young woman who must rely on her wits, and her ability to adapt to changing environments ("adapt or die" her father instructs her), in order for her to, not only survive, but to continue to grow and invent herself as a young adult (to survive the sometimes harsh realities of life, in general.) It's not exactly John Hughes, but the movie is thematically much richer than it's mash-up plot would lead one to believe. 

“Hanna” was directed by Joe Wright (director of “Pride & Prejudice” & Atonement”) and this time he leaves his period costumes at home in favor of a big bucket of buttered popcorn genre movie excess! In “Pride” & “Atonement” he displayed a beautiful visual style (there is an awesome long continuous take camera shot that explores a post D-Day battle field in “Atonement”!); now, he takes that visual style and uses it to energize his action sequences with a tremendous amount of style. He also finds a way to employ more of those long-continuous takes in the action scenes (a great example is Bana’s fight with several men in an underground parking garage.) In addition to his great visual style, Wright also brings a warm human touch into how he handles the complexities of a character like Hanna. Unlike a lot of modern action directors who would've had her in a skimpy outfit firing machine guns before the end of the first reel, Wright seems to have far more respect for his character than that. Yes, she does kill a lot of people in various ways, but she is also allowed to possess real intelligence, particularly in her curiosity for the brand new world she is inhabiting.

"Hanna" also boasts an impressive cast: Saoirse Ronan does a terrific job balancing a starry eyed innocence for the world around her with a savage ability to dispense brutal violence without any sign of remorse (disturbingly, she has probably been sheltered from this emotion as part of her training.) She also has some very nice scenes in which she discovers electricity, boys, and friendship. Eric Bana also does a good job balancing the sweet, caring father with a penchant for dispatching anyone who might threaten his daughters life. Cate Blanchett continues her streak of great character performances by playing a truly cold villain; one with a smooth southern charm and a frightening lack of humanity. At times her performance seems to be chewing the scenery. However, it is such tasty looking scenery! 

On the heels of two amazing musical scores from fellow industrial/electronic artists Trent Reznor and Daft Punk (“Social Network” & “Tron: Legacy”), the Chemical Brothers bring their own unique musical style to their original score of “Hanna”, and it is quiet brilliant! Their music works wonderfully with the amped up visuals and even brings a surprisingly playful tone to some of the non-action scenes. I downloaded it last week and it has continued to play in heavy rotation on my IPod.

Overall, I really liked “Hanna”! Like Kevin Smith’s “Red State”, this is a genre film that took me by complete surprise. It proves that a solid action movie can still be made without it having to be completely mindless. Also, like Hailee Steinfeld showed just a few months ago in the Coen Brothers' "True Grit, Ronan proves that a young actress can still hold her own in a genre typically dominated by male action heroes. Not that there is anything wrong with showing off the physical assets of very attractive people, but it is nice to see an action movie starring a young woman whose sole function is not objectified as just eye-candy with a hand gun.

Movie Theater Experience:

I saw “Hanna” at a 2pm show at the AMC in the Eden Prairie Mall. This would have to be one of my favorite movie theaters! It includes a long, long hallway full of beautiful illustrations of movie icons, and also crisp and clear digital sound & projection. I highly recommend a visit to this theater!

Movie Review: Source Code

Albert Einstein once spoke of insanity as “doing the same thing over and over and over again, but expecting different results.” If this is true, than the sci-fi thriller “Source Code” hopes to have some fun with that idea. The movie stars Jake Gyllenhaal as a military pilot who becomes part of a top-secret government program called the “Source Code.” This is a computer program that allows him to transfer his consciousness into it, where a virtually simulated world is fully reconstructed giving him the ability to exist within it. This world depicts the events of a terrorist bombing on a train from earlier that day. Once inside, Gyllenhaal has 8 minutes to discover the location of the terrorist bomb before it blows up the train; once the 8 minutes are up, the train, and he, explode! Then, he wakes up in a bunker being controlled by technicians…and tries it all again.

“Source Code” plays a little bit like one of those video game where you are forced to play a level over and over and over again until you pass it (wow, remember what it was like to play a video game and not be able to save your progress? What about running out of quarters? Ah, those were the days. Man, I am glad those days are over!) Anyway, once inside this 8-minute loop, Gyllenhaal discovers clues about, not only the location of the bomb, but also who the bomber might be. If he can uncover his identity, then he can be apprehended before he can hit his next terrorist target.

Now, how much of the logic of this story actually makes sense after the movie has ended, I do not know. What I do know is that while it was happening, I really enjoyed it! Duncan Jones, who also directed a very low-budget sci-fi film called “Moon”, directed this movie. “Moon” was a very good film that showed Jones was a director with considerable visual style (most of the visual effects in that film were models and miniatures) but who could also tell a story in a way that kept me wanting to know what was going to happen next. “Source Code” is a movie just like that. He brings his visual flair (there is a great shot of Gyllenhaal jumping off of a train and the camera following him in one continuous take as he roles across the ground and gets back up. I love when a filmmaker shows me something I haven’t seen before!) and he also keeps the suspense going.

He is also given plenty of assists by an impressive cast, which includes Gyllenhaal, Michelle Monaghan, Vera Farmiga, and Jeffery Wright. At times, the dialogue gets a little simplistic and on the nose (listening to Jeffrey Wright explain what the Source Code is still didn’t make a lot of sense, even with the light-bulb analogy; maybe the less said the better), but the cast does the best they can with it. Gyllenhaal in particular brings a real vulnerability and intensity to his role that, not only anchors the movie, but also further establishes him as a good leading man.

Where the movie really strains credibility would be the ending. Obviously, when we go into any movie we know it is only make believe. However, the magic of storytelling is that a good story, well told, can make us forget about that and feel as if we, the audience, are experiencing the story as it unfolds (regardless of how many light sabers and dinosaurs may be involved.) Therefore, in stories dealing with the fantastical, they must set up the ground rules (the ‘internal logic’, if you will) of its ‘make believe universe’ if we are to ever really buy into it. In this case, I can accept that a machine was invented that can cause a man to relive the last 8 minutes of someone else’s life before they die. However, I cannot accept what passes for the ending in “Source Code.” It’s as if the filmmakers became wary of sending us out of the theater with any inclination that something vaguely depressing happened, and just tacked on a silly happy ending which does not fit in with the internal logic set up earlier in the film.

Having said that, the ending was not enough to ruin my overall enjoyment. "Source Code" is a really entertaining popcorn movie with some impressive performances and some cool visual touches. It is also refreshing to see a science fiction film with a strong enough story that doesn't need to depend on non-stop mindless action to entertain. Instead, the movie explores the implications of an intriguing question: if we knew that we were going to die in 8 minutes, how would we make those final minutes count? I guess the answer to that question might be easier if someone as fetching as Michelle Monaghan were also standing right in front of me, but that's another story. 

Movie Theater Experience

I saw “Source Code” at the 9:25pm show at the White Bear Township Theater. It was a good experience, overall. Before the movie started, I made a trip into the game room and found an “Independence Day” pinball machine! Anyone who remembers the cultural phenomenon of that 1996 sci-fi action movie might also feel the same kind of chill that I did. I loved that movie when I was a kid and I saw it 6 times in the theater (2^nd only to “Jurassic Park” in theater viewings.) It seems like every movie theater has a pinball machine based on some old movie that most people have probably forgotten about. What is it about seeing these pinball machines that fills me with nostalgia, but also a little bit of sadness? Is it because I can remember when these were movies that millions of people were once talking about, now all but immortalized as a functioning pinball machine that will probably not be replaced when its number is up? Or is it just a reminder of how much time has passed, and yet it all still feels like yesterday. 

Movie Review: Sucker Punch

Zach Snyder’s action/fantasy “Sucker Punch” tells the dark tale of a young woman whom is wrongfully committed into a mental asylum by her evil stepfather. Once inside, she has to deal with a lot of other scumbag men before she finally retreats into her own imagination. Here she imagines elaborate battles with dragons, giant samurai warriors, robots, and zombie soldiers (not in that order, of course) in an effort to escape the sexual torment of her male captors. It is through these fantasies that she is given the inspiration for how she, and her fellow inmates, can escape the prison. And I thought Buzz and the "Toy Story" gang had it bad at that daycare center!

Snyder (director of “300”) has described this visually audacious film as “Alice In Wonderland with machine guns." There is absolutely no tongue in that comments cheek. He cranks his energetic visual style up to 11 (and beyond) as his heroines battle all kinds of other-worldly enemies while the laws of physics are left sliced & diced by samurai swords. Snyder is an imaginative visual filmmaker who conceives elaborate action sequences and then dares to let us actually SEE them! He doesn’t clutter his work through quick-cuts and bad shaky cam (which far too many modern action pictures rely on.) Instead, he uses a lot of fast and slow motion, as if to say, “hey, look at how badass the power of imagination can be!” Of course, at times, this over-the-top visual style does border on self-parody.  However, there is so much visual flair and imagination filling the frame that I can forgive it.

What I cannot quite forgive is the story. It is far too dreary and, at times, slow to really work as a whole. The “women-in-prison” plot never seemed to fully connect properly with the big fantasy sequences.  Also, the fantasy sequences lack suspense because we know they are just fantasies. Since the main characters are never in any real danger, these sequences tend to feel disconnected and pointless in the grand scheme of the story. Also, in these fantasies, there are no rules; our heroes are capable of doing whatever they want which then asks the question: if they can do whatever they want, does it really matter that they can do it all? It is also odd how the movie seems to fetishize these scantily clad machine gun-toting young women. It’s as if Snyder wants us to be aroused by these images, yet the constant torment and mistreatment of these women throughout the film makes this idea impossible, and just plain creepy.

The bottom line is “Sucker Punch” is a mixed bag. It is not a bad film; it is far too ambitious to be written-off as just another piece of mindless multiplex fodder. However, as much as I admired the visuals, Snyder’s ambition may have exceeded his reach in trying to make this story work. As the movie went on, I continued to enjoy Snyder’s boundless imagination, but found myself enjoying this dreary slog of a story less and less. It also didn’t help to be hit over the head with one of those final narrations that sums up the entire message of the movie. Sucker punched, indeed.

Movie Theater Experience
I saw "Sucker Punch" on March 25th at Marcus Theaters in Oakdale. Of all of the theaters I have visited in Minnesota, this is my absolute favorite! They have a screen called the "Ultra-screen" which is twice the size of the average movie screen. There is nothing quite like seeing a big special effects movie in this theater; the surround sound is, at times, even good enough to drown out those chatty Cathy dolls that like to sit right next to everyone else and regale them with their oh-so-witty running commentary of the movie. Hey, here's an idea: SHUT UP! Those Hollywood screenwriters just might be more clever than you, so maybe you should listen. And If not for them, then how about for your fellow paying brothers & sisters who really don't want to listen to you bomb jokes one after the other about the movie. Give us all a break and stay home. DVR some re-runs of some crappy TV show and direct your humor there! Hey, it looks like "Jersey Shore" is on. Fire away!

Movie Review: Paul

“Paul” is a sci-fi comedy and, for an unapologetic film geek like myself, the premise of this movie for me is like a moth to the flame: Simon Peg & Nick Frost play two buddies on a road trip to see Comic-Con (that convention for all things comic book & movie related, held annually in San Diego.) On their way home, they venture out to the infamous Area 15 and, in the process, meet an extraterrestrial, named Paul (voiced by Seth Rogen), on the run from government agents (which includes Jason Bateman & Bill Hader.) And, of course, R-rated raunchy shenanigans ensue, as our heroes befriend a woman, played by the always awesome Kristin Wiig, and make their way across the country leaving a trail of wrecked cars, explosions, and a lot of sci-fi movie references in their wake.

I am a big fan of Simon Peg & Nick Frost (“Shaun of the Dead” and “Hot Fuzz” are both equally fun!) One of the things that I loved most about those hilarious movies (which they co-wrote with director Edgar Wright) is that they seemed like love letters to the kinds of movies they grew up loving (zombie movies, cop movies, ect.) Obviously, much of that love also came from Edgar Wright, who sits this one out (no doubt to direct his own "geeksploitation" epic, "Scott Pilgrim Vs. the World.") This time, Greg Motolla (director of “Superbad”) is at the helm and he does an excellent job of keeping the laughs coming, while also bringing in touches of those great sci-fi movies from the late 70’s/early 80’s that Pegg & Frost also grew up loving.

But what keeps all of the humor and movie references grounded is the wonderful chemistry between Frost & Pegg. They play two geeky, yet very sweet, men who have always dreamed of what might happen if they ever had a “close encounter.” The answer is a lot more than they bargained for with Paul, who Rogen manages to bring, not only hilarity, but also a genuine sweetness to. He is an alien who was once a guest of our government (even consulting on many Hollywood alien themed films, including one very famous film, in particular), who has become a prisoner destined for medical experimentation. Now, he just wants to go home.

The rest of the cast is also a lot of fun. Jason Bateman plays against type as a stern Men In Black-like agent who will stop at nothing to get Paul back to the base he broke out of. Also, Bill Hader and Joe Lo Truglio play a couple of humorous bumbling agents, and there are funny cameos from Jeffery Tambor, Jane Lynch, and Sigourney Weaver (not to mention a very famous filmmaker who also happens to be my absolute favorite director of ALL TIME!) Kristin Wiig, as usual, steals most of her scenes and seems on her way to more leading roles.  She has an unforced charm that makes her comedic antics (even frequent profane outbursts) seem completely natural.

Overall, I really liked “Paul”! It may not be as good of a comedy as “Shaun of the Dead” (or even “Hot Fuzz”), but it doesn’t matter because it successfully continues the Pegg/Frost tradition of being a hilarious, yet good-natured, love letter to the movies themselves. Many of these films are also ones that I grew up loving (and still hold a special place in my heart for): “Jaws”, “Star Wars”, “Close Encounters of the Third Kind”, “Indiana Jones”, “E.T.”, “Back to the Future”, ect. But for all of these sweet tempered references, this movie is also a love letter to the idea of geekdom itself. Deep down, we are all probably geeks about something; it seems only human to have hearts that yearn for something to be passionate about. This movie tugged those passion strings in my own heart and subsequently conjured up warm feelings of nostalgia. Watching “Paul” reminded me of the kind of movie I would’ve enjoyed seeing at a drive-in movie theater, on a breezy summer night, with real buttered popcorn in my lap, a cold soda in my hand, and a starlit sky above my head. 

Movie Theater Experience:
I saw "Paul" on Friday, March 18th at a 9:55pm show. The theater was the AMC at the Mall of America. Overall, it was a great experience! The digital projection was crisp & clear, the surround sound was fantastic, and the audience seemed to really enjoy themselves (no talking during the movie; just the wonderful sound of laughter.) Although, does anyone else notice how popcorn containers seem to be increasing in size? AMC seems to have abolished their small popcorn leaving only medium and large (with a large being only 50 cents more.) Is this part of a scheme to charge more money? Or, is it just part of some paranoid conspiracy to ensure that humanity fulfills the "Wall-E" prophecy of a future society so overweight that we cannot even walk ourselves around? Hey, some days I feel like that, too!

Movie Review: Battle: Los Angeles

“Battle: Los Angeles” is a sci-fi action movie that tells the story of a global alien invasion that also sees the city of Los Angeles under attack. As alien spaceships decimate the city, the U.S. Marines are called in to the rescue. We then follow one group of marines, led by Aaron Eckhart, as they take to the streets as our first, and last, line of defense against the nasty E.T.’s.

The premise, while uninspired, still sounds cool, right? Marines throwing down with space aliens, explosions, machine guns, tanks, helicopters, ect; “Independence Day” meets “Black Hawk Down” as some Hollywood director probably pitched it as to the Columbia Pictures studio executives. Still, it’s not what a movie is about; it’s how it goes about it, therefore it still sounds pretty badass, right? I can at least expect to see some awesome visuals…right?

Well, “Battle: LA” is the cinematic equivalent of one of those pictures that you stare at for seconds at a time waiting to see the real image hidden inside. Except, this movie is 2 hours, and I never got to see the damn image! I merely just stared at the screen, dumbfounded, trying to figure out who was who, where they were, and what was happening. Watching this movie is like staring at French Impressionism; I see swashes of paint, but I am left to come to my own interpretation of what exactly I am looking at.

The reason for this disorientation is because the camera operation in this movie is downright awful. It shakes, it zooms, it whip pans, and it constantly seems like the operators are rolling film while standing on hot plates. This style of filmmaking has been called “shaky cam” by some, “queasy cam” by others. We’ve all seen plenty of action films & TV shows use this style; at it’s best, it does create a gritty, visceral documentary realism that can be quite involving (‘24”, “Saving Private Ryan”, “Black Hawk Down”, ect.) At it’s worst, it is impossible to get any sense of what is happening; instead I just stare at the screen, absorbing pieces of incoherent images while the rest feel as though I am watching a movie while sitting in the back of a semi truck going down the side of a very bumpy mountain, while also spinning around in a circle.

Thankfully there are lines like “hey look! Our planes! It looks like we’re still in the fight” to give me some indication of what’s going on.  To be fair to the movie, despite the flimsy character development and the simplistic (and, at times, laughably bad) dialogue, there might’ve been at least a pretty cool action movie here. There is nothing wrong with a mindless action film, especially if the action sequences are involving. However, the incredibly bad camera work here acted like a barrier, constantly pushing me out of the movie when I just wanted to see the cool explosions I was hearing (at least, I think those were supposed to be explosions.)

Movie Theater Experience

I saw “Battle: Los Angeles” on Friday, March 11^th, at the Regal Theater in Eagan. I had a voucher to see this movie, but it was only good at select theaters (this being one of the 2 near my apartment, for some reason.) Anyway, the experience was pleasant, despite the very chatty girl sitting behind me who was constantly asking her friend what was going on. Thankfully, the movie was loud enough to drown her out most of the time. However, it was fun sitting behind a guy that was super into the movie (and quite vocal about it.) Whenever something would blow up he would clap and cheer. This is the kind of audience participation that I DO like; as much I sat there frustratingly trying to enjoy the movie, it was cool to hear that someone else was, indeed, enjoying it. 

Movie Review: Red State

Kevin Smith’s “Red State” is like no other movie he has ever written/directed; he has repeatedly called it a horror movie, but it is much more than that. The movie does briefly take the appearance of a horror movie in the beginning when 3 high school boys take a trip to a small southern town to have “group sex” with a girl one of them met online. When they arrive at the woman’s (well-played by Melissa Leo) trailer, they are drugged and held captive by Leo’s family of crazed religious fanatics who are so extreme (at one point they protest the funeral of a gay teenager) that they are even shunned by other “right wing religious extremists.”

This is only the setup of a movie with a lot of twists, none of which I will reveal here because part of my enjoyment of the film was feeling my jaw hit the theater floor repeatedly. I was absolutely blown away how well written and directed this movie is. Not because I am not a fan of Smith’s, which I am, but because he so completely leaves his comfort zone and brings to life an unsettling vision that leaves the personification of religious extremism, particularly in the name of bigotry, ultimately riddled with a lot of bullet holes. This film is not an assault on the idea of religion (Smith is identified Christian) but an assault on the truly sick horrors man is capable of when they justify their crimes of hate through gross misinterpretations of passages in the bible.

That’s not to say that this film is just an allegory against religious extremism; it is also an entertaining, yet extremely unsettling, and unconventional genre mashup of horror, action, and very dark humor. The sudden changes in tone are expertly handled, as are the action beats, which Smith and his excellent cinematographer Dave Klein direct with all the energy and flare of the best of the modern action directors. The film was also gloriously photographed with the Red One camera, which gives the movie a visceral gritty 70’s look and feel. Also, the sound design is incredible in this movie; bullets bounce and ricochet around the theater creating the feeling that your head might get split open by a bullet at any second.

The movie is well acted all around with a cast that includes Leo, Michael Parks, John Goodman, & Stephen Root. Parks & Goodman especially shine as two very different men, but both governed by fear. Parks is the soft-spoken yet truly evil preacher whose fear of God drives his thirst for extreme punishment on any sinners, while Goodman fears, as an ATF agent tracking Parks’ family, of ultimately losing his own sense of moral judgment in an effort to stop this completely amoral family.

I really liked “Red State.” However, please be forewarned: this is not a movie for everyone. It is extremely violent and truly unsettling, particularly in the scenes involving the young children in the family who are, at one point, allowed to partially witness just what old Grandpa (Parks) really thinks of homosexuals and other “sinners.” Also, the  “punishment” for one such victim is pretty harrowing (in addition to the massive body count that stacks up as the film progresses.) But it’s all a testament to Smith’s incredible no-holds-barred filmmaking that subverts everything from genre expectations, religious extremism, family dynamics, terrorism, justice, and ultimately the idea of salvation. And by the end of it, the movie, brilliantly edited by Smith who brings it all in at a tight 84 minute running time, left me absolutely exhilarated.

Movie Theater Experience

I saw "Red State" on the Kevin Smith "Red State of the Union Tour" on Wednesday March 8th at the Pantages Theater in Minneapolis. This was a great experience! Not only was the crowd packing serious energy, but the digital projection and surround sound setup was awesome! This theater has a better setup than most of the movie theaters I've been to. After the screening, Kevin Smith took to the stage for a hilarious and informative 90 minute Q&A where he talked about everything from self-distribution, commercials for "Jay & Silent Bob" on the Lifetime channel, his eventual retirement from directing movies, how John Goodman saved his life, the crazy Fred Phelps family (which inspired the film), and more. 

Movie Review: Rango

“Pirates of the Caribbean” director Gore Verbinski reteams with actor Johnny Depp for their first fully animated film, “Rango”. It tells the story of a chameleon (Depp) that finds himself lost in the middle of a desert, while on a quest to find out whom he really is. That quest takes him to a small western town run by desert creatures that mistake him for the hero who has come to protect them from all evil. The chameleon decides to “blend in” and takes on the name “Rango”, protector of all that is good. But It is not long before he uncovers a bizarre plot to steal the town’s water supply by way of some very nasty varmints.

“Rango” is one of the oddest family movies I have ever seen (right up there with Spike Jones’ “Where the Wild Things Are”, which I also liked.) There is really nothing conventional about it! There are images in this movie that are far too surreal to escape from my memory: a rabbit with one ear, a creature with an arrow through his eye, a wind-up goldfish floating through the sky, an owl playing an electric guitar (among other instruments), & a very famous cowboy driving a golf cart through the middle of the desert (instead of on a horse), among other things. There is also a strange assortment of supporting creatures, all with their own idiosyncratic personalities (and mostly with appearances that we likely will not see sold in happy meals.) One of these creatures is named Rattlesnake Jake (voiced by Bill Nighy), who is also a dangerous gun fighter; this snake, who at one point says to a character “I’ll see you in Hell” before unloading machine bullets at them, is so frightening, yet so cool, that I would not hesitate putting him on that list of classic animated villains. Just look at those blood shot eyes, and those sharp teeth, which are, at one point, literally dripping with venom!

Gore Verbinski joins a short list of live-action filmmakers who have recently turned to feature length animated films. That includes Richard Linklater ("Waking Life"), Robert Zemeckis ("The Polar Express"), Tim Burton ("Corpse Bride"), George Miller ("Happy Feet"), Wes Anderson ("Fantastic Mr. Fox"), Zack Snyder ("Legends of the Guardian"), and Steven Spielberg (the upcoming "Adventures of Tintin.") It is easy to see why animation appeals to these filmmakers; it allows them complete freedom from the laws of live action gravity, particularly freedom with the camera. For instance, in “Rango”, it is truly exciting to see the places that Verbinski is able to put his camera; in one chase scene, his camera literally starts in the sky, beneath the talons of a dangerous hawk, then comes right down next to a bottle that Rango is rolling in, then inside the bottle and around to the other side of his face where we can see another desert creature trying to hitch a ride.

“Rango” is the first fully computer animated feature film from George Lucas’ Industrial, Light, & Magic (ILM) visual effects company. The computer animation looks incredible! The lighting and the texture on the characters look photo-realistic, yet every character still remains stylized. What also struck me is how much spontaneity and energy the visuals have. You’d think in animation every detail must be precisely planned out, but this film has enough inventive visuals to feel as if they are making it up as they go.

As someone who really loves movies, I also appreciated the many cinematic references of this film. For starters, “Rango” is really a western; it’s like “True Grit” but crossed with the plot of “Chinatown”, with a dash of Apocalypse Now" in one scene, a hint of "Star Wars", and chased with a little “Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas” (as Rango finds himself being chased through the desert by all sorts of flying creatures, while also wearing a Hawaiian shirt.) It is a truly imaginative film, which kept me entertained by its sheer uniqueness, quirky humor, and its amazing visuals. I love when the movies show me something I’ve never seen before, and “Rango” did plenty of that!

Movie Theater Experience:

I saw “Rango” on March 4^th at the 7:10pm show at the Marcus Oakdale Theater. This theater is my favorite theater of all! It’s always clean, the staff & management is courteous, and, on a busy Friday night, the popcorn is always good (as are the hot dogs.) Speaking of hot dogs, here’s a little movie theater inside tip: don’t ever buy hot dogs from a theater that keeps their condiments in containers. I could tell you horror stories about how those containers of condiments are likely breaking all kinds of health codes, as well as acting as incubators for insect creatures the likes of which you have only seen in your nightmares (or in “Rango.”) Always go with the safer condiment packets. 

Movie Review: The Fighter

You’re the fighter, you’ve got the fire

The spirit of a warrior, the champion’s heart

You fight for your life because a fighter never quits

You make the most of the hand you’re dealt

Because the quitter never wins!

So state the lyrics of that great Boston punk band, the Dropkick Murphys. These lyrics are in reference to a song called “The Warrior’s Code” about boxer “Irish” Mickey Ward, who the band also put on the cover of that album (also titled “The Warrior’s Code.”) The rise of Mickey Ward’s fight to World Boxing champion is the subject of David O. Russell’s boxing drama, “The Fighter.”

The film stars Mark Wahlberg as Mickey Ward, then an aspiring boxer from a working class family in Lowell, Massachusetts. He is managed by his family (or more his strong-willed mother, Alice, played by Melissa Leo) and trained by his half-brother, ex-boxer Dicky Eklund (played by Christian Bale.) Dicky was once a promising up-and-coming fighter (“The Pride of Lowell”, as he was referred to once after knocking out Sugar Ray Leonard during a fight.) Now, he’s a middle-aged cocaine addict who tries to ignore the realities of his circumstances by constantly boasting about his eventual “comeback.”

Mickey has heart, and is hungry for success. He trains hard, but is constantly let down by Dicky, who sometimes shows up to train him. That is, when he is not snorting crack and being followed around by an HBO camera crew, who are making a documentary about his life (or, as he finds out later, how far down drug addiction can bring someone.) Mickey also struggles with his over-bearing mother, who refuses to acknowledge what Dicky has become and continues to boast about how promising he still is, while downplaying the efforts of Mickey, who not only has promise, but actually the drive to make something more of himself.

Thus is the setup for “The Fighter”, a very good drama that is less about boxing, and more about the dynamics of family, specifically between two brothers. Mickey and Dickey are both men who, at different times of their lives, seemed to have an impossible amount of weight on their shoulders; so much seemed expected of both of them, because of their talents, that Dickey never became the fighter he could have, and Mickey himself even comes close to giving up.

The cast in this film is amazing, especially Christian Bale who is truly electrifying! He creates a portrait of a man who never really fulfilled the promise of what he could’ve been. There is a moment in the film where Dicky, now in prison, watches the documentary that HBO did on his life with all of his fellow inmates. At first, he reacts like a star: “hey, look at me! I’m on TV!” But slowly, as he watches his life unfold in the documentary, he is reminded of something that he has been trying to ignore for most of his life: that he once had promise, but threw it all away through reckless bouts with drugs. At one point, Dickey turns off the TV and leaves the room; he finds an empty hallway and slides down to his knees. We don’t see his suffering closely, much like those closest to him, but it is suggested powerfully from a distance.

Mark Wahlberg is also quite good, but in a more understated way. He displays subtlety, rather than the constant screaming that has marred some of his more recent performances. He plays a man with big dreams, but also harbors deep insecurities. As frustrated as he sometimes is with his older brother, he still admires him so much that he feels doomed to be in his shadow, particularly in the eyes of his mother.

Melissa Leo is fantastic as Alice. She takes what could’ve been a one-dimensional “overbearing mom” type and creates a complex woman who loves her kids, yet she feels the need to be the captain of their destiny so strongly, that it often feels suffocating to her kids. Adding to her hostilities are her feelings towards Micky’s new girlfriend, played terrifically by Amy Adams (who looks…Ah…okay, full disclosure: she looks freaking amazing in this!) Anyway, Amy’s character seems to exhibit some of Mickey’s mothers’ outspokenness, and this creates tension in the family as they prepare for Mickey’s big fight.

As a boxing film, it is fairly routine. As much as I admire anyone who overcomes the obstacles of life to achieve their dreams, I’ve seen that story done much more rousingly in “Rocky” (and the boxing sequences here, while executed well, lack the true visceral punch of what Martin Scorsese brought to them in “Raging Bull.”) However, the real heart of “The Fighter” is in the relationship between Mickey and his brother, Dicky. In the end, when Micky wins his Title, I wasn’t so much moved by the images of him with his gloves in the air, the audience on their feet cheering, the kiss he gives his girl friend, ect. No, what moved me the most is a moment in which Dicky starts to shed tears for his brother. After missing his shot, he now watches his younger brother achieve what he never did…and he could not be more proud. That is the power of “The Fighter.”

Movie Theater Experience:

I saw “The Fighter” on Friday, February 25^th at the AMC Showplace Theater in Inver Grove Heights. All in all, the experience was decent (though, I am not a fan of those self-butter machines because you can never get the butter in the middle.) Anyway, the film was in one of the smaller theaters, which was unfortunate because I like to sit near the front, mostly so that I don’t have to hear people talking out loud behind me. In a smaller theater, I can hear everything, including the chatty couples sitting on either side of me. But things could’ve been worse: as I walked toward my theater I heard a group of really loud and obnoxious teenagers heading in the same direction. I thought “oh no! Please do not be seeing the same movie!” But then they all walked into the new Adam Sandler movie. Whew, never have I been more thankful for the existence of an Adam Sandler movie.

Movie Review: Unknown

“Unknown” is an action/thriller starring Liam Neeson as Dr. Martin Harris, who, along with his wife, played by the very beautiful January Jones, arrives in Berlin to attend an important summit on biotechnology. After forgetting his briefcase (with he and his wife’s passports,) back at the airport, Martin leaves his wife at the hotel to retrieve it. He hails a cab from another beautiful woman, played nicely by that Inglorious Bastard Diane Kruger, and ends up getting into a car accident, which leaves him in a coma for 4 days.

When he wakes up, he finds that his wife has no idea who he is, and even worse, she is already married to another man named Martin Harris…who is not he. With his identity possibly stolen, and nobody willing to believe him (except for Diane Kruger’s character), and with no identification of any kind, Martin questions his own sanity while trying to determine the truth of weather he is, or is not, the real Martin Harris.

Thus is the setup for an effective B action/thriller; that is, if B stood for ‘boring.’ I was fairly intrigued by the setup of this movie, mostly because of Liam Neeson’s performance (and his extremely beautiful leading lady co-stars...Mmmm, yes, very beautiful…Umm, I’d better just continue…) Anyway, Neeson brings a real credibility to his character; he is the kind of actor who, in his best roles, always brings a real intelligence, a quiet dignity, and occasional visceral intensity, and he brings those qualities to this role, as well; unfortunately, the script doesn’t give him a lot to work with. Mostly just a flimsy, uneven character motivated mostly by plot machinations, and not always rational behavior.

As the plot wore on, I began to ask myself: If I were in the same situation, and I could not prove to anybody that I existed, wouldn’t I try to maybe call the people that might’ve known me? For instance, Martin has the authorities unsuccessfully contact an old friend, but what about other friends? What about family members? How about looking up his Facebook page?  And wouldn’t he have ANY identification in his wallet? Not even a drivers license or Lifetime Fitness card?

I guess had I been more involved in the story I could’ve overlooked these lapses in logic (and there are a LOT more than that; how about a fight sequence where a bad guy actually pauses so that Martin can have a series of flashbacks where he remembers who he really is. In all of that flashback time, that might’ve been the best time to strike, Mr. so-called-professional-assassin-bad-guy.) But I was distracted by how confusing and utterly silly the plot became, especially in the last hour.  The plot seemed motivated more by necessity than by anybody doing anything remotely believable. As a thriller, the movie lacks suspense because I was never really invested in what was going on to really care. At a certain point, Martin Harris discovers who he really is and it is so silly that I just gave up.

“Unknown” is also an action movie so we get the usual car chases, explosions, shoot-outs, and fist fights, but they are all shot in the most routine way. Technically well crafted, but there is really nothing here I haven’t seen done much better in other movies. And do we really need another scene where the main bad guy is about to kill the hero, but instead decides to pause and tell him everything that he needs to know, so that he can than escape and figure out what to do next? Is anyone else tired of this cliché? You’d think even the bad guys in movies might’ve seen a few other movies at this point, so as to not make this mistake.

But I think it’s the producers and the screenwriters who have been watching other movies. This movie is so contrived that it shamefully steals plot elements from The “Bourne” series and “Shutter Island.” Yes, the basic plot of an innocent man and mistaken identity is at least as old as Alfred Hitchcock himself, but I am a firm believer that it is not what a movie is about, but it’s how it goes about it. “Unknown” does not go about it very well; the whole script plays like a pitch meeting where the producers where only interested in ripping off other successful movies and repacking them into their own vastly inferior movie.

All in all, aside from Liam Neeson’s performance (and the lovely January Jones & Diane Kruger) I did not much care for “Unknown.” In fact, I hope to experience the same memory lapse that Neeson’s character does…except about remembering this movie.

Movie Theater Experience:

I saw “Unknown” on Monday, February 22^nd (Presidents Day, 7:40pm show) at the Woodbury Theater. The experience was surprisingly decent, especially considering that the group of kids sitting a few rows back talked throughout the entire movie. I am glad I chose to sit closer to the front, so their comments were not as audible. I think I will choose to sit away from people more often. Anyway, the price of the ticket was surprisingly modest ($6) and it was also $6 for a medium soda and popcorn. I would gladly go back!