My Most Anticipated Movie This Month

IGN.com has their review up of True Grit, a movie who's trailer I gushed over here on this blog a while back. You can read the full review by clicking here. Besides giving the film 4.5 out of 5 stars, and calling it "the best Western since Unforgiven," IGN's Jim Vejvoda also had this to say:

"Just when you thought the Coens had made their career best with the neo-Western No Country for Old Men they make this gem. True Grit is one of the top films of 2010, and can now be added to the ranks of Best Picture Oscar front runners such as Inception, The Social Network, The King's Speech and 127 Hours."

I mean -- WOW! I knew this movie was going to be good, but from the sounds of it True Grit is even better than I imagined. I don't think next Wednesday can come fast enough, and I'll almost certainly catch this on opening day.

I'm also especially pleased that the young actress portraying the 14-year old Mattie Ross--newcomer Hailee Steinfeld--is receiving such great praise for her performance:

"Steinfeld is a revelation here . . . [she] simply owns the screen from her very first scene, fast establishing herself as a commanding presence to both the other characters and the viewer. She is smart, tough, vulnerable, funny and has range. It will be very intriguing to see where Steinfeld goes from here professionally as she'll most likely earn an Oscar nomination for her performance."

I had a feeling from watching the trailer that she would be one of the film's many shining gems. Glad to see my hunch may be right. Of course, I'll see for myself come next week. But so far everything about this movie is looking fantastic! And, hey, Barry Pepper is in this one, too!

And speaking of the trailer, I'm going to re-post it below for those of you who haven't seen it and want to know what all the buzz is about. I'll probably have a good time watching that other big December sci-fi movie coming out this week -- but True Grit is what I'm hurtin' to see right now.

Three Celeb Crushes In One Movie!

Lisa and I went to see two movies tonight -- Black Swan (posterized above), and The Warrior's Way (pictured way below).

Surprisingly for me, Black Swan was the better movie. It was supremely good, in fact. Save for the ending, which kinda sucked . . . and not just because it wasn't a happy ending, which I can deal with normally. It just seemed tacked on, I guess is the best way to explain it. Done just to be "tragic" like the ballet of Swan Lake which the movie revolves around. At the end of the movie, when I asked Lisa what she took away from the experience, she said: "Why are women always such bitches to each other?"

Yes, why indeed!

But I have to say, one of the biggest highlights of the movie for me was seeing not one, not two -- but THREE of my top Hollywood dream women in the same flick! Natalie Portman (yum!), Mila Kunis (super YUM!), and my all-time fave, Winona Ryder (mega superlicious YUMMY!). Sure, she's crazier than a sack full of cave bats, but damn if this actress doesn't represent everything I find sexy in a woman!

So, yeah, this movie's done good by me. I highly recommend it to you all. Click here to view the trailer if you had no idea such a movie even existed. I believe it's in limited release this week, although I might be wrong. If so, it should see a wider release later in the month I imagine.

As for The Warrior's Way? Eh, no. This is one of those high-fallutin CGI action movies not dissimilar to Kung-Fu Hustle . . . if Kung-Fu Hustle sucked ass. It had its moments, but ultimately the story is so barely there and the characters never truly fleshed out that you walk away from the experience feeling like you wasted your time and money. Which I did, both.

I say: skip this. If you really need to know what this movie is about, check out the trailer by clicking here.

What about you? Did you see any movies worth mentioning this weekend? Or, do either of these two movies interest you? Sound off in the comments section below, please.

Batman: Under The Red Hood

Just finished watching the Blu-ray of this, which was released earlier this week. I have to say, I was very impressed. Although I wanted to hate the storyline--because of a certain controversial decision to bring someone back from Batman's past who's been long dead--the production values of this animated film kept me glued for the entire 75 min run. The voice work was superb, and the animation's more in line with what I like to see in animated movies of a dark and mature nature. Almost like the HBO's "Spawn" series from back in the day.

And you know what? Now that I had some time to process the big reveal of just who it is that's "under the red hood," I actually think it's a pretty neat new development. Sure, we probably could have done without it . . . but now that it's here, Batman will just have to deal with it like he always does. It makes the universe he inhabits just a little more interesting now.

But I won't say anymore. What I *will* say is this: if you're a big fan of anything and everything Bats, do yourself a favor and check this out. Especially if you've liked the superbly slick and mostly spot-on direct-to-video animated movies Warner and DC have been putting out lately. This is another shining badge to add to their collection.

Check out the trailer below if you want an idea of what you're getting with this film:



Rent or buy (I recommend buy), you owe it to yourself to check this out. Trust me.

Rating: 3.5 out of 5.

Movie Review: Duel Of The 80s Remakes -- The A-Team & The Karate Kid

I'm a little late with these reviews, sorry. It's been a busy weekend for me, so I hope you don't mind a double-feature review. It won't be a bargain matinée at the Paradise Theater type of double-feature, but maybe I can still capture that 80s nostalgia we all miss anyway. Maybe? Yes?

Okay, maybe not.

Anyway . . . we went to Times Square Friday night to get our 80s throwback movie party on right! First up: The A-Team.

To be frank, the A-Team was a cool TV show when I was a little kid -- but not THAT cool. Knight Rider was better. But it was still something that occasionally enough delivered the goods for an action-loving 7 year old, and that's all anybody could ever ask for. Most of all, me.

This new take is not without its faults, but I was surprised by how well plotted and written the screenplay turned out to be. It hangs up a little at the end, but overall it was a taught, intriguing, and well developed story that kept me mostly on the edge of my seat. It helps that the director, Joe Carnahan, is great with these types of ensemble action movies. Just check out Smokin' Aces as an example. Here he manages to deliver the same expert mix of high-octane action scenes combined with an intricate, sometimes dense, plot that balances just the right amount of seriousness and goofiness to not fall too firmly into either side of the melodrama or camp territories.

The cast of Sharlto Copley (Murdoch), Quinton Jackson (B.A.), Bradley Cooper (Face), and Liam Neeson (Hannibal) gelled really well together -- displaying that cool, brothers-in-arms chemistry that is so crucial for this to work right. And which worked better here, in this movie, than with the the original cast of the tv show I might add.

Yes, I went there. And if you take off your rose-tinted fankid glasses, you'll see it too.

Where the movie falters, in my opinion, is the lack of set-up planning montages that made the tv show so much fun to watch. I mean, sure, they're in this movie. Twice, in fact. But both times felt rushed and too veiled in mystery for their own good. Still, when the payoff "comes together" in the end--as the team's leader, Hannibal, so famously puts it--the result is much bang for your buck. Times TEN!!!

This fun popcorn flick with just the right amount of laughs and kick-ass action gets:   7/10.

Next up for the night: The Karate Kid.

Now, I'll come straight out and say it: I absolutely LOVE the original 1984 flick! Some of you already know this. I just gushed all over the movie a few weeks ago here, after all.

But, you know what? I think I might just have to say that this new remake is *gasp* . . . BETTER! Yeah, I know. WTF am I smoking, right? But it's true! Oh god help me, I think it is.

The 2010 version is filmed entirely in China. Yes, even the Detroit sequence at the beginning. And, as those who know me know -- I have this huge love for anything China-related. So that right there is already a major solid on the movie's part. Furthermore, the action sequences are both more brutal and authentic looking than the original. Which is no slight to the choreographer of the first film, martial artist Pat E. Johnson, who did an awesome job. But just that the stunt coordinator on this modern take--famous Hong Kong stuntman and frequent Jackie Chan collaborator, Gang Wu-- is better! And it shows. All of the fight scenes in this movie are more intense, longer, and more technically accurate.

However, I think what gets me the most in this movie is the trip to the Buddhist mountain where Jackie Chan's "Mr. Han" leads Jaden Smith's "Dre" to show the boy the roots of true gong-fu. This whole sequence is poignant and beautiful, almost feeling like a step into another dimension compared to the hustle and bustle of noisy Beijing where the rest of the movie takes place. Mr. Han demonstrates to his pupil, Dre, that gong-fu is about stillness and reflection of one's inner peace, and not about an outward flashy display of prowess. I would watch the movie again just for this scene alone.


This theme of stillness and reflection is echoed well with another story thread in the film regarding Dre's gal pal (and somewhat love interest) Mei Ying, who is a budding violinist struggling to "capture the pauses" between notes. In this sense, both kids learn this lesson together by the end, and thus grow closer as friends. Trust me, it's a very tender and sweet relationship that doesn't stray too far into icky territory, considering that the two are only middle schoolers.

And, as a brief aside here -- the young, unknown Chinese actress playing Mei Ying is simply too cute for words! She is such a marvel in both acting and poise, somehow grounding the often outlandish aspects of Jaden's personality and seeming to make HIM a better actor in the process. Honestly, the scenes with the both of them are a joy to watch, and I think it's the actress, Han Wenwen, who should be given the credit. While I won't go so far as to say the two have excellent chemistry together, she's definitely more likable to this reviewer than Elisabeth Shue's "Ali" was in the original.

Now, to be sure, there ARE in fact big differences between the two movies, despite the fact that the new version borrows the dialogue almost word for word from the original. The 1984 version, for instance, starred an older protagonist and nemesis, which was definitely necessary in the time and age the movie was made. However, times have changed. With all the kiddie kung-fu movies like Spy Kids, Shaolin Soccer and this summer's upcoming Last Airbender movie being so popular nowadays, it kinda makes sense to cash in on this trending towards younger protagonists in action movies.

Also, in China, wushu is a national sport and practiced at a very young age. It's taught during what we in the West would call "gym class" as part of the normal school curriculum. So, in this sense, it's not at all implausible to see the 12 to 14 year olds being so proficient and accurate in their gong-fu prowess. They would have been practicing this since they were 6! And while the sheer evilness of the antagonist and his friends in this film is something that would not be so nonchalantly ignored by adults in real life, it does happen even in China. Yes, the bullying here in this movie is extremely violent and graphic. But, hey, I grew up in the South Bronx. This is reality for a lot of kids these days, as it was for me in my day.

The other big difference is in the dynamic between the teacher and pupil. In the end, Mr. Miyagi was a more effective character than Mr. Han. And "Daniel-san" was a more charming protagonist that "xiao Dre." Yes, this is definitely true. What can I say? Ralph Macchio and Pat Morita just had that special bond that is so hard to pull off right between actors. Jaden and Chan are good together, though. Don't get me wrong. Just not on the same level as their predecessors. But then, who would be?

Yet, still, this 2010 revisit of the same story is more modern, more relatable, and more authentic (i.e., less CHEESY) than the original in every other way possible. So there you go.

My rating for this surprise hit is:   8/10.

Yes, yes. I know. I gave it a higher rating that The A-Team. I expect almost no other male viewer in his 30s to agree with me here, but take it as it is. I honestly did get more enjoyment out of watching the Karate Kid "jacket off" than I did the A-Team "put a plan together."

As a last parting observation: The audience for the A-Team did not applaud when the credits rolled, though they did seem very pleased with the film. Whereas the crowd I watched the Karate Kid with was on its feet cheering and clapping at the end.

I think this says it all right there.

Movie Review: Prince Of Persia: The Sands Of Time

Okay, let me get this out of the way first: I'm a gamer (*gasp* *shock!*). So naturally I've played almost every single PoP game since Jordan Mechner's original came out on the Apple II in 1989.

There, now you know my "street cred" when it comes to this series, so let's continue.

The film version, Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time, is based loosely on the 2003 game of the same name. In fact, for all its differences (different names of the characters, different setting, some differences to the plot), it's more amazing how much of the spirit of the game was encapsulated by the film. You have to have played the original Sands of Time game to appreciate it all, really. For me, it was a highly enjoyable experience. Although, none of this should come as a surprise since the game's original creator, Mechner, had a hand in developing the movie's story, and was in fact one of the film's many, many producers.

I'm trying to avoid plot spoilers here, so I'm not going to go into the intricacies of the story's progression. But suffice to say that, for a video-game adapted film (which usually don't have the best of track records, historically) -- this movie delivers an intriguing, decently-layered plot. Surprising, actually. This has more meat to it than I expected, which is why I'm rating it so high.

I do wish there were more acrobatics, however. The PoP series--especially the "Sands" trilogy--is infamous for the Prince's insane agility and balance. He is, for all effect, the original king of Parkour. The film's star, on the other hand, could not realistically pull off the level of acrobatics the role called for. But hey, I'm not going to knock points off for this. I'm actually quite sick of the Parkour craze. People need to get over it and move on, already.

I liked Jake Gyllenhaal's performance, and am of the belief that it's better to get a good actor who can carry his scenes and teach him his stunts, rather than to get a good stunt man and teach him how to act. In this film, the former is what you get. Jake G is likable, captured the Prince's sarcasm perfectly, and was believable as an orphan who lucked into growing up as a "Prince" of Persia. People who claim the film is whitewashing have a point with some of the other cast members -- but not so much with Jake G, who's character, like I mentioned already, is supposed to be an orphan. Maybe his parents were foreign travelers to Persia and perished. Persia was a damn huge empire in its heyday; not everyone in it was Persian. Get over it.

As for the other actors: yes, they're white. Mostly British, in fact. But, meh, I don't care. I chose to just put this small detail out of my head for two hours and enjoy the movie for what it is: a damn good, swashbuckler of a good time!

Gemma Arterton, as usual, gets all smiles from me. I simply adore this actress in most everything I see her in (although I hated her blonde look in Quantum of Solace). The constant bickering and eventual attraction between her character, Tamina, and the Prince Dastan (Gyllenhaal) pretty much made the whole movie for me on its own. The chemistry fizzles for just a tad near the third act, sure, but then comes back in full force by the end.

Ben Kingsley, naturally, is the consummate professional. This man just oozes cool even when he's phoning in his performance. Which, surprisingly, he did NOT do in this film. Some would argue with me on this point, but to me he looked like he was invested in the role and having FUN! Imagine that, eh?

But that's what this movie is: grand, summer blockbuster, F-U-N!!!

Special mention goes to Alfred Molina, who damn near stole the movie with his over-the-top characterization of the black-market merchant and Ostrich-race promoter (yeah, you read that right), "Sheik" Amar. In lesser hands, this role could have fallen quickly into farce--or even worse, played straight--but Molina plays it deftly, carefully reigning in Amar's antics when needed, and letting go full throttle when the scene requires that extra bit of humor to lighten up the somber mood. It's ingenious how well he handles this balancing act, and I give him kudos.

In the end, this was a film well worth my time watching. Check it out if you want high-flying action, a little bit of romance, and deep enough plot to keep you just interested enough in the characters' motivations as they traverse the gorgeous Moroccan scenery (filling in for Persia) on their way to restore the . . . Sands of Time!

Oh, but if you have an irrational fear of snakes -- you might just want to avoid this one. Seriously, you haven't seen this many slow motion aerial snake attacks (snake-mo?) since Snakes on a Plane. Be forewarned.

Rating:  7.5/10

Quick Movie Review: The Losers

So, as I mentioned in that "brief" (hyuk, hyuk!) video blog entry over the weekend, we went to see the movie "The Losers" Saturday night. Thank god something told me to avoid the Times Square theater we usually go to, and instead we went to Union Square. Because, as you might have heard, we had ourselves a little pesky run-of-the-mill bomb scare that night. While we would never had been in any danger, that area is already annoying enough without an army of police, bomb squads, and reporters swarming all over the place. So yeah, good call on my part, that.

Anyway, I said this would be quick and so it shall:

The Losers. Great, awesome fun movie! Watch the trailer here to judge your interest in this for yourself. I want to see it again. It's so cool seeing another comics based film do well in just the span of 1 week. First Kick-Ass, and now this. And of course we have Iron Man 2 later this week. I'm in comic-geek HEAVEN!

The Losers is like a poor-man's A-Team, but in a good way. Almost the same concept, definitely the same team chemistry and fun! Again, just as with his turn as the Torch in the Fantastic Four films, Chris Evans made this movie for me. He was just so ridiculously hilarious! Jeffrey Dean Morgan was a heck of a lot more likable in this than he was as the Comedian in Watchmen. Idris Elba had a surprisingly nuanced and meaty role, which isn't at first apparent. And Zoe Saldana was just . . . well, Zoe Saldana! Boy, the things I would like to do to her if I weren't already --

But I am, so I won't. And not that I could even if I weren't. :)

Anyway, check this film out if you like fun "caper" type action movies involving highly trained ex-military units having things go BOOM! in order to make the world a better place.

And if you can find them, maybe you can hire the . . .

Oh wait! That's another movie for another discussion at another time. My bad.

Rating:   8/10

Movie Review: Legion

You know when you watch a trailer that looks awesome in every way, yet somehow you've got this sick feeling in your stomach that the actual movie won't quite measure up to what you think it's about? And then you go see the movie and--SURPRISE--it's actually way better than you could ever have imagined?

Well, that didn't happen with Legion. No sirreee, not at all!

Legion is one of those insipid genre films that tries so hard to be "kewl" and yet edgy at the same time. It attempts to please the action crowd, the thriller crowd, the horror crowd, AND the fantasy/sci-fi crowd all at once. And it fails on all fronts, and fails HARD!!! The writing is some of the worst written, ham-fisted dialogue spouting turd tornadoes I've ever had the misfortune of being subjected to. My mouth was literally agape by some of the atrocious stinkers these characters delivered with totally straight faces. I thought: who wrote this, an 8-year old boy with a bath towel cape tied around his neck?

(Be careful, dude -- the shitstorm's about to HIT!!!)

Well, Legion is directed and co-written by Scott Stewart. Yeah, I know: who? This is his first big Hollywood movie. Before that he did visual effects supervision on some pretty big movies. Hmmm, maybe that should have been my clue? The movie is pretty to look at at times, but that's about all it's got going for it. Legion stars Paul Bettany as the angel, Michael, who has gone against God's wishes to finally up and rain Armageddon down on humanity. He escapes heaven to warn the humans (whom he loves more than God does), and at one point literally severs his ties by sawing the wings off his back (OUCH!) before running off to protect mankind's last redemption.

The redemption in this case--wouldn't you know it?--is a baby not yet born residing within the womb of a woman who does not believe in God or even in happiness. She smokes (whilst 8 months pregnant), she strings along some dull, love-stricken sad puppy-dog of a mechanic, and is forever in full bitch mode it seems for no apparent reason. Oh yeah, that's right, correction: because some dirty low-down MAN left her.

Oh trust me, it gets worse.

As Michael secures a small army's worth of weapons and halls ass across the Mojave desert in search of the soon-to-be-born baby savior of humanity, the diner where the mother works is visited by a particularly gruesome angel-possessed old lady. Oh, did I mention that the "bad guys" in this movie are just humans possessed not by demons, but ANGELS? Oh yeah, that. I'll just call them demons from now on, because--let's be serious here--that's what they really are, for all intent and purposes.

(Old lady pantomining how big this movie sucks)

Enter Tyrese, bringing with him pretty much every black-man stereotype ever perpetuated by white-bread Hollywood writers. He's angry, listens to gangster rap, fights his lady over child custody, and (of course) is packing heat. He happens upon the diner in the middle of this desert on his way to a court hearing in LA, and ends up taking on more than just bad driving directions when he pumps a few slugs into the demon's back from clear across the room. Then claims later that he never even fired a gun before.

Yeah, okay man. Whatever you say. Do me a favor, can we ban Tyrese from Hollywood altogether? No, I don't mean just movies. I mean the WHOLE DAMN COUNTY of L.A. Don't let this guy anywhere near another movie set again, not even to deliver donuts!

Anyway, things go to hell in a hand basket pretty quick. Just like that last line, before long we're being subjected to almost every action movie cliché in the book. Cranky middle-of-the-road proprietor cussin' and packing a 12-guage? Check. Sassy goth teen who simply cannot STAND her straight-laced yuppie parents? Check. Angry black man with a secret heart of gold? Oh wait, I already mentioned him. But, check! Another, less angry, black man but older and spouting biblical wisdom? Oh, and he's the cook, too? Check and check. Survivors holed up in a boarded-up building as shambling zomb . . . er, I mean DEMONS close in on all sides? Again, check.

(der . . . yep. . .yep . . .yup. . . nuh-huh. derrrrr)

I swear, I felt like I was watching a half-dozen B-horror movies I've seen before all rolled into one. The crap just did not stop! And let me not even get into all the pseudo-biblical doom and gloom BS that people in the entertainment biz seem to think passes for good religious-themed thrillers these days. Note to Hollywood: just stop it already, okay? You had your heyday with this theme back in the late 90s when Y2K was a threat people actually took seriously for all of 3 seconds. Leave us alone already!

Anyway, the Archangel Gabriel finally shows up after what seems like a terminally long buildup, and just when you think the action's really going to crank up now . . . it simply peters out and dies. There's a brief fight, sure, between Michael and Gabriel (who exists only to follow God's law to the letter, it seems). But blink and you'll miss it.

Ultimately, the action in this movie can be summed up like so: blam, blam, blam. I'mma bust a cap in you ass, zombies! Clang, clang, clang--their time is up, Michael. No, my brother, their time has just begun. Wah, wah, oh the baby is here, hallelujah!!! Oh shit, we still got 20,000 demons camped outside our diner. Wanna run for it? Sure. This movie won't end unless we do SOMETHING!

And there you have it. You no longer need to see this movie. I just delivered for you the exact same emotional investment you got reading that last paragraph as you'll get from watching the actual film. And you didn't have to pay $10.50 for the privilege because I'm generous like that.

You're welcome.

Rating:   3/10

Movie Review: The Book of Eli

Now this, this is the kind of movie I love! Post-apocalyptic, kill or be killed survival, and a kick-ass protagonist with a moral center. It also doesn't hurt to have an Oscar-calibre actor at the forefront, either.

The Book of Eli is a remarkably well-done flick, despite some grumblings from less attentive folk over the revelation of just what the title of the movie means. To me all the negative stuff I'm reading from over-adrenalized action junkies amounts to a bunch of spoiled brats not wanting the big motivating factor behind the main character boiling down to something as didactic as true faith and divine intervention. But, you know, sometimes you just have to believe that forces beyond human understanding are at work in the world. Both in the movies and in real life.

And that's as close as I'll get to a spoiler. See this movie and you'll know what I'm talking about.

And see this you should. I haven't been this entertained by a dystopian future action movie in a long time, and Zombieland doesn't count. From the very first opening scene, both haunting and beautiful in its cinematography and framing, I knew this film was something special. Denzel is in rare form here, drawing from his considerable talent as a dramatic actor to deliver what would otherwise be some pretty hammy dialogue in the hands of a lesser thespian. He plays the role of the warrior poet to perfection, and you have just GOT to see the fight choreography on this one! It's a sight to behold. Denzel's movements are so swift and fluid through the action scenes--so reminiscent of the old Japanese Zatoichi/Blind swordsman flicks that I dearly love. It's a certain brand of fight choreography you don't see much these days. And it worked brilliantly! I'm still buzzed over the awesomeness.

When the combat switches to bullets and explosive ordinance later on, however, the action falters just a tad. But I think this is a personal opinion, since I'm not as fond of shoot-em ups as I am slice-and-dice 'em ups! Ironically enough, I felt the credibility of the gunfights were compromised compared to the hand-to-hand and bladed combat sequences. But that's just me.

All the main players were on their A game, but high praise goes to Denzel Washington and Mila Kunis both. I'm really starting to like this gal. She doesn't take the stereotypical roles someone with her looks and youth usually finds themselves pigeon-holed into taking in Hollywood. Her roles are usually darker and more introspective, which I just absolutely LOVE. Can't wait to see where she goes from here.

The bad guys in here suffered the lesser hand. Gary Oldman was okay, but at times seemed to be phoning it in. Which is disappointing since I'm such a huge fan of his. Ray Stevenson seemed wasted as the right hand man, especially after getting his own starring vehicle in the most recent Punisher movie. I really would like to see him be more careful when picking future roles. Then again, a big profile movie like this one is bound to look good on the ole resume regardless.

But, yeah, watch this one for Denzel. He's the man, and you really should already know that going in. Also, Jennifer Beals is in this. I mean, come on! Who doesn't love them some Jennifer Beals? Even after all these years since Flashdance, she is still completely easy to look at and a wonderfully expressive actress to boot. While understated, her performance in this film is completely memorable. Her comeuppance scene at the end, in particular, is so beautifully done. Wow, you've gotta see it!

As usual in these types of movies, I find myself sucked in by the gritty survival aspects. I've talked about it before, but what attracts me so much to these apocalyptic films like The Road and I Am Legend is the theme of eking out a living in a land where law and order are antiquated niceties long forgotten. Where only your wits and bravery can see you through the storm. That stuff resonates with me, man! Don't know why, but it does.

Ultimately, though, this movie is about way more than survival and kicking ass. And what some viewers see as the film's weakness, I see as its greatest saving grace (no pun intended). I really dig the ending, and the so-called "big reveal" that comes with it. But more importantly I found the film's questions on faith and God to be very poignant and moving. Which is a big deal for me to admit to, given my agnostic distrust of the Church and the book its centered around.

In the end, The Book of Eli is one of those films that will probably not receive a lot of praise from the action crowd, but should be well-received by Denzel fans and folks who don't mind a little more philosophical exploration of the human condition thrown in with their popcorn movies.

I fall into the latter camp, and I cannot praise this film high enough.

Rating:  9/10

Movie Review: Sherlock Holmes

Earlier in the year I wrote this highly indignant blog entry in response to a just-released trailer of Guy Ritchie's Sherlock Holmes film. In it, I pretty much railed against what I'd perceived as a great departure from the source material I'd grown up reading.

Well, I'm here to eat some crow and admit that I was dead wrong! Ritchie's latest flick is in fact a perfectly serviceable homage to both the literary canon of Holmesian lore, as well as the more successful television, film, and stage productions of the past. I'm going to have to look it up, but after watching this film I'm starting to wonder if perhaps the ex- Mr. Madonna might not in fact be an honorable Sherlockian. Such is the loving care with which he treats the characters and milieu of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's greatest creation.

True, there are perhaps a little too many modern affectations thrown in to qualify this as an authentic period piece (for one, Watson constantly refers to himself as a "doctor" rather than a physician), but one learns to quickly roll with these few lapses and simply enjoy the film for what it is. Which is, to wit, a darn rollickin' good detective caper filled with surprises, plot twists, and wonderfully intellectual reveals that satisfies both the educated and non-indoctrinated Holmes fan alike!

I specifically want to praise Robert Downey, Jr. for a surprisingly adept rendering of the Holmes character. I was extremely skeptical before tonight, but now I'm a believer! He was almost spot-on, surpassing all but the late great Jeremy Brett as the most pitch-perfect Holmes I've seen. Only a few quibbles here and there knock him down a notch or two, primarily his short stature and permanently grizzled cheeks and chin. But, big deal. The attitude, quick-witted dialogue, and constant needling of Watson all live up to the Holmes I know and love.

I won't go into much detail regarding the rest of the cast, except to say that they were serviceable. Mark Strong as the villain Lord Blackwood was woefully one-dimensional but served a certain end, while Rachel McAdams was cute and lively, but sometimes a little *too* modern in portrayal compared to the character taken from one of Sir Doyle's classic Holmes' tales. Jude Law as Watson is the only really memorable performance besides Downey's, playing Watson exactly as he was always meant to be: A well-balanced foil to Holmes's relentless and acerbic repartee. Kudos to Law for bringing just the right amount of charm and humor to a role many before him have tragically played too stiff and proper. Sure, he could've been a bit shorter, older, and walking with a limp -- but that's nitpicking.

As someone well-versed in the literature, I was also delighted by all the inside nods and references the director peppers throughout the film--Watson's impending marriage; a certain female somebody from Holmes's past; and even the deft set-up of his nefarious nemesis, Prof. Moriarty--which helps solidify this movie as one of the better treatments of the famous super sleuth ever seen on the big screen.

Yeah, I am not being superfluous here, believe it or not. If it wasn't for how much I adore Ritchie's earlier works--particularly Snatch--I would dare venture the verdict that this is his finest film yet.

Aw hell, I *will* say it! This is Guy's masterpiece!

My only fear is that, given the way things comes to an end setting up for an obvious sequel or two, that Mr. Ritchie may not in fact come back to continue what he has started. Oh please let this not be so. As good as this outing was, I can only imagine the awesomeness of what would ensue if we got to see the world's greatest detective battle against the most brilliant criminal mastermind of the Victorian age. That's a showdown I would pay big bucks to see directed, but only in Guy Ritchie's more than capable hands.

Rating:  8.5/10

At The Movies . . .

Well, as mentioned earlier, we spent all day last Friday watching movies. But I've been rather busy this weekend, so I didn't have much time to update until now. We saw 3 different movies at 3 different movie theaters, all more or less along a 2-mile stretch of Broadway, from the AMC theater at 42nd street to the Lincoln Plaza cinema at 68th.

Of the 3 films, the Disney one was perhaps the most satisfying. I say perhaps because the jury's still out on Ninja Assassin. I have to watch that again to fully piece together the plotline that somehow eluded me. Maybe there isn't one. Or maybe I was lost in all the CGI gore. Who knows?

Anyway, here are my quick impressions. Click on the titles of each movie to watch the trailers.

NINJA ASSASSIN
----------------------

Intense action, extremely graphic gore and blood, pretty decent acting. The legendary martial artist and actor Sho Kosugi as the villain, the head of the Ozunu ninja clan. Haven't seen this guy since the excellent B-movie Blind Fury back in 1989. Lead actor (and Korean pop singer) Rain does an understated but awesome job as the main character, Raizo, a young man on the run from the clan which once sheltered him. The gorgeous Naomie Harris as the Interpol agent who aids Raizo was excellent, as usual. Having her in the film is a big plus. The film is a taught, fast-paced action-thriller with seriously cool choreographed battles, although the CGI blood and guts can be overwhelming for some. Definitely not for the squeamish.

Rating:    3 out of 5


THE ROAD
-------------

Based on the book by Cormac McCarthy--the same guy who wrote No Country For Old Men, among others--The Road is one of those post-apocalyptic dystopian flicks that have become so popular lately (see The Book of Eli premiering a little over a month from now). Starring Viggo Mortensen and (very briefly) Charlize Theron, at its heart the movie is about a man protecting his son as the pair undertake a perilous journey across the nightmarish remnants of a destroyed America (by what, exactly, the movie is never specific). The story is bleak and unforgiving, surprising in its visceral intensity and poignant depiction of human struggle to survive despite the hopelessness of a world gone insane. Mortensen and the boy who portrays his character's son--young Australian actor, Kodi Smit-McPhee--do a phenomenal job wrestling with the source material's weighty moral issues. And the cinematography is simply gorgeous to boot! In the end, I thought this film pulled all the right strings, and personally enjoyed the simple yet effective plot progression. If you like your end-of-the-world flicks thoughtful and understated, this is the movie for you! I can definitely see this being an Oscar contender for next year. And, yes, the ending is sad . . . but not at all a surprise given the nature of the film. Kudos to the director, John Hillcoat!

Rating:   3.5 out of 5


THE PRINCESS AND THE FROG
----------------------------------------

This was the highlight of our night. Despite the screaming kids and frigid, howling winds standing in line outside NYC's famous Ziegfeld theater, we had a blast. This is Disney the likes of which I have not seen since Aladdin -- deep and serious, silly and exuberant, tied together with truly memorable musical numbers. And the actors are all so WONDERFUL!!! Anika Noni Rose as the titular "princess", Tiana. Likewise Bruno Campos voicing the role of the frog prince, Naveen. Together these two are simply GOLD! Keith David, John Goodman, Terrence Howard, and Oprah Winfrey round out the other notables in what is truly a modern fairytale done with class and charm and all the right trappings of classic Disney. The setting of New Orleans circa the roaring 20s serves as a rather inspired setting, soaked in golds and heliotropes and awash in the unmistakable spitfire melodies of Jazz. But the real draw of this movie is the animation -- as well it should be! I was simply in love with the vibrant colors and lovingly rendered 2D drawings, a much welcomed departure from all the 3D CGI glut that has choked the children's animation scene as of late. I cannot sing this film's praises high enough. A definite treat for the whole family, in every way possible!

Rating:   5 out of 5

Good Hair

Saw Good Hair over the weekend, a documentary with comedian Chris Rock exploring the previously (and to some, still) taboo subject of African American hair.

I went in to the film with the notion that a black woman's choice to relax her hair or wear a weave is no different than a white woman's choice to bleach, dye, or style her hair--both are cosmetic choices made by the individual and influenced by cultural norms. Black women use harmful chemicals to adhere to an image of beauty held by society, just as white women use chemicals to do the same. Some claim that the harm in black women doing this is present because they are trying to be something they're not. Or to prescribe to a standard of beauty not set by themselves.

But guess what? This is not a black thing. This is true of all women's fashion and beauty standards, regardless of color.

I felt going in to this film that a black woman's decision to do anything to her own hair is something that she cannot and should not be judged on. And especially not by men. For all women, in a fashion, utilize chemicals in some form to enhance their appearance. Relaxer is made up of harmful and dangerous chemicals. But so are all standard cosmetics -- makeup, gloss, bleach, dyes, nail polish/removal. This is the state of feminine beauty. Hell, male beauty too, if you're too be honest. Unless you don't wear cologne, deodorant, after-shave, skin lotion, or use toothpaste, mouthwash, contact lenses, etc.

So, yes, I went in holding these opinions. And I left the movie . . . feeling EXACTLY the same way!

Watching Bad Hair did not give me any new insight into black women's hair I didn't already know. I live with a black woman, after all. If anything, it only reinforced what I strongly believed: that what a woman does with her own body is her own decision.

It's a knee-jerk reaction--and not just by black men, but some black women as well--that women who relax their hair or wear weaves are doing so to "look white." But this is unfair and over simplifying the situation. After all, if black women are making their hair straight to adhere to a Caucasian sense of what is beautiful, then in turn white women are wearing eye-liner and blush to adhere to an ancient Egyptian standard of beauty.

I mean, how far back do you want to go? Feminine beauty has NEVER been about being natural. From the dawn of time it's been about enhancing what you have, and then taking it a step further and trying to look like something you're not. Something idealized.

This is the key word here: ideal.

Black women in America have developed a standard unique to themselves. Like it or not, this has been decided. It's a purely egotistical and chauvinistic slant held by men that women pretty themselves up to look good for men. Oh puleeeze! Black woman do not torture themselves under 5 hours of intense scalp burn just to compete with white women over black men. They do it to compete with themselves! Just as women's fashion has grown up around the concept of the "other" woman, and not men at all. Women are not stupid. They know they don't have to do much to attract a man's attention. That part is rather easy.

I say this because I've been reading a lot of opinionated male blogs in the week leading up to this film's release concerning the "woeful state" of black women and self identity. As if. Black women are stronger and more independent then ever. They don't need a man to tell them how to feel about themselves. They have that all under control, thank you very much.

The black hair industry is a booming, multi-billion dollar juggernaut. It's not going anywhere. The key, then, if you are a black man (or a white man such as myself), is to just accept it. Black women are not trying to look like white women. Has white fashion *influenced* black beauty? Sure it has. But so has Asian, Middle Eastern, and Indian fashion influenced women's beauty in general. Who are we kidding?

If you really want to get a debate about what Black Hair truly reveals, it's this disturbing revelation that the industry is being dominated by Asian entrepreneurs. How's that for a slap to the face? In the documentary, some of the black women and men Rock interviews express dismay that black people are not even "allowed" to run their own beauty supplies. This opens up a whole other can of worms I won't get into right now (that's probably another blog entry). Suffice to say my views are not what you might think, and that I lay full blame on black people themselves.

Anyway, I think this film was an amazing insight into a part of American culture not too many people are aware of. And not only among the white population, but within the African American community itself. And judging by the reaction of those in the audience with me, this film was received well by people of all backgrounds. I found just as many Caucasian, Hispanic and Asian women discussing the film with their friends afterwards as black women. It's that type of production, and it was done extremely well.

Check it out for yourself some time.

Is District 9 Racist?

I haven't spoken much about it here, but I have updated on Facebook a few times about how much I really, really liked the latest sci-fi sleeper hit, District 9. Mostly because I just didn't feel like writing yet another movie review where I gush and gush about how great a film it is.

It's come to my surprise, however, that there's a little bit of backlash over what many feel to be highly racists overtones to the film. Not to mention some little discrepancies that may or may not be plot holes.

Which completely knocked me for a loop. Well, okay, not completely. Some of the concerns I do happen to agree with, but the biggest complaint I happen to TOTALLY disagree with. I'll get to that in a minute.

Super cool and wonderful SF writer, Nnendi Okorafor, wrote an interesting opinion piece over on her FB account detailing her own disappointment with the movie, and she even listed ten specific bullet points revealing her concerns. Most, though not all, of the points dealt with the sensitive race issue, and whether or not the director, Neill Blomkamp, was ignorant or deliberate in his portrayal of South Africa and its denizens.

I was going to link to the piece, but then I realized that Ms. Okorafor's FB account is private, so I don't feel comfortable linking or even copying & pasting her excellent views here. I'll just generalize some of her concerns, which also happen to be shared by a few other SF writers I admire, like Tobias Buckell for one.

In other words, I'm going to address four of the more common complaints directed at the movie, some of which I honestly feel the offended are being a little unfair in their attacks over, and others which I think are missing the mark. Suffice to say there are major *SPOILERS* in effect down below. So don't read if you haven't seen the film yet. And definitely don't comment. There's nothing I hate more than people commenting on a movie they haven't even seen for themselves.

Cool? Okay.

1. The Prawns are too stupid and clumsy to be an advanced alien race. Are they stand-ins for negative stereotypes aimed at blacks?

In my opinion: No! Now, yes, I'm not black so obviously I can't possibly see the issue from a black man's (or woman's) perspective. But I think a lot of critics are missing a key point about the plot. To wit, the Prawns are worker bees. Or ants. Or whatever insect comparison you want to use. While not specifically mentioned in the movie, I myself had already formed the conclusion that these aliens obviously work on the hive mind conceit. Which is to say, a higher intelligent "queen" directs the movements and the work flow of the worker and soldier entities under her command. In the insect world, these entities are almost entirely male, and they are generally considered to be one-track minded and in complete service to the queen. When the queen dies, the workers go into frenzy and run about directionless and misguided until another queen can replace the missing or dead one.

In science-fiction, this conceit is often taken further to the point of giving the "queen" telepathic control over her subjects, which is what Blomkamp was doing with his aliens.

How do I know? Because he said so himself on the District 9 panel at ComicCon. I can't remember his words verbatim, but it was something to the point that the ship which comes to rest above JoBurg was a mining ship that ran into trouble when the queen Prawn died and left the worker Prawns with no way of operating the technology on the ship. The fact that the one Prawn, Chris, was intelligent is due to happenstance of Prawn physiology which, in the absence of the Queen for an extended period of time, grants one worker Prawn sufficient intelligence over time to assume temporary leadership until a new Queen can take over.

This is how I remember hearing the explanation go. I could be wrong. There were a lot of vidcasts I watched coming out of ComicCon, and at the time I was trying to keep the details of District 9 from being spoiled to me. But even without this I got the impression from the movie that the Prawns were like worker ants who had lost their direction and "leader." Except, I thought that Chris was part of the "royal family", so to speak, and that this was why he and his son alone were intelligent. I kinda like my version better, as the assisted intelligence route kinda weakens his heroism, I feel. I'd rather Chris was naturally that intelligent, and that it was due to his genetic relationship to the actual Queen.

Either way, the Prawns are imbeciles for a reason. With a Queen, they are guided, purposeful, and able to use their technology. Without the Queen, they apparently can't tell their asses from their elbows!

2. If this takes place in South Africa, why are all the main human roles white?

First of all, not all the roles were given to white people. I personally really liked the guy that was supposed to be Wikus's replacement. I forget his name, but he was the poor sap that couldn't find a flak vest. He not only survives District 9, but in fact does take over Wikus's position. You see him being interviewed later on in the mockumentary within the movie. There's also the MNU merc/enforcer who escorts Wikus when he goes to serve eviction notices. I also liked this guy, and would have liked to see more of him in action.

But, that being said: Yes, I agree with this statement. D9 really *is* shockingly devoid of, you know, black people. It was indeed one of my chief complaints with the film.

But here's the thing: this is the way movies are sold these days. I'm not trying to make excuses here. I place the blame for this squarely at Blomkamp's feet, for he is the director after all. A sci-fi movie taking place in South Africa really shouldn't be so pasty white. It's embarrassing!

But let's not pretend we don't know that this goes on in Hollywood. According to the big wigs, NOBODY wants to see movies with primarily black people in them. Not unless the movies are gangsta movies, or hood-related in some way. It's sad, and it makes me very angry. I hate it! I hate when they pull out the box office numbers as proof, yet conveniently fail to point out that the reason movies with strong black casts do so poorly at the B.O. is because Hollywood never gives the big blockbuster movies over to this kind of casting. This is a vicious circle that looks to have no end in sight. Will Smith can only do so much, and even then they pair him with a white chick just to be on the safe side.

All this is to say that I can see why District 9 has so many white people in it, even while disagreeing with the decision. Again, this does not excuse the filmmaker(s). It's a legitimate beef, but one I've been having for years now, especially in sci-fi movies.

3. The vial of black goo can change a human to an alien? What a ridiculous plot hole!

I admit, this is a bit hard to swallow. But such is the nature of plot devices also known as "maguffins." They don't always make a lot of sense, maguffins, and are really there to serve as linchpins to the plot. To give the story something to revolve around, in other words.

And that's what this is.

But, actually--and to my surprise--there is, in fact, a quasi explanation for this in the movie. It was established fairly early on that the Prawns' technology revolves around a much different basic concept than our own human technology. And that is, that their tech is all operated on a biological level. Specifically the genetic level. Knowing this, is it really such a stretch that the *FUEL* to power this tech should be bio-genetically based as well? And not just any genes, but native Prawn genes at that? After all, it did take 20 years just to produce one vial. Sounds rather complicated, as befitting something that can rewrite an organism's genetic code.

While I do snicker at the extent of change such a substance can realistically wrought inside a human body (I mean, Wikus tuned into an EXACT copy of a Prawn, for crying out loud!), the bad science in this respect was at least built upon the established conceit that the alien tech is almost close to being alive. And so, therefore, if a human were to be contaminated by said tech, its probably going to do some nasty damage to him/her on the genetic level.

In a sci-fi novel, you would have to have a scene where this is explained in more detail of course. But in an action movie, we're lucky we got *any* set-up at all.

4. The Nigerian Factor.

Okay, this is the big bad of all the complaints levelled at this film. And the one which I disagree the most with the complainers over. Here's my rather long take:

The Nigerian gangsters in the movie are barbaric, superstitious, idiotic, and backwards.

And I say to this: no duh?

These are fucking GANGSTERS, people! WTF? Never once did I sit there and think: well, damn, those Nigerians sure are a stupid bunch of people.

No!

What I said was: damn, gangsters are so damn ignorant! They think they can solve everything with guns and violence.

And I would wager that no other intelligent people watching this movie left thinking that they better hide their children from their Nigerian neighbors. Not unless those neighbors just happen to be gang members, too.

I understand why some people (and not all of them black) are quick to take offense to this. But my thing is, you better then take offense at EVERY movie out there not specifically about gangsters but where gangs are secondary or supporting villains. How many movies have you seen depicting Italian, Irish, Mexican, or African American gangsters as ridiculously base and superstitious? I mean, to the point of caricature? I'm not going to sit here and list them all, but whenever a gang or ganglord is the petty villain, you're guaranteed to have them depicted as ultimate losers.

The exceptions to these are films specifically about gangsters. The ones where the gang leader IS the hero. Like the Godfather movies, or Gangs of New York, or Scarface, or New Jack City. In these movies, the gangsters are shown as successful and intelligent. Sometimes more intelligent than the cops, even. But in every other movie where gangs are not the focus, they are always portrayed in broad strokes, often taking in the very worst stereotypes of a particular ethnic group. Not because the movie makers are being racists (okay, not always), but because some stereotypes are based on reality perpetuated by a very, very small minority within said group.

So take the Nigerian gangsters in District 9. Clearly the scum of the earth, and guided by the most ignorant superstitions. But, hey, guess what? Ritual dismemberment DOES go on in sub-Saharan Africa. Every once in a blue moon I'll read an article in the New York Times about how some little boy or girl was kidnapped, or a man killed, so that bush doctors could grind their bones into a tea to help cure everything from a common cold to AIDS. It doesn't happen every day, no. But it does happen. From my own reading, it seems to happen in Nigeria, Tanzania and the Congo region, or pretty much any place where lawlessness runs rampant in Africa and the government is not in control of the regional warlords.

So why shouldn't this ONE man in District 9 who happens to lead a piss-poor ragtag group of imbeciles in his gang NOT be superstitious? Especially when that superstition fuels his own irrational greed and belief that he will become some super-powerful warlord and take over the world? This guys is not Vito Corleone--he's fucking BONKERS! He's not some criminal mastermind. Why do you think he's holed up in District 9 leeching off a bunch of dumb alien refugees? Probably because he was too ass backwards to survive among the *real* criminal elements in JoBurg.

Being that she's Nigerian, I understand why Nnendi Okorafor and her sisters were the most offended by this. If I were Nigerian, I would be too! But offended in the same way I would be if I read the newspaper about a real life Nigerian gangster raping and dismembering a 4 year old girl so that her body parts could be used in a recipe for curing Malaria. Hint: do a Google search of "Ritual Child Killing in Nigeria," and see what comes up. But be forewarned.

Now, does this prove that all Nigerians are child-killers and cannibals? Hell no! Anyone who would think that needs to be smacked. All countries have elements within the populace that are fringe and criminal, and who operate under practices abhorred by the good law-abiding citizens of that country.

When I saw this in District 9, I thought to myself: Oh, looks like Neill Blomkamp was reading the newspaper. Because, this is exactly where I learned about this practice. Just because it's abhorrent does not mean it's not true, somewhere someplace. And not practiced by the majority--or not even the minority--but by a very select few deranged individuals at that.

And that's what this gang leader was in the movie. A deranged INDIVIDUAL with his own pet witch doctor and who's followers are too scared to oppose him. The portrayal was overdone a tad, sure, for dramatic effect . . . but I strongly believe that it was not the director's attempt to disparage an entire nationality here. If not Nigerians, then who? South Africans? Botswanians? Sudanese? If the gang leader, Obasanjo, were any one of these nationalities (albeit with a different personal name), would his portrayal be any less offensive?

The movie needed a dumb villain cannibal to counter the somewhat smarter (or at least, better financed) *real* villain cannibal in the movie-- the MNU. You know, the organization that was pretending to help the Prawns, but was in fact herding them into pens and dissecting them back in underground labs to steal their secret "power." Oh yeah, that group.

This is why I give Neill Blomkamp credit. He portrayed a very select group of Nigerian fringe elements as superstitious cannibals, yes. But the message was that the *real* evil is in the form of white-bread "humanitarian" groups that are really in Africa to exploit and bleed the victims dry before moving on to another location.

And I don't hear anyone protesting this portrayal, do you?

Anyway, this blog entry has gone on long enough. I thought that the movie was great, when I don't read too much into it. Which is what I keep reminding myself not to do when it comes to action movies, sci-fi themed or otherwise. I'm sure I'll make some people angry, but I've said my peace and so -- have at me!

A Weekend For Old Movies

At a loss for titles to add to my Netflix queue recently, I decided to catch some classics that I've always been meaning to watch. I don't know why, but suddenly I was in the mood for sword-and-sandal epics, so I rented Ben-Hur and Spartacus. I've heard these two films mentioned a lot by film historians, so thought I'd finally check 'em out.

Ugh, why did I bother?

I know I'm going to be criticized for judging these works with a contemporary eye, but trust me, I tried really hard to watch both films in the spirit of the times in which they were made. And I'm sorry, but I guess I just prefer plots with a little more sophistication. Stuffy, old film critics would call it blasphemy to place a movie like, say, Gladiator, in the same consideration as Ben-Hur and Spartacus, but despite its popular appeal with the action crowd, Gladiator has a far more mature and complicated script than this pair of nearly 50-year old films.

I guess movie-goers were not as jaded back then as they are now. I realize that it is precisely because of films like Spartacus that Gladiator even exists, but its an interesting study in filmic evolution to watch both works side by side.

My critique notwithstanding, however, I will say that Kirk Douglas did an amazing job as the Thracian slave turned gladiator turned rebel leader. It's also eerie how much Michael Douglas takes after his father. Although, whereas the son always strikes me as sleezy and smarmy in the roles he portrays, the elder Douglas comes across as humble yet stately at the same time. I might have to check out his other films.

Growing up in my household, The Ten Commandments was an annual rite of passage. We would watch that long ass movie without fail every year on Easter Sunday. But, honestly, I can never get enough of it! Don't know why, but TTC never ceases to fascinate me with its epic, decades-spanning plot and insightful examination of the human condition. Which is why I thought I was primed to receive Ben-Hur in a positive light. After all, it hails from the same time period of Hollywood extravagance and Golden Age filmmaking. And it, too, stars Charlton Heston, who I actually like as an actor.

So where did it go wrong for me? Well, it's not to say the movie is bad, actually. It's very well-made and acted. But, like with Spartacus, the story is not very creative. At times it tries a little too hard to leech off on the Jesus mythos, with Judah Ben-Hur poised to be the second-coming of the messiah himself. Luckily, things scale back by the third act and, by the end of the movie, Ben-Hur is just a modest man content to live out his days in privacy with his family. Unfortunately, this gives the film a sense of going nowhere, and which is why I found it ultimately BORING!!!

Hmm, guess I struck out 0 for 2 with my picks.

But fear not! While not in the same genre or category as the former two, the third title from my Netflix queue was much better received. I'm talking about the 1968 Franco Zeffirelli classic, Romeo and Juliet.

I confess to having watched this one already back when I was just a freshman in high school--which, I didn't realize until tonight, placed me at exactly the same age range as the titular star-crossed lovers. How surreal! At the time, I could barely follow the film as Shakespeare was quite a difficult read for a kid from the South Bronx to wrap his head around. But even back then I recognized the film as something quite special. Or perhaps it was the mad crush I had on Olivia Hussey! :)

Suffice to say, rewatching it again now was quite a different experience. Having read virtually all of good Mr. Shakespeare's works in college, following the lines in the film was a much easier affair this time around. It's amazing what a little book learning and maturity can do for one's viewpoint, eh? :)

Anyway, I thoroughly enjoyed the film. What a true masterpiece, and well-deserved of all the praise it received at the time of its release. And, even though I feel like a lecherous old perv now in saying this . . . but, damn, that Olivia Hussey is quite the beauty! Of course, she's pushing 60 these days, but like another big-time crush of mine, Madeline Stowe, she makes great use of her mixed Latin American and Anglo heritage. Whoo boy!

So, what's next up on my list of old classics to purview? I don't know, but I was thinking of popping in Lawrence of Arabia at some point. I own the re-mastered DVD version released a few years back, but for one reason or another never did get around to watching the film. So maybe that.

Unless someone out there can recommend me another? I don't really have a preference. Just that it be somewhere around 30 to 50 years old and can be considered by most movie buffs to be a genuine classic, if not a masterpiece.

Any suggestions?

Movie Review: Moon

Two months ago I mentioned in an entry here that I was anticipating this small sci-fi film, Moon, which was first scheduled to come out later in the summer. Well, turns out the date was pushed up to last month for certain cities, and I finally got to see Moon during what I think might be its last week in select theaters. Hopefully there will be a wider release in September. (Check out the link if you want to watch the trailer.)

Moon is a small budget, independent sci-fi movie directed by none other than David Bowie's son, Zowie (billed here as Duncan Jones). It stars primarily Sam Rockwell (of Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy fame) as Sam Bell, and Kevin Spacey (The Usual Suspects; K-PAX) as the voice of the lunar base robot, GERTY.

Basic premise: In the near future, Earth's energy crisis is virtually solved by the mining of Helium-3 rich regolith from the Moon. Sam Bell is a miner on contract with an Earth-based energy company contracted for a three-year stint alone on the Moon to oversee the mostly autonomous operation. When enough He3 is gathered to fill several canisters, his job is to trek out in his lunar surface rover and retrieve the canisters, then bring them back to base and place them in a launcher to send back to Earth. Except, on the eve of his contract expiration, something goes wrong during one such retrieval mission, and Sam makes a disturbing discovery that promises to turn his life completely upside down.

Kevin Spacey does an amazingly understated yet nuanced job voicing the likable robot AI who serves as Sam's only companion. The movie asks the audience to decide whether what Sam is seeing is real (as improbable as such a prospect seems), or if his discovery is really just the end-product of too much time in isolation from real human contact.

At first, the viewer is reminded strongly of Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey, and there is a fear at the beginning that the movie is treading on cliched territory. Later, the plot develops to a point that seems to be mimicking another sci-fi character study film: Solaris. But I'm happy to say that Duncan Jones's film wisely steers clear of these tropes. Ingeniously so, in fact.

This is actually what elevates the film above most other well-intentioned but ultimately mundane character-driven sci-fi flicks. Just when you think you've got the story figured out, the plot surprises you. On more than one occasion I felt I had the entire film pegged, only to discover that what I'd thought was going to be some closely-held secret reserved for the climax, was in fact an intentional direction the director wanted me to head towards all along. One crucial twist surrounding Sam's accident comes surprisingly early in the movie, thus ruining my smug notion that I had already pegged the entire plot to come.

Now that's good filmmaking, folks!

I love movies that can take my premature assumptions and not just turn them on their head, but use these assumptions against each other to the point that I have to throw up my hands and just take what comes my way. :)

Sam Rockwell does an excellent job portraying a wide array of emotions and states of disarray. He sells this entire movie pretty much on his own shoulders, and HARD!!! Kevin Spacey as the sullen-toned AI servant/companion/caretaker is pure and simply a master study in acting through voice only, reminiscent somewhat of Alan Rickman's turn in Hitchhiker's--but much, MUCH better.

Another surprise is the polished and realistic look of the visuals. Simply put, a movie this low-budgeted (a rumored $5 million, which is paltry by comparison to any other sci-fi film being produced today) should not look THIS GOOD! The moonscape looks fantastic, the overhead top-down satellite shots appropriately eerie, the base interiors are utilitarian and simple, and the lighting is gorgeously soft and evocative! Also, last but not least, the inspired score by the wonderfully brilliant Clint Mansell (Requiem for a Dream; The Fountain) is both creepy and poignant at the same time, eerily reminiscent of the score to American Beauty, yet so perfect for the small, claustrophobic film that is Moon. If you want an idea, just watch the trailer for snippets of the score. I swear, I'm still humming the main tune in my head as I write this. Mansell has a knack for creating memorable themes that just won't leave you months, even YEARS, after hearing them.

To tell you to go see this movie is an understatement. But please do, if you can find it in a theater nearest you. And especially if you're into the type of sci-fi movies that don't involve aliens, explosions, laser-beams, or inaccurate science (which excludes like 90% of the genre, I know). If this is any indication of Duncan Jones's talent (and he co-wrote the story and script, one must add), then I've just become an avid follower of this new and promising director. Yay!!!

Rating: 9/10

A Tip If You Find Yourself In An Action Movie . . .

. . . Don't hold hands with your love interest whilst trying to dodge giant robots! Or huge explosions. Or supercharged micro-ballistics. Or all of the above. Just, don't. For one, you'll run a lot faster. And maybe you'll look slightly more believable while doing it. Slightly.

We saw Transformers 2 last night, if you can't tell. While it wasn't the train wreck that the first movie was, and not nearly as bad as I had anticipated, it was still a hot mess of huge plot holes, dinky editing, and poorly chosen comic relief.

I'd say the most egregious problem I have with this entire franchise is the anthropomorphizing of the giant alien robots. Why, dear god, WHY? Do we really need to see a f'n set of dangling BALLS on the humongous pyramid-wrecking robot? Tell me, Michael Bay, what conceivable plausibility does that have in the grand scheme of things? Unfortunately, that wasn't the worst of it (oh wait, yes it was!). But giant robots sporting metallic walking sticks, giant robots affecting Cockney accents, giant robots crying liquid tears, giant robots shucking 'n' jiving . . . yeah, you get the point. Bleh!

Anyway, that being said, I was actually surprised that the movie wasn't worse than it should have been. I mean, to be honest, my attention really was focused the entire time! At 2:30 hours, I can say that it felt more like 1:45 due to the general breezy pace of the plot (holes and all). Unlike the first movie, which stunk in terms of narrative flow and suffered from a poor premise to boot. The MacGuffin this time around--and trust me, there's ALWAYS a MacGuffin in these types of movies--is no less plausible than the first, but is at least a lot more interesting. That's saying something.

Since this is a Michael Bay film, the action and 'splosions are really ratcheted up to somewhere around 17 (out of 10). But you know this going in so, as long as you prepare for it, things should be fine. The acting was poor, but no one goes to summer blockbusters for the acting. Or do they? Again, this you should already know before heading in.

Everything considered, however, it was in fact an entertaining movie. It goes without saying you must check your brain at the door first, but at least I can say that you'll have some very good popcorn FUN out of this flick. While I don't own the DVD of the first movie, I'd actually buy the one for the sequel when it comes out. And, who knows, maybe I'll purchase the first just to make it a complete set.

Oh, and Megan Fox was simply DIVINE! Holy Shadow Moses Island -- she was so damn FOINE!!! Not enough to raise my rating . . . but, er, she certainly raised other things (hint: blood pressure, get your mind out of the gutter!)

I don't usually get hot and bothered by celebrities, but I feel no shame in admitting this one lapse. I sure hope she evolves to other better and meatier roles in the near future. People bag on her acting, but actually I can see that she's going to be very good. It's not her fault that her director and scriptwriters are the lowest base denominator of cinema artists out there. With the right material and a few more years' maturity, I think she'll be a very successful actress if she wants to be. And not just based on her looks.

I saw things. Yeah, not just *those* . . . but things. You know. :)

If you somehow managed to like the first Transformers movie, you'll love the hell out of Revenge of the Fallen. If, like me, you despised the first one, then *maybe* you'll enjoy this one. I somewhat did, and I was a very tough customer going in. You'll just have to decide for yourself.

Rating: 6/10

3 Mini Movie Reviews

Through some rare time fluctuation where both our schedules sync'd for once (i.e., Lisa had the weekend off from the hospital), we were able to catch 3 flicks on Friday and Sunday. Ironically, none of these movies were films we were hoping to see -- Lisa wanted to see Pelham 123, and I wanted to see Moon, but neither of us wanted to see both. What we ended up seeing were three comedies instead.

Since I don't have the energy to write out full and detailed reviews of all three, here are just my quick impressions:

The Proposal: Sandra Bullock and Ryan Reynolds were awesome as two people who hate each other yet grow to love one another. I totally bought their chemistry, and the comedic timing was excellent! They were truly a joy to watch together onscreen, and the film itself had some genuine laugh-out-loud moments. But the nice build-up of the plot doesn't pay off during the climax, and the film nosedives to a crash landing in the end. Very strange, but at least 2/3rds of the movie is worth watching. Rating: 6/10

Year One: I really like Jack Black and Michael Cera in their previous respective movies. And in this one, they were pretty good. Again, the comedic chemistry was for the most part on point between the two. And, of course, I got to feast my eyes on the lovely Olivia Wilde, who is just stunning in here despite the small role. But, I'm afraid there just wasn't enough funny to go around. Quite a few of the set-ups were drawn-out and lame -- particularly the scenes involving the Hunter-Gatherers at the beginning, and the Cain and Abel stuff. Unfortunately, the story goes nowhere and even the jokes dry up halfway through. Skip this one at all costs. Rating: 3/10

The Hangover: Finally, we have a winnar! I don't know how to describe this one, except that it's like the epitome of every road trip comedy you've ever seen -- but with BALLS! Both figuratively and, unfortunately . . . literally. I like even more the fact that none of the lead actors in here are big names. I mean, when Bradley Cooper is the top billing name on the credits, you know you're not dealing with Hollywood's A-list in the movie you're about to see. No offense to Mr. Cooper, who I actually do think is a great method actor. But yes, all I can say is to GO SEE THIS! Like, right now!! Oh, and I'm so glad my Vegas pre-wedding night didn't go anywhere near the territory this film treads. It takes the old Vegas adage to the limits! Rating: 8/10

Hope you all had a good weekend. If you've seen any of these movies and would like to add your own comments, please feel free to do so below.