Crank: High Voltage

Not every movie is for every audience. That's a pretty well understood fact. Probably no other film in recent memory exemplifies that fact better than Crank: High Voltage, a film that takes every wacky excess of the original Crank, dials it up to eleven, and then sets the whole thing on fire just for kicks.

So if you've seen the poster, you pretty much know the story. Chev Chelios (Jason Statham) died. But then he got better. After falling from a helicopter at the end of the first film and bouncing off a car, Chev is scraped off the pavement by the Asian mafia. He wakes up a couple months later in a crappy operating room with an artificial heart and his own in a cooler halfway across town. The movie then follows Chev as he rampages across Los Angeles, searching for the man who stole his heart and attempting to keep his body charged any and every way possible.

The first thing to note about Crank 2 is that everybody from the original is back. And I DO mean everybody. There are cameos out the wazoo; even Efren Ramirez is back playing the psychotic twin brother of his character from the first film (and just because his character was apparently not crazy enough, they decided to give him "full body Tourette's"). The movie is full of bizarre callbacks to the first film. There are more crazy 'juicing up' sequences; there's another weird public sex scene; ridiculous escapes and shootouts; it's all here. Crank: High Voltage is pretty much everything one might expect from a sequel to a movie like Crank.

But is it a better film? Not really. Sure, it's loads more fun, it's crazier, and a hell of a lot funnier. But it doesn't really build on the foundation of the original, just continues it's mad descent into lunacy. For me, the climactic fight scene felt like a bit of a letdown. Then again, when your first film ends with the hero and villian falling out of a helicopter, you're gonna be hard pressed to top that. But damn, if they don't try. Depending on your taste for over the top, cartoony action, the final shot of the film will either leave you disgusted or laughing your ass off. I fell into the latter.

There's so much about Crank: High Voltage that I want to talk about, but I feel like mentioning any of it might spoil it for anyone else. Suffice it to say, the trailers only show a fraction of the strange things you'll encounter in this film. With an equally twisted musical score composed by Mike Patton, Crank: High Voltage moves and spazzes out like a speed freak in a candy store, and if you enjoyed the first film at all, you'll definitely get a kick outta this one. Is it great filmmaking? No. But writer/directors Neveldine and Taylor and Jason Statham know exactly what they're doing, and it's one of the most fun, aggressive, and wacked out action films ever made.

Four stars (****) out of five.

And just for fun, here's a bit of Mike Patton's score:

Observe and Report

If Judd Apatow is the proprietor of today's "Idiot manchildren growing up" comedies, NC native Jody Hill is making a name for himself with a series of "Idiot manchildren being reinforced" comedies.  Ronnie Barnhardt (Seth Rogen) feels like he could be the equally disturbed younger brother of The Foot Fist Way's Fred Simmons.  But whereas Fred seemed to at least learn something from his ordeal, Ronnie's creepy worldview is not only vindicated, but frighteningly encouraged.

Ronnie is the head of security at a New Mexico shopping mall.  He spends his days pining for the use of a six-shooter while on duty, as well as Brandi (Anna Faris), the girl who works the cosmetics counter.  When a flasher starts terrorizing the mall (and the audience) with his dangly member, Ronnie takes it upon himself and his team to hunt the flasher down and protect Brandi.

What follows is Ronnie taking advantage of the situation to go on one ridiculous ego trip after another and to woo Brandi (seemingly by force).  The film is more of a disturbed character study than a plot-driven comedy.  It does bear a lot in common with The Foot Fist Way, especially in watching our hero's well-being continuously put to the test, often with violent results.  It's a film that almost forces you to root for Ronnie, because in the real world we'd probably hate this guy.

Ultimately, it's this aspect of the film that will either make or break it for you.  If you're willing to forgive some of Ronnie's more violent excesses and impulses, you'll probably have a fun afternoon at the movies.  On the other hand, you may find yourself aghast at Ronnie's behavior, especially once the real detective (Ray Liotta) arrives onto the scene, much to Ronnie's chagrin.  It's a credit to Seth Rogen that the central character's performance is as strong as it is, because the film that he finds himself in is really pretty flimsy.  

Just like with his previous film, Jody Hill seems far more interested in character than he is in plot.  The film ultimately suffers from having almost nothing to do, leaving Rogen to invent shenanigans for Ronnie to get into (the increasingly quiet shouting match with a fellow mall employee: priceless).  There are some great laughs along the way, but the film can't overcome its lack of structure to be anything other than a curiosity.  Which is a shame, because Ronnie's character arc is surprisingly strong.  It's fun seeing Seth Rogen actually play a character other than himself for once, but the film surrounding him is largely unimpressive.  Observe and Report is certainly funny, but a strong central performance does not a good film make.  

Three stars (***) out of five.

Warner Bros. Owns (Some of) You

So last night, thanks to the kind folks at the SXSW film festival and Hulu.com, I watched Josh Koury's documentary We Are Wizards. It's a fun little documentary; not very well structured, but it paints an interesting picture. Most people might watch this and see how a book can change a person's life. And while that's certainly one of the themes running throughout the film, I feel like I came away with something a tad more sinister.

If you want to get technical, yeah, that's pretty much what the movie's about. But look at the individual case studies they present. Graphic artist and uber-funnyman Brad Neely loved the movies so much that he created his own fake book-on-tape version: Wizard People, Dear Reader. A couple of guys in a toolshed created a tribute band, dubbing themselves Harry and the Potters. A pair of kids, inspired by the band, create their own Harry Potter music. Melissa Anelli, proprietor of The Leaky Cauldron, a Potter fansite, takes it upon herself to chronicle the experience of living in the middle of the Harry Potter phenomenon. Other tales are told, but the idea eventually emerges that JK Rowling's series is the primary catalyst in these people's lives, and without it they'd be seemingly lost.

Again, you could argue that the film sort of becomes a thesis on the positive effects of fan culture. Maybe this is just the cynic in me, but I kinda see it as a cautionary tale about how consumer culture has irrevocably implanted itself into people's lives. Not even a cautionary tale. That would imply that it hasn't happened yet. But it has. Without Harry Potter, the unifying catalyst in these people's lives would be gone. This documentary wouldn't even exist. Late in the film, Neely makes the observation that without Wizard People, he'd never have landed a job working for [adult swim]. And of all the people that the film highlights, he comes across as the one person who truly gets how ingrained pop culture is in his life, and everyone else's.

There's no doubting it, the corporations have already won. Chances are, if you're a Harry Potter fan, Warner Bros. already has your money. When the Potter theme park opens, you'll probably go. The same is true for any company. McDonald's, Microsoft, Disney, Viacom, etc. Our ultimate choice, as consumers, is the corporation with which to align ourselves. You can support Warner Bros. by going to see the next Harry Potter movie; you can support Viacom by watching MTV or going to see Transformers 2; you can support Nintendo by buying a Wii instead of an Xbox 360. And so on. And so on. And so on.

I know that sounds pretty grim, but isn't that what's ultimately at the heart of fan culture these days? Without the artist, there'd be no intellectual property. Without the corporation, there'd be no promoting the intellectual property to potential viewers. Without the viewers, there'd be no fan culture. Sure, the fans do have some say in what gets support and what doesn't, but when it comes to the point where the fans are so starved for more that they start bending the property inward and regurgitating it themselves, where does that leave us?

Look, I support fandoms. I've been a Star Wars fan for years upon years. I own my fair share of X-Men action figures. As I type this, I'm wearing a Blue Sun t-shirt. I get it. You become a fan and you wanna show your support. That's awesome. But what I don't get is the gi-normous fan fiction community, the cosplayers, the people who make it their life's work to take their fandom of choice and attempt to make it as palpably real as possible. I just don't understand it. I respect it, but I don't get it.

Why not use that very same motivation to try and create something new? Why not create something that others might one day build a fan community around? That's the thing that gets me about We Are Wizards. The film shows us all these people who've been influenced by Harry Potter to go out and create, and yet the only person who seems able to acquit himself of the books (or in his case the films) is Brad Neely. Melissa Anelli, webmistress of The Leaky Cauldron, comes close as well. However, even though she's branched out and written her own book, that book is still a reflection of the Hary Potter fan community.

I don't know. It feels as though the film addresses this problem, however subtle that address might be, but never ventures to suggest any solutions. Well, it does, but it's in the form of a right-wing Christian naysayer, and it comes off as too obviously antagonistic. Sure, this is just a documentary about one particular fandom, but I never read any of this into films like Trekkies or Ringers or Heart of an Empire or Done the Impossible. I'm not trying to suggest that the problem is exclusive to Harry Potter, because it absolutely isn't. I'm just wondering why nobody's bothered tackling the issue before now.

Ok, I'm going to just shut up now before my fandom license gets revoked.

Watchmen

Possible spoilers ahead. Fair warning.

My initial gut reaction to Watchmen was a strange one. It is a good film, I definitely appreciated how they adapted most of the material. Parts of the film I felt worked fantastically. Other parts, not so much. While it's an easy film to appreciate, it is definitely not an easy one to enjoy. Like the book, the film is a dark, almost mournful thesis on the state and direction of our civilization. Overall, Watchmen is a very difficult film, and one that refuses to be dismissed lightly. And I think that's a good thing. One thing director Zack Snyder certainly cannot be accused of is selling the film's soul to Hollywood. The heart of the film is very much intact and, as anyone who's read the book can tell you, that heart is a heavy, distressed, and disconcerting heart.

The film takes place in an alternate universe where masked vigilantes are a matter of fact. The timeline delineates with the arrival of Dr. Manhattan (Billy Crudup), a physicist granted immeasurable powers thanks to an experiment that goes haywire. Thanks to Dr. Manhattan, and the presence of other crimefighters, Richard Nixon is still president (in the film's present, 1985), the US won the Vietnam War, and is inching ever closer to nuclear war with Russia. That's the climate in which the film's story takes place.


The plot proper revolves around Rorschach (Jackie Earle Haley), a sociopathic crimefighter investigating the murder of his colleague The Comedian (Jeffrey Dean Morgan). Their team, Watchmen, have long since disbanded and fallen out of practice, but The Comedian's murder, prompts Rorschach, along with his fellow Watchmen -- Nite Owl/Dan Drieberg (Patrick Wilson), Ozymandias/Adrien Viedt (Matthew Goode), Silk Spectre/Laurie Jupiter (Malin Ackerman), and Dr. Manhattan -- to solve the case before World War III erupts.

Of course, this is the briefest possible description of what takes place in the film's 163 minutes. The film takes great pains to incorporate as much of the graphic novel's dense material as it possibly can. And just like with Lord of the Rings, many fan favorites had to be left out. Dr. Long, Rorschach's psychiatrist, is present, but his story is not. Bernard and Bernie, newsstand vendor and comic reader are present, but again, their story is not. "Tales of the Black Freighter", the comic Bernie reads in Watchmen, is nowhere to be seen (though, to be fair, it will be released in the coming weeks and reinserted in the film on DVD). There are many other parts of the book that are alluded to, but never given full consideration.


The film works perfectly fine without any of these things, though I might argue that it loses a bit of the flavor that made the book such a rich experience. Then again, Zack Snyder and his team acquit themselves well of creating their own rich experience. Whereas Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons used the book as an opportunity to play with the telling of a comic story, Snyder pushed a few filmic boundaries, and brings the story to life in a way that only a film can. The greatest example of this is in the opening credits, a sequence in which we see the entire history of masked vigilantes in a series of moving tableaus, from rise and fall of the Minutemen of 1940 to the formation and eventual collapse of the Watchmen, all set to Bob Dylan's "The Times They Are A-changin'". It's a wonderful way of bringing image and song together to create new meaning but, sadly, the film rarely reaches such heights again.

Thematically, the concepts that Moore dealt with in his story are all mostly present and accounted for. The problem is that Snyder only presents them, never following through and exploring them. We get that each of the masked crimefighters have their own demons, that none of them (even Dr. Manhattan) are perfect, but it's left to the viewer to decide what any of it means. Snyder's film feels like a teenager retelling the comic's story but never quite grasping what Alan Moore was trying to say. Is the murderous, yet righteous, Rorschach supposed to be the film's moral center? Are Ozymandias and Dr. Manhattan right in their assessment of mankind? Or should we side with Dan and Laurie and just try to concentrate on our own lives? In refusing to take sides, the film comes across as sort of nihilistic, even afraid to commit to one ideology. Then again, the same can be argued of Moore's original story.


The ultimate conundrum is that this is a lot of baggage for what is being marketed as a $100+ million action movie. People going into the film expecting more of the same from "The visionary director of 300 and Dawn of the Dead" are in for a rude awakening. Yes, there is quite a bit of action and gore. Yes, the film has a fantastic aesthetic to it. And yes, it's every bit as successful in its adaptation as Snyder's previous films. But rather than being energetic, Watchmen plays out more like a requiem to a genre that may have seen it's last hurrah.

Ok, ok. I've talked a lot about the big issues surrounding Watchmen. And you've probably guessed that I found a lot to enjoy about the film. So, in a nutshell, what works? Jackie Earle Haley as Rorschach. The visual effects. Snyder's choice of pop songs for key scenes. The (mostly) slavish faithfulness to the book.


What doesn't work? For one, I can't tell if the aging makeup on Richard Nixon and Sally Jupiter (Carla Gugino) was meant to be cartoony or not. It's painfully obvious. Like most people, I think the plot falls short in the final 15 minutes. The change made to the film's big twist may be less ridiculous, but that doesn't mean it works any better. It raises its own red flags and illogicalities that are just too big to ignore. Also, the film is long, and occasionally feels it. Even if you've read the book, you may find yourself waiting for the next action beat, because certain scenes just seem to drag.

Overall, Watchmen is a faithful adaptation to what was once considered an unfilmable book. Given the legal struggles, narrative hurdles, and numerous false starts over the years, it's a small miracle that the film even exists in the first place. It is definitely a sight to behold, and an experience that I look forward to having again soon. However, it is not at all uplifting or life affirming. It's a brave film with a morally ambiguous ending, and even though the ending might not be great, the journey to get there is thought-provoking and engaging.


Watchmen is definitely not for everyone. Those with a strong stomach, a keen eye for detail, and a working knowledge of literature (not just comics) will get more out of Watchmen than those just looking for a good superhero yarn.

4 stars (****) out of five.

Fanboys

Potential spoilers ahead. Fair warning.

The late 1990s were a special time to be a Star Wars fan. The original trilogy was re-released in theaters. Sure, the additions Lucas made varied in quality. But more than that, there were rumblings of the absolutely unheard of. For the first time in fifteen years, it sounded like there might actually be a new movie -- no, a new trilogy -- on the way. Back then, we didn't know what to expect. There was no inkling in anyone's mind that the eventual trilogy would feature Hayden Christensen complaining about sand or Liam Neeson ruining the magic of The Force. Hindsight is 20/20, but back then you could've cut the anticipation with a vibro-axe.


That's what Kyle Newman's long in the works Fanboys is all about. It's 1998, and Star Wars fans are holding their collective breath for Episode One: The Phantom Menace. Four friends hatch a plan to break into Lucasfilm headquarters and steal a workprint of the film, and each of them has their own reason for making the journey. Eric (Sam Huntington) wants to make peace with his best friend, Linus, who's dying of cancer. Linus (Chris Marquette) wants to go because he won't live to see the May 19, 1999 release date. Windows (Jay Baruchel) wants to go for the chance to finally meet his online girlfriend. Hutch (Dan Fogler) wants to go because it's his van they're driving. And Zoe (Kristen Bell) tags along because the movie would be a total sausagefest otherwise.

What follows is pretty much your standard road trip comedy, albeit with a severe Star Wars bent. The film hits every road movie cliche, and wastes no time in geeking out at every opportunity. Along the way, the guys have run-ins with gay bikers, a gaggle of Trekkies led by Seth Rogen, geek guru Harry Knowles (badly caricatured by Ethan Suplee), and more celebrity cameos than you can shake a stick at.


A movie like Fanboys really lives and dies by it's Star Wars jokes. Honestly, it's about 50/50. For every good joke or visual gag, there are an equal number Star Wars lines quoted out of context that are clearly meant to be funny, but simply aren't. Referring to your friends by saying "These aren't the droids you're looking for"? Really? Come on. Granted, there is one line involving a doctor that's pretty great, but other than that I could really do without these. Also, from a Star Wars fanboy's perspective, the movie sometimes seems too generic. Whenever a character asks another character a piece of Star Wars trivia, it's embarrassingly easy. It makes one wonder if the writers are really Star Wars fans at all. You guys couldn't do a little more research?

And overall, that's my biggest complaint with Fanboys. It ultimately feels too light; like they could've delved a tad deeper into the fandom. I'm not asking that they make a bunch of weird, obscure references to the expanded universe or anything, but a little true fanboyism might gone a long way. Of course, there is a fine line to walk. Go too geeky and you risk alienating casual viewers who don't know an ewok from a cooking wok. To their credit, each of the main cast acquit themselves well, especially Dan Fogler, who looks and acts like the fat little brother Han Solo never had.


Much has been made of the "Linus has cancer" subplot, which Harvey Weinstein tried to cut out entirely a year ago. Star Wars fans went ballistic, boycotted Superhero Movie (how well did that really go over??), and got the subplot re-added. After all that mess, I'd say it was worth it. While it's remarkably light for such a depressing plot point, it works. It keeps the film firmly grounded as Eric and Linus' journey, rather than just about four dudes on a road trip. There is a decent payoff in the end, but it's almost entirely undercut when we learn what their initial feud was over in the first place.

Ultimately, Fanboys is sort of a "Star Wars fans only" affair, and while it doesn't have the R-rated teeth of a Sex Drive or even a Road Trip, it's definitely a fun little ode to the pursuits of one's youth. For fans, the movie is a nice reminder of the collective mindset of a decade ago. Even if you hated The Phantom Menace, you know you couldn't wait to see it. And if the movie has one ultimate success, it's in reminding us that Tom Petty was right. Waiting WAS the hardest part.

3.5 stars (***1/2) out of five.

The Wrestler (2008)

Everyone knows professional wrestling is fake. The matches aren't so much actual brawls as they are choreographed flips, turns, and slaps. What's real, however, is the physical and emotional stress that some of the combatants endure in and out of the ring. It's this aspect of the sport that director Darren Aronofsky's film The Wrestler chooses to illuminate, and to shocking success.

It's been 20 years since Randy "The Ram" Robinson (Mickey Rourke) was in his heyday. Today, he works weekdays at a supermarket and in the local New Jersey wrestling circuits on the weekends. Randy suffers a heart attack after a particularly brutal 'hardcore' match, and as a result, begins to re-evaluate his life. He attempts to court his favorite stripper, Cassidy (Marisa Tomei), who, like Randy, is also a performer whose work is suffering due to her age. At the same time, Randy tries desperately to reconnect with his estranged daughter (Evan Rachel Wood), and set up a reunion match with his former rival, The Ayatollah (Ernest "The Cat" Miller").


The Wrestler succeeds in not falling into any of the trappings usually associated with professional wrestling. All the wrestlers play their parts as heros and villains, heels and faces, but backstage everyone is just happy to be hanging out. There's no evil promoter trying to exploit his performers, nor any concern over ratings or ego. The Wrestler treats its culture of choice much in the same way that last year's Role Models treated LARPing: merely as the accepted way of things. And that's good. It means we can concentrate on the characters as real people rather than as cartoons.

After having tried his hand at science fiction in The Fountain (some find it incoherent, I think it's a beautiful film), Aronofsky gets 'back to basics' with The Wrestler. The film is shot very minimally. Shot on 16mm, lots of handheld shots, lots of static shots, zero CG. Stylistically, it bears more in common with his first film, Pi, than his other two films, and I think that was for the best. The story is a relatively small one about an equally small world, and the film reflects that nicely. Aronofsky restrains his style enough to allow the characters to develop naturally.


Which, again, was for the best, because once the movie ends, you'll be talking about Mickey Rourke's performance more than anything else. It's nothing short of magic watching Rourke throw himself 100% into The Ram. He's no doubt tapping into his own years as a 'has been' in order to show us just what Randy's going through. He plays the character honestly, realistically. Just when it seems that Randy's going to make it, he finds a way to screw up and put himself back to zero. We've all been there (in one way or another), and that's what makes the character work.

Rourke's been working consistently since 1979, but he's been on the comeback trail ever since he surprised everyone by being the best thing about Sin City. I'm sure he'll get his due come Oscar night, and he absolutely deserves it. Not only is The Ram one of the best characters of the year, but his movie is one that'll have you laughing and crying, cheering and cringing. The harsh reality Aronofsky puts on display here is every bit as entertaining as anything you're likely to see this year, and perhaps for a long time. Your mileage may vary depending on your tolerance for stripteases and a little bit of gore, but if you can stomache it, The Wrestler more than delivers.


Five stars (*****) out of five.

The Spirit (2008)

Almost immediately, the vast majority of viewers have been dismissing The Spirit as worthless garbage without a second thought. That's just not fair. It's not a bad movie. Different? Sure. Bizarre and resembling little of Will Eisner's original comic? You betcha. The Spirit isn't so much Sin City-lite as it is Frank Miller applying his comic sensibilities to a medium that's still new to him. And in that respect, The Spirit simply suffers from a novice filmmaker's first turn behind the camera.

Denny Colt patrols the streets of Central City as The Spirit (Gabriel Macht), a sort of unkillable vigilante (think Batman in a suit and fedora, sans gadgets). His archnemesis, The Octopus (Samuel L. Jackson) is after a vase containing the blood of Hercules. In his way is Sand Seraf (Eva Mendes), a globe-trotting jewel thief who is after her own mysterious, mythical object. She's got her own history with The Spirit, and the movie spends plenty of time explaining it in a strange, mid-movie flashback.


Stylistically, the movie heavily resembles Sin City more than anything in Will Eisner's comics. Miller's playing with more or less the same style as Rodriguez' film. The only difference here is that it moves more like a comic. As The Spirit runs along power lines and hurls manhole covers at countless thugs that all look like Louis Lombardi, it all moves like a cartoon.

And really, that's all this movie is aspiring to. It's absolutely a cartoon, and Frank Miller is indulging (most of) his comic and cinematic desires. It's clear taht he's not taking this material seriously. Otherwise, Eva Mendes wouldn't have photocopied her ass, Samuel L. Jackson and Scarlett Johannson wouldn't have donned Nazi uniforms, and the blood of Hercules would never have figured in as a plot device.


There's no logical way to take this movie seriously, and it's for that reason that I'm pretty sure this movie is a comedy. Not a jokey comedy, mind you. But a Frank Miller comedy. See, Frank Miller loves film noir; enough, in fact, to be goofy and weird with it. Every time someone gives a ridiculous line delvery (or rather, says something totally ridiculous without a knowing wink), it's funny. It's supposed to be. I think it's a symptom of this movie being horribly mismarketed. People are going into this thinking it'll be a repeat of Sin City (which itself was really, really silly).

The Spirit is a comedy in the same way that I'm pretty sure Spider-Man 3 is a comedy. It's more of a parody of the genre than an honest stab at it. But, as with Spider-Man 3, the problem is in the direction. Miller's not at all an experienced director, and he doesn't have the deftness of Sam Raimi or Robert Rodriguez. There are many shots and cuts that don't really work, and occasionally it's really hard to tell who is punching out who and where the body is flying. Some of the action just doesn't work. As for the script, the film plays out much in the same way that a comic book does. Whole passages of the film veer off into odd tangents, almost like that middle issue of a series that has little to do with the story. Of course, just because it's there doesn't mean it really works. It kinda doesn't.


But for all it's comic sensibilities, goofy sense of humor, and overall weirdness, The Spirit is not the cinematic abortion that many people might lead you to believe. On the contrary, it's one of the strangest films you're likely to see all year, and it's worth seeing simply for the sake of being different. It's odd and goofy enough to entertain, but definitely not the second coming of Sin City (though that film is apparently still in the works). It's fun. I enjoyed it, and I hope more people find something to like about it.

3.5 stars (***1/2) out of five.

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (2008)

Nature's first green is gold,
Her hardest hue to hold.
Her early leaf's a flower;
But only so an hour.
Then leaf subsides to leaf.
So Eden sank to grief,
so dawn goes down to day.
Nothing gold can stay.

If ever the meaning of Robert Frost's poem was lost on you, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button will be all the explanation you'll ever need. It's a film all about the impermanence of life, from the fleeting years of childhood to the brief hours of a love affair to the waning days of a life fully lived. As a reworking of F. Scott Fitzgerald's original short story, David Fincher's film is a marvel to behold, but upon closer inspection the story itself isn't the thrilling, life-affirming yarn we're led to believe it is.

As he narrates early on in the film, Benjamin Button (Brad Pitt) was born under 'unusual circumstances'. He was born as a baby with all the physical attributes of an elderly man on the verge of death. Every day, he gets a day younger while everyone around him gets a day older. This conceit alone is enough to drive the story forward, as we watch Benjamin have to cope at seemingly every turn with the fact that his condition is one that literally nobody else understands.


It can't be said that the idea isn't an interesting one to toy with. Early on, during Benjamin's 'younger' years, he is taken to a brothel by an eccentric tugboat captain (Jared Harris) who's under the impression that Benjamin is a 60 year old virgin. It's incidents like this that give the film any flavor at all, and as the story settles into it's primary groove, we are afforded fewer and fewer interesting facets of Benjamin's condition. Once it becomes clear that the story is going to follow the romance between Benjamin and his longtime friend Daisy (Cate Blanchett), it becomes much like any other romance.

And this turns out to be the film's downfall. In relying almost solely on the aging concept to drive the story, the film ends up playing the same note over and over again until it no longer has any need to. Two hours into the film, it becomes clear the direction the story is going to take, and the story struggles to keep the audience's attention, relying almost solely on Cate Blanchett's performance to carry the third act. This would've been acceptable had the third act not been a foregone conclusion alluded to constantly for the previous two hours. As it is, we know where the story is going, and there's simply not much joy to be found in watching Benjamin's life wind down just as so many before him have done.


Of course, none of this rests on David Fincher's direction. This is perhaps the best directed film of his career, from the opening studio credit to the final fade out, there's never a dull moment to be had (visually speaking). Fincher utilizes all sorts of camera tricks and filming techniques to show us a story seemingly without time. If not for the superb computer-generated de-aging effects on Brad Pitt, you'd swear this were a film out of another era. Plot and script issues aside, this film is breathtaking to watch.

I know it seems like I'm placing a lot of judgement on the script, but that's because it's really my only problem with Benjamin Button. Fincher's direction is spot-on, most (if not all) of the cast pull their weight admirably (especially the minor players), and it is a fascinating character study. But the main crux of the film just ultimately collapses under its own weight. If you're willing to accept that the film is a pretty big downer and that the script runs out of steam considerably short of the finish line, you'll find that Benjamin Button has a lot else to offer.

3.5 stars (***1/2) out of five.

The Day the Earth Stood Still (2008)

I feel like I'm being thrown onto the defensive for a film that I really didn't think was that great, which is an odd position in which one might find themselves. The Day the Earth Stood Still isn't great cinema by any stretch of the imagination, but I feel like many critics are too quick to slam the movie simply for being a remake of the 1951 classic. Yes, this is a remake. Yes, the original was (and still is) a classic. But does that automatically make the remake a bad film? No. If that were the case, The Thing, The Fly, The Blob, Invasion of the Body Snatchers, and Dawn of the Dead would all be bad movies, and the truth is that all of these are at least solid films; some of them great.

However, the critics who hate The Day the Earth Stood Still seem to truly hate it. It's not that bad. The basics of the film are largely intact. Scientists detect a large object on a collision course with Earth. Instead of colliding, as originally predicted, it lands in the middle of Central Park. Of the myriad scientists and military personnel sent to intercept and study the object, the first to make contact with it's inhabitant is Dr. Helen Benson (Jennifer Connelly). Once in military custody, the alien, who identifies himself as Klaatu (Keanu Reeves) and has taken on a human body, informs them of his intention. He represents an interplanetary council, and was sent to Earth to assess the human race's case for survival. It is for him to decide whether the human race is fit to continue. Klaatu is accompanied to Earth by a gargantuan robot that the US military names GORT (Genetically Organized Robotic Technology, or something equally ridiculous). While Dr. Benson and her adopted son Jacob (Jaden Smith) flee with Klaatu, the military tries its best to destroy GORT to no avail.


Yeah, a few things have changed, but the basic song remains the same, as it were. What the film ultimately gets dead-on right is the tone and visual aesthetic. There is a constant sense of foreboding looming over any given scene, and it adds a significant amount of weight to a script that doesn't seem to bother with subtelties. The designs of the orb spacecraft are intriguing, and are decidedly different from the alien designs that have come before. We've come a long way from flying saucers. Then there's GORT. The design team did a pretty good job of updating him without ruining his imposing nature. Rarely do fully CG creations come off successfully. GORT works wonderfully.

And say what you want about Keanu Reeves, but the man does alright for himself as Klaatu. He looks uncomfortable here, just like an alien who isn't used to a human body. His monotonous speech pattern is equally stilted and uneasy. Of course, I'm not sure how much of this is Keanu simply refusing to emote or what, but (at least for me), his performance worked. The same cannot be said of Jennifer Connelly. She's gorgeous, as always, but she looks equally lost in this film. The supporting players that come off best here are, undoubtedly, John Cleese and Kyle Chandler, who do well with their limited screentime.


What doesn't work so well? The script. For as much foreboding tone as the visual crew add to the film, it seems like they had to compensate for the script, which holds next to no dramatic tension. The emotional arc that Klaatu must travel through the course of the film is layed out through dialogue in such a way that we're basically given a roadmap to the film every 10-15 minutes. One scene in particular, one that takes place inside a McDonald's, might as well be counted as a spoiler, that's how on-the-nose the dialogue is. And for a film this rooted in classic science fiction, there are far too many tiny plot holes. Why would you leave an alien being, whose abilities are not known, alone in a room with a defenseless examiner?

I have an idea for what they perhaps should have done with this film. Instead of a straight remake of the original that merely updates the theme of nuclear annihilation to environmental destruction, why not make the film a sequel? The film could have been about the return of Klaatu, fifty-seven years after his first trip to Earth, to issue us his final ultimatum. In 1951, he gave us a choice: change our destructive ways or die. In 2008, we've replaced one global threat with another, and now that Klaatu is back, it's time to pay the piper. He sets the destruction of Earth into motion, and must be convinced otherwise at the zero hour. Would this not have worked? I think so. And it wouldn't have been at the risk of damaging the original. It would be sort of the extra-terrestrial equivalent of George A. Romero's zombie cycle. I think that could have worked...


Ultimately, however, The Day the Earth Stood Still is not the piece of cinematic garbage that many critics seem to think it is. Sure, it's not a classic by any means, but neither is it a contender for Worst Film of the Year. Had this script gone through maybe one more revision, the result might have been a tight, thematically sharp sci-fi parable. As it is, however, The Day the Earth Stood Still is a mildly engaging sci-fi yarn for those willing to lend an ear, two hours, and seven dollars.

3.5 stars (***1/2) out of five.

Fourth Quarter Catch-Up

I know I promised a full scale review of Quantum of Solace, but for the sake of keeping things relevant and moving on this blog, I'm just going to include it with a series of quick reviews of films you may have missed in late October and November. Of the lot, Quantum of Solace is absolutely the best film. Just so you know.

Sex Drive - Sex Drive is a somewhat predictable film that successfully blends the road movie with the teen sex comedy (more often than not, anyway). While the plot itself occasionally feels undercooked, the filmmakers and the cast at least have the good sense to keep things interesting and keep them moving. The film ultimately falls apart at the end (as most of these tend to do), but the journey to get there is certainly a lot of fun. Goofy performances from Clark Duke, James Marsden and Seth Green give the film much of its energy. 3.5 (***1/2) stars out of five.

Max Payne - While the film nails the visual style of the video game, almost everything else feels wrong; the casting in particular. Mark Wahlberg is a serviceable Max, but Mila Kunis is not the actress needed to effectively portray Mona Sax. The main problem with the film is that it's not nearly as 'guns-a-blazing' as the games, and the detective story that replaces the wanton violence just seems thrown together to get us to the climax, where things finally start exploding. The Valkyr drug plot both works and fails, depending on which part you're considering, which is frustrating. Frustrating is the best word for this film. 3 (***) stars out of five.

Zack and Miri Make a Porno - Not nearly as successful as Kevin Smith's last film (Clerks II), Zack and Miri is full of great dialogue, as any Kevin Smith film is. However, the romance that evolves is on very shaky ground, as though the whole thing could collapse under its own weight at any moment. Seth Rogen and Elizabeth Banks are the two saving graces of the film, though, knowing just the right way to deliver Smith's sometimes long-winded dialogue. The highlight of the film comes early (heh), when Zack and Miri meet a gay porn star (Justin Long) at their ten-year high school reunion. 3.5 (***1/2) stars out of five.

RockNRolla - Guy Ritchie's latest bears more in common with Lock, Stock & Two Smoking Barrels and Snatch than his more recent films. It's a fittingly odd crime caper with a decent McGuffin. Tom Wilkinson plays an effective crime boss. He's no Brick Top, but he gets the job done. Equally fun to watch are Gerard Butler and Thandie Newton, who play off each other in some interesting ways. Ritchie wants this to be the first in a trilogy; a trilogy that might never come to pass, as it tanked horribly at the box office. And that's too bad, because this was quite the fun little caper. 3.5 (***1/2) stars out of five.

Role Models - Role Models is perhaps the funniest comedy of 2008, based solely on the strengths of Paul Rudd's and Bobb'e Thompson's line deliveries. Also, the fact that the film utilizes LARPing (Live Action Role Playing) as a major plot point, and does so effectively, makes the film that much stranger and more successful. Well, to me, anyway. Seann William Scott isn't afforded much time for his own B-plot, but it's not the central crux of the film, so it's not a total loss. If you're a fan of KISS or KISS jokes, you'll probably get a good kick out of Role Models. 4 (****) stars out of five.

Quantum of Solace - A lot's been made about how Quantum of Solace is disappointing when compared to Casino Royale. I have to respectfully disagree. In hiring director Marc Forster, a man known more for his artistic merit rather than action filmmaking, the producers manage to inject some subtlety into what is essentially a revenge story. Daniel Craig once again tears it up as Bond, and he's matched by Olga Kurylenko, whose character has similar demons to battle. Ultimately, the film is a more erratic one than Casino Royale, but when viewed as Part II to that story, Quantum of Solace works wonderfully. 4.5 (****1/2) stars out of five.

Bolt - If you've ever seen Toy Story or The Incredible Journey, then you know every single beat that Bolt has to offer. Now, of course, that's a little over-exaggerated, but it's mostly true. John Travolta voices a dog who believes he has superpowers, and must cross the United States to reunite with his owner (Miley Cyrus). Along the way, he learns that he might not be as super as he thought. See? It's both those stories I mentioned above. But that doesn't mean it's bad. On the contrary, the 3D animation looks remarkably good. Not PIXAR quality, but close. There are some glaringly huge plot holes, but other than some internal inconsistancies, the movie does alright for itself. Kids will love it, at any rate. 3 (***) stars out of five.

Låt den rätte komma in (2008)

Most people know my stance on vampire films. If you don't, here's a quick recap: Most of them are crap, more often than not because they either over-exaggerate the lore (Queen of the Damned) or ignore it entirely (Blade: Trinity). The best vampire films respect the tradition of the creature, and the Swedish film Let the Right One In is one of very few vampire films that deals with the monster in a very human way, while telling a startlingly realistic love story.

Oskar's life is not a pleasant one for a 12 year-old. He's scrawny, he's ruthlessly picked on at school, and his parents are divorced. He quickly strikes up a friendship with Eli (Lina Leandersson), an odd girl who just moved in next door. It's not long before we learn what's wrong with Eli. She's a vampire, and her father (or caretaker, we're not told which) has to murder and bleed random individuals so that she can feed undetected. This doesn't deter Oskar (Kare Hedebrant) much, and the two quickly become the closest of friends.


So what do I find so fascinating about this film? Well, like I said above, it does two things absolutely right. One: it treats the classic vampire with the utmost care. The title itself is a reference to the notion that one has to invite a vampire in before it will enter, something most films or stories ignore out of convenience. Here, we even get to see what happens when Eli enters a room uninvited. Two: the film doesn't waste time over-explaining to us how things work. We know what vampires can do and we don't need to be told all over again. Once it's revealed that Eli is a vampire, she begins acting accordingly. When she feeds, she's ravenous. She's sneaky, agile, and ruthless. But the film never oversells the fact. Eli's final, gruesome attack is completely implied, and it's all the more terrifying for it.

And that's one thing that makes Let the Right One In stand out. Narratively, we learn as much implied information as we learn onscreen. For instance, it's never explicitly stated that Eli's caretaker is actually her father. He certainly could be, but if he's not, that speaks volumes about Eli's power over him. Also, it's implied that Oskar's mother is worried sick over her son's supposed violent outbursts. It's never explicitly dealt with, but if you want to entertain the notion, there's plenty to ponder.


Equally as important here is the relationship between Eli and Oskar. The friendship develops naturally, but soon grows into something considerably more complicated and meaningful. Eli warns Oskar that they shouldn't be friends, but against her better judgement he eventually wins her over. Just like so much of this film, their relationship grows quietly, one act of kindness after another. Absent is any of the melodrama that typically accompanies adolescent love stories. Anyone who's ever been 12 knows Oskar's situation, and the film mines those memories to surprising effect. It sort of makes Oskar into a Mary Sue, but the difference is in the fact that the character's life is already so terrible, that no one in their right mind would see it as wish fulfillment.

Ultimately, however, this is still a horror film. Each of Eli's kills are jarring and hard to watch, which is as much a result of subtle visual effects and sound design as it is the sight of a girl jumping and feeding on a grown man's neck. There's a scene involving a pack of cats that's still stuck in my head. It's just... unsettling... But anyway, while the film may not be the most effective horror film of the year in terms of scares, it's definitely the most creative and subtle. Let the Right One In is one of the best horror films of the decade, and it's a real shame that it's getting the Hollywood remake treatment already.

4.5 (****1/2) stars out of five.

Slumdog Millionaire (2008)

With each passing film, Danny Boyle becomes more and more one of my favorite directors. I know, I said the same thing about Guillermo del Toro in my review of Hellboy II, but I'm saying it again for different reasons. Sure, Boyle's visual style is one of the things I love about his films, but with films like Trainspotting, Millions, and now Slumdog Millionaire, his films offer the viewer a window to a world they might otherwise have never considered.

Before, his films showed us a slightly skewed vision of the UK. His latest, Slumdog Millionaire, shows us a side of India that the news simply cannot provide. The plot itself is deceptively simple. Jamal Malik (Dev Patel), an 18 year-old tea runner goes on the Indian version of Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? With each passing question, the film flashes back to an event from Jamal's childhood that explains why he knows each given answer. Through these series of flashbacks, we see the story of Jamal's life, escaping the slums of Mumbai with his brother Salim and a girl named Latika, and we see each of them climb the social ladder, and the perils along the way.


There's certainly more to it than that, but explaining any more would spoil just how ingenious the storytelling at work here is. Imagine if Citizen Kane had been about Charles Foster Kane at the age of 18, and you get an idea of the kind of multiple plots at work here. And in some ways, it's a little more complex. Of course, the film never gets bogged down in complicated cross-cutting or confusing sequences. The first five minutes or so are a little disorienting, but once you get into the flow of the story, everything makes perfect sense. It's a credit to Boyle and editor Chris Dickens that the segmented story flows as well as it does. Slumdog is a marvel of narrative storytelling, but that's not the only trick up its sleeve.

The other crucial element that the film gets absolutely right is in its casting. Each of the three main characters (Jamal, Salim, and Latika) are portrayed by three different actors. We see them as children, as adolescents, and finally as young adults. Each character's three actors do very well for their parts. But, of course, the lion's share of the praise has to go to Dev Patel, who plays Jamal as he appears on the game show. His understated, honest performance makes Jamal just that much more likable.


There are few films this year with the kind of amazing narrative drive that Slumdog Millionaire presents. And while the film at times seems bound and determined to get from point A to point B at all costs, it never forgets to keep the viewer in the loop. Boyle's film is one that not only embraces global phenomena, but also displays a keen eye for local Indian flavors. Jamal's journey is a fascinating one, and one that proves to be one of the most inspirational of the decade. I can't recommend this film strongly enough, and hope it gets its due come Oscar-time. Make no mistake, this is one of the very best of the year.

4.5 (****1/2) out of five.

Punisher: War Zone (2008)

Punisher: War Zone is not a good movie. However, Punisher: War Zone IS a good Punisher movie. There were certain elements about Jonathan Hensleigh's 2004 film that I enjoyed (particularly Thomas Jane as Frank Castle), but it's mostly a forgettable film. And the less said about the 1989 Dolph Lundgren film, the better. But I feel like there's actually something to be said for this film. It's not great cinema, but it's actually fairly successful, considering the film's pedigree.

Rather than a sequel, this is the third time out for Marvel's own dark knight. We already know how Frank Castle (Ray Stevenson) lost his wife and children at the hands of gangsters. He's spent the six years since that day out to stop crime at all costs. After Castle kills an undercover cop during a raid on mob boss Billy Russoti (Dominic West), he makes it his duty to protect that cop's wife and daughter from Russoti and his goons.


It's a pretty basic plot, but one that Punisher comics have been dealing in for years. Ultimately, Punisher: War Zone is a painfully familiar revenge thriller, but what makes the film at all interesting is the fact that it's definitely a comic book film. The violence and gore (and there's a lot of it) is over the top to the point that it's cartoonish, hilariously so. For every gut-wrenching kill, there's one that can't be anything but a joke. At the same time, it's no more violent than anything found in the comics. Which is a good thing, since War Zone is about as close to a Garth Ennis/Steve Dillon comic as any film will probably ever get. Vibrant, colorful backdrops, deep blacks and wild explosions. Everything a typical Ennis/Dillon comic offers is on display here. And it looks great.

The other thing the movie thankfully gets right is in recasting the Punisher himself. While I do wish Thomas Jane had returned for this film, Ray Stevenson does an admirable job of filling his shoes. While he's not necessarily a better actor, he's not bad. Plus, he looks more like the character than Thomas Jane ever did. At the same time, Dominic West is a lot of fun to watch as Jigsaw, Russoti after a particularly gruesome run-in with the Punisher. Jigsaw and his gang are the most outlandish things in this film, almost single-handedly elevating the film's goofiness to the level of Batman Forever or Spawn.


Ultimately, that's my final thought on the film. Punisher: War Zone hearkens back to the action films of the mid-to-late 1990s, and is good at what it does. The thing is, the movie is too bi-polar for its own good. There are scenes when it's too mean-spirited, then scenes when it's just too silly (Jigsaw gives a hilariously rousing speech in front of the American flag). If you're into The Punisher, or Marvel Comic films in general, you'll probably get a kick out of Punisher: War Zone. If The Punisher isn't your thing, then you won't get anything out of this movie.

3 stars (***) out of five.

City of Ember (2008)

City of Ember is tanking hard and fast at the box office. Not that it's really any surprise, because it's really difficult to figure out who exactly the audience for this movie was. In simplest terms, City of Ember is a sort of post-apocalyptic tale for kids and young teens with a retro, 1950s sci-fi aesthetic and themes about learning to help yourself rather than put your faith in a troubled world. Even when worded like this, City of Ember seems like kind of a hard sell. And it is.

The movie opens and we learn a few vague details about the end of the world. We don't know exactly what ended the world, but we do know that a team of scientists designed an underground city that would serve as the incubator for mankind while the Earth spent the next 200 years recovering. The key to returning to the surface was locked in a safe and entrusted to the city's mayor, who passed the box to the next mayor, and the next, until eventually the box becomes lost to time. After 200 years, the power generators are beginning to fail and the city as a whole is beginning to break down. Enter Doon (Harry Treadaway) and Lina (Saoirse Ronan), two teenagers starting their first day as pipe worker and city messenger, respectively. Doon thinks he knows how to fix the city's generators, but at every turn his dad (Tim Robbins) and mentor (Martin Landau) tell him to just mind his own business. Lina discovers the previously mentioned safe in her grandmother's closet, and it's not long before she and Doon decide to flee the city before it inevitably goes dark forever.


What the movie lacks in character development it more than makes up for in an intriguing story and some fantastic production design. Director Gil Kenan (Monster House) does a great job of establishing a world where Art Deco was the last thing society knew before everything went to Hell. If you've ever played the video game Bioshock, you know what to expect from City of Ember's visual style.

One of the things that the movie doesn't delve into as much as it maybe could have is the notion of autonomy and making decisions for oneself instead of letting groupthink dictate your actions. As Doon and Lina begin putting the pieces of Ember's history together, their snooping is met with nothing but denial from the city's mayor (Bill Murray) and his second in command (Toby Jones). There's also an odd thread dealing with what might as well be called the city's religion, and their annual day of singing praises to the builders of the city. The film doesn't delve into this concept very far, but then again, given the target audience, it would have either gone over kids' heads or sparked backlash among religious groups.


As the film is, though, it sort of plays like The Village for the younger crowd. It's not as dense as The Village, but City of Ember does deal in some of the same themes. As I stated before, the character development doesn't exactly mesh the way it maybe ought to, but the characters are at least simple enough that they don't take long to get to know. So overall, City of Ember is a beautifully shot film with some really great ideas behind it, but maybe a little light on the execution.

3.5 stars (***1/2) out of five.

Religulous (2008)

Your tolerance for Bill Maher and Borat director Larry Charles' documentary about poking holes and shedding some doubt on organized religion is likely going to be entirely based on your religious persuasion. I have my beliefs, but am not against considering alternatives or refuting everything entirely. So if you're like me, you'll enjoy Religulous, if only for all of the jokes, snarky comments, and facetious arguments that Maher provides along the way.

Maher's goal, he states at the beginning of the film, is to better understand all the intricacies and odd nuances of organized religion. Along the way, he targets Catholicism, Evangelicalism, Mormonism, Scientology, Judaism, and Islam. One of Maher's big arguments throughout the film is the notion that doubt breeds discussion. By allowing his interviewees to speak their piece with little prompting or baiting, Maher draws some a wide variety of responses; some truly odd, some downright frightening. Take, for instance, the museum curator whose prehistoric museum (which depicts early man's coexistence with dinosaurs) includes a model triceratops wearing a saddle. And this is presented as fact.


While most of what Maher and Charles offer us is often hilarious, it very rarely is eye-opening or informative. Now, this wouldn't necessarily be a problem, but this is a documentary we're talking about here. By its very nature, we're meant to learn something from it. Maybe some people of a particular faith might learn about the ins and outs of other religions, but the point of the piece is to prod, poke and scrutinize each of the religions it encounters. While Maher's jokes are well-timed and certainly very funny, it doesn't really make the documentary any more informative. Only when Maher turns his eye toward Islam does the film take a staunchly preachy tone, as he eventually declares all religions, not just Islam, as dangerous to mankind's existence on this planet. Its clear that Maher is shying away from taking potshots at the Muslim community, but was it necessary for him to instead end the film in a tirade?

The film feels very much like a personal journey (in fact, the film's codename during shooting was "A Spiritual Journey"). Bill Maher's intent at the beginning of the film is not necessarily how he comes to end the film. It sort of feels like an essay that comes to define itself and change it's thesis as it goes along. As I stated before, what you take away from Religulous depends entirely on how seriously you take religion. As a film that stands on its own and purports to be a documentary, I found more comedy than documentary. The topics that Maher chooses to poke fun of aren't anything I didn't already know, and I'm willing to bet the same can be said for most people. Therefore, what is the real point of the film?

(Here, Maher interviews an actor portraying Jesus at The Holy Land Experience theme park in Orlando, Florida.)

Does it entertain? Yes. Is it informative? Not really. Will it offend? Almost certainly. Then again, what film about religion doesn't end up making somebody angry?

3 stars (***) out of five.