The life and times of SeannyD

Gillette Fusion Power Proglide!

2010-05-14T21:50:00.000-07:00

Shaving sucks. I feel like it's such a waste of time. There's no fun in it at all plus it adds at least an additional five minutes onto the morning. So I try to do it as sparingly as possible without looking like a caveman.

But for the last several years, my razor of choice has been the Gillette Mach 3. A few years ago, I tried the Schick Quattro and hated it. I immediately returned to the Mach 3. Not only because it was a better razor, but also because it's got such an awesome name. I mean, really. Mach 3 sounds pretty sweet. I feel like I'm using an Air Force Jet to remove the hair from my face.

A few weeks ago, I found a link online that allowed me to get a free next generation razor from Gillette. The Fusion Proglide. So, not wanting to miss an opportunity for a free razor, I absolutely jumped at the chance. I had little hopes for it, since a four blade razor didn't work out for me, so a five bladed razor with battery power sounded even less exciting.

Then...it arrived. And before I knew it, I was experiencing the cleanest, most impressive shave of my life. They weren't kidding. It was gliding. It was like someone dropped a penguin on my face and he slip slided around until it was smoother than it's ever been. In fact, even the next day I had to thank that penguin for keeping things pretty smooth. Actually, I wish they'd change the name to the Fusion Penguin. I think that would not only be cooler, but would provide for more exciting mascot opportunities.

For some reason, as if they knew how much I was going to love it, they sent me another one a week later. So now I have two. Saving me several dollars as now I won't have to buy a new razor anytime soon. Sometimes free stuff works. And this has absolutely changed my opinion. I know the Mach 3 will always be there for me, but I think now I'm a Fusion Penguin man. Or Proglide. Whatever. Either way, it's awesome.

Lost Thoughts on "Dr. Linus" for 3/9

2010-03-09T23:41:00.001-08:00

For most episodes so far this season, I have been rather conflicted between my attempt to manage expectations and the reality of the show. Yet this episode required me to do none of that. Finally there seems to be some solid forward progression with real momentum beginning to build. Arguably the best episode of the season thus far, all of the pieces came together to not only make a solid episode, but a fantastic piece of the greater whole.

What needs to be mentioned first is the way in which Jack is finally beginning to come into his own as a leader. This is closer to season one Jack, the Jack who makes decisions and lives with them, as opposed to the Jack of the last few seasons who has just been floundering around hoping he's making the right decision. Now guided more by faith than any sort of rational deduction, his decisions border on crazy, but crazy with a purpose. The scene in which he sits with Richard trusting that the dynamite will not go off spoke volumes of his character, even though the audience knew there was no actual danger whatsoever. My fear was right after Jack sat Richard down that we would be treated to more non-answers via a commercial break. But instead while we didn't get detailed information, we received hints of what is to come and some very interesting facts.

But the focal point of the episode resulted in yet another excellent Ben episode. What's interesting is how big a role redemption is playing for not only the 815 cast, but for characters such as Ben. Ben has always been a man who lusts for power and control. Even when locked up posing as Henry Gale back in season two, his ability to maintain some order of control is what made his character so fascinating to watch. His manipulation knew no bounds and very little of what he said could be taken at face value. He knew he would get out of his situation alive, and be better for it.

Yet, on the island, his control is all but gone, and he is still attempting to manipulate and lie to people into doing what he wants. The problem is that no longer does he have any clout, since everyone now sees through his facade. Attempting to convince Miles to free him was not only futile, but slightly pathetic. Except when Miles told him that Jacob was hoping he was wrong about Ben, you could see this disappointment in Ben's eyes, as if Ben had disappointed the absent father who was never there for him. And again the show explores father issues through a different prism than they normally might.

So when Illana finally confronts Ben after his escape, he is believable when he expresses such regret over holding the island in higher esteem than his daughter and that he is now, truly, a broken man with nowhere to go. Illana's decision to let him stay may have more to do with the fact that one more person on Jacob's side is better than a new recruit to Locke's, but Ben's decision shows how he has now resigned himself to accepting his role on the island as a part of a team instead of their leader. Locke's empty promise of allowing Ben to control the island after he leaves no longer holds any weight for Ben.

This redemption is echoed through the sideways story, as Ben proves himself to be just as cunning and manipulative in that timeline as well. There was little more entertaining than watching him maneuver into a position where he could usurp power from Principal Donald "This Man Has No Dick" Reynolds. (Sorry, Ghostbusters reference.) And it's also a lot of fun to see Arzt hilariously continue to pop up in episodes. But in furthering the seemingly redemptive nature of these sideways stories, Ben chooses his prized student/island daughter Alex over the control he desperately wants and feels he deserves. The main thing that makes this Ben different than his counterpart is the fact that not only is his father alive, but he seems to have a loving relationship with him. Roger Linus feels that he is the one who disappointed Ben by leaving the island, an interesting revelation to be sure. The fact they were on the island at one point is a starting point to clue us in as to what happened to make this world so different.

Elevating this episode even more is the classic reunion scene set to nothing by Michael Giacchino's excellent score. Beach scenes like this one really stand out in that there is nothing better than watching characters who have been separated for so long come together after all this time. There was an early season vibe that I felt in this reunion and it reminded me of a time when occasionally fun and happy things happened to the characters. Only to have that reunion punctuated by the brilliant revelation of Widmore arriving via sub, bringing that dynamic back into the fold after such a long absence.

On a slightly unrelated note, I'm rather disappointed that Mira Furlan, who played Danielle Rousseau, isn't coming back this season, because while I'm making the assumption that she's still Alex's mother, I would have loved to see her as a stressed out mom trying to make ends meet after knowing her as this crazy jungle woman for so long. Of course, this also raises the question as to how this French woman ended up in Los Angeles, but I'm hoping it's one that will be addressed in time.

Between Jack's solid decision making, Ben's decision to stay with the beach team, Richard getting ready to explain himself, and Widmore's imminent arrival, there seems to be a lot to chew on over the next several days and the excitement seems to be ramping up. While we still don't know what's at stake, at least we know that Jack is ready to take some action and make the leaps of faith he was so incapable of making at the start of the series. Episodes like this one allow me to forget about all the questions that I have about the series and enjoy it outright. But I do feel like a lot of questions we've held for a long time are beginning to be primed for answers. Personally, I'm really starting to get excited about the rest of this season. How about you?

Lost Thoughts

2010-02-16T22:51:00.001-08:00

Coming into the final season of Lost, it's clear to me that I have spent not nearly as much time in thought and anticipation than in any other show. Something about this show has taken me in and clearly I am not alone.

Yet, throughout these last six years, as the onion has been peeled back more and more, the concern mounts that what we find in the middle isn't going to be something that will be nearly as satisfying as it could. What seems to be most interesting is the subculture that has spawned in the wake of "Lost." People constantly analyzing every little movement, every character action, every story point, and attempting to cross reference that with probably hundreds of different sources throughout literature, film, mythology, and philosophy.

Speculation is most certainly fun, but the major drawback is that we're working from limited information. The fact is, even four episodes into the final season, we still have nowhere near the amount of information necessary to make a truly informed decision. Things that still lay shrouded in secrecy are vital to our understanding of the show and therefore any speculation people have is clearly speculation and lends itself to ultimately weak arguments.

The third season finale is a perfect example. When the concept of the flash forward was introduced, it blew my mind. I was confused, and my thoughts were most assuredly provoked. In fact, I spent hours that evening trying to understand the ramifications of the ending. Was this an alternate timeline? Was this the end point of the show? Those were honestly the only two ideas I could come up with that night, and both were completely wrong. After several months of waiting, I realized that the third option that I didn't think of, that this was yet another part of these characters' journeys, was something that was ultimately incredibly simple. At this point, I made the decision to do no more speculating to that degree. Since clearly I couldn't predict what was going to happen anyway. The only thing I could do is make minor inferences based on that which I could actually see, while realizing that my chances of accuracy were rather low. Of course, it was also after that premiere that I had decided this show wouldn't do anything crazy as alternate realities, yet, here we are. Experiencing alternate realities.

For the last several years, I've held out hope that the end was going to be satisfying. Following the show with as much detail as I do, specifically listening to the weekly podcast from the creators, has imbibed me with a sense of confidence that the show does have a direction that it's following. Obviously that plan was not in place early in the first season, since despite their best efforts, there are things that just do not seem thematically consistent with later episodes. Yet, what does seem to be the case is a sense of knowledge that "all will be revealed" before it's over, and this was incredibly evident to me once the end date was finalized.

But here we are, once again, three episodes into the final season, and the mad dash to the finish line I was expecting has yet to arrive. There was a nice sprint out of the gate, but I feel that while the wheels aren't exactly spinning, the pace is much more leisurely than I otherwise would have expected.

The premiere was excellent, weaving between two realities relatively seamlessly while simultaneously hinting at detailed answers that were to come. While we can now say unequivocally that The Man in Black from the season 5 finale is not only taking the form of John Locke, but is also the Smoke Monster, we still don't exactly know WHAT he is. Nor do we understand what changed things so dramatically in the alternate timeline to make things so different, yet so similar. The ABC promos have been saying that "The Time For Questions Is Over" but frankly, it appears that I'm left with more questions than I had before the season began.

The second episode "What Kate Does" was seemingly panned by a majority of the Lost community as a poor episode. Yet, surprisingly, I rather enjoyed it. Especially most of the flash-sideways. Seeing things happen that are eerily similar to what happened on island did give clues to the fact that this universe appears to be course correcting itself. That the situations that happened on island are going to be very similar in this alternate reality. And I thought there were some rather touching scenes in the smaller character moments, which is ultimately the biggest reason that this show is so successful. People want to know who these characters are. The problem was that with a premiere that had such forward momentum, only to be stopped in its tracks, the effect can be rather jarring. Although I suspect that when viewed as part of a whole, it won't be remembered as poorly.

And this brings us to tonight's episode "The Substitute". The episode that inspired me to write all this tonight. Because with the exception of the flash sideways, all that really happened was Locke and Sawyer walked through the jungle and into a cave. Granted, there were interesting things, especially about the numbers, within the cave, but I felt slightly like we were stuck in a traffic jam, waiting for the roads to clear up. Movement is being made, albeit slowly, and that's not what I'm wanting at this point. In addition to the fact that I wanted to see what was happening with the people at The Temple, and being denied that was rather frustrating, especially given what happened with Sayid last week. To leave us hanging after that only to provide us with completely separate information this week probably lessens my enjoyment somewhat. Since my desire to see more Temple is overwhelming my desire to see Locke and Sawyer trekking through the jungle. And the more things like that happen, the more I become worried that despite my blank expectations for answers, the ending will just not be satisfying.

The flash sideways again presented some really interesting questions, but none that were remotely answered. How did Ben become a teacher? (A hilarious scene by the way.) Who's Locke's dad that's going to come to the wedding? And if it's Anthony Cooper, then how did Locke get into the wheelchair this time? Although I must say it's rather awesome watching Terry O'Quinn play the juxtaposition of both confused, frustrated Locke, and completely certain, unwavering Locke and the fact that elements of both characters seem to be sliding between the two of them. Specifically sideways-Locke's acceptance of the reality of his situation and fake Locke's yelling about people telling him what he can't do. There seems to be more to that.

Keeping everyone separated is also a mistake. Jin and Sun have been trying to reunite for over a season and a half now. For far too many episodes, Sun, Lapidus, Locke, Ben, and Richard have been hanging out by that four toed statue, essentially waiting for something to happen. Tonight they finally made the decision to head toward the temple, and hopefully the group will all reunite very soon. Since this show seems to work best when all the characters are functioning as one large unit and not incessantly separated.

I suppose that when all is said and done, it's the journey, and not the destination that makes it all worthwhile. The characters are interesting, and the plot is just a vehicle through which the characters can make decisions and change. Yet, this does not mean that I am not interested in a solid resolution to the plot. On the contrary, I am very interested. And that is ultimately what I hope, and to a degree, expect to see.

Also, where's Desmond? My favorite character needs to come back. Now. Come on man, where are you?

Anyway, this ends this current article, for all of you who actually took the time to read it. I actually have a lot more to say, but I'll save it for another time. Feel free to comment if you want to start a discussion about the show, and I'm thinking about doing this every week now.

"Up" Review

2009-05-26T13:50:00.001-07:00

Pixar's track record continues to shine with the release of their newest movie "Up". While not as much of a masterpiece as last year's Wall-E, it still provides plenty of laughs and thoughtful storytelling that is above and beyond what would appear to be the reach of most studios.

"Up" is the story of 78-year-old Carl Frederickson (Ed Asner) who has had a lifelong love of exploration and who never seemed to be able to get out there and do any real exploring. After marrying his childhood sweetheart, who shared this love of his, there was always something preventing the couple from going to Paradise Falls in South America, the one place they truly wanted to go. Illustrated in an incredibly moving montage at the start of the film, the audience is taken through the journey of their life together, including some surprisingly mature themes that will probably go over the head of smaller viewers but heartbreaking for those who have the ability to grasp the situation.

After the death of his wife and being forced out of his home by business development, Carl decides he has nothing to lose and uses thousands of balloons to lift his house upward and spend his remaining years in Paradise Falls. Meanwhile, young Wilderness Explorer Russell is looking for his final badge, the "Help the Elderly" badge, so he can become a Senior Explorer. Carl unfortunately wants nothing to do with him, yet through a series of circumstances, Russell becomes part of Carl's journey and through this exploration they begin to learn more about each other and discover what it means to truly live a full life.

The film excels more than anything else with the characters. Russell and Carl are so incredibly well written that each decision they make is one that can be understood. The progression of the characters moves along at a solid pace and when the moment of realization occurs for Carl, you really feel his epiphany with him, which is a testament to the great writing of the team at Pixar.

And there really is something for everyone in this movie. Goofy sight gags for the kids, deep meaningful themes for the adults, all in a PG movie.

The only real negative to the film was the fact that I didn't find myself buying Carl's willingness to deviate from his original plan. It seemed slightly forced in an attempt to create some sort of conflict, but upon watching it again, I suppose it's possible that it will be better understood why he decided to make the decision that he did.

From a technical perspective, this movie is again a masterpiece. The light from the balloons, the stylized character designs, and even the 3D effects all add to create a beautiful atmosphere that could be enjoyed even if you had no idea what was being said on screen. What's also incredible is how the 3D effects were not overwhelming at all, only serving to add literal depth to the movie, and never going for the cheap poke-in-the-eye gags. Some movies can really have the 3D as a distraction, but here it was clearly part of the storytelling and they made every attempt to not abuse that.

"Up" ultimately is a touching, unconventional story that succeeds on just about every level. Upon first viewing of the trailer last year, I wondered whether or not it would be viable to have an old man as a protagonist, but, as Pixar always does, they proved me wrong for even questioning it.

GRADE: A-

Terminator: Salvation Review

2009-05-20T00:59:00.001-07:00

Numerous interviews with the director of "Terminator: Salvation", McG, have reeked of a deep insecurity about the project; a desperate need to tell the world "this movie is good, really! Look at all the people involved other than me! That will show you!" Yet, the movie succeeds in being an interesting fourth entry in the Terminator franchise and a relatively solid summer blockbuster, but not much else.

The movie begins with John Connor (Christian Bale) on a mission to take out a Skynet facility in 2018. Connor knows he is going to someday lead humanity to victory against Skynet, he just doesn't quite know when that is going to be. In the meantime, his pregnant wife Kate (Bryce Dallas Howard) sits at home doing doctor things waiting for him to return. The mission somehow wakes up Marcus Wright (Sam Worthington) from some sort of half-man/half-machine slumber. Frankly, describing the plot is partially an exercise in futility since it mostly involves the Resistance trying to defeat and run away from Skynet and Marcus discovering what he truly is.

Which leads to the main problem of this movie: the plot is essentially incomprehensible toward the end. The motivations of Skynet are strange at best and completely nonsensical at worst. Sure they make some good strategic moves from time to time, but when it comes to their ace in the hole, it seems like they did not think that one through at all, which I'll refrain from describing as to not spoil anything.

Connor also serves as some sort of section leader of the Resistance but has little say as a top decision maker. Which is fine, since this is relatively early in his Resistance career. The problem is that you never really see TRUE leadership from him. Sure, he has a little John Connor radio show where he talks to anyone who will listen about how Skynet will one day be defeated, but this isn't exactly leadership. That's not to say that Connor is incompetent. On the contrary he shows himself to be an excellent fighter and capable of making incredibly smart decisions. It would seem that he is working up to this point, and many already see him as a de facto leader on account of his radio addresses.

In fact, the true standout is Kyle Reese (Anton Yelchin) who, as a teenager, is able to keep his cool in difficult situations and inspire those around him with his confidence and poise. It makes perfect sense that he is the father of John Connor, since you can see the man he is growing into and the choices that he makes. Unfortunate then that Connor himself doesn't seem to have the same sort of ability.

Fortunately, all the actors in the movie give it their best and provide a real core upon which to build the rest of the film. Bale is consistent as always and really puts everything he has into the character of John Connor. Worthington spends much of the movie yelling insanely, but when he is given the opportunity to settle down for a moment, you can really see his charisma. His confusion about his nature is on full display and he plays it very well.

The action scenes are really the big draw to the movie though, since most of the movie is just nonstop action for the sake of action. On a sheer entertainment level, this is where the movie shines through. The Terminators look more real than ever given that most of the movie relies on practical effects and not on CGI, giving the battles more intensity than they otherwise would have. The CGI that IS there is not only effective, but complimentary to the practical action, creating an incredibly believable world that presents the engaging struggle between man and machine.

The problem is that most of the action adds nothing to the story. They're entertaining battles to be sure, but they're without purpose. They have such length but the plot developments only happen slightly before and slightly after each battle and even then these are only mildly interesting developments.

McG clearly set this up as the first part of a trilogy, but the movie ends so unceremoniously that I find myself completely unconcerned with what will happen next in the Terminator saga. I will still be first in line to see the next one, but it also isn't hotly anticipated.

When all is said and done, this is definitely a movie worth seeing in theatres, especially if you're a fan of the Terminator franchise. They make some cool callbacks without going over the top with it, and while much of the plot will leave you scratching your head, there's enough positive here to recommend it as a fun summer popcorn action picture.

GRADE: B-

"Fighting" Review

2009-04-23T00:30:00.001-07:00

Every so often a movie comes along that completely defies your expectations. Sometimes this happens in a positive way. Other times, not so much. Well, I'm happy to report that despite my incredibly low expectations for "Fighting", the end result was much worse than I honestly expected.

"Fighting" stars Channing Tatum as Shawn MacArthur, a street vendor of knock off goods in New York City. At least until he defends himself from some people trying to steal his stuff and Harvey Boarden (Terrence Howard) inexplicably sees an underground fighter in him. So when Shawn goes to confront Harvey, Harvey offers him the opportunity to fight, right there on the spot, and Shawn mindbogglingly accepts this offer from a man who coordinated a theft from him just hours earlier.

That's essentially all that you need to know about "Fighting." Despite the fact that the title of the movie is "Fighting", there's surprisingly little fighting in it. Nothing in the movie will surprise you in any way except for how paint-by-numbers it all is. Anyone who has seen a movie will be able to telegraph each plot point a mile away.

And of course, characterization isn't necessary when you are able to just glide through a plot of this nature. Nope, just stick a few characters with a few stereotypical "from the streets" backstories, and you have yourself a movie. And the acting isn't any better. Howard, who normally excels in his roles, seems to be channeling some sort of high functioning Rain Man in his speech patterns and Tatum just mumbles his lines probably hoping that you don't really hear anything he has to say since the writing is so atrocious.

Top it off with an incredibly hackneyed reluctant love interest, Zulay Valez (played by Zulay Henao, too lazy to even change the girl's first name) and there is pretty much nothing redeemable about this movie. And you really have to appreciate the way the line between persistence and stalking is drawn. Wait, it isn't? No, not at all. Shawn follows her around, waiting for her to show up in random places, buys her gifts within moments of getting her to agree to hang out with him and offers to pay for her apartment. (Maybe THAT'S where I'm going wrong in life. I'm not being stalkerish enough with women!)

Of course, this review wouldn't be worth much if I didn't mention the randomness. Between the guy who runs up and does a flip off the wall and a man dressed as a human taco who walks past the camera, there are plenty of "What the hell is that?" moments that permeate the entire movie. I don't know if the intent is to confuse you so you don't realize how terrible the movie itself is, but if that is the case, no, it didn't work.

I barely even want to mention the fighting itself. There are four fights, all lasting fewer than 5 minutes. A movie called "Fighting" put less than 20 minutes of fights in the whole movie, yet somehow was able to stretch the running time to 1 hour and 45 minutes. And filled that with what? Story? No. None to be had here. Completely unacceptable.

"Fighting" has the distinct privelage of being one of the worst movies I've seen in the theater in a long time and would not recommend the movie to anyone. Anyone at all. Seriously. Don't go see it.

GRADE: D-

Adventureland Review

2009-04-02T01:05:00.000-07:00

Every so often a movie comes along that completely blows away every expectation that you could have had for it. And despite the fact that many of the trailers make it out to be a run of the mill goofy summer job comedy, "Adventureland" has so much heart and realism to it that I'm still thinking about it.

James Brennan (Jesse Eisenberg) has just graduated from college in Pennsylvania during 1987 and is planning on pursuing a postgraduate degree at Columbia in New York after a summer traveling through Europe. Unfortunately, the initial plan involving his parents helping him along on this journey had been scrapped after his father gets demoted and they no longer have the financial means to support this. This leads to James getting a job at the summer carnival "Adventureland" where he plans to save up money to afford a place in New York in the fall. It is here that he meets an incredible cast of characters, the most important of whom is Em Lewin (Kristin Stewart) who, despite seeming like she walks around perennially stoned in real life, is incredibly fantastic and alluring here, faults and all.

What is most surprising about this movie is how at the core, "Adventureland" is not really about the comedy. Sure, the movie is hilarious and there are plenty of laughs to be had from start to finish, but every laugh is earned. Even the cheap kicked-in-the-nuts gags are realistic because everyone knows a guy like that, a guy who is just so completely immature that only these childish moments give him entertainment. Even Ryan Reynolds, who normally is king of over the top, turns in a subtle performance as adulterous musician Mike Connell.

Every character has flaws and makes dumb mistakes, mistakes that every day people make. Whether it be trusting someone you shouldn't with a huge secret or knowing that you're about to make a mistake and you do it anyway, these are things that happen to real people and none of it comes across as forced. Writer/Director Greg Motolla (who directed "Superbad") places every character in such a specific position that the audience can truly feel for them. Some of the decisions are misguided or outright wrong, but you never feel as if the characters who make even the worst decisions are bad people.

Other films would have taken the fact James is a virgin in his early 20s and hammered that home, making the loss of his virginity the driving focus of the movie, but it's not. His virginity is just one element of his character. Sure, that's a background focus of his, and he still is a male, but it never overwhelms the plot. In fact, it only becomes an issue when he himself brings it up, showing that many of the things we think are holding us back are just parts of who we are, things that should be neither celebrated nor condemned. Even the wackier characters such as managers Bobby and Paulette (SNL's Bill Hader and Kristen Wiig) are handled in a very regular way.

There's also more story than what's just on the surface. Peripheral characters too have their own life issues that are only alluded to but never really explored, yet they don't have to be. They appear to exist to provide our main characters with a more fully realized back story.

The soundtrack is also fantastic, with many excellent songs from the 1980s, most of which are poignant and not used for kitsch. All too often 80s movies focus on the over-the-top outfits and tacky songs, but those were just two elements of that era. This movie never takes that route and in fact can't think of one self-referential 80s joke that was made.

If there's one complaint to be had is that the pacing is a little odd near the beginning of the movie before it settles into a very natural progression. Towards the start, I could really feel the scene changes and this was slightly jarring. While I don't feel that any significant differences were made between the start and finish, I was brought fully into the characters' world and each step towards that end became more natural.

This is a movie about growing up, changing, and just dealing with life and the unexpected things it throws at you. Sometimes it's awesome, sometimes it sucks, but that's just the way life is. In the end, "Adventureland", despite its reality as a hilarious film in its own right, is an incredibly nuanced movie that deserves to be seen by the widest audience possible. A completely heartfelt surprise.

GRADE: A

I Love You, Man Review

2009-03-19T23:38:00.001-07:00

Comedy is a very difficult thing to pull off. The balance between story and comedy is one that seems to be even harder to achieve than some of the most complicated dramas. The problem lies in the fact that comedy is often times so much more subjective than more dramatic elements. Yet, "I Love You, Man" pulls off quite an intricate balance between story and comedy despite the fact that the two often times do not quite work together.

After Peter Klaven (Paul Rudd) proposes to his girlfriend Zooey (Rashida Jones), the realization occurs that he has no best man and no real guy friends in general. So after hearing his new fiance and her friends making fun of him, he begins a quest to find a best man to call his own. After a few mishaps, he finally seems to find a friend in Sydney Fife (Jason Segel) and the resulting relationship begins to cause a few problems with his home life.

What is most interesting is the way in which the movie follows some of the normal romantic comedy conventions, yet applies them to a completely platonic friendship and it seems to work. While this has surely been done before, director John Hamburg ("Along Came Polly") and stars Rudd and Segel are able to keep you interested and laughing. Interestingly, much of the humor seems to exist in its own reality, separate from the needs of the story. Lately many movies under the Apatow brand name have the humor stem from the story situations themselves, "I Love You, Man" seems to break off into tangents at certain points providing plenty of laughter, but a slight disconnect from the story itself. This is certainly not a bad thing, as the two work together so effortlessly that it doesn't create any problems, but given that the story is serviceable on its own, it was an interesting dynamic to experience.

Rudd is absolutely hilarious as the nervous Peter, and some of the funniest moments happen when he literally talks gibberish in an attempt to sound cool. Many of these situations led to a brief moment of silence in the theater everyone tries to figure out what he just said, but the way in which it happens resulted in fits of laughter from just about everyone. And hopefully nobody spoils for you a completely random moment that occurs during a drinking scene near the beginning with Peter, which was possibly the most laugh out loud moment I've had in the theater in a long time. But regardless, the entire cast is excellent from Segel's laid back Sydney to Rashida Jones' Zooey, they all offer something great.

If there's one complaint to be had the movie slows up on a lot of the comedy toward the end, which seems to be the case in a lot of comedies. In an attempt to bring the story to its necessary conclusion, more focus is put on story than on laughter. But as the Catalina Wine Mixer taught us in last year's "Step Brothers", sometimes the crowning moment of the story can offer up plenty of laughs all on its own. The movie certainly picks up in the last few minutes, but there's a period of about 15-20 minutes that barely a chuckle was heard. And I like to chuckle.

I cannot seem to stress enough how excellent many of the comedies have been of the last couple of years. And "I Love You, Man" is no exception. Again it's a movie that has an R-rating and embraces that without being too raunchy or over the top. It's been a few months since a solid comedy has been released, but this is definitely one to see if you're looking for some great comedy. (No offense, Paul Blart. But let's be honest. You just weren't that funny.)

GRADE: B+

Knowing Review

2009-03-18T23:24:00.000-07:00

Every so often a movie comes along that you feel if handled correctly, it can be something truly excellent and original. There seem to be signs that "Knowing" could have entered that realm, but in the end it is ultimately a movie with interesting ideas that, unfortunately, are not presented well. Without giving anything away, the uncompromising ending seems to be the foundation upon which the entire movie was built, but less attention was paid to the two hours preceding it.

"Knowing" stars Nicolas Cage as John Koestler, an astrophysicist at MIT (who apparently gives broad lectures that literally involve him defining the term "randomness", so it must not be that hard a school after all) whose son is the recipient of a message from his school's time capsule. The message, written 50 years earlier by a 3rd grader named Lucinda, ends up documenting every major disaster from the planet's history in a series of numbers. This leads John on a trail to attempt to stop the upcoming disasters listed on the paper.

Director Alex Proyas ("I, Robot", "Dark City") attempts to ground the movie in a type of reality, attempting to explain the occurances as a matter of science, but this ultimately rings hollow. Again, if the awareness of an event is achieved, then so does the ability to stop it. But I digress, as the movie is not trying to make that point. In fact, the movie does not seem to make much of a point at all, save for the peculiar ending. Instead, what is shown up on screen is essentially a mystery-thriller in which John makes every effort to prevent these future disasters. The problem with this is that there is essentially nothing he can do about them, giving the entire chase a pointless undercurrent. The action elements are rather impressive and are easily the most entertaining parts of the movie. This unfortunately should be some of the least impressive stuff in a movie that is primarily supposed to be science fiction.

Nicolas Cage again plays pretty much the same eccentric character that he always plays, which is not always a bad thing when he is given the right material. Unfortunately all the script requires him to do here is run from one place to the next and scream at people, offering little in the way of character. Sure there's a little subplot regarding his dead wife and his cemented belief in randomness, but it carries such little weight that the entire subplot just seems to serve mostly as filler for the character. The rest of the cast is adequate, but are given so little to do that it seems pointless to even mention them indvidually.

The film was not a complete waste of time, as it was certainly an engaging way to spend two hours and does present a few ideas that can make you think a little bit. But these are ideas that can be brought up without spending two hours watching a movie to allow you to reach that point. If only the movie had a little bit more focus on the science fiction aspect of the movie and less on the running around, it could have been one to remember. So while a mildly entertaining movie on its own merits, there is not much to recommend here and I certainly have no problem giving away the ending to you if you just want to save yourself the time and ask me straight away.

GRADE: C

Gran Torino Review

2009-01-08T10:39:00.000-08:00

When looking at Clint Eastwood's cinematic pedigree, one sees a bit of a recurring character. The Dirty Harry, take-no-prisoners, out for vengeance character. Which, to be honest, was what I was expecting coming into "Gran Torino". Interestingly enough, this character, while on the surface appeared to be similar to all those other characters, was much more subtle than all those movies that came before this. If you're looking for "Gran Torino" to be in the same vein as those other movies, you will almost certainly be disappointed. But if you can keep an open mind about what you're witnessing, then the movie can be a thought-provoking film with dynamic characters in its own right.

The movie follows Walt Kowalski (Eastwood) as he moves on from the death of his wife shortly before the movie begins. He is completely disconnected from his two boys and their families, a family that comes across as spoiled and ungrateful, despite Walt's overtly bitter attitude towards life in general. In the meantime, a Hmong family moves in next door and the young son Thao (Bee Vang) is recruited by the local Hmong gang to steal Walt's titular Gran Torino.

Walt does not take too kindly to this behavior and also happens to be one of the most racist men I have ever seen on film. Yet Eastwood plays it with such humor and lightheartedness that it becomes difficult to be offended. He seems to make it clear that he's less racist and more concerned about hating everybody. I certainly wouldn't be surprised to see a Youtube video at some point that is a compilation of all of his derogatory terms as he runs the gamut of every racist word for an Asian one could think of.

In the meantime, Walt is pursued by Father Janovich (Christopher Carley) who made a promise to Walt's passed wife that he would get Walt to go to confession, something Walt has absolutely no interest in doing. Yet confession does not seem to be what Walt needs and as he comes to realize what his life currently is, what he has, and the reality of the world around him, he begins to transform into something else. Only in the final surprising minutes do we see what that specifically is.

Eastwood again turns in a solid directorial effort that keeps the movie moving at a brisk pace. The way he conveys the different aspects of Walt's life and his inability to change with the times is nothing short of engaging. And Eastwood is clearly the most competent actor out of the entire bunch. With the exception of Walt's immediate and extended family, the acting was little more than mediocre and sometimes downright atrocious. Countless times I was taken out of the movie by an odd line delivery or the perception that the actor was just reading from a script instead of truly feeling his or her lines. The worst offenders are Father Janovich and Thao's sister, Sue (Ahney Her). I'm sure that it's very difficult to stay in the same league as someone of Eastwood's calibur but their quality was certainly not up to par.

Also surprisingly, the movie was absolutely hilarious. Walt's "I don't care" attitude led to some very funny and often times rather poignant moments and it's possible that without that humor, the movie would have suffered quite a bit. It made him more than a grumpy old man and more of a man a person could relate to.

I must be clear again: this is no Dirty Harry. In fact, one could argue that it is in fact the opposite of Dirty Harry. But even so, it exists as an excellent film that is a huge leap back to form for Eastwood whose "Changeling" from this past fall had the tendency to linger and seemed to have difficulty presenting a nuanced portrait of that story. This is a thought-provoking movie that has the power to stay with you well after you leave the theatre whose only real fault was a lack of quality acting.

And the fact that Clint Eastwood sings a song over the credits. Why he thought that was a good idea is anyone's guess.

Grade: B

The Day The Earth Stood Still Review

2008-12-11T05:53:00.001-08:00

Remakes aren't all bad. Sometimes they have the ability to expand on an original concept, or approach a particular topic from a different perspective to bring about a new viewpoint. Yet many times, "Why bother?" is an appropriate response, especially for a film so revered as the original "The Day the Earth Stood Still." And unfortunately, this 2008 version with Keanu Reeves and Jennifer Connelly does absolutely nothing to contribute to the legacy of the original.

While I have never seen the original version, the reading I have done about the movie suggests that it is a classic that did not need to be remade; that the movie stood on its own as a piece of art. Unfortunately, this did not stop 20th Century Fox, resulting in an interesting visual piece but very little in the way of story and even less in character.

For those who aren't familiar, "The Day the Earth Stood Still" is about an alien, Klaatu (Reeves) who is sent to Earth in an attempt to save the planet. And the only person in the world who seems willing to even listen to him is scientist Helen Benson (Connelly) who is also busy tending to a greiving stepson (Jaden Smith). Meanwhile, the military acts in standard movie-military mode, led by the Secretary of Defense (Kathy Bates), trying to sequester the alien and force him to reveal his ultimate plan through force, despite clear indications that there is nothing they can do to contain any threat, perceived or otherwise.

Director Scott Derrickson was clearly trying to approach the film in a culturally relevant way in an effort to make a social statement about society. There are references to many current events and actual world leaders are shown on televisions in an effort to ground this movie in a present day reality. The problem is that the screenplay by David Scarpa draws one-dimensional characters whose motivations are driven by plot instead of actual development or growth. Characters who seem absolutely set in their ways do a complete 180 as a result of simple, almost inconsequential, events. This would not even be as terrible if the characters were set up in a realistic manner but most act in a one-note fashion that seems to exist solely to antagonize the aliens, especially the military.

The military throws logic completely out the window as they seem content to take on an alien civilization with sheer brute force, despite the fact that their abilities are shown to be near impervious to human weapons and are able to disable them at will. So instead of at least attempting to form some sort of dialogue with the aliens, they continue to act antagonistically by pushing the aliens into a corner when clearly nothing physical can be done to stop them. This attitude is also inexplicably echoed in Jacob (Jaden Smith) who seems to believe that his deceased Army Engineer father would have attempted to kill the aliens were he alive. The attempt is made to make Jacob the conduit for change in this movie but the complete lack of subtlety and the bludgeoning of the audience over the head with simplistic themes undermines any attempt at getting across a coherent message.

This wasn't an unmitigated disaster though. On a visual level, the film was sufficiently engaging and there were some truly interesting effects. Strangely, there was a curiosity to find out what would happen next, although there was no concern for any of the characters and often times a mild annoyance at their actions. This is not a slight at the actors though, since all of them, including Keanu Reeves, deliver as convincing performances as they could given the material they had at their disposal. Reeves is believable as an alien, as his often times wooden delivery would suggest anyway. Connelly is always a bright spot in any movie (although would it kill somebody to put her in a comedy? Why is she always playing such sad characters?) and she and the rest of the cast probably prevented this from being the unwatchable film it could have been.

As it stands, "The Day the Earth Stood Still" is instead just another unnecessary remake that would appear to add absolutely nothing to the original. With a different screenplay, this could have been an insightful commentary on the direction of humanity and that is really the biggest disappointment of all.

GRADE: C-

Quantum of Solace Review

2008-11-14T07:34:00.000-08:00

Discussing the newest James Bond movie, Quantum of Solace, is almost impossible without discussing that which came before it. The fact that this movie picks up literally moments after the first one ended makes it less a sequel and more an extension of the first movie, an extended coda that follows Bond's path in an attempt to exact revenge on those that were responsible for the events of the first movie. As a result, this is less of a movie that stands on its own and more of one that must be watched in conjunction with "Casino Royale" to fully understand its complexities.

Unlike "Casino Royale", "Quantum of Solace" is less layered and more straightforward from a character perspective. Instead of watching Bond slowly learn to love, only to have it all stripped away from him, his demeanor changes very little throughout the course of this movie. The plot on the other hand is just as involved as the first, alluding to the way corporations can control things by obtaining natural resources as opposed to with powerful violence. I think the story wants to be a little more political than it actually is, but it was nice to see Bond being brought into the 21st century and given 21st century villains.

Given that I've only seen a few Bonds prior to Casino Royale, I'm less inclined to concern myself with who or what Bond is supposed to be, but there was a little hesitance over the way Bond was portrayed in this movie. As I'm sure the comparison is being beaten to death already, I won't go much further than to say Bond has a lot in common with Jason Bourne, only with more style and a little more support. That's not to say this is a bad thing; on the contrary, the fight scenes were extravagant and exciting and there was nary a dull moment throughout the entire 110 minute run time. But there is a certain style about Bond that I believe he should have that, while not completely missing from the film, seemed to be somewhat lacking a bit.

The dynamic between Bond and M, though, was probably the most central relationship throughout. Judi Dench plays M with a very specific concern about Bond and trusts him almost implicitly, even though she disagrees with many of his methods and understands that sometimes she has to make hard decisions that are counter to what Bond is trying to accomplish. There was much more of a connection between these two characters than there was between Bond and either one of the more conventional female companions he had. Granted, the fact that he was still so concentrated on Vesper made it almost impossible for him to connect on any level with another female, so this did make sense from a character standpoint.

On the other hand, the character of Camille (Olga Kurylenko) had a story that sufficiently dovetailed Bond's but I never felt a real connection with her beyond her physical appearance. The performance was good and she was written well enough, but there just seemed to be something lacking overall despite the fact that her presence does mirror Bond's in such a way that it enhances his story somewhat.

Director Marc Forster crafts an intense action movie that truly shows his versatility in what he's able to accomplish. Some complaints have been made about the length of the movie in that it's much too short, but while I would have enjoyed seeing a few more character moments, the movie keeps moving along at a brisk pace with exposition scenes punctuated by exciting action scenes that come together to form a well-balanced, coherent whole.

While the movie is certainly entertaining in its own right, I'd go so far to say that if you haven't watched Casino Royale, preferably recently, then so much of the connection will be lost on you. There's a feeling that this is all one giant movie, split into two parts. As it stands, there is certainly a closure that happens with Quantum of Solace that allows the character of Bond to be explored in new, exciting ways in future installments.

GRADE: B+

Zack and Miri Make a Porno Review

2008-10-28T10:43:00.000-07:00

Despite the fervent cult following that Kevin Smith has acquired in his 15 years of movie-making, financial blockbuster success has seemed to truly elude him. But the possibility exists that with "Zack and Miri" he can attain a level that he has not seen before, if only on the goodwill of Seth Rogen fans. This is not to say that the movie is substandard; on the contrary, the movie is a very funny, interesting look at two life-long friends who enter into a venture that will change the dynamic of their relationship forever.

Zack (Seth Rogen) and Miri (Elizabeth Banks) are two high school friends who live together in Philidelphia. Their problem is that they never seem to have enough money to pay their bills, yet they have no problem purchasing amenities for themselves on their credit cards. After running into a male porn star (Justin Long) at their 10-year high school reunion, and after having the electricity and water shut off in their apartment, the two decide on a plan to make and market a porno movie and distribute it to pay their bills.

The result is one of Kevin Smith's best films to date, but ultimately does not achieve true greatness. The jokes are funny and the cast is top notch (including a hilarious Craig Robinson from the "Office") but it doesn't really do anything new with the genre that hasn't been done before. Yet what it does do it does well. The core of the film is the central relationship between Zack and Miri and what this situation means for them and for their cohabitation.

For the most part, this relationship played out pretty naturally throughout the duration of the movie, but one moment in particular that was used as a turning point in the relationship seemed to have a character act in such a way that is counter to his or her goals. This moment was introduced strictly as a way to create conflict and unfortunately it really knocked the movie down a little for me, if only because at this point it entered into the standard romantic-comedy formula.

Secondly, Zack and Miri are essentially losers who have done nothing with their lives over the last 10 years. Clearly not idiots, they just choose to be lazy and make horrible financial choices. I've seen other references elsewhere about how this is happening because of the financial state of the country, but it seems clear to me that for the majority of their lives they've just made zero effort. This in turn makes it somewhat difficult to sympathise with their situation at the beginning but it's something that's easily gotten over by the end. Overall, petty complaints that are surrounded by an otherwise solid story.

And all of Smith's trademark gross-out jokes are here, including one that I never thought I would see in a movie like this, and probably one of the reasons the NC-17 rating was initially placed on the movie. I believe I can honestly say I've never seen more of a gross-out moment in a mainstream movie than I did in this one.

Fortunately though, it wasn't all disgusting dick-and-fart jokes and much of the humor stems from the characters and who they are with fewer jokes for jokes sake. The laughter is pretty consistant, although it wasn't constant. There were plenty of funny movies this year and the fact that this movie is even able to be on par with some of those other ones is a testament to its quality. The actors really sell their characters, including surprising turns from real-life porn star Katie Morgan who has a few scenes of actual acting that she pulls off rather well that help to propel the story forward.

On my personal list, I'd rank this movie slightly better than Clerks II and just below Chasing Amy in terms of my favorite Kevin Smith movies. These past few years he's really injected a lot more heart into his films, and I believe that it shows. Hopefully others will see it too this weekend so that he finally achieves a true financial success.

GRADE: B

Sex Drive Review

2008-10-13T10:37:00.001-07:00

No question about it, comedies have come back in full force this year. There have been so many excellent comedies that finding laughter and a solid story is ridiculously easy. That's not to say that there haven't been poor comedies lately. In fact, seeing "How To Lose Friends and Alienate People" shortly after viewing "Sex Drive" made me realize just how bad some comedies can be.

The premise of "Sex Drive" is a relatively simple one, yet the movie is done with such heart that it comes across as rather fresh. Ian (Josh Zuckerman) is a recent high school graduate who can't seem to get rid of his perceived virginity stigma. He's your stereotypical nice guy, always a friend, never anything more. He bends over backwards to help girls, and he gets stepped on. His best friend Lance (Clark Duke) wouldn't seem from his chubby, spectacled exterior to be a ladies man, yet somehow he pulls it off with relative ease. Despite Lance's efforts to help Ian out, Ian just cannot seem to follow through.

In the meantime, Ian has been chatting up "Ms_Tasty" (30 Rock's Katrina Bowden), an online companion to whom he has been presenting himself as a college football player and practicing being a jerk. So after she claims that she'll have sex with him if he drives from Chicago to Knoxville, TN, he packs up his bags and attempts to hit the road with Lance. As it always is in movies such as this, things don't go quite as planned.

What really works is that at the center of this movie, the story is overwhelmingly solid. Sure there are plenty of unbelievable moments, but the characters all react in ways that make sense and are internally consistent. At the same time, the wacky situations are tempered by corresponding sweetness that allows you to be pulled further into the story. The actors especially really work to drive it home, especially Ian's brother Rex, played by the hilarious James Marsden. Marsden hasn't really been in many comedies over the years, normally playing the brooding, serious guy who gets his girlfriend stolen from someone else. But here, he really uses everything that he's given and highlights the film anytime he is on screen. Others, such as Ian's best friend Felicia (Amanda Crew), really help to ground the movie by not allowing all the male stuff to get too out of hand.

The movie follows all the road movie touchstones, including a run-in with a rather knowledgable Amish man named Ezekiel (Seth Green) who helps them along their journey when they run into car trouble. Overall, there are a few elements of predictability that you can see coming from the get-go, which can be seen as a negative. But fortunately the humor quotient is so high that it renders these issues rather pointless.

What is certainly great to see though is story-based comedy that doesn't have gags for the sake of gags but the humor develops from the story. This is the type of teen comedy that will hopefully last for a while and not be the forgettable movie a lot of people are expecting it to be. And if nothing else, see it for the giant donut costume. I sometimes I wish I had one of those. (Okay, all the time.)

GRADE: B

"HOW much?!"

2008-09-26T12:23:00.000-07:00

Ah, the glory of working at a movie theater. Nothing sticks out in my mind more than the rare times that I would be asked to work at the box office. And inevitably, the question would come up with every few people, "Did the prices go up?" or "This is ridiculous. Way too much." (As they'd hand over their card, as well.) Sometimes the prices had, sometimes they hadn't. Yet, they continued to purchase tickets.

Eventually, though, people stop. Despite the perceived quality of movies being better in 2008 in comparison to 2007, movie attendance is still down 5% according to the Associated Press. But ticket prices continue to rise. What seems to be happening is studios, and by extension individual theaters, are raising prices, and knocking more people out of the ability to see movies. Revenues are similar year-to-year, but attendance is down. Could it be that these rising prices are pricing people out of movies in general? Could it be possible that by keeping prices relatively static, that you would in effect have MORE people coming to see movies? I don't know the answer to that, but if it were me, and I was running the studio, I'd probably want more people to see my movie and have more potential from that customer in the long term, than to get them the one time they go out.

Arguments made when the complaint of expensive movie tickets are brought up over how much more of a value going to the movies is as opposed to going to a sporting event or a concert. Well, yeah, obviously. When you go to a sporting event, whether basketball or baseball or football, whatever, every game is going to be unique. There will never be two games that will be played out in exactly the same way. They are playing live in front of your face. This is an experience that cannot be replicated. Therefore, the barrier to entry is going to be much more expensive.

Movies on the other hand are unique in their own right. They can inspire, elicit emotional reactions, excite, entertain, all of that. But you can replay those effects over and over again. A movie, while often times a dynamic experience, is a static form of entertainment. No matter how many times you go see The Empire Strikes Back, Darth Vader will always admit to being Luke's father. So of course movies need to be much cheaper. The great thing is that it allows you to see movies again and again. There's always something new to be seen.

And let's not forget the potential of having a ruined experience. Loud patrons, kids running around, poor presentation can all bring something a feeling of rushed excitement to a screeching halt. All things that need to be looked at in the future.

Sure, home theaters, surround sound systems, and high definition televisions are getting closer to recreating that silver screen adventure, but they aren't quite there yet and probably never will be. Nothing compares to having your entire vision engulfed to the point where you find yourself fully immersed in this world placed in front of you.

While movies will probably still continue to go up, along with their delicious counterparts at the concession stand, I hold out hope that one day they will slow up their expedient rises and bring people back to the theater where they can best experience a movie.

Eww! Gross!

2008-09-25T09:38:00.000-07:00

What fascinates me these days is the obsession with box office that so many of the mainstream media and followers of film have. The most recent obsession seems to be with people wanting "The Dark Knight" to take down "Titanic" in US grosses. Except it won't. And even if it surpasses that $600 million mark, that means nothing. Since, according to Box Office Mojo, when adjusted for inflation, "The Dark Knight" would currently only be hovering around $340 million in 1997 dollars, and Titanic itself is only number 6 on that list.

The problem with the way film measures success is that the benchmark continuously changes. A platinum selling record is one that sells a million copies. A smash hit television show is in the 10s of millions of viewers. The benchmarks in most other industries is one in units. How many units of this item were sold? And through that, one can figure out a long-term success pattern. But this is not the case for movies. In the many years I've been involved with movies, I have never once seen an amount of tickets sold number. When I have searched them out, I can usually find them, but never are they reported.

But people get so attached to these numbers. Dark Knight breaks the Spider-Man record. Great. So what? Does this inherently mean that one is better than the other? Absolutely not. They are completely different movies. I can think of plenty of movies that made very little at the box office that were still incredibly successful overall. The most prescient example that comes to mind is "The Shawshank Redemption." Currently at or near the top of most "Best Ever" lists, it grossed only $28 million total when it was released in 1994.

I believe that film fans all around should begin to put these numbers behind us, and pay less attention to them. The only reason I want films to make lots of money is so that other films like it will continue to be made. I'm glad The Dark Knight has made so much money, because it secures the franchise in the minds of most executives and they will continue making more Batman films. Beyond that, there is no care for me. I was certainly disappointed to see Speed Racer make so little money overall, as I would have enjoyed seeing sequels to that movie, but its comparitive success or failure has little bearing on whether or not I enjoyed that movie on its own merits. My appreciation for that movie would not be vindicated by a higher box office gross or massive DVD sales because I continue to love it regardless.

And then you have situations like the upcoming "Watchmen." Frankly, it's irrelevant whether or not that movie makes $1 or $1 billion. The movie is made, it cannot be a franchise, and it's done. If it's a good movie (which I expect it will be) then I will certainly be happy to see it succeed if it does. But if it doesn't, and I still enjoy it, it will make little difference to me.

All I want is for studios to continue to make good movies or focus on quality again (I'm looking at you, 20th Century Fox). And maybe, somewhere down the road, we can focus on benchmarking through admissions instead of inflated box office numbers.

A Summer 2008 Retrospective

2008-09-24T12:13:00.000-07:00

Well, summer is officially over. And as a result, the blockbusters are ushered out and the award movies are brought in.

To say that 2008 was a better summer than 2007 would be a vast understatement. Sure, one could look at the numbers that have been released regarding box office and notice that attendance is actually down year-over-year, but that has more to do with franchising than any respectable amount of quality.

2007 was sincerely my most anticipated movie summer ever. My favorite franchise of all time, Spider-Man was receiving its third installment, while 5 other movies were given 3-quels that summer and a few other run-of-the-mill sequels as well. My excitement was so high going into last May, only to dash all of my hopes as the weeks went on. Spider-Man 3 was a pretty big disappointment overall. Shrek the Third was horrific. Ocean's 13 was less boring then 12, but still a far cry from the fun of 11. The only sequel that truly appeared to surpass its predecessors was The Bourne Ultimatum. Everything else was mildly entertaining at best.

So coming into 2008, I kept my expectations in check. No longer would I allow my expectations for a film overshadow what it is able to deliver. No, this would be a summer where I would attempt to put all those feelings aside and just enjoy movies for what they are.

And I did.

The summer started out with some serious (and some would say very surprising) quality in Iron Man. The perfect embodiment of the role, Robert Downey, Jr. delivered a believable and exciting turn as Tony Stark that also led to the beginning of a larger Marvel Universe. Having Downey make an appearance in The Incredible Hulk was not only a lot of fun, but helped a lot to tie these universes together.

Unfortunately, Hulk did not see the success that Iron Man did, despite many in the internet community seeing it as a welcome upgrade from Ang Lee's 2003 version. Whether or not Universal, and by extension, Marvel Studios, sees it as a success is something unknown to me as its overall box office was not too different from the original.

The following week, my hopes were still high, as I experienced one of my favorite movies of the whole summer, Speed Racer. This was surprisingly one of the most divisive movies of the year, in that a very small minority (myself included) absolutely LOVED this movie, while the vast majority of the critical press panned it as juvenile and much too long. I was holding out hopes for a sequel, but that doesn't seem to be in the cards anytime soon, given its $100+ million price tag and lack of box office overall. I still want this movie to succeed on DVD and will be singing the praises to anyone who will listen.

Narnia was decent, but nothing great, and it was a good holdover until Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. Indy 4 was worth seeing strictly on the basis of the fact that it was Indiana Jones and for the first time in my life I was able to see him adventure on the big screen. Since I was a baby when Temple of Doom came out, and only 5 when Last Crusade was released, this was my first (and possibly only) chance to see and hear the excitement for myself. While the actual story I had some serious issues with, it was definitely still worth checking out.

I ended up missing Sex and the City (it wasn't hard for a male to do), but I certainly marveled at the amount of women who went to go see it. I guess never underestimate the potential for a girls' night out.

A few animated movies really stood out from the pack this summer. Kung Fu Panda was a surprisingly solid entry from Dreamworks, who normally seems to rely on pop culture jokes at the expense of story. This time around, they really kept their focus on story first, and the movie was helped tremendously by this. And who could forget Wall-E, perhaps my favorite movie of the year thus far? I'm really hoping to see a Best Picture nomination, but that could just be a pipe dream of mine.

But what this summer was really great for though was comedies. From Pineapple Express, to Step Brothers, to Tropic Thunder, there were so many quality comedies this year that I found it difficult to contain my laughter when just thinking about them afterward. Less successful, but still entertaining, comedies such as Get Smart and You Don't Mess with the Zohan at least offered a few humorous moments. And it pains me to write even the words "The Love Guru." I'll leave it at that.

Overall, this was a different summer. A summer filled with all sorts of different kinds of movies and one that I was able to enjoy much more because I didn't allow myself to get hyped to levels that would only set me up for disappointment. No, I just enjoyed being a movie fan this summer, because it allowed me to spend some good times with friends, having fun discussions, and watching crazy things happen.

So, thanks 2008. And we'll just say that my hopes are even LOWER for 2009's summer, since there really isn't much happening there at all. Except for Transformers 2. I love giant robots.

Ghost Town Review

2008-09-20T08:04:00.000-07:00

Ricky Gervais is easily one of the funniest men on the planet. I have never seen something that he has put effort into that has come out poorly. Unless you count "Night at the Museum" in which he was the museum curator. But he was only in it for a few minutes.

Regardless, despite the seemingly tired premise, I was anticipating this movie if only for the chance to see how Gervais fared in carrying a movie all on his own. Fortunately, he succeeds handily in a well constructed movie in its own right.

Gervais plays Burtram Pincus, a dentist in New York City who cares nothing else for the lives of others. Content living his own dissatisfied life, he makes no effort to help others in any way. Yet, after a routine colonoscopy goes awry and he dies on the operating table for 7 minutes, he awakes with the ability to see the ghosts that have yet to cross over. One of these ghosts is Frank Herlihy (Greg Kinnear), who convinces Pincus to help break up his widow, Gwen's (Tea Leoni) new engagement with Richard (Billy Campbell).

The story seems pretty straightforward from the outset, but writer/director David Koepp provides enough originality to keep you interested. Sure, plenty of the ghost movie cliches are here, but many are delivered with such humor that it becomes rather easy to forgive the lack of originality in these moments. The story also takes a few rather heartfelt turns, but not at the expense of the humor. Underneath it all lies a story of a man who refuses to see the joy that letting other people into his life can bring.

When all is said and done, the movie does not exactly come close to greatness, but is an excellent showcase for Gervais' comedic talents and a step up from Koepp's previous directorial effort, Secret Window with Johnny Depp. Overall, the film is just a well-crafted, somewhat unconventional romantic comedy that succeeds in being both engaging and hilarious throughout the duration of its run time.

GRADE: B

The Dark Knight Review

2008-07-17T08:12:00.001-07:00

Few, if any, movies have been hyped to the degree that The Dark Knight has. After the successful reboot of a series that was languishing in exile after nearly a decade, the deadly serious interpretation of this classic character from Christopher Nolan was just waiting for the sequel everyone knew it was going to get. And after the tragic death of Heath Ledger, things kicked into overdrive with the hyperbolic talk of Oscar nominations and The Joker literally causing Ledger to go insane.

Yet, when walking into the theater last night, I attempted to put all of that aside. Forget the reviews, forget the hype, and forget all the talk about Ledger's interpretation of The Joker. Just enjoy the movie for what it is and accept what is up on screen.

Fortunately, The Dark Knight delivers, but not in the way that some reviewers or fans would have us all believe. The Dark Knight is in fact an incredibly solid movie, a complex morality tale that finds itself wading in shades of gray, where other movies in this genre often take a strictly black and white approach to evil.

The story picks up shortly after the end of Batman Begins. Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckhart) is the new DA, the human face of Gotham who tries desperately to clean up the city in a legal way. He is currently dating Rachel Dawes (Maggie Gyllenhaal, who replaces Katie Holmes), an assistant DA. Meanwhile, The Joker (Heath Ledger) starts a crime wave throughout the city and offers the mob bosses a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to rid the world of Batman for good as Batman continues to do his vigilante thing that he does so well.

Much has been said about Ledger's performance as The Joker, and much of it is true. His origins are shrouded in mystery. No one knows anything about him, nor do they have any leads. He is a master of misdirection and offers no real clues as to where he came from. No, he is little more than an insane individual who just relishes in evil. By appearance he seems to be motivated by little else than being Batman's foil, Batman's opposite incarnate. The Joker is equally brilliant as he is mad, hatching incredibly complex plans that often go precisely as he expects them to, regardless of Batman's attempts to stop them. And Ledger plays it with such a ferocity and so calculated that you can just buy it instantly. He is increasingly entertained by carnage and the most disgusting facets of the human experience and that excitement is undoubtedly scary. This is truly the greatest iteration of The Joker to be placed upon screen and frankly, I do not see how it could possibly be duplicated. But whether or not it is Oscar worthy is certainly up for debate. While I would love to see actors nominated for a movie like this, I fear that the only reason the award train is moving so quickly is because of the tragic demise of Ledger. While I certainly cannot think of any other such memorable performances this year, we are only half way through the year and prime awards season does not even start until late fall. So I will reserve my judgment on that for now.

Less has been said, however, about Aaron Eckhart's turn as Harvey Dent. This is a man who exhibits true bravery, who is unrelenting in the face of undeniable evil. He truly believes that Gotham can be a better place and does everything in his power to make that the case. Yet, slowly but surely things begin to change. And, without spoiling anything, Dent's transition from upstanding DA to the villain known as Harvey Two-Face is not only believable, but incredibly compelling. You buy his descent into insanity, if insanity is what you want to call it. To devote so much of your life towards a goal, only to see much of that shattered, well, those are certainly valid reasons to lose one's mind. And not only the character, but the Two-Face effects are incredible. With imagery reminiscent of the animated series, whenever Two-Face is on screen you can't help but be mesmerized by the character.

But that's not to say that other performances are weak. On the contrary, everyone in the entire film delivers solid performances. From Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale) to Lt. Jim Gordon (Gary Oldman) to even smaller players like the mayor of Gotham (Nestor Carbonell), everyone comes through with compelling conviction.

Bruce Wayne in particular is tormented. While he has become the symbol that Gotham needs, Gotham needs more than he can give. And not only that, he's inspiring people both positively and negatively and doesn't know whether or not it is worth it to continue his journey down this path. There is not a clear cut answer that he can take. If he quits, then things could end up getting worse, but if he continues, then things, again, could also end up getting worse. There doesn't seem to be an easy way out of all of this. But the one strong point, essentially Bruce's moral compass, is Alfred (Michael Caine). Alfred understands what Bruce provides for this city, and Caine plays him with such a history that you understand where he is coming from with the advice that he gives. It is obvious Alfred is more than just a butler and the concern he has for Bruce and for the city delves deep for him.

The complexities of this story and the force with which The Joker delivers on many of the anarchic promises he makes place many of the individuals in this movie in impossible situations. Decisions need to be made for the greater good, but without losing one's soul. Sure, Batman could easily shoot The Joker in the head and be done with it, but that's not what he does. He needs to stay true to himself and resisting that temptation to become the thing he hates the most is a struggle, and it becomes a struggle for all characters with a solid moral center in this movie. The way Nolan explores these themes is not only effective but also a welcome change from a lot of the lighter fare often released during the summer months. Strip away the costumes and the comic book history and at its core, The Dark Knight is a human drama based in the reality we see around us today. How do you fight evil without losing yourself in the process? And are humans as disgusting as The Joker interprets them to be? Questions that do not have easy answers and questions that are explored in many interesting ways in this movie.

Yet, interestingly enough, on a strictly entertainment level, the film doesn't deliver as much as it could. The first hour and a half felt like nearly three hours. I was surprised when I had realized that there was still another hour to go. I was engaged, but not fully entertained by what was placed before me. I found myself zoning out in some parts, but I think much of that is because it goes against your expectations on what a "Batman" movie should be. By taking a different route and only occasionally going the more predictable route (which is pretty close to never), sometimes it does affect the base entertainment value of the movie. Yet, the last hour essentially grabs on and doesn't let up until its over. And what made this even more interesting was the way that the movie took turns that I didn't exactly expect. Not "plot twists" exactly in the Sixth Sense way, but just going in unexpected directions. And as a result, I find myself a little conflicted about where it leaves the characters going into a third movie.

I can easily recommend this movie to just about anyone. The performances alone are worth the price of admission but there is also so much more to it as well. And one thing is for sure, this seems to be a movie that will continue to add layers upon each viewing, so on that note, I can't wait to go see it in IMAX.

GRADE: A

Hancock Review

2008-07-01T05:42:00.000-07:00

Will Smith is currently the most bankable star in Hollywood, and with good reason. The man never gives a less-than-entertaining performance. Everything he does, he seemingly does with such conviction that it becomes very easy to accept whatever role he is playing. Smith's charisma just emanates off the screen and it's difficult to think of one time where he, personally, has failed in his attempt.

No, the problem is never Will. The problem lies with something else, and that's precisely the issue that Hancock has. Hancock is a tonally inconsistent mishmash of a movie that presents a number of really great ideas but never actually follows through on any of them.

The story is simple enough. Superhero Hancock (Smith) is drunk and disorderly, but still is committed to stopping bad guys, collateral damage be damned. He doesn't seem to care about the financial toll he takes on his heroics, but is apparently still inspired to attempt heroics in general. When PR executive Ray Embrey (Jason Bateman) is saved by Hancock, Ray makes it his duty to turn around the public's perception of Hancock and make him a true hero for the ages through a series of PR stunts.

A premise such as this is ripe with possibilities. Many people disagree with me, but I've always thought that one of the most fascinating superhero stories would be if Superman just got fed up with trying to help people and stopped giving a damn or attempted to take things into his own hands regarding the world power (in a more dictatorial role than in Superman IV, in which he asks, and everyone enthusiastically complies, in getting rid of all nuclear weapons). Instead, what Hancock delivers is a watered down version of a similar premise that attempts to cram a number of different ideas into a 92 minute run time while giving them very little time to breathe.

That's not to say there isn't some exquisite imagery in a large portion of the movie, because there certainly is. The way director Peter Berg films this movie is slightly reminiscent of the pseudo-documentary style he employs in "Friday Night Lights", which does ground this movie in a sense of realism. His biggest problems are two-fold. First, the tone switches in such a jarring way that it can sometimes pull you out of the movie. When you're expecting certain themes to be explored, only to have them be inexplicably dropped and another is picked up, the movie isn't helped by this. Of course, this could be rectified by a few extra transitional scenes that would exist to string the movie along a more solid focus. Secondly, the way he telegraphs a plot twist is much too obvious. The lingering shots in a scene that doesn't require lingering shots draws you out of the experience and makes you contemplate the nature of these shots instead of allowing the movie to unfold in a more naturalistic way. The twist certainly should have been alluded to in some way, but it was much too obvious from the outset.

John Powell also turns in a questionable score. I've heard his music before, and none of it was this inconsistant. This is certainly not a score I'm going to be seeking out anytime in the future.

If it feels like I'm being too negative on this movie, it shouldn't. I just find it frustrating when you see the skeleton of what could be an amazing superhero movie, only to be let down. What's so great about Hancock was the way that you could essentially create any story for him. There aren't any comic books or TV shows or old movies based upon this character; no, he was a completely unique character with his own mythology. You can go in with no preconceptions at all about who Hancock is or what he is. A true blank slate. Yet, with the exception of a few small monologues, we never really delve into that history. Why does Hancock choose to save people at all? He obviously has some sort of moral compass, a moral center that allows him to see right from wrong on a base level, but beyond the loneliness, what makes him who he is? What drives him at all? I don't necessarily feel that an origin story is necessary, but answers to these questions would have made the movie all the better for it. I can't really get into any more without getting into spoilers, so I suppose I'll stop with those questions here.

On a strictly entertainment level though, Hancock does deliver. Watching Will Smith tear through the streets of LA with a vague idea of what he's planning on doing does have an inherent entertainment value to it all. The banter between Smith and Jason Bateman is hilarious and they both have their own styles of humor that add immensely to the film. There were plenty of truly funny moments delivered by both characters, yet in very unique ways. Bateman once again plays the straight man and he succeeds just about every time. (Where's that Arrested Development movie, anyway?!) Charlize Theron is somewhat of a weaker point in this movie, but it has nothing to do with her performance, since not only is she playing attractive again (FINALLY it seems!) but you can tell she's actually putting effort into this role, depsite its "type" of movie.

Overall, this is a movie that gets by because of the star power of Will Smith. Giving this role to a weaker, less charasmatic actor could have doomed the movie from having any entertainment value at all. But fortunately this was not the case. The movie was absolutely worth seeing, it was just unfortunate that a structure of what could have been is laid out there, but never truly taken advantage of. I find it difficult to really qualify this movie, but I do think it falls somewhere along a continuum, one that doesn't really have a clear cut answer. So I give it a:

GRADE: B-

Wall-E Review

2008-06-26T23:05:00.000-07:00

I think it's safe to say that Wall-E is, without hyperbole, one of the single greatest films I have ever had the opportunity to witness. Frame by frame, scene by scene, I cannot think of one element that I disliked or felt out of place. Even things that were presented rather uniquely, specifically the way the humans were presented, was shown in such a way that it truly seemed like a natural extension of human progress.

And what is so interesting about all of this is that the movie is simply about holding hands. The central crux of the movie upon which all else is realized is one robot's dream of holding the hand of someone else. That's it. You wouldn't think that it goes deeper than that. Yet, the resulting depth is one that should resonate with any human being regardless of age.

Wall-E is a robot placed on Earth to clean up all the garbage that was left behind after humanity took off on a space cruise, planning to return in 5 years. Wall-E gets through his day with a sense of enthusiasm and excitement rarely seen in any individual human. He's happy to be alive and does his job with the gusto expected of him. A gusto that has apparently served him rather well over the last 700 years. His only friend is a cockroach who exudes more personality than most characters these days. He spends his evenings relaxing in what he calls home, a giant mobile vehicle that is no longer in use, which he has decorated with the various trinkets he's found during his clean up sessions. And he ends his day by watching a video he's found of "Hello, Dolly" and fantasizing about being able to have a connection like that with another individual. Watching him long for this action, this ability to hold the hand of another, is an incredible sight to behold. The innocence of Wall-E, coupled with his unflinching optimism, makes him one of the most endearing characters ever placed upon the silver screen.

And Wall-E's life changes unexpectedly when a probe robot named EVE shows up and could potentially give Wall-E what he's looking for. The changes he goes through after her arrival are hilarious and subsequently heartbreaking. To feel for these characters, despite their perceived inability to speak, is a testament to Pixar and the phenomenal job they have done to create this world that goes beyond expectations.

It's also a testament to the sound design of Ben Burtt, who again creates such memorable sounds in a piece of film history. While Wall-E and EVE speak in languages we don't understand, the way they are able to emote through the sounds they make and through the audible interactions with the rest of the world is nothing short of breathtaking. Adding to the wonderful sound is Thomas Newman's pitch perfect score that heightens the experience greatly while taking nothing away from it.

Honestly, it becomes difficult to fathom anyone who would possibly dislike this movie. They may not agree that it's one of the best ever, but one would have to be a truly cynical person to actively dislike this movie. I can't say at this time whether it will become one of my favorites. I don't think that something needs to be a favorite in order to be praised as an exquisite piece of film making, but it's certainly possible it could be. It's certainly something I want to see again and I urge everyone who reads this to make time. Trust me. It's worth it.

Pixar again knocks another one out of the park, and frankly, it's difficult to understand how they can make it look so easy when every other film studio surely puts out its share of garbage. This is movie making at its finest and an example set for all others. Here we are, nine films into their existence and only one film falls short of greatness and that's Cars. Cars was still an incredibly watchable film, but just not up to the same sort of quality other Pixars movies are. Regardless, I'd still give them a 9 for 9 in terms of solid movies, and an 8 for 9 for excellent movies. Hopefully someone will come along and copy their business model so well so that we never have to suffer through another big budget awful movie ever again. A pipe dream, I know, but a dream I will continue to have. Thank you Pixar.

GRADE: A+

Wanted Review

2008-06-26T19:26:00.000-07:00

There are times when you go into a movie and don't know what to expect, and come out pleasantly surprised and rather excited over what you've just seen. Wanted is that type of movie. The fact is, that if the actors in this did their job, there was no way that it could be any less than entertaining. All the pieces were there. Angelina Jolie, check. James McAvoy, who has proven himself a few times over to be a solid actor, check. And the always dependable Morgan Freeman, who actually utters the line "Shoot this motherfucker!" in the way that only he can, check. These are not elements that add up to a lack of entertainment on a base level. And the result was so much more.

James McAvoy plays Wesley Gibson, a corporate employee who hates his life and is suddenly drawn into the world of international assassins. The story goes that Cross, one of the greatest assassins has gone rogue and begun to pick off members of "The Fraternity", a group of assassins led by Sloan (Morgan Freeman). After Fox (Angelina Jolie) saves Wesley from an attempted assassination by Cross, he begins a training regiment that's torture at best and attempted murder at worst. Yet, this is all to help him control his latent powers; powers that allow him to curve bullets, and a power that apparently his father, who was killed by Cross days earlier, possessed. (All seemingly in an effort to force me to use variations of the word "assassin" more times than I've ever done in the past.)

The biggest issue I had with the movie, strangely enough the same issue I had with Kung Fu Panda, was the nature by which Wesley is drawn into this new life. He hates his life, yet does nothing to change it. The changes are forced upon him. He's not kept by a sense of honor or duty to that which he currently belongs, he's just afraid. The only thing that makes him special is the fact that his father was such a great assassin. This has less to do with him, and more about his genes and I always find it hard to get behind characters who are forced into circumstances beyond their control because of birthright and not by individual choice.

Fortunately, this leads into Wesley taking more of a stand for himself later on in the movie with the knowledge of these new powers, but the initial jumping off point was enough to give me pause.

And the small matter of the way "fate" chooses the targets is a little silly, but I suppose you can judge for yourself on that one.

Beyond that, there wasn't much NOT to like about this movie. An incredible, often downright hilarious visual display that does not hold back at all. Director Timur Bekmambetov puts all his cards on the table and embraces the R-rating to the best of his ability. Bullets fly into (and out of) people with an intensity often only saved for the likes of "Saving Private Ryan". There's an element of "What if Jim from The Office was recruited by Angelina Jolie to assassinate people"?

There's a certain "Matrix" element to it, but drops the pretense of that trilogy to become its own animal. Yet, the story hints at an interesting "Is the grass really greener?" perspective late in the movie, but never really delves into it. While certainly not a deal-breaker by any stretch of the imagination, I think a little more could have been served by taking a closer look at the duality between a "normal" life and an "exciting" life.

Wanted is a movie you just don't see that often anymore. It is a film that revels in what it is, and makes no apologies for it either. An R-rated, all-out action movie that takes special precision with the stunts and effects and draws you into a world where you can truly believe that people can curve bullets. Obviously, the plot is not going to win any awards, but it's definitely an above-average showing that is leaps and bounds above a lot that is called "action movies" these days.

Would this be as successful with different leads? Probably not. The chemistry between the three main characters is what really brings much of this to life. Being unfamiliar with the comic book, I can't say that I think this would be better or worse if they stuck to the original storyline. But what does end up showing up on screen is something that floored me in a way I wasn't expected. Hopefully this movie will become a success and the studios will look more closely at the potential for R-rated action blockbusters utilizing actors with a more serious pedigree. I sure as hell would love to see it and I'm glad that Wanted was the movie to make me feel that way.

Grade: A-

Lost Season Finale: So Where Did It Go Again?

2008-05-30T06:14:00.000-07:00

After the mindblowing finale of Season 3, a finale that caused me to lose sleep as my brain was working overdrive, I kept more conservative expectations going into the Season 4 finale. Since really, how could Season 4 even come close to matching the complete "game changer" of a finale last year?

And, fortunately or unfortunately, I was correct. This did not blow my mind in the same way that last year's did and to attempt to compare the two is truly an exercise in futility.

The reason for this is abundantly clear: last year the question was centrally focused on "What Does This Mean?" We didn't know whether the flash-forwards were the last point in the series, whether this was only ONE possible future or a number of different possibilities, how the show was going to be structured in Season 4, what the meaning of the word "present" is. All of these speculations caused people to have months upon months of wondering until we finally got our definitive answer in the form of "The Beginning of the End."

This year, the question is more straight forward. Instead of "What Does This Mean?" it's more of a "What Happens Next?" My personal belief, and this could turn out to be 100% wrong as 100% of my predictions have been in the past, is that off-island is now the present. The crux of next year will be Jack getting the group back together which will finally culminate in them arriving back to the island. In the meantime, our flashbacks will show what led Locke to end up in that coffin. Therefore, in next year's season finale we will presumably see, in flashback, what killed Locke.

Unfortunately, I feel that Michael was rather wasted this year and particularly in this finale. Was he really fully redeemed to the point where it was worth it to finally kill him off? What purpose did he serve staring at the C4 instead of running upstairs with Jin? As it stands, he apparently never even made amends with his son, which was one of the primary reasons for his introduction in Season 1. Granted, as is always the case with Lost, just because you're dead doesn't necessarily mean you're off the show. And Christian Shepherd could certainly attest to that. Speaking of the old Dr. Shepherd, his appearance on the freighter was particularly interesting.

As for Jin, I would stake a week's pay on his being alive. The purpose that his "death" serves is to send Sun into the spiral of vengeance that she appears to be taking in attempting to conspire with Widmore. My concern though is that Sun will turn into her father, making a reunion with Jin somewhat bittersweet. While it will be great to see them together again, in what direction will Sun have gone that might make us root against her somewhat? Jack explicitly stated that "Sun blames me for Jin's death." (Which is slightly inaccurate, since it was kind of Lapidus who refused to go back to the boat, too.)

Season 5 by necessity seems as if it will be a completely different animal if the driving force is returning to the island. Of course, that in and of itself, raises some questions. When Ben says "everyone" has to go back, does that mean Lapidus and Desmond? Aaron? Taking a toddler on a cross country trip is hard enough, try bringing one along to find a mystical island.

Speaking of Desmond, I would have to say that his reunion with Penny was quite possibly the highlight of the finale. To think that this dynamic wasn't even part of the show until the very last episode of Season 2 is very difficult to believe since it resonates so much more than any of the other love stories on the island. The Jack/Sawyer/Kate triangle has been done to death and certainly doesn't seem to be nearing a TRUE resolution anytime soon.

And who would have thought even a year ago that they were going to TELEPORT THE ISLAND. Which is kind of a downer for Faraday and his band of merry meat socks floatin' away on the ocean. Yet, I'm sure we haven't seen the last of him. How far we've come from "Where are we going to find water?" to "How exactly does one move an entire isalnd?" The curious thing is where exactly did it go? And how can it get found again? Once again...more questions.

While I'm certainly looking forward to the Season 5 premiere, it's not the same sort of anticipation that I had last year, and really, how could it? Even so, Lost still excels at being one of the most quality shows on television and I certainly cannot wait until February to see what direction we will be taken next.

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull Review

2008-05-22T05:53:00.000-07:00

I must admit to the fact that I have never seen Indiana Jones on the big screen until now. Born in 1984, the year that Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom was released, the only opportunity I would have had would have been The Last Crusade five years later. And it wasn't exactly my parent's predilection at the time to take a 5 year old to a PG-13 movie.

Yet, that's not to say that I wasn't fond of Indy growing up. In fact, I was a HUGE fan of Temple of Doom, since it was on all the time when I was younger. Strangely, I didn't even end up seeing Raiders of the Lost Ark until my teen years because I was biased against the movie. First, there was the fact that it didn't have "Indiana Jones and the" in front of it. Secondly, I thought they were talking about Noah's Ark. And I didn't want to see a movie about Noah's Ark. (I ended up seeing one years later called "Evan Almighty." And it was crap.)

But throughout the years, I have become a bigger and bigger fan of Indiana Jones. Because really, what creature with a Y chromosome wouldn't want to be him? I certainly can't think of any.

Which is what makes this review so difficult to write. There is so much great about "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" but at the same time there is also so much that takes away from it.

Make no mistake about it, Indiana Jones is back. His wit, his abilities, his tenacity are all on full display for the world to see and being given the opportunity to experience this character on a 100 foot screen was rather thrilling.

The problems exist mainly regarding the plot. So many points in the movie, the momentum would stop dead in its tracks in order to explain what was happening and why. This overly complicated plot regarding what may or may not be aliens was distracting and didn't serve the movie very well. Maybe I'm misremembering, but the previous movies didn't have such convoluted plots. Although, I suppose the familiarity with the previous plots could have to do with the numerous times I've seen the movies throughout the years. Or at least when it was exposition time in the earlier films, it didn't feel so forced and unnatural.

Especially with the introduction of Mutt Williams (Shia LaBeouf). While I understand the reasons for Mutt's presence, the fact he is even there seems rather strange. He only serves to reintroduce Marion to the story who, while great to see return, seems like she was shoehorned into the story for little reason other than to see Marion back and to provide Indy with a sidekick. I don't have any issue with Shia LaBeouf on the whole, and have enjoyed him in other movies like "Disturbia", but here he feels out of place. Also a scene with him in the jungle with some monkeys is literally laugh-out-loud ludicrous. I mean, I know this is Indiana Jones and all, but that's just another moment when I'm immediately drawn out of the movie. And I'm not even going to get started with how dumb the monkey-men or spider-men were and what the hell they were even doing in this movie.

And as a last negative, the big finale and the events leading up to it do not fully seem to make much sense. The events that take place at the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull are ambiguous at best and nonsensical at worst. Maybe the whys and hows of it all will be better explained upon future viewings, but the results of the actions of the characters seem to be at odds with what the Crystal Skulls were apparently supposed to stand for.

If it seems I'm being overly negative, I'm not. The action is very cool and, with signature Spielberg style, is thoroughly entertaining and never boring. There were moments in this film that despite knowing that Indiana is going to survive, I felt real dread over what could potentially happen to him. The opening scene in Area 51 especially really felt like a return to form for the old archeologist. When the "Raider's March" kicks into high gear as Indy is doing his thing, you can't help but be filled with a childlike glee at the entire experience on screen. Even just that would have been enough to justify going to see this movie, but fortunately there was much more.

The character moments, when they weren't sitting around being conduits for exposition, were great. In fact, a huge complaint I have is that there was too much time explaining the plot and not enough time for character. More bickering between Marion and Indy would have been great, as would more reactions to various plot twists that exist throughout the movie. Certain moments seem to be accepted far too easily and there's no real struggle in that acceptance when one might expect there would be.

Ben Burtt's sound design is once again on full display with the over the top punches and whipcracks that seem to be unique to Indiana Jones. The sound effects are especially great and draw you in even more. But John Williams' new score seems to be a bit of a mixed bag. Much like the movie, it is sufficient but nowhere near the greatness of either the Raiders score or my personal favorite, The Last Crusade. I enjoy the new themes that were written but none seem to lend themselves to the emotional gravitas that existed in prior incarnations. The old themes were great as ever, especially the little nods here and there to the previous films, and I could certainly listen to those over and over again.

Make no mistake about it: this is a fun movie that's worth seeing more than once, if just to see Indiana Jones back in action one more time. The problem is that while it is in the same vein as its predecessors, the script is along a different track that prevents it from achieving true greatness. And if the rumors are true that they're setting up Shia LaBeouf for his own series, then I'll be incredibly annoyed by this. I can't say that I wouldn't see it (I see pretty much everything), but I think Harrison Ford IS Indiana Jones, and to attempt to replace him would be a tragedy.

Some people might be making the case that in today's movie-going environment, Indiana Jones has no place. But I would certainly argue with that. Indiana Jones is the everyman. You feel like you could put on that fedora and whip and become him, exploring the outer reaches of the world and getting into all sorts of adventures. Despite a few small missteps, Indy has most certainly returned and I have to say that I'm rather happy about it.

GRADE: B

Movies in the 21st Century

2008-05-16T21:56:00.001-07:00

The world of cinema has entered a totally new world in these last few years, particularly since the dawn of the internet. Now, I personally haven't been a fan of movies, at least like I am now, for my entire life. In fact, working at a movie theater for six years probably had quite a bit to do with my exponential interest in the workings of the world of the silver screen. But growing up in this time certainly has many pros and cons. Unfortunately, I will be looking at this issue through my admittedly narrow experience, given that I am only 24 years old and rarely experienced movies in the same way that many of those did before my time. So any input from those who have different perspectives would be highly appreciated.

The multiplex is now the preferred method of cinema delivery. Gone are the days of Drive-Ins and small, independent theaters with only one or two screens. Any less than 10 screens is seen to be exceedingly small and is rather rare these days. The intimate experience of going to the movies is now being somewhat diluted by this overwhelming sensory overload. The memories that people have of going to the movies is assuredly different than it must have been in the past.

This, unfortunately, leads to an increasing lack of control on the part of theater management. How is it possible to rodeo dozens of teenagers who seem to be everywhere at once? People who are disrupting the movie for others are becoming insanely difficult to track down and proof of wrongdoing on the part of the perpetrators can be nearly impossible to come by. Couple this with skyrocketing prices (a topic that will be exploited in a future entry) and one can only see why attendance is dropping so dramatically. Box office gurus continue to tout financial numbers like they are all that matter. "$100 Million in its first weekend! $300 million overall!" Yes, but how many people actually went to see these movies? How many people were you able to reach with them? These LEGITIMATE questions appear to be lost in the shuffle of the overwhelming "more is more" policy that Hollywood, and by extension theater exhibitors, seem to have these days.

That policy also extends to the marketing of movies. The way trailers are cut today, I cannot fathom them being cut the same way 20-30 years ago. With so many competing forms of entertainment out there ranging from just web browsing to video games, there seems to be the attitude that so much needs to be shown from the movies to get people interested. The downside is that it lessens the impact of the movie itself. Last year, essentially the entire plot of Spider-Man 3 was given away before the credits even began to roll. Multiple trailers, an 8-minute sequence given out a month before opening, TV spots, all led to a digestible version of the movie to the point where one did not even have to go see it to understand what was going to happen. I understand that anticipation needs to be built, but sometimes you give away too much. So many movies are guilty of this these days, I don't even know where I'd begin to start. (I guess I started with Spider-Man 3, a sub-par Spider-Man movie and a slightly above average action movie, and this is coming from a HUGE Spider-Man fan.)

Of course, not all is bad in this new world of cinema. When an event movie arrives, you are pretty much guaranteed to be able to go to the theater and catch it within a day or so. Gone are the days when people would have to line up seemingly weeks in advance in order to catch a glimpse of the new Star Wars movie. The saturation of theaters has gotten to a point where that isn't necessary. A Star Wars-caliber movie would have a showing almost every half-hour to avoid totally selling out. Granted, some may argue that this lessens the communal nature of movie-going but I think all would agree that it's nice to be able to see what you want when you want. The downside is that it gives crap movies almost an equal chance at success, therefore unintentionally raising the perceived quality of said movies. This could be a symptom throughout movie history though, since I have not researched the success of bad movies in the past.

The internet is also turning into a cesspool of leaks and spoilers and prejudgments on non-finished products. A piece of concept art could be released about a project and suddenly the internet comes out and jumps all over it. This in turn gives the impression that the entire world is against whatever it might be, when in fact I would argue that a tiny percentage of the movie-going public is active on the internet. But with the instant nature of the internet, the ending of a movie could get out, and suddenly it's available to anyone with a search engine. People could come across is accidentally and have the whole experience ruined for them. Granted, I'm sure that is a rare situation, but the fact is that it exists and it can be rather harmful.

On the other hand, the internet has so many wonderful things these days. The ubiquity of internet video and therefore trailers has allowed anyone to be able to find out about the newest movies. No longer do people have to wait in line for a movie they didn't want to see just to find out if a trailer to an anticipated movie will be on it. Just log on and check it out yourself. And for free. The access is unprecedented and I'm sure allows for some movies that wouldn't otherwise be seen to be given a chance at success that it otherwise would not have had.

Yet, when all is said and done, would I rather live now or then? If you take away DVDs and home theaters and the financial issues, and judge movie theaters on their merits between now and then alone, it becomes a difficult decision. Ultimately, I would probably say now because of the ability to see movies on my own schedule, but certain upsides to movie experiences from the past certainly hold water. The thing is, I think we can get to a place now where it becomes more enjoyable for everyone. It will just take a little hard work and some dedication. It's too bad I'm not in a position to help make that happen. Yet.

The Forbidden Kingdom Review

2008-04-19T14:53:00.000-07:00

The movie that so many martial arts fans have been waiting to see, a showdown between Jet Li and Jackie Chan has finally arrived. Unfortunately, it has arrived in the form of a slightly better than mediocre movie aimed mostly at the younger crowd.

The movie starts as Jason (Michael Angarano) wakes up and visits a DVD/Pawn Shop in the Chinatown section of Boston to purchase some of his favorite kung fu movies. The shop is run by Jackie Chan in old person's make up and if you thought that Chan was difficult to understand before through his accent, just wait until you try and hear him through his accent and "old man" voice.

(On a completely unrelated side note, I found it odd that Jason has a Sega Dreamcast and an old Nintendo 64 box set up in his room. Especially the box. Is it really worth saving 10 years later? You might say that it's set in the past, but an Xbox 360 shows up in the Old Man's pawn shop.)

Anyway, Jason is riding his bike home when some girls stop him and ask him what he's doing. He talks to them for a second, when out of nowhere, some bullies show up and see that he buys things at a shop in Chinatown. Of course, to them this means that the place will be easy to rob. (???) Things escalate out of control when the main bully SHOOTS JACKIE CHAN and then plans on shooting Jason until the mystical staff that Jason picked up in the pawn shop drags him off the roof of the building and transports him to ancient China. Immediately this takes me out of the movie, as I cannot stand movie bullies who inexplicably escalate things to realms that would never happen in reality. I understand that bullies in the real world exist, but not like this. Fortunately, the movie becomes more entertaining once they enter ancient China.

What follows is a movie that's one part "Back to the Future Part III" (or Ninja Turtles III, depending on your perspective), two parts Lord of the Rings, and two parts Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. (That's 5 parts for those of you who are keeping track.)

Jason is then tasked by Jackie Chan to take the staff to the Warlord's castle and release the imprisoned "Monkey King" (Jet Li) in order to get home. Along the way they pick up a monk (Jet Li, again) and a young woman named Sparrow. The problem is that you really never get a sense of any sort of danger or sense of foreboding, despite the attempts to highlight the story of Sparrow, who is seeking vengeance against the warlord for killing her parents. Oh yeah, she also inexplicably only speaks about herself in the second person.

Nor do you fully understand why Jason is so anxious to get home. He doesn't seem like he has any friends and his only excitement in life is watching old Kung Fu movies. There's also the fact that the last time he was conscious in his world, someone was holding a gun to his head and he was falling off a building. Personally, I don't know if I'd necessarily want to go back to that. But I guess that's just me.

The fight scenes are pretty good and show themselves to be entertaining enough, especially between Jet Li and Jackie Chan, but the reasons for which they all fight never really rise above mediocre.

Coupled with the fact that some of the bad guys make INCREDIBLY stupid decisions given the prospect of a "prophecy", the movie can't shake its failures despite the attempts to rise above these inherent shortcomings. The movie reads almost like a cliff's notes to an Asian "Lord of the Rings" (minus the mystical creatures) and in fact certain imagery looks almost like it was taken straight from the film trilogy.

Yet, despite it all, "The Forbidden Kingdom" does prove itself to be an entertaining way to spend two hours if there is nothing else to do. I can applaud what they were trying to accomplish but unfortunately the whole is worth less than the sum of its parts

GRADE: C+

Forgetting Sarah Marshall Review

2008-04-19T14:23:00.000-07:00

We are getting to a point with comedies where the idea that whatever Judd Apatow (Knocked Up, Superbad) produces is supposedly comedic gold. Unfortunately, the last two Apatow produced movies (Walk Hard and Drillbit Taylor) did not exactly live up to his high pedigree. Fortunately, Forgetting Sarah Marshall corrects that pattern and puts things back on the right path.

Written by star Jason Segel (of TV's How I Met Your Mother, possibly the best sitcom on TV today) and directed by first time director Nicholas Stoller, "Sarah Marshall" is an incredibly hilarious look at people's motivations within relationships that really takes the opportunity to give all the characters a chance to explain themselves.

By now I am sure most people have heard of the basic premise of the story. Peter Bretter (Segel), a composer who does music for his girlfriend Sarah Marshall's (Kristen Bell) TV show "Crime Scene: Scene of the Crime" gets dumped (while naked). In an attempt to get away from it all, he goes to a resort in Hawaii that Sarah once mentioned to him. Of course, as luck would have it, she is there with her new rockstar boyfriend Aldous Snow (Russell Brand). And, because no comedy would be complete without a new love interest, Peter develops a crush on the front desk girl Rachel (Mila Kunis).

What really makes this movie great is the way that it doesn't demonize anyone. Every character, whether it be Sarah or Peter or Rachel, all have issues within their lives that need to be dealt with. In many romantic comedies, the person who does the dumping is not really given a second glance and the blame is often squarely put on them. Unlike those, without giving anything away, you find that the real reason for the split is much more complicated than a woman who just wants to move up in the world. Looking at the characters as people with flaws and imperfections certainly helps to make the movie relatable in ways it might otherwise not have been.

A small issue with the movie is that it isn't as funny as Knocked Up or Superbad. This shouldn't be construed as a complaint though, as the laughs are consistent and don't really cease for the duration. The problem is that while I found myself laughing out loud, they never reached the complete hilarity of those other movies. Only once did I find myself laughing uncontrollably, which happened a few times in those other films. Yet, in comparison to the majority of the movies that pass for comedies today, this is infinitely better. I do feel somewhat bad for Jason Segel though, as he shows his penis numerous times yet it never really comes off as that funny, except for at the very end. Funny how the only time naked dudes are really ever used is for humorous effect. Naked women are usually shown so that people can see naked women. (I don't buy the whole "It makes sense for the scene" crap.)

On its own merits, without comparison to other movies within the genre, Forgetting Sarah Marshall is very funny and provides an experience that not only delivers minute-for-minute hilarity, but also crafts an engaging story. One more final complaint is that the end somewhat begins to head down the track of predictability, somewhat lessening the effect of the rest of the movie, but I wouldn't find it to be too much or a complaint, nor something that ruins the experience in the slightest.

As a final note, I have to mention that while Mila Kunis has always been hot, in this movie she's pretty much off the charts. Not to take away from the hotness of Kristen Bell, of course. I don't know whether it's movie magic or what the situation is with her in this movie, but I think we can all agree that Macauley Culkin is a lucky man. Yeah, I don't know how that happened, either.

GRADE: B+

Oscar Live Updates

2008-02-24T16:55:00.001-08:00

So for the first time in 7 years, I'm currently watching the Oscars alone without anything fun surrounding it. I suppose that means that it is up to me to make this as exciting as I possibly can for myself. What that means? I don't know. I figure I should write about it.

I just got done watching the Barbara Walter special. I cannot wait for the new Indiana Jones movie. It's going to be some awesome stuff. Although they really should put Hannah Montana in it, you know, to get the tween set. Hell yes. Ok, maybe not. I really hate Hannah Montana (although I'm sure that Miley Cyrus is a lovely person). The show literally makes me want to gouge my eyes out.

So I've seen 26 of the nominated movies. I would have seen more if I didn't live in South Carolina where it's impossible to see them all.

8:00PM
The Oscar red carpet has officially started. I could care less about this stuff. I don't care what they're wearing. One of the reasons I'm almost embarrassed to watch the Oscars is because they're often considered the Super Bowl for women. But I'm not a woman. And I don't want to be a woman. Also, I'm not gay. But I love the movies. Which is why I'm writing this. Heck yes.

What's Regis doing here? That guy seriously seems like he never has any idea what's going on. He's out of control. I think it's time to away Regis. To where? I'm not sure.

These women who interview the celebrities are kind of idiots it seem like. They talk to them like they're friends. Something tells me they're not friends. This random lady doesn't hang out with John Travolta. Unless Travolta is trying to trick people into getting into Scientology. Scary fake religion.

8:07
Why are they asking Javier Bardem about his stupid haircut in No Country for Old Men? Isn't it time to put that away? Let's move on.

Oh god, why is Hannah Montana at the Oscars? I wish she would fight Regis. Fight him! That would be awesome. Regis vs. Hannah Montana. They could move that over to Pay-Per-View and I'd definitely check it out.

Oh boy, here come the chick commercials. Although I had no idea I would be watching a dog food commercial for chicks. Surprising.

8:15
I don't know if I should make any predictions. In recent years I've actually been pretty good with my predictions. I'll make them just before they announce, and you'll just have to trust that I'm being honest.

Yes! Jennifer Garner is being interviewed! At one point I was going to marry her, and then she went and had a baby with Ben Affleck. What a jerk. Man, I miss the days of Alias when she would come into my home...and to my heart every week. Goodbye, Jen. Goodbye.

Why is Regis pretending he cares about Helen Mirren's dress? He doesn't care. Helen Mirren just said that she is running a whorehouse. I'm a little concerned about that.

Now, Daniel Day-Lewis is being interviewed. He's such a weird guy. But he was awesome in "There Will Be Blood".

Amy Adams has popped up. I think I'm going to make her my new future wife. She doesn't know that yet. Is that creepy?

8:21
I think that Access Hollywood is one of the worst programs ever. Let's talk about being so over-the-top that everyone seems insane. Which is totally awesome.

Ellen Page is cool. I hope people ask her why Juno is so accessible! Again. And again.

They have now asked Hilary Swank about how she chooses her roles. Why doesn't anyone ask how people choose their rolls? Personally, I'm a huge fan of the brown-n-serves, but crescent rolls are nice too.

It's kind of exciting that I was in the Kodak Theater less than a year ago. But I suppose if I actually lived out there, it wouldn't be that cool. We Middle America people think that so much is cool that totally is NOT cool.

8:30
The Oscars BEGIN. That's cool. The Terminator is delivering the statues. I suppose if you're gonna trust someone with them, there's no better person to trust than The Terminator.

Here comes Jon Stewart. I think he's a funny guy, but we'll see how he does here.

So far so good. I don't really have much to say about it so far. Although I think the haircut jokes need to end from No Country For Old Men, as I stated before.

Does anyone still care about Dennis Hopper? Oh, that's part of the joke. Interesting.

The opening monologue was pretty decent. Didn't blow me away, but entertaining nonetheless.

Ah, here comes my former future wife, looking radiant as always.

ACHIEVEMENT IN COSTUME DESIGN
I gotta go with Sweeney Todd for this one.

PREDICTION: Sweeney Todd

WINNER: Elizabeth: The Golden Age got it. One of the dullest movies I've seen in years. But that's cool. I guess the costumes were decent in the movie. I suppose I was so bored with the ACTUAL movie that I forgot that the costumes were cool looking. But whatever.

As if there needed to be more evidence of the chick laced problem this show has, a commercial for diet coke. Ladies love their diet coke. (Although recent research suggest that it might be making you fat.)

8:47
Clooney's up on stage. You gotta love the Clooney. But you don't gotta love an 80 year retrospective.

I do love the classic music they got going on, though.

Aw, I miss the Celine Dion. That was like the anthem of my 8th grade year. "My Heart Will Go On". My life HAS gone on. Even though my boat sank.

Steve Carrell and Anne Hathaway have arrived. I'm actually pretty pumped for the Get Smart movie. I liked Get Smart. Let's hope that this is going to be a good one too. And wow, Anne Hathaway is pale.

BEST ANIMATED FILM
Ratatouille better win this one. Even though I didn't see Persepolis. How do you not love little rats? Little rats COOKING! And Surf's Up was lame. So it's got no chance.
PREDICTION: Ratatouille

WINNER: Ratatouille. It's good to see Brad Bird getting awards. But his story about his guidance counselor didn't seem to be necessary.

BEST MAKE-UP
I gotta go with Pirates of the Caribbean. It was some good stuff, even though La Vie En Rose was good.

PREDICTION: Pirates of the Caribbean

WINNER: La Vie En Rose. Ok, I can see how that would get it. Wow. I am not doing too good with my predictions so far. One of three is pretty weak. I should have thought about this more. La Vie makes more sense than Pirates. Man, I feel foolish. Give these people more time!

Oh, my newest future wife is on screen. Soon, my love. Soon we will be together. On a side note: I loved Enchanted. And I'm totally hetero. But I'm not the biggest fan of that song. I think the other one from Enchanted is better. I wouldn't vote for "The Happy Working Song".

9:02
Well, we're a half hour into the ceremony and we've done a total of three awards. Wow. We're really flying. Or not.

You really gotta love Mastercard commercials that make fun of people with lazy eyes. Really freaking professional.

If they ever make a movie of Barack Obama's life, I think The Rock should play him.

BEST VISUAL EFFECTS
The Golden Compass was trash of a movie, but the effects were decent. Pirates was good too. But if Transformers doesn't take this home, I'll be really surprised. Those giant robots looked REAL!

PREDICTION: Transformers
WINNER: The Golden Compass. Unbelievable. 1 for 4. This is my worst Oscar year ever. What about the GIANT ROBOTS?! This is ridiculous.

ART DIRECTION
I think Atonement is going to take this one. It was just a beautiful movie. Although Sweeney Todd could upset it. That was also an incredible looking movie.

PREDICTION: Atonement
WINNER: Sweeney Todd. See? Why didn't I just pick that one? Dammit. 1 for 5 now. I'm doing terrible.

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR
Javier Bardem is definitely going to take this one for No Country for Old Men. He has to. Unless Hal Holbrook serves as a spoiler for this one. But Javier's going to take it. I say that like he's my friend. He's not my friend. I don't even know him.

PREDICTION: Javier Bardem
WINNER: Javier Bardem. THANK YOU! Finally. 2 for 6. Good to know I'm not completely useless. Although no one is going to read this anyway. I thought that I was going to be a complete failure tonight. But I'm not. Awesome.

I'm coming to the conclusion that nobody is going to read this. At all. I don't know why I'm even bothering. Maybe I'm doing it for me. Maybe I'm doing it for you. Maybe I'm doing it for the future of America.

Oh, an August Rush song. Didn't see it, didn't care to. Wait, I didn't know there were black people in that movie. It looked like lots of white people in the trailer. Hmm...you learn something new every day.

BEST SHORT FILM
I haven't seen any of these, so it's going to be nothing but a guess for me. So I'm gonna guess:

PREDICTION: The Mozart of Pickpockets

WINNER: The Mozart of Pickpockets. YES! Another one! Maybe I'm coming back. Maybe it's happening. A mounting comeback.

BEST ANIMATED SHORT FILM
Another one I didn't have the opportunity to see.

PREDICTION: Peter and the Wolf. Just because I like Wolves.

WINNER: Peter and the Wolf. I'm turning this around people. Whoo hoo! 4 for 8. Back to 50%.

I need to win myself an Oscar. I suppose I'd actually have to get involved with movies in some way.

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS
I gotta go with Amy Ryan in Gone Baby Gone. That was some good stuff. Cate Blanchett probably would get it if she didn't get it 3 years ago for the Aviator. Although talk about gender confusion. Ruby Dee was barely in American Gangster. Good, but not enough to give her an award for it.

PREDICTION: Amy Ryan

WINNER: Tilda Swinton? She would have been my #5 choice. Wow. Totally did not see that one coming. There goes my streak. Down the hole it goes.

"The always fantastic Jessica Alba." My ass. Fantastic sometimes. Not always, though. Not always at all.

BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY
Here we go. Still surprised that Transformers didn't get nominated here, but whatever. Can't win them all.

PREDICTION: Joel and Ethan Coen for No Country for Old Men

WINNER: Joel and Ethan Coen! Whoo hoo! Good stuff guys, good stuff.

I'm kinda winding down here. I think I'm pretty much just going to write my predictions followed by the winners. 5 for 10 now. Back to 50%. Again.

I love "That's How You Know" from Enchanted. I hope this one wins.

BEST SOUND EDITING

PREDICTION: Transformers

WINNER: The Bourne Ultimatum. Dammit. I'm a loser again. Does NO ONE know how to give Transformers some love? They're ROBOTS IN DISGUISE!

BEST SOUND MIXING

PREDICTION: Ratatouille

WINNER: The Bourne Ultimatum. Again. Son of a bitch. Why didn't I pick Bourne? I'm a loser. :-(

5 for 12.

BEST ACTRESS

PREDICTION: Marion Coutillard.

WINNER: Marion Coutillard. BOO YA! Yay for attractive French women.

6 for 13. All hope is not lost for Sean. I liked her speech too. Short, succinct, to the point, no idea what she's talking about it. All good stuff.

Yes, they're playing Wii! That's that kind of Oscars I like to see.

I didn't see "Once" but apparently people love it. I didn't see it. I'm sure this song will win even though I want "That's How She Knows" to win.

Are they seriously going to show every best picture winner ever? It certainly looks like it. Can't say I've seen all of these. Or most of them for that matter. A few of the more lasting onces I have.

BEST FILM EDITING

PREDICTION: The Bourne Ultimatum. I screwed myself earlier not going with this movie, but we'll see what happens.

WINNER: The Bourne Ultimatum. YES! Good job not going back on your instinct, boy. A winner is me! 7 for 14. I'm floating right around 50% here. That's a struggle. I'm normally closer to 80%.

BEST FOREIGN LANGUAGE FILM

PREDICTION: The Counterfeiters

WINNER: The Counterfeiters! Whoo! Good guess Sean! Excellent guess! 8 for 15. This puts me over the 50% mark! I love it.

BEST ORIGINAL SONG

PREDICTION: "Falling Slowly" from Once

WINNER: "Falling Slowly". Of course. Stupid Once. Where's the Enchanted love? Where is it, I say? But I knew this was going to happen. Good job on the cheap movie, though I guess.

Now at 9 for 16.

BEST CINEMATOGRAPHY

PREDICTION: Atonement. How you overlook that 5 minute tracking shot to me would be unbelievable.

WINNER: There Will Be Blood. Yeah, definitely wrong. Ouch. I'm a loser.

9 for 17.

BEST ORIGINAL SCORE

PREDICTION: Atonement.

WINNER: Atonement. It was the damn typewriter songs that did it. But I was hoping for Ratatouille by Giacchino, just because I'm a huge fan.

10 for 18.

BEST DOCUMENTARY SHORT SUBJECT

PREDICTION: The Crown

WINNER: Freeheld.

Eh, I didn't see these anyway. I wish I was a better guesser sometimes.

10 for 19.

BEST DOCUMENTARY

You know what? My mind says Sicko, but something tells me that it's not going to do it.

PREDICTION: War/Dance

WINNER: Taxi to the Dark Side

Well, at least I wasn't wrong about Sicko.

10 for 20. Back to 50%.

BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY

PREDICTION: Juno. I don't know why. But I am guessing Juno. It's just too trendy to NOT guess.

WINNER: Juno. Rock on.

11 for 21.

BEST ACTOR

PREDICTION: Daniel Day-Lewis. I don't even know why they bother going through the motions with this one. We already know who the winner is.

WINNER: Daniel Day-Lewis. Wow. What a surprise.

12 for 22.

BEST DIRECTOR

PREDICTION: Coen Brothers

WINNER: Coen Brothers

13 for 23.

BEST PICTURE

Here it is. Coming up. Now who am I going to pick?

PREDICTION: No Country for Old Men. It's been getting so much love tonight as it is.

WINNER: No Country for Old Men!

And my final tally is 14 for 24. Not too bad. Not my best showing, but decent. At least I'm over 50%.

Well, there it is. I'm sure no one will ever read this. Ever. But I have it for my own personal future. Awesome. Ok, well, that's it. Good night.

Lost Season Four Premiere: "The Beginning of the End" Review

2008-01-31T19:25:00.000-08:00

In some ways, I feel like a bit of a crack addict who has been clean for 8 months and has suddenly found himself back in the midst of the world of delicious, glorious crack.

I have always been a huge fan of Lost since Day 1. What has differentiated me from many fans is the way that I have allowed patience to come over me, to help me stay steadfast through the times that may have been somewhat iffy. The reason being is that I always felt like we were on the same track. Some shows, like "Heroes", seem to jump between tracks, never allowing you to fully understand where they are going or things happen that defy the internal logic of the show already set forth.

So, while Lost may have had some relatively boring episodes, they never contradicted their prior nature, never seemed to stray too far from their course. The train was moving slow, but it was still moving.

Then, in season 3, after a stall that probably left quite a few people pissed off at a railroad crossing, Lost picked up steam on its return in February 2007 and continued moving faster and faster until its lighting speed finale "Through the Looking Glass." This two hour event, which, in my mind is the best two hours of television I had ever witnessed caused me an immeasurable amount of brain functioning trying to process the glorious finale. Critics and audiences alike were crying out that Lost had returned to form. The only problem now is that the new shortened season schedule meant that there were 8 months between the season finale and the season premiere.

In that time I would have to say that I was learning to live without Lost. No longer did it dominate my thoughts. I distantly longed for its return but was at peace with myself without it. And then...it returns.

But on to tonight's episode.

"The Beginning of the End" picks up on the island immediately where it left off. They had just contacted Naomi's freighter and were awaiting rescue. Except not everyone will be rescued. Hurley reveals in a flash-forward that only 6 people were saved from the island. We know three: Jack, Kate, and Hurley. The other three? Still unknown. And this episode doesn't really give us any clues as to who the other three will be.

The repercussions of Charlie's death are felt in very poignant ways that absolutely are not expected. It almost feels like the island is able to contact people after they remove themselves from the island, because how else would it be possible for an obviously dead Charlie to reveal himself to Hurley in an attempt to convince him to return to the island he left behind. Back on the island, Charlie's death moves Hurley to respect Charlie's final warning: that these people who are supposedly everyone's saviors are not who they say they are. Claire, also not wanting Charlie to have died in vain, listens to these pleas and other members of the camp begin to separate into Jack's rescue group and Locke's survival group.

Jorge Garcia as Hurley delivers an incredible performance that runs the gamut from complete despair to possibly insanity to utter joy in an intense 43 minute period. Given that this was his flash-forward this week, a lot was riding on him to maintain the momentum and he certainly delivered.

Ben, in the short screen time that he has, delivers some of the most hilarious moments of the entire episode. Despite his creepy and manipulative nature, seems more and more to be the only one who really knows what is going on with the island. Why he doesn't just share his wealth of knowledge with everyone, I can't really say. But it is obviously up there.

And there was a quick flash of Christian Shephard sitting in what appeared to be Jacob's chair as Hurley was losing his mind in the jungle. Whether or not this was actually Jacob remains to be seen, but it was definitely a nice TiVo moment that people will be speculating about for weeks to come? Me, I think it shows that Christian Shephard has something to do very involved with this island (especially after viewing the final "Missing Pieces" mobisode on abc.com), but I think it would be too obvious for him to be Jacob.

The biggest problem with the episode is that it does not match the same pace and intensity that "Through the Looking Glass" had. But how could one expect it to since the season 3 finale was such a game-changer in a way the very next episode could not possibly be?

Yet, the way this episode lays itself out offers a promising look at the way the rest of the season will play out. I liken this episode to Chapter One of a (supposed-to-be) 16 chapter book. It lays down the guidelines as to what to expect for the duration of the season. There are a few excellent moments and some rather humdrum ones as well, but almost all of the information is valuable. Looking back, season 1 began with the survivors surviving. You could almost subtitle season 1 "Survival" or "Exploration". Season 2 was obviously "The Hatch". Season 3, since it started out in the barracks with Juliette listening to "Downtown" was the season of "The Others". This seems to be the season of "The Freighter" or possibly "The Rescue." I think the latter will ultimately turn out to be the more accurate of the two, but regardless, both are obviously going to be the focus of this new season.

And on top of all that, there is so much more riding on the writers than there was before. Now, things in flash-forwards and present day island stuff needs to be able to be connected in more intricate ways than was necessary in flashbacks. Yet, I see this as an opportunity to prove to the audience that the tiles are falling into place, that the show is inexorably moving towards a conclusion that will surprise us all. And there is no more fitting title for that momentum than "The Beginning of the End."

There was a lot to like in this episode and little to dislike. Yet, I wouldn't necessarily call it one of the best episodes of Lost ever, but a solid opening episode, a peek through the door of the house of this new season. Next week will hopefully be the week where we finally step inside and experience the overall situation in a much more dramatic way, but I definitely cannot do too much complaining about this episode.

GRADE: B

The Dearth of Quality Movies: South Carolina Style

2007-12-27T18:49:00.001-08:00

For the last six months or so, I have been living a crazy existence down in the city of Columbia, South Carolina. And along with this living situation, I have had a fair share of ups and downs. Mostly downs. Because for those of you who know me know that I have one major passion in life. And that is the Cinema. I capitalized it because it sounds more culturally refined and proper to do so. Plus, it sounds better than "Movies." (P.S. I'm better than you because I call it the Cinema.)

Unfortunately, the choices in Cinema are sorely lacking in comparison to other places where I have lived. And that is rather frustrating.

I bring this up now for one major reason: I want to see Juno. And I have been given no opportunity to see this movie. Normally, I can withstand such withholdings. Because I'm no film snob. I like my mindless action movies as much as I love the subtle dramas. So it follows that I have something to watch on the weekends, even if it is only Alvin and the Chipmunks. But it becomes a serious issue when people who are much less passionate about this pastime than I am are essentially brought to a theater to see Juno. And I'll be honest. I'm rather envious of them and I'd prefer they didn't see it at all.

On Christmas Day, Juno expanded into almost 1000 theaters. And, not one of them was within 70 miles of my current location. The problem is, I do not know what to do to get these movies here. I, and I alone will not be able to bring these movies to this city (or even this state for that matter, but that's a completely different conversation.)

There is one theater, called the Nickelodeon, located downtown, which apparently has one screen and on the weekends will show an artsy movie. And it changes every week. And Juno isn't on its schedule. The Nickelodeon is a recent discovery for me. I have yet to go there, but hearing about it months ago I immediately dismissed it as a place to play Double Dare or Legends of the Hidden Temple. (On second thought, I don't know why I didn't seek it out sooner. Nothing I'd love more to have a deep conversation with Olmec about Cleopatra or Davy Crockett.) But when I realized what it actually was, I became intrigued. Alas, the fact that there is only one theater and the selections are limited makes it a place where I probably will not end up frequenting too often.

The fact is, this place essentially sucks. Between the lack of movie choices and the lack of pizza choices, I sometimes wonder how these people even get by at all. Sure, Michigan often times wasn't anything to write home about, but I promise that you would not want to trade me. Especially if you were me.

I could probably complain more. Much more actually. But I will refrain. Because the only thing that's affecting me dearly is the lack of ability to go see Juno. And now that I'm thinking about it, the lack of an IMAX theater. There used to be one about an hour and a half away from my current location, on the beach in Charleston to be exact. But the week Transformers was to open up there, it shut down inexplicably. It's almost as if there's a higher power that is trying to wreck my movie-going enjoyment. (Crap. I called them the movies. Well, I'm still better than you anyway.) This has also forced me to forgo the 6-minute Dark Knight IMAX preview before I Am Legend. It's like everywhere I turn, there is more evil lurking its way into my life. An evil that I must turn around. But...how?

I welcome any suggestions that are deeper than "move away" or "get a new job". Simple in theory, but much more difficult in practice.

National Treasure: Book of Secrets Review

2007-12-23T16:24:00.001-08:00

What can really be said about National Treasure: Book of Secrets other than it's a standard by-the-numbers Jerry Bruckheimer movie. The plot is fairly simple, the acting sufficient, and the overall tone of the movie is just one of general accessibility. Yet, putting all that aside and taking it in for what it is results in an entertaining event that could have been much worse than it ended up being.

Benjamin Gates (Nicolas Cage, in his first ever sequel) has recently been thrown out of his girlfriend Abigail's (Diane Kruger) house because of communication issues. He's also currently on tour discussing some Civil War findings. Of course, completely out of no where, Mitch Wilkinson (Ed Harris) reveals a page of John Wilkes Booth's missing diary, which purportedly connects Gates' great-great-grandfather to the assassination of President Lincoln. The audience is already aware of the ancestral Gates' innocence, as the first scene of the movie shows what really went down regarding that page, and, surprise, surprise, the real conspirators were using Gates to decipher the lost City of Gold.

So, in order to clear his family's name, Gates must now prove that his great-great-grandfather was in fact on the trail of the City of Gold. Somehow, by finding this City, it will prove that he was innocent. Because apparently the former Gates couldn't have simultaneously plotted an assassination AND searched for a lost city.

What follows is a series of nonsensical clues that Gates must follow while staying one step ahead of Wilkinson in a manner that could be likened to Indiana Jones meets James Bond. Unfortunately, Gates is lacking the ultimate charm of either of those two legendary heroes and does not quite command the same excitement.

What National Treasure DOES do is present even the most implausible situations in an entertaining and relatively exciting way so that boredom never really has an opportunity to present itself. The entire cast of characters is likable and charismatic enough that while you are never really concerned with the ultimate outcome of their arcs, you are curious enough to let it play out as it is. Some of the situations are just so ridiculous that its tough to swallow. The clues are put in such insanely difficult places to get to, but not only do the characters retrieve those clues, they do so with such ease that it amazes me that security for any elected official is continued to be employed. Then this is followed up with little to no retribution, adding a layer of insanity that would not quite be there otherwise.

But, like was stated before, this is a standard Jerry Bruckheimer movie, so to expect anything else would kind of be pushing it. Obviously people are not going to see this for intense plotting and intricate characters. No, people are going to go see it to spend an enjoyable evening out, and in that regard, the movie does deliver. People who did not like the first one are obviously going to hate this one as well. And it's certainly not going to change anyone's mind who already hates Bruckheimer's mindless movies in general. Yet, if you just want to see some crazy people getting into some crazy situations that span the globe, then National Treasure: Book of Secrets is worth checking out.

GRADE: C+

Sweeney Todd Review

2007-12-22T16:32:00.001-08:00

Tim Burton is one of those directors who I am always curious to see what comes out of him next. His newest movie, "Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street" is a unique entry from him as it is based on the Stephen Sondheim musical of the same name. I went in with absolutely no expectations, since I am only vaguely familiar with the musical itself and have never heard a song from it at all. So fortunately I was able to take everything in without any preconceived notion about what the movie should be.

Despite a few small issues, Sweeney Todd is one of Burton's best movies and succeeds on a number of levels. The story follows Sweeney Todd (Johnny Depp) as he returns to London after an exile of nearly 15 years. What happened is never fully explained, only to say that Todd, then Benjamin Barker, was sent away on trumped up charges so that Judge Turpin (Alan Rickman) could take Barker's beautiful wife Lucy and their daughter away from him. Upon Todd's return, he meets up with the equally disturbed Mrs. Lovett (Helena Bonham Carter), who happens to have quite an infatuation with Todd and informs him that his wife poisoned herself shortly after escaping Turpin and that his daughter, Joanna is now living under guard of Turpin himself.

Upon hearing the news that his beloved is now dead, his thoughts only move to one thing, and that is to exacting revenge upon Turpin for ruining his life. He then sets up a barber shop where he rarely gives actual haircuts but murders most of the customers to be served in Mrs. Lovett's meat pies.

Burton crafts an incredible interpretation of London that reflects the craziness of both Todd and Lovett. Their pale, darkened eyed complexion within their decrepit shops is juxtaposed against the more flesh-colored and colorful people around them. While the world is still ultimately a dark and unfriendly place, the external world that Todd and Lovett do not inhabit is much more of a welcoming place than the place in which they reside. The resulting atmosphere is incredibly effective in crafting a disturbing mood throughout the length of the film.

Depp and Carter in particular give excellent performances highlighting the specific issues troubling their individual characters. Rickman is equally disturbing as the fiendish Judge Turpin, a man whose moral code seems to be blinded by his own carnal desires.

What Depp, with the help of Burton, does is craft a character who is so blinded by his lust for revenge, he fails to see what it is doing to his life. Despite having the knowledge that his daughter is alive, he still seems to be more concerned with taking lives than he is with trying to start a new one for himself. Carter's Mrs. Lovett is equally blinded by her infatuation with Todd that she is willing to do things for him that she probably wouldn't do if he was not around. Despite the fact that Todd gives her very little reason to support him, she is wrapped up in him nonetheless.

The music is also excellent. The majority of the movie is sung, not spoken, and while Depp and Carter might not have the most beautiful singing voices, they are definitely sufficient and the way they sing is most certainly in line with the types of characters they are portraying. A few of Sondheim's numbers sound a little dated, but ultimately they are all catchy, intense songs that definitely help to create a mood for the film.

The issues that I had were rather minor. I was rather curious as to why Barker/Todd was taken away to start with and how he ended up on a ship back to England. I suppose we can assume that he escaped from prison and attempted to swim away, but this is never fully explained. Also, I was curious to know about what happens to a few characters once the movie ends, but given the movie is about the journey of Sweeney Todd, I can understand why the choice was made to end it where it did. People can come to their own conclusions about the other, more ancillary characters.

Also, in a few places it just felt too much like a stage production. There were moments when I realized that this was meant to be seen on stage that was a jarring moment that took me out of the movie. Fortunately, moments like those did not last long and it was very easy to fall back into the world of the dark London.

The film also delivers its R-rating rather strongly. Certainly no one will be complaining over a lack of blood, as the violence is so unflinching, yet it somehow delivers a sense of humor about plenty of the violent situations. The dark humor that is threaded underneath the tragic journey of Sweeney Todd creates an excellent movie that is sure to be recognized come awards season.

GRADE: B+

Walk Hard Review

2007-12-22T16:06:00.000-08:00

Judd Apatow is the new Hollywood golden child. Every movie he has any involvement with these days is immediately touted as being "From the people who brought you 'Knocked Up' and 'Superbad'." Which, let's face it, is a very helpful message for any movie to have since both were such successes both financially and in terms of laugh content. Unfortunately, Walk Hard does not quite live up to the same levels of hilarity those other two movies had.

Walk Hard is a pretty simple movie to describe. Essentially, writers Judd Apatow and Jake Kasdan took the basic plots of "Ray" and "Walk the Line", melded them together, added jokes when necessary, and called it a day. That's not to say that the movie does not work, because on the whole, it does. Functionally, the movie works rather well and uses the fact that John C. Reilly is playing the same character from age 14 to his 70s to a humorous advantage. The problem lies in the fact that the movie is not nearly as funny as Knocked Up or Superbad.

On the positive side, the laughs are pretty consistent. Most of the jokes are relatively humorous and there are a few very funny situations in the movie. It never bored me. I was constantly curious about what sort of wacky, out of control situation they would throw out next. So in that regard, the movie succeeds. There are also numerous small roles that are meant to illustrate the time period in which Dewey Cox is currently residing in, ranging from Elvis to the Beatles which are all very funny in the ways they send up the actual musicians.

The ultimate problem is that the movie just is not funny enough. There was nothing particularly memorable in the movie, except for the fact that a few penises are shown on display for no apparent reason than for people to go "Hey look, it's a penis." There is very little reason for them to be there, but I suppose the same could be said about the naked women in the movie. Except people are going "Hey look, they're boobies." But whatever.

It's also lacking the heart that the last two Apatow movies had. Knocked Up and Superbad were not only extremely funny movies, but included characters that you truly cared about and wanted to see succeed. They were flawed individuals who were trying to make their way in the world. Dewey Cox does not have that same connection to the audience that those previous characters had. I suppose that is somewhat the point in a parody movie, but when all the marketing materials are used strictly as a way to compare the movies, one cannot help but do an actual comparison.

For what they have, all of the actors do an extremely proficient job with their material. John C. Reilly is genuinely funny as Dewey Cox and the supporting cast including Kristin Wiig as Dewey's first wife, Edith and Jenna Fischer as his second wife, the June Carter send-up, Darlene, all deliver very funny scenes. The material they have to work with is just unfortunately somewhat lacking.

Despite the negatives, Walk Hard continues Judd Apatow's dominance of comedy. Even though it does not ultimately achieve the levels of greatness, it still exists as a funny movie that is leaps and bounds above such recent drivel as "Good Luck Chuck" or "The Heartbreak Kid". Apatow has raised the bar on himself, so it's just that much more obvious when he fails to meet it, even if the movie itself is an entertaining and funny way to spend two hours. Hopefully this is just a small slip-up in a line of excellent movies to come.

GRADE: B-

I Am Legend Review

2007-12-15T12:53:00.000-08:00

"I Am Legend" had a very unique opportunity to become an intimate big budget picture. The fact that Will Smith and his dog are essentially the only two characters in this movie made for a rather interesting experience throughout the majority of the film. Unfortunately, the movie does not ultimately end in a satisfactory way, leaving me to ponder alternate ways things could have been wrapped up.

Being unfamiliar with the source material and the two films prior to this one that attempted to adapt it, I was able to come in with essentially zero preconceived notions about what it was supposed to be. Yet, it does make me wonder how different the original novel was, since the last 30-40 minutes or so seem to be a completely different movie.

The movie begins in a televised interview announcing that cancer has been cured using a modified virus that only attacks cancer cells. This is the only set-up, save for a few minutes of flashbacks, for the remainder of the film. Immediately we are thrown into the world of Robert Neville (Will Smith) who spends his days hunting for food and searching for survivors of the mutated virus that killed the majority of the population and turned the rest into zombie-vampires.

Will Smith carries this movie as really only he can. His performance is relatively nuanced in comparison to many of his other films and the fact that he is alone for such a huge portion of the movie speaks volumes to his capabilities as an actor. The interactions with his dog, Sam, show a desperation for contact that would not be nearly as evident in a lesser actor. Also, one particularly moving exchange happens between Neville and a mannequin that truly shows where he is emotionally. What this provides is a welcome departure from most big budget actioners which primarily focus on gigantic effects sequences and have little in the way of emotional development.

Unfortunately "I Am Legend" turns into exactly the type of movie that it seemed to be rebelling against in the last quarter. About 3/4 the way through, a major turning point happens in the movie and it becomes almost like the writers had no idea where to go from there, but realized that the movie needed to end. What follows is a few ridiculous conveniences that just seemed to undermine the psychological intensity of the majority of the movie. This coupled with an intense zombie/vampire showdown creates a complete lack of focus in an otherwise focused movie.
The resolution seems to be obtained too easily and much too quickly.

The zombie/vampires are also much too plain. Yes, they are dangerous, but they seemingly exist as just mindless challengers for Neville except when they are inexplicably able to set up elaborate traps. The movie certainly would have benefited from an exploration as to what the people infected with the virus have become, beyond these mindless zombie/vampires.

"I Am Legend" suffers from a few ailments that hold it back from being a really good movie, which, unless someone goes back and reshoots the last half-hour, will not change. As it stands, it's absolutely an engaging way to spend two hours if only to see Will Smith continue to improve on his movie star status and acting capabilities.

GRADE: B-

The Golden Compass Review

2007-12-08T19:25:00.000-08:00

Much has been written regarding "The Golden Compass" and the author, Phillip Pullman, with his apparent master plan of converting the world's children into atheists, if some are to be believed. Yet, while this may be an issue within the books themselves, none of that controversy is apparent in the finished film. And maybe by using those controversial elements, the movie would have been much better off.

As it stands, "The Golden Compass" is little more than a cheap imitator of fantasy films that have come before it, such as Harry Potter or Lord of the Rings. The movie itself is a textbook situation of the whole being less than the sum of its parts.

To sum it up, Lord Asreal (Daniel Craig) has discovered "Dust", a mystical energy force that apparently allows people to travel between universes. The concept of Dust goes against the teachings of the Magesterium, so this organization, which controls the vast majority of the world it would seem, wants to stop Asreal from making the existence of other worlds known to the public as this would undermine everything they teach.

Meanwhile, 12-year-old Lyra (Dakota Blue Richards) is taken into the care of Mrs. Coulter (Nicole Kidman) where Coulter attempts to subdue Lyra, as Lyra is the child stated in the witches prophecy to be the one who decides the coming war. Lyra is also in possession of an alethiometer, or Golden Compass, which is an object that is capable of seeing the truth within any situation. Lyra escapes, and ends up on a whirlwind adventure that includes polar bears, sky cowboys, and witches.

There are so many issues with this movie it is difficult to find a place to begin. First and foremost, the movie is just too short. Clocking in at just under two hours, absolutely nothing is given any time to develop. Moments pass from one scene to the next with no real connection to any of the characters. In one example, Lyra uses her golden compass to ascertain the location of the great Polar Bear Iorek's (voiced by Ian McKellen) armor. She then tells him, he listens with no question of her motives or how she got this knowledge, picks up the armor and immediately becomes best friends with the child. Shortly after, a situation arises where Iorek's life is put into jeopardy and Lyra shows a connection with him that just does not make any sense whatsoever. No evidence was given in this movie to justify her reaction to the situation.

It is completely obvious that much was cut from the book in an attempt to fit into a sub-2 hour run time and ends up reading more like a cliff's notes on the novel instead of an adaptation. Other characters come and go with seemingly no compelling reason as to why they are there. Unfortunately, this means that it becomes impossible to connect with any of the characters on any more than a superficial level, making the movie less of a coherent whole and more of a mish-mash of situations.

The plot is also a difficult issue to grasp with as there does not seem to be any real goals until the movie is literally over. The characters stumble across things that lead them from one place to the next and very rarely do they ever take matters into their own hands. Every new character seems to lay out some clunky new exposition that attempts to fill the audience in on what has happened or is going to happen instead of just showing us. The movie then therefore follows into a large portion of summaries about the world instead of immersing the audience within the world.

Yet, not is all bad about the movie. There are individual moments of fun that are scattered throughout. The entire sequence with the Ice Bear army were probably the most engaging moments in the entire film, as they not only showed Lyra's true cunning and intelligence, but was also a showcase for an intense battle where the movie truly earns its PG-13 rating in a shocking conclusion.

Nicole Kidman's Mrs. Coulter is also an incredibly effective villain because she is just obviously off her rocker. Her desperate attempts to maintain self control are undermined by moments of pure insanity where it is clear that not much is right with this woman, and Kidman plays it wonderfully. Unfortunately, her time in the movie is very short and she is given very little to do when she is there. I certainly would have enjoyed to delve deeper into her story to understand her more, even though there was an unoriginal twist thrown into her character near the end. Yet, because there was such little explanation, it could turn into something much deeper in future films if they are made. Craig was also charismatic as Lord Asreal, but unfortunately he is in the movie for what seems to be all of 10 minutes.

Dakota Blue Richards delivers an excellent performance as Lyra, but again, her character suffers from the same problems as all the others, being a lack of development and a paint-by-numbers plot.

Ultimately, I found myself wanting to forget about this portion of the saga and more interested in what is to come. And hopefully, if they do make those other installments, they will learn to cut only what is necessary and focus on the characters much more. There have been worse ways to spend two hours, but I can think of so many better ways to spend them as well.

GRADE: C-

Halo 3 Hype: For Those Who Love It....and Don't

2007-09-15T18:18:00.000-07:00

There is no denying the fact that the Halo 3 hype has reached almost insurmountable levels in these past few weeks. From soft drinks to fast food to pretentious marketing campaigns, Microsoft is looking to permeate every facet of society in an attempt to reach the largest possible demographic.

And the question therefore remains: Is there too much hype for the game?

The answer to that would have to be both yes and no.

But before we get into the why's and how's of this situation, let me give you a little background on my Halo experience.

I'm a huge Halo fan. In the summer of 2002 I heard that if I was to purchase only one game for my Xbox, then Halo it had to be. After taking that plunge I was absolutely immersed in the world. While I recognized that a good portion of the storytelling was ripped straight from Aliens, I still loved it. The game was relatively easy to pick up, fun to play, and I didn't even play multiplayer that often.

Two years later, in 2004, I jumped on the marketing train and took it all in. While not an active participant in I Love Bees, I made every attempt to follow the story as that was going. I downloaded every commercial. I borrowed "The Fall of Reach" and "First Strike" from a friend and read them prior to launch. In essence, I was preparing myself completely.

And following the release of the game, I played multiplayer extensively. There was something about being able to just jump in and play and not have to worry about finding a decent match or waiting for people to join my specifically hosted game that truly appealed to me. On the other hand, I did feel that the single player was a bit of a let down. It didn't have the scope that Halo 1 had, despite having much better graphics. The narrative was a little disjointed and who could forgive that horrific ending?

Yet, here we are almost three years later and a similar situation is upon us. Except after the massive success that the hype had on the second game, Microsoft feels content to multiply that by what seems to be 100.

So back to the original question: Is the hype too much?

...Yes.

Not everyone likes Halo. There are a huge contingent of people that despise it with every fiber of their being. They see Halo as a substandard First Person Shooter that does absolutely nothing new with the genre, is not a graphical revolution, and regurgitates standard Sci-Fi plots in an uninteresting manner. And many of these people are the hardcore of the hardcore. And they have every right to their opinion. So when this section of gamers sees their favorite pastime being enveloped by this marketing machine, it angers them immensely. Why should such a horrible, barely better than average game be getting all this attention? It's a travesty to all TRUE first person shooters that SHOULD be getting this attention. On top of all that, it dilutes how serious they take their gaming life and packages it in a soda can to be sold to them later.

For those people, the attention given to that creates the perception that MORE games like Halo (in their eyes a substandard shooter) should be made. And this, of course, is a terrible thing to them. And in that regard, it's completely understandable.

And I do feel the most recent ads are a little pretentious in treating that diorama like it was truly from the future, but I wouldn't go so far as to say that it's disrespectful to current servicemen and women.

The hype is also creating a lot of unrealistic expectations for people. How is it possible that a game that pretty much says "If Jesus were alive today, he would be wearing MJOLNIR armor" could possibly deliver on its promise?

The thing is, it doesn't have to. Which brings me to the second answer.

....No. It's not too much.

What we, as gamers, sometimes don't realize is that Microsoft is out to make money first, and entertain us second. This is the way of the world. Whether it is a movie, or a new CD, or a brand new television show, or Britney Spears at the VMA's, these things are pushed heavily so that the parent brand can profit off of them. And what happened with Halo 2 is that suddenly the profits on that game justified them doing what they are doing now. Mountain Dew, Burger King, 7-11, all these other cross-promotional partners are USING Halo 3 to their OWN advantage. They certainly would not do it if they did not think it would drive traffic into their stores. They saw the raw data of what Halo 2 was able to accomplish and realized that there was this whole subset of the population they could use to make money for themselves. And so they did and are.

It's no secret that Halo is Microsoft's Golden Child. And the struggle to obtain profitability in the games division has been a difficult one. So when they opportunity arises to take advantage of this, people do. But what is different about this in comparison to other marketing endeavors is that Microsoft isn't telling you anything that you didn't already know. It's attempting to get the common man, the man who only buys a game or two a year, excited about Halo 3. They're trying to make it an event, something that can be shared between friends.

And despite what might seem to be a whoring out of the franchise, I would argue that Microsoft/Bungie are doing anything but. They're not allowing substandard tie-ins into the marketplace. All the comics and storytelling material is tied into the actual universe. It's not some shameless ripoff. Say what you will about the "Believe" ad campaign, but it's certainly well crafted. (Even though Bungie did recently say the commercials weren't canon.) I mean, they created a completely new DRINK. They didn't just put a face on a Dew can and call it a day. An entirely new flavor was invented. I think it's terrible tasting, but they get points for trying.

If you look at the marketing of something like Spider-Man 3, if you had seen all the trailers, you could literally put the movie together in your head. They marketed it to death but they gave away too much. In so many other movies, you see the same thing. Halo isn't doing this. Regardless of what you feel about the story, you're not seeing anything about it. It's guarded and protected and doesn't ruin the plot for those interested.

The cross-promotions exist mainly to create awareness in the everyday man. Of course, if you're reading this you're probably thinking "But EVERYONE knows that Halo 3 comes out on September 25th, regardless of whether or not they want to!"

I think that is not necessarily the case. As gamers, we often surround ourselves with other people who have similar interests. We scour the internet for news, we talk to our friends, and in that we are acutely aware of the existence of Master Chief and his fight against the Covenant. There is a HUGE portion of the population that does nothing of the sort. And THAT is who the campaign is primarily for, not us.

But why is this a bad thing? It doesn't have to be. What it is doing is raising awareness to the public that a good portion sees the gaming community as Wii Sports Players. The campaign is attempting to prove that this IS a legitimate entertainment event on par with any major movie release. That there is a hardcore game that can get everyone involved. These people who are being targeted have no idea what "Saved Films" are or what "Forge" is. They're thinking "Hey, this looks like a cool game, I should check it out." I do not see how more people purchasing game consoles is a bad thing.

Yet, ultimately the reason that I feel the hype is not a bad thing is because if you let it, the hype can be fun. A huge community is sharing in the same experience. A large group of people who all enjoy the same thing are able to come together and follow the progress of what I believe is a great franchise. And people are looking for different things. Some people think that story is king, others want to do nothing other than play multiplayer. The same game is approached from many different angles. The game will probably not revolutionize the genre or have a radical departure in storytelling, but at the very least it will be fun. Whether or not you think it's deserving of all the attention is yours to decide. This is the final act of the trilogy and while there will be other Halo-related projects in the future, I highly doubt they will acquire the same attention as this one did. For the sole reason that they will be different formulas. Halo 3 is operating on the same tried-and-true formula that has helped it succeed the last 6 years.

There is a difference between "hype" and "expectation." Hype is the experience that surrounds the release of a product. It tells you what it wants you to believe. And the more money a product has, the more hype it's going to give you. The more proven its been in the past, the more intense they will be in the future. They're trying to alter your expectations.

Except your expectations can be completely separate from the hype. Will Halo 3 be the greatest game I've ever played? Maybe. But maybe not. Do I expect it to be? Not necessarily. But I do expect it to be fun. And I expect people who I normally wouldn't see on Xbox Live to be there. (Hopefully a larger contingent of respectable humans. God bless the new mute button.) And even if the game is the worst game I've ever played, I can accept that. But I think some of the fun is in the waiting period and I've certainly had some up to this point. And knowing that there are more and more people each day who are enjoying it to is a fun thought to have and will hopefully bring more opportunities to gaming as a whole.

In closing, I understand the frustrations of those who cannot stand it. But the only thing you can really do is try to ignore it. And to the Halo community, while it's hard to believe that there are people out there who don't like this franchise, they have a right to their opinion just as much as we do. And I hope that one day when the tables are turned and they're in love with a completely hyped game that I could care less about that they respect that in turn.

GAMERTAG: Seanny D

3:10 To Yuma Review

2007-09-08T22:01:00.000-07:00

As has been written numerous times before regarding the subject, the modern western seems to be dead. Given that there have been very few westerns over the last few decades, one might venture to guess that Hollywood has just lost faith in westerns in general.

But my personal philosophy is that if you can tell a good story, regardless of the genre, then that film deserves to be made. Fortunately, despite my predilection against westerns as a whole, 3:10 To Yuma is an incredibly well made movie that showcases even more evidence that Russell Crowe and Christian Bale are some of the finest actors around.

The plot of the movie as it exists is rather simple. Dan Evans (Christian Bale) is suffering through a harrowing drought on his farm. Since he cannot farm his own land, he has nothing to see to make the payments on his barn. If things don't change soon, then Dan and his wife and two children will be forced off their farm and into poverty. When the outlaw Ben Wade (Russell Crowe) is captured, Dan volunteers to help escort Wade to a neighboring train station for $200 to help pay the bills. The one catch is that Wade's psychotic gang led by Charlie Prince (Ben Foster) is on their trail and will certainly not hesitate to kill and maim every person in the party.

Yet, this movie is less about the plot and more about the characters being able to explore what it means to survive in this world. Evans is a man who is beaten and broken and has something to prove. His son looks at him like he's a joke since he cannot even seem to provide for his family. His wife has been rather distant towards him lately. On top of all that, he has one wooden leg from a Civil War injury. Despite the danger, this is all that Dan can do to provide for himself and for his family. So he goes on the journey. Bale plays Dan with such quiet desperation that it is easy to feel for the situation in which he resides.

On the other hand, Ben Wade is a killer. He takes what he wants, and has no problem killing anyone who gets in his way. Yet, this is not with malicious intent, no. These people just happen to be between him and what he wants, so he takes care of the situation. Wade recognizes that no one is out there to do him any favors and that everyone is out for themselves, therefore he feels that he is not going to do any favors for anyone else, and just kill them.

This leads to the juxtaposition of the two men in a very interesting situation. The two of them are able to communicate and slowly begin to understand one another. They may not completely respect what the other is doing, but at least they being to have some understanding of it. This, ultimately, is why the film works as well as it does. The fact that these two archetypal men are given such layers of complexity in their characters speaks volumes about the quality of the film. Going in, one might think that Bale is the good guy and Crowe is the bad guy, but to come in with that assumption would be completely incorrect. No, these are characters with their own motivations that go beyond "I like to kill" or "I'm the hero." Gone is the idea that the Old West was so black and white and people now show up in many more shades of gray. That isn't to say that one cannot understand who is good or who is bad, but there is a deeper exploration of those themes that allows the viewer to contemplate the ramifications of the characters' actions and their reasons for ending up in the situations in which they ended up.

Yet, Bale and Crowe aren't the only strong actors in this movie. On the contrary, the supporting cast is filled out with a number of excellent actors, both young and old. Peter Fonda shows up as a Pinkerton agent named Byron McElroy who may be fighting for the side of the good but can be a bit of a ruthless man himself. This exploration of good vs. evil when coupled with Wade offers an interesting insight into the character of Wade himself.

Alan Tudyk is also excellent as the reluctant veterinarian Doc Potter who is forced on the trip in an attempt to make sure that McElroy does not suffer from his recently acquired gunshot wound. Despite his complete inability with a firearm, he moves on the journey with the rest, accepting the fate that stands before him.

This truly is one of the best character pieces I have seen in a long while. Director James Mangold (Walk the Line, Copland) crafts an excellent picture that rises above the stigma of a Western and can be placed in the same category as such westerns as "Unforgiven" and "The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly." Yet, it's not all character work. The action is also rather brutal and well-shot. The numerous gunfights throughout the movie are engaging and add to the intensity of the story. Even if you are not even interested in the subtleties of the actors, then I could recommend it based on the action alone. But when the action means something and this is recognized, then it amps things to a whole new level. The last scenes in particular are the ultimate culmination of everything that came before it. There is a new understanding for the characters and one that leads to an incredibly satisfying emotional conclusion.

GRADE: A

Stardust Review

2007-08-10T15:55:00.001-07:00

Now that the summer is coming to a close, I have to say that I have been pleasantly surprised by the movies that have been released. And not in the way I thought I would be. In retrospect, I probably gave the two big summer tentpoles (Spider-Man and Pirates) a little too much credit. I was dazzled by many of their special effects, but while watching them I could not help but think about all the problems they had. Spider-Man in particular I saw a great movie lying within the good one that I saw.

Which brings me to Stardust. Movies like Stardust are the reason I love going to the movie theater so often. I went in with very little expectations. I heard some positive buzz about the movie, and knew this was far from Matthew Vaughn's previous directorial effort (the slightly above average "Layer Cake", which shares almost NOTHING in common with this movie). While he does not do anything particularly new or innovating in the fantasy drama, Vaughn excels in telling a wonderful story about an incredible adventure and the pursuit of immortality.

The movie surrounds Tristan (Charlie Cox) who is desperately in love with the seemingly superficial Victoria (Sienna Miller). Realizing he comes from a modest background, he attempts to pull out all the stops to convince her to marry him and plans an elaborate evening next to The Wall. Meanwhile, the king of the neighboring Stormhold (Peter O'Toole), a magical kingdom that is separated from the human world by The Wall, is on his deathbed and tells his remaining four sons that the one who is able to return a ruby necklace back from a piece of glass would become king. The resulting transformation and dispersal of the necklace knocks the star Yvaine(Claire Danes) out of the sky and into the kingdom of Stormhold.

After witnessing what he believes to be nothing more than a small meteorite fall beyond the wall, Tristan pledges to retrieve the star in time for Victoria's birthday to prove his love to her and receive her hand in marriage. Of course, the queen witch Lamia (Michelle Pfieffer), along with her two sisters, is also aware of the star's presence and wants to find, kill, and eat the heart of the star to regain her youthfulness. Sounds fun. And so the quest begins.

If anyone out there considers themselves a fan of fantasy, you should really give this one a shot. While it seems to borrow from other fantasy elements, there is just the sense of excitement that the movie has that really emanates throughout the majority of the picture. Even if you do not like fantasy, I urge you to give it a shot. This is overall, some excellent storytelling that succeeds on so many levels.

Charlie Cox is very good in the role of the likable Tristan and truly does go through a journey from a boy to a man, as the narrator Ian McKellen simply states at the beginning. His start as a love-struck boy to a self-assured confident man is easily apparent. Claire Danes also is rather likable as the fallen star Yvaine, although she does have some instances of overacting and general annoyance when she first appears. Of course, this could be a result of her character not being human and attempting to adopt the mannerisms of a human so its either brilliant acting or slightly below average. That's for you to decide. Yet, since the movie rests essentially on the shoulders of these two, their chemistry more than makes up for any lack of acting on either part. The two of them play off of one another quite well and as the film goes on, there exist many situations in which that chemistry can be exploited.

The supporting cast is what really makes this an excellent movie. Michelle Pfieffer plays evil excellently and was a great villain. Robert DeNiro as the air pirate Captain Shakespeare along with Ricky Gervais' merchant Ferdy add a hilarious element to the movie. Shakespeare in particular is certainly not at all as he seems to be from first appearances and it really adds an unexpected twist to the whole story. Gervais is his usual self and he shows himself to be absolutely hilarious in seemingly every role he takes. And the ghosts of the dead princes added some hilarious comic relief at many unexpected moments.

The intensity of this movie also surprised me, and is one of the reasons I believe this will have a difficult time finding a very wide audience. At first glance, it looks like nothing more than a kid's movie with the aesthetic that it appears to have. But there are also some instances of real brutality and death along with quite a few risque innuendos and situations which would certainly not be present in any "kid's movie". Without a few cuts that were made, I could easily see how this could have obtained an R-rating, although I do not expect that we'll be seeing any "Unrated" cuts on the DVD. Yet, adults may shrug it off as for kids and parents might think that the PG-13 is too intense, leaving it in this unseen limbo.

But there are things that anyone can appreciate. The themes of love and immortality are handled in some surprising ways and it was welcome for me to not be able to predict what was going to happen right off the bat. When there is action, it is exciting and just when I thought that there would be no swordfighting in the movie, a creative, albeit short, swordfight ends up developing. I just feel you cannot give a character a sword unless he plans on using it for more than stabbing things. So fortunately, my swordfight quota was met with the movie.

There are a few issues to be had, though. The movie is a little overly long at two hours and 10 minutes. The first hour or so really takes time to pick up to the point where I found myself rather bored with the movie thinking that maybe this could be it. But once Tristan and Yvaine start on their journey, things seem to move much quicker and it becomes much more engaging. There are also a few other pacing issues that develop throughout the movie but nothing that was too distracting. I was also ready to complain about the swordfighting until the end when it actually happened. While this is nitpicking, also did not understand the concept of the kingdom of Stromhold. When it is shown on the map early in the movie, it appears to be rather small, no bigger than a city. But when they are traveling around the kingdom, it is obviously much larger than some small city. Also, the relationship with the human world is never fully explained, but I suppose it doesn't necessarily have to. The movie is primarily about the quest of one man to find out who he is and become a man, and this journey is followed closely. But I cannot say that I would have complained about the opportunity to understand just what this kingdom is.

Ultimately, this is an incredibly fun movie that had me smiling incessantly for the last hour or so. I was drawn in to this world and was happy I was given the opportunity to see it. The film may not bring anything new to the genre, but it was an exciting adventure almost from beginning to end and would easily recommend this to anyone who loves a good story.

GRADE: B+

The Bourne Ultimatum Review

2007-08-03T14:14:00.001-07:00

"The Bourne Ultimatum" is probably the best sequel this summer. The reason for this amounts to something very simple. The attempt was made to tell a good story, not to unnecessarily top themselves.

The trap that Spider-Man, Pirates, and even Shrek and some of the others fell into was that the first movies were big, so the attempt is made to keep making it bigger. Bigger battles, more characters, more complex plot. Yet, this is not the case in "The Bourne Ultimatum". The fights are in the same style of the earlier movies, but different. There are no out of control explosions or absurd amounts of gunfire. Only Bourne and his insanely proficient spy skills.

What I found most interesting about the movie is the way in which it is structured. In essence this could be edited together with the second movie to make one epic spy movie. Taking place over the course of about 7 weeks, the movie begins as Bourne (Matt Damon, in case you were somehow living under a rock) is attempting to bandage himself after suffering from a gunshot wound and following his confession to the daughter of his two first murders near the end of "The Bourne Supremacy." Then, approximately 3/4 through the movie, the final scene of the second movie is recreated, albeit now under a different context than shown in the second movie. Which makes the majority of the movie take place between the second to last scene in "The Bourne Supremacy" and the final scene in that movie.

This is a structure that I have never seen before in a movie, unless you count the direct-to-DVD cash-in of The Lion King 1 1/2. Which, fortunately, I do not. Giving context to that entire last scene was something that I was not expecting and that offered a fresh perspective.

In addition to this structural difference, the movie itself was a spy movie at its finest. Almost nothing is done in this film that could not happen in real life. There are no crazy gadgets like James Bond and no face changing like in Mission: Impossible. No, when a fight breaks out, it's brutal. The action is in your face and does not let up throughout the entirety of the movie. The car chases are also incredible and are the only point where the suspension of disbelief needs to be raised just a little bit. The way in which the characters are able to maneuver through traffic seems to be unrealistic, but then again, I am not a professional driver so maybe it isn't. Either way, the car chases are still more grounded in reality than most other movies.

That's not to say that there is no story. On the contrary, the story accommodates the action in such a way that it never feels forced. Bourne only uses force when necessary and never crosses the line. And the film is better for it. Still not able to remember his past, Bourne attempts to put an end to everything once and for all and follow his past back to the beginning. He desperately needs to put it all behind him in order to continue the life that he now wants to lead. Hot on his trail is Deputy Director Noah Vosen (David Strathairn) who knows who Bourne truly is and wants to make sure Bourne does not ruin anything for him. Also brought back into the fray is Pamela Landy (Joan Allen) who is convinced that Bourne wants to be left alone but argues with Vosen over what to do about Bourne. The dynamic between these two characters is very reminiscent of the dynamic between her and Brian Cox's character in the second movie. Yet, this time Pamela knows more and is more calm about her decisions than she was in "Supremacy".

What follows is a satisfying conclusion to the Bourne trilogy and an excellent way to end the series. The answers about Bourne's past, who he is, and what he is to become are all answered in a way that does not feel tacked on but part of an elaborate plan set up from the beginning. Given that the movies deviated so much from books, this is somewhat hard to believe but the way it is shown, it works very well.

All is not great with the movie though, as Julia Stiles' character Nicky Parsons seems to serve no real purpose to the story and was almost thrown in there just to give an unnecessary closure to her character. She shows up completely unexpectedly and coincidentally and what follows did not really work for me. I understood what they were trying to do with what they did, I just did not feel that it was necessary. Unfortunately, I cannot say more without giving it away, so I will just have to leave it at that.

All in all, this is an incredibly well-made, thrilling movie that deserves to be seen by anyone who considers themselves a fan of spy movies. Easily the best of the three, "The Bourne Ultimatum" stands strong against its predecessors and I find it nice to see that a sequel was done so well in this summer of disappointing sequels and especially three-quels.

GRADE: A-

Bionic Woman Television Review

2007-07-29T15:16:00.000-07:00

Created by one of the co-creators of the critically acclaimed series "Battlestar Galactica", David Eick, "Bionic Woman" stars Michelle Ryan as Jamie Sommers. Jamie is a bartender who takes care of her deaf sister after the supposed death of their mother. After an attempted vehicular homicide against her boyfriend of five months, Jamie is injured almost beyond repair. Fortunately, her boyfriend works for a top secret organization that specializes in bionic replacement parts. So her boyfriend, the one who was supposed to be killed in the accident, walks out with nary a scratch and takes Jamie to be outfitted with two new legs, a new arm, and a bionic eye and ears. The rest of the episode has her struggling with the new power she has obtained that culminates in a final battle with the original bionic woman, Sarah Corvis (Katee Sackhoff, star of "Battlestar Galactica").

Unfortunately, despite an interesting premise, the show does not live up to expectations. The pilot is all over the place. Things seem to happen out of the blue and there really is no coherent structure overall. After realizing she's been outfitted with new bionic parts to replace the old, irreparable parts, Jamie freaks out. She gets angry at everyone around her and asks "What did you do to me?" Oh, I don't know Jamie. Maybe they just saved your life? Maybe THAT'S what they did. I think that having no legs and one arm would be highly negative in comparison to having a couple of badass bionic limbs. But maybe that's just me.

Michelle Ryan as Jamie Sommers does not seem to exude the presence that a role of this magnitude requires. Although it may be a result of poor writing, her attitude changes like the wind and this is not presented in a believable manner. Starting off completely angry and upset with her changes, by the end of the episode she is telling those who want her to join the secret organization that she will help on her terms and that she will kill anyone who tries to control her. Now, it may just be me, but it seems to follow that a person who may have never been in a fight in her life would not be so open to killing people with such conviction. This constant change in emotion is jarring and does not ring of much realism.

Despite the unfinished effects, they certainly need some work. The scenes of Jamie running super fast look dumber than the young Clark running along the train scene in the original Superman. When the POV moves to her bionic eye for the first time, it becomes somewhat difficult to understand what exactly it is that she is seeing, so having that cleared up a bit would be nice.

That is not to say that all is bad with the show. Some of the fight scenes are pretty decent as is Katee Sackhoff's original Bionic Woman character. And there is also an interesting premise lying within the show. Whether or not it could be fully exploited remains to be seen. The problem is at this point I do not ultimately care that much whether or not it gets there. When it airs, I may watch an episode or two to see where it goes, but given that there are so many other good shows I am currently watching, I do not see this overtaking my staple programming anytime soon.

GRADE: C

Pushing Daisies Review

2007-07-28T21:24:00.001-07:00

Almost every year, there are inevitably those shows that may be difficult for the general public to really take a handle on. Despite the actual quality of the show itself, there exist certain irreverent aspects that sometimes are not able to translate to the mainstream. Pushing Daisies is one of those programs.

Written by "Dead Like Me" creator and former "Heroes" writer Bryan Fuller and directed by Barry Sonnenfeld of "Men in Black", "Pushing Daisies" tells the story of Ned (Lee Pace) who has the inexplicable ability to bring the dead back to life just by a touch. The only caveat to this gift is that if they stay alive more than a minute, someone dies in their place. And if he ever touches them again, they die again. This discovery was made as his mom kissed him goodnight as a child after suddenly dying from a brain aneurysm. In an attempt to honor his mother, he opens up a pie shop and distances himself from everyone in his life.

One such person he is distanced from is his childhood love, Charlotte "Chuck" Charles (Anna Friel) whose father he unexpectedly killed by keeping his mother alive for more than one minute. Kristin Chenoworth also stars as Ned's neighbor and employee at the pie store Olive, who is secretly in love with Ned and is curious as to why Ned seems to show no affection whatsoever for any living soul.

The only other person aware of Ned's gift is Private Detective Emerson Cod (Chi McBride) who witnessed the power when Emerson chased a suspect off the top of a building. Cod saw how he could exploit this power and entered into a business arrangement in which a person being murdered is brought back to life, tells them who the murderer was, and the two of them collect and split the reward. Their first big case happens to be solving the murder of Chuck and Ned, almost inadvertently, keeps Chuck alive. The rest of the subsequent episode is devoted to solving Chuck's murder.

The show has a very lighthearted vibe despite the premise being so heavy. Visiting murder victims and bringing them back for less than a minute at a time sounds much more morbid than it actually ends up being. Bryan Fuller has written an incredibly funny pilot which sets the stage for what could be an incredibly interesting show. A narrator humorously explains events and thoughts of the characters, which is not too different from the excellent contemporary classic "Amelie". This adds to the quirky atmosphere that so heavily permeates the program.

There is also the issue of the love between Ned and Chuck that can never be fully realized as a result of the fact that if he ever touches her again, she dies. What will be interesting to see is how this ultimately plays out and how the series will ultimately resolve this issues since it is one that truly defines the show.

What is mostly concerning is where they will go from here. Yes, Chuck's murder is one that needed solving but she was able to stay alive for more than one minute. Having this gift and keeping people alive for only one minute should be enough time to give them the information necessary to go straight to the source. Whether or not more situations like Chuck arrive in the future makes me wonder how much information can be given in one minute's time.

While the pilot was rather satisfying, I cannot help but wonder exactly how this level of quality will be maintained throughout the duration of the series. I will be watching this show with a high level of curiosity and could end up being one of the best if this quality continues.

"Pushing Daisies" airs Wednesdays 8/7C this Fall on ABC.

GRADE: B+

Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles Pilot Review

2007-07-28T14:18:00.000-07:00

The Terminator franchise is one that just will not seem to go away. The first two movies by James Cameron were nothing short of brilliant. The Terminator was revolutionary for its time and made Arnold Schwarzenegger the star he is today. Terminator 2: Judgment Day was a completely different movie. Where the first movie was about accepting fate, the second movie was about changing it. T2 seemed to close essentially all gaps in the franchise. The creator of SkyNet was killed and all of his work went with him, thereby preventing Judgment Day from ever occurring. Of course, despite this, people still wanted to see some Terminators, so twelve years later, Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines was released making a decent amount of money but was somewhat disjointed from the rest of the franchise. SkyNet was now essentially the internet and more focus was placed on John Connor's future family than that of John and Sarah, especially given that Sarah was written out by succumbing to leukemia.

Now here we are, barely four years later and a new, possibly long running installment in the Terminator franchise has arrived. What this television show, which will be running on the Fox network beginning in January, is attempting to do is stand in place of Terminator 3. Essentially pretending that T3 never existed, the show is open to so many more possibilities than it would have otherwise and could possibly be a worthy successor in the Terminator universe.

The show begins in 1999 as Sarah Connor (Lena Headey from 300) was just proposed to by her boyfriend of 6 months. Taking on the alias of Sarah Reese (after Michael Biehn's character Kyle Reese), she and John (Thomas Dekker) are trying to lie low after blowing up Cyberdyne two years prior. An FBI agent, James Ellison (Richard T. Jones) is hot on their trail so Sarah takes John away and brings him to New Mexico to start a new school and yet another new life. Since they stupidly did not change their aliases, the two Terminators are able to track them down with relative ease. When the initial Terminator battle happens between the protector, a seemingly fellow high school student Cameron (Summer Glau), and the killer (Owain Yeoman), the resulting witnesses see a robot leg and all sorts of destruction not able to be caused by normal people. This puts doubt in Ellison's certainty of Sarah's insanity. The rest of the episodes centers around the fact that Sarah still wants to stop SkyNet from going active and therefore the journey begins.

What is great about the episode is the casting of John and Sarah Connor. Edward Furlong, who played John in T2 was not the greatest actor. Yet, Dekker brings to the table a vulnerability that Furlong was missing and certainly does a better job than Nick Stahl in T3. Lena Headey does a phenomenal job of replacing Linda Hamilton in the role of Sarah Connor. Sarah Connor was Hamilton's iconic role and it is a hefty challenge to replace her. While not surpassing Hamilton, Headey does a more than adequate job of commanding the role and it should be interesting to see where she takes it over the course of the series.

The action is also phenomenal. The producers seemed to spare no expense. While there was only one shot of an all-out terminator, as cool as it was, the battle worn terminators are very realistic and on par with T2, if not quite T3's effects. The intensity of the earlier movies is still present here and I am very curious to see where it is going to go and how they will keep it up. The Terminator Cameron is a very interesting character and plays it with more humanity than any previous terminator, despite having no explanation as to why at this point.

There are a couple of big negatives that could ultimately be rectified by further explanation down the road. First of all, the creation of SkyNet happens in 2011 instead of 1998 or whatever the original timeline was. How this is possible given what transpired in the second movie will need a lot of explanation, although it is very superior to the completely unrelated SkyNet that was created in T3. Secondly, the way time travel is handled in this movie is completely against everything that was established in the first two movies. The Terminators and Kyle Reese all took one-way trips before the time machines were destroyed. There was no way of going back. Now, there seems to be more time traveling happening that does not fit into the established mythology. Yet, because this was such a blatant violation of the rules of the universe, I expect that there is a distinct possibility that there are good reasons for these changes. This is one of those things that I will have to wait on.

On one final note, the pilot that I have seen will be changed slightly upon its final airing since they recently revealed that they were going to be reshooting scenes in which a shooting occurs at a school in an attempt to be sensitive following the Virginia Tech shooting. Since this scene was so integral to the plot, I am curious to see how they will be changing it. Nevertheless, it was a very cool scene and a fun introduction to the Terminators.

Overall, the show begins with a bang. The cast is good and the story so far seems interesting, even though it's starting out to be a rehash of T2. I trust that they will find their footing and come up with some compelling Terminator stories. When I initially heard about the show, I thought it was going to be a terrible idea. I did not want to see it. Now that I have seen it for myself, I think it could have some serious potential and will definitely be on my must-see list come this January.

GRADE: B

The Simpsons Movie Review

2007-07-27T16:12:00.001-07:00

Over the past 17 odd years, The Simpsons have been a staple of Sunday night television. Banned from my household when I was very little because of the attitude the children have towards the parents, it eventually saturated television enough that my parents moved on to more pressing concerns and I was able to catch a good chunk of Simpsons episodes for a good number of years.
Yet, as the years went on, the show seemed to become somewhat stale, so over the last 8 years or so the number of new episodes I have seen have been few and far between. Of course, I could not pass up an opportunity to see how The Simpsons would fare on the big screen and the answer to that question would be rather well, if not particularly spectacular.

What "The Simpsons Movie" does well is necessarily expand the scope to a degree that one would expect for a film. Instead of cramming all sorts of ancillary characters into the movie in an attempt to please the legions of fans of the show, they instead focus primarily on the Simpsons family themselves and the story is ultimately Homer's.

Through an unfortunate series of events that highlight the irresponsibility of Homer Simpson, the town of Springfield becomes the most polluted city in the country. President Arnold Schwarzenegger is told by the Director of the EPA that a drastic plan needs to be put into effect. Through this, a giant dome is placed over the city of Springfield, separating it from the rest of the world. Once the facts are revealed that Homer is the one responsible for this travesty, the town is looking for vengeance. Now, the Simpsons need to find a way to save Springfield and keep their family together.

As stated before, the movie is good, but not great. And most of this is a result of the writing. A huge trap the writers could have fallen into was taking a 20-minute story and stretching it to 90-minutes in length. Fortunately, this was not the case. Every event follows logically from point to point and never lingers incessantly to pad the length. The narrative is largely coherent and rather focused. Despite the irreverence of much of the plot, Homer does go through a personal journey in which he attempts to grow as a human being. Whether or not this has happened before in the show, I am unaware, but it was certainly welcome to see here since this is a feature-length film.

Yet, there is nothing that really separates this from most of the run-of-the-mill comedies out there. Yes, these are the Simpsons and it would probably be one of the better episodes of the series, especially of the last few years, but there was nothing truly great about it. Most of the jokes only gave me about a half-smile until the end, where a few actual laughs shone through. And there were a few pretty funny jokes comparing the movie screening to watching the show on TV, but with those few exceptions, it just was not that funny. The alternative would be that the jokes were unfunny, like in Evan Almighty, so mildly funny jokes are much preferred.

Surprisingly, many of the most popular characters of the show are only shown in the background given little or nothing to say at all. Characters like Barney and Principal Skinner are barely in the movie and the two of them probably have a total of five or six lines, maybe less. This was necessary in keeping the story focused and it makes sense for why decisions like this were made.

"The Simpsons Movie" is a must see for anyone who is a fan of the Simpsons. They do a lot of things relatively well and they do not really do many things that are particularly negative. After nearly two decades waiting, expectations are obviously very high. Whether or not it met those expectations is up to individual viewers to decide, but as it stands alone the movie is slightly above average. If you do not like The Simpsons, nothing in this movie will probably change your mind even though it is a fairly well-told story. The Simpsons Movie is a nice, welcome diversion as the summer heads to a close for Simpsons and non-Simpsons fans alike.

GRADE: B/B-

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Review (Pretty Much Spoiler Free)

2007-07-23T23:38:00.000-07:00

I have never really done a book review before, as books are not really my thing. Lately, I have been trying to make more of an effort to actually read things above and beyond my normal reading habits, Harry Potter included. But every so often an entertainment experience happens that needs to be shared and therefore I have decided to share that experience with you.

My Harry Potter history is one that has happened more recently. I watched the first two movies because I certainly cannot miss any event movies, and when the third movie rolled around I found it to be the best so far, yet it did not entice me very much to read the books. Yet, in the summer of 2005, I found myself surrounded by fans of the books in massive anticipation for the sixth installment, Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince. At this point I found myself wanting to get on the bandwagon. There is nothing like an entertainment experience that is shared on a level with so many others. So, the day after the Half-Blood Prince was released, my friend Audrey loaned me the first five novels in their paperback form. And despite some bumps along the way (like a sunburn, a story for another time), I devoured those books like nothing I had ever done before. Within two weeks all six books had been read and I found myself a huge fan greatly anticipating not only the fourth movie which was to be released in less than six months time, but the 7th book, which I was willing to place money would be released on 7/7/7. Of course, someone should have taken me up on that bet because I was wrong. Not by much, but I was certainly wrong.

I followed the revelations with fervor. I was ready to experience the last chapter of the saga. Is Snape good or evil? How will Harry be able to manage his final quest without the aid of Dumbledore? Will Ron and Hermione finally get it on? These were questions begging serious answers and I could not wait to get my hands on them.

I was really hoping to experience the prerelease madness with some of my peers on the evening of July 20th. Unfortunately, given my recent move to South Carolina, I had no friends or relatives with which to share that experience, so I opted for the Amazon.com route. Then around 2PM on Saturday afternoon, I received the book. At 4:00PM I began reading and I read throughout the evening and night sporadically. At 2:30AM when everyone was asleep I picked up the book for the last time and read it until 6:08AM on the morning of the 22nd.

As a result, I can happily say that this installment did not disappoint, despite a few issues the book had along the way.

The book starts out the way the previous few had started out: outside Harry's perspective. Almost a brief prologue, it sets the stage for what is to come in the rest of the book, and for what you expect to see. When the story shifts back to Harry, the book really takes its time to get going. There is so much to be done in the book, as there are at least 4 Horcruxes that need to be destroyed before the final battle with Voldemort. Events such as Bill Weasley and Fleur Delacour's wedding do not even happen until Chapter 8. Much of what precedes the wedding is necessary exposition and moves along at a relatively brisk pace. Sure, I may have wanted them to do a little more during the beginning and really get into the heart of the quest, but compared to what happens next, the first portion is incredibly fast paced.

After the chapter on the wedding, things seriously start to slow down. A huge chunk of the middle section of the book is Harry literally camping in a tent wondering what to do and where to go next. Every time I turned the page, I expected them to get going but they really never seemed to. This isolation was not particularly helpful as there was surely so much going on in the wizarding world that would be interesting to see. Yet, this is Harry's quest and what must be done is done.

Fortunately, once that section ends, a stretch of somewhere around 250 pages is essentially non-stop action leading into a phenomenal conclusion and a battle that I could not stop thinking about how cool it would be to see on screen. There are moments near the end that I will not share for those of you who have yet to read that just floored me. Certain characters were developed in ways that I had never expected and acted in brilliant ways.

What really impresses me the most about the series is how intricate the fabric of the seven novels is woven. At no point do you believe that any of what was put in earlier books was by chance. Everything had a purpose. Characters whose motivations seemed to be clear cut in earlier novels are now turned on their heads. Fortunately, it never feels like a betrayal of those characters. If a change happens, then the reasons and purposes of those changes have been intricately laid in prior novels. Rowling did not write these books flying on the seat of her pants. She had a plan and implemented it almost perfectly. Very very few plot holes exist in these books. Granted, I am sure there are a few if a person looks hard enough, but you will be hard pressed to find them. There are a few questions I have (most interestingly about an item called the Elder Wand), but I feel there are answers out there that Rowling has just not given yet. I am sure there are answers to those questions, and maybe I just glossed over the answers and missed them.

The amount of death in the book is almost astonishing. Many characters die, some expected, some not so expected. Yet, with one exception, all of them are handled well and some are actually very touching.

The biggest complaint I have about the book is not enough time is spent with many of the periphery characters. Granted, this is ultimately Harry's story but after spending so much time with so many people it would have been nice to see how everyone was coping with the onslaught of the evil Voldemort rising to power. A little more time with Snape would have been crucial since he was so integral to the sixth book and the conclusion of his storyline is not exactly what I would have liked to have seen, even though it may come across better filmed. Indeed, there was a good portion of development given to Snape's character which was absolutely welcome to see because you are shown precisely the reasons why he did what he did and whether or not what he did was for good or for evil. Prior to the book's release, I was willing to bet loads of money on Snape's goodness, but no one took me up on the offer. Did they agree with me or was I just lucky that they didn't want to take my money? I won't give the answer here but I will say it was great to get the backstory that we did.

An epilogue was placed on the book telling you the fates of some of the characters, which I have somewhat mixed feelings about as it really does not give the reader that much information. While it was nice to have, it seemed to be somewhat disjointed with the rest of the book.

Ultimately, this is fiction at its finest. Many, if not all, of the themes are themes people have seen before. Good vs. Evil, dealing with issues of racial purity, an innocent thrown into a situation of which he seems to have little control, and so many more are all pulled almost straight out of a textbook on mythology written by Joseph Campbell. But the way Rowling was able to string together the plight of adolescence with so many of these heavier themes into a compelling narrative, one in which some of the most cohesive storytelling of all time is shared with the world, makes Harry Potter a definite recommend for anyone who loves a good story. These are not children's books. They are books for anyone who loves stories.
A definite recommend.

Overall: A-
Last 250 Pages: A+

Video Games Live: Detroit Review

2007-07-06T21:07:00.000-07:00

As an avid video gamer, I have spent countless hours listening to the music from my favorite games. While many people would consider that to be rather odd, I feel that in today's video game environment, listening to that music is akin to listening to a piece of classical music or a composer's newest symphony.

Many games today are embarking on the trend of using fully orchestrated scores with renowned orchestras in an attempt to bring the player further into the game. An advantage of this revolution is that often times the music is wonderful on its own merits, outside the realm of video games. Which is precisely what Video Games Live attempts and is successful at accomplishing. This was my third video game concert in the last three years and I would unhesitatingly consider this to be the best one.

Prior to the show, an area of Orchestra Hall was sectioned off where people could play Guitar Hero II, enter a costume contest, or play some Halo 2 or Madden sponsored by GameCrazy. This really allowed a sense of fun and enjoyment to overwhelm you prior to the start of the actual concert. There was also some souvenirs that one could purchase in preparation for the meet and greet with the creators after the show. So I picked up a program and a poster.

We went to go sit down and saw people from all walks of life showing up for the event. It was quite interesting to see. The show began with a wonderful medley of classic games from Pong to Donkey Kong to Super Ghouls 'N Ghosts all set to perfectly choreographed video and brand new orchestrations, the likes of which raised the quality of much of the music to realms I had never expected it to. Even the games with which I had no personal connection were wonderful to hear live and knowing the humble beginnings from whence the music came was astounding, especially seeing how far the music has come.

After the medley, Tommy Tallarico came out to pump up the crowd and introduced a video of Hideo Kojima, creator of Metal Gear Solid, talking about the music to his game. This was immediately followed by one of my favorite performances of the evening, a Metal Gear Solid suite. Most of the music came from Metal Gear Solid 2 and if I am not mistaken a little from 3 as well. Hearing this live was truly remarkable. Video from Metal Gear Solid 1, 2, 3, and even 4 was shown to help emphasize the intensity of the music. A man dressed as a Genome Soldier (complete with exclamation point above his head!) ran around searching for Solid Snake. Of course, who could find Snake when he was hiding in a cardboard box just behind the soldier?

Yuji Naka, creator of Sonic the Hedgehog appeared on screen following the MGS Suite and introduced his music. Music from the original Sonic the Hedgehog was played in orchestral form as video from every Sonic game shown above. An excellent piece overall, although I would have liked to hear more from other Sonic games.

The box was still on stage after the piece and out popped Tommy Tallarico to bring a new twist to the evening. A person was pulled out of the crowd to play Space Invaders to the music and he had two minutes to beat the level to win some cash. Unfortunately, this guy was all over the place and won nothing, but it was fun to watch nonetheless.

In another interesting move, the next piece was from Medal of Honor, written by one of my favorite current composers, Michael Giacchino (Lost, Alias, The Incredibles). Instead of playing video from the game, video on loan from the History Channel displayed images of World War II. While never playing the game, I was fond of this music and found the footage to be absolutely moving when compounded with the orchestra.

Next up was a piece from Sid Meier's Civilization IV. Another game I am not familiar with, this was an excellent piece that was punctuated by a young male vocalist singing in a language with which I am not familiar but sounded right at home with the video playing above him.

Of course, what would a video game concert be without some classic Nintendo music? Mr. Tallarico introduced a video from Koji Kondo who introduced a piece from Zelda. The only complaint I have about this piece is that any rabid video game music fan would be familiar with this exact same orchestration, since it has been around for years. While I have never heard the piece live, I knew precisely what to expect because I had heard it before. This is not much of a complaint though, since it was beautiful to hear being played by the DSO and having video from every Zelda game played brought back some wonderful memories.

Coming back from intermission, Kingdom Hearts was next. Since Square would not authorize the use of their video in the concert, VGL went to Disney and used video from all the Disney movies represented in the Kingdom Hearts series. The video was astounding and beautifully choreographed to the music. This was only the "Simple and Clean Orchestration" from the first game, but after hearing the ineffective mash up that was attempted at last year's "Play! Symphony", this version was WHOLLY appreciated.

World of Warcraft came next and in my opinion this was the weakest piece of the night. I have never played WOW so there is no emotional attachment to the music, but hearing it on its own, I was not particularly impressed.

Next up was the Video Game Pianist, Martin Leung who played a suite from Final Fantasy, starting with my personal favorite "To Zanarkand". Running the gamut from a number of different Final Fantasies, I was mind boggled as to how a human being was able to move his hands so fast. Absolutely incredible. He would come out again a few minutes later to play some music from Super Mario World and Tetris. This was completely unexpected and an incredible surprise.

Somewhere around this time, two 8-year-olds were given the opportunity to play Frogger against each other in an attempt to win a $2500 laptop. No 8-year-old needs that kind of laptop, so yes, I'm a little bitter I didn't get the opportunity. Each child claimed he never played Frogger before, but one of them seemed like he may have been lying since the first kid never got to the logs and the second kid was kicking the crap out of the first one. A hilarious and fun moment which was presented with the Frogger music in real time by the orchestra.

Then, Koji Kondo came back on screen to present the Super Mario Bros. piece. This, again, was the same orchestration that has been around for nearly a decade. Despite this, it was still incredible to hear and was glad I got the opportunity to hear it while watching video from numerous Mario games.

The night was coming to an end and Michael Salvatori was brought on stage to introduce what was to be the final music of the night, music from one of my favorite games, Halo. This piece was so awesome and phenomenal to hear. Yet, once it ended, the music from Halo was not over yet, as Tommy Tallarico came out with his Pong-flavored guitar and started rocking out to the Halo 3 announcement teaser. This may have been my favorite piece of the night since I am a Halo nut and hearing all of that put together was almost something out of a dream.

Then, the night ended...wait, not exactly. How could ANY video game concert be complete without a rendition of one of the most overplayed video game tracks of all time? Nobuo Uematsu's "One Winged Angel" from Final Fantasy VII. While I thought I would be annoyed at hearing the song once again, having Tommy Tallarico on guitar injected a MUCH needed sense of fun that was missing at all other performances of the piece I have ever heard.

This being the third video game concert I have attended, I expected it to be on par with the other two. It wasn't. Bar none, this concert blew "Play! Symphony" right out of the water. Looking back, "Play!" seemed to be a concert put on almost to exploit those who like video game music. Nothing more than another revenue flow. The video was out of sync, sometimes the video did not work at all, and there seemed to be little to no care for the actual compositions. Every piece that "Play!" did that "Video Games Live" did, Video Games Live did better. No question. The music in VGL was more natural and did not attempt to cram entire soundtracks from a game into a 4-minute suite. Sure, there may have been disappointments in that this piece of music was not heard or I wished they played this instead of that, but these are all minor complaints overall. I would rather hear that which is played WELL and works as an individual work than a piece I prefer that is played shoddily.

The VGL production is top-notch. Despite the fact that I paid more than twice as much last year for my "Play!" ticket, I certainly did not get any more than I got here at VGL. The little touches such as yellow, ringed lights being shown during the Sonic suite really gave off an atmosphere of fun that made me smile like I was a little kid again. Prior to the show, I thought the lights were going to be gaudy and overwhelming, but I was incredibly wrong. All it did was add to the atmosphere in ways I did not expect.

The only real complaint I can offer is that it was too short. I wanted more. I wanted more Final Fantasy orchestrations, I wanted Beyond Good and Evil, I wanted Splinter Cell and God of War. Yet, at the same time, they probably were not able to be there all night. I suppose when your worst complaint is that it was not enough, then you came out all right.

After the show, there was a meet and greet with Tommy Tallarico, Jack Wall, Martin Leung, Michael Salvatori, and another composer whose name escapes me at the moment. All of these guys seemed genuinely excited to be there and talk to the fans. There was a passion there that was missing at the prior concerts I attended. These guys are fans like I am and truly wanted to share that love with us. And it makes all the difference in the world.

I leave you with one final note. If you go to one video game concert ever, go to Video Games Live. And if you're debating on whether or not to go to "Play! Symphony" or VGL, if you have the money, go to both. But if you only have enough for one, then pick Video Games Live. Trust me, you'll thank me later.

GRADE: A-

-Sean Diroff

Transformers Review

2007-07-02T23:58:00.000-07:00

I am not familiar with the history of the Transformers. I watched them periodically as a child and I am sure I had a few of the toys as well, but the subtlety and nuances of character that were apparently evident in the cartoon show were not something that I picked up on. So going into this movie, I had no real expectations for which characters interacted with others and the histories between them.

At the same time, I find it hard to respect that sort of history which really boils down to advertisements for a toy line. Sure, people were greatly attached to these characters and these stories but to expect them to be adapted perfectly to the screen probably would have resulted in not much of a different movie and could ultimately have been bogged down by the attempts at robot characterization.

Of course, all that aside, Transformers essentially blew me through the back of the theater. The sheer spectacle of the film (I hesitate to even use that word since this is not a "film" in the auteur's sense of the word) is one that cannot and should not be missed by anyone who enjoys movies. Michael Bay ("The Rock", "Armageddon", "Bad Boys") crafts what could be considered his best movie yet and does it with such style that any lack of substance becomes a moot point.

The premise of the movie is a very simple one. Thousands of years ago, a cube known as the "Allspark" crash landed on Earth. Megatron, leader of the Decepticons, was able to locate the cube and attempted to track it down. Unfortunately, he missed his mark by a bit and was frozen in the Arctic Circle. So years later, his Decepticon buddies attempt to track him and the Allspark down. And of course, it's up to the Autobots, led by Optimus Prime, to stop them. The catalyst for all of this robot madness is Sam Witwicky (Shia LaBeouf) who puts the glasses of his grandfather on eBay, which just so happened to have Cybertronian (that's the homeworld of the Transformers for those keeping track) symbols etched into them from the discovery of Megatron in the Arctic over 100 years ago. Oh, and there is also something about a love story between Sam and Mikayla (the ridiculously gorgeous Megan Fox). So, in summary, track down the Allspark, have robots fight and all hell break loose.

The thing is, you never think about that. The human element works, absolutely. The charisma of all players is something that truly emanates from the movie and is what gives the movie its roots. Whether it be the members of the US Air Force (played by Josh Duhamel and Tyrese) or the Defense Secretary (Jon Voight), everyone plays it with such believability that this alien threat is accepted.

Of course, the true stars of the movie are the Transformers themselves. The things that these robots are able to do are incredible. After a few minutes on screen, you completely forget they are CGI creations and are completely believable as things occupying space and having mass. The transformations they undergo are completely mindboggling every time they occur. And on top of that, they all seem like characters, not just robots. Yes, I am sure to the diehard Transformer fan out there, they are missing certain characterizations that make them their unique selves, but each Autobot specifically brings something to the table. The Decepticons on the other hand are pretty interchangeable. With the exception of Megatron (voiced by an almost unrecognizable Hugo Weaving) and Starscream, they were really nothing more than showcases for the incredible technology and amazing battles.

The movie starts off relatively slow in comparison to what ends up happening, although in many action movies, the first couple of action scenes would be the pinnacle of the entertainment. Showing Sam's acquisition of Bumblebee and subsequent learning about his origins take up a fair amount of time. Yet, once Optimus Prime and the rest of the Autobots show up, there is essentially nonstop action with a few pauses for brief exposition. Of course, this is interspersed with some Transforming action in Qatar in which Tyrese and Josh Duhamel are responsible for holding the Decepticons Scorponok and Blackout at bay. Sam and the human element remain a factor throughout and most of the action is seen from their perspective, adding to the sheer spectacle of it all. Even small characters such as Anthony Anderson's hacker and Bernie Mac's auto salesman add to some of the many bits of humor throughout. And you also have the token hot hacker, played by Rachel Taylor, who figures out important alien info akin to Jeff Goldblum in Independence Day and is not taken seriously. And why should they? She's a ridiculously hot female computer nerd. I don't even believe those exist.

Steve Jablonsky delivers a rousing action score that is effective in ramping up emotion in particularly important scenes. It certainly helped to add to the overall mood of the movie and I will be anxiously waiting a score release.

Personally, I do not know who could have done a better job at crafting such amazing giant robot battles other than Michael Bay. Say what you will about his characterization and storytelling, the man knows how to shoot action. It pulls you in and doesn't let go. The fact that it was reportedly made for half as much as both Spider-Man 3 and Pirates 3 goes a long way to showing how well he is able to do his job, because to be quite honest, the action is twice as good as either movie.

If there are any complaints about the movie is that Optimus Prime is not given as much to do as I would have liked to see. Using the original voice actor was a choice many fans were happy about and I can certainly see why. Peter Cullen has such an amazing vocal charisma that he almost made me spur into action against the Decepticons. Being given a decent amount and wanting more is not that huge of a complaint to have in a movie such as this one.

I suppose I could complain about the lack of story. Yes, I can always appreciate a fleshed out story, but to be completely honest I did not expect one here. It just was not necessary. This was ultimately a battle between good and evil with the fate of the world at stake. With the increasingly complicated Pirates 3 and to an extent, Spider-Man 3, it was nice to see a movie where you could enjoy the movie for what it was and not be frustrated because of all the absurd turns it was taking.

The movie is left absolutely wide open for a sequel. I hope that we get one sooner rather than later because I personally cannot wait to see the further adventures of the Transformers. I may even check this one out again tomorrow. After a summer of perpetual tentpole disappointments, I am happy to say that one movie has finally delivered on its promise. I highly recommend this to anyone who enjoys a truly fun time at the movies.

GRADE: A-

SiCKO Review

2007-06-29T21:17:00.000-07:00

Let me get this out of the way first and foremost: I do not particularly like Michael Moore. I think that for the most part he raises very very interesting questions that are ultimately supported by his manipulating of random facts and figures. The truth value of his assertions are likely to be questioned, and justifiably so. Therefore, his credibility comes into question and his movies are looked at hesitantly.

That being said, I think that SiCKO is one of the most important movies I have ever seen in my life. The topics raised by Moore have their usual extravagance but he does not use facts and figures to convince us of anything. He uses people. Real people. And not just ridiculously poor people. Middle class people who are crushed under the weight of their own medical expenses. Families of people who were essentially murdered because of the denials of health coverage by their insurance providers. Families of people who could have been given a fighting chance, if not for survival, but for more time with the people they loved, were put in the forefront. And seeing this, seeing these atrocities happen to people all over the country was heartbreaking.

Yet, Moore wants to answer the question of what is happening in the rest of the Western world in regards to health care. The answer seems to be a hell of a lot more. He goes to Canada, England, and France to ask people how much they pay for health care. He wants to know who protocol is for going to the hospital and finding out whether or not a person is covered. The answers to those two questions? Nothing.

People in those countries pay either nothing or almost nothing for health care. And it boggles the mind.

Of course, a criticism that could be brought up is "Yes, but the doctors are of a lower quality. They don't get paid as much."

That could be the case in some places. Yet, what about all the Americans who cannot afford a quality doctor? Also, the payment issue is also raised, and for a doctor living in London, he drove an Audi, lived in a $1 Million home and lived a pretty damned comfortable life. Moore asks him whether or not he thought he could be making more. He responds that if he wanted 4 cars and 6 flat screen televisions and a $3 Million home, then he might be more satisfied in America. But he doesn't want that, therefore what he's getting is good enough for him.

Sure, the people over there pay higher taxes, but look at the trade-off. These people are able to walk into just about any hospital when they are sick and get treatment without being asked who their HMO is.

The film is also hilarious and quite honestly more humorous than many comedies that are released in any given year. The way people respond to some of Moore's questions and some of his questions themselves lend themselves to some genuine laughter. The movie never ceases to be entertaining. I went to the movie very sleepy but came out alert and engaged. The duality of the humor and the serious makes for a movie that rises above traditional entertainment to truly say something about the world in which we live.

I do not have all the facts and do not claim to. But one cannot look at the American health system and say that it is not broken. Too many people deserving of health care are not getting it. I am sure that Moore manipulated things in this film. It is in his nature. And therefore it is in mine to be skeptical of all that he puts before us on the screen. Yet, there is much that just cannot be manipulated that is on display for the world to see. And it made me angry. Wanting to know what I can do to help change this. I urge all of you to see this movie some way. Whether or not you hate Michael Moore, whether or not you pay for the movie, it is irrelevant. Just see it. I cannot stress enough how worth it this movie really is.

GRADE: A

Ratatouille Review

2007-06-29T15:13:00.000-07:00

Pixar is an example of everything that is right with movie making today. And one needs to look no further than Ratatouille to understand why.

Ratatouille is the newest Pixar movie from writer/director Brad Bird, who previously directed "The Incredibles" and the little seen and highly praised "The Iron Giant." For those not up to speed, Ratatouille is about a rat named Remy (Patton Oswalt) who cannot stand his rat-like existence. Having an exquisite sense of smell and a well-defined palette, he is set apart from the rest of his clan who are content eating yesterday's garbage. He knows he wants much more out of life than being the poison-checker, and he does everything possible to achieve the goal of being an excellent chef, even if that means reading chef books in the woman's house in whose walls he lives. An unfortunate set of missteps causes him to be separated from his rat brethren and in an attempt to find his family, comes across Gusteau's restaurant, which was created by his idol of the same name. After watching a garbage boy in the restaurant, Linguini (Lou Romano), accidentally butcher a pot of soup, Remy feels he has no choice but to fix it, coaxed on by the ghost of Gusteau himself (Brad Garrett). The delicious soup is accidentally attributed to Linguini and he is suddenly made chef and put under the wing of Collette (Janaene Garofalo), where he realizes the rat was the one who cooked the soup. Since Linguini does not want to lose his job, he asks Remy for his help which leads to a series of misadventures in an attempt to keep the ruse alive so that Remy can cook and Linguini keeps his job.

The premise of the movie is absolutely absurd. Not only because of the communication between humans and animals, but because there is little more disturbing to most people than a rat in the kitchen. Rats, in reality, are dirty, disgusting creatures and therefore the premise is initially difficult to buy into. Yet, everything clicks. Despite the fact that Remy can only communicate with humans using only nods and gestures, the relationship between Remy and Linguini is one of the more developed relationships in any movie so far this year. Their dependence on one another in an attempt to achieve their mutual goals is incredibly touching. Even the relationship between Collette and Linguini does not come off as forced even though the two of them were effectively forced into their situation.

Of course, the realistic relationships between the characters is not all this movie has to offer. Ratatouille has some rather intense action sequences that can easily compare to the big summer tentpoles. The reason for this is that the action serves a purpose involving characters in whose outcomes the audience is invested. Also, the outcomes are not entirely predictable. Assuredly one probably would not be able to guess the exact nature of the ending until it actually happens. This lends heavily to the suspense of the action sequences.

Yet, what really makes this movie work is the writing and direction of Brad Bird. The way the "camera" moves around is reminiscent of a live action movie and helps to bring the audience further into the story. The pacing is almost perfect and no scene really seems superfluous. There is just something about his ability to connect with an audience that makes his movies so great. So far, all of his movies have been excellent and I cannot wait to experience the next one he has to offer.

Michael Giacchino also puts up another excellent movie score to go along with his work on "The Incredibles" and the television show "Lost." The way he works in original music with what seems to be an authentic French sound is magnificent, as he is already one of my favorite composers.

Finally, the artistry in these movies continue to get better and better. The hair on the heads of humans and on the rats themselves looks so realistic that it is a marvel just to look at it. The recreation of Paris is stunningly beautiful and gives off an almost majestic aura. One cannot help but wonder how much further technology can go to keep upping the ante with more stunning imagery.

Ratatouille is an incredible film for anyone who loves the art of storytelling. There is enough in the movie for both children and adults alike to enjoy. After last year's somewhat misstep with "Cars", Ratatouille returns to Pixar's form of creating incredible, touching stories that are leaps and bounds above what other studios have been putting out as of late. Absolutely recommended.

GRADE: A

Schick Quattro Razor Review

2007-06-27T15:26:00.000-07:00

I tend to have a pretty hairy face on average. Most people never get to experience it since I continuously shave. Granted, I'm sure a full beard is something I'm missing out on. I'd like to look like a mountain man one day. Because of my fast growing facial hairs, a few years ago I switched from the wonders of the electrical razor to a new fangled razor, aptly titled the GILLETTE MACH 3 TURBO! I feel like I'm placing an Air Force Jet on my face to destroy the absurd hairs that attack my daily life. And it worked well.

Until recently.

I left on vacation without bringing any razors with me. So I hit up my local Meijer to pick up some new ones. And there they were, sitting on the counter on sale, beckoning me.

The Schick Quattro Razor. Sure it doesn't sound as exciting as the MACH 3 TURBO, but it got me thinking. Four blades. Four blades instead of three. If three blades kept my face silky smooth for over a day, then four must do the job for a week.

Right then. Right there. My decision was made. I was going to switch over to the Schick Quattro.
This, my friends, may have been the biggest mistake of my life.

I brought that baby into the shower with me, since I don't use shaving cream. I shave without mirrors in the shower. Like our forefathers did. Real men. And the result was one of the worst shaving experiences I've ever had in my life.

You want to know what four blades do? I'm going to tell you.

Four blades do nothing.

That's right. The four blades succeed in doing nothing other than getting hair caught between the blades. That happens to most razors, right? Yeah, except that it takes damn near a half hour to clean the blade between shaves. People are probably thinking I'm dying in the shower as a result of this new razor.

I finally finish up what feels like six hours later, and I feel that I have had a satisfactory shave. I go about my daily business thinking everything is all right.

I wake up the next morning like I never even shaved at all. I almost wonder if the Quattro has some sort of MiracleGro ingredient that makes hair grow FASTER than it did before. My anger knew no bounds. Yet, I had no other option than to spend another $10 on a classy razor. (I don't use those single bladed baby razors. Those are for sissies and for shaving your dog.)

Once I returned to my apartment, I broke out the MACH 3 once more and felt liberated. I will continue to keep the Schick Quattro, but as a reminder of everything that is wrong with the world.

Don't mess with perfection. MACH 3 is for real men.

GRADE: D-

Live Free or Die Hard Review

2007-06-27T10:30:00.001-07:00

This is a particularly difficult movie to review. On the one hand, there is the history of the Die Hard franchise to contend with. And on the other hand there exists Live Free or Die Hard completely separate from the older films. Yet, one cannot watch this new movie without thinking of that which came before it. And that is where much of the problem lies.

The movie begins when the FBI's Cyber Division is attacked. In an effort to discover who the hacker was, a list of possible suspects is compiled and tasked to local police districts to go pick these suspects up. John McClane (Bruce Willis) is given the honor to pick up Matthew Farrell (Justin Long, who most of you might know as the 'Mac Guy'), who just so happens to be marked for assassination by the terrorists since Farrell wrote an algorithm for them, not knowing who his employers really were. Of course, this sets in motion a series of events that range from completely absurd to somewhat cool.

To start with, the bad guys truly seem like non-threats. Yes, they are causing all sorts of damage but not one of them has the charisma or gravitas to even be put in the same league as Hans Gruber from the original or even Col. Stuart from the second or Simon Gruber from the third. What is rather interesting is how Timothy Olyphant has been rather satisfactory is some of his previous roles and even seemed to be more dangerous than he is here. His character Thomas Gabriel and McClane never seem to have the chemistry that Willis and his former villains had.
The third in command villain (whose name escapes me...if he even had one) is nothing more than a Spider-Man wannabe and his acrobatic feats seem completely out of place in the Die Hard universe. Whenever this character is on screen, the suspension of disbelief is lost because it destroys the gritty sense of realism trying to be portrayed, even if one might argue that the realism is already ineffective.
Maggie Q (from Mission: Impossible 3) plays Mai Lihn, who is Gabriel's second in command and also girlfriend. The only reason she seems to be in the movie is that she is attractive and to give Gabriel a reason to get even angrier at McClane. Otherwise she could be another nameless, faceless villain for McClane to contend with.

There are also a few massive plot holes that are difficult to get around. Thomas Gabriel could have been found much earlier in the movie if people would have shared certain information when it was pertinent. Unfortunately, the information needs to be procured by McClane first in order for people to realize that it is relevant. This seems entirely unrealistic and was obviously a ploy to keep the movie going.

The PG-13 is also felt. There are so many cut-aways from violent scenes that you just know they were not originally planning on PG-13. Die Hard is, and always has been, an R-rated franchise. McClane swears up a storm, not caring who is around to hear it or who he offends. He is a brutal fighter and does not let up. The bad guys have always been brutal, ruthless killers. But none of that is seen in this movie, and it is not better off for it. Even McClane's catchphrase is almost whispered and the "fucker" in "motherfucker" is cut off by a gunshot. There were even a few completely obvious dubs, when the character was saying something that obviously was not filmed that way.

Yet, that is not to say that the movie is a total loss. On the contrary, there are many enjoyable moments in the movie. Justin Long starts out as incredibly annoying despite saying a few humorous things. Although as the movie goes on, he tends to calm down and his character is much better for it. He never seems to be a true worthy companion to McClane but his presence is tolerable for the most part. McClane's daughter Lucy (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) is brought into the movie for no reason other than to "make it personal", but she is sufficient with what she is given to work with.

The action is also satisfactory. Director Len Wiseman (of the "Underworld" movies) crafts a few action set pieces that could probably be seen in just about any other movie. But no other movie has John McClane. His attempt at realism is a somewhat mixed bag. There are times where it feels like some of the most outlandish stunts could possibly happen in the real world, but McClane walks away from them with such ease that it jerks you out of that realism. If they were able to go for the full R-rating, then the action probably would have been slightly more than satisfactory as opposed to satisfactory.

Finally, there is Bruce Willis making his return as John McClane. How does he fare? Well, for the most part, he's still McClane. Sure the swearing is gone and he doesn't wisecrack as much as he used to, but the core character is still the same. A few jokes could have been better, but it was still nice to see him back in action. Yet, there is no reason for this to be John McClane. One could probably put in any other action hero and get similar results. Although, once again, it was good to see him.

Ultimately, the movie is a satisfactory entry into the Die Hard franchise and is overall a welcome return. Comparing it to the previous films, yes it is rather flawed, but so are 2 and 3. When it is working, it is working. But when it's not, it's not. And I'm sure we'll see the "Unrated Cut" on DVD in 6 months to a year, so I am holding out hope that it returns some of the gritty realism that is so obviously missing from the movie.

B-

Indiana Jones and the First Day of Filming

2007-06-26T01:24:00.001-07:00

Indianajones.com has a cool video of Stephen Spielberg and George Lucas prepping for the first day of filming the new Indiana Jones movie. The roarin' 50's are back in action as is evident in this new, cool video.

I can't tell you how excited I am to see a new Indiana Jones movie. Here's to hoping that it's good.

First Day on the Set

Harold Perrineau (Michael Dawson) returning to Lost?

2007-06-26T01:18:00.000-07:00

Kristin from E! Online is reporting that Lost producers have made an offer to Harold Perrineau to return as a season regular for Lost this year. Apparently, negotiations are underway, and hopefully they can come to some sort of agreement.

I, for one, would LOVE to see Murderin' Michael back on the show, since the presence of Walt in the season 3 finale pretty much DEMANDS it.

I mean, seriously Harry, what else do you have on your plate anyway? Your CBS pilot didn't get picked up, and you were relegated to a lame helicopter pilot in "28 Weeks Later". I think it might be time for you to turn that little tugboat around and head back to everyone's favorite island.

Who Am I?

2007-06-26T00:55:00.001-07:00

I don't know how unorthodox it is to do two consecutive posts, but hey, I'm new to this whole thing. I figure that I should give a little reference for the types of media I enjoy. Since you have already gotten an idea on the types of television shows that I watch, I should probably give you an idea of the types of movies I watch and video games I play to see if your interests are even close to lining up with mine. So here we go.

I am a huge fan of all movies. No budget, big budget, it doesn't matter. I tend to approach "event" movies as actual events. I watch movies like Spider-Man, Pirates of the Caribbean, Die Hard, Transformers, etc. for their spectacle and I treat that as such. But that's not to say that I don't enjoy smaller, more personal movies like "Half Nelson" or "The Last King of Scotland." I liken it to watching different sports. One doesn't go to an NBA Finals game with the same enthusiasm as one would go to the US Open. You may like both equally, but the events are treated entirely different.

The one genre that I can never seem to get into is the horror genre. I watch them, but on average I do not enjoy them very much. I don't know why that is, but that's the way things go I suppose. I rarely find myself scared, as well, which could have something to do with it. Maybe I'm just not taking enough girls to these things to enjoy it enough. Other than that, I'm pretty accepting of all other genres.

In terms of video games, I try to keep an open mind. I currently own a Nintendo Wii, an Xbox 360 and a Playstation 2. I don't see myself buying a Playstation 3 anytime soon, since most of the games are available for the 360 and the ones that aren't do not entice me to spend $600 on a video game console. Although that could all change once Metal Gear Solid 4 comes out. I tend to enjoy entire series of games, so if I mention a game in which there are multiple installments, I like all installments unless otherwise stated. My favorite games are Halo, Metal Gear Solid, Kingdom Hearts, Splinter Cell, Paper Mario, Guitar Hero, Final Fantasy X, Zelda, Resident Evil 4, Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic, and a few others.

I tend to play more action oriented games like Halo, although I would consider myself to enjoy anything that plays well. The only one I tend to stay away from on average would be RPGs. The only problem I have is the amount of time they normally take is not conducive to the amount of time I normally have. That, and all the pointless leveling up I need to do is never enjoyable to me.

One of the largest draws to video games for me is the storytelling. I see video games as an incredible new way to tell stories and I see it being done more and more effectively. The games that I will be reviewing on this blog will be heavily focused on story and in fact, could make or break whether or not I would recommend a game.

Now that I have the more serious stuff out of the way, my background, my likes, dislikes, and whatnot, we can move on to the fun stuff. So here we go!

The First in a Long Line of Blog Posts

2007-06-26T00:42:00.001-07:00

Throughout my life, I've spent a good portion on the internet writing about things that are important to me. Mainly those things have consisted of movies, video games, and television shows. The world of entertainment is an incredibly important influence of my life. I love all aspects of it and will certainly continue to feel this way in the foreseeable future.

The problem laid in the fact that until now, I never had a proper outlet for something like this. LiveJournal and MySpace are two very limited forums in which there is great difficulty creating an effective blog. So I've decided to port myself over in this direction, one more suited to my overall style. That is not to say that I will quit posting on MySpace. On the contrary, I am sure that I will continue to post carbon copies of whatever I post here there as well. But I feel that this is going to be my primary outlet.

So what are you going to see here? Well, that really depends. I would say that primarily it will be movie reviews. I see at least one or two movies every week and I often enjoy writing about them. And my first order of business will probably be to write a review of Live Free or Die Hard which I am sure I will inevitably see on Wednesday. If I get the opportunity to see an advance copy of a movie, then I will definitely write reviews up about those.

Also, within the blog there will hopefully be some video game reviews as well. I do not play video games as often as I would like. But the ones that I do play, I will write about. Also, I'll include any relevant gaming or movie news that I feel needs to be shared.

I am also a HUGE fan of certain television programs. My favorite programs at the moment are Lost, Heroes, Dexter, 24 (provided they change things up in season 7), Smallville (I honestly think it sucks now but continue watching out of habit), The Office, and Prison Break. Lost being my favorite, I will hopefully be writing about that as often as possible.

At any rate, I am sure there will also be some random ramblings from time to time about the state of the world or my personal grievances or other rants of that nature. I am looking to both entertain and inform and bring the world together in perfect harmony, through a blog.

So sit back, relax, and enjoy the ride.

SeannyD

P.S. I hate the word blog. But what other word for this sort of thing is there anyway?