Cancer, Cults And Carl (Jung)

Well, the end of the year is nearly upon us, and I finally watched the last few films I needed to reach fifty! Now, partly because 2012 is close to ending, and partly because the blogs would have been really short, I've put the last three movies together. I'm sorry for the lackluster reviews but in all honesty, there isn't a huge amount I can say on them.

Before I go any further, I should remind people of something, even though I will post this reminder for my movie round-up of the year. The movies of 2012 I'm doing, I'm going by Australian release date and availability at the time of cinema release. If I can't see it with ease, and it was released at the tail end of 2011, it counts. Hell, the film I review below, if I remember correctly, ONE cinema in all of Victoria got it this year (much like The Cabin In The Woods). But I finally got to see it on DVD, so here's 50/50

Adam (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) finds out he has a malignant tumor in his spine, which will require chemotherapy, and it's only a 50-50 chance of survival. He starts seeing a therapist, Katherine (Anna Kendrick) and with her help, and the help of his best friend, Kyle (Seth Rogen), he attempts to beat his illness.

Much like A Dangerous Method further on, whether or not this works for you relies a great deal on cast interaction and convincing acting. Thankfully, Joseph Gordon-Levitt is the lead, in what I'd say is a banner year for the guy. As an actor who's finally getting the respect he deserves, he offers up a damn good performance, relate-able and sympathetic.

Seth Rogen plays... well, himself. Again. Snarky guy who can prove he has a big heart and gets a moment to chew out a person who's done wrong. I like Seth Rogen and all, but I have to wonder if he can play anything else. Wait, scratch that. Monsters Vs. Aliens. He was hilarious in that. And while he's bad here, can we give the man a challenge worthy of his skills?

Being criminally underused as Adam's mother is Anjelica Huston, delivering perhaps my favourite performance of the movie. Constantly doting on her son, while taking care of a husband with Alzheimer's, it reminds me of why she's great, and why she needs more work.

On the other end of the spectrum, Bryce Dallas Howard plays Rachael, Adam's girlfriend seen in the first half of the film. Her performance isn't actually bad, but from a character perspective, she's detestable. Not wanting to support her sick boyfriend by staying by his side while getting treatment is one thing (it may be hard for some people to sit through and not want to burst into tears, so it can be forgivable) but cheating on him is unforgivable. Despite what I said about Rogen earlier, his dismissal of her and calling her out is a highlight of the film. Good thing we have Anna Kendrick's character, who is a much better fit.

Outside of the acting, the movie doesn't have that much more going for it. It's pretty much about Kyle helping Adam through his cancer and anything outside of that isn't really noteworthy, besides Adam's interactions with Katherine.

A good effort, but I have to wonder why people think so highly of this. I've seen much worse, but this really doesn't add anything new to the table. I mean, not every movie has to, but from the reactions I've seen, you'd think this was a potential game changer. 3/5

Ages ago, I talked about a movie I wanted to see, but was unable to since it skipped my local cinema. And despite getting it on DVD a few months ago, I've been neglecting it for other DVD's or new things in my life, like the stream. Well, now's the time to finally review this movie, Martha Marcy May Marlene.

Martha (Elizabeth Olsen) has escaped from a cult, and reunites with her sister, Lucy (Sarah Paulson) and goes to live with her and her husband, Ted (Hugh Dancy). But she never tells Lucy and Ted of her experiences, and as such, has a hard time readjusting to the world around her.

Going off that last sentence, that's arguably the film's biggest problem. Now, having not been through what Martha has, I can't begin to imagine the pain and torment she suffered. It's not the sort of thing I'd wish upon anyone and I can understand not wanting to share it with the world at large. But tell me, why does it seem like she has no idea how the world works? Like when her sister tells her off for swimming naked. Martha responds like a child that doesn't know they've done anything wrong.

Her sister and husband don't get let off the hook, either. Not really wanting to help, just to bitch at her and lose their patience when they have no goddamn right to.

Despite that, Elizabeth's acting is sensational, and she carries the film. She is the best thing about it, which is good being the title character and all.

A good film, but should have been better. 3/5

Speaking of movies I wanted to see but had to wait for DVD, here's the last of the year, A Dangerous Method.

Sabina Spielrein (Keira Knightley) is taken to a psychiatric hospital in Zurich, with a case of hysteria. Swiss doctor Carl Jung (Michael Fassbender) tries a new approach to treating her, based somewhat on Freud's (Viggo Mortenson) own findings, and it is largely successful, to the point where the two men collaborate and Sabina becomes a student of psychiatry.

What makes this a hard one to review is that there's only one question you need to ask: besides the terrific cast, is there anything else to expect from this movie? Well, no. Which is kind of a problem. If you don't have a good enough cast, your movie falls apart. Luckily, everyone involved is amazing. Michael Fassbender can put another great role under his belt, Viggo's as great as expected and Keira is the standout. Hell, her traumatic experience-acting is better than Elizabeth Olsen's in the movie above!

Her chemistry with Fassbender is really believable too, and I hope the two of them get do act together more in the future.

If there is another aspect to note, while the use of music is minimal, it's rather nice, and fits right in with the movie's general direction.

If this were a play, it would be a knock-out. As a film, it's not great, but the acting more than makes up for it. 3.5/5

I apologize again for the lack of meat to these reviews, if I had watched these movies sooner, I wouldn't been pressed for time and felt the need to compact three reviews into one blog post.

But at least now, all fifty movies for the year are undone! And over the next week or so, I'll do a three-part blog ranking those movies, same as last year. So, keep an eye out for those.

It's Lloyd Approved, What More Can I Say?

Oh boy. This... this review is going to be tricky.

For anyone who has seen my tribute for the fourth year anniversary of Channel Awesome/That Guy With The Glasses, they'll know I'm a fan of the site, and the personalities within (the ones I'm aware of, anyway. And I will get around to watching more in the new year).

Among these personalities is Brad Jones, better known to the fandom as The Cinema Snob, among other characters. On The Cinema Snob (which you can find at the TGWTG site, http://thatguywiththeglasses.com/, and his own, http://thecinemasnob.com/ ), Brad Jones reviews movies of an exploitive nature, mostly gory horror or pornographical material. He started off doing reviews on YouTube, until his review of Nail Gun Massacre caught the attention of the DVD distributors, and that led to him being kicked off of YouTube, and starting his own site, which I have listed above.

The man's got many projects under his belt, most of them being series still occurring to this day, like The Big Box (a look at movies on VHS and the covers they come in) and 80's Dan (a sitcom about a hard partying 80's guy who somehow time traveled to the present day), as well as other films (which I have yet to see, and I should make that a priority in the new year) and he and his dedicated friends (affectionately named Team Snob) have created some of the best videos you'll see on the web today (like the aforementioned 80's Dan series).

Someday, I should do something more in depth about Brad's site, but until then, let's look at the feature film about his best known character, The Cinema Snob Movie.

Craig Golightly (Brad) is a screenwriter who's eager to get his exploitation film, Black Angus, off the ground, but the head of the local film club, Dan (Ryan Mitchelle, also the director of the film) refuses permits to Craig. Craig opts to go undercover into the film club, under the guise of a pretentious film snob, and winds up in a murder mystery situation.

In my opening line, I mentioned that this was going to be a tricky one to review. That's for three reasons:

1. Being a fan of something, it can come across as bias, even if you were to review something in a negative light. For example, being a huge Batman fan, and a lover of Christopher Nolan's films, my reviews of his Batman trilogy may come across as “fanboyish”, due to the two intertwining. And I admit, on some level, my love for the Batman mythology shines through in those reviews a lot.
   At the same time, that doesn't mean every Batman film is pure gold. Batman And Robin sure as Hell isn't. I don't hate it with a fiery passion, but it is easily the black sheep of the family. And The Batman Vs. Dracula gets a very resounding “meh” from me.
   What I'm getting at is due to the fact that Brad and the gang know their stuff, their ability to make better films is already without question. That doesn't mean I won't find a flaw or something like that, but I'm going in knowing what to expect, and it's going to be hard to be disappointed. Despite the fact that it follows a different format to the show, the roots of the movie are clearly trenched in the exploitation genre, a subject Brad could write a book on (Hell, with the amount of projects he's done, I wouldn't be surprised if he is writing a book right now).
   Now, being a fan of something big like a comic book character is different to being the fan of something comparatively smaller. Brad may not have millions of fans who have grown up with him as the years have passed, but what the fanbase lacks in numbers, they make up for it with fierce loyalty and support. So, on that end of it, should I trash the film, I'll get attacked for “not getting the movie” or something like that. But if I praise it too much, I'll be seen as a suck-up who can't find even the tiniest of flaws in the work of someone I respect. Sometimes, you just can't win.
2. It's hard to recommend this. Not because of quality, Lord no! But it's a bit under the radar, and you can't exactly buy it in stores either.
   If we look at things from a “mainstream” approach, it's not going to appeal to a wide audience because of lack of familiarity with the character, the actors or even the style. It might be a little too meta or self-referential for some, but I think it works. Really, there's no other style Brad and Ryan could go with.
3. I actually don't have a lot to say about it, outside of praise for the acting (especially for Brad, Jake Norvell and Jillian Zurawski), the dialogue and the shifting of the genres working so well.
   It starts off as a Kevin Smith-styled comedy (which already appeals to me, because I love that man's work. Well, a lot of it.), and slides into a murder mystery as I mentioned above. A murder mystery with creative kills. Comedy and murder, never a bad combination in my books. Also, the music at the start and end remind me of Woody Allen films, again, not a bad thing.

The long and short of it is I really liked this movie a lot. Filled to the brim with pop culture references, ranging from obscure to popular, and a lot of lampshade hanging (like at the end, with the whole “bad guy reveals their whole backstory/motivation to the protagonist for seemingly no reason” trope), realistic reactions (well, Jake's are a little mood-whiplashy but that's WHY the character works, because he makes you laugh without taking you out of the moment), and much like Brad's character in the series, the film could be seen as a commentary on film culture today, with the exploitation genre not in good health these days, and the idea of the snobby critic who tries to find the art in everything.

I'm not going to try and analyze it because I think I'd suck at it (OK, I suck at analysis in general, but that's beside the point) but all I have left to say is if you're a fan of the Cinema Snob series, the movie should be right up your alley. If you've never seen an episode in your life, watch some of it, to get a feel for the character and the actor. It's a hard beast to review, but very much well worth your time.

Well, actually, I do have two things left to say:

If I do have a flaw with the movie, it's about something that baffles me. Maybe it's in one of the commentaries, maybe I just need to watch it again, but this movie is supposed to serve as a prequel of sorts to the show. Fine, no problem with that. But aside from the continuity errors that creates (so he goes from having a beard to being clean shaven in his first episode? And the change in location?), it doesn't really explain why he becomes the Cinema Snob. OK, we know why Brad does the role, but the way the movie ends, it's not like he's made some declaration to start picking apart bad exploitation films to reclaim the genre from the hacks or something. It's not that big a deal, but maybe it would have worked better if it was a side-story or something, like the anniversary specials on TGWTG. Or maybe I missed something and I'm just an idiot (I'd put all my money on that option).

Also, a movie mentioned within that Craig wants to make, about people trapped by floods in a casino with sharks (the title is Card Shark), I will throw money at that to somehow make it happen. Hell, the title is hilarious, how bad could the rest of it be?

An easy 4/5 from me. I'm sorry the review wasn't more informative (if I ever get a copy of the Angry Video Game Nerd Movie next year, I'll probably have the same troubles), but it's the kind of thing you need to see to really understand.

I'll Just Keep A Wanderin', Thank You

I don't think a lot of people have talked about the movie I'll be reviewing below. Well, there must be reviews, but it's not used in the same sentence with movies like Prometheus, Ted, The Avengers or Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter. Hell, I only know one person who's even seen it, he's a friend of mine. And he wasn't kind to it. Will I be any different or is he right?

At any rate, let's look at Wanderlust.

George (Paul Rudd) and Linda (Jennifer Aniston) are a married couple with high hopes for the future in their respective careers. When things take a bad turn, they go to live with George's brother, Rick (Dan Marino). On the way, they encounter the commune Elysium and choose to live their lives there instead. Until they find out commune living may not be for them.

I once saw a poster for this film at my local cinema, only to find next time it had been taken down. My first thought was “I guess it's going straight to DVD instead”, which turned out to be the case, since next month, there it was. After watching it... yeah, I can see why they made that decision.

It isn't the worst movie I've seen this year, but there's a lot that could have done to fix this movie.

For starters, I'm confused about what the movie is trying to say. At first, I thought the central message would be “People need to be more carefree in their lives, and worry less about money or material goods, so embrace a simpler life”, which I would be fine with. But the people at the commune... well, a lot of them are douchebags. They pick on George because he's not “attuned” to their lifestyle (he's been there barely two weeks, what do you want from him?), like in a scene in which George and Linda are confessing truths, and everyone seems to gang up on George, even though he's more in the right than Linda.

Now, Linda makes documentaries for a living, which is fine, more power to her. And George worked in an office, often supporting the two of them. And this is somehow a bad thing? I'm sorry, but I'm on the side of “Money= good”. And this isn't a sexism thing, I'd support Linda if she was the one working in an office. Linda criticizes George for going to that job, since it pissed him off and he doesn't even have it anymore. To address the second point first, George's boss was arrested, so the company ceased to be. His lack of job happened through no fault of his own, and she knew that. But to the first point, THAT'S HOW THE WORKING WORLD WORKS! It's not all fun and games, it's often very demanding, that comes with the territory of the working stiff. But we do it because we need the money to survive in a world that doesn't run on dreams. Sometimes, you have to put your own happiness and passion aside to carve out a living. So for her to call him out on this just screams ingratitude and self-centeredness.

Also, for something that celebrates a lot of freedom, there are apparently rules and things that are frowned upon. Like when George kills a fly, something that comes naturally to a lot of us, and he gets chastised for this act, being compared to a murderer of soldiers. Again, he's been there for under a fortnight, he hasn't conformed to your meaningless lifestyle yet. But also, for a place that lets people be free, you're kind of pushing him into your way of life, aren't you?

That's pretty much why I hate fictional characters with that attitude, one that's so “free and in tune with nature”: they're hypocrites, but often get portrayed as being in the right because their outlook on life is less aggressive.

Speaking of poorly done characters, the “villains”. A bunch of developers who want to take the land of Elysium and make it into a casino. Oh wow, wonder how this will play out? You're truly breaking new ground, here. So, naturally, the king douche of the hippies, Seth (Justin Theroux) has to turn out to be in league with the bad guys, to drive it further home how much we want him to drown in a lake.

Also, one of the hippies wants to throw a rock at the developers. Oh, so George kills a fly and gets treated like he's a future Hitler but you want to throw a rock and nobody pulls a “What the Hell is wrong with you” on her?

Not helping that particular scene is Linda going topless to support the cause of keeping Elysium safe, in front of a news crew. It's not so much the her-going-topless aspect, but the reactions of the news team back on the show, most of them are lewd comments made towards the lone female of the team. Uh, guys? You're on the air. And even if you weren't, that's a sexual harassment suit right there.

One last thing: early on in the film, one of the people at the commune, Eva (Malin Akerman) shows attraction to George and after he and Linda agree to experiment with other people while still being married, she goes off and sleeps with Seth (that's yet another problem I have with this film, since she sleeps with him a few hours later), and encourages George to go after Eva. So he spends a few minutes psyching himself up in front of the mirror, and keeps talking about his penis and what he's going to do with it. I didn't time in, but the whole thing goes on for far too long. It's almost as bad as some of the jokes on Family Guy, with its padded length. It wasn't funny from the start, and it's not funny at the end. And he ends up saying more in front of Eva anyway, just when I thought they finally killed the joke.

So, you're probably asking, did I like ANYTHING from this movie?

Well, acting-wise, Paul Rudd does a pretty good job. But then, much like I'll discuss in my next log post, he's playing a role that's not too far removed from his usual schtick. And I hate to say that, as I love that guy! He's one of my favourite actors still present on the scene today.

Jennifer Aniston, I think she's gotten better since her days on Friends. Now, I didn't hate Friends (it's actually a really good show, I need new copies of the entire run on DVD too), but Rachel was my least favourite of the six leads, so it's nice to see her so removed from that role. That being said, if you want a great movie with her in a leading role, I recommend The Good Girl (or even in a really good supporting role, Horrible Bosses).

The big draw for me, however, is Alan Alda. That guy's awesome. And in this movie, he's easily the best thing about it. Despite being one of the founders of the commune, he's way less restrictive than the other members. Actually, that could make for a metaphor on how the messages from our elders get polluted and corrupted by young people who think they know how the world works.

Alan's character, Carvin, doesn't get involved with a lot of what's going on, but he doesn't come down on anyone like a disciplinarian. In fact, he even breaks a few of the rules of the commune itself, mostly by sneaking off to a diner every Sunday for various plates of meat. His conversation with Linda is the highlight of the movie, with Carvin coming across as a little fatherly and wise, without disparaging her former lifestyle. The fact that Alan Alda is the last name in the opening credits seems disrespectful to me. The man was Hawkeye Pierce for the love of God!

So yeah, the cons outweigh the pros. It's not a terrible movie, but I wouldn't blame you if you wanted to rent it or watch it on TV. Or skip it altogether. 2/5

If You Go Out In The Woods Today, I'm Sure You're About To Die

I love the works of Joss Whedon. Buffy was one of the first shows I got into and started collecting on VHS (remember when that was a thing?), and it lead to Angel, my absolute all time favourite TV show. I still hope for a Firefly return, I eagerly await the release of Dollhouse Season 2 down here (speaking of DVD's, I really need a copy of Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog) and The Avengers was a knock-out.

So naturally I was excited for The Cabin In The Woods. Before I even knew he was involved, I was intrigued. When I found out he was co-writing and producing, my response was basically “SHUT UP AND TAKE MY MONEY!”

But does it live up to expectations or have I put too much faith into this movie?

Dana (Kristen Connolly), Curt (Chris Hemsworth), Jules (Anna Hutchison), Marty (Fran Kranz) and Holden (Jesse Williams) are college students who go to a remote cabin in the woods for some vacation time. What they didn't count on was being the focus of an operation, completely unknown to them, in which they are expected to die.

Normally, I post things here and there to talk about a movie's ending, with the spoiler tag and such. But even though it's mentioned heavily on its own TVTropes page (Hell, the page is split into “Safe Tropes”, which are the Tropes used but you have to highlight the blank sections for the spoilers, and “Spoiler Tropes”, which just outright tell you what direction the ending is heading for), I will not spoil the ending or even bring it up, except for this one remark I want to make: it is the best ending for a horror movie I've seen since Drag Me To Hell (and on the subject of that movie, I freaking love it).

But I guess I may have spoiled how I feel about this movie a little soon. Yes, I love this film. Some of that MAY be due to the fact that Joss is involved. OK, a lot of it, because of the concept and writing. But nevertheless, this is a fantastic horror movie.

But here's the thing: while the acting is great, what I remember most is the concept itself, and how it's handled. This movie might as well be called “We Take Standard Horror Archetypes And Play Around With Them”.

For example, despite the five being set up as stereotypes, they exhibit traits that don't keep them pegged down in their pre-determined roles. Curt is set up to the your average jerk jock, aggressive and stupid. However, the character is well-meaning, friendly and smart. You'd only say he's the jerk jock because we've seen that character type for so long, we've come to expect it.

The movie impressed me early on with a scene in which Dana is undressing in one room, and Holden is watching briefly through a two-way mirror (which Dana does not know, she thinks it's an ordinary mirror), before letting her know he can see her. Now, he could have just kept on watching and made faces like he was getting aroused, but he did the gentlemanly thing. That makes him awesome and and he's easily my favourite character because of his chivalry.

Just because the acting isn't what I loved about the movie doesn't mean the film is slack with that aspect. Chris Hemsworth continues to be awesome (or should that be “begins his awesome”, since this was filmed in 2009), Fran Kranz brings the funny in, and hey, it has Amy Acker, what more do you want? Well, actually, I do know one little thing I want: more Tom Lenk! Seriously, if I had one complaint, it would be he needed a bigger part!

Thematically, the film runs with the idea of society forcing us into roles and labels (something the operators of the experiment count on) but sometimes, we rebel. And what makes it even more brilliant is that they choose this particular time to assert their independence when they are being relied upon to fall INTO their pre-assigned roles, for the sake of... well, not revealing that here, but suffice it to say, there is a lot of table turning here.

It's also a bit of a jab to the audience, who come expecting slaughter and gore, like the characters are gladiators in a Colosseum and we are the spectators cheering for the lions to come out.

Now, I do love me some Saw-style films, but for a few different reasons, not the whole “BLOOOOOOD! GIVE ME MOAR BLOOOOOD!” sense. I love horror movies for the atmosphere, the idea that things could change at a moment's notice, and that almost no one is safe anymore. Of course, bad horror films will still fall into a formula, and from there, the only thing it can coast on is how cool the villain is/the kills are.

The Cabin In The Woods instead offers to challenge our perceptions of not just the roles of society and the stereotypes we place on people, but on the way horror conducts itself these days. In this movie, the characters get treated with respect, and not like cattle sent off to die. The experiment operators are us, and we are the experiment operators.

Joss has always had a knack for creating three dimensional characters that keep surprising us, and this is no different. He and co-writer Drew Goddard (who also directed, so let's be clear about that, since a lot of people think Joss himself directed it) have done wonders in making us care about what happens to the people in this movie, and the movie is all the stronger for it.

An easy 4.5 and an outstanding film not just for horror, not just for Joss' career, but for 2012 films. I never got the chance to experience it in the cinema, but I'm glad I own the DVD.

And with that, I'm down to my last five films of the year. Now to pick which is next.

Some Flowers Just Need A Little Love

I've read a few books that were adapted into films for this year. The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo, The Hunger Games, The Hobbit (well, I read that one years ago but the film is due here very soon as of writing), and recently, The Perks Of Being A Wallflower. The difference between this book and the first two I mentioned is that while I think the book is on par or better than the film, it's a very different story with this story.

Charlie (Logan Lerman) is an introverted kid who is just starting high school. On his first day, the only friend he makes is his English teacher, Mr. Anderson (Paul Rudd).

That soon changes when he meets two senior students, Patrick (Ezra Miller) and Sam (Emma Watson) and is introduced to a world he never imagined he would be a part of.

So yeah, pretty much a “coming of age teen drama”. Not an easy thing to pull off well in this day and age. You need three things to make it work: solid writing, believable cast and kick-arse music.

First, the writing: well, the screenplay was adapted by the book's author, Stephen Chbosky, who also directed the film, so clearly this is a project near and dear to his heart. As such, he's had to pick and choose what would translate best to film. And it works. The dialogue feels organic, it's not cliche, and there's real feeling behind it. And a lot of the good lines go to Patrick, the joker of the group.

Which brings us to the cast. We should probably get this out of the way, since a lot of people would want to know: does Emma Watson deliver the goods in her role or does she distract? In my opinion, the former, by far. Her American accent is amazing and it's almost enough to make you forget she was even in the Harry Potter series. Her character is such a delight and if it weren't for almost everyone around her, she'd be the woobie of the cast.

Speaking of woobies, let's look at our main man Charlie. Between the book and the film, the performance is the key difference. In the book, due to its format (Charlie writes letters to an unknown person, and EVERYTHING is retold in letter form), Charlie comes across a bit... well, simple, for lack of a better word. And it all comes off as stiff and robotic. The film fixes that, not only by having a better grasp of emoting, but also by pushing the letter writing angle to the sidelines. It is still there, but nowhere near as prevalent as the book.

Because of this, Charlie comes across as more emphatic and likeable, and that's what we need him to be, since he's the outcast. He doesn't always pick up on social cues right away, like his scenes with Mary Elizabeth (Mae Whitman, who is awesome in this), but his time with Sam and Patrick helps him understand the world just a little bit more.

Patrick is the last of the trio (and here I thought I could go a whole blog without making references to Harry Potter beyond Emma Watson. Whoops) and is on the opposite end of the spectrum compared to Charlie. He's confident, attention-seeking and comfortable with who he is. This also makes him the most emotionally fragile, and Ezra let the character's vulnerabilities unfold naturally.

He and Emma are tied as the cast stand-outs for me, but throw Logan in and it makes the whole package complete.

As for the last aspect, the music? It rocks. One of the biggest pieces of praise I can shower upon the movie. It has Dexy's Midnight Runners, The Smiths, New Order AND David Bowie (more than once!) making up the soundtrack, what more do you need?
Not to mention the constant references to Rocky Horror Picture Show, and I will never demean anything that promotes Rocky Horror (except Glee, because I don't think Glee really understands half the songs it picks sometimes), even using footage from the movie itself.

Do I have issues? Yes. The movie's not terribly long, which isn't the issue. What is the issue is the removal of a subplot or two from the book, mostly involving Charlie's sister getting pregnant.

If I recall the book correctly, she gets pregnant to a guy who treats her badly. He hits her, Charlie witnesses this, and his sister says he is not to speak of it to their parents. Well, in the movie, that's the last time he's seen at all. He's mentioned twice after, but he's no longer a physical presence.

So... what was the pay-off for that then? If you weren't going to do anything with it, why bother including that part at all? That screen-time could have been used to fix the other issue I have.

That issue being: not enough screen-time for Paul Rudd! Seriously, both book and film, I loved his character! Hell, the movie doesn't even have the character's wife! He gets shafted from appearing near the end of the movie! And it's Paul Rudd playing a straight role. I mean, he's funny, but not “wise-guy” funny, like he normally is (though he's dynamite at that), and he doesn't do that a lot.

All in all, a nice movie, well worth your time. I prefer it over the book, but I still recommend the book too. 3.5/5

Today's Bond Movie Is Brought To You By The Letter 'M'

50 years of James Bond in film. Can you believe it? And the character's been around even longer, with the novels of Ian Fleming being the genesis. He's an institution these days, and will continue to be so.

So what better way for Bond to celebrate five decades of entertaining us through film than with the latest, and possibly most introspective Bond film, Skyfall.

After a botched information recovery attempt leaves him for dead, Bond (Daniel Craig) lives his life the way he wants to. But when MI6 is attacked, he returns to active duty in order to find the person responsible.

Wow, that may be the shortest synopsis I've ever written for a movie. But then, I think you know what to expect with a Bond film when going in.

…

Or do you?

When James Bond was rebooted back in 2006, the seeds were planted for a new Bond to grow. While still maintaining the traits of Bonds past, the films themselves have gone down a more... well, “realistic” tone for lack of a better word. That's not to say there isn't a sense of realism, but with Bond, escapism is also heavily prevalent.

Skyfall still has that escapism factor, but it also has a personal touch, as this film is not just an exploration of what makes Bond such an endearing concept throughout the years, but what made Bond in the first place (well, not entirely, but there is a lot of psychology on display).

We get to learn a little more of Bond's past, his upbringing, his home life. Not too much to kill off the mystique, but not so little so that you feel it's a dead-end. In fact (small spoiler here), most of the third act of the film takes place at Bond's home. Called Skyfall. Yep, that's where our title comes from.

Really, the big question of the film is: are men like Bond still relevant in this day and age or are they relics of days gone by?

Well, if the box office is any indication, Bond is still very much relevant, and he'll always be welcome. And in my opinion, he is indeed always welcome, especially if films like this are being offered up.

From an action standpoint, it's a treat. It's less about Bond looking like an absolute badass with a gun while shooting mooks, and more like actual survival, particularly in the third act, when it's three against a large group, including the main villain.

But some of the earlier scenes are solid too, in particular Bond tangling with a sniper, his fist fight on top of a train at the beginning, and the absolutely amazing shot of a train crashing down beneath the tracks.

Acting-wise, everyone's a top choice, but if I have to hand out awards for this film's performances, the clear winners are Judi Dench as M, and Javier Bardem as Raoul Silva.

That's not to say that Daniel Craig has slipped as Bond. If anything, he's getting better, and he was already great to start with. Now he's become a much more stoic Bond, who can show emotion but is an expert at hiding his true feelings. Even when he comes close to anger, his face never changes. He could easily win every staring contest ever.

However, this is just as much M's movie as it is Bond's. The villain is after her personally, and even her own government is challenging her, but she never backs down and is always ready for a fight (even if it's with a snarky remark). It's more apparent in this film than in any other how much of a mother figure she is to Bond, and the fact that the two of them end up fighting Silva pretty much on their own (well, there's this awesome supporting character called Kincaid too) gives the two of them enough screentime to let the audience know how far they've come together.

Speaking of Silva (spoilers abound)... hoo boy, he's quite a different villain. Most Bond villains, their motivation is money or power. Silva, he has both, but that's not what he wants. He wants vengeance. Vengeance on a country that betrayed him when he worked for MI6, largely directed at M, who he sees as a mother figure too.

Its this viewpoint that actually makes him rather sympathetic. At the end, when he confronts M when she's virtually all alone, he breaks down with tears after seeing her in her current condition. He's like a little boy who wants approval from his mother and despite trying to kill her himself, he can't bear to see her in pain. He even wants her to kill the both of them, one shot to the head. I also like the symbolism of his death: Bond throws a knife into his back. Now, this time it's a literal backstabbing. 

Actually, this movie has quite a bit of symbolism, especially with Bond's answer in regards to a question about his hobbies: "Resurrection". Indeed, this does feel like a resurrection for the franchise itself, much like Casino Royale, especially after the mixed reaction of Quantum Of Solace (also a terrific film, in my opinion).

It's rare to see a Bond villain you feel kind of sorry for, regardless of their terrible deeds, and Javier makes him a memorable villain, ranking up there with Trevelyan, Bolfeld and Goldfinger for classic Bond villain status.

Throw in some solid support, with reintroduced Bond characters like Moneypenny (Naomie Harris, not a spoiler, even with how the film ends. Cute, by the way, and please note my sarcasm. We knew she was Moneypenny before the film began, and the way you hid it makes no sense. New fans won't know who Moneypenny is, old fans wondered why you bothered keeping it a secret. Consider this my big gripe with the movie, though Naomie and Daniel work well together) and Q (Ben Winshaw, who I've never heard of, but I approve of his Q and hope he returns) and you have a film well worth your time. 4/5

(One last note: Adele's theme song? Oh, just so amazing! It's easily one of THE best Bond films, with its sombre tone, and determined lyrics. Combined with the opening sequence, it's a thing of beauty, and is probably the best credits sequence I've seen in a film this year since The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo).

Well, seven more to go now. This is the end... aaaaand, now the song is stuck in my head again. As it should be.

My Pet Monster: Now With Actual Pets

We probably won't see another year in which we get two Tim Burton films, so I'd be a fool to pass them both up. So, after Dark Shadows, we now have Frankenweenie, based on the short film he did back in '84. 

Victor Frankenstein (Charlie Tahan) is an introverted young man, with his only friend being his faithful dog, Sparky. One day, Sparky is hit by a car and Victor is distraught. He soon hits upon the idea of bringing Sparky back to life through lightning, and soon enough, his canine companion is back from the dead. Word soon gets out, and Victor's classmates determine what to do with this newfound information...

The better of the two Burton films (but remember, I didn't hate Dark Shadows and I will happily buy it on DVD one day). That being said, there are quite a few flaws.

First off, the film's setting. The film is in black-and-white and invoked a 50's suburbia setting, which is fine. The problem is, some pieces of dialogue indicate it takes place in modern times, like the use of the term “computer simulation” and someone brings up Pluto's demotion. It's a bit off-putting, the mix of nostalgia for the old days and throwaway references to the modern times. I'd have preferred it to stay on the side of the 50's, it would seem more convincing.

This universe actually brings up a question I have for the movie: do the events of this movie mean that Mary Shelley's Frankenstein doesn't exist? Is this like the universe of Sherlock, in which he and Watson are in the modern day, with no stories within the universe written by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle? What of Dracula and all the other creatures?

My other problems with the film involve the ending, and while it's probably easy to predict how this will all play out, I'll put the spoiler tag here now. So, spoilers.

The ending moral message is a poor choice. At one point, after Sparky's resurrection has been revealed to Victor's parents, his father (Martin Short) is concerned that Victor has tampered with the natural order. Towards the end, however, after Sparky has died again (this time sacrificing his life to defeat a monster cat-bat), Victor's father offers to help bring him back to life again, even though this time Victor was ready to accept Sparky's death.

So... what kind of message does that send to the younger crowd? “Hey kids, when someone you love dies, keep using electricity to bring them back! Doesn't matter if you come to accept their death, or even if they want to stay dead, just zap them!”
Also, they're going to have to keep doing this every time he dies. Does it work regardless of method of death? If he eats something foul and keels over, will electricity still work the same? Actually, CAN he die via that method? I mean, he's technically a zombie dog...

Also, said ending is very abrupt. When Sparky comes back to life yet again, he runs up to the dog he's sweet on (who now sports a Bride Of Frankenstein style 'do, thanks to an earlier encounter with Sparky. It's a cute little reference) and they play and make cute faces at each other... and that's it. Movie's over, nothing left to see here folks! What was the point of bringing him back to life, and imprinting the moral message mentioned above, only to pull the curtain?

And one last gripe, a minor one: the movie keeps hinting at Victor having a crush on his neighbour, Elsa (Winona Ryder), and her vice versa, but they don't really do anything with it. It's just kinda... there. And that's another reason the abrupt ending doesn't help, makes all the development for naught. And the movie's barely 90 minutes long, including credits!

Despite all that, there are things to love about the film:

The stop-motion work is as impressive as always, but some of the creature designs especially impress, like the giant turtle and the cat-bat I mentioned above. Now I want to see a stop-motion old fashioned monster movie. Or... Godzilla in stop-motion! That'd be neat!

The voice cast is splendid, particularly Catherine O'Hara and Martin Short in their roles (and they each have multiple roles, though for O'Hara, her stand out is the gym teacher, and for Short, Victor's father), and the aforementioned Charlie Tahan and Winona Ryder.

The stand-out, however, is Martin Landau as Mr. Rzykruski, Victor's science teacher. It's easy to guess who he's modeled on (and whoever did the work on him, you deserve a raise or something because that's some excellent work), and he's a veritable barrel of excitement. Not so much the character, but the feeling he invokes in not only the students, but the audience. He's pretty much the only adult with a brain in this movie, and his talking down to the adults in one scene is the best part of the movie. He openly insults their intelligence, and the whole thing reads like a criticism for people who mistrust science or learning in general. The guy's a hoot, so it's a pity the character is dropped halfway through the film.

And overall, the relationship between Victor and Sparky is really sweet, especially since he's a nice kid. And the dog is just ever so playful. So it really does resonate with the audience, what the two of them go through.

I could go over more aspects of the film (like how confusing it is that the other kids can bring back their dead animals and they go evil, bar one, even though they did nothing different to Victor. So, just because Victor did what he did out of love, that makes it OK? He still messed with forces behind his comphrension, and acted out of a somewhat selfish desire) but what you need to know is it's a nice film, with Burton doing what Burton does best: combining the mundane and the fantastical with good natured humor and a good heart. 3.5/5

OK, eight more films to review before I've reached fifty. Time to go through my DVD's for six of those and await the last two to arrive at the cinema.

Old Man, Look At My Life, I'm A Lot Like You Are

With less than two months to go until the end of the year, and ten movies left, I'm in the last lap now. But I really gotta get into gear, so most likely, the posts you'll see will be those movies. So, after this, just nine more to go to get to my goal of fifty.

In the year 2044, a group of young men carry out assassinations for crime lords from the year 2074, the year in which time travel was invented. The crime lords send the targets back in time to dispose of all evidence.

One of these “loopers” is Joe Simmons (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), a young man with a blasé attitude towards life and heavy dedication to his job. Eventually, his adult self (Bruce Willis) gets sent to him, to “close the loop”. Old Joe, however, gets away and starts making a plan of his own.

That's the abridged version, and I know I left out a key player or two, but I'll get to them.

The third film by Rian Johnson and yet another solid effort (in case you're curious, his first two films are Brick and The Brothers Bloom, with the former being in my top 100 films of all time. Though I really need to readjust that list for all the stuff I've seen since I first created it).

One small aspect I like about the film is despite being set in the future, it doesn't look THAT different to the present day, just maybe a little flashier in the vehicles and the currency's changed. Oh and telekinetics but I'll get to that too. I think by now we've come to expect the future to not look like The Jetsons (and honestly, do we want it to? If you have vertigo, you'd HATE it) and all the better.

Acting-wise, the cast is top-notch. Since I didn't mention her above, Emily Blunt is sensational as Sara, mother to a child that may be an important figure in the year 2074. I actually didn't recognize her at first, mostly because of her Southern accent. She's a strong character too, her first words being threats against Joe (we know it's Joe but she doesn't) about what she intends to do if he doesn't leave, something she says while holding a gun. As she gets to know Joe, her defenses lower, and we learn just how much she cares about her son, a boy who is convinced that her deceased sister was his mother.

Speaking of the boy, though... he's the weakest aspect of the film. His name is Cid (Pierce Gagnon) and I'm sorry to say that he's a terrible actor. He never pulls a convincing moment, he either acts above his age (think Dewey in Malcolm In The Middle, minus the ability to act with a sweet disposition) and thus looks condescending, or he yells. A lot. And you hate him. And you really wish Old Joe (who is heading for him) would hurry up and get there. He's also telekinetic so he's being built up as a special child, which doesn't help. Hopefully the actor will improve over time but when I get this on DVD, I'm probably going to end up muting any part he's in minus the very end.

But naturally, the stars of the show can be counted on to deliver the best performances. I'd comment on the individual performance of both Joseph and Bruce, but I can sum it up with what I feel is the film's crowning glory: Joe and Old Joe alternate between being the hero and the villain, swapping roles with the snapping of fingers. Old Joe's goal once he's in 2044 is to prevent his wife from dying in 2074. Joe's goal is to close the loop, like he promised his employers, and get his payment (which comes in gold bars instead of the usual silver for other kills. I actually think it would have been more interesting the other way, kind of symbolic that you get 30 pieces of silver for betraying oneself. Or maybe I'm just an idiot. Probably that).

Later in the film, the tables get flipped. Joe's new goal is to protect Sara and Cid from Old Joe, because Old Joe (spoiler here) is coming after them, believing Cid to be the Rainmaker, the most powerful crime figure in 2074. So, Old Joe goes from someone fighting for his wife's survival to a child killer. Yeah, that's a bombshell. Yet you can't fully hate him.

Both Joseph and Bruce dominate the screen, alone or together, and help sell the film. The action sequences are nice, showing a sort of “passing the torch” from an old pro like Willis, to a young up-and-comer like Levitt. Though I'm hoping Bruce has still got a few more years in him, he's one of the better stars of the action circuit (also because a Red 2 would kick arse).

Highly recommended, and yet another notch for Johnson. A man to watch as the years continue, he's sure to deliver more A-game stuff (and even though it's only a rumor, can he PLEASE direct the Batman reboot, if that should come to pass?). 4/5

OK Shamblers, Let's Get Shamblin'

Yeah, I know it's two weeks after Halloween, but I watched these movies over Halloween and I wanted to share my thoughts.

When I started out, one of my earliest posts (my second, if memory serves) was about the zombie craze, and not long after that, I did one for my fave horror movies. Well, this year, I'm going to be combining aspects of those, so to speak. This year, I'm marathoning movies again, only this time I only have one night off, and decided to make the most of it with a theme. It came down to a choice between zombies/flesh eaters and Troma. Zombies won out due to Troma having some films in their library that aren't exactly horror, and some of their horror bordering on horror-comedy. That's not to say that makes them less legit, just that I wanted something with outright horror, with maybe a little comedy for balance (a couple of movies in this marathon are Troma films, so they're still represented).

Rather than be in-depth analysis (like I'm good at that anyway), they'll just be short opinions on the films I watch, of which there are seven. None of them are 2012 releases though, but I'll be returning to that shortly, especially since I only have two months left. Looper should be the next post, along with Frankenweenie, but since I finally got my own copy of The Cabin In The Woods, it could go either way.

But with all that out of the way, let's get to the films

• Zombie Flesh Eaters: it takes its time, but by the end, you'll be rewarded. The make-up/costuming for the zombies is just fantastic (especially for the zombie with worms in his eye). The scene with the splintered wood going through the eye... damn!
  Acting-wise, no one stands out but no one is crap, either, so I have no complaints.
  Gore value, pretty damn good. Might actually work as a bridge between Dawn Of The Dead and Day Of The Dead (though not directly bridging the two, obviously), kinda like a comic mini-series only filmed instead of printed.
  Also, shark vs. zombie= one of the best things I've seen this year. 3.5/5
  
  
• Burial Ground- Nights Of Terror: pretty much everything I have to say about Zombie Flesh Eaters above applies here, minus the shark and the stuff about being connected to Dawn Of The Dead. The zombies once again look fantastic, and the gore is exquisite. Even the musical cues are pretty good, too. Kind of lacking in dialogue, but hey, we're here to see zombies get their eat on, and the gettin's good.
  But that Michael character... OK, that's just creepy. He's supposed to be 10, yet he doesn't look it, and the dubbed voice makes him sound older... the Hell happened there? Not to mention the incestuous overtones with him and his mother...
  Anyway, another good one. 3.5/5

• Zombie Holocaust: first off, that's a misleading title on both counts. There are barely any zombies in it (and don't tell me that the brain-transplanted cannibals count since they were technically dead, since they're not exactly undead. Plus, I don't think they're all recipients of brain transplants.) and considering the low body count, holocaust is pure hyperbole. Cannibal Holocaust would have been only slightly more accurate, and it would have forced the film with that title to change theirs (this film predates it by a year at least).
  But then, the American title, Dr. Butcher, isn't that much more accurate either.
  Anyway, it's an alright film. The mad scientist is actually very sedate, and kind of a fascinating character. The gore isn't as impressive as the films above, but still, there are some good moments here and there. 3/5

• Redneck Zombies: first Troma film in the marathon, and honestly, it's a little all over the place. It starts off with some wacky humor, and it's enjoyable, albeit it with characters that aren't properly fleshed out. By the end, the humor's all over the place (as is the acting), all culminating in a final act that's rather slow and nearly painful to watch. Not a waste of time but not something to scour the globe for either. 3/5

• Survival Of The Dead: If you view the last three “Of The Dead” films as a second trilogy, I'd say they're like the Star Wars prequels as a whole: not terrible but considering the fanbase and how eager they were for more, the end result isn't pleasing (though I loved Revenge Of The Sith so maybe this wasn't the best choice of metaphor. Maybe even less considering Diary Of The Dead and where it fits in the canon of the series).
  At any rate, I really couldn't get invested in this film, particularly the characters. The concept of getting the zombies to actually try and eat other living beings is a nice one, but otherwise, this isn't a great entry for the series.
  Romero has two more sequels planned that he wants to do back-to-back and one can only hope they'll be an improvement. 2.5/5
  
  
• Cannibal Holocaust: Now, here's some gruesome action for you! Seriously, not for the easily squeamish. I mean, it wasn't banned in many countries for nothing. Humans, animals, no one is safe. And for a movie with this name (just one up from Zombie Holocaust in terms of title accuracy), it certainly delivers a lot more than you bargained for. The kills are highly realistic-looking (except for the animals, which ARE realistic) and I dig the style the film was shot in, with a lot of it looking like a pre-cursor to the found footage style that is prevalent today.
  Can't say I sympathize with the plight of most of the protagonists but considering their own actions, I'm not entirely sure we're supposed to. If you want gruesome stuff, this should fit the bill. 4/5
  
  
• Cannibal! The Musical: actually not all that grisly, but still very entertaining. The songs are great (especially That's All I'm Asking For), it's hilarious and goes in very unexpected paths. It's a Troma film, but you wouldn't know it from looking at it. With the creators of South Park at the helm (this was before the show aired, if memory serves), you're in good hands. 4/5
  Well, that concludes this marathon. I really should do another one some time soon. Maybe I'll blog about it, I still have a whole bunch of horrors and such. In the meantime, must plow through the remaining 10 movies for 2012.
  
  

I'm Getting Too Old For These Hits

Now that we're into the final quarter of the year, I better start cracking down on these films I've had sitting in my to-watch pile for a while now, so the next few posts will most likely be on those movies.

Today, it's the last DC Universe Original Animated film of the year, Batman: The Dark Knight Returns Part 1.

An adaptation of the classic Frank Miller book, The Dark Knight Returns Part 1 is about a world where Batman retires from crime-fighting after the death of Jason Todd, the second Robin. A decade after said retirement, Gotham's gotten worse and Batman can't take it anymore. He dons the mantle once again, despite his advanced age, and sets out to reclaim the city.

I actually managed to procure my own copy of the comic the other day, though I have read it several times via a copy from the library. I've already spoken a little about it in my Batman comic recommendations list, but for those who haven't read it yet, it's a fantastic Batman comic, and the best Frank Miller work I've ever read (though that's not hard since he wrote All-Star Batman And Robin, which is a travesty except for the art). OK, it's not perfect (Frank, why do you hate Selina Kyle?) but what is?
The dialogue remains true to the characters, the concept of “does the world need a Batman?” gets fair representation on both sides and there are a few great images that you will never get out of your head, either because they're awesome (Bruce's fight with Superman), or horrific (the last time you see the Joker. Yeah...). So as you can imagine, both films have a LOT to live up to, considering how influential the story was.

Part 2 is expected to be released early next year, but until then, let's see how Part 1 fares.

For anyone who has read the comic, the end of the film is roughly at the same point as the end of the second issue, but the final scene of the film is actually taken from earlier in the comic (more on that later)

In all honesty... the film's actually very underwhelming, given what we're adapting here. Don't get me wrong, it's not a terrible film, not in the slightest. It's just, considering what the comic presents us with, a lot of it is lacking in this adaptation. I wasn't expecting this film to reinvent the wheel or anything, since Batman doesn't need a reinvention after having had one at the hands of Nolan and his talented cast and crews for the latest films, but I'm not quite sure the creative team for this knew exactly what impact the dialogue had for the book.

That's my biggest problem with the film right there: the lack of internal monologue. The comic is heavy with the internal monologue, a lot of which works well. Frank Miller really got the Batman character down, as well as the Joker, and it's one of the few times he's written Superman with respect. Each of them gets at least one memorable monologue and it's Frank at his best (we try not to speak of The Dark Knight Strikes Again... though personally, I don't hate it but it gets too bogged down in politics and is less about Batman than it is the other DC heroes.)

So, to discard some of the top-notch writing, simply because it's spoken in the character's heads and not as actual dialogue, it takes away from the experience.

For example, early on, Bruce Wayne gets mugged by a couple of mutant gang members and reconsiders his opinion on Joe Chill, who he used to consider the lowest of the low. The movie cuts that, and anything Bruce thinks about while in his Batman gear.

But by removing the fantastic writing, audiences who haven't read the comic won't get what Bruce is trying to achieve. Yes, seeing old man Bruce beating up mooks is still fun, but the dialogue just added so many layers.

The scene I mentioned above is also one of my favourites, definitely within the top five moments of the comic for me. Three of my other favourites won't appear until the second part, and as for my other, I'll save that for when I hand out praise, because that scene is actually done well.

Another gripe I have is that the animation looks too colourful for its own good. I mean, the Gotham of the comic wasn't devoid of colour, but it certainly didn't look as bright and cheerful as the film's version. Well, cheerful may be the wrong word, but it just looks lonely, as opposed to looking like a craphole. Or, even more of a craphole than normal.

I get that they may be trying to appeal to a more general audience, and thus things have to look a little less... depressing, for lack of a better word, but considering how these are straight to DVD, and more often than not an adaptation, it's not exactly going to bring people in en masse. So, the majority of people buying these are familiar with the source material, or at least know beforehand that this is an adaptation.

That being said, I still did enjoy the film on its own merits and there are things I need to praise:

While all the voice acting is good, the two stand-outs are, naturally, the voices for Batman and Robin (Peter Weller and Ariel Winter, respectively).

Yep, Robocop as Batman. I've long since considered Clint Eastwood for the role when I was hoping for a live action adaptation, but hey, Peter Weller's a good choice for the cartoon. He's grim and stoic, as a Batman should be, but one that's weary, and he's a good fit.

Ariel Winter, best known for her role in Modern Family, is more than capable of voicing Carrie Kelly, who in herself is a refreshing character (especially with Frank's track record with women. Ho boy... no pun intended, by the way). Ariel voices Carrie with a lot of spunk, confidence and determination, something I definitely give the thumbs-up to.

But if there's one thing I praise more than any other, it's how my favourite scene from the book was handled.

In the comic, Harvey Dent is seemingly cured of his Two-Face persona once and for all, with his face restored. But after this announcement is made on TV, he disappears. Not long after Batman reclaims the mantle, he confronts Harvey, who admits that he is now one man... Two-Face. “Both sides match...”. The panel in the comic even shows Harvey Dent, with his face now resembling Two-face completely, even if physically he looks like the old Harvey Dent. Two-Face has taken over, and he has come to terms with that. Batman can do nothing but sympathize and be left just a little bit disappointed.

And in the movie, the scene is just as brilliant. Wade Williams, who was Black Mask for a previous Batman DCUAO production, Under The Red Hood (and Bellick in Prison Break), voices Harvey and for what little screen time he gets, he makes the most of it. The scene is no less powerful, and nothing has been lost in translation. Harvey is still a broken man, a man who can't change, even as the world has changed around him. Much like Batman. Fantastic scene, just fantastic.

Also, kudos to the creative team for managing to slip in a reference to Carrie's parents being stoners. Even with an M rating down here, I still expected any such references to be omitted. But nope, the “”I was tripping the whole time” line made it in. That actually shocked me. Carrie's parents are... well, slack. Very bohemian and all “down with the establishment”, which in itself was great commentary, about loose style parenting.

All in all, a very good effort, but lacking the punch of the spectacular dialogue found within the comic. But not a waste of your time, and still better than other Batman related fare like The Batman Vs. Dracula and Batman And Robin. 3.5/5

(P.S one other thing to praise though... the final scene. It was actually in the middle of the first issue, but as a segway to Part 2... oh man, wise choice. No spoilers, but one word sums it all up nicely: “Darling”. If you've seen it, you know what it means and what's coming. Part 2 could end up being the superior installment, and hopefully they'll fix the mistakes they made with this one, especially when it comes to my remaining favourite scenes)

The Manic Pixie Dream Girl, In All Her Glory

Can't remember the last time I did a movie review (well, it would have been last month or so when I saw Total Recall, which I can't... totally recall).

So, it's time for another. This time, a little film called Ruby Sparks.

Calvin Weir-Fields (Paul Dano) is a young writer who's suffering from writer's block. Under direction from his psychiatrist, Dr. Rosenthal (Elliot Gould), Calvin writes a short story, only instead of being about his dog, like he was supposed to, it ended up being about his dream girl, a girl by the name of Ruby Sparks (Zoe Kazan). Ruby actually comes to life, through means unknown, and Calvin loves the idea of having his dream girl become literal. At first...

(Spoiler warning, I will go into heavy detail about the final act).

I'll cut to the chase: I loved this movie. When I left the cinema, I left feeling like I had seen something wonderful and magical.

A lot of this is going to go into the philosophical aspects of the story and finale, so I want to go over the characters first.

I'll start with the supporting characters, since a lot of them don't get a great deal of screen time, but what little they do get, they make the most out of.

Annette Bening and Antonio Banderas play Calvin's mother, Gertrude, and her boyfriend, Mort, and both are just a hoot, but especially Banderas. He's just so relaxed and easygoing, you can be yourself around the guy and he won't judge you. He's forgiving and inviting and it's one of the best uses of a supporting character in recent history.

And Elliot Gould, oh, I love this guy. I wish he'd get bigger roles these days, but even for the... what is it, 10 minutes he's on screen, I was still overjoyed. He's still as witty as ever.

But it's the two leads that sell this movie. Paul Dano is relateable and it's fantastic to see him in a leading role (his best known roles to this point are arguably Little Miss Sunshine, directed by the same team who directed this gem, and There Will Be Blood). As emotional as his creation gets, he matches it with the appropriate response, but even when coming off as distant or even controlling, he's still sympathetic.

But the biggest applause must be held for Zoe Kazan, who runs the gamut of emotions. Whatever Calvin writes her to do, she does, and Zoe is able to pull off each transition brilliantly. She's able to invoke a reaction from the audience regardless of mood swing.

The ending, however, is where I give the film its biggest compliments. So, for the next few paragraphs, spoilers will arise.

Calvin eventually tells Ruby that she is a product of his mind, and demonstrates it through a series of sentences that Ruby then enacts right in front of him. He decides to free her from being her creation and let her live her own life.

The ending just unfolds so beautifully. From the music reaching a crescendo right along side Ruby's acting out of Calvin's commands to the performances of Dano and Karzan, the ending just has so much to love.

Thematically, there are so many moments of fridge brilliance to behold.

Throughout the movie, Calvin has been trying to control Ruby, by writing in new “canon” for her character, relating to their relationship. By freeing her at the end, he is, in his own way, creating a “death of the author” concept. Now that Ruby is a part of the world, she has a life of her own. No matter what Calvin intended, he has no say in her personality any more. She is to be interpreted for herself as she is, not how he wants her to be seen.

At the same time, she is still a reflection on himself, before he “releases” her. One of the commands he issues through his typewriter is that Ruby bark like a dog, while another has her repeatedly claim “You're a genius. I'll love you forever”. Not only does this scene reach the emotional zenith for Dano and Karzan (with the way she was saying it, looking like she was about to cry, I actually wanted to scream at Calvin “Enough! You're hurting her, can't you see that?!” and it was at this point that I knew I loved this movie), but it's a callback to an earlier theme, of Calvin hating to be called a genius. By debasing her, he is debasing himself. He is using those words to confront his own insecurities and flaws.

The whole movie is just a beautiful experience. Even the little things to think about, like despite the fact that Calvin pretty much controlled Ruby, he still gave her the initial spark of independence to begin with. He could have written her as being some submissive bimbo who has literally no mind of her own, or a robot used purely for sexual urges, but he didn't. So right from the start, he viewed her with love and respect, much like an author who treats their novels as something special, and not just something to squeeze out for quick cash.

Combine this with themes like the idea of images, and people in love with ideas of other people (quite literal in this case, another reason I love this film) and you have a film experience like none other. I highly recommend this to anyone looking for something special. Such an emotional impact this film left on me. 4.5/5

So What Now?

Wow, look at that. 100 posts. I know that might not seem so special, since it's not like it's a great feat, putting thoughts into blog form, but still, 100's a good number.

I thought about what I wanted to do for my 100^th post. I mean, I wanted to do something different, not a movie review, not a comic recommendation. But what to do?

Well, I think I have the answer: though I probably have a readership of... three people, if that, I still write in order to practice my craft and because someone may be unlucky enough to stumble on an earlier post and think “Well, this doesn't entirely suck” and decide to read more. That's probably a low probability but hey, it can happen.

So, what I want to know from anyone reading this, people who have read previous posts, is this: what can I do to improve this blog? And before you say “Suck less”, that won't be happening anytime soon.

Are there things you want me to discuss? Things you want me to drop? Certain movies/shows you want me to cover? As much as I can come up with things to go over, feel free to throw some suggestions my way.

I also want to use this post to not just apologize for the umpteenth time about lack of consistent updates, but to also confess something.

Lately, I haven't had the highest of motivation to write posts for this blog. Part of it is concern over my writing, which I admit hasn't been high caliber as of late.

Another is my new duty with the stream, which I do every Saturday morning at 10 AM (Friday 8 PM EST over in America). Now, I love doing the stream, talking with my fellow TGWTG fans and discussing the latest in geek fandoms, but I meet with my co-hosts every Friday to go over the topics for the next day and after the stream itself, we discuss how it went and brainstorm ideas for the future. Now, I could write my posts while I'm in the meeting, but the stream requires a great deal of focus and since it's not mine and mine alone, I would be dishonouring my co-hosts by not giving the stream my full attention on those days.

The biggest, perhaps, is work. Now, my work isn't exactly hard or glamorous to justify a huge rant or anything, but my job could be made easier if I wasn't given the lion's share of the tasks. Last time I checked, I wasn't Boxer the horse. I work a console at a BP service station overnight, and for nearly 6 hours, I work alone. Thus, I have to stop for anyone and everyone who passes through. And even when someone else takes over while I'm in my last hour (that's providing everything else hasn't screwed up before then, which is actually uncommon), I could still be summoned at any moment to help the clear the customer line.

While the job isn't normally physically draining, it can be mentally draining, especially since I do it six nights a week and sometimes, one night off doesn't help. So, sometimes I don't have the motivation to do a blog post because I need time to decompress after work. And since this is something I do in my leisure time and isn't something that is demanded by someone higher-up, this often falls by the wayside.

I will try and make a more active attempt to get posts out but I just thought I'd share why these posts have been few and far between.

Also, I want to take this opportunity to say that I'll be stopping posts on the rest of Smallville, due to the fact that I'm not enjoying the series as much as I should be since I've been trying to analyze it as well as watch. I will return to them one day but not until I've watched the series all the way through at least once, and then be more thorough on the next viewing. Not to mention the fact that so far, besides Clark and Lana, character development is scarce and the only other character to get significant dimension is Lex, who is taking quite a beating character-wise. I mean, don't get me wrong, I love Chloe but her character's already pretty set. She can and will develop more, but she was already pretty mature and consistent, if that makes any sense.

So, until then, expect more movies as I reach the final stretch for my 50 films of the year, as well as all sorts of different topics (like the next two I want to do).

And apologies for a lackluster 100^th post. Let's hope the next 100 (if I go that high) will be better.

Do You Remember The 21st Night Of September?

Well, it's been a while since I've done a movie review hasn't it? So, let's take a break from Smallville for the time being and look at one of the latest releases (at least here, anyway).

And at the same time, I'm going to do this as another Old Vs. New.

So, let's look at both adaptations of the Philip K. Dick short story “We Can Remember It For You Wholesale”, Total Recall. 

But first, I apologize, I said I'd have another post out by the end of last week. I can definitely say I'll have another out this week though, being so early in the week and such.

Sometime into the future, Douglas Quaid (Arnold Schwarzenegger in the old, Colin Farrell in the new) visits a place called Rekall, a facility that implants memories and experiences to make it seem like you've visited somewhere exotic when you haven't even left the office. Quaid has been experiencing vivid dreams as of late and wants to have a memory implanted resembling those dreams. However, it turns out his current life is an implant of sorts and he's actually a secret agent working with a resistance group fighting the film's villain, Cohaagen (Ronny Cox in the old, Bryan Cranston in the new).

I haven't read the short story (I really need to at some point) so any analysis I make will be for the films and the films only.

I can see why Doug Walker's review in The Nostalgia Critic for the original wasn't an Old Vs. New. At the risk of playing my hand early, the 90's film is easily superior. That's not to say the new film is without merits, just... well, let's get into it.

I'm not going to break it down aspect by aspect and compare the two and award points, since as I said above, the first film is the clear winner but I will be pointing out what the second film does right or wrong compared to the first.

Let's start with the leading role. Now, when it comes to action films, I'm usually fond of the action hero who doesn't look like a tank, the guy who looks a little more... well, normal for lack of a better word. And not just look, but mannerisms and dialogue go a long way. And for the most part, Colin is pretty convincing as a reluctant (to a point) action hero, he hits the right notes.

But Arnold... come on, it's Arnold! This is the kind of thing he does best! It's almost like the role was tailor made for him.

Admittedly, I'm cutting it short by not going into detail about the other actors in both films, but the second film's ensemble suffers the same general problem as the movie, which I'll get into.

However, one of the second film's biggest wins comes with Bryan Cranston as the villain, Cohaagen. I find it hard to actually pick who played the villain better, both were great at playing slimy yet charming arseholes. And hey, Bryan Cranston deserves every piece of praise he gets, and the fact that's on a roll with movie roles lately is something I'm happy about.

The biggest problem with the second film is how damn serious it is. The humor is downplayed (and I can barely think of any of the jokes now, come to think of it) and everything looks so dull and lifeless. When we see where Quaid lives, there's very little colour and it's raining virtually all the time (seriously, Total Recall 2012, do you think you're actually a Blade Runner remake?).

Contrast that with the friendly nature of the first film. Quaid's place looks futuristic and inviting, his work environment looks normal, even the Rekall office looks like an actual establishment, resembling that of a dentist's office. In the 2012 version, it looks more like a brothel or opium den. Ugh, are you trying to depress us?

Jessica Biel plays her role as Milena super-seriously too, like she forgot she wasn't on the set of Blade: Trinity. Yes, Milena is serious in the original but she had emotion, she had passion. She wasn't like some jaded war veteran.

Also, small thing, but instead of traveling to Mars, we're on Earth, which has been divided into two sections: The United Federation Of Britain and The Colony. See, the thing with the Mars aspect, it provided a better reason to go to Rekall in the first place, since Quaid wanted memories implanted of Mars. He was filled with whimsicality at the idea. And the abnormal creatures featured on Mars were created with a labour of love (well, the make up and costumes and such obviously). It was a well developed world, and again, very colourful and vibrant.

What does the new version feature? Symbolism pertaining to spy culture (the secret agent dream instead of Mars, The Spy Who Loved Me is shown early on as a book Quaid reads. Cute. Real cute) and possibly allegories into the whole “We are the 99%” thing and I say “Cut the crap. Not every movie needs to have an agenda”.

Look, new version, why so serious? Where's your element of fun?

And where's the cool tech? Where are the cabs with the cool talking robots? Why are we stuck with phones embedded in people's hands (which must be awkward in everyday life. Seriously, how do you not accidentally activate that thing just clapping your hands)?

Before we get to my other big problem, I do want to comment that both films have an excellent soundtrack, so kudos. The action scenes are punctuated with invigorating music, that get you all pumped for the fight's climax.

But now the second big problem: in the original movie, the ending of the film left the whole thing ambigious as to whether or not the events were a dream or if they really happened. There was evidence for both, even Arnold and the director disagreed on which way it ended.

The new version does away with that by basically confirmed that no, it all happened. With maybe ONE piece of evidence to suggest it wasn't. I still say it's a dream, because everything works out for the good guys. Yes, the same thing happens in the original but you don't see the wider effects on Mars, so you don't know how things have played out. New version, no, it's like they needed to confirm that the day is saved.

So at the end of it all, the original wins out and has earned a 4/5 from me.

As for the new version, on its own merits, it's a 3/5.

Oh and one other thing: as much as I don't hate Kate Beckinsale, if you think she is worth more than Sharon Stone AND Michael Ironside, you are sadly, sadly mistaken. She's basically a generic action lady at this point isn't she? Can't she do anything else?

A Whole Lotta Nothing Goin' On

Wow, I have left posting this a long time, haven't I? Apologies all, I'll try and get another post out this week to make up for it.


 

And we march on with Smallville, jumping into the third season (and yep, spoilers if you haven't seen this farm into the show).

The events of the second season finale have left Martha and Jonathan worried sick about Clark, since he slipped on a red Kryptonite ring and fled for Metropolis. Three months after his departure, Jonathan is granted temporary superpowers by Jor-El, in exchange for something that's not revealed until the end of the season, to bring Clark back to Smallville. After a great battle (that isn't long enough), Jonathan succeeds and Clark returns to Smallville, trying to pick up where he left off.

And... pick up he does. Seriously. One episode later and it's almost all forgotten about. More on this later.

So, how do our characters progress this season?

• Clark starts off the season feeling guilty of the transgressions he caused at the end of Season 2, not the least of which was hurting his mother and causing her to miscarry (oh yeah, Martha was pregnant towards the end of Season 2, despite being told she would never have children. I didn't bring it up last time because it went nowhere) but things quickly go back to normal.
• And yet again, I find a Buffy parallel. In the episode Becoming, Part 2, the second season finale of Buffy, the titular character leaves Sunnydale after a traumatic event, heading towards L.A, where she used to live. While there, she briefly holds down a waitress job and her friends and family worry about her back home.
  Clark too heads off to a big city (Metropolis, natch), leaving worried friends and family behind, and spending the entire summer there, much like Buffy in L.A, coming back just before school starts.
  Power-wise, he gains super-hearing. Yeah, doesn't sound all that impressive but the episode it happens in, Whisper, is a good one and they managed to work it in convincingly.
  Clark's relationship with Lana... yeah, it's pretty much back to square one. Or, default as I call it, since they very briefly dated (if you can call that brief). Not that it matters, because he gets a love interest in the form of Alicia Baker, in the episode Obsession. Turns out she has the power to teleport and Clark divulges to her that he has powers. However, she turns out to be just a wee bit clingy and borderline insane, as she tries to Lana so that she'll have Clark to herself. Whether or not you're disappointed she didn't succeed I'll leave up to you.
• Pete, despite learning Clark's secret last season, doesn't receive much in the way of character development. In fact, one episode, Velocity, nearly derails the character instead. In that episode, Pete reveals to Clark he's been street racing for a couple of months at that point. And later on, he refuses to take a dive and owes some thug $20,000. And Clark helps him out in very unscrupulous ways and makes Pete aware he's uncomfortable with the deeds he's undertaking.
  Pete... what the Hell do you think you're doing? Do you have meteor rocks in your head or something? Dangerous behaviour, getting Clark to bail you out, what kind of friend are you? I have a feeling the writers knew his character held little to no use anymore and just wanted to do SOMETHING with him. Well, sometimes it's better for a character to do nothing.
  And he leaves at the end of the season as well, so...
• Chloe's inquisitive nature shines through in this season, probably because the writers still wanted to push Lana and Clark together. Chloe ends up doing all sorts of investigations, with conflicting interests due to the fact that some relate to Clark and while she obviously doesn't want to lose his trust, something else important to her is usually in jeopardy if she refuses to play by the rules set out by someone higher-up.
  Like any good snoop, her investigations often bring her into the line of fire. In the episode Delete, an attempt is made on her life and Clark naturally steps in to save her. It is this episode that sees the two reconcile and it's all the better for it.
  She's still my fave character at this point, too.
• And let's see how my least favourite character, Lana, is doing this season.
  Yep, still not improving. The love interest she has this season doesn't help much. His name is Adam Knight, which some took to mean he was actually Bruce Wayne under an assumed name. I'm glad that turned out to be false, I hate the character. Maybe being in a relationship with Lana Lang turns you into this big hole of suck as a person, but I found the character to be arrogant and of little to no use to the main plot. And I found it hard to care when it was revealed he was spying on Clark and Lana for Lionel. Good riddance to bad rubbish.
  So yeah, no development for Lana. That's a big shock for you.
• Speaking of development, let's go to Lex. Who gets treated rather badly this season. The dude gets shoved in an asylum and receives shock therapy just because his father doesn't want him to remember that Lionel himself murdered his own parents. Granted, the events of the episode Asylum are great, but that's because three guys Clark faced off against banded together, almost like a supervillain team-up.
  It's not until near the end of the season that Lex regains some of his coolness and escapes the emotional wringer brought about by his father. Still, I like this interpretation of Lex and I feel things may soon get worse before they get better for the lad.
• The Kents face their own crisis early on, with Clark gallivanting in Metropolis and Jonathan going on his own to bring him back. Jor-El's granting him the powers takes a toll on his health, which reoccurs throughout the season and the debt still lingers. The season finale wraps up the debt subplot, but until then, it's hard not to sympathize with Jonathan, knowing what he does. Not that he wasn't sympathetic before, but this isn't easy for him.
  Or Martha either, caught in the middle between a husband who's keeping secrets and a son... also keeping secrets. But the Kents are strong and that's why they work well as a family unit: they have faith in each other.
• Lionel continues down the path of being a magnificent bastard, what with committing his son to the aforementioned asylum, pinning murders he actually had nothing do to with on his son, demanded information about Clark from Chloe while threatening to ruin her life and tortured Pete. Oh, and he gets liver cancer. Yeah. So, expect that to be a big factor in the next season.

The season ends with the episode Covenant, in which a girl claiming to be Kara from Krypton comes for Kal-El. It is at this point that the deal between Jor-El and Jonathan is revealed: in exchange for the power Jonathan temporarily received, Jonathan was to return Clark to Jor-El, something that angers Martha to no end.

In the subplot, Clark finds out that Lex has been investigating him, even though Lex tries to defend himself by saying he's still thinking about his near-death experience, and Clark reacts badly, telling Lex after his father's trial (Lionel's mistakes finally caught up with him, it seems) that they are no longer friends.

Oh and in the midst of all this, Lana leaves for France. This WOULD be cause for celebration, if it weren't for the fact that she'll be back next season. So, sorry to ruin your mood.

The main plot ends with the revelation that “Kara” is a tool of Jor-El's, a girl who died on the day of the meteor shower who Jor-El remoulded into an instrument to get Clark. Jor-El chokes Jonathan with an energy rope, and tells Clark that if he does not begin his training, he will kill Jonathan. Despite his pleas, Jonathan is unsuccessful in convincing Clark not to go with Jor-El, and Clark disappears in a bright light.

This is so far the weakest season, in my opinion. The biggest problem is the lack of focus on the main story, the one about Jor-El. It's almost like as soon as Clark gets back to Smallville, it goes back to business as usual. Back to “freaks of the week”. And the story doesn't even really pick up again until the final episode of the season! Come on, that's about 20 episodes difference! You taunt us and tease us with actual build-up, only to return to status quo and almost forget you HAVE a story!

Also, as mentioned above, the way Lex is treated this season, the poor guy just goes through so much and some of it just seems ill-fitting to a great character. I mean, making him think he was crazy using the flimsiest of schemes? I would have believed Kryptonite-induced insanity! OK, it would have been stupid, but far less so!

Anyway, that being said, it's still a good season, even with my complaints and all the other out of character moments mentioned (like the stuff with Pete. Ugh).

Next blog post... may actually not be about Season 4, as I have another movie to review. So it could be the movie or the next season. Either way, Season 4's not too far away.

My top episodes: Obsession, Asylum, Perry (oh yeah, Perry White was in an episode this season, played by Michael McKean. Promise me he'll be back, please?), Truth, Covenant.

Least favourite: Velocity, Talisman, Relic, Shattered, Slumber.