Oh Brother, Where Art Thou, Chowderhead?

And now, to finish off the week, the first in another double feature I undertook yesterday, something I haven't done in ages. Something of note was that both films were comedies, something I very much needed after yet another awful day at work. I'll give my thoughts on the second comedy next time but today, let's look at the comedy caper featuring those chowderheads, The Three Stooges.

I haven't actually seen a lot of the Stooges work, or much to do with them, but their influence cannot be understated and most of us would have learned of the Stooges through the media they've influenced (has anyone ever done a running total of how many Stooges references show up in The Simpsons?)

I have, however, played the NES game based on the characters, and that's a Hell of a lot of fun. It tries something different and has neat sound effects, good stuff.

I knew that this film had a lot going against it, too. People blasting it for taking the Stooges into the modern world and such, and no doubt some were concerned at the acting choices. But were they right to judge so hastily or do we have on our hands a modern day re-imagining pulled off nicely?

The film itself is split into three segments, but all of them relate to the main plot, which involves Larry (Sean Hayes), Curly (Will Sasso) and Moe (Chris Diamantopoulos) leaving the orphanage they've been a part of all their lives to raise enough money to save it from closing. This leads to a murder attempt they... well, attempt, when Lydia (Sofia Vergara) offers them enough money to kill her husband.

I've long held a belief that if you're going to remake or re-imagine something, you should take either something that sucks and remove the bad things to make it better, or (in the case of the Stooges) take a property from a few decades ago and put a modern spin on it to showcase what would happen in said franchise if they continued to this day (that's not to say I won't watch remakes regardless, it all depends). The Three Stooges nails that concept. I won't comment on how well it worked for the boys back in the day, but considering all the technology and progress we've seen happen since then, it's not like they couldn't take advantage of it. However, what makes this film work is that even in the modern setting, the Stooges are still the Stooges. Unlike attempts from other classic characters to “be down with the kids” (Yo Yogi!, anyone?), the boys haven't been changed to be “hip, cool and/or funky”. They're not spouting “gangsta” slang or threatening to “bust a cap in someone's ass” (do people even say that anymore? God I'm so out of touch). So, while the world is as modern as can be, the essence of the Stooges is locked in a time capsule, which works out for the best. Though some of the interactions with modern day concepts (the iPhone bit seen in one of the trailers) are hilarious, like the Twitter remark (“I'll Tweet you” “Tweet us to dinner?”)
That being said, there is one downside to modern day mingling, which I'll get to later.

But what of the Stooges themselves, how do they fare? Wonderfully. Chris Diamantopoulos makes for a great Moe, a no-nonsense, short-tempered but golden-hearted fellow and Sean Hayes delivers a surprising turn as Larry, surprising because I've never been a big fan of his work. He easily impressed me here, as the laid-back and good natured goon. But the show stealer is easily Will Sasso as Curly, who gets so many of his mannerisms down pat, you'd swear he studied directly under the man himself. The classics are there, including the “nyuk-nyuk-nyuk!”, his barking like a dog when threatened, and my favourites “soitenly!” and the pronunciation of circumstance as “circumstance!” His energy leaps off the screen and he garners the most laughs.

On another note of acting, Sofia Vergara actually made for a convincing villain. A little too convincing... I haven't seen a whole lot of Modern Family, and I don't know much about her character, but I have to wonder why people are so enamored with her. Is it because of her looks? That's not doing her a service, guys.

Going back to my point on the essence of the Stooges, in much the same way the characters themselves haven't been altered to suit modern times, neither has their humor. It's still very physical, filled with pratfalls and slapstick, but not without taking concepts literally (one of the most hilarious things in the movie is a money making attempt involving a salmon farm. And that leads to the boys watering salmon like they were plants) or just with impeccably timed dialogue (before Lydia tells the boys what they need to do for the money, Curly says “Who do we have to moider?!”) Oh, and one of the most subtle gags involves Curly and Larry putting up missing posters for Moe, with the line “Answers to his name” on the bottom. Stuff like that is why I love comedy.

But there is one thing that the film must be penalized for, and it's not really a spoiler since it's in one of the trailers: the addition of the Jersey Shore cast. I know why, and I know that Moe spent a lot of the time delivering violence unto them, but it doesn't change the fact that this film acknowledges this existence. As far as I'm concerned, the only time they should be on screen is if someone's filming a meteor crushing every single one of their useless bodies into pulp. Otherwise, I don't want to be reminded of their self absorbed, stupid nature.

If you wanted a reality TV show experience for Moe to get involved in, why not The Amazing Race? I can see him try and get a clue from some local by going “Wise guy, eh?” before doing the classic eye poke and then run off with the clue. But maybe that's just me.

In spite of that, a feel good family fun film. Even when the violence gets to insane levels (like Curly taking a chainsaw to the head), there's no blood, gore or anything of that nature. The Stooges are essentially live action Rooney Tunes. And really, what else could they be? 4/5

An Addiction By Any Other Name

A while ago, I did a blog about movies I was hoping to see but they had bypassed my local cinema, and I listed four such examples. Well, I've now seen Young Adult and My Week With Marilyn, and I plan on ordering Martha Marcy May Marlene if I'm unable to find it on my next cinema trip, which leaves me with Shame (no pun intended). And that's what today's post is on, Shame.

Brandon Sullivan (Michael Fassbender) is a high-flying ad executive in New York, who also suffers from a severe sex addiction. He's also estranged from his sister, Sissy (Carey Mulligan), until she shows up at his apartment, begging to stay with him. Both siblings have to learn how to live with not just each other but their respective demons.

First thing I should say is that if you're put off by extensive sex scenes... yeah, you're either going to want to skip this movie altogether or close your eyes when those scenes come on.

As someone who doesn't believe you need sex to sell a story, unless it's ABOUT sex (and not pornography, that's about people having sex, not about other aspects, which is why I don't watch any), I knew this could get graphic.

I will also say, though, if the sex is all you're here for, do not watch this because you don't deserve to. This film deserves and demands more from you, and if you're not up to task, stay home.

Sex may be a part of it, but it's not the be-all, end-all of the film (or life, as a matter of fact, really wish more people understood that). What Brandon is going through is not to be envied by anyone. Sex addiction may sound humorous, since it doesn't sound like it's something you can be addicted to in the same way you can alcohol or drugs (and if we conducted a survey, I bet many people would say they have a sex addiction and make some crude joke about it).

Instead what the film does is show that Brandon would be in the same position if it WAS another addiction. That's not to say you can cut and paste any old crutch in there, just that the feelings invoked would be the same. The emptiness. The bleakness. The need to connect. The desire to feel. His sex addiction is no different to any other, because it has taken over his life. Not completely, mind you, it's not like he's neglecting personal hygiene and looking like a crack addict. But it's infiltrated his work (his hard drive has that much hardcore porn it leads to a virus in the company's computer system) and it doesn't stop when Sissy's around (as she finds out...).

About Fassbender himself: have I mentioned how this guy is awesome in previous posts? Don't care, saying it again: he's a force to be reckoned with. He has the spark of confidence mixed with the vulnerability needed to carry this role. But when he needs to be fierce, he gets fierce. Truly, this was a role of high calibre for him and he nails it.

That's not to say Carey Mulligan is slack. Oh, she's such a woobie in this, you just want to put a blanket around her and tell her it's going to be OK. Her slow jazz rendition of New York, New York is a highlight of the film. I'm looking forward to seeing her in The Great Gatsby (when it eventually gets here).

Seeing the two of them together, I'm reminded a little of Kate Winslet and Leonardo DiCaprio in Revolutionary Road: volatile and harsh, before going back to at peace and comforting each other. Michael and Carey are able to match each other evenly, with both proving they won't back down.

On another note, I love the use of the soft soundtrack on the more graphic scenes. Not just the sex scenes, but one toward the end which I won't spoil. If you were entering a room and you had no idea what was playing, you'd be convinced you were going to see something less dramatic. Yeah, you'd be so wrong. That scene, the one near the end? Amazing combination of music and imagery.

Yeah, I know I haven't commented on the supporting cast. Well, that's because the bulk of the film is carried by Carey and Michael. And they work wonderfully together. I'm glad to have seen this. 4/5

Melancholia And The Infinite Blandness

Today's film isn't technically a 2012 release, at least not where overseas places are concerned, but hey, since I couldn't see it when it came out late last year, it counts for this year. So, let's get into the latest from Lars von Trier, Melancholia.

The film is split into two sections, dealing with two sisters. Part one is called “Justine” and deals with the titular character of the part (played by Kirsten Dunst), at her wedding. Justine becomes distant from her family and husband (Alexander Skarsgard), after a series of events at the wedding itself.

Part two is called “Claire”, and follows up on what happened to Justine after the wedding, while Claire (Charlotte Gainsbourg) and her husband, John (Kiefer Sutherland), face the idea that the world is coming to an end.

Since this is the first thing we see in the movie, I'm going to outright say it: yes, the world does end. Melancholia is the name of the planet that collides with Earth in the opening. And if you didn't know the end was nigh, the movie will remind you. For ten bloody minutes. Slow motion shot of people doing... nothing particularly interesting, mixed with some admittedly wonderful music, while the planet crashes with ours.

So, already things aren't off to a good start. And I have to be honest, it really doesn't get much better from there.

This will probably be the shortest review I've done so far, mostly because... well, the movie's so disappointing and dull that there isn't much to say that I can't cover in a few paragraphs.

Acting-wise... well, no one does a bad job, but they just seem so lifeless. OK, that might be the point, that people are so despondent they just walk through life, but considering how the supporting cast has a decent amount of people, you'd think SOMEONE would care. Hell, Alex's father, Stellan Skarsgard is in this, and he's great! Yet here, he's under-utilized. Charlotte Gainsbourg actually attempts emoting during the second half of the movie, but by that time, I'm just waiting for the damn planet to actually hit, that's how little I care for these people.

It doesn't help that large sections of the film lack dialogue or music. Again, it's probably symbolic, but when the most common feeling I get from these scenes is “I am so bored, I wish something would happen”, you're really not keeping me engaged, movie.

The musical accompaniment is one of the redeeming features of this movie, such a lovely soundtrack. In spite of my complaints about the long scenes with no dialogue, the scenery in combination with the music would make for great music clips. Maybe Lars should look into it.

I guess it's my fault I can't get into this movie, for two reasons: I guess I'm not smart enough (scratch that, I'm a complete idiot) but the second reason is that it doesn't help that I wasn't impressed by another of Lars' films, Antichrist. For the same reasons, too. So, maybe his movies aren't for me.

Or quite possibly, he's just pretentious. Or both, even. It's one thing to go for a while without dialogue so that the actors can use their body language and the atmosphere around them to keep the story going (Hell, how else would silent films work?), it's another to get people to look bored as if to say “I can do whatever the Hell I want, because it's MY movie and if you don't understand it, you're an idiot.” Those are the people who make short films in which a clown flips a pancake with a solemn look on his face, while a beatnik clicks his fingers in the background. If you don't have anything to say, don't hide behind a wall of nonsense and pretentiousness and claim we don't get it. Maybe we do, but you don't like us calling you out.

In spite of the pretentious nature and slow, SLOOOOW movement of the story, it's not a total write-off. I just wish it lived up to my very simple expectations. 2.5/5

We'd Need More Than A Week

Another day, another film I was unable to see in cinemas but is now part of my DVD collection. Let's finish this week with My Week With Marilyn.

Colin Clark (Eddie Redmayne) gets a job on Laurence Olivier's (Kenneth Branagh) latest film, The Prince And The Showgirl, which will star Marilyn Monroe (Michelle Williams). Marilyn proves to be a bit of a handful on set, which isn't helped when her husband, Arthur Miller (Dougray Scott) returns to the United States. The film chronicles the week Colin spent with Marilyn after Arthur left the country.

I have to admit that I'm not at all familiar with Marilyn's work. Sure, I can name some films she starred in, but I've never watched any of them. I am aware of her status as... well, to say an icon might be putting it too lightly. She's one of the most well known people throughout history, with legions of fans and people who want to emulate her (like Lindsay Lohan, which is hilarious. That's like someone saying they want to be like Mr. Rogers and then they go out and steal cars and vandalize property). But I have to wonder if any of the people who want to BE Marilyn Monroe actually knew anything about her as a person or if they just liked what they saw on the big screen?

This film makes an attempt to let us see Marilyn not as the blonde bombshell 24/7, but as someone who's not even sure of who she is, because everyone has these pre-conceived notions about her.

The first half of the film focuses more on the production side of the film she's working on, and the legacy built up around her. It is here that we're introduced to the supporting cast, like Sybil Thorndike (Judi Dench, who I'm a fan of and as for the person she's portraying, I liked her right from the start. Always has a kind word for everybody, regardless of stature, and has a sunny disposition. Just a wonderful person all up), Milton H. Greene (Dominic Cooper, who would be the closest thing this film has in the antagonist category if I was pressured to find one), Paula Strasberg (Zoe Wanamaker, doing a really damn good American accent) and Lucy (Emma Watson, who is lovely to see here but her role is quite small).

The second half, however, is almost all about Colin and Marilyn spending time together, as he is infatuated with her and she has a confidante in him. While I do enjoy the first half, it's the second half that really tries to let the audience know what Marilyn was truly like. Vulnerable and confused, just wanting someone to be around her for her, not what the press had built her up as.

To that end, Michelle Williams delivers an outstanding performance and it's easy to see why she was nominated for an Oscar for the role. She doesn't make Marilyn into some giggly blonde, which is so easy to do these days, and for that reason, she is the key (along with the dialogue) to not only why this movie works, but also to opening up a better view of Marilyn herself.

There is another movie about Marilyn Monroe due in the next year or so, entitled Blonde. I suspect it will be a more widespread biopic, and only time will tell if it will help flesh out the idea of who Marilyn really was or play into the stereotype. Until then, we have this lovely film. 3.5/5

(P.S, I'm not 100% if it is Michelle singing or not, since it's not uncommon to dub in a voice if an actor or actress isn't comfortable with their singing voice, but the song we hear over the end credits is amazingly done, and I highly suggest waiting it out until the song finishes).

Glory Days, Well, They'll Pass You By

Despite bypassing my local cinema when it was making the rounds, I did manage to get a copy of a movie I've been so eagerly anticipating. The latest by director Jason Reitman, Young Adult.

Mavis Gary (Charlize Theron) is a self-obsessed writer of young adult novels who finds out that her high school boyfriend, Buddy (Patrick Wilson) has just had a baby with his wife, Beth (Elizabeth Reaser). Taking that as a sign, she trots back to her home town, in an effort to get him back.

(Insert obligatory spoiler alert here)

A simple story, but the neat thing is the execution. If this were a lighthearted, wacky comedy, Mavis would still be unsympathetic but she'd learn a few things along her quest and she'd end up a better person for it. The wife of her former boyfriend would end up being an unlike-able bitch by the end of it, thus giving a justification for the two of them to get together, guilt-free.

Yeah, this isn't a lighthearted, wacky comedy and that crap doesn't happen here. Mavis learns very little and is convinced this is HER story, it's all about HER. SHE is the young adult in the title. Because she's still stuck in high school. When she returns to her hometown, many still regard her as the queen bitch from school. And it doesn't help by the fact that she still acts like a bitch. Hell, she's invited to the naming ceremony for Buddy's daughter and she's all glammed up.

And that is really the key theme to the film: being stuck in one place in time. Mavis is still thinking like a teenager and it shows in many ways, not just with what I've described above. There's a scene at the naming ceremony in which she makes a move on Buddy, and she uses some dialogue she overheard from two teens, saying he's “My moon, my stars, my galaxy”. Hell, her room in her parents house seems to be virtually untouched since she used to live there. And I should point out she's 37.

Even the big confrontation at the ceremony, it's all “Me me me” with her. It's all about how things should have gone with Buddy and her. This scene, by the way, holds some damn fine dialogue and acting from Charlize Thereon, who is on fire in this movie.

And Patrick Wilson, as the good-natured Buddy, shouldn't be overlooked. He's smarter than he lets on and friendly as all Hell.

And Elizabeth Reaser is a charming character, nice as pie, and the complete antithesis of Mavis.

A character I haven't mentioned yet is Matt, played by Patton Oswalt. He went to school with Mavis and Buddy, and while suffering from a disability thanks to a horrible attack on him during those school years, he's not obsessed with it. OK, he's still a little bitter about it but that ties in to the high school thing, too: of all the people who could be stuck in their high school phase, we wouldn't begrudge him for being hung up on the event that changes the course of his life. But he's really not. He's dealt with it, makes the odd sarcastic joke or two, but otherwise, he's moved on. And by-the-by, Patton's really good in this role, he makes for a good comedic foil.

There's really not much else to say, though that doesn't mean it's a bad film, lord no! It's just that the film relies on the characters and dialogue and I've covered that. I'm a huge fan of Diablo Cody's work (yes, even Jennifer's Body, which I'll probably get to one day) and Jason Reitman's, so the two of them working together again is always something I look forward to. And I hope it does happen again. Until such time, a solid film with a high recommendation from me. 4/5

Call That A Fair Cop?

I've noticed that out of the fifty films I did my three part list on last year, and the films I've covered so far this year, I've had nothing from the very country I called home. So, I bought this film especially for that purpose (besides edging me one closer to my goal of fifty again), a film called The Great Mint Swindle. It aired on TV before getting a DVD release a week or so later, so I wasn't expecting solid gold (no pun intended), but hey, I've been surprised before.

Forty nine gold bars have been taken from the Perth Mint, and an investigation leads to the arrest of the Mickelberg brothers Ray (Grant Bowler), Peter (Todd Lasance) and Brian (Josh Qoung Tart), who claim they're innocent. All three are charged but continue to fight from prison, believing they are the victims of a set up.

I went into this knowing next to nothing about the actual events that inspired this movie, the only knowledge I had was that the three brothers were sent to jail and that gold was stolen. So, I didn't know what to expect. Was I going to get a tale of morally grey cops and citizens, caught up in something bigger than all the players involved? Or of garden variety criminals who stonewall the efforts of determined officers of the law?

Well... neither. Despite the opening, in which the Mickelberg brothers actually do commit a crime involving gold (which is brought up later in the film), their case is actually compelling and even though I was convinced they were guilty (doesn't help that Peter is a bit of a smartarse), the movie actually portrayed them in a (mostly) positive light and didn't skimp on displaying the evidence that suggested they were innocent.

It's always hard commenting on a biopic because you're never sure how much of the film is the cold hard truth, and how much is exaggerated for drama. To that effect, I'll try and keep my comments based on acting and other aspects.

Really, the movie relies on four performers: the actors playing the three brothers and one of my personal favourite Australian actors, Shane Bourne, playing Detective Sergeant Don Hancock, who is basically the antagonist of the film. Despite the fact that he's not always present, he's quite menacing and it always seems like he's right around the corner, ready to play bad cop. This is the first time I've ever seen Bourne in this type of role but it's always nice to see a great actor experiment.

Of the three actors playing the brothers, Grant Bowler is the only one I have any familiarity with, through Australian reality game show, The Mole (neat concept, look it up some time) and he's really good. Though of all the characters, Brian's is the one I like the most, usually being the most rational and mature of the three brothers, despite being the middle brother.

I do have to say, though, that the three aren't exactly random innocent citizens that got caught up in a big conspiracy. I mean, they fraudulently obtained some gold, made a big press event out of a con involving them using the gold to make a giant nugget, and even got their mother in on it. You can't exactly say they're entirely undeserving of SOME punishment. I mean, their own mother for crying out loud!

Despite that (and this is not a spoiler, the case details are on Wikipedia), the case remains unsolved to this day. The evidence suggests they had nothing to do with it, so I apologize for any misjudgements I may have made at the start.

On a different note, the music selection is nice too, particularly the use of The Church's Almost With You.

Not much else to say, really. It's a step above most Australian fare, even ones meant for cinema, and feels like an Underbelly telemovie only much, MUCH less violent. A surprise but a good surprise. 3.5/5

Well, Here I Am, Rock Me Like A Hurricane

Alright, let's close out this week with a review of the stage show turned movie, Rock Of Ages.

Since I haven't seen the original musical, I can't comment on how well it works as an adapted property. On that note, any complaints I may have that are present in the original work, I will not rescind because it means that the director, producers and writers didn't fix any potential problems with the picture. Not that I am complaining about the original, just saying.

It's 1987 and the patrons and the bar staff of the Bourbon Room are eagerly anticipating the performance of the current rock god Stacee Jaxx (Tom Cruise). Among them are Sherrie (Juilanne Hough), a small town girl living in a lonely world; Drew (Diego Boneta), a city boy, possibly raised in South Detroit; Lonny (Russell Brand), the manager of the Bourbon Room and really, REALLY, passionate about rock and roll; and Dennis (Alec Baldwin), the owner of the Bourbon Room who is hoping the money Stacee Jaxx will bring in will keep the club afloat. But it's not all beer and skittles, as newly elected mayor of LA Mike Whitmore (Bryan Cranston) and his wife Patricia Whitmore (Catherine Zeta-Jones) are determined to shut them down, as part of a “clean up the streets” initiative. All while set to various rock songs.

This film is a little mixed to me. I wasn't expecting to be bowled over and leaving the cinema rocking out or anything, but I did expect to be a little pumped and wanting to go home and put on a selection of awesome rock classics. Yeah... that didn't happen.

First, the good: I'm surprised that I'm saying this, but Tom Cruise was really impressive in his role. I don't know if they chose him because Tom has an ego problem, much like Stacee, but that doesn't get in Tom's way of playing Stacee as what I call the 'bastard son of Jim Morrison'. He arguably has the strongest vocals in the film, and some of the best songs (Paradise City, Pour Some Sugar On Me, Wanted Dead Or Alive) and he actually undergoes more character development than anyone else in the movie. I really can't stand a lot of Cruise's work but this is really good.

Speaking of people I'm not too crazy about, Russell Brand's the other standout. He gets the best lines (like every joke he makes about the band Cement Balls) and he captures the energy and spirit of rock and roll moreso than anybody else in the film. If Stacee Jaxx is the self-serving, arrogant nature of the rock and roll performer, Lonny is the side that yearns for social change, for rock and roll bands to be the heralds of the new age.

On a smaller note, I liked the interesting parallel between the rock and roll fans and the Whitmores, with both thinking the other group is the cause of moral decay, for different reasons. The rock and roll side, obviously, is condemned for promoting the lifestyle of drugs, sex and wild parties. The rock and roll side view people like the Whitmores as "the man", who are corrupted and don't take heed of the life lessons rock and roll imparts, choosing the empty pursuit of money and power. It's not a major focus but I liked the subtext.

For the most part, the songs selected are great choices. Besides the ones mentioned above, you have rock staples like I Love Rock And Roll, I Wanna Rock, Here I Go Again, Any Way You Want It, Don't Stop Believin' and We're Not Gonna Take It (albeit that one is very brief). That being said... well, let's get to the negatives

First off, some of the songs selected... well, they're not what I'd call “rock classics”. That's even if they can be categorized as rock. Now, whether or not Pat Benatar counts is up for debate but her music works in this movie (one of Catherine Zeta-Jones' two songs is Hit Me With Your Best Shot, and the entire scene using that song is just surreal) so I can live with that. But Harden My Heart by Quarterflash? If that's rock, it's very light rock.

And Extreme's More Than Words. Even if the band itself is rock, this is an incredibly mellow track for something that's touting itself as a love song (no pun intended) to the rock genre. Yeah, I know about rock ballads but this is heavily toward the ballad side. REO Speedwagon's I Can't Fight This Feeling Anymore has more oomph to it (and I'll get to that scene), and so does Poison's Every Rose Has Its Thorn.

Speaking of song choices, I get the feeling some were selected because the creators had the rights to go through an entire discography for some bands. The biggest example I can think of is Foreigner’s I Want To Know What Love Is. In the scene, Stacee is seducing a frumpy reporter (played by Malin Akerman), and they're getting hot and heavy, while singing. So... love is sex? Hot, sweaty (though implied, to keep the M rating), animal desire? That's a pretty messed up message. If it's supposed to make Stacee seem deep and troubled by his lifestyle, it reinforces the negative aspects that get talked up about him.

Also, I'm confused about something: most of the songs in this movie are treated like they are original creations of singers like Stacee Jaxx and Drew. OK, fair enough. But that does raise the question: does that mean bands like Journey and Bon Jovi don't exist in this universe? Or did they cover the songs in question at a later point? But then, if certain bands don't exist, why do bands like Aerosmith and The Rolling Stones get a mention? 

Now for the scene I talked about before (slight spoiler for this part): While I hold no objections to the use of the REO Speedwagon song, I do question the nature of the scene. Lonny and Dennis use the song to confess their true feelings for each other, and they kiss immediately after. Look, more power to them for choosing to be a couple and all but it comes out of nowhere and isn't brought up ever again. They don't hold hands, call each other pet names, or even kiss again. They go back to the way things were. If this was present in the original work, I hope they developed it more there. And if it wasn't, why was it thrown in here? What purpose did it have? It's the closest thing the movie has to a “big lipped alligator moment”.

To get off music related aspects for a minute (stay tuned for the final complaint after this), the trailer would have you believe that Patricia Whitmore is the primary antagonist. Well, while she's built up at the start, she's actually not seen that much after and she's defeated rather easily. The real villain is Stacee's manager, Paul (played by Paul Giamatti), who takes all the money Dennis was going to use to pay off the taxes for the club and is basically a slimy, greedy manager archetype that we commonly see. The movie pulls a bait-and-switch in this respect and Patricia's return at the end seems more like a “Holy crap, we forgot to end the subplot involving her!”

But my biggest complaint lies with the two leads, Sherrie and Drew. They both look and sound like they escaped from some kind of Glee-clone factory. For most of the first half of the film, Sherrie's just so filled with positivity and never stops smiling and it really sickens me. Likewise, Drew's a little too young to really get what rock really is (in my opinion). And their romance drags the film down. They fall in love way too quickly, after having spent little time together, and their relationship goes through the motions. I wouldn't go as far as to call them crappy actors, but I'm not impressed.

In spite of my lengthy list, I'm still giving it a recommendation and a 3/5. But there was so much wasted potential here.

Captain America? Hell No!

Well, I know I'm breaking away from movies again so soon but I've been wanting to do this one for some time and since I haven't watched any of my DVD's to carry on my review of 2012 movies, I thought it's about time I write this one up (I will be resuming with movies for the last post of the week, I'll be watching Rock Of Ages tomorrow if all goes according to plan). Today, it's a comic review, for the mini series Ultimate Comics: Captain America

I don't think I've gone over the Ultimate Universe in any posts so a little history: Marvel wanted to bring in new readers without alienating their existing fanbase but with the amount of history their titles have, it was going to be a task. The solution was to create a new universe and create new versions of the characters from the main universe, but setting it so that a majority of the characters got their starts in the present day, thus making it a little more modern. This way they could make new origins and adventures for new readers, whilst leaving the main universe alone (in short, not rebooting the whole thing like DC). Ultimate Spider-Man led the charge and was soon followed by Ultimate X-Men, the Ultimates and Ultimate Fantastic Four, as well as various mini-series in between. In 2009, the massive crossover Ultimatum occurred and this lead to a rebranding of the imprint, now going by Ultimate Comics, with the current titles being The Ultimates, X-Men and Spider-Man.

I haven't read much since the rebranding (or much of it before the rebranding) but I absolutely adore Ultimate Spider-Man and despite its faults, I'll happily defend it.

But today, I'm discussing Jason Aaron's Ultimate Comics: Captain America mini-series, drawn by Ron Garney.

After a botched mission in North Korea, involving someone distributing the super soldier serum Cap goes to Cambodia to locate the man behind the serum plot and ends as his captive, with the man revealing himself to be Frank Simpson, aka the “Captain America of the Vietnam War”. Frank is set on “educating” Cap on America's evils, determined to break him.

I have to say, from what I expected, this comic was a great disappointment to me. Before I get into that, I'm going to give credit where credit's due.

The art in this book is pretty good. The scenery is bright and vibrant and the action scenes look impressive. Really, there isn't much more to say and that's not because the art's not worth mentioning, just that I'm a story and character person, so unless the art is hideous, I tend not to get caught up in it. There is one aspect I don't like, however, and I'll go over that now.

The biggest problem this comic has, and this is a criticism for most of the other books in the Ultimate imprint featuring Cap, is that... well, Cap's a prick.

I'm not expecting all of the alternate universe versions of the “mainstream” universe to be carbon copies, but in one-shot stories or alternate futures where we probably won't see that version again, you're allowed to go nuts and experiment. But the Ultimate books are ongoing, so we're going to see these characters again and again. In that sense, some divergence is fine, but a recurring trend I've noticed in the Ultimate books (particularly The Ultimates line itself) is that most of the characters undergo some sort of “arseholeification” and it's off-putting (Thor may be one of the few who escapes it, though in return, he gets labelled a crazy man who thinks he's the God Of Thunder).

Cap suffers from it the worst, as he's always putting down other nationalities and acting all like “America rocks! Go us, screw non-Americans!”

For example, the North Korean bungle (which has a scene with Cap holding a gun with a weird expression on his face, like he's biting down on something to not feel the pain from a needle), he says “You can't blame me for that mission going to Hell. Blame those incompetent Brit-” before he's cut off. And before the mission goes to crap, there's this little gem: “C'mon, ladies, it's not tea time already is it? Move your asses”. Yes, because the British love tea. Cap, you're not exactly free of stereotype yourself.

Oh but it gets better: after turning down some food in Cambodia, after complaining it “smells like a cesspool”, he pulls the classic “Does anyone speak American?” bit. You're overseas, Cap. Stop acting like a damn ignorant tourist. Maybe spend less time training when not fighting crime and maybe take the time to learn about other cultures, since you'd be traveling a lot. It doesn't matter if they do speak some English (not “American”, you ignorant clod), that would most likely be due to Frank's influence. And some of them wouldn't be entirely fluent.

Going back to the art thing for a minute, I checked the whole book to confirm this and you know what I noticed? He never smiles, except for one time. He's almost always scowling. I'm beginning to think Garney was possessed by Frank Miller or Rob Liefeld when drawing Cap's face. I kept thinking “Am I reading about Captain America or did I pick up The Dark Knight Strikes Again by mistake?” based on Cap's personality and the politics (though, at least the political aspects make more sense here).

And that one time he smiles? You can barely tell he's smiling. Hell, maybe it's the goddamn Punisher under the costume for all I know. Wouldn't be the first time...

What makes it worse is that I actually like the villain more. It's one thing to have a well-written story in which the hero is awesome but the villain is also cool or a magnificent bastard or the like (basically Batman and The Joker), it's another where you agree with the villain more because the hero is poorly written. That's a bad sign, guys. Frank Simpson may be trying to brainwash Cap with propaganda, but he actually mixes in some truth, and he's almost entirely rational. He's a little extreme, granted, but in his mind, his country betrayed him and he wants everyone to share his belief on how his homeland is mired in corruption. He's actually a well-written antagonist and it's worth reading the book just for him.

Last negative point, how does Cap counter Frank's arguments? In basic terms “You suck. America has made mistakes but it's still awesome and you're not. Commie!” That's how I see it, anyway. If this was the Cap of 616 (main Marvel universe), I'd expect something like “The nation has problems. Always has, always will. But we can overcome these problems and redeem ourselves. We can prove we stand for truth, liberty and justice”. Corny, yes, but the Cap of 616 is a man of honour, compassion, wisdom and is pure of heart.

And that's what it all boils down to. One Cap is a champion of the people, defending anyone and everyone who is in need of defending. The other is a self-righteous arsehole who believes the Bible is the undisputed guide to living life, even while holding a gun. I know, I know, different attitudes and all that, especially considering when the Cap of the Ultimate Universe was defrosted, but if he's meant to represent the American ideal or way of life... that means the Ultimate Universe is filled with bigger arseholes than the 616! And that's no mean feat! And Cap is widely different from them. But Ultimate Cap? Piss off. He'd better improve for future stories.

Well, that about wraps it up. I will say there was a cool scene involving Cap and snake venom, but besides that, the art and Frank, there's not much to go on. Disappointing, especially since it's Captain America.

Space, Space, I Wanna Go To Space

As promised, here's the review for Ridley Scott's return to the franchise he kicked off, a prequel (A prequel, not THE prequel, we'll get into that) to the sci-fi horror classic, Alien, a film entitled Prometheus.

After discovering a star map in a cavern, archaeologist couple Elizabeth Shaw (Noomi Rapace) and Charlie Holloway (Logan Marshall-Green) become part of the crew for the ship Prometheus, a ship sent out by the Weylend Corporation to locate the beings who created the map, beings Shaw believes to be the creators of the human race. The 17 members of the crew go seeking answers to the creation of all life on Earth... and nearly meet the destruction of all life on Earth.

I will say right now, there are bound to be spoilers, even for a non-direct prequel such as this.

Despite a few points I'll get to, I really enjoyed this film, both on its own merits and as part of the Alien franchise. Obviously this entry would have more in common with Alien than the other films, not just because Scott directed both, but also because it's trying to invoke the mix of science-fiction and horror. Biggest difference is that whereas Alien is a more character orientated film, Prometheus opts for the bigger picture, the questions we constantly ask.

Character-wise, I'm awarding best performance to Michael Fassbender as David, the ship's android. Before the rest of the crew is awakened from stasis, we spend a little time with him on his own and it's interesting how he spends his time. Besides fulfilling the commands we presume he was given before the ship's take-off, we see him watching Lawrence Of Arabia, trying to imitate the speech and mannerisms from the characters. Despite the fact that throughout the movie he's fairly neutral, I like this scene for displaying David's desires to be accepted or more relate-able to his shipmates (that's how I see it anyway). He may be an android, but he's capable of showing understanding of human concepts like hatred (saying he wished his “father” was dead) but never changes his tone. Michael Fassbender is quickly becoming one of my favourite actors and I'm looking forward to what he'll be doing next (incidentally, I managed to pick up a copy of Shame. Expect a review in the coming weeks, hopefully before the end of the month).

It's good to see Noomi Rapace again, and with a character so widely divergent from her last two roles. Here she's an optimistic believer in higher powers, eager to get right in the thick of it. It was a good move to not make her a Ripley clone, but at the same time, to not make her helpless and defenseless either. She's proactive and inquisitive, and knows just what to do when it comes down to the crunch. In one scene, she finds out she's been impregnated with some sort of alien (despite the audience finding out earlier she can't have children) and her first course of action is to get the damn thing cut out of her, so she climbs into a medical pod and sets it for a caesarian.

Before I get into the next character, I want to say that I love that scene. The panic, the intensity, the claustrophobia, Noomi's acting, the blood... not to mention the fetus itself. Also, the medical pod is a brilliant machine, in design and purpose. The whole scene is amazingly done and is a highlight of the film.

The other character I wanted to praise is Meredith Vickers, played by Charlize Theron. Despite being almost antagonistic, she's logical and practical minded. Yes, she's got that stereotypical “I am the company out here and the company owns you” mindset but I can't say that's uncalled for. I mean, given what kind of expedition this is and how these probably aren't all that frequent, it's understandable that she'd want to make sure no one cocks up anything on their journey.

Now for the negative points, of which there are five, some of which are minor, and none of these are in any particular order.

First, Shaw and her cross. This has been brought up by many people, the fact that even when confronted with aliens who share our D.N.A, she never considers that God may not exist. Yes, she says that if someone created us, someone created our creators but then, doesn't that make it THEIR God? It's nice she believes but the movie never has her question her beliefs.

Second, I don't see the point in casting Guy Pearce in the role of Peter Weyland. He underwent an extensive make-up and prosthetics session for what is essentially a supporting role, and be virtually unrecognizable. What, you couldn't get an actual older person for the role? Did you not consider Christopher Lee or Max Von Sydow? I mean, Guy's not bad but it seemed pointless to cast him.

Third, for all the questions the film asks, it doesn't seem too interested in answering any of them. And you can't give me that “Well, that's why they bait you for the sequel” because
A. You're assuming you'll GET a sequel and;

B. If you have this attitude of not answering questions so people will come back, you may drive them away because they'll give up.

Fourth, and something I knew would happen when more details were shed, a larger crew than in Alien just means less screentime for most of them. Besides Shaw, Vickers, David and Holloway, the only other three members to get anything resembling decent characterization is are the captain, Janek (Idris Elba, who is amusing) and Milburn (Rafe Spall) and Fifield (Sean Harris), the latter two being a botanist and geologist respectively and serve as a somewhat odd-couple-esque pair who serve as the first victims of the film, which is why they were probably built up, so we'd feel something when they died. But you also have the captain's two offsiders, who get little to no dialogue, and the ship's medic, who has no real personality. Yes, that's still a fair few people, but a little more interaction with the crew wouldn't have gone astray.

Last point, and it's the biggest problem I have, is how everybody treats David. And it's not because I like his character the most that I make this complaint, it's based on the fact that they talk down to him, like he's a possession. Look, I get that people aren't going to be comfortable around robots that look like humans and do the things we do, but as scientists, or at least, highly educated people, you'd think they'd be more open-minded. But nope, they constantly remind him of his origins, like he should be ashamed or that he should remember his place. Y'know, if he was black, this would just look so much worse...

At least in Aliens, the mistrust of Bishop comes from the fact that as Marines, they're probably drilled on being the best and how they unite as a team, so he's an outsider and they're used to spending time with a lot of humans as part of their training. Plus, not being big thinkers (and that sounded less insulting in my head). So the crew's dismissal of David just seems dickish. Guys, little note: in most cases, robots are superior to humans. Deal with it. Same goes with mutants.

In spite of it all, I really enjoyed this movie and if a sequel does happen, I'll be there. 4/5

(P.S The soundtrack is brilliant, too. A lovely mix of ethereal wonder and foreboding darkness)

The Magnificently Dysfunctional Seven

I want to take a break from writing about movies from this post (Prometheus will be the first post for next week, though) and talk about a show I recently watched, a show that many of my friends had recommended to me, something they were sure was right up my alley. I was weary about it (more on that later) but be it curiosity, hearty recommendations or peer pressure (or a combination of all three). So, I went ahead and marathoned the first two seasons of the hit sitcom, Community.

For those of you unaware, a brief overview: set in a community college, the show focuses on seven people who get together for study sessions. Jeff (Joel McHale), a former lawyer and de facto team leader; Britta (Gillian Jacobs), a crusader for many rights; Abed (Danny Pudi), a film/TV obsessed youngster; Shirley (Yvette Nicole Brown), mother of three who wants to start her own business; Troy (Donald Glover), a not-too-bright but good hearted jock; Annie (Alison Brie), a perky and cheerful recovering prescription medication addict; and Pierce (Chevy Chase) a pompous, stubborn tycoon who just wants some lasting company.

Now, this won't be an analysis of the first two seasons on a large scale, or even a listing of favourite episodes, I'm considering those for another time. This is going to be about my first impressions of the show and the characters.

Well, truth be told, I don't know why I resisted watching for so long, I really enjoyed the show. I guess I was afraid that it would be a standard sitcom like Rules Of Engagement or The King Of Queens, and be more interested in easy dick and fart jokes. Or that they'd develop the characters early on and see what people pick up on, then ramp that aspect up (like in The Simpsons, where Ned Flanders' obsessiveness with religion became his defining trait, hence the trope 'Flanderization') and make them a shallow character. But as a whole, the show almost is like a bunch of veteran tropers got together to crack-wise. They (though mostly Abed) recognize all the weird things we'd see in a TV show/movie/etc and comment on them, or on various conventions of TV (in one episode, Season 2's “Cooperative Calligraphy”, Abed makes the reference to their situation as being a “bottle episode”, which is TV jargon for when an episode of a show is set entirely in one place with little to no extra cast beyond the regulars. For example, on Friends, there was one episode set entirely in Monica and Rachel's apartment. Or maybe it was Chandler instead of Rachel. You see where I'm going with this). In basic terms, the show is witty and relies on extensive knowledge of tropes as a primary source of humor, as well as call-backs, character interactions and running gags (in Season 1, the gang kept talking about Shirley's unseen friend Gary and how much they hated him).

Now, let's go into the characters a little more, descending in order from my favourite to least favourite.

I relate a lot to Abed, due to being so caught up and obsessed with pop culture, though I broaden my horizons to include things like comics and video games. Not that I'm insulting the character, of course not. Since he's an aspiring film maker, his near encyclopaedic knowledge of film and TV serve as powerful tools in his arsenal (in the Season 2 episode “Messianic Myths and Ancient Peoples”, he makes what is almost a revolutionary take on a religious film and dominates the entire campus with his vision). And his childlike innocence is just so endearing.

Annie is unfailingly optimistic in the face of overwhelming odds and it's really hard not to be won over by her smile and personality. She is a bastion of warmth and despite being the youngest (maybe second) member of the group, she is who I would consider the “team mom” (when you want comfort or a confidante, anyway. More on the other side of this trope later). She has her faults, like being over-competitive and just a teensy bit obessive, but she is one of the most caring people in the show.

If there is one central character amongst the group, Jeff would be the top pick, as it his actions to get … well, some action with Britta (see the pilot) that brings about the formation of the group. A former lawyer, Jeff oozes confidence and seems to run on the principle “fake it till you make it” (which he's good at, admittedly). Lazy and cynical, but will often go the extra mile for his friends with little provocation. In one sentence, I'd describe him as a “jerk with a heart of gold” (man, this post is pretty trope filled...)

Troy isn't very book smart but is still a kind and trusting kid, who is hard to get angry at and is also very sensitive, which only adds to just how much you can't get mad at him. He and Abed have great chemistry together and make a wonderful comedic duo. Much like Abed, Troy also have a childlike innocence and eagerness to get into weird and wonderful adventures (like the blanket fort in Season 2's “Conspiracy Theories And Interior Design”).

Britta's character changed a little from Season 1, from the outspoken moral compass for the group to the crusader around the entire campus. While I'll get into this a little later, I'm not sure I like where this is going. It's a stereotype I'm not fond of, the “college age woman gets involved in every cause and acts like she's always been fighting for them but is either misinformed or just in for selfish reasons and is a hypocrite when not involved with the group of the week” one. It doesn't help that she's a vegetarian and a self-proclaimed feminist. While this isn't enough to wish that she be written off the show, I do hope this gets downplayed in the future and she gets restored to being upstanding but snarky, basically Jeff if Jeff gave a damn.

If it weren't for the supporting cast, Pierce would damn well be the antagonist of the show. Due to his substantial age difference between the rest of the group, his values are much different compared to theirs. He (unintentionally, for the most part) makes racial jokes, dismisses Britta as a lesbian (she isn't but don't think that stops him) and has no real idea how to talk to women. And when you slight him, even in the most minor and trivial of ways, he makes it known and he'll fight back. I have to wonder if this isn't Chevy actually projecting his own feelings through the character, as Chevy's made some... unflattering comments, if my intel is right, about the creator of the show, Dan Harmon, not to mention the show itself. And I say to Chevy, with all due respect... no one forced you to act in Hot Tub Time Machine, don't take it out on us that your star power is fading.

Despite that, Pierce is capable of being sympathetic at times (and hilarious, see the Season 2 episode “Celebrity Pharmacology 212”, which is a strong contender for my fave episode so far).

Lastly, there's Shirley. She is the “team mom” in the sense that she's the one who often tries to defuse a potential bad situation and is often very supportive of the team trying anything new that could lead to happiness. However, what prevents me from liking her more is the fact she, moreso than anyone (except maybe Jeff or Britta) suffers from “Aesop amnesia”, in which she repeatedly forgets the same lesson over and over. In her case, it's to not push her Christianity on the group, which is made up of many diverse followings, including Jewish, Jehovah's Witness, agnosticism and some really freaky Buddhist-type (though the name “laser lotus” is wicked cool). Yet despite coming to grips with it in the Season 1 episode “Comparative Religion”, it seems she quickly forgot about her tolerance (aren't Christians supposed to be tolerant in general?) and is back to showing disdain at how un-Christian the rest of the gang is. Much like Britta, I hope this is something that is fixed up in the future.

In spite of everything, the group functions like a family: they argue, they pick on each other, they get angry with each other, but they help one and other. And they all form a strong bond as characters and actors. They should all be proud of the work they're doing (even Chevy, though he needs to keep his ego in check).

Now, throughout the show, I only have two major problems, one of which I've gone over with the the characterization of Britta and Shirley, though I should point out that if left unchecked, they could become one note characters, defined by only one annoying trait.

The other, albeit a little less problematic, comes with the titles for the episodes. The thing is... they can be a little confusing. I do get the theme, and I like it, but it can be hard to remember which episode is which when they use college course names for 90% of the time. Hell, to get the names of the episodes I listed, I had to go to the TV Tropes Community recap page and sometimes, just click blindly on something that seemed vaguely familiar. Again, nothing to frustrate me but it is confusing.

I know I'm leaving out a lot of things like more episode descriptions or the supporting cast, but with the blog being this long already, I think it's time we end it here.

Suffice it to say, this show has really impressed me, and has the potential to become a new favourite for shows currently on TV (though not favourite comedy playing. How I Met Your Mother will not be dethroned until it ends for good. And that better not happen anytime soon).

 

I highly recommend it if you're not watching it already. And can we hurry up and get Season 3 on DVD, please?

Meet The Insane Cousins Of The Borrowers

Much like my last blog post, this movie review will cover something that was technically a release from last year, but went straight to DVD here and wasn't released until this year. Today, it's the remake of the 1973 horror movie with the same name, Don't Be Afraid Of The Dark.

Sally Hurst (Bailee Madison) has gone to live with her father, Alex (Guy Pierce) and his girlfriend, Kim (Katie Holmes), who are staying at Blackwood Manor, an old house that the two are in the process of restoring. Sally soon hears voices coming from the basement, and finds out about the creatures who have been living in the house for sometime. These creatures become hostile and Sally tries to convince everyone around her that they are not alone in the house.

This may be the shortest blog I've done since, to be blunt, the movie is unremarkable. It's not a bad movie, but there's really not much to say about it.

Not having seen the original, I can't compare the two. However, based on what I've seen in this version, I have a feeling the original would win out by relying more on making the most of what little they had to work with.

Acting-wise, everyone is serviceable. There are only four people that the movie really focuses on (the fourth is Jack Thompson's character, Mr. Harris, a workman restoring the house), but no one really rises above the occasion. Bailee, as the character with the most screentime, is required to be inquisitive, scared and determined and while she pulls it off, it's not something we haven't seen before.

Guy and Katie do well as the parent and surrogate parent to Bailee's character but Guy is strictly cast as the non-believer and thus, his dialogue consists of confronting his daughter and wondering what to do with her and beyond that, he doesn't have much of a character.

Katie essentially plays the mystery solver (or as close to it as we see) and, again, does what is required but nothing more.

Atmosphere-wise, once again, nothing outstanding. Loads of shots with no dialogue, slow wandering around, loud music playing when the supposedly scary parts happen (and it keeps playing, thus killing any tension). Really, not much to say.

I do have one thing I can commit to, however: the creatures that serve as the antagonists as the film? Their design sucks. They look to me like hunchbacked rats, and they resemble rejected designs for villains from the Madagascar series. Attempts to be scary come across as unintentionally amusing and their whispers throughout the house are easily mocked, thus robbing them of any intimidation.

Without spoiling it, I will say I liked the ending, but then I'm into that sort of thing.

I really wish I had seen the original, but I don't think it's been released on DVD here, it would have been an interesting comparison. Oh well. I do apologize for such a paltry sized blog but really, this movie could very well be one of the contenders for the definition of average. On the whole, it gets a 3/5.

Wrench To The Face: The New Arrow To The Knee?

And now, a review of a movie I saw all the way back in January, thus making it one of the earliest 2012 films I've seen. It's another that went straight to DVD here and the release was delayed, so it still counts. So, today, we're looking at the film simply titled Super.

Frank D'Arbo (Rainn Wilson) is depressed after his wife, Sarah (Liv Tyler) leaves him for sleazeball Jacques (Kevin Bacon). After having a vision in which he believes God spoke to him through the Holy Avenger (Nathan Fillion), telling him that he has been chosen for a special purpose, which Frank takes to mean that he should become a superhero. Armed with a pipe wrench, and with the help of overly keen comic nerd, Libby (Ellen Page), Frank emerges as the Crimson Bolt, ready to fight crime and rescue his wife.

I have to admit, when I first heard of this movie (going back a few years now, this HAS been a long wait), I was expecting something a little more lighthearted and wacky (I tend to expect that a lot. I have no idea where it comes from). What I got was something a lot darker, a lot riskier and gave me a bigger shock to my system.

And you know what? By the end, I was already convinced it would be on my end of year top five (and so far, it still is).

The first film you'll compare this to off-the-bat is Kick-Ass, which was in development at the same time. But whereas Kick-Ass was almost like one gigantic deconstruction or lampshade hanging on the whole “regular person dons a costume and fights crime with varying success” concept, Super plays it darker, going on the idea that any regular person just donning an outfit and playing superhero isn't entirely stable and that it almost always will end in pain or tragedy.

Rainn Wilson was a great choice as the hero of the picture. He portrays Frank with the right level of determined optimism and quiet vulnerability. Frank is just so oblivious to anything else but his goal and Rainn's face is almost always the utmost serious. The character is sympathetic, even though it's clear he's got issues. BIG issues.

Liv Tyler, admittedly, isn't too likeable (well, the character she plays anyway), but one of the themes of the movie is “things don't always tie up nicely like we want them to”, so the story with her character fits in with that theme. So to make her too much of a well rounded character would destroy that build-up. Looking at it on that level, Liv does a great job playing Sarah as a junkie who cares for nothing but her next fix (until the end, anyway, not that I want to spoil that. Other things, yes).

Kevin Bacon also plays someone who we're supposed to hate, and again, it works within the context of the movie. If done right, the archnemesis of a hero is usually someone who you can't help but not entirely hate, because they get great lines or moments or have back stories that we can't help but emphasise with. However, in keeping with the dark, subversive nature of the film, Jacques has no redeeming features. He is so one dimensionally evil, but it works. From the moment I first saw him, I thought “Look up the word 'slimy' in the dictionary and his picture is there”.

But if I have to name my fave performance, it's easily Ellen Page. And that's not because she's one of my fave actresses of all time, appearing in some of the greatest movies I've ever seen, but because she's enthusiastic and fun. She really gets into the hero gig, as Boltie, sidekick to the Crimson Bolt. And, as weird as this may seem, I actually thought it was cute the way she kept coming on to Frank and I actually kept thinking “For God's sake, man, stop trying to get your junkie wife back and enter a relationship with her!”

(For the next two paragraphs, there will be spoilers. Please be advised.)

There is, however, one thing in the film that leaves me a bit... uncomfortable.

At one point, Libby's lust is too much for her and she decides to have sex with Frank, saying that it's different when they're in costume, that they become different people. Frank has constantly turned her down, opting to stay faithful to his estranged wife.

And despite his protests, she forces herself on him. And he's not really sure how to react. He keeps saying no, which makes it rape, yet he doesn't try that hard to stop her and he doesn't seem too upset by it. OK, he goes to throw up after it but once he's finished, he gets another vision and that sets the final confrontation into motion.

Sooooo... we're just going to forget about it then? Frank, care to tell us how you feel about what just happened? No? Well, I have to ask, why was the scene included in the first place if nothing was going to come of it? And it can't be due to the movie's darker nature, because the scene isn't played for ultimate darkness. And when dealing with the ramifications of rape, it's not something you can shrug off.

That being said, however, the scene that emotionally resonates with me the most is the one before Frank finishes off Jacques for good. He and Libby are being shot at by Jacques' goons and before you know it, BOOM! Libby's lost a good chunk of her face.

And I sat there thinking “WHAT THE HELL?!” I had to rewind, because I was that shocked. But yes, quick-as-a-flash, you see her die. And it's just painful. It's actually one of the most painful character deaths I've ever witnessed.

(Spoilers end)

All in all, a funny and realistic look at what would happen if the average person decided to fight crime in a costume. The amount of comic book references sprinkled throughout was very pleasing to a comic book geek like me and the violence was shocking enough to not forget in a hurry (you don't want to be on the receiving end of a wrench, let's put it that way). If I had to compare this to Kick-Ass, this wins, though I still highly recommend Kick-Ass. Make it a double feature. 4.5/5 

(P.S Nathan Fillion may not be on screen for long but he's awesome. As if that was ever in doubt.)

Plans, Plans, Plans...They Always Have Their Plans

I haven't done much on the DC Universe Animated Original series. Well, besides the one blog on the possibility of Flashpoint becoming a movie. I'll get into a more detailed blog about the series someday, and I hope to do all the other films in the line as well. Today, I want to blog about the latest in the line, Justice League: Doom.

Normally I'd start off with a little history on a comic book hero or team, but I want to meet my workload (it may be self-imposed but if I don't set some boundaries, this blog would be updated with much less frequency) of three blogs per week and there's a lot to cover with a team book. Next time I read a JL comic that I want to review, I'll do it then.

But in brief, it's DC's big superhero team, usually with seven main members. The most common line up involves DC's “Big Three” (Superman, Batman and Wonder Woman) one of the various Flashes (usually Barry Allen or Wally West), one of the many Earthbound Green Lanterns (most commonly Hal Jordan, Kyle Raynor or John Stewart), the Martian Manhunter and the seventh alternates depending on medium and continuity, though usually it's Aquaman or Hawkgirl.

Though in the current DC comic continuity, Martian Manhunter is part of Stormwatch and Cyborg takes his place.

This movie is based on the story arc entitled Tower Of Babel. In the arc, Ra's Al Ghul steals plans that Batman had created in case the Justice League ever went rogue or were brainwashed into committing evil acts and the process was irreversible. Ra's used these against the Justice League in order to keep them occupied while he undertakes his latest diabolical plan. To distract Batman, Ra's abducts the corpses of his parents, thus keeping Batman from helping his fellow leaguers.

I have read the story, and it's fantastic. It's one of those “Why did no one think of this before?” kind of stories, the plans themselves are brilliant and Ra's goal (scrambling all languages into nonsense to bring about war) is exactly the kind of thing I'd expect from one of Batman's greatest (and best written) enemies. I highly recommend the story.

The movie plays out much the same in terms of basic concept. However, besides being condensed to a large degree, the movie makes many alterations:

• It drops Plastic Man and Aquaman (a pity, his was my fave plan in the comic. Not because the character sucked but because it was just so brilliant. It involved being exposed to Scarecrow's fear gas to make him hydrophobic) and Cyborg steps up to bat (everything's coming up Cyborg these days!)
• Instead of Wally and Kyle, the film uses Barry and Hal in their place.
• The methods used to dispatch of each member of the league differs greatly (I'd go into great detail here but that's a lot to cover and I will be mentioning a few later on anyway).
• Vandal Savage is the main villain in the film, as opposed to Ra's Al Ghul.

So, despite the changes, I really enjoyed this movie. There hasn't been a bad DCUAO film yet. Or even an average one. The animation is as solid as always, filled with rich, detailed characters and colour schemes.

Voice acting-wise, many members of the DC animated show Justice League/Justice League Unlimited, which is always welcome. I love that show in both incarnations and to hear Kevin Conroy (Batman), Tim Daly (Superman, though Tim actually did the Superman voice for the character's own animated series only, with George Newbern filling in), Susan Eisenberg (Wonder Woman), Carl Lumbly (Martian Manhunter) and Michael Rosenbaum (Flash, though on the show itself, it was Wally West and not Barry Allen, which is a minor quibble I have with the movie, as it feels so odd due to how different Barry and Wally are as characters) again is like greeting old friends. Even recurring or one-shot characters in the show have their voice actors come back (Olivia D'Abo as Star Sapphire and Alexis Denisof as Mirror Master).

Even Nathan Fillion's back for another round as Hal Jordan (he voiced the character back in Green Lantern: Emerald Knights), which adds to the awesome. Bumper Robinson as Cyborg is a great addition, too.

If I had to single any one performance out as being the best, as unfair as it seems since most of the voice actors are pretty much the definitive voices for their respective roles, it's Carl Lumbly. The Martian Manhunter is given a drink which has magnesium in it (magnesium being poisonous to Martians in the DC universe), which causes him to catch fire and the fire cannot be extinguished. It should be noted that not only is fire the major weakness for Martians in DC, it's MM's greatest fear. So, it's a two-for-one combo of physical and mental pain. Carl's anguished screams, constantly filled with panic, they are amazingly done. It is that and that alone which makes it my favourite performance of the entire movie.

If I have one major gripe (besides the substituting of Vandal for Ra's, which isn't terrible but disappointing), it's that the changes in the plans, while not boneheaded or anything of that nature, are a little more simplistic or head-scratching compared to the original story.

For simplistic, there's Superman's. In the comic, Superman gets exposed to red Kryptonite (a substance that causes random transformations to Kryptonians, usually lasting 24 hours or so), which causes his skin to go transparent, which causes him to undergo a sensory overload and nearly overload on solar power. In the film... he gets shot with a Kryptonite bullet. Granted, the comic's plan may be a tad complicated to explain but the Kryptonite bullet goes too far in the opposite direction. I mean, that would imply that no one in the universe of that movie (most if not all of the movies in the DCUAO line are set in their own universe) has ever tried shooting Kryptonite at Superman. I would have thought that would have been one of the most basic plans.

Now, for a head-scratcher plan: Wonder Woman's involved being infected with nanomachines that alter her vision and hearing and make her perceive everyone around her as the Cheetah (voiced by Claudia Black), Wonder Woman's arch nemesis. In the comic, she is trapped in a virtual reality battle with a seemingly unbeatable opponent. While the plan in the movie isn't such a bad one, there's a slight flaw: isn't Wonder Woman listening to the people around her, to what they're saying and noticing how they're NOT attacking her? Most of the random civilians just say things like “Look, is that Wonder Woman?” I mean, Wonder Woman's not stupid, she should be able to figure out “Something's wrong here. Hold off on attacking until I can make sense of the situation”.

Still, these don't stand in the way from another fine effort from the DCUAO. 4/5

Believers Do The Darnedest Things

OK, just a heads-up: for the next few posts, I'm going to try and work through the DVD's I have released this year, as well as the upcoming cinema releases I see. So, unless something comes up that spurs me into writing about something recent, it'll be movies for a little while. So, today, we have a movie that bypassed Australian cinemas (aside from cinemas used for a festival, if I recall correctly) and landed on DVD, thus counting it as a 2012 release here. I'm talking about Kevin Smith's latest, Red State.

Travis (Michael Angarano), Jared (Kyle Gallner) and Billy Ray (Nicholas Braun) take a trip out into the country to meet a woman for a session of group sex. It's a trap, however, and the three are drugged and kept captive at a compound by pastor Abin Cooper, who condemns them as homosexuals and plans to execute them all. After Cooper is interrogated by a local deputy (Matt L. Janes) over an incident involving the boys hitting the car of the sheriff (Stephen Root), gunshots are heard and sheriff Wynan calls in the ATF, with Agent Joseph Keenan (John Goodman) leading a taskforce against the compound.

I'm a big fan of Kevin Smith's work. Chasing Amy is my third fave film of all time (and having seen close to 1400, that's saying a lot) and Clerks 2 is also in my top 100. But this... I have mixed feelings about it. It's not a bad film, but it's unsettling, and not in the way I imagine Kevin intended.

First off, I have to wonder what exactly he was achieving with this film. A view on homophobic religious nuts, not unlike Fred Phelps and his vile Westboro Baptist Church? We see that everyday, this isn't shocking. It's hate-inspiring, yes, but just hearing those three words together is enough to make the blood boil. A commentary on how trigger-happy Americans can be? Again, old hat. The movie only manages to make a point toward the end, but until then, it's kind of aimless. Though it's a good point, a fantastic analogy about the human race.

Also, I'm a little puzzled as to why this movie is classified as an action-horror. I mean, the action aspect is obvious but horror? I guess it's up to the beholder and all, but I've always considered a movie a horror if it contains a supernatural villain or setting. Or in some circumstances, really horrific serial killers. But there's nothing here that's really in line with what you'd see in a horror film. An intense drama, maybe. Thriller, it would flirt with. But horror? Can't say I can see it.

(Below are slight spoilers, please be advised)

But I guess the biggest issue I have with the movie is with the character Cheyenne, played by Kerry Bishe. I had a debate with my best friend, Dave, about her, and I argue that the movie is trying to paint her as sympathetic but nothing she does throughout the movie suggests she is a sympathetic person. After witnessing all the shooting between the ATF agents and the residents of the compound, she decides to round up all the children of the compound and make a run for it, and she tries to force Jared into helping her. With his two friends having been killed, Jared is not interested in helping her.

And honestly? I can't say I blame him. She shows NO remorse over the events that have happened, regardless of whether or not his friends died at her hand. She shows nothing that suggests she has seen the error of her ways. She's stubborn. My friend argues that she hasn't been raised with much of a sense for a moral compass, or to know remorse, and probably knows little of the outside world. While I can see that, and agree with him on most points, I argue that the moment a person would set eyes on a gun, that should be enough for anyone, regardless of how sheltered they are, to start thinking “So, we have guns. Why?” Even if she's been raised to believe everyone is a sinner but them, wouldn't something deep down say to her “This just isn't right?” Yeah, I get that we're all raised differently (NO! I always thought we were given the exact same treatment Rolls eyes) but a gun is not something to be taken lightly.

That's not to say Jared and his friends are entirely sympathetic at the same time. I mean, going to meet an anonymous woman for group sex and not thinking to yourself “This is too good to be true” and having something in place in case you're wandering into danger, that's just plain stupid. I guess teenage boys really do think with their dicks. But hey, if you're going to choose danger with a chance of sex over, y'know, not being an idiot, go right ahead, see how many damns I give.

And last negative point, the dialogue's not as strong as I was hoping for, which is sad, considering how witty he's been in past films. Things don't really pick up until the ATF shows up, but even then, there's nothing really memorable or lasting. Not until the very end at least.

That being said, it has good points.

The action is fairly realistic and isn't stylized to make it seem glamorous. It's as tense and nerve-wracking as I imagine a realistic siege is.

Acting-wise, everybody is adequate for their role, nothing more to say. There are two exceptions: Stephen Root and John Goodman. Not only are they great on their own, their scenes together are hilarious and I hope they work together again in the future. But of the two, I'd give the crown to John Goodman, who actually looks a little gaunt and ragged in this movie. Which actually would fit the character more, so maybe it was on purpose. Either way, kudos to you, Mr. Goodman.

Well, that's really all I can say. A mixed bag, though still recommended. But easily my least fave Smith directed film so far, and I've seen them all. Oh well, still looking forward to Hit Somebody. 3/5