Inception

If I were a movie executive, I'd push back all my upcoming release dates to distance them from Inception, because this is the yardstick by which all new films will be measured for the next year. If you release a film in 2010, the best reaction you can hope for is, "It was good, but not Inception good."

Alright, I admit I may be overstating things, so I'll back off with the hyperbole and simply put it this way: you may not love this movie as much as I did, but I dare you watch it and not be entertained--both during the movie and for hours of pondering and discussion afterward. And, Dear Reader, keep in mind that although I issue this challenge with no knowledge of who you are and what you like in a movie, whoever you are, you're almost certain to be entertained by one or more of the following:

• mind-bending metaphysical sci-fi (as opposed to mind-numbing Syfy^®)
• well-paced action that's shot by someone who doesn't use ShakyCam^® like a crutch
  
• a love sub-plot that actually has something resembling love, rather than the sappy, overacted, hypersexualized, happy-ending Hollywood version of "love" (which incidentally, thanks to a new deal between the MPAA and Satan, has now been rebranded as Luv^®)
  
• seeing DiCaprio given a chance to act (which he's quite good at) without being forced to fake an accent (which he's not good at)
• having to use your brain in order to keep up with what's going on, rather than simply waiting for the next car chase or fight scene (and then getting some brilliantly trippy car chases and fight scenes anyway)
• immediately wanting to watch the film again as soon as it's over
• being rewarded by getting to the end of a complex sci-fi plot and discovering that the writers DID know what the hell they were doing (thanks for nothing, LOST)

I would be genuinely surprised, Dear Reader, if you found some reason not to like this movie, but if you do, let me know.

IMDb rating: 9.3/10

My rating: 9.8/10

First Response to "The Dark Knight"

I'll get right to it: this movie beat the bejeezus out of me with an Awesome Stick and I plan to go back for another thrashing because I f-ing loved it.  

Batman Begins did a fantastic job of setting up Nolan's new Caped Crusader as a guy who fights crime for his own reasons--not because he's a self-righteous do-gooder, but because deep down he's just fracking angry.  He doesn't hate crime because he feels sorry for the victims, he hates crime because of the criminals.  Because of the attitude they swagger around with--the "I own this town" crap that Tom Wilkinson portrayed so well as Falcone.  Because he can't stand the notion that the ones with all the guns and all the money can scare everyone else into submission.  

And Batman's fierce pissed-offedness, his desire to bash the snot out of bad men, which was set up so well in Batman Begins, makes The Dark Knight's introduction of the Joker all the more fun to watch.  This is a guy whose only agenda is to be bad.  He's not after money or control.  He's just out of his mind, and the best part is we never find out why.  The film never explains him, and although he gives us a couple of pseudo-origin stories, we're not given to believe any of them--although they are fantastically creepy as hell.  He's a bad guy without a reason to be a bad guy, a schizo-elemental, and Ledger takes that idea to a level that is scarily real.  His last scene is absolutely brilliant.  Ledger can freaking act.  I seriously don't know how he got that look in his eyes--a mix of child-like wonder and Krueger-like sadism that actually freaked me out for half a second when he combined it with that laugh.  You do not see Heath Ledger in this movie.  You see the Joker.

Ledger's Joker takes the Batman of the last film and turns him onto one mean S.O.B., and for me, that's the best element of the movie.  He's still technically on the right side, and there's still a line he won't cross, but in this movie he'll walk right up to that line and groin-punch it and spit on its grandma if he thinks it'll help clean up Gotham.  This is a morally gray Batman.  He's willing to hurt people.  He's willing to use all of the resources at Bruce Wayne's disposal, even when he has to strain the bounds of morality to do it.  And the best part is that it works...and at the same time, it doesn't.  You'll have to see the end to know what I mean.

I can't go without mentioning the supporting cast.  Gary Oldman takes Gordon to places I honestly didn't expect the character to go, and it just works.  Aaron Eckhart, an actor that hasn't impressed me up to now, makes Harvey Dent/Tw0-Face into a character I wish we could have seen more of.  Maggie Gyllenhaal as Rachel Dawes was a vast improvement over Katie Holmes' weak performance (I mean, seriously.  Who actually found that Scientologically-brainwashed twelve-year-old believable as an assistant D.A. in a town like Gotham?  No one, that's who.)  Michael Caine and Morgan Freeman reprise their roles as Batman's moral compass and moral compass/gadget man, respectively, and both do a fine job of developing their characters both as Batman's support team, and as interesting people in their own right. (Hunting jewel thieves in southeast Asia?  Who knew Alfred was such a deep well?)

If I haven't made it clear up to now, this is a great film and I cannot recommend it highly enough.  Whether you saw the first one or not.  Whether you like Batman or not.  Whether you trust my judgement of film quality or not.  After all the hype, I actually lowered my expectations a bit before going in to this one, just to avoid the kind of disappointment I experienced with Indy 4.  Turns out I didn't need to do that.  Like I said, I plan to see it at least once more, and I'll let you know if my opinion changes dramatically, but I suspect that I'll only enjoy it more the second time.

IMDb rating: 9.6/10
My rating: 9.8/10

Movie Catch-up

Haven't been in much of a blogging mood lately (still not, actually), but I figured I should catch up on a few movie reviews.  Since I'm lumping them together, they'll be short.

First up, The Golden Compass.  I was really looking forward to this one.  The early trailers made it look deliciously brass-and-leathery (which is to say steampunky), and I got the book for Christmas last year.  The beauty of the book isn't so much the story as the setting.  It's a pretty simplistic story, but it's set in a world with such a rich mythology that it made for a very entertaining read, despite the "young adult" focus (as with the Harry Potter books, or so I hear).  However, while that book series has translated well to the screen, The Golden Compass did not.  They took most of the important scenes from the book, pared them down just enough to be annoying to anyone who's read the book, and then crammed them all together.  The result is a gorgeous, well-casted mess of a movie that I won't be running out to buy on DVD.  Oh, and for no reason whatsoever, they wanked up the ending.  It'll be interesting to see if the sequels are ever green-lit.

IMDb score: 6.6/10
My score: 6/10

Next: I Am Legend.  This is another one I'd had my eye on for some time, and fortunately, this one didn't disappoint.  If you're worried about Will Smith's typical overacting--which, let's be honest, was perfectly suited to movies like Men in Black, et. al.--you don't need to worry here, because he turns in a nicely understated performance 
for this role, which is exactly what it needed.  After all, it's more about obsession
and loneliness than vampire/zombie things.  Actually, the CG monsters kinda look like crap when you see 'em up close, so it's good that they're not really the focus.  It's kind of a horror-ish version of Castaway, but set in an abandoned New York.  Not a masterpiece, but I
enjoyed it.

IMDb score: 7.6/10
My score: 7.9/10

And finally, Jenette, Michelle, and I went to see Sweeney Todd, which the fellers over at AICN have been hyping for a few months.  Of the three films in this post, this one wins.  This is Tim Burton at the top of his game...his dark, creepy game.  The sets and costumes are amazing, as was the casting.  Casting for the two lead roles was maybe a tad obvious (Burton loves him some Depp and Helena Bonham Carter), but it would have been a lesser film with any other actors.  Johnny Depp proves once again that in addition to being the definitive pirate for a generation, he can flip a switch and become someone entirely different, and Carter did her "creepy Victorian goth chick" thing even better than usual.  Then there were the nice surprises, like Alan Rickman as the evil judge...hm, I guess that's not surprising at all...but his performance was fun to watch.  And Sacha Baron Cohen made a hilarious appearance as a rival barber.  I won't say much about the story, because I don't want to ruin it for anyone, but I will say this: there is a lot of blood.  A lot.  Enough to make me squirm in my seat 
a couple of times, and movie blood doesn't usually bother me.  Speaking of "usually," I usually 
hate musicals too, but this one kicked ass.

IMDb score: 8.7
My score: 9.2

The simulated 3rd dimension can be cooler than the real one

We drove to KC on Friday to see Beowulf in IMAX 3D. I'd been looking forward to it for months, and after seeing the Harry Potter wizard's duel in 3d (which rocked), I wanted to see if they put the 3d to good use or not. Overall, they totally did.

It took a few minutes to get used to the extra dimension, which makes sense if you think about it. They're trying to simulate depth in two very different ways: with CG and with the 3d trick. So at first, characters kinda looked like cardboard cutouts, each at different distances from the screen, and each with a CG body painted on it. But if you let yourself get used to it, it can be quite an immersive experience. There were a couple of times where I flinched or dodged out of the way of something on-screen. I felt kinda stupid the first time, but the the second time made me realize that in a normal movie, there's usually only one kind of physical reflex--the jump (as in, "I actually jumped out of my seat a little when that zombie popped out"). And while there were plenty of "jump" moments in Beowulf, this was the first time I've instinctively tried to dodge an axe that was thrown at the screen.

It may not seem like that big a deal if you haven't seen it, but I think it's another great immersive tool that I hope filmmakers start using more. Some people probably still see it as "gimmicky," but I imagine that's how people saw surround sound when it was first introduced. I mean, think about it: how much sense does it make to surround us with sound when the movie's only in front of us? The answer: it makes perfect sense. You wouldn't think of building a theater today without surround sound, because now it's seen as such a useful tool, allowing the filmmaker to overcome one of the limitations of a non-interactive medium. 3d can do the same thing. Don't get me wrong. I'm not calling for a 3d Revolution. Just as there are plenty of movies that don't need surround sound, there are plenty that don't need 3d. Star Wars, however, most certainly does need it, and I can't wait to see how that turns out. In general, I'm glad the technology is coming along, because I don't see holodecks coming out in my lifetime.

As for the movie itself (which is showing in non-3d theaters, as well), I found it thoroughly entertaining. My last encounter with the story of Beowulf was a year and a half ago, translating pieces of it from the Old English, so I particularly enjoyed the fact that Grendel spoke only in Old English, and that a bard in Heorot recites from the actual poem at one point. The plot followed what I remember of the story, with some creative licence taken with the origins of both Grendel and the dragon. I suppose a true Beowulf scholar might not approve of the adaptation, but I do.

IMDb rating: 7.0/10
My rating: 8.7/10

Ok, for a matinee

I had a few reasons for wanting to see this movie, even though it was undoubtedly going to be somewhat stupid. First, it was one of those "Well, I saw the first two, so I guess we'll do this one, too" kinds of movies. I may complain along with everyone else about Hollywood's current sequel-itis, but I buy into certain franchises just like all the other suckers. Despite my having only played one RE game (RE4 for the Wii--great game), I keep finding myself interested in these movies.

Second, judging from the trailer, it seemed to have a kind of Mad Max vibe going for it--armored convoys traveling through the desert, and what have you. Until Fallout 3 comes out next year, I'll get my post-apocalyptic-desert-wasteland fix whatever way I can.

And my third reason? Zombies!! (Though, it should be noted, this movie follows the "28 * Later" model and never uses the Z-word...not sure why.) Shallow and disturbing as it may be, I like watching undead getting shot and run over and decapitated.

So, did the movie meet expectations? As the third movie in a series...not really. They decided to take an increasingly-common risk here in not really setting anything up. As Netty pointed out, if you didn't see the first two, you really don't care about these characters. And as someone who did see the first two...I still didn't care all that much. Plus, despite what might be considered foreshadowing in the title ("Extinction" => either humans or undead become extinct), this movie doesn't resolve anything. It only advances the plot of the overall series in one significant way which, for the sake of spoiler-free-ness, I won't mention here. So, as a sequel, it more or less fails.

Luckily, the Road Warrior vibe did actually work for me, though I can see others criticizing it as derivative. Heck, it is derivative, but the idea of a bunch of dirty, tired, scared people banding together for survival, and welding together a convoy of armor-plated vehicles is always cool to me. It's too bad they didn't play it up more, but I guess the whole T-Virus plot (you know, the thing this series is supposed to be about) got in the way of that...

Maybe I should just go rent The Road Warrior.

Bottom line: a decent zombie movie that feels cooler than it actually is.

My rating: 6/10
IMDb rating: 6.5/10

(BTW, I'm hoping to catch 3:10 to Yuma either tonight or tomorrow. I expect it to be quite a bit better than this movie was.)

Mediocrity...with guns.

I finally Netflixed Smokin' Aces last week, and figured I'd give it a quick review. This is one that I was looking forward to well before it came out, but I somehow never made it to the theater to see it. And it's probably just as well that I didn't.

This movie tries to be eight different kinds of cool, but only achieves moderate success on a few. Coming in to the experience, I was hoping it would be something akin to early Guy Ritchie, and at times, it was just that--a crazy cast of characters all with their own nefarious motives, tied up in a complex plot, and intersecting with each other in a ridiculous blaze of gunfire and yelling and kersplosions. The characters were definitely there--I especially loved the redneck neo-Nazis and Jeremy Piven was great as the magician/wannabe crime boss.

But when I got to the "twist" at the end, my reaction was just, "Oh," when I was really hoping it would be something like, "Holy freakin' crap, that changes everything and now I have to watch the whole thing again!" And really, that's how the whole movie went. Great characters, but none of them gets enough screen time because they're competing with crap like those pointless Ben Affleck and Jason Bateman cameos. A plot that's complex, but not terribly interesting until the end. And a style that's adequate for this kind of film, but doesn't really push any limits or do anything new. So, while I don't feel like it was a waste of my already-paid Netflix bill for the month, I probably would have felt a little cheated if I had shelled out theater money for it.

My rating: 6.2/10
IMDb rating: 6.7/10

The most I'd pay for this movie on DVD: $6

Next up on the Netflix queue: Lord of War.

Vampires!

I've decided to watch all of my vampire movies this summer while I'm working on the vampire hunter costume, and I started with one I picked up a few weeks ago, aptly titled Vampires (technically, John Carpenter's Vampires).  It's ok, but it's certainly no Escape from New York.  

I could tell you the whole story without giving anything away, because it's exactly what you'd expect: a guy (Crow) hunts vampires with the sanction and support of the Catholic church, people die gory deaths, the master vampire must be stopped, et cetera, et cetera.   Other than James Woods' decent performance in the lead role, the acting sucked pretty hard, as you might imagine in a film that also stars Daniel "I Have a Couple of Brothers Who Are Ok Actors So Somebody Please Give Me Work" Baldwin.

So why don't I hate this movie completely?  Well, first of all, since I'm working on my costume anyway, it doesn't have to be great.  It just has to make good vampirey background noise.  And second, any movie that's set on the fringes of a global Catholic conspiracy (here, hiding vampires from the world) is enough to get me interested.  It's the same reason I dig Van Helsing when so many others hate it with the fiery passion of a thousand burning Stephen Sommerses.

Well, I need a score if I'm going to finish out this review, and here it is.

My rating: 5.8/10
IMDb rating:5.6/10

P.S.  The rest of my vampire list: Van Helsing, Underworld 1&2,the Blade Trilogy, Interview with the Vampire, and maybe Night Watch.  It's not a huge list, just all the movies we have that happen to have vampires in them.  I'm sure there are some essential ones I'm missing.  If you have any suggestions, let me know.

Check one off the list

We just saw Ocean's 13, so I thought I'd review it before I forget. It was an entertaining movie, and even though it's a sequel, I think it could stand on its own for those who didn't see 11 or 12. A lot of people complain that the "Ocean's" movies are just becoming the "cool actors club," and they're right. But I think it's a good thing. These guys clearly enjoy working together, and lot of the acting in these movies doesn't feel like acting at all.

That said, if you didn't enjoy the first two, you probably won't like this one--it's the same actors in another storyline that involves a heist. And, I have to admit, the "how are we going to get past this security system?" bit is getting a bit stale, but it's by no means enough to ruin the movie. I found it to be, if not an amazing two hours, at least a very amusing two hours, and that's all I ask for my $7.50.

My rating: 8/10
IMDb rating: 7.3/10

A few sequel tips

Based on my viewing of 28 Weeks Later this past weekend, here's my list of what not to do when creating a sequel to a good movie:
1. DO NOT give the camera to a seizure-prone elderly woman whenever you want a handheld shot. Despite what many directors seem to think, "nauseatingly shaky" doesn't equal "gritty."
2. DO NOT dumb down the sequel. If the first film was fairly believable (which, despite the whole zombie thing, 28 Days Later was), don't ruin it by making a sequel in which ridiculous and unbelievable things happen all the time. ("Oh crap! We never suspected the zombies would find the back door!", etc.) Also, DO NOT break the rules of your world. In the first film, the Infected came to have certain predictable behavior. We expect to see that in the sequel, and in at least one incredibly distracting instance (I won't spoil it for you, in case you still want to see the movie), the established rules are completely broken. Don't get me wrong--a sequel should do something new, but this isn't it.
3. DO NOT write a story that isn't anchored to any of your characters. We didn't really know whose story this was until the story was over. The whole experience felt like the first 30 minutes of a movie, stretched out to fill 90 minutes.
4. DO NOT waver between "decent movie" and "complete crap movie." Be bad enough that I can laugh out loud at you, or good enough that I don't feel like I wasted my money. This in-between business doesn't work for me.

I gave this a 6/10 (IMDb average: 7.9/10).

It feels like trading brains with an imbecile, for real.

So Incubus just happened to say into my ear, and I think they're right.  Watching "Lady in the Water" is like trading brains with an imbecile.  An imbecile that thought this might be a good movie.  It is not good, and I'm glad to have my own brain back to tell me so.  

The conversation I had with this movie went something like this (This is basically an outline of the whole movie.  So this is your "spoiler alert," though I don't think it's possible to spoil this movie.):

Movie: Hey wouldn't it be cool if an Asian myth came to life in a modern apartment complex?

Me:  Yes, in theory, that would be cool.  Please continue.

Movie:  Ok, so there's this 'water spirit' chick who lives in an underwater room at the bottom of the pool.  The landlord guy finds her and she lives in his apartment for a while and doesn't wear pants.

Me:  Um...I--well, ok.  Go on.

Movie:  So this water girl needs to find this writer who's going to write a book that'll change the world.  Oh, and this writer is actually played by the director of the movie.

Me:  That's annoying.  So why does she need to find him?  Sounds like he's doing just fine.

Movie:  I don't know.  She just does.  Anyway, once she finds him she has to get home, back to the water.  Except there's this grass-wolf that lives outside and he's going to try to kill her when she comes back to the pool.  Normally he wouldn't be able to, because the justice-monkeys won't allow it, but this time he doesn't care because the water girl is really a water queen.  She just doesn't know it.

Me:  I see.  Sounds like quite the dilemma.

Movie:  Oh, it is, it is.  Luckily, there's this old Chinese lady who knows about the myth and her daughter translates for the landlord and he figures out that he needs some pot smokers and a guy who likes crossword puzzles to get the water girl back to the pool.

Me:  Um...you're losing me here.

Movie:  But wait!  There's a guy who only works out one side of his body so he has a huge arm and a huge leg and he's the guardian and as long as he stares at the grass-wolf-thing  it can't move and then the eagle comes and--

Me:  Ok, that's enough.

Movie:  But what about the Mexican sisters and the...the film critic gets eaten, and the--

Me:  I said that's enough.  Just stop it.


So, yeah.  I wouldn't recommend that movie to anyone.

300

It's a decent number. Some have called it The Greatest Number (though they were quickly silenced by the 301 Boyz). More importantly, however, it's the name of the film I saw yesterday afternoon. The film that I'd been looking forward to for nigh on six months. The film based on Frank Miller's graphic novel, which is a highly stylized version of the historical Battle of Thermopylae. Yes, that film.

So, after all the waiting, did I love it? Mayhap. In terms of visual presentation, it was superb. The backgrounds, the soldiers, the blood--everything looked like it had been painted. No, not painted. Inked. Especially the blood, and there was lots of it. The Spartans didn't wear armor in this movie, so when they got spear'd or arrow'd or sword'd, you saw the blade go in one side and out the other, in graphic detail. As Netty pointed out, though, the deliberate, dance-like choreography of the fights often took your attention away from the copious amounts of blood. The swinging of the sword and shield tended to be more visually captivating than the gutting and dismemberment. And then there was Xerxes, the Persian "god-king," who was portrayed as some kind of weird sexually-deviant giant. I dug it, if only because I've never seen a 'bad guy' quite like him (though I did get a bit of a Ra vibe from him, a la Stargate--not that there's anything wrong with that).

And now, having said all that (and there's much more I could say here), I've decided that I did love it. In fact, I think I'd enjoy it more the second time around, since I know that...well, I won't spoil it for you. I'll put it this way: now that I know how the film handled the historical aspects of the story, which I was wondering about most of the way through, my second viewing could dismiss that and I could simply look at this film again. I may just do that.