M Night Shymalan Retrospective (Part 3)

The Village

The village is one of Shymalan's more hotly disputed movies, with many fans and critics alike considering it either one of his best works or among his worst. The film takes place in a secluded village in which the elders have made a pact with mysterious creatures in the surrounding forest. When that pact is violated, the creatures once again haunt the village. And piece by piece, the village's mysterious secrets are uncovered. Also, everything I just said may be a lie, because well, it's a Shymalan movie.

The first things worth noting are the visuals and sound. The cinematography is some Shymalan's finest. And while some scenes of village life look like cliches taken straight from greeting cards, the art direction, from sets to costumes and everything else, feels vibrant and realistic. The music is effective at maintaining intrigue and hitting the right emotional cues. So luckily, while everything else about The Village ranges from seriously to irredeemably flawed, the movie's at least admirable on a superficial level.

The dialogue never feels authentically period. Everyone delivers overly formal lines in a strange quasi-British accent, like the kind you're used to hearing in bad fantasy or historical movies.  William Hurt sounds especially cringe-worthy as village elder Edward Walker, who speaks in a stonerish monotone like an 18th century version of Jeff Bridges' the dude. And watching the movie it's obvious that most of the cast doesn't know how to handle the awkward dialogue. The result is a lot of great acting talent, like Joacquin Phoenix and Sigourney Weaver, being completely squandered. While the end of the movie somewhat justifies this, it makes it no less irritating to sit through.

The worst case of squandered talent is Adrien Brody as Noah, a villager suffering from severe mental retardation (I mean this in its most literal sense and no other). While there's nothing inherently wrong with that, his character has no personality outside of his disability. Nearly everything he does in the movie can be summed up with the phrase "Because he doesn't know any better," which is lazy writing on top of lazy characterization. It's obvious that Brody's character was nothing more than a cheap plot device; things that no logical person would do had to happen to avance the story. And that alone speaks volumes about the story. It's a shame that Brody followed up The Pianist with this. For the future, Shymalan would do well to remember Robert Downey Jr.'s advice in Tropic Thunder.

Because of some awkward acting, poor and an oddly paced script that seems to meander when it's not moving toward the inevitable twist, most of the movie comes off as simply boring. None of the relationships between the characters have any real emotional drama, and the romantic subplots ultimately go nowhere. While the setup for the monsters is mildly interesting, they're never very scary and the one confrontation with one feels like a complete disappointment.

The plot twist is admittedly a clever one, but it makes the rest of the movie feel like a 100 minute long set-up for a twist. Shymalan seems to have forgotten what made his definitive plot twist great, so it ends up feeling more like something you'd expect at the end of a Saw seqel rather than the culmination of an intriguing plot. It also leads to a few plot holes, although nothing as obvious as in Signs.

The Village doesn't quite get everything wrong, but considering the talent involved and the reputation that Shymalan's name used to carry, the movie is nothing short of a complete disappointment.

Score:

Lady in the Water:

What's impressive about M. Night Shymalan is that even as his movies do worse critically and commercially, he only gets more ambitious with each movie he makes. This time around his goal was to make a movie that abandons common storytelling structure and conventions, which is no small feat. I can safely say that he accomplishes this challenging goal, but at the obvious price one pays for doing away with a logical plot structure.

Lady in the Water follows the residents of an apartment building who, piece by piece, discover their roles in a modern-day fairy tale. The unconventional plot feels somewhat like a bedtime story or even a modern-day take on Arabian Nights. In other words, it's a lively and original plot, except that it hardly feels like a plot at all. There's not much causality between events and minor plot twists come out of nowhere. In other words, it feels like Shymalan is making the story up as he goes along. This fairy tale involves characters with ridiculous names like Narfs (water nymphs from the long-forgotten blue world, not to be confused with the noise made by a genetically altered lab mouse) Scrunts (scary looking dog creatures that couldn't possibly have a less intimidating name) and the Tartutic (a triumvirate of evil monkeys.) Needless to say, it's all a little hard to take seriously, but if that's not a problem for you, then you might have some fun watching this movie.

Once again I can't help but praise the visuals and sound. The monsters, as laughable as they might be in concept, all look believably scary. The movie's few action scenes are fast and instense. There's one particularly well-done jump scare, I won't say where, that's perfectly executed and doesn't feel cheap at all. Any viewers with good sound systems will appreciate the amount of realism and creepiness. that the sound gives to the movie.

The cast is decent all-around. Paul Giamatti is likable as superintendant Cleveland Heep, capturing the qualities that make a regular guy heroic without ever being too overt about it. Bryce Dallas Howard is equally likable as Story, one of the previously mentioned narfs, and the center of the fairy tale the characters find themselves in. She makes her character's ridiculous backstory somewhat believable, which is quite the challenge in itself. A lot of the side characters are interesting at face value or for short periods of time, but never feel fully developed. Shymalan himself plays an aspiring writer who develops an annoying messiah complex about a controversial book he wrote. His character is sympathetic enough in the beginning, but comes off a little too heavy-handed about his mysterious message.  Bob Balaban (whom you might remember from Gosford Park and the Majestic) stands out as a film critic who offers some great comic relief and breaks the fourth wall in a very interesting way.

It's easy to find several things that don't work about Lady in The Water, but if you don't take it too seriously, it's just as easy to enjoy it as an absurd modern fairy tale.

Score:

M Night Shymalan Retrospective (Part 2)

Unbreakable:

Shymalan's ambitious follow-up to The Sixth Sense is an unconventional take on the superhero myth. Like the two movies before it, Unbreakable explores the supernatural in a grounded, real-world context. The movie follows American everyman David Dunn (Bruce Willis) after a tragic train crash that he alone survives makes him come to terms with his near-invincibility. With the help of a mysterious man who runs a comic book gallery (Samuel L. Jackson) David learns his true potential and begins his slow evolution into a superhero.

Bruce Willis once again gives a strong performance as David. As with The Sixth Sense, the script complements Willis' natural sense of humor while still bringing out the heavier side of his character. Spencer Treat Clark is great as David's son Dean, with one particularly unforgettable scene where he tries to put his father's powers to the test in the most extreme way imaginable. He's not quite in the same ballpark as Haley Joel Osment, but then again, who is? There's some great chemistry Samel L. Jackson is the highlight of the movie as Elijah Price A.K.A. Mr. Glass. Price has all the unique mannerisms of a Jackson character combined with physical fragility and a love of comic books, resulting in what's by far one of the most distinctive roles of Jackson's career. What's especially impressive is Price's ability to be naturally intimidating despite his physical weakness, even when he's not doing anything tough or dangerous. However, his speeches about his philosophy on on heroes and villains varies between intriguing and repetitive.

The pacing, like in the Sixth Sense, is deliberately slow, but once again it only serves to build momentum for a tense and suspenseful third act. The cinematography is stellar, and the music is effective, but not to the extent as in the Sixth Sense. The final reveal at the end is a clever one, but it's nothing mind-blowing like  its predecessor. Instead it's more of a confirmation of what any attentive viewer should already know about the characters. The conclusion is unfortunately abrupt and simply doesn't give the closure that viewers want or the confrontation that the last scene promises. To put it in perspective, Unbreakable was planned as the first part of a trilogy, but the sequels were never greenlit. So what viewers get instead is some text tagged on about what was supposed to happen next.

Another thing that doesn't quite work is David's weakness to water. Since David's story has almost nothing to do with water, it comes off as completely arbitrary. It was supposed to be his one tragic flaw, his Kryptonite so to speak. But what Shymalan seems to forget is that Kryptonite isn't just some shiny green rock than makes Superman weak; it's the last remnant of his homeworld. In other words, the tragic weakness only works if it has some profound relevance to the character.

Still, all gripes aside, this is a mature, realistic take on superhero mythos years before it was even close to the norm. While it's not the instant classic that The Sixth Sense is, it's still well-made and unique movie that's unfortunately overlooked when most viewers think of Shymalan.

Score:

Signs:

Like the movies that came before it, Signs continues Shymalan's fascination with the supernatural from  a mundane perspective. The story follows Graham Hess (Mel Gibson,) a former reverend who's lost the faith and settled down on a farm with his family (played by Joacqin Phoenix, Rory Culkin, and Abigail Breslin.) The story follows the family as a mysterious symbol appears in their crops, leading to speculation of an alien invasion.

Shymalan once again shows his talent for choosing child actors. Culkin and Breslin are both equal parts sympathetic and mildly intriguingly strange, never falling into predictable child archetypes. As usual, Mel Gibson is best when he's capable of making fun of himself, and while he's a very inconsistent actor, Shymalan knows how to play to his strengths. His performance is hardly a career highlight, but it's one of his better jobs in recent years. Phoenix is the heart of the movie as Graham's younger brother Merril, and the scenes that feature either him or the children are usually the most compelling. Unfortunately, Merril's background as a former baseball player seems a bit ridiculous and serves no purpose aside from tying into an even more ridiculous moment toward the end.

The pacing is yet again, you guessed it, deliberately slow, but this time it only partially pays off. Giving viewers one small piece of evidence of the alien invasion at a time is a clever move, and builds up a lot of anticipation for their eventual appearance. Sadly, while the aliens are genuinely scary as a vague presence in the movie, their actual appearance fails to live up to expectations. The aliens look kind of goofy, and of all the possible ways to make them dangerous, emitting poison gas from their fingers just isn't very threatening. And as suspenseful and creepy as the basement scene with the aliens is, everything that follows kills the momentum that was building up so well.

There's no twist, per se, to this movie, but rather a gradual coming together off all the coincidences and minor plot points into a grand plan, that supposedly shows that there are no true coincidences. This begs the obvious question: wouldn't it make more sense to prove that point through a genuine lack of coincidences instead of an absurd pileup of coincidences so intricate that it has to be part of a pattern?

I'd be very satisfied with the movie if my complaints stopped there, but the script is deeply flawed and is practically asking to be made fun of. For example, the aliens' major weakness is water, which is even more baffling than in Unbreakable, since they chose to invade a planet that's mostly water. This was probably an attempt to imitate or pay homage to H.G. wells' War of the Worlds by showing that the tiniest thing we take for granted could be devastatingly lethal in the right context, but instead it just comes off as pure ineptitude on the aliens' part. As far as tactics go, that's as stupid as trying to invade Russia in the winter, except the whole planet's Russia and it's always winter. On top of that, Earth's atmosphere is rich in water, so shouldn't they die just from exposure to the air?

Another unexplained point is how so many people know so much about these aliens prior to the invasion. I think Signs would have been much better if the aliens were just left as an unexplained presence. Still, as easy as it is to criticize, Signs does get a lot right. When it's not making the viewer cringe, there are moments of sincere humor and first-rate drama. This is the beginning of the decline for Shymalan, yet all things considered, it's not a bad movie.

Score:

M Night Shymalan Retrospective (Part 1)

This segment is dedicated to, for better or worse, one of the most interesting filmmaking careers in recent history. Because I'm reviewing numerous movies at once, I'll attempt to be brief. Also, while I usually try to avoid this, plot spoilers follow. It's necessary when discussing a body of work known best for it plot twists.

Wide Awake:

This is Shymalan's first major movie as a writer and director. I'm excluding Praying with Anger because it never made major release and has been quite difficult to find. Before the name M. Night Shymalan was synonymous with plot twists and supernatural suspense, he made a family movie about a young boy's search for God. After the  death of a loved one causes him to question his mortality, Catholic schoolboy Joshua Beal (Joseph Cross) looks to every possible source of wisdom in his life for some understanding on that ever-elusive concept of God.  Along the way he experiences good and bad times, wins the affection of his first crush, and faces mortality in ways that are pretty bold for a children's movie. The movie offers no concrete answers and, in true Shymalan fashion, ends with a surprise.

Overall this is a movie I recommend, but with reservation. The premise is clever and the movie offers a sincere look at the quest for religious and personal validation from a  child's perspective. Joshua's youthful wonder feels genuine and adds a bit of depth to a movie that could have easily sunk to Lifetime original movie levels of sentimentality with the wrong lead. This movies introduces two themes that  are cornerstones of Shymalan's work. The first is a fascination with the supernatural, which is explored with an intriguing mix of maturity and childhood levity. The second is a three-dimensional portrayal of children as realistically flawed characters.

At the same time, this is very obviously a children's movie, so a lot of scenes are spent on silly or goofy situations that distract from the plot. Side characters like Rosie O'Donnell's sports-loving nun try to offer comic relief, but most of the movie's humor is aimed at viewers under twelve, so anyone else won't get much entertainment out of these diversions aside from maybe finding them mildly cute. One scene, for example, features a kid with "problems" jumping around imitating a monkey. It's too ridiculous to be believable and too juvenile to laugh at. That said, Wide Awake isn't completely lacking in decent humor, but the scenes that are too obviously aimed at children feel forced in Shymalan's script.

All in all this is a solid children's movie that's unique in some ways and generic in others. If you find the premise of religion through a child's eyes intriguing then it may well be worth a view. For everyone else, the generic family movie elements might outweigh the parts of the movie that genuinely work. For someone like me who had somehow overlooked this movie until now, it was a mildly pleasant surprise.

Score:

The Sixth Sense:

If any movie is synonymous with Shymalan, it's his second major feature, though I'd hardly blame anyone for calling it his debut. This film continues Shymalan's exploration of the unknown though the relationship between two characters: Cole Sear (Haley Joel Osment,) a young boy with coping with his ability to see the dead, and Dr. Malcolm Crowe, a child psychologist looking to make up for failing a previous patient. The story focuses primarily on Malcolm teaching Cole how to live with his power and use it help others while the two struggle with their own problems.

Cole continues Shymalan's tradition of well-written child characters and Haley Joel Osment breathes boundless life and creativity into the character. He gives a sympathetic yet creepy creepy performance that really sells the psychological toll that Cole's unique ability has. The amount of subtle emotion he's capable of conveying with his eyes alone is impressive for an actor of any age. Bruce Willis gives easily one of the better performances of his career, adding a tense seriousness to his usual lighthearted, wisecracking style.  The scene with Malcolm's mind-reading game perfectly communicates the dynamic between the two characters perfectly, giving away a lot of character detail with little more than glances and gestures. Olivia Williams gives a cleverly understated performance as Malcolm's wife and widow, selling her character's grief with a quiet dignity.

The soundtrack and cinematography are excellent, slowly creating an atmosphere of tension that pays off marvelously in the third act. The ghosts are, for the most part, excellently done, with only one or two over-the-top moments. The horror elements are slow to build after the first scene and the movie doesn't really get scary until the third act. The pacing is deliberately slow to give the horror a deeper sense of realism and let us know the characters on a more personal level. Like the best thriller directors, Shymalan understands that the heart of any good horror story is a good relationship story. 

The plot twist is one of the best in the history of cinema. It works so effectively for a number of reasons, mainly because it's so inconceivable in foresight but so obvious in retrospect. Even before the twist, the plot feels complete, so the set-up for the twist never feels too obvious. And when the revelation does come, it forces the reader to look back on the plot in a way that gives it a deeper meaning. The whole thing is paralleled in a coin trick that Malcolm shows Cole; he makes a coin "vanish" and "reappear" only for Cole to point out that the coin never left his hand. A good plot twist is like a good magic trick: if you can see through the misdirection it's the most obvious thing in the world. Think about it: the movie begins with Malcolm getting shot and ends with the revelation that he's dead, and yet when it happens it's still a surprise.

This is easily the highlight of Shymalan's career, and if it weren't for a pesky thing called hindsight I'd say it's a promising sign of bigger things to come. As hyperbolic as this may sound, this may very well be the best work of supernatural horror since Jacob's Ladder.

Score:

to be continued very soon with reviews of Unbreakable and Signs

Tron Legacy (Greg)

Tron Legacy is an ambitious follow-up to the 80s cult classic Tron. I was initially ready to dismiss this as another recent cash-in on 80s nostalgia, and while I feel like this is at least partially the case, the movie still hold up in its own right.

The acting all-around is solid, but never any more than solid. All of the major actors do justice to their roles and earn their paychecks, but nobody's going to be remembered once the movie ends. Garret Hellund stars as Sam Flynn, son and successor to Kevin Flynn from the original Tron. He's the standard headstrong but good-hearted thrill-seeker you've seen in any family-friendly action movie. Bridges is once again likable as Kevin Flynn and passable as Clu. I'll give the movie credit for making Clu genuinely look and act like Flynn's younger self. Unfortunately he's played as a standard villain without much depth. The idea of making Clu a reflection of Flynn's own hubris is clever, or at least it would be if were explored further. Olivia Wilde plays Quorra, a standard action heroine and love interest, but she adds enough style and charisma to make her character genuinely interesting.

Michael Sheen gives one of the movie's more interesting performances as Zuse. Imagine David Bowie as impersonated by Johnny Depp's Willy Wonka and you more or less get the picture. He's likable enough when he's not completely overdoing it, and I can see potential for a good performance, but most of the time, he's completely overdoing it. I hope Sheen's recent roles have paid well, because otherwise going from Frost/Nixon to Twilight and this could mean career suicide. Another disappointment is that the character of Tron himself appears as barely more than a glorified cameo. What little character development he gets more or less comes out of nowhere. 

The plot that follows is standard good vs. evil (cartoonishly evil in this case,) but Tron was never about intricate plotlines. Like I've said before, all my gripes so far would be easy enough to dismiss as long as the movie delivers on its promise of spectacular visuals and first-rate action. Thankfully Tron Legacy has both in spades. The 3D is used to excellent effect, giving depth and dimension to an already beautifully imagined world. The grid looks and sounds lifelike and more than does justice to the original movie's idea of a sprawling computerized metropolis. Everything about the universe genuinely looks like a tech utopia gone wrong. The action scenes are exactly what you'd expect them to be: fast, flashy, and intense. The light cycle battle is the highlight of the movie and uses the excellent CG to its full potential, delivering pure visual thrill.

Another highlight is the score by Daft Punk. While I'm generally no big fan of electronic music, I couldn't imagine a more perfect soundtrack to a dystopian techno-fantasy. Fans of the band will also be happy to know they make a cameo and DJs in Zuse's club.

In closing, Tron Legacy is far from perfect, but as both a sequel and a standalone movie it doesn't disappoint.

Score:

Black Swan (Greg)

Natalie Portman stars as ballerina Nina Sayers in Darren Aronofsky's Black Swan.  She's obsessed with perfection, and at twenty-eight years old, is still in many ways a child, mostly because of a pushy, domineering, yet caring mother (Barbara Hershey). On her path to perfection as the Swan Queen in her company's production of Swan Lake, Nina is at odds with her obsessively concerned mother, her lustful and manipulative director (Vincent Cassell), and newcomer ballerina Lily (Mila Kunis), all of whom may have ulterior motives. By the halfway point Nina's obsession gets the best of her and the movie shifts from character drama to warped over-the-top thriller. The viewer will be forced to question what's real and what's in Nina's mind as the movie gets progressively stranger moving to its beautifully absurd climax.

While the entire cast is solid, Portman steals the spotlight for capturing all the nuances of her complex and twisted character. Her face lights up the way a child's would when she calls her mother with good news. Yet even as a sheltered virgin she still has a natural charisma. She sells her transformation into the black swan persona with every inch of her body, from her style of dancing to her subtle mannerisms. And even as the plot takes some disturbing turns, she never loses the audience's sympathy. This is the first time since Leon: The Professional that I've been so captivated by Natalie Portman's acting. This is easily the highlight of her career so far and bound to get her some award consideration.

The cinematography is stunning and works on every level. It's beautiful at face value, communicates deeper motifs and character details efficiently without being too obvious, and allows the movie to pull off visual tricks that might make you cringe in a lesser thriller. Clint Mansell's score is once again a highlight. Borrowing heavily from Swan Lake, Mansell uses Tchaikovsky's music in imaginative and disturbingly effective ways. And what's more impressive is that only those deeply familiar with Tchaikovsky's classic will be able to tell which pieces of music were adapted and which were Mansell's own creations.

And on top of everything else. Black Swan succeeds largely because it never goes for obvious emotional cues. The movie's light on jokes or overt comedy but full of the kind of humor that flows naturally from real life. There are also moments of camp and excess, and moments of tense drama and genuine suspense and horror, and you won't always know which are which. Some will call Black Swan sincere drama and others an overblown melodrama. Some will compare it to The Red Shoes and others will compare it to Fight Club. The movie's biggest achievement is that it's both, and it succeeds at being both. Some movies perform a careful tightrope walk around different genres and styles and can be taken two different ways. Black Swan instead decides there's far more art in seeing the tightrope walker fall with grace. It goes for different emotions all at once, and often ones that aren't supposed to mix.

That being said, if you found Aronofsky's previous movies too artsy and confusing, too depressing or too unsubtle in their message, this probably won't strike you as anything radically different. Black Swan is, however, more mainstream than Pi, less bleak than Requiem for a Dream and The Wrestler, and easier to digest than The Fountain, so it would be unfair to dismiss it as more of the same. For any fans of Aronofsky, Mansell, ballet, tightly-structured thrillers, or any of the actors involved, this is an absolute must-see. It's a unique and moving experience and a definite contender for movie of the year.

Score:

Tangled (Greg)

Disney is a name that leaves me, and no doubt many other viewers, with a lot of mixed feelings. On the one hand, I had the fortune of being a kid in the 90s, when masterpieces like Aladdin, The Lion King, and Beauty and the Beast came out. To this day, Disney is still synonymous with the sweetest parts of childhood. On the other hand, it's hard to bring up classic Disney without being reminded of what Disney's been turned into since then. That's not to say that the studio's incapable of making hits like The Princess and the Frog and Pirates of the Caribbean and underrated gems like The Emperor's New Groove, but for every recent success they've had an equal share of misfires, ranging from mediocre sequels to total embarrassments like Beverley Hills Chihuahua.

I went into Tangled with understandably mixed expectations, and it didn't help that the trailers did the movie no justice. The beginning was an adequate and creatively animated origin story involving a magic flower with the power of eternal life and an obvious but effective set-up of the plot to come. Then we're introduced to our heroine, an annoyingly cheerful and bright Rapunzel (appropriately voiced by Mandy Moore) and her pet chameleon. Of course a chameleon in a medieval princess movie sticks out like Christopher Walken in, well, anything, but his slapstick antics make him mildly likable later on in the movie. Rapunzel starts out disturbingly happy for someone trapped in a tower her whole life and initially runs the risk of being one-note Disney princess, like the kind parodied in Enchanted, but her ambitions are endearing and she shows some depth and personality when confronting her "mother". Donna Murphy gives the movie's highlight performance as a witch posing as Rapunzel's controlling but seemingly well-intentioned mother, and her display of smothering motherly obsession only makes her true ambitions all the more sinister.

The plot gets moving when Flynn, a goodhearted scoundrel, takes refuge in Rapunzel's tower and persuades her to disobey her mother and pursue her dreams. This of course angers Mother Gothel, who turns out to be an effective and likable villain. What follows is standard Disney fare. You get a love story, some catchy but hardly unforgettable songs (the best being the Mother Gothel's first song to Rapunzel because of its subtle creepiness,) some predictable but fun slapstick humor with the animals, and a showdown in which good nature prevails. The action sequences are fun, but nothing spectacular, but it's good to see a princess who can hold her own in a fight. If The Princess and the Frog is any indication, Disney has gotten better at writing female leads. The visuals are nice, but again, not remarkable in any way.

If I sound critical, it's only because Disney has spoiled me in the past. And while Tangled doesn't compare with Disney's best, it's still head and shoulders above their worst. So if nothing else, I can breathe a sigh of relief knowing they've put together a movie that's in every respect better than average.

Score:

Chronicles of Narnia: Voyage of the Dawn Treader (Ian)

OK....Religious films tend to be a tricky subject for critics, since their impact and entertainment value largely depend on what faith lies behind the eyes viewing them. If you believe in the message of Easter, then Passion Of The Christ would be a revelation.  If not, it may very well come across as a glorified gorefest.

The C.S. Lewis-penned Narnia series strikes a similar Christian note, albeit one not nearly as gory. These films in themselves are an example of resurrection, being dropped by Disney only to be picked up by Fox soon afterwards (apparently, 400 million dollars and a message of moral sacrifice is not enough for the House of Mouse).  The irony is that these films tend to seem pale in comparison to the angst-ridden stories of Potter and Cullen, despite the fact that the books served as an essential influence for today's fantasy storytelling.

This time around, we see the third (and supposedly most beloved) part of the series, where Lucy and Edmund find themselves longing to return for another spin in Narnia.  This is not helped by their need to live temporaily with their obnoxious cousin Eustace, whose insecurity lies in every bit of bitterness he speaks or writes. A painting of a ship at sea grants the wishes of two and sparks the nightmare of the stowaway.  Narnia is is the sea, the Dawn Treader is the ship.

You get the basic plot elements here for a classic fantasy story.  The ship is seeking seven legendary swords that need to be placed on Aslan's table, as they sail east into what seems like eternity (and sometimes the audience feels it too).  Naturally, the evil "Stephen King-esque" green mist doesn't want that to happen, so in a clever twist, it tries warping our heroes' deepest desires to corrupt their natures.  Lucy and Edmund deal with their young-sibling insecurities, a dragon makes an appearance, the message is laid on fairly thick.

That being said, the magnificent special effects carry the plot when it feels disjointed, and the overall message helps tie the film together for a pretty effective ending - depending on whether such a message resonates with you.  For me, personally, what got me was not the Christian theme alone (though that helped), but the simple idea that messengers do not need to be perfect.  Whatever you feel you are meant to do, it can feel very overwhelming to live up to images of perfection, and Heaven forbid if we take a step out of line.

The actors in this film do their job, especially Will Poulter as the strongly-developed Eustace and Simon Pegg as the rivaling noble mouse Reepicheep.  The plot is adequate, the cinematogeaphy a good compensation. It is simply a solid family film from a critical standpoint, but in the end, it's refreshing to see a film that has a traditionally optimistic and hopeful message for those mortals in the theatre struggling to find a voice - namely, that it is not about who the messenger is, but what the message is and whether you are willing to deliver it.  These ears listened.  I give it a range of 3-4 dragon-headed ships out of 5, depending on whether the message resonates for you.

Score:

Buried

Buried is a movie that shouldn't work, and if even one small thing went wrong, probably wouldn't. The movie features only one character onscreen for its entire 90 minute running time, and has him trapped in a coffin for the whole length of the movie. This sounds like a classic formula for avant-garde excess, but the movie succeeds because it traps the viewer with its protagonist, Paul Conroy (Reynolds) and allows the audience no more freedom than it gives him. The only contact with the outside world that Conroy and the viewer get are through a cell phone. This allows for a number of brilliantly nuanced voice performances as Conroy frantically tries to save himself and also lets the audience feel the heightening tension as the battery dwindles.

Buried features Ryan Reynolds in the performance of his life so far. As much as I've enjoyed Reynolds in comedies and action movies in the past, I never would have thought he'd have the range as an actor to pull off a role this serious. Surprisingly he not only manages the difficult role given to him but also adds his trademark charisma to performance. He feels appropriately desperate for a man in his position, but never falls into generic horror victim territory and even allows his character to laugh and enjoy a few lighthearted moments. Without Reynolds' charm, the movie could easily have been an hour and a half of suffering without reprieve.

For a movie spent on nothing more than phone calls and futile escape attempts, the pacing is unbelievably lively and tense as Conroy runs out of time and out of resources. The dialogue is great and never fails to feel absolutely real despite only getting to see Reynolds onscreen. By the end you'll feel like you've gotten to know certain characters despite never having seen them. Though I won't spoil the ending, I'll say that it's one of the best I've seen in any movie. It's unexpected but doesn't come off as a contrived twist, and looking back, seems like the most appropriate possible ending for the movie.

Score:

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1 (Greg)

The Deathly Hallows Part 1 is the most ambitious movie of the Harry Potter series so far. Performances are solid all around, as they've always been for this series, and it's nice to see the cast get more comfortable with age. It's impressive to see such cohesiveness with such a large ensemble cast. If Rowling has any true skill it's writing likable characters, and that talent transfers to film perhaps better than ever. Unfortunately Alan Rickaman and Michael Gambon are largely absent from the movie, and their absence here is felt almost as strongly as their presence in previous installments. On the bright side, it'll only make their return in part 2 even more powerful.

This is easily the most faithfully adapted movie of the series, which often works to the movie's benefit, but occasionally holds it down. Part 1's biggest flaw is that it rarely feels like a standalone movie, mostly because it's not. It suffers from what bogs down a lot part 2s in trilogies: there's as much exposition and set-up for for the next installment as there is plot. And when the plot largely consists of finding one McGuffin after another, things grind to a halt whenever the plot's not moving forward. After seeing The Deathly Hallows part 1 I'm not convinced that the book needed two movies. It could have easily done with one long (think Return of the King long) installment that shaved down some of the slower scenes. With stronger pacing and a proper climax, I don't see what would stop the movie from being truly great.

Luckily, when Deathly Hallows part 1 works, it features some of the series' best moments, hitting all the right emotional notes. What the movie does best is mix the plot's heaviness and lightheartedness into a satisfyingly epic but never self-serious whole. The action scenes are genuinely spectacular and a somewhat darker sense of humor serves the movie well.

For all my complaints, The Deathly Hallows Part 1 achieved what's most likely its ultimate goal: it left me wanting more and raised my expectations for Part 2. And I have a feeling Part 1 will feel much more satisfying when I can watch both movies back to back. You can probably expect a re-examination of the movie once Part 2 is out, and perhaps a retrospective on the whole series. Until then I have to review Part 1 as is.

Score:

The Warrior's Way (Greg)

A samurai western might seem like a crazy idea to some, but as Leone and Kurosawa have shown, the two are really the same genre in two different settings, and the stories they tell are fundamentally the same. And as much as the idea of pitting cowboys against samurai sounds like a perfect fit for a sci-fi channel original movie, the merging of styles undoubtedly has potential for great storytelling. So when I watched The Warrior's Way, it wasn't the premise but the execution that left me disappointed.

The story follows swordsman Yang, who strives to be the world's greatest at the art of killing. He runs into a problem when he shows mercy on a helpless baby from an enemy clan. His people take it as an act of betrayal, and Yang flees to the American West. Not the actual one, the one seen in only the cheesiest westerns. The visuals are lame, with 300-style exaggerated GCI settings, but without Zack Snyder's keen eye for detail. After some mostly ineffective fish-out-of-water comedy and a stale attempt at a romance subplot, Yang's people arrive seeking revenge and cowboy on samurai/ninja/stock Asian fighter role action ensues. The acting all around is Michael Bay quality: no one's particularly bad, but everyone's bland enough that talking scenes really only serve to fill space between action sequences.

Of course this is an action movie, and all my previously mentioned gripes could be dismissed easily enough if the action were first rate. After all, plenty of similar movies, most recently the Wachowskis' Ninja Assassin, overcame bland scripts and stock performances by delivering intense, creative action sequences. Unfortunately, The Warrior's Way's biggest flaw is that the action scenes are only decent. There's too much emphasis on slow-motion without much understanding of what makes slow-motion sometimes works. Fight scenes slow down and speed up randomly, not bothering to heighten tension like the Matrix or emphasize picturesque moments like a Zack Snyder movie. Everything about the action scenes feels like an only partially successful recreation of what we've seen in better movies.

All in all, The Warrior's way is passable entertainment, if only barely so. If you're a fan of samurai movies, this might be worth a rental. If, like me, you wonder what a successful samurai western might look like, keep wondering.

Score:

Batman Retrospective (Greg)

This is my review of one of my most beloved series across any medium. Since I'm reviewing six movies at once, I'll try to keep things concise and focus on what stood out the most instead of evaluating every aspect. Also, I'm saving the Adam West series and the animated shows movies for a different review. For anyone unfamiliar with Batman lore, this may contain a spoiler or two.

Batman:

This movie came at a crucial time when Batman was seeing new life in the comics as a darker, grittier, and more realistic series. Burton's Batman captured the seriousness of the series without forgetting what made silver age Batman fun. Equal parts action, drama, and dark comedy,  it featured memorable dialogue, brilliant (albeit dated) scenery and a strong supporting cast, with Nicholson's joker as the highlight. Nicholson feels like he came right out of the stellar 90s cartoon, just goofy enough that his dark side seems even darker by contrast.

Michael Keaton is still the definitive Batman. He's just the right balance of everything that makes the character great, without taking the grittiness or the campiness too far. He has a naturally intimidating presence without looking like he's trying too hard and a voice that commands both fear and respect without sounding like a chain-smoking Clint Eastwood. The only drawback is that he's not given much to work with as Bruce. Keaton's Bruce Wayne feels more like a regular guy who happens to be Batman, and while he's able to subtly internalize everything that drives Batman, he doesn't stand out as a character.

The action scenes are decent but nothing unforgettable by today's standards. The dialogue is a bit cheesy at times, but it helps that the movie can at least have a little fun at its own expense.

Final Score:

Batman Returns:

Burton's Sequel is bigger, louder, campier, and bolder in every possible way. There's more of an emphasis on action and Burton's trademark macabre surrealism. The cast this time around is just as strong, with the villains at the center of attention. Danny DeVito is endearingly creepy as the Penguin,  but a disappointing departure from the comics' cold, calculating villain. Michelle Pfeifer is the definitive Catwoman (not that Halle Berry is exactly competition.) She's charismatically sexy, but vicious enough to hold her own, and never allows her exaggerated quirks to feel too campy. Christopher Walken is lovably devious as Max Shreck, and feels like he was born to play a comic book villain. Keaton gives another good performance as Batman, but doesn't shine like he did in the original because the plot gives him less to work with. The chemistry between him and Pfeifer is great, but there's less connection between him and the other villains.

Unfortunately, the few things that didn't work in the original are also made bigger and louder in the sequel. The subplot about the Penguin's identity goes nowhere, and his race for mayor offers some great dark comedy but hardly feels essential to the movie. Catwoman's origin feels a little bit cheesy, but it's presented with so much style that you won't care. Luckily Batman Returns makes up for its few pitfalls with pure style and charisma All in all a solid sequel that's almost as good as the original.

Final Score:

Batman Forever:

Val Kilmer is a passable Batman but doesn't hold a candle to Keaton. He has the boyish charisma to capture the billionaire playboy side of Bruce but he's never convincing as the conflicted hero. The plot, sets, acting, and just about everything else in the movie is campy, cartoonish, and somehow feels more dated than the Burton movies despite being newer. It's kind of ironic considering how mature and realistic the cartoon felt.

The villains this time around, Tommy Lee Jones as Two-Face and Jim Carey as the Riddler, are bright and flamboyant, reveling in silver age cliches.  On the one hand they offer some good, silly fun. On the other hand, they do absolutely no justice to such potentially great characters. Unfortunately with dumbed down villains comes dumbed-down action, and none of the confrontations between the heroes and villains have the dramatic weight that they should. Also, I'd need an entire rant just to explain how asinine the Riddler's scheme was.

Schumacher's movie also makes a risky move introducing Robin into the fold. Needless to say it's a risk that doesn't pay off, since Robin is just as uninteresting and undeveloped as the rest of the supporting cast.

I'll admit there were some moments of delightful, campy fun, but not enough to deserve comparison to Burton or Nolan's movies. Sometimes Batman Forever is delightfully quirky, and sometimes it's just plain dumb. I had some fun with this movie, but I can't in good conscience recommend it to anyone else.

Final Score:

Batman and Robin:

There's a fine line between misunderstood masterpieces and bad movies. Beneath that is  a broader line between bad movies and terrible movies. Still beneath that is a line like an airstrip with bright lights commanding you to steer clear. That's where we find Batman and Robin. This is a movie whose very name is among the scariest phrases a viewer can hear, along with "Tyler Perry presents" and "From the Mind of M. Night Shymalan."

While Batman Forever might at least qualify as a guilty pleasure, Schumacher's second outing is just embarrassingly bad. This time around, George Clooney stars as Batman, which turns out exactly how it sounds. Imagine Bruce Wayne being played as the lead in a light romantic comedy and you'll more or less get the picture. Robin's still around and he hasn't gotten any less bland since the last movie. Alicia Silverstone joins the cast as Alfred's daughter and Batgirl. For what it's worth she at least brings some excitement into her character, even if she's rarely given anything interesting to say or do

The villains for this one are Arnold Schwarzenegger as Mr. Freeze and Uma Thurman as Poison Ivy, both of whom look more like random people in Halloween costumes than legitimate Batman villains. Bane is also featured as a minor villain. He's big and he breaks things, making him the most accurately adapted character in the whole movie. Poison Ivy acts as a temptress trying to turn Batman and Robin against each other, except there's really nothing tempting about her to the viewer. And it takes a special kind of ineptitude to make Uma Thurman unappealing.

Mr Freeze is the best part of the movie, which is a already a  bad sign,  since his personality consists entirely of making ice-themed puns and being Arnold. The puns are unBEARable (bonus points if you get the reference) but at least they're something to laugh at.

The plot involves something about Mr. Freeze stealing diamonds in order to fuel a machine that will bring a new ice age on Gotham. To explain it any further in full sentences would require putting more thought into it than the writers did. The action scenes feel even more goofy and slapstick than in Batman Forever and are accompanied by too many cliched one-liners. I highly recommend this movie as a drinking game or hazing ritual, but otherwise steer clear of it.

Final Score:

Batman Begins:

Now this is more like it. A Batman movie that captures the feel of the 90s animated series and some of the best comics. Batman Begins is a reboot and a very loose adaptation of Frank Miller's Batman Year One. Rebooting was definitely the way to go since no logical continuity could possibly flow from Batman and Robin. The absence of Robin and the re-imagined Batmobile are both welcome changes. This time relative newcomer Christopher Nolan takes the helm, and his straightforward yet cerebral style suits the Batman series perfectly.

The movie features Christian Bale as Batman in his first days as Gotham City's caped crusader, and he's easily the best since Keaton. He captures the anguish and conflict of his character but can also play the billionaire playboy side with just the right hint of sarcasm and self-loathing. Though while he excels as Bruce Wayne, he's merely okay as Batman. Sometimes he's appropriately dark, like early Frank Miller's batman, and sometimes he completely overdoes it, like latter day Frank Miller's "Goddamn Batman." And oh God that voice. It sounds like no one told Bale he wasn't playing the lead in Gran Torino. It's a clear example of Bale's Batman going out of his way to seem scary instead of just naturally being scary. Visually, however, Batman is handled perfectly, especially when he uses stealth and fear against his enemies

The supporting cast is the best the series has ever had. Michael Caine plays a phenomenal Alfred, equal parts compassionate father figure and subtle badass. Katie Homes is a bold and energetic Rachel Dawes, but she looks a bit young for her part (something I never thought I'd say about a former Dawson's Creek member). Gary Oldman plays Gordon well enough that the movie could easily have been a great cop drama without Batman. Cillian Murphy gives a chilling and understated performance as Scarecrow, and has a way of conveying threats with his eyes alone.

The absolute highlight of the movie, however, is Liam Neeson as Ra's Al Ghul. He's the rare kind of villain who never steals the spotlight but is always the center of attention. He can pull off being sympathetic and sinister at the same time, all while keeping a straight face. And most importantly, he's the only villain who actually feels like a legitimate foil for Batman who can match him on every level.

The plot is a tightly structured thriller that would work almost as well without Batman, which speaks volumes about the believability of the world Nolan creates. My only complaint is the that the action scenes occasionally feel a little rushed and chaotic, making them hard to follow. Still, when a movie gets so much right, pointing out a minor flaw or two feels like nitpicking.

Final Score:

The Dark Knight:

I'll do my best to keep this short since there's so much I could ramble on about for hours with this movie.

First, my one major complaint about the first movie was addressed. The action in The Dark Knight not only flows more coherently, it's also bigger, bolder, and more imaginative. The Batmobile chase scene and the assault on Lau's office stand out as some of the best action scenes of the last decade.

Bale is once again an excellent Bruce Wayne, although less screen-time and a shift in focus to the villains means that his character isn't as interesting this time around. And once again, Bale's Batman is merely decent. He carries himself with more confidence this time, but some of the one-liners and  cliched hero speeches he has to deliver in the batman voice are just painful.

The supporting cast is as tight as ever, with Maggie Gyllenhaal replacing Katie Homes as Rachel Dawes. While she gives a strong performance and transforms the character into a more emotionally vulnerable figure, she ultimately gets stuffed in a fridge purely for the sake of plot advancement. And afterwards, her death is never brought up again in any meaningful way. Aaron Eckhart plays a cool and sympathetic Harvey Dent with just enough of a dark side to make his transformation into Two-face believable. Alfred and Fox are unfortunately relegated to giving motivational speeches. They play their parts well, but they simply aren't given as much to work with.

And finally, Heath Ledger plays a lovably disturbing Joker. It's as if he took everything that worked about all the previous portrayals and added a little extra insanity just for good measure. Everything from the calculated madness of his plots to his chilling laugh and instantly quotable scar stories is sure to make him a character for the ages. While he doesn't quite match the simple brilliance of Neeson's Ra's Al Ghul he's by far the more iconic villain. My only problem with this version of the Joker is his need to over-intellectualize everything. The mystery behind the character is half his appeal, so viewers don't really need him to explain his philosophy on the world. To quote another rendition of the Joker, "My jokes are elegant in their simplicity! You see them, you get them, you laugh." That's what this movie sometimes misses. Characters don't need to go out of their way to explain what they're already implying with their actions.

The plot this time is almost as good as Batman Begins. While Nolan's first outing was a tightly structured thriller, The Dark Knight is frantic and loose, hinging on pure intensity and cool twists that sometimes don't quite make sense in retrospect. Nitpicking aside, this is still a damn fine movie.

Final Score:

Vampires Suck (by Greg)

Vampires Suck is the latest so-called comedy from Jason Friedberg and Aaron Seltzer. For anyone familiar with their previous work (Disaster Movie, Epic Movie, Date Movie, Meet the Spartans) I could end my review there and you'd know everything you need to know. But if you can be bothered to read my blog, I might as well say a little more.

This parody rehashes the the first two Twilight movies with even more one-dimensional knock-offs of all the characters (the male protagonist is called Edward Sullen, that's how little thought they put into the movie.) Teen angst is replaced with fart jokes and out-of-place celebrity references (Lady Gaga, Jersey Shore, the Kardashians, Black Eyed Peas, exactly what you'd expect.) Vampires Suck is the worst kind of unfunny. You can make better jokes off the top of your head as you watch, and things that were funny on their own in the original, like the blatant abstinence propaganda and awful CG wolves, are rendered unfunny by bad jokes.

What's worse is that as a parody it only solidifies Twilight as a pop-cultural fad. If you hate the Twilight series, don't be suckered into this movie on the promise of getting to show your disapproval of an idiotic trend. You're only giving Twilight more attention than it deserves. I guarantee you that two thirds of this movie's fanbase will be Twilight fans desperate to pretend that they're in on the joke.

The Twilight series is a goldmine of unintentional comedy. Vampires Suck, despite being called a comedy is completely devoid of laughs. And what good is a parody that's less clever and less funny that the material it tries to make fun of? If I wanted to laugh at Twilight, I'd watch Twilight.

Final Score (out of 5 sets of fangs)

Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World (Greg)

Have you ever seen seen a video game movie that reminded you why the original game was so much fun in the first place? Me neither. And yet here it is, a movie that revels in 8-bit gaming and silver age comic book conventions like boss fights, score meters, sound effect bubbles, and enemies exploding in a shower of coins. And what's more surprising, it actually delivers. Scott Pilgrim has its flaws, but it delivers the visceral rush absent in too many adaptations of classic nerd lore.

Michael Cera stars as the titular hero who tries to win the heart of a girl with some unusual baggage: seven evil exes who want him dead. Part action movie, part impromptu musical, part post-modern love story, this crazy hodgepodge somehow works when logic says it shouldn't. The movie builds up a bit awkwardly, with little connection between one scene and the next, but one the action begins the movie build momentum and will keep you glued to the screen.

Cera, practically the poster-child for teenage awkwardness, seemed like the last person who should have played the comic book's endearingly clueless ball of 8-bit ADHD, and yet he mostly pulls it off. When he cuts down on his trademark self-conscious awkwardness and embraces his character's goofy recklessness he really stands out, giving his best performance since Arrested Development.

The supporting cast is great, all with their own lovable quirks and defects. The chemistry between characters is nearly flawless, especially when Scott's gay roommate Wallace is involved. The dialogue feels naturalistic yet absurd: the way real people would talk if they inhabited such a thoroughly insane world. And there are too many great comic one-liners to single any one out. If this movie had managed reach a bigger audience it would have been a goldmine of pop-culture quotes and internet memes.

The only major flaw is the portrayal of Ramona, who seems to have no personality aside from her changing hair color and seeming bored with everything. Compounded with Scott's awkwardness, it makes for some romance scenes that range from endearingly pathetic to just pathetic. Despite an otherwise diverse and amazing cast of characters, the movie makes one slip-up and confuses music taste and fashion sense for personality.

All in all Scott Pilgrim vs. The World is far from perfect, but it's such a unique and entertaining experience that you'll hardly care by the time you get to its hilarious, action-packed climax. This epic of epic epicness fully lives up to its name.

Final Score (out of 5 8-bit hearts)