Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides

Why anyone thought the world needed another Pirates movie I don't know. The third film, for all of its other flaws, at least had every major plot point resolved in a mostly satisfying manner. So why, aside from the money incentive, make another? Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides does little to answer that question, but for a film that immediately gives you so many reasons to hate it, it surprisingly gets a lot of things right, like returning the darker themes of the original and taking the time to build atmosphere.

Perhaps I'm alone in this respect, but Jack Sparrow got old for me really quickly. In the first movie he was great because there was subtlety to his method and his true loyalties were a fun mystery to unravel. But with each installment after that he's become more and more of a cartoon character to the point where it got hard to care whose side he was on. On Stranger tides is no exception, and Sparrow's goofy antics stick out against the movie's darker tone like, well, a Disney character in a film about murderous cutthroats. There's not even a need for metaphor.

Thankfully Geoffrey Rush comes back as Barbosa, a character just as interesting as Depp's Sparrow but undiluted by attempts to milk as much humor out of him as possible. The side cast is once again adequate if not memorable. Ian McShane plays a likably villainous Blackbeard and Penelope Cruz adds some charm to the cast as Blackbeard's daughter Angellica. The love/hate relationship between her and Jack Sparrow is, well, just there. It's the same teasing rivalry/romance subplot you've seen shoehorned into countless movies before but it's at least handled adequately enough to be worth seeing one more time. The only throwaways are the missionary and the mermaid, who have an absolutely useless romantic subplot.

What On Stranger Tides does benefit from, however, is limiting its scope to a specific mission and sticking to it. As the last two movies showed, mixing the slapstick antics of Disney fare with the scope of an epic story just doesn't work because the action only gets louder and more muddled rather than convincingly bigger. And while On Stranger Tides avoids the pitfalls of silly looking CG monsters and absurdly complex action set-pieces, but it does repeat the mistake parts 2 and 3 made of piling up too many plot points at the end. That said, there's still a satisfying finish that makes all the buildup worthwhile.

But if there's any one reason to watch this film, it's once again Hans Zimmer's terrific score. This time it's more moody and atmospheric, with less of the gaudy adventure vibe of previous installments, but it still packs the same sense of excitement that you'd expect from a Zimmer score.

On Stranger Tides could have been a smarter, darker counterpoint to the previous films if the mood weren't killed by too much slapstick and cartoon antics. Or it could have been a fun, lighthearted adventure romp if not bogged down with a slow pace and too much dialogue. Either way you're likely to get you money's worth, but good luck fighting the feeling that you could have had much more.

Score:

Advice on Film Criticism (an ongoing series)

I decided to start this segment both to answer a common question I get and to discuss some of the mistakes that many aspiring (and occasionally professional) critics make. I'll keep this segment going with 5 or so points at a time to keep it at a manageable size.


1. You must love film.

It's an obvious statement but one that's often overlooked. If being a film critic simply meant watching the movies you like (or love to hate) and then giving an opinion, anyone would do it. But to review movies successfully, you have to go far beyond that. You need to a have a true passion for the medium that drives you to learn and understand far more than the average person. This means knowing the traditions that inspire your favorite and least favorite trends, watching countless movies you'll inevitably hate just to gain a bit of perspective on the ones you'll like. But above all, you have to understand what it takes to make a film, and just as importantly, what it takes to ruin one. And this takes dedication that goes well beyond the point when the average viewer would lose interest.

2. Your opinion can be wrong, but not for the reasons you think

As a critic it's not your job to praise the 'right" movies and skewer the "wrong" ones. It's also not your job to convert others to your taste or to uphold a mainstream or contrarian viewpoint. You're not right or wrong for preferring Ed Wood to Stanley Kubrick or vice versa, but you're wrong if you can't justify either stance. Your opinion can be wrong if it's based on incorrect information or fallacious logic or if your scores seem inconsistent or arbitrary to the majority of your readers. Your job, in the simplest terms, is to evaluate a film in a way that's honest and reliable. The former is self-explanatory; the latter, on the other hand, requires practice and understanding and I'll have more to say on that in point three. If you do this right then you can absolutely trash a film while still informing some viewers why they might enjoy it. And that's what will keep people returning to read your reviews even after they rage and fume about how you got any given movie all wrong.

3. Criticize consistently

The quality of any review is half content and half context. While any individual review can win you some fans and gain you credibility, it's the complete body of your work that will give your opinions and observations meaning. Every review you write should be consistent with a larger scheme so that readers can infer what they know about your tastes and apply them to your reviews. However, it's usually the content of criticism that determines critic's merit, and while everyone reviews a little differently, a few core rules are almost always applicable:
- Know the relevant criteria for any movie and give weight accordingly. A review of an action movie should not touch on the same points in the same proportions as a review of a serious drama or a screwball comedy. If you're reviewing 300 there's only so much that readers want to know about the script, but they'll want an in-depth analysis of the action. The converse goes for, say, The Social Network.
- Explain what your scores mean (unless you're convinced it's completely obvious) and be sure that the score never contradicts the content of the review. The reader should be able to guess the score intuitively just by reading your comments on the movie.
- Keep your personal pet peeves personal and don't give them more weight than they deserve. The reason Armond White, for example, is such an unpopular critic despite his extensive knowledge of film  is not simply because he's a contrarian but also because his criteria for good or bad films are so specifically geared to his personal tastes.
- Check to see if your scoring differs among genres and time periods. If they do, make sure those scores reflect your opinion on that genre at that time.


4. Criticize constructively

As almost any critic will tell you, writing an especially brutal review can be fun and provides great catharsis after feeling cheated by a bad film. Unfortunately this tactic has become so common that negativity and grumpiness have become shorthand for criticism so don't take it as a requirement. Note that even Doug Walker (The Nostalgia Critic) who specifically reviews notoriously bad movies knows not to go overboard with his rants and occasionally concedes when a movie exceeds his expectations. That said, don't be too so positive that you get caught up in your own hyperbolic prose or else fans and detractors alike will see you as biased. Your language should be exactly as positive or negative as your estimation of the film. Here are a few tips on how best to avoid that.
- Don't use any word that roughly means good or bad interchangeably. Each one means something slightly different.
- Don't stoop to ad-hominem attacks against actors and filmmakers. A film review is not your place to spread rumors or criticize their appearances or personal lives. There's a place and a context for that, but in a film review it's not only irrelevant but a clear sign of bias.
- Don't be afraid to voice offensive opinions, but never go out of your way to offend, especially not to get a reaction.
- You fans' comments are likely to offer some insight on this. Don't take each one as an imperative, but look at the ones that are made about you most consistently.

5. Don't star-gaze

Since this is a personal pet peeve, I'll follow my own advice and keep this relatively short. Basically, just know that a film review is not a place for Hollywood gossip. While the occasional comment is acceptable, don't spend any significant amount of space on actors' appearances, insider anecdotes, or personal ramblings about any experiences you might have had with the cast and crew. Again, there's a time and place for all of those things, but in a film review they'll only make you look biased and unprofessional.

Priest

Just looking at the trailer for Priest, it's obvious that so many things can go wrong very easily. You have a setting that looks like an Orwellian Blade Runner meets V for Vendetta knockoff ruled by the militant Christianity, specifically the brach of Christianity that believes in cramming every Christian cliche into one dogma. The plot seems pulled straight out of a silver age comic book: neo-priests in the future expertly trained for combat do battle with deadly vampires. Basically think a reverse Daybreakers with a hint of Judge Dredd thrown in. In other words, it's obvious what kind of movie Priest is striving to be: a sleek fusion of high-concept sci-fi and over-the-top action. So the most important question then is whether it delivers on either end.

The answer is a frustrating maybe. The movie begins with some shoddy motion comic style animation set to bland narration about the vampire uprising and the priests who kept it in check. Then we see our two main characters, cowboy archetype and lapsed priest archetype, set out on a mission to rescue a loved one from the vampires. This earns the disdain of the church, which calls out a hunt on lapsed priest archetype for disobeying them. As a general rule, audiences won't sympathize with a character for losing faith if it happens in the first ten minutes and they never see him having it in the first place. On the other hand, it's probably best that a movie like Priest shakes such details aside to get the plot moving.

What ensues is the two protagonists' journey into lawless, vampire-infested wild west themed wastelands. In other words, it's an excuse to have our heroes talk tough and kick ass, and they do both often enough to at least keep things from getting boring. The fight scenes themselves are satisfying. They're fast-paced, full of style and cool visuals, but never so elaborately fancy that they look like video game cutscenes. To its credit, the movie uses darkness well to build a satisfying atmosphere, reminding me of a poor man's Pitch Black. The constant comparisons Priest draws to better movies are probably the best evidence of how much it gets half-right.

The action escalates when another priest tracks down our heroes but soon comes to see things their way. Seriously, for battle-hardened warriors sworn to duty and dogma, these people have the most fickle convictions. But again, at least this movie makes it easy to sweep plot aside. Entering act 3 their mission becomes to square off against the vampire menace that's gathering numbers in preparation for a big attack.

The acting is consistently serviceable, with everyone doing justice to their basic parts. There are a few scenes of genuine drama, but in general, the parts between action scenes are mostly filler. The movie's biggest saving grace in this respect is that action scenes come often enough.

If you're in the market for something not too different form a poor man's Equilibrium, this is the movie for you. It's unapologetically cheesy and derivative but has a strong imagination and manages to get the basics right.

Score:

Thor

Marvel Comics' Thor is a weird amalgam of a fish out of water story, epic fantasy piece, and modern-day superhero myth. It's the sort of premise that seems ridiculously easy to screw up if even one of those components didn't work. Luckily fans can set their worries aside; this is a movie that knows how to have fun with a ridiculous idea, even if it doesn't do anything new or extraordinary.

Thor tells the story of a the titular Norse god, banished from Asgard to our world for his recklessness while his brother Loki schemes to take the throne for himself. On Earth Thor does what every good fish out of water does: he addresses his flaws while learning the value of love and the true meaning of heroism. Chris Hemsworth plays him well enough to make the character likable and offset the inherent goofiness of the plot.

The supporting cast is decent all around. Natalie Portman adds impressive dimension to what would otherwise be a standard love interest and Anthony Hopkins plays a believably wise yet tragic Odin. The other Asgardians look like they all came from the set of a Lord of the Rings knockoff, but when their whole purpose is to kick ass without getting in the way of the plot, it's hard to dislike them. The real highlight, however, is Tom Hiddelston as Loki, who always feels appropriately sly and deadly. After seeing other roles like this done way too flamboyantly before, it's good to see him show just that little bit of eccentricity that every good super-villain needs.

The real star of this movie, though is the action. It's not the best you've seen in recent years, but it comes often and consistently delivers in terms of scope, intensity, and style. My only complaint is that the giant robot looks a little too much like something you'd expect out of Power Rangers. That said, it makes up for its goofiness with sheer deadliness.  The CG is some of the best you'll see in a superhero movie, creating a world that's flashy and epic but still feels real. Director Ken Branagh's style of over-the-top (in a good way) drama serves the movie well.

Thor's interactions with the modern world border on campy at times and come close to killing tension (think a toned down Star Trek 4) but enough good humor comes from them and the writers are smart enough not to draw these scenes out too long. In general the movie has a very nice sense of humor and knows when to laugh at its own ridiculousness.

Fans of Marvel's mythology will be glad to see a cameo from Hawkeye and Nick Fury as well as several references to other Avengers. As a fan myself I'm satisfied to see the Marvel universe coming together piece by piece.

In short, for a movie that doesn't do anything special or extraordinary, Thor does a lot of things right. It features compelling action, likable characters, and just the right amount of genre savvy to make it a success in all respects. If you have any interest in fun, lighthearted superhero movies, there's no reason why this one will disappoint.

Score:

Classic Film Corner: #18 - Grave of the Fireflies

If any of you have ever seen a sports movie, a romantic comedy, or anything that uses the term “uplifting” from a critic’s review in its trailer, then the “pick-me-up scene” should not be a foreign concept in the least. Let me paint the picture for you: a negative turn of events has the main character slouching and sulking in his home, often in his underwear, lamenting how things turned out. Then his sidekick/best friend/token comedy relief comes through the door to check in, berates him for not picking himself up, and then offers a surprising piece of tough-love wisdom that the protagonist is totally caught off guard by. (Because he’s the goofy sidekick and isn’t expected to know how to respond to adversity, it’s so unpredictable!)

All sarcasm aside, it is a staple in many films – and not quite how real life works. We all (hopefully) have those support systems that are behind us, but it takes an inner response first to turn things around or it will usually never happen. However, it never hurts the inner self to be reminded, “You think you have had it rough? Let me tell you a story…” It is rarer for a film to serve that purpose.

ENTRY #18 – GRAVE OF THE FIREFLIES

A good way to describe Studio Ghibli is to say that they are Japan’s version of Pixar Studios, except they have been making top-quality animated films for twice as long and are in a country where animation is not considered second-class to live-action films. Most probably know them through their whimsical Asian counterpart to John Lasseter, Hayao Miyazaki (My Neighbor Totoro, Spirited Away, Kiki’s Delivery Service...each of them on the level of The Incredibles, and usually involving a young female protagonist). But Japan often demonstrates an unusual dichotomy with their utilization of young characters in film, using them not only as paradigms of the magical human spirit but also as an example of the cost when that spirit is corrupted in society. Grave of the Fireflies, directed by Isao Takahata, became one of the studio’s earliest major hits by using two infectiously decent children as a narrative means to target the enterprise of war.

Not World War II, not the US, not even the specific bombings at Hiroshima or Nagasaki…just war as a whole. Throughout the film, you never actually see the faces of those attacking the various cities and populations, and you honestly don’t need to. Japan, as has been pointed out by Ebert and other critics, approach war with a different attitude than Americans do. We tend to wave the figurative flag (or obnoxiously literal…thanks, Spiderman 3), while painting those who oppose us in some way as a collective way – distinctive bulls-eye targets for different groups at different ages in history. Usually, one target evolved into another naturally. Rather than saying “Soviets/Communists=enemy” or “Al Qaeda/Muslims=enemy”, Japan simply states that anyone who specifically attacks their people is their enemy, and they don’t see a difference between different enemies or feel a need to lump all people in a group with those who hurt them. To them, it is simply “enemy=enemy”.

I am not saying this is necessarily any better of an attitude, since it doesn’t seem to make savage instincts any more subdued or diminished either way. But looking at news coverage tonight, with American focus largely on Osama Bin Laden’s death and not so much on the bloodshed surrounding the corresponding conflicts, it does seem like that Takahata’s efforts to make war “faceless” and non-specific put more spotlight on the victims surrounding it. Under such a framework, we are introduced to Setsuko and his little sister Seita, two children who are caught in the middle of a region torn apart by air raids and the subsequent struggles to find enough food and shelter to survive the aftermath. Painful loss and helplessness force the pair to try finding help by any means necessary, be it through familial contacts or through any abandoned resources they can find. Although I can attest to how masterfully the story is told, in a way that makes us admire Setsuko’s selfless devotion and fall in love with Seita’s innocent outlook on the horrid life around her, it would be (no pun intended) criminal to spoil the series of events that occur in their struggle to survive. But make no mistake: this film does not hold back any punches, and fireflies are indeed involved. Oh, and unless you have tear ducts of concrete, you WILL cry at some point. The last 15 minutes, in particular, are devastating (as are other scenes if rewatched).

In an odd way, this film reminds me of Cloverfield, in its efforts to shift the default focus of a particular type of story. It was also a film that tried moving the story from what we already knew (namely, the “monster” being combated and those attacking it) and tries to make you wonder how you would react in a similar situation. And like Cloverfield, the pace of the film and setting take on a much more significant role. Takahata and his team of animators take their time in focusing on scenes of waste and disrepair, letting audiences soak in the same sort of magnifying desperation felt by all those already in the film. The use of darkness and light is expertly utilized to try preserving as much dignity to the wastelands portrayed as is humanly possible, while also using their artistic medium to present visions not otherwise possible in live-action settings (I will only say that if a tenth of these scenes were done with actual children, police would be brought on studio sets to investigate).

But in all honesty, as much as I can speak about the technical and atmospheric merits of Grave of the Fireflies, in all honesty, all I can think of right now is my own younger sister right now. She is 10 years old, almost twice as old as Seita, but is easily one of the most emotionally intelligent individuals I know. She has an innate warmth and tact for knowing when to interact with others and in what way, a trait that makes her endearing to just about everyone who’s ever met her. She is also very sensitive, with an empathy that makes her emotional to the point of tears when seeing another suffer. She also is learning how to play the saxophone and is the type who loves playing outdoors in the spring. I guess what I am saying is this: I could empathize with Setsuko’s inner need to protect his sister from the world’s cruelty however he could, but could not imagine how I would show such strength in scenes like the ones in this film. Humanity has a tendency to show great spirit and will in those moments of utter terror and despair, but they should never have to learn that about themselves in the first place.

For that realization alone, this film earns my highest respect for its director and the studio as a whole. It found a way to make me pull myself out of my own struggles, in a way that most “preaching” cinematic endeavors only dream of doing. But I never, ever, ever want to watch this film again.

[OVERALL RATING: 10/10….but for one viewing only]

Vampire Movies Retrospective (Part 1 - for real this time)

Now that our little April Fool's day joke is over, on to the real thing. This segment is a look back on the best, worst, and everything in between featuring one of the most revered and reviled creatures  in film, literature, and myth. This segment will span every genre and era of film and will be put out in pieces because of the sheer amount of material.

As with all retrospectives, I'll try to keep the reviews relatively short. 

Blade

Blade was a unique movie for its time in a lot of ways: a hard R rated movie from Marvel comics, a black comic book hero getting mainstream film exposure, and the introduction of vampires into a major action movie. For those unfamiliar with the plot, Blade tells the story of a half-vampire hybrid (Wesley Snipes) who makes it his personal mission to hunt down and kill vampires running a secret criminal underworld right under humanity's nose.

If The Matrix hadn't come out just a year later, this might have been the epitome of late 90s action. Blade is uncompromisingly bloody and violent and filled with the kind of preposterously stylish action that makes for nothing but the purest entertainment. The movie, and especially Snipes as the titular hero, are overflowing with cool. The same goes for Kris Kristofferson as badass sidekick Whistler and Stephen Dorff as lovably over-the-top villain Deacon Frost. 

At the same time, if Blade has any real shortcoming it's being too much of a 90s movie, which means the tone is an inconsistent mash-up of camp and grit. Some of the gore effects and gross-out moments seem more goofy than shocking by today's standards. Plus it doesn't help that an occasionally cheesy script gives Blade too many stock black guy lines like "awww hell no" and "fool, you out your damn mind?" Needless to say, Blade's at his coolest when writers aren't trying too hard to make him look cool.

Simply put, Blade is an easy movie to roll your eyes at, but it's far easier to just sit back and enjoy. If you like your action bloody and stylish without the polish of modern Hollywood fare, you'd be hard-pressed to do much better.

Score:

Blade 2:

Blade 2 is the rare sequel that surpasses the original. It fixes a few things that didn't quite work in the first Blade and brings everything that did work to the next level. This time around Blade and his gang join forces with a group of vampires to take on a new, more deadly breed of vampire called the reapers. This is the movie that kick-started director Guillermo Del Toro's career, and it has all the hallmarks of his style, from the masterfully designed monsters to the unsubtle but absolutely touching infusion of heart in unlikely places.

For starters, Blade 2 got rid of almost everything that dated the first movie. The diaogue, while still nothing extraordinary, is much smoother and far less cheesy. It helps to have a wider and more diverse cast, including Ron Perlman as the leader of the vampire gang and Norman Reedus as Blade's new sidekick Scud. Along with more characters and deadlier villains comes a wider arsenal that really brings out the movie's killer potential.

In terms of action, Blade 2 is a remarkable improvement over an already solid predecessor. The real highlight this time is the swordplay. Aside from a few classic martial arts movies and maybe Kill Bill this is the quintessential love song to the katana.  

And if the action doesn't do it for you, the romance just might. The relationship that forms between Blade and the vampire Nyssa has a touching love-hate dynamic that never feels sappy or forced. And the ending, despite being one of the most common vampire movie tropes, has never been delivered so effectively.

Basically, if you enjoyed the first Blade there's really nothing stopping you from falling in love with this one. However, if you found no redeeming quality in Blade, there's really nothing here that will change your mind. This is everything that worked about the original distilled and taken to the next level.

Score:

Blade Trinity

Obligatory third parts are rarely a good idea, and Blade Trinity proves to be no exception. While most of the elements of a good Blade movie are present here, they're weighed down by a script that tries too hard to be cool and not hard enough to be compelling.

If this movie has two particular low points, it's the loss of a favorite character in a disappointingly anticlimactic way and the portrayal of the villain, Dracula. While Stephen Dorff was certainly flamboyant, his character was still intimidating and believable. The same can't be said of Dominic Purcell who plays his character in a way that's too campy to take seriously, and it certainly doesn't help that he often looks like he just steeped out of the most stereotypical gay bar. The plot has to do with a Dracula's return and a scheme to fulfill his reign over the world. The details don't really matter though. You came for the action and one-liners.

Jessica Biel and especially Ryan Reynolds are welcome additions to the cast, as Whistler's daughter Abigail and reformed ex-vampire Hannibal King. Reynolds' humor and the interplay between him and Snipes are enjoyable, but it's simply not enough to compare with Blade 2's diverse cast, and again, a certain character's absence is felt too strongly in the movie.

The action doesn't disappoint, but it doesn't raise the stakes either (well, except literally, before impaling them into everything that moves). It's about on par with the original Blade's action scenes, and the modern-day visuals don't really help or hurt. In short, this is Blade streamlined. It's smoother, less edgy, and less clever than its predecessors, but a worthwhile action flick nonetheless

Score:

P.S. if you like my commentary on vampires, here's a sample of a book in progress that I'm working on

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1A8oahssk729UN5CdLTi_JHLRvR40CjlquUxa1C5IldM/edit

Vampire Movies Retrospective (Part 1)

This segment is a look back on the best, worst, and everything in between featuring one of the most revered creatures  in film literature and myth. This segment will span every genre and era of film and will be put out in pieces because of the sheer amount of material.

As with all retrospectives, I'll try to keep the reviews relatively short. 

Twilight

Let's begin with the adaptation of Stephenie Meyer's masterpiece of forbidden romance: Twilight. 

Our heroine, Bella Swan, is so brimming with personality that viewers have no choice but to relate to her as she adapts to life in a new town. She struggles to fit in at high school as people compliment her every move and fight over her affection. It really helps that actress Kristen Stewart really puts all of her range into this role, and you can absolutely tell why she won the MTV movie award for best actress.

Twilight could have easily stopped there and become an excellent teen drama about fitting in, but this only serves to introduce the real star: Edward Cullen. To quote the movie, "He's totally gorgeous. Obviously!" Harry Potter alum (well, not exactly an alum, he kind of dropped out or something a few days short of graduation) Robert Pattinson gives the performance of a lifetime showing the brooding inner torment of being a vampire. At first he subtly hides his feelings for Bela, knowing no girl would be interested in the rich, pretty, popular kid with a dark secret. And yet against all odds, they find love after two brief conversations and the revelation that they have a few things in common.

A short time later, she learns his dark secret and is naturally even more infatuated with him. At this point the movie takes a bold risk with vampire mythology. Instead of the tired cliche of vampires feeding on humans and burning in the sunlight, in this movie they're self-professed vegetarians and sparkle with the radiance of the sun. This cleverly deconstructs what viewers expect a vampire to be and adds unique twist to the lore. The deconstruction goes even deeper as Bela plays Baseball with Edward and his family, a brilliant allegory for the rich interconnection between vampiric lore and the American tradition.

Of course their forbidden love earns the ire of the evil vampires, who do absurd things like hunt down humans and drink their blood. An epic showdown occurs, and I don't think I need to tell you that it makes Equilibrium look tame. When a director has such movies as Red Riding Hood and The Nativity Story under her belt, it's obvious she knows a thing or two about action.

Long story short, you no longer have to watch vampires movies and wonder "How does this relate to teens like me in the 13-17 demographic?" And wasn't that the whole point of vampire mythology in the first place? I'd call this the Godfather of vampire movies, but The Godfather is so old and boring and totally didn't win any MTV movie awards, so it's obvious who wins that comparison.

Score:

[Classic Film Corner] #17: The Neverending Story (1984)

When talking with Greg about why he gave Sucker Punch 4 “hombres” out of 5 on our site, he commented that it was “everything Transformers wanted to be”. Zach Snyder would probably embrace a million backhanded comments like those at this point, for most critics have been very aggressive in their condemnations of his latest film. We have known ever since Gerard Butler’s CGI-enhanced washboards that Snyder was a man who favored noteworthy style over substance, but films like 300 and Watchmen were at least given some general credit for their visual strengths. Why now, in a subgenre (I like to call it “escapist fantasy”) that seems made for Snyder’s, um, particular kind of message, are riot acts being read? Maybe one should look to a well-known escapist fantasy from the past for answers.


DAY 17: THE NEVERENDING STORY 

I have often heard parents complain that kids don’t “get lost in books” like they used to, but this film takes it over-the-top, doesn’t it? For what it is worth, in spite of its excessive silliness, at least the story’s premise is sufficiently complex to a degree that kids will be able to enjoy the ride. Basically, the plot could be described as follows: “See Bastian run. Bastian grabs book. Read, Bastian, read.” Taking a “special” book from a local bookstore, under the endless pursuit of the normal spurt of intelligent kid bullies prevalent in 80s cinema, Bastian (Barret Oliver) takes the book up to the attic of his school to read and….that’s about it. The rest of the movie basically involves his interactions with the book, in a part of the school that apparently does not have any lock on it. Oh, there is mention of the grieving he and his father are going through, but that is never explored as much. You never see the father a second time, and his mother’s name is not distinctly mentioned once in the entire movie. The “Neverending Story” itself involves a world called Fantasia that is being attacked by the “Nothing”, sort of like what would happen to its entertainment value if Mickey’s dancing broomsticks were removed from its world. In other words, the world is caving in on itself and nothing is spared from its dripping, sharp-toothed attack – at least I am assuming it is sharp-toothed, because we never actually see the villain. A native warrior named Atreyu (Noah Hathaway, who is actually ¼ Mohican…IT’S NOT THAT HARD, MR. SHAMALAMA!) is called on to fight “Ol’ Invisible” with his trusty sidekick horse Artax….as long as he does so unarmed…..Wait, what? I guess that makes sense to a degree, if you are trying to defend yourself and those around you against an abstract manifestation of collective imagination decaying in modern society…sort of like trying to scoop carbon monoxide from the house with a teaspoon. But you are telling me he couldn’t even bring a bow and arrow to, I don’t know, hunt for food during their weeks-long trip? Maybe that teaspoon can help scoop some invisible fish.

Anyway, over the course of Bastion's storybook, swamps stink, heroes sink (into depression), rocks bite….it’s all standard steps in the “Hero’s Journey” formula, ones that Shia LaBeouf has more masterfully performed for younger audience many times over by now. But while a giant made out of rocks and “big, strong hands” can’t capture the imagination quite like Bumblebee transforming to the background music of Linkin Park, it keeps Bastian interested. And I suppose we should be glad someplace without the names “Potter”, “Frodo” and “constantly-shirtless werewolf gang” are promoting an afternoon of reading. At the very least, it is a beautifully captured world that any child would want to skip a math test to visit. [Actually, the kid probably wouldn’t need to be offered the trip.] The use of CGI and clearly-rendered green screens is sorely missing, showing the datedness of the film through its use of actual sets and sense of realness. But getting the chance to realistically imagine flying a dog-faced, six-legged, furry luck dragon (????) comes close to making up for that modern inconvenience. However, in spite of director Wolfgang Petersen’s visual success, much more significantly than Snyder, his work in this film does seem to come up short in its concepts and depth.

First of all, let’s look at how they examine the theme of finding refuge from your problems. While Snyder’s main character knowingly fights to combat inhumane hospital treatments, never insecure about her vulnerable state, Bastion takes the easy route and tackles simpler issues. Grief? Loneliness? Uncertainty about your ability to make a difference? Most of the time, he does not even realize the book is helping him. Is this some sort of mystical New Age voodoo? Kids can get motivational posters for those problems in the classroom, bring on the attack on evil hospitals and moustache twirlers instead! And what is it with this idea that the storybook needs Bastian to survive just as much as he needs it, as if it’s actually…alive? Kids don’t respond to complex diatribes pertaining to the intangible relationship between a story and who hears it. They want to see things go BOOOM! Action scene! Long-winded villain speech! After all, their Facebook multi-person video chat starts in 15 minute, kids today need a neatly-tied ending. So in conclusion, Snyder is clearly a man ahead of his time who knows his moviegoing audience. And I am sure his work with Sucker Punch will make The Neverending Story a distant mem- *insert sounds of angry shouts, boos, fisticuffs, rotten fruit being tossed...and a squawking chicken*

OK, OK, I give. This is April Fools, folks. This film is timeless and needs to be remembered now more than ever. Along with amazing visuals that pull you in and a wide range of acting that never feels forced or awkward even among the child actors (Again, GET A CLUE, SHAMABLAMA!), its message about the state of modern society’s imagination is one that should be heeded. Maybe if Snyder took a page from it and directed someone else’s vision for a change, maybe something neverending could be found in his work too. [Overall Rating: 9/10...But why does the horse get depressed?!]

Score:

NEXT TIME: APRIL FOOL'S WEEKEND SURPRISE!!!

Sucker Punch

This is perhaps the easiest review I've ever had to write, simply because everything that works and doesn't work about Sucker Punch sticks out so obviously. I could tell you to watch the trailer or simply tell you it's a Zack Snyder movie, and you'd know almost exactly what to expect. But since I harbor the delusion that people read this blog for clever commentary, here goes.

Sucker Punch starts out like an elaborate music video, without a single word of dialogue until maybe 10 minutes in. It doesn't come close to the sheer brilliance that was Watchmen's opening, and everything is played out far too obviously with way too much intensity, yet on a purely sights and sounds level it's extremely effective. In this sequence Baby Doll (all the female leads are given stripper names, don't ask why) sees her mother pass away, as her evil step-father plans her and her sister's demise. After an incident that seems a little bit too dreamlike to be real, Baby Doll is sent to an asylum that's really just a front for a burlesque house (this movie raises a lot of baffling questions that are best left unasked.) For all its flaws, this sequence really showcases Snyder's ability to always make every shot as visually appealing as possible.

Then the second act begins, in which Baby Doll makes an uneasy alliance with four other girls in the asylum/brothel and a series of elaborate actions sequences occurs, all of them imaginary, vaguely paralleling what's going on in the real world. These scenes are the true highlights of the movie and probably the main reason anyone bought a ticket. They're fast, intense, imaginative, and everything else good action scenes should be, as the girls do battle with everything from WWI steampunk zombies to chaingun-wielding samurai, to robots, and even a dragon. In each case the CGI is first rate and isn't wasted on anything less than spectacular. If you're rolling your eyes at the thought of watching increasingly absurd action scenes with minimal context, then this movie will have no redeeming value for you.

The soundtrack is powerful and at times even chilling. It mostly sounds like a mix of Vangelis and The Gathering covering everything from the Eurythmics to the Pixies to Queen, and in each case it makes the song its own. Many are sure to find it too loud and too obvious, and they're not wrong. Nothing about Sucker Punch is subtle, and I'm sure some fans wouldn't have it any other way.

The acting is consistently forgettable, with most of the cast doing the bare minimum not to embarrass themselves. The only real standouts are Jena Malone and Abby Cornish as sisters Rocket and Sweet Pea, Oscar Isaac as the effectively smarmy director of the brothel/asylum, and my personal favorite, Scott Glenn as the wise man. Carla Gugino speaks in an obviously fake Russian accent the whole time, and I'm sure that plenty of people will cringe, but being Russian, the bad accents of the cold war era (especially in the Star Trek movies) have always been a guilty pleasure of mine. Of course most of the acting problems are due to mediocre dialogue and an inconsistent script. This movie is proof that Snyder is better off letting other people write his scripts. Fortunately, like 300, this is an action movie with the good sense to shut up when it has nothing smart to say.

In the third act the plan starts to go wrong, leading to an ambiguous ending that's hard to interpret. And the movie ends on a soft albeit somewhat touching note when I was most expecting it to go out with a bang. In short, there are a lot of things in Sucker Punch that are in need of serious improvement. At the same time, it's a relief to see a movie promise expertly crafted eye candy and deliver it in spades. If the term guilty pleasure ever had meaning, consider Sucker Punch a capital offender.

Score:

Red Riding Hood

I'll start this review by saying that Red Riding Hood was made by the director of Twilight, and it shows. That's all that most viewers will need to know, but I wouldn't be much of a blogger if I turned down a chance to over-analyze and rant.

Red Riding Hood has as little to do with the myth that inspired it as Ridley Scott's Robin Hood. Perhaps that's a good thing, since the Grimm's fairy tale didn't exactly have much of a plot, but re-imagining it as a medieval Twilight is hardly an improvement.

Amanda Seyfried plays the same role she's played in every movie since Mean Girls: a pretty body for men to admire and a blank slate for women to project themselves onto. And it's not that she's bad actor. She just seems to pick the blandest roles and play them accordingly. The two male leads do their best Edward Cullen impressions: brooding, threatening (but in a benign, tween-friendly way) and lacking in any personality aside from their poorly repressed sex drives. Speaking of which, I don't remember the last time I saw so much almost sex in a movie. For anyone who isn't drooling over the protagonists, the sexual frustration in this movie is painful to watch. Another obvious carryover from Twilight. You'd think the director of Thirteen would be much more poignant  in these matters.

The supporting cast is mostly forgettable; even Gary Oldman seems boring, and when  have you ever seen a boring performance from him? The werewolf looks like something out of a much campier and much more fun movie. And when it speaks (yes, it speaks) it sounds like something that might have passed for Aslan's stunt double. The only good thing I can say about the cast is that none of them manage to embarrass themselves.

To the movie's credit, the set and costumes are beautiful, and a director with a better eye for cinematography and adventure set-pieces could have made quite a spectacle out of it. Sadly, Hardwicke is as clumsy with anything resembling action as Michael Bay is with anything that isn't action.

That's not to say that Red Riding Hood is a complete disaster. It has a coherent story and tells it with an audience in mind. But when the only compliments I can pay a movie are backhanded, it's obvious that I simply can't recommend it to anyone.

Score:

Limitless

What if a drug could activate your maximum potential and turn you into the most effective possible version of yourself? How would you use it and what kind of person would it turn you into?  This question is equal parts philosophical statement and set-up for standard action-thriller fare in Limitles. And I can say with a certain amount of enthusiasm that it succeeds as a philosophical statement, even if it's somewhat inconsistent as a thriller.

The movie starts out strong, showing us Bradley Cooper as uninspired slacker Eddie Morra failing to make ends meet as a writer and as a boyfriend. A chance encounter with an old acquaintance lands him in possession of a mysterious new drug called LZT, which boosts his brainpower and sets him on the fast track to financial and personal success. That is until things go wrong  Cooper shows some impressive acting talent, and the change he displays over the course of the movie is a believable one. However, I'd cut down on the number of shots of him just walking down the street looking confident. They don't show us anything we don't already know.

Abby Cornish is cute but forgettable as the love interest. She plays her part well but isn't given much to say or do. De Niro gives one of his better late career performances as business magnate and mentor Carl Van Loon, and the relationship between him and Cooper's character remains interesting all the way through the movie.

Unfortunately the film's premise begins to wear thin in the second half. The villain, a Russian mobster with bigger aspirations, isn't as intimidating as he should be, though he provides some good laughs from time to time. Aside from one excellent fight scene, most of the action is daytime TV quality. Certain side  plots are brought up and dismissed to quickly to really have any impact. But what really keeps Limitless from excelling in the second half is that for a guy who's supposedly brilliant enough to learn countless languages and conquer the stock market, he makes some decisions that are just bafflingly stupid. In other words, for a thriller, it's just not as thrilling as it should be. If that seems harsh, it's only because the first half sets up something great but delivers a final product that's merely good.

In short, Limitless won't disappoint, but don't raise your expectations too high either. Behind a few errors in concept and execution there's a lot that works.

Score:

Rango

The premise to Rango is one you you've likely heard before. A fish out of water ends up in a town where he's not wanted, and through sheer luck and a good heart, bumbles and stumbles his way into being a hero. It's a plot that's been used to good, bad, and downright ugly results, and the reason Rango succeeds where other movies have failed is because it takes that familiar idea and completely makes it its own.

This is mostly for two reasons. First, Rango isn't afraid to be strange or even downright absurd and surreal at times, meaning that nearly every scene will be full of strange surprises. Second, the movie makes you think you know where a joke or set-up is going, only to take it two steps further, and more impressively, still know when to stop before stretching the comedy out too thin. What also helps is that the characters aren't conventional archetypes, and everyone has something a little unique or off about them. The result is a movie that's brimming with personality without ever alienating viewers with its quirky excess. The only downside is that sometimes the jokes are so obscure or unusual that I wasn't even sure what kind of humor they were going for.

The voice acting cast is full of talent, including Johnny Depp, Ned Beatty, Alfred Molina, and Timothy Olyphant doing a great Clint Eastwood impression. And for such a quirky role, Depp shows surprising restraint instead of overplaying his character's weirdness to the point of unlikability. Take a note on that, Tim Burton.

The animation is first-rate. While I wouldn't compare it to Avatar or How to Train Your Dragon in terms of visual spectacle or the Toy Story movies in terms of pure liveliness, it still manages to create a world that looks and feels consistently interesting. The characters are especially well-designed, and their unique looks contribute a lot to the movie's cleverly quirky tone.

Also, a last bit of advice. Don't be fooled into thinking this is a children's movie. While kids will be sure to enjoy the action and slapstick, there are plenty of subtle jokes that will go over their heads, as well as a surprising amount of violence and mild profanity.

Simply put, Rango doesn't do anything revolutionary, but what it does it does well and it's guaranteed to be a fun time for nearly anyone. I don't think I've enjoyed an unconventional western this much since the second American Tail, but that could just be childhood nostalgia speaking.

Score:

[Classic Film Corner] #16: Grizzly Man (2005)

This is easily the most difficult review for a film I have done in over three years of doing them, and not just because of recent personal matters that delayed an output of analyses of classic films – which I do sincerely apologize for, by the way, so feel free to imagine me pelted with pseudo-butter sauce from your cinema’s popcorn machine, if it helps. The bigger reason that this took so long is the subject matter of this documentary, and the personal empathy that I found with the tragic, pained character named Timothy Treadwell. Yes, I deliberately used the term “empathy” and not merely “sympathy”, because I can entirely relate to the desperate passion he develops. When you are hit so low and feel so purposeless that hitting rock bottom seems like a distant memory, anything that makes you believe in something better and more promising for your finite existence…well, it remains special for you long after you’ve moved forward. With that in mind, I will try my best to be objective.


ENTRY #16: GRIZZLY MAN (2005)


If you are a fan of watching nature channels or just have an eye for tragic accidents on news broadcasts, you may have heard about an accident involving the man just under a decade ago. Timothy Treadwell, in his 13th summer living among grizzly bears in Alaska, was mauled and eaten by one of the bears he was attempting to protect in October 2003. Alongside him in headlines was Amie Huguenard, who suffered the same grisly (no pun intended) fate. People were mixed in reaction about his demise and for good reason. On the one hand, he was in clear violation – for many years and openly – of numerous policies regarding viewing distance and interactions with the dangerous creatures, put in place for the safety of both visitors and the bears themselves. However, as a result of his work in Katmai National Park and Preserve, his non-profit organization Grizzly People sparked a fascination with children all across the country and gave national attention (through controversy, a quite effective method) to the topic of nature preservation. director Werner Herzog, both in front of the camera and behind it, does everything in his power to present both sides of this unique tale equally. Using a myriad of resources – ranging from CBS footage to interviews with close friend Jewel Palovak to hundreds of hours of footage shot by Treadwell himself – we get a compelling, multi-dimensional portrait of a man obsessed with the creatures he truly loved and the desperate effort to make sense of his death.

This film demands viewers to make their own conclusions, so here is mine and I’ll attempt to be spoiler-free. Clearly, Treadwell had major psychological issues that the film effectively summarizes, some his own fault and some tragic misfortunes. A scholarship is lost, auditions in Hollywood barely fall short, drugs become involved. Put bluntly, he was a lost soul; and whether it was fate or mere chance that led him to the “Grizzly Maze” depends on who you ask. In any case, it transformed him to the degree that he seemed to want to shed, as Herzog, his “humanness” when around them. At the very least, it gave him a sense of purpose and thus reignited his will to make something of his life – a legitimate transformation if its own. You can call what he did reckless, but through footage of Treadwell’s explanations on screen, it is clear this was not an amateur. He knew an incredible amount about the lifestyle of bears and the Alaskan wilderness in general, maybe to a degree that only comes from true immersion. But whenever you have one cause as your only foundation, it can take on an exaggerated presence in your mind – to the point where you, like Treadwell, overestimate your control of the situation. Terrible luck, emotional instability, and hibernation patterns all mixed together in the worst way, and played any differently, Treadwell would still be alive today. But no one would deny that the responsibility for his and Amie’s death falls directly on him, something I think he’s agree with.

It is always saddening when someone’s calling forcibly isolates him from the rest of humanity, and Herzog treats him in such a “sympathetic” way – and I say it that way because he cannot relate to a view of nature like Treadwell’s, that ignores its chaos and uncertainty. But his goal is not to avoid having an opinion but to give Treadwell a fair chance and he does so masterfully. Perfectly alternating between archived footage (Treadwell’s shots were indeed one-of-a-kind), in-depth interviews and gorgeous shots of the turbulent Alaskan wilderness (which, in the area Treadwell spent his time in, was actually federally protected – a very intriguing wrinkle to his “crusade” against oppressive humans), the film never feels disjointed or wavering in its aims or intentions. We know Treadwell’s fate at the beginning of the film, but Herzog’s pushes on anyway in his analysis of Treadwell’s background, his notable paranoia, and his inner demons. There is also a respectful balance between the gory details revealed and which ones are thankfully omitted to viewers; in fact, Herzog’s listening to the audio recording of their deaths is transformed into a scene unlike any I have seen in a documentary, one that gives me a glimpse of Herzog himself as a character in his own work. And ultimately, his “character” does everything he reasonably can to find meaning in Treadwell’s life and death by final reel’s end.

This should be required viewing for any college student hoping to pursue a degree in film or even journalism. It manages to remain even-handed in its presentation of facts while still presenting its own opinion, and thus, welcomes us to do the same. It is not preachy and it is not an easily digested story, but that is what probably makes it mean such different, significant things to different viewers. For hardened skeptics like Herzog, it is an intriguing case of a man who found sanity in his discovery of a passion – only to later lose it when he discarded the boundary between self and object of affection. For people like me, who have has a similar sort of awakening and rediscovery of self, it serves as a cautionary tale that discourages you from blocking out the outside world for the sake of your inner truth. But did Treadwell actually share a unique connection to the bears he regularly interacted with, as he believed he did? In a way, I personally think that he had a certain familiarity or bond (albeit a limited one) with them, simply because he spent so much time in their proximity – something that should be used to validate, condemn and take seriously his overall efforts. Thanks to Herzog, you can understand why anyone else might think differently about him.

Score:

COMING UP NEXT: THE NEVERENDING STORY

Battle: Los Angeles

What if I told you that you could go out right now and see a sci-fi action movie without any big preachy message, bumbling kid-hero, wisecracking sidekicks, or time wasted on developing unlikable characters? If that proposition sounds too tempting to refuse you'll be as surprised as I was when the final product is essentially Starship Troopers without the clever irony or camp value.  For a movie that's 80% action and avoids the above-mentioned pitfalls, Battle: Los Angeles really has no excuse for not being more compelling.

Battle: Los Angeles tells you everything you need to know right in the title. There's a battle in Los Angeles. Who's fighting or why doesn't matter, since neither the humans or aliens are given any personality. Like I've said about countless movies before, the generic setup is forgivable as long as it sets up some first-rate action. Sadly, this movie's biggest shortcoming is that it only partially delivers in the one place it should.

Take a moment and think about any classic battle scene. Can you visualize the battlefield? Can you get a good sense of the size and scope of the conflict? And when both sides clash, can you understand the geometry? Do you see both sides' tactics at work or at least figure out where everyone's going and why? What happens when you break these rules is a confused mess that just doesn't feel like a battle. Think of the first battle scene in Alexander for reference on how this can go wrong. Battle: Los Angeles is exactly like that. Shooting happens then more shooting happens. Characters die and you forget about them in seconds. There's never any sense that ground is gained or a big objective is any closer to completion. There are definitely cool moments, but a movie that's mostly combat simply shouldn't feel so slow.

To its credit, Battle: Los Angeles is appropriately gritty and realistic. The action is brutal without ever going overboard, and the idea of seeing everything through a soldier's perspective and knowing no more than they do is interesting. The alien technology looks fascinating and surprisingly real, even if the aliens themselves look somewhat goofy. But that doesn't change the fact that for most of the movie's runtime nothing exciting happens. Like the characters, most of the dialogue is disposable. Soldiers spout the same lines you've heard in countless other war movies, and the comparison only serves to remind you how good this movie could have been with a tighter script and a better eye for action.

In short, Battle: Los Angeles is like the sweater you get for Christmas when you were hoping for an X-Box. It delivers what they think you should want instead of what you actually wanted. It's not smart enough to be taken seriously, but too serious to have much fun with its premise. If there's anything I can say in this movie's defense, it's that I've seen this formula fail far worse before.

Score:

Live Oscars Blog 2011!

11:40 [Ian]: Well, that should just about wrap it up. Ultimately, the triumph of British film left few surprises tonight, but at least most injustices were avoided. And it did give us a break from a year where Justin Beiber's documentary is nearly the highest rated blockbuster so far. Here's hoping the rest of 2011 can shape up to match the previous one.

11:40 [Greg] I can't quite say I'm disappointed with The King's Speech winning, being an all-around excellently made film, but I can't imagine wanting to revisit it ten or even two years from now the way I would The Social Network, Inception, or Black Swan. Unfortunately, Nolan and Fincher will probably go the Scorsesse route at this point, being honored past their prime for a lesser movie they're bound to make in the future. Still, all things considered, this was an impressively tight race and there were no obviously weak nominees. Aside from maybe The Kids are Alright, I can't think of a single choice that would have disappointed me.

11:39 [Ian]: If it makes you feel better, your film is the one I'll likely keep in my collection in the future. And God, I love the music that PS 22 creates and here is no exception, can you say "next viral Youtube hit"?

11:35 [Greg]: Well played, Ian. Well played.

11:35 [Ian]: Drumroll.......Damn spoilers.

11:31 [Ian]: Officially past the 11:30 deadline set up in TV Guide, we only have one major question (and a fun children's choir) left: Alpha Film of 2010. And nice job, Academy, your narration of the scenes leaves us with no suspense for the results. We may as well go to bed now and have an extra 2 minutes and 43 seconds of sleep...But for once, the record for deserving nominees is 10-0.

11:26 [Greg]: It's impressive that any of the other nominees bothered to get out of bed today as Colin Firth takes home best actor. Though I was rooting for James Franco, I couldn't imagine betting on anyone besides Firth.

11:18 [Ian]: Natalie Portman is officially on the short list of people I think I'd like to meet from Hollywood. What an emotionally warm-hearted, thorough acknowledgment of what is truly important. Let's hope Colin Firth is as impressive....oops, that is not supposed to be stated as fact yet. In the meantime, Sandra Bullock, in my mind, is standing out merely for being herself, witty and playful, as she gently jabs at each Best Actor nominee. It works well.

11:14 [Greg]: Jeff Bridges gives some really sincere and touching evaluations of each of the Best Actress nominees, and I'm impressed to see such a strong, varied list of contenders. In my mind there's no contest: this is going to Natalie Portman.

11:07 [Ian]: For Devil's Advocate purposes, I will go for The King's Speech for this one. (1) It's already won for Screenplay, Director and (most certainly) Actor, and thus looks like it is heading for a sweep. (2) The Academy loves to go with a British film on occasion, even when it doesn't seem suitable...remember Shakespeare In Love over Saving Private Ryan? (3) It features compelling characters and works as a faithful historical drama, with points for relevance to the WWII debacle. I would prefer Social Network to win, but I am not sure I can imagine Mr. NSYNC and Mr. Zombieland as Kings of Oscar Night.

11:06 [Greg] Speaking of being overdue, add some Oscar points to Christopher Nolan, David Fincher, and Darren Arronofsky, hopefully to be cashed in at some future date.

11:03 [Greg] So I figure I should make my prediction for Best Picture now, because why should I pass up an opportunity to brag or embarrass myself? I think it'll go to The Social Network, for three reasons. One, it's an all-around great movie, with a brilliant script, solid performances all-around, and excellent soundtrack. Two, it feels very little like Oscar Bait, making it a safe choice, and at the same time, a somewhat bold one. And three, if there's anything that's sure to win an Oscar, it's being overdue for one, and I can't think of a director on this list more overdue for an Oscar than David Fincher.

11:02 [Ian]: Anywho, now the home stretch with Achievement in Directing (aka, the Annual "Screw You, Mr. Nolan" Award)...And Tom Hooper pulls away, and with it, "The King's Speech" gains a sizable advantage in the two-horse Best Picture race.

10:53 [Ian]: Memorial Time, done with surprising restraint by Celine Dion. All I will say about this is...well, most of these people are unknown by the general public, but they matter to loved ones who see their efforts to be good people and follow their passions. So maybe show some love for your loved ones in the near future, it helps them realize that their impact will last much longer in this world than a photo montage could ever portray. Oh, and as for the last image, it is Lena Horne...Halle Berry explains.

10:47 [Greg] Randy Newman wins best song for the touching We Belong Together from Toy Story 3. Say what you want about Newman's voice, but he knows how to write a truly heartwarming song that captures the youthful wonder of the Toy Story movies.

10:45 [Ian]: OK, the last two Best Song nominees:

127 Hours' "If I Rise", from Dido and A.R. Rahman of Slumdog Millionaire fame, is third. It works fairly well in a mystical sort of way, to match the hallucinations of the central rock-wedged character, but it does feel a bit off-putting. When in doubt, people like a song they can sing along with.

And as for Gwenyth Paltrow's "Coming Home" from Country Strong, she is incredibly likable and winning an Oscar for "Shakespeare in Love" has the crowd behind her. But I dunno, she seems almost like cotton candy as an actress and singer: always enjoyable, very effective presentation, but not always something that stays with you too long. Not sure who to expect here, I can see two of the four winning....and that is not the one of the ones I was expecting.

10:35 [Ian]: Well, if you ignore the completely innovative imagery and revolutionary reflection on the dream realm, Inception is a visually iconic film. Another notch for Visual Effects. At least it is getting recognized frequently tonight...albeit for the minor goodies...And among a packed field, The Social Network is a deserving winner for Best Film Editing too, for making a deposition hearing and discussions over Internet programming utterly compelling.

10:33 [Greg]: Billy Crystal gives some much-needed class and wit to the ceremony, and Bob Hope delivers some great jokes. There's some great interplay between Robert Downey Jr. and Jude Law, making this so far the funniest part of the ceremony. I can't imagine Inception not winning best visual effects, although Hereafter's tsunami scene makes it a pretty strong underdog.

10:20 [Ian]: Come on, Oprah, you can give 300 audience members new cars at once and can make any book in the world a bestseller...Please call for Banksy...please...

Of course, as if we did not need another reminder about the difficult economy, "Inside Job" wins the Oscar. Grrrrrr, where is your sense of fun, Academy? You give The Wolfman an Oscar, but don't give it to Banksy - who will probably never make a feature film again? Hipsters everywhere are weeping right now, between their sips of Starbucks mocha lattes.

10:18 [Greg] And now, for no reason, an autotune segment. It's a funny idea in theory, with one or two clever moments, but.....really?

10:14 [Ian]: "Strangers No More" wins for Documentary Short, "God of Love" for Live Action Short, kinda passing quickly for me....oh, please let Banksy win for Best Documentary, I do not care if I go 1-for-everything else. I so want to see what happens if he is invited onstage...

10:07 [Ian]: Well, now we start hearing the nominations for Best Song, starting with the two Disney-based ones.

Randy Newman's "We Belong Together from Toy Story 3 comes first, piano and, er, stumpy voice included. Hard to believe this is his TWENTIETH nomination, since he sounds the same in every song, but he defines the term "infectious".

As for Mandy Moore and Zachery Levi doing "I See the Light", they fits as well here as they fit in the movie. Chuck fans can rejoice, and I stand by the claim that Tangled signals a potential new "golden age" for Disney under Lasseter's command.

9:59 [Ian]: Don't worry, it wasn't...but that does not bother me like Best Costume Design. The most authentic Western in over 10 years is found in True Grit, and yet they give the award to the same set of costumes Tim Burton does in every single film? There is a different between being different and being innovative, Academy, please try getting him to make non-superficial films like Ed Wood and Big Fish again!

9:57 [Greg]: The Wolf Man wins for best make-up. Definitely a deserving win, though don't expect this movie to be nominated for anything else.

9:50 [Ian]: Agreed, could not be happier that Inception got a bit of attention for winning Sound Editing and Sound Mixing. Major kudos to the winners of each category for crediting Christopher Nolan, since it is highly unlikely that he will appear on stage himself at the end of the night. Take comfort in the fact that Inception will likely resonate in pop culture far longer than King's Speech....cannot say the same about Facebook, though.

9:48 [Greg]: Anyone lucky enough to see Inception in a good theater knows it deserves every bit of its win for sound design.

9:44 [Ian]: And naturally, Atticus Ross and Trent Reznor pull away with it. I completely can get behind this, by the way, for the minimalist theme song alone set a sense of foreboding and unease to the entire film. Now let's see if Inception gets an Avatar-esque bone for Best Sound Mixing...

9:39 [Ian]: Um...renewal of the Academy Awards on ABC through 2020...um, yay? And following his make-up session with Hathaway, Hugh Jackman joins Nicole Kidman to introduce the standard "Music Appreciation" segment of the show, where the nominees for Best Original Score are performed live. Personally, I would love Powell to get overdue respect for "How To Train Your Dragon", but I think that a Social sort of score will triumph.

9:34 [Greg]: And Christian Bale wins best supporting actor for The Fighter. A strong selection in general, but let's be honest, he and Geoffrey Rush were the only real contenders. It's good to see Bale able to laugh at himself in his acceptance speech, and even better to see his talent rewarded after brilliant performances in American Psycho and The Machinist.

9:27 [Ian]: Franco's cross-dressing aside, it is hard to describe the Best Foreign Language Film being awarded to "In A Better World" on behalf of Denmark - because, honestly, I have not seen any of them. But at least it was fitting to have Helen Mirren and Russell Brand present, because both were speaking a foreign language...in one way or another.

9:23 [Ian]: Anne Hathaway is spoofing Les Miserables, including using the word "jackass". I do not know if I find this more offensive or unintentionally hilarious, but at least her voice is pretty passable by actor's standards...Wait, what....in the world?

9:18 [Greg]: The King's Speech takes home best original screenplay. Hardly a disappointing choice, although I'd say Nolan's script deserved it just a little bit more. At this point it's safe to say that best picture will be between The King's Speech and The Social Network.

9:16 [Ian]: Agreed, the dialogue and overall wit used in every scene took audiences seriously and was highly respected in return. It should gain respect from any guinea pig. Now the big question is whether Inception will be given as an apologetic nod by the Academy for Best Original Screenplay....nope, guess not.

9:15 [Greg]: The Social Network wins for best adapted screenplay. With such strongly written dialogue, it's no surprise. This is a good sign for the movie's best picture odds.

9:10 [Ian]: There is an interesting article waiting to be written about how close TS3 and How To Train Your Dragon are in overall quality, but in the meantime, this is a good chance for a bold prediction. I am personally thinking Bening might upset Natalie Portman for Best Actress, she has been nominated four times before and Academy might give her the "overdue recognition" award to make up for American Beauty.

9:07 [Greg]: And Toy Story 3 wins. No big surprise there, and Pixar definitely earned their win, though this was the rare year that the competition actually had a shot.

9:04 [Greg]: Shocked to see Pixar lose for best animated short, but I'm predicting they'll come back strong for best animated feature film. On the other hand, this is the first year in a long time that Pixar has some viable competition.

9:02 [Ian]: Mila Kunis and Justin Timberlake (at least one of which should have been nominated tonight) are onstage, and by the "I'm Banksy" line, you'd assume we are up to Best Documentary, right? Nope, we are at Best Animated Film and Animated Short. Personally, I am praying for a Pixar sweep, especially for Teddy Newton.

8:58 [Greg]: Kirk Douglas is disappointingly unintelligible and his appearance is honestly just awkward. It's sad to see an actor I have so much respect for like this. That aside, a strong selection of nominees for best supporting actress this year. Melissa Leo is a strong pick, and my personal second choice after Hailee Steinfeld.

8:47 [Ian]: But Inception did recieve justice in recieving the award for Best CInematography; the sans-gravity for Joseph Gordon-Levitt should have made this no contest from the start. Well done, Wally Pfister. Those with totems in their pockets can rest easy, Nolan's masterpiece will not go home winless tonight.

8:45 [Greg]: Off to a weak start. I'd think Inception would be a shoe-in for set design and decoration. Alice in Wonderland no doubt looked pretty and uniquely whimsical, but it can't seriously rival Inception's stunning dreamscapes. Bad news for Inception's chances for best picture.

8:38 [Ian]: "Oh my Gosh, you're all real..." Anne Hathaway and James Franco are clearly enthusiastic and likeable, and they each have an Oscar nod now to give them Academy cred. But they seem a little stilted in their delivery....I was gonna complain, but Hathaway's mom just told her to stand up straight and Franco's grandma...just referred to Marky Mark?!

8:36 [Greg]: All in all, a little disappointed by the intro segment. There are some seriously funny bits, but this feels more like something I'd expect to see at the MTV's Movie Awards. Glad to see a Back to the Future reference though, as baffling as it is in context.

8:30 [Ian]: Although I will say that if any of you bet on Tom Hanks NOT beatboxing during the red carpet event, your predictions are already off to an bumpy start. Here we go....

8:27 [Greg]: Ready, and needless to say I'm excited. Just a reminder to anyone following us, feel free to message us with your predictions or reactions any time you want.

8:20 [Ian]: Hey there, for those of you who are glancing at this during the Academy's self-congratulatory festivities and those of you who are seeing it later. In the midst of chants screaming "Christopher Nolan (clap clap)!", this is our attempt to try following along with the Oscars as they provide their usual share of hair-raising and want-to-rip-your-hair out moments. It should be good for a couple laughs, at least for those following along at home, so prepare yourselves! T-Minus 10 minutes; ready, Greg?

Love Actually (#15)

This was a hard one for me to finish, in both getting around to watching the film and in finding the right words to say about it. None of this should be seen as a condemnation of the film itself. In all honesty, as maybe indicated by my review of Rudy, the concept of…well, exposure to that unique heartfelt connection is something that has been both a major desire and a cinematic fascination for me. I got romance out of a flipping Fighting Irish football tale, for Pete’s sake! So anyway, seeing a story that actually tries to describe everything about love, in all its innocence and anxieties and barriers and pain and potential, thus comes across as both a humbling testimony and something of a personal challenge. And anything to stall studying for an EMT exam on airways is welcomed, so let’s begin.

#15 – LOVE ACTUALLY

Now I understand why people were so unbelievably angry and skeptical when not one, but TWO blatant rip-offs of this classic were made by Hollywood recently. [You know, besides having Taylor Swift and Mr. Twilight Werewolf featured as central characters.] Basically, this is the quintessential intertwining-paths story, proclaiming the universal message that “love actually is all around” if you keep your eyes open for it (that phrase is actually used in the intro, a tad forced but forgivable). Yes, love is all around, and no single path is on East Street. Some struggle after discovering infidelity (Colin Firth), while others struggle with its temptation (Alan Rickman). Some yearn to bring a fantasized relationship to life (Laura Linney), while others grieve over a love recently lost (Liam Nesson). Their jobs can range from Prime Ministers (Hugh Grant) to aging rock-and-rollers (Bill Nighy) to sex-related “stunt doubles”, and difficulties in matters of the heart do not show any bias to beliefs, lifestyle or overall power and wealth. But in small ways, they all intersect to create a story about wanting someone else to care for in the weeks leading up to Christmas Day.

Believable, emotion-laden (and thus relatable) acting is conveyed by nearly every cast member involved – a group that is essentially a Who’s Who in British cinema for the early 2000s. We, of course, get initial impressions of each set of characters beforehand. The rock star is a blathering has-been who needs to be constantly reigned in (major kudos for the Ant and Dec cameo, by the way), the Prime Minister naturally has an eye on one of his staff workers, and a stepfather and son struggle to connect after a family death. Much like in the news, and in many films, you are tempted to think that this is all that is relevant to our judgment of them. But like for every character, our view is forced to dig deeper – including the moments when these characters, respectively, display bitter loneliness and regret, resistance to temptation, and connection through a crazy mission. No presentation of humanity feels cheap here and not one storyline feels forced. There is a very good reason why this feels genuine and the other films rip-offs, as director Richard Curtis emerges as a conductor unafraid to let each story reach its logical and full conclusion, for better and for worse.

Not everybody finds the love they desire, and not every negative action or mistake can be resolved with a mournful apology and proclamation of love. (In fact, the epilogue that takes place one month following Christmas ensures this.) But in a way, it gives a little bit of hope in the process by emphasizing that it is natural to stumble with such an instinctive and outright intoxicating emotion, one that draws from the core of our very personalities and general nature as human beings. And unlike in other films, where it felt like some were shoehorned in for the sake of a preachy message or plot convenience (*cough* Crash *cough* preachy Paul Haggis *coughcoughcough*), nobody is presented as morally deficient or villainous. Most people are not. Some make better choices than others, but there are legitimate feelings and reasons behind each of them; and thus every person finds someone they can relate to. [For me, oddly enough, it would be the aging rocker at this point. When it is hard to find that fairy-tale connection, your camaraderie with friends makes you realize that not finding true love yet does not mean you are unloved. It helps.]

And in a film like this, it is the little moments that are absolutely touching. Seeing so many character both powerful and modest merge on a Christmas Nativity play…spotting security chasing a character through the airport…the wedding (no spoilers, they do a classic British group justice)…just too many to count. And much like a series of interconnected arteries shooting oxygenated blood cells to the bodily organs before shooting back to the heart (God, I’ve been reading too much from the textbook), if I try to explain one scene, it is going to trigger spoiler alerts for every other plotline in this classic love story. So let’s wrap this up before it’s too late with a simple statement: There are very few films that are considered “must-see” and “instant classic” before the decade is even over, and I have heard this one mentioned more than almost any other that did not have a posthumous performance in makeup, a magic wand or a ring to rule us all. IIs it corny? Surely. Does some of the dialogue feel a bit contrived? Absolutely. But in terms of giving each character the dignity of being human onscreen, this film deserves a congratulatory bouquet of roses. Preferably a full dozen.

[Overall Score: 9/10, a perfect date-movie]

COMING UP NEXT (#16): EQUILIBRIUM

Rudy (#14)...for Valentine's Day

Clearly, my efforts in this project are becoming as rambling and off-road as a Hunter S. Thompson novel (as a friend of mine put it). To apologize for delays again would surely seem redundant at this point. All I can say, in my defense, is that trying to make time for all the work involved in EMT training is similar to….say, working to fit a sperm whale into a peanut butter jar. Simply put, adjustments are being made on my end. But in light of Valentine’s Day, I felt a need to review an appropriate mood to match what I feel is necessary to remember today.

#14 – RUDY

….Now, for those of you expecting a romantic comedy, let me explain.

This film chronicles the “true story” of Daniel “Rudy” Ruettiger (Sean Astin in pre-Hobbit form, albeit looking just as diminutive), who comes from a working-class Irish family in Illinois. He has wanted to play football for the University of Notre Dame all his life, but…well, despite Rudy’s feats in high school sports, God didn’t quite bless him with a suitable physical size. Or sufficient grades, for that matter (dyslexia is later noted as a cause), and his family is the first to try letting him down easy. It is not that they don’t care for him, but they seem to have been hurt by life too many times (particular Rudy’s father, played by Ned Beatty) to support him reaching for the stars. But when tragedy strikes at the steel mill where the family works, it spurs Rudy’s drive as he heads out for South Bend. Flanked by friends like D-Bob (Jon Favreau…yeah, Mr. Iron Man) and mentored by head of groundskeeping staff Fortune (Charles S. Dutton), Rudy pushes over every obstacle in his pursuit of a run out of the famed Fighting Irish tunnel. It is specifically set up to get under any athlete’s skin, so if you are a male and don’t shed a tear towards the end, your tear ducts may have been permanently fractured.

Oddly enough, the first detail to point out about this film involves the scenery of this film, which makes the absolute most of the gorgeous Notre Dame campus. Winter and spring are equally radiant in South Bend, and using them to emphasize the passage of time in Rudy’s journey is both subtle and effective without being too in-your-face. Far too often does it feel like the seasons fade into each other as we pursue a lofty goal, but we would not be able to relate to such a desire without compelling characters. And while it does feel like each of the central characters is a bit stereotyped personality-wise, they allow audiences to place similar people in their own lives within the film. Rudy’s father represents the loved ones who want to support us but fear our spirits getting crushed in failure, while his bastard brother Frank (Scott Benjaminson) exemplifies anyone too pained by their own misfortune to see anyone carry on with hope around them. Down the line of Rudy’s dreams, and our own, D-Bob serves as the comrade who sees us at our best and at our worst, and Fortune finally emerges as that one guiding force that will not tolerate us settling for being the latter. And respectively, the actors present the anguished support, embittered cynicism, goofball joviality and sage sternness that are needed to make them seem real…like what our journeys encounter. And by the way, I absolutely despised Frank.

That being said, it does present one particular problem, aside from the fact that it really stretches the boundaries of what can be called a “true story” on film. [All I will say is that Coach Dan Devine was one of Rudy’s biggest supporters and knew what filmmakers were planning; so him getting painted as a rushed villain makes him either a world-class good sport or someone who got royally screwed, you decide.] If we are focusing on this story in itself, these characters are presented – helpful or antagonistic – in a way that is simplified, because we are simply seeing them as Rudy did. It makes a great deal of the film’s impact, maybe too much of it, depend on whether Rudy himself connects with us. The good news is that Sean Astin acts his heart out, exuding all the enthusiasm and emotional intensity necessary to make his triumph seem fulfilling. The bad news is the implications of such a character, even if we say that this is how it really happened. I mean, if you go through childhood, through a prestigious school like Notre Dame, and all you care about is dressing for one game in order to “be somebody” (Rudy says as much in the film), what happens after the game is over? Playing football and collegiate athletics should be part of a larger goal, not the end goal in itself…and this is made even more sadly noted when one learns that real-life Rudy shopped this story around himself for A DECADE in Hollywood before director David Anspaugh picked it up. Secretariat didn’t need to promote himself.

But…this isn’t meant to be a literal focus on the historical event, is it? It is meant to be treated as an allegorical tale, a symbol of the definitive “underdog” reaching his ultimate dream despite every sort of figurative demon – from criticism to genetics to self-doubt – standing in his way. It is no coincidence that Anspaugh smartly made the concept of faith a huge motif throughout the entire film, even having several scenes shot in cathedrals. Because in all honesty, it is such a hope like Rudy’s, for a better tomorrow and personal redemption, that makes athletes want to move forward…and why this is so important to review (for me, anyway) on Valentine’s Day. In terms of both love and playing as a walk-on in collegiate football, I have gotten a great deal of exposure….and I can tell you that both have their fair share of trials to endure, especially if you feel your approval by the world depends on the situation working out. But the fact of the matter is that sometimes, you may have support systems but no one else will be able to actually carry the torch for you. It’s enough to make you want to quit and walk away in a heap, even if you are right at the finish line. But much like the movie preaches, before anyone else can spot your potential, sometimes you need to see the light within yourself first.

Oh, and this being a sports film, I do have to mention the actual athletics displayed on screen. It’s fantastically done, plain and simple. The actual scenes on the football field easily pull you in, with practices showing more than enough grit and the coaches displaying a military-level intensity you’d expect from a top-notch Division 1 football program. In particular, they do a great job emphasizing Rudy’s extreme disadvantages, which helps make the final 15 minutes one of the best sports sequences ever put to film, period. The music and crowd fit so perfectly with the situation, I think you get 30cc of "Cinematic Inspiration" every time you see the final play.

Fear not, fellow single readers. Our time to get called into the game of romance will come, so long as we don’t take our names off the roster first. Happy belated Valentine’s Day.

Score:

TOMORROW (#15) – LOVE ACTUALLY