Review: Robin Hood

My main concern going into this movie was that since Robin Hood is traditionally set during the Crusades, that we'd get a film pretty similar to Ridley Scott's so-so Kingdom of Heaven. The good news is that if you also had similar reserves, you can forget it about them. Robin Hood is much much closer in plot, tone, and scope to another English legend's reboot film, King Arthur. If you liked the 2004 Clive Owen movie as much as I did, you will certainly enjoy this one.

Robin and his companions have just deserted the Lion Heart's army after the King's death, and their quest happens to take them through London and a plot filled with political intrigue. Just like in King Arthur, where we were briefly given insight into Rome's affairs with Britain, Robin Hood nicely touches on England's impending struggles with France. This story is actually the main plot, as one rogue Englishman conspires with King Phillip of France to destroy England and also take out Robin for getting in the way. Even though it greatly cuts down the amount of time we get with Robin's merry men and the Sheriff Nottingham (big disappointment), I understand why they did it, and will explain in a little bit.

Like King Arthur, Robin Hood takes the classic legend that everyone is familiar with and gives it a gritty little tweak. This time around, there are no tights, and Marion is no Maid. In fact, Robin Hood is not even Robin of Loxley. In the only silly and confusing scene of the film, Robin is kinda granted the estate and Marion's hand so people can think he's Sir Robert Loxley rather than Robin Longstride. Russell Crowe is not dashing or charismatic like Cary Elwes and Kevin Costner, and his Gladiator shtick doesn't work so well in this movie. You could say he's pulling a Sam Worthington because he doesn't add toor take away from the film (and whichever journalist called him out for a Scottish accent, they were on to something). He's joined by his companions from the war, Little John (aka the awesome Martin Keamy), Will Scarlet (funny pothead Morris from ER), and Alann a' Dayle. Later on, we get to see the wonderful Mark Addy (from A Knight's Tale and the upcoming A Game of Thrones series... don't judge him from Still Standing alone). The supporting cast is not as great as King Arthur's round table knights, but they're still pretty cool.

And finally, like King Arthur, Robin Hood is only telling Act I of what will hopefully be an ongoing story. At the end of King Arthur, the hero is crowned and married to Guinevere, and they were probably about to build Camelot.... except the move was panned and didn't make much money. Robin Hood similarly becomes that man he is destined to be at the end of this film, but there is much left to tell. We only briefly get glimpses of the forest and the sheriff. Instead, they spent more time on political squabbling with the entertaining King John, who is obviously inexperienced and temperamental as the new King. William Hurt's also in this as the generic and noble advisor like Jeremy Irons was in Kingdom of Heaven.

But like I was alluding to earlier, Ridley Scott built a pretty solid foundation for the rest of the series, if it continues. We understand the motives for why outlaw orphans take refuge in the forest like a bunch of Lost Boys. We also understand why the Sheriff of Nottingham is a petty, slighted person because what little power he has is really not much at all. These stories can be further explored in a sequel, but for right now, Robin Hood accomplished giving us a interesting new side to the classic story that still showcases cunning warfare, uplifting comradarie, and a sorta convincing love story.

B

Clip of the Week: Return of Wikus

Wikus and Charlize - watch more funny videos

I was right about Clash of the Titans

A movie that earned a D+ from me really doesn't deserve further analysis, but I am so pleased that I nailed my review that I must share the good news. CHUD recently spilled the details on the original script that was filmed and then altered after principal photography had finished. I love reading about how any number of outside influences (studio, media, audience, expectations, etc.) can threaten the finished product of the film (like Indy IV and Frank Darabont's script). Remember in Elf when James Caan wanted to ship the children's book with pages missing because kids won't notice the difference? That's essentially what is playing out here, and Caan was right. Though people like me were bothered by the results, the movie opened at number 1 and remained there through two weeks.

Here's a quick recap of my faults with the movie:

1. It diverged from the myth in key areas (change is okay, but these changes sucked)
2. Most of the gods were useless
3. Both Zeus and Perseus' motivations were at odds with their actions.
3a. Zeus loves mankind and needs their worship, but pushes them towards fear and independence instead.
3b. Perseus is all about proving that mankind doesn't need the help of the goods... but then uses gifts from the gods in order to win.

Here's how the original film not only addressed these faults, but greatly improved upon them. THE FILM WOULD'VE BEEN MUCH COOLER AS A RESULT OF THIS!

1. In the original myth, Perseus goes on his adventure to save the princess Andromeda from sacrifice, and it serves two purposes. One, Perseus gets a dopey romance story with the princess. And two, it symbolizes his rebellion against the gods because no man or woman should be sacrificed to please the gods. After the rewrites and reshoots (all done after the film originally wrapped), Perseus goes on his adventure because he wants revenge against Hades for the murder of his family. His love interest is not the princess Andromeda, who is still almost sacrificed, but instead the warrior/demigod Io. This makes little sense for lots and lots of reasons, but I won't go into it because there are bigger problems.

END RESULT: The director said that the decision to move from a love to vengeance storyline was for a bigger connection with the audience. We are more likely to identify with family tragedy than a sweeping love story (translation: aimed at children...)

2. Poseidon, Apollo, and Athena all had much bigger roles in the original version, and the Olympian dynamic as a whole was drastically changed. Zeus should've been a bad guy with a bent and warped view of the human race. That's why Argos is lashing out against the big guy in the beginning of the story. The other gods are afraid this could lead to their doom, so they secretly aid Perseus in his quest to stop Hades (because they are also aware of Hades' powerplay against Zeus). A lot more screen time would've been spent on the quibbling politics on Olympus, and eventually the redemption of Zeus. Instead, only Zeus and Hades get to talk and Zeus is always a "good" guy (despite that whole rape thing).

END RESULT: We can only assume that again, a broader, younger audience wouldn't care about gods at court. They only care about CGI scorpion fights, right?

3a. This was one of my biggest beefs with the film, and it could've been sooooo much better. In the first draft of the movie, Zeus is a corrupt god and the cause of the human's suffering and discontent. That's why they turn against him, and that's why he turns to Hades for help. That's also why Zeus is at odds against his outcast son Perseus, who arrogantly believes that man can manage their own affairs. In the final draft, Zeus is a good guy clinging to his love for the humans that insist on rebelling. Out of desperation, he turns to Hades for help. And even though he's against Perseus' independence at first, he's just lucks into a happy alliance at the end. Barf.

3b. Here is where the movie falls apart. What should've happened is this: Perseus refuses the aid of the gods at first, but later recants for the good of the group. At the end of the movie, once evil is defeated, there's a cool scene where Perseus ascends to Olympus. Zeus thinks the bastard son has risen to join the ranks of the immortals, but instead, Perseus casts down the objects that helped him in his quest. He tells Zeus that his real father was the murdered fisherman, and he throws his lot in with the mortals. However, after the director-approved changes, Perseus just has a lame resolution scene with Zeus where it looks like their rocky relationship is all patched up because Perseus threw Hades back to... well, Hades.

END RESULT: Their fundamental motivations are compromised!!! In the final movie, Zeus' actions would never have been made by a sane, "good" Zeus because his beef with mankind is predicated on nothing. They only make sense if Zeus is a corrupt, mad god that is angry with mankind and wants to punish them!!! And Perseus is supposed to reject the gods at the end and hook up with the human princess, not buddy up with them and fall for a fellow demigod that's been brought back to life!!!!

A potentially great movie was brought down because a studio and it's director decided to water down the plot for mainstream audiences. If they added the extra 30-35 minutes to the movie, it would be another epic story like LOTR or Avatar, but that would mean fewer screenings and less money. Instead, they chose a route that meant shitty 3D, a diminished role for all of its supporting characters, and a plot that makes no sense to intelligent people. I stand by my D+ rating, though it definitely deserves worse.

Review: Clash of the Titans

I've never seen the original Clash of the Titans from the 80s, so I have no idea if it sucked, too. Oops, did I already spoil this review? Cause.... yeah. It sucked. And it's too bad, because this remake had loads of potential. It was drawing from some of the best source material imaginable (Greek mythology), and it boasted a strong and likable supporting cast. However, all of that is pissed away because the creators of this film set out to make a noisy, bankable CG blockbuster instead of a great story, and it's obvious. The run-time is a shade under 2 hours for those with a short attention span, and the film was retrofitted to capitalize on 3D's new-found popularity. So what if the lead has zero personality and the plot is thinly drawn, right?

First off, the title is pretty misleading since no Titans are present in the film. It really should have been called Clash of the Olympians, but even that wouldn't be accurate since this story is about one guy's beef with Hades. Anyway, Clash of the Titans is a retelling of the famous Perseus myth, where a mortal son-o'-Zeus does battle with Medusa and a sea monster (not the Kraken... which is actually Norse... not Greek) to save and wed the princess Andromeda. The movie strays from the myth immediately, as Perseus' quests is anchored on his revenge against Hades for killing his family (including the great Pete Postlethwaite as his dad). Meanwhile, upstairs the gods are pissed because mankind no longer shows them the praise and devotion they need to remain strong. Hades (Ralph Fiennes) convinces Zeus (Liam Neeson) to "RELEASE THE KRAKEN" against Argos in 10 days if they do not sacrifice the princess Andromeda. But this is really a power play against Zeus. Hades relies on the fear of mortals to remain strong, and the destruction of Argos will make him powerful enough to overtake Zeus and Olympus. But are we going to spend some time to flush out this cool conflict?!?!? NO!!! In fact, the gods pretty much sit there and do nothing. Despite getting a look at their cool war room, there's no point in spending any time in Olympus. Poseidon and Hermes get 1 line each, and we hear dick from Athena, Ares, Hephaestus, and all the other interesting gods in the Pantheon.



But okay, I understand this is a story about Perseus, not the gods. That's why I'm further enraged that they cast Sam Worthington to play Perseus, because really he's just playing Sam Worthington, the same lifeless, generic action hero we saw in Avatar. Perseus believes that mankind knows better than the gods, and he sets out to make them pay for ruining his life. Him and his group of warriors race from location to location, and there's really no time for the audience to process what's happening. When my mind was allowed to take stock of the situation, I couldn't help but feel like I was watching an RPG game. The movie had all the elements of Final Fantasy. The game has magic items ("You have picked up the SCORPION SHIELD!"), summon spells ("ummm... release the level 40 kraken?"), boss battles (Medusa... good thing I brought the softs to counteract petrify), and a ton of world map traveling. The group consisted of the stoic, boring hero, the seasoned veteran/mentor, the weird creature, the comic relief guy, and the warrior chick that the hero has feelings for BUT NEVER PURSUES HER (and similar to FF7's Aeris, she dies in an abrupt, almost laughable fashion). The best character is Mads Mikkelsen, who is most known for his role as the cool guy who dies in King Arthur and the cool guy who dies in Casino Royale.

Yep, you know what happens to cool mentors in these kind of movies...

At the expense of the great supporting cast, Clash of the Titans rushes through it's story in order to tell us.... what? What point were they trying to make? Perseus never needed the gods, and only wants revenge against Hades for murdering his family. He turns against the gods often in the film because he believes this a quest that man must do... but he does utilize the magical gifts from the gods in order to win.... and he also accepts aid from other demigods. Hmmm.... what about Zeus' point? He needs man's worship to survive, but the events of the film only push man to further fear the gods. If anything, they'll only praise the gods because they are scared of them, not because they love them. To them, man came in and saved the day, so really they might think that they don't need the gods at all! That's why this film is so frustrating. This is all started because Zeus wanted to punish mankind for their hubris. But his actions only lead them to fear Hades (making Zeus weaker) and love/worship Perseus/mankind (also makes Zeus weaker). If he had known this, and he should have, then why not bring out the force of Olympus to stop Hades? That would make mankind love the Olympians more. Whatever...

And that's how I feel about Clash of the Titans. Whatever.

D+

P.S. - The relationship in this movie between Zeus, Hades, and mankind draws many many similarities to LOST's Jacob, Smokey, and mankind. But that's how bored I was with this film. I spent more time thinking about how Greek mythology, Arthurian legend, LOST, God of War, Final Fantasy, and other swords n' sandals epics did it better than Clash of the Titans.

Review: How to Train Your Dragon

It is widely understood that Dreamworks is pretty much a joke compared to Pixar. The perfect idea of a Dreamworks film is A-list voices combined with talking animals and some pop culture references, whereas Pixar's focus will always be story and character. If the end result is money, then both are good business models because kids will flock to turd movies like Shrek 3 while adults embrace more adult fare like Up! and WALL-E. That's why I was very curious to learn that Dreamworks' How to Train Your Dragon was entering the weekend with a 97% fresh rating from Rotten Tomatoes (that's Pixar-grade stuff). After watching the movie, I'm not that surprised. Dragon serves up a strong story while utilizing some of the best movie cliches and sidestepping cliche landmines.

It's the story of a little skinny kid named Hiccup (the guy from She's Out of My League) who lives in a craggy, stormy village plagued by dragons. In order to defend the village and livestock, everybody is trained on how to kill a dragon, and it's what everyone dreams about. Even Hiccup fantasizes about it, even though his small frame and engineer's brain aren't suited to the task at all. One day, he proves his worth to his father (Gerard Butler) by snagging a dragon... only he can't kill it... and they become best friends!!!

What follows is a story that's pretty predictable if you've seen Dragonheart, but with the humorous schoolyard chums (voiced by Jonah Hill, McLovin, Kristen Wiig, and Hud from Cloverfield) and a climactic battle scene that is immensely entertaining, you are tricked into really digging the movie. The animation is some of the best ever put to screen, and the music is really well done, and often times I had chills watching the flying sequences. So far, the movie is awesome, but does it avoid the traditional Dreamworks pitfalls?

Firstly, the dragons in this movie do not talk. This is a big win for movie fans everywhere, because it takes away the urge to have a wisecracking sidekick voiced by Eddie Murphy or Steve Buscemi, and it forces the animators to do more with body language than outright dialogue. Secondly, there are zero A-list voices in this film. They need Scottish voices, so rather than pay $15 million to Mike Myers to do an accent that gets more annoying with each iteration, they recruited genuine Scots Gerard Butler and Craig Ferguson. And finally, there are no out-of-place rock tunes (this probably disappoints those that thought the Foo Fighters would sound just perfect in a Viking/Dragon movie, but I'm afraid it wasn't to be). Trust me when I tell you that it's shocking to think that this studio delivered Shrek, Shark Tale, Madagascar, and Kung Fu Panda. With no talking animals and no big celebrities, the movie is 10x better because of it.



Those were the horrific cliches they avoided, but what about the one they utilized so well? Firstly, they threw out historical accuracy to keep the story familiar and likable. Vikings didn't have horned helmets in real life, but 95% of people don't know that, and in fact, 95% of people actually expect it! Secondly, the Viking tribe, with the exception of the kids, all have a Scottish accent. So what if Vikings are from Scandinavia? What does a Norse accent sound like anyway? Everyone loves the hearty, romantic Scottish tongue. It's almost as well-liked as the generic European accent (see: Liam Neeson).

But here's the big thing that it did so well. They made the dragon act almost exactly like a pet dog, and that's the key to the whole movie. In our heads, we want every wild animal we meet to act like a dog because that would be amazing! Wouldn't it be awesome to have a grizzly bear best friend that licks your face and lets you rub his belly? And why not tame a shark to nuzzle your hand with it's head when it wants affection? The dragon in this movie does those things, as well as turning in circles when it wants to lie down, and the audience (me included) buys into it. The pet dog technique is the quickest way to make you sympathize with any wild animal in a cartoon.

The only downside to the movie is Jay Baruchel's voice, which eventually starts to wear on you. Other than that, everything in this movie is easy to like. The themes of trust, acceptance, and prejudice are easy to spot, but the biggest praise that I can give How to Train Your Dragon is that it could probably pass as a Pixar film (they even borrowed the caricatured human look that Pixar loves much). Toy Story 3 has some strong competition this year.

A-

Guess the Movie Laugh

Though not as much fun as the last Empire Magazine Movie Game, this is still a clever challenge for all of us self-proclaimed "movie buffs." Think you can Guess the Movie Laugh after hearing only a few seconds of audio? Game on. There are some softballs (see above picture) and also some really good ones. Try and beat my score of 13/20.

2009 FLOBY Winners

Over the past weekend, the 4th Annual FLOBY Awards were held, celebrating the very best and worst of film in 2009. Though marred by minor technical difficulties and some audience members who didn't give a shit (like my grandma's boyfriend), I declare the ceremony a rousing success. Unlike boring old Oscar, where the Best Picture, Actor/Actress, Supporting Actor/Actress, Animated Film, and Original Score were expected to win, FLOBY was filled with surprising and unprecedented moments.



For the first time in the history of FLOBY, one film pulled a Silence of the Lambs and swept the major awards. In a shocking (at least to me) turn of events, INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS took home the awards for Best Picture, Best Actor (Christoph Waltz), and Best Actress (Melanie Laurent). You'll remember from my predictions that I was correct about one of them, but thought that zero of them deserved it. But that's not because Inglourious Basterds was an undeserving film; in fact, it was incredibly entertaining. I thought that for our simple Academy of 12, the heavy use of foreign languages and subtitles mixed with a fractured plot and a ton of characters would be too much to bear. To my tickled surprise, it wasn't.

But that's not forget about FLOBY's ugly kid sister, CARNY, for she also came very close to a clean sweep. Transformers 2 was named Worst Film, with Megan Fox winning the Worst Actress race. I didn't see the wretched film, but am satisfied with it's horrific finish. For the Worst Actor race, Shia Labeouf couldn't complete the trifecta, and instead the CARNY went to Will Ferrell for his work in Land of the Lost. Again, since I try to avoid films that I know will suck ass, I avoided that shitty film too.




And who joins Tom Hanks and Harrison Ford as FLOBY Lifetime Achievers? In another FLOBY first, a comedian was honored.....

And just for fun, here's my list of the Top Ten movies of 2009. Full speed ahead to FLOBYS 2010!

10. Taken
9. Zombieland
8. Adventureland
7. the Hurt Locker
6. Avatar
5. the Hangover
4. Up in the Air
3. Inglourious Basterds
2. District 9
1. Up

4th ANNUAL FLOBY NOMINEES

When we last met, FLOBY was crowning the Dark Knight as the best film of 2008. Since then, we were both wowed and disappointed by the best and worst cinema had to offer in 2009; and at long last, the FLOBYs have returned to us. Here's some quick analysis as to who should and, more importantly, WILL win the 2009 FLOBY awards (and let's not forget, I went 3/3 on my predictions last year).

2009 FLOBY Best Actress Nominees

Amy Adams - Sunshine Cleaning

Marion Cotillard - Public Enemies

Anna Kendrick - Up in the Air

Mélanie Laurent - Inglourious Basterds

Zoe Saldana - Avatar

WHO SHOULD WIN: Anna Kendrick hands down. I'll admit that I was floored by Zoe Saldana's motion capture work, but she's really the only competition this year, in my opinion. Kendrick's supporting role as Natalie Keener in Up in the Air had the most nuanced character arc of any of the nominees. She started as an unlikeable, overconfident, and naive new-hire, a rival of Smug Clooney's old school charm. But as the movie progresses, she is humbled, relaxed, and humanized. At 24, you don't see many young actresses with the stones to take on veterans like Clooney and Vera Farmiga, but Kendrick owns the movie and should get the FLOBY.

WHO WILL WIN: The Amy Adams nomination reeks of Dave still being bitter for her not winning the FLOBY for Enchanted, but hopefully not enough people saw that movie, so she won't get the necessary support. Marion Cotillard is cruising on her Oscar win, but Public Enemies was mostly panned by critics, and MVP awards normally go to players on the best teams (in this case, films). So who does that leave? Melanie Laurent as Shoshanna Dreyfus, the movie theater owner plotting revenge against the Nazis... and the real competition, Zoe Saldana. Avatar was probably seen by 90% of the Academy, and most were blown away by her mo-cap acting ability. Also, she was shut out from all major awards because her character was computer-animated, so maybe the voters have a chip on their shoulder and want to see her win one. Never underestimate the underdog, and I haven't. That's why Saldana walks away with FLOBY gold.

2009 FLOBY Best Actor Nominees

George Clooney - Up in the Air

Sharlto Copley - District 9

Liam Neeson - Taken

Brad Pitt - Inglourious Basterds

Christoph Waltz - Inglourious Basterds

WHO SHOULD WIN: Like the Best Actress race, this one has a winner who is clearly most deserving. SHARLTO COPLEY anchored a low-budget, politically charged science fiction film that went on to receive an Oscar nomination for BEST PICTURE (interesting that FLOBY felt differently...). I've seen all of these performances, and Copley is simply a juggernaut on screen. He starts as an innocent, happy government worker in charge of evicting the Prawns. As he goes from being the oppressor to the oppressed, he lays on the frustration, desperation, and genuine heartbreak that only acting heavyweights like De Niro, Gibson, and Ford are capable of. Bear in mind that every single documentary scene (pretty much the first half of the movie) is improvised by Copley. Also bear in mind that HE IS NOT EVEN AN ACTOR. THIS IS HIS FIRST MOVIE. Checkmate... Wikus Van De Merwe.

WHO WILL WIN: There is some great depth in this year's race. I enjoyed Smug Clooney's work in Up in the Air, Liam Neeson dominated Taken, and Brad Pitt's (*another two-time nominee*) goofy face/accent was worth rooting for in Inglourious Basterds, but this is a two-horse race, gentlemen. It comes down to Copley and Christoph Waltz as Col. Hans Landa. For a Tarantino movie, we naturally expect gruesome violence, so color me surprised when the famous Jew Hunter interrogates his suspects not with torture, but charm and grace. He already knows the answers to the questions he asks, and he mentally wears down his opponents as if he was playing chess with them. Now, if the occasion calls for him to be violent, he's certainly not against it (which is an awesome scene), but the first scene of that movie sticks out as one of my favorite scenes of the year. Since District 9 didn't get a Best Picture nod and Basterds earned a record 4 FLOBY nominations, expect Waltz to wrap this one up.

2009 FLOBY Best Movie Nominees

Avatar

Inglourious Basterds

The Hangover

Up

Up in the Air

WHO SHOULD WIN: Epic fantasy vs. Gruesome War Spaghetti Western vs. Raucous Comedy vs. Animated Family Film vs. Low Key Drama. This race couldn't be more wide open, as all of these movies are fantastic. On my year end ballot, these are 5 of my top 6 movies of the year (District 9 was my second favorite... whatever). But of these nominees, only one film combines clever laughs with an emotionally moving story, and that film was Up. First senior citizen protagonist in a CG film? Check. First big role for an Asian in a Pixar film? Check. Taking the "talking dog" staple in cartoons and turning it on it's head? Check! No other movie this year left the audience in tears after the first ten minutes WITHOUT SAYING A WORD. Basterds was too spread out over several storylines, and not in a good way like Pulp Fiction. Avatar's story was the least original story of the year. The Hangover was hilarious, but there's nothing else there. And Up in the Air is probably only appealing to white collar workers who enjoy Indie movies. Up may have had dogs steering airplanes with a chew toy, but it's got phenomenal visuals, the best score of the year (Golden Globes agree), characters you can invest in, and the all-around best story of the year.

WHO WILL WIN: As much as it pains me to say this, I believe Avatar has the best shot of winning Best Picture. A big chunk of this game is just getting you to see the movie, and no movie was seen more than Avatar. Voters who didn't see Up and Up in the Air will leave them at the bottom of the list. Most everyone probably saw the Hangover, Avatar, and Inglourious Basterds. Avatar will edge out the Hangover because of it's jaw-dropping scope and scale, and it will edge out IB because IB is such a genre or niche film. Avatar's technological prowess is impressive, but they've rehashed the same story we've seen a dozen times and don't realize it. In the end, its mass appeal, mainstream story, and fancy 3D effects will carry Jay's favorite film of 09 to victory.

Further Avatar analysis

Andy summed up the movie nicely in his review. Though the effects may be revolutionary, the story certainly isn't. That's not to say it's a bad story or a bad movie, because it definitely isn't.... it's just a touch predictable. Not only is a predictable and pretty damn close to Dances with Wolves, but a lot of it seems borrowed from elsewhere.

How many people watched Stephen Lang in the finale's fight and thought, "hmmm that suit looks straight out of the Matrix Revolutions?" Because I did. When I thought on it some more, it also reminded me of the armor that Wikus wears for his big fight in District 9. But really, all of those are just rip offs of Metal Gear, right?

How many people watched the alien elephant charge and thought, "hmmm that alien elephant charge looks straight out of Return of the King?" Yep, me too. And the flying gunships resembled the gunships in the Incredibles. But forget props... what about plot? The whole resurrection gimmick also reeked of Neo and the Matrix. We already know about the similarities to Dances With Wolves and Pocahontas.



To me, it felt like Cameron had this idea for an incredibly awesome technological concept: Take the most advanced motion capture simulation we've ever seen, add some photorealistic CG scenery, and throw it in 3D that's used more for depth, layering, and atmosphere. In doing all this ambitious stuff technologically, he either forgot to focus on an innovative new plot, or he realized that people wouldn't be able to handle the new stuff if he didn't wrap it in an old story.

I get it, and it works. But let's not fool ourselves into thinking this is a Best Picture contender. Will it revolutionize movies like Star Wars did in 1977? Maybe, but Star Wars didn't win Best Picture either. Star Wars was just as epic from a sound/visual effects standpoint, but Lucas served it up with an old story straight out of classical mythology. I love Star Wars, and I really don't want it to sound like I hate Avatar with all the bashing I'm doing. I would give it a solid B+. I thought it crammed a lot of stuff into 2 hours and 45 minutes. It could have easily been extended into an epic trilogy like LOTR. We didn't spend enough time with the Navi to really care when their whole world (tree) came crashing down. But it still had the best motion capture I've ever seen. It had visual effects that make Return of the King seem dated, and one kick-ass villain in Stephen Lang (don't you just love when he leads the attack with a mug of coffee in his hand? What an asshole.)

Asshole.

Now consider what Avatar's accomplished in 18 days. Remember the epic hype even back during pre-production. Cameron was promising a new age of film. Other directors were visiting the set and saying it would blow our minds. The reviews were surprisingly stellar across the board. And then it went on to bust through $1 billion in just 18 days (it took Dark Knight it's entire theatrical run to do that). Word of mouth is getting people to theaters much like it did for Titanic. Girls who aren't into sweeping sci-fi epics are coming out saying "I'm surprised that is was sooooo good." This is going to br one to remember, folks, because it's probably going to go down as the #2 movie of all time in terms of money. Isn't it safe to say that James Cameron has pushed aside Spielberg and any other contender as the top director in the world?

70 Minute Phantom Menace Review

I went through a period of time where I thought Episode I was terribly underrated. In fact, I tried to defend it on its 10 year anniversary. What about now? Now I'm back to thinking that it's a big steamy turd of a movie. Especially when you consider the massive buildup of hype and anticipation, it's hard to see Phantom Menace as anything other than a massive failure.

That's why I'm thrilled to share with you the only 70-minute movie review worth watching. This guy hilariously tears apart every single aspect of the Phantom Menace. The best part about it is when it builds and builds to the moment where Lucas is saying that they can't really cut the bad parts of the movie because everything would be effected by it. It's the equivalent of saying "Yep, you're all disappointed by this shit movie, but it's too late."

This is a hundred times more entertaining than watching the ball drop this year, so please watch this instead.

Star Wars Shoes!

Those trendy fashion gays at Adidas are teaming up with the socially awkward nerds at Lucasfilm to produce what might be the greatest shoe line in the world. Yep, it's a whole set of Star Wars shoes, with many characters and vehicles getting their own theme. I'm sure a lot of you woke up today wondering "Hmmm... if in footwear form Yoda was, what shoe would he be?" Personally, I thought Yoda's shoe would be some sort of hobo sandal, but they decided to go with a boat shoe/moccasin hybrid. You can also find shoes for Luke Skywalker, Darth Vader, the Death Star, Stormtroopers, TIE fighters, AT-ATs, and many others. I've got dibs on the Millenium Falcon shoe, and I totally expect them to be $200 (George has to make a buck, right?)

I'm struggling to come up a with a shoe-related play on "May the Force be with you" but I'm tired and want to sleep.

Review: Everybody's Fine

Robert De Niro has done plenty of larger-than-life tough guy roles, but now he's finally done something that I wish more actors would do... act their age. Harrison Ford (nearly 70) is still playing action hero Indy, and everyone's laughing at him. Clint Eastwood played the old guy in Gran Torino, but he was still channeling Dirty Harry. In Everybody's Fine, De Niro plays a calm, reserved, lonely old man, and it's pitch perfect.

Like Up, the film starts with an old man dealing with the recent passing of his wife and adjusting to life alone. But whereas Carl Frederickson went on a fun adventure in South America, De Niro's road trip is constantly sad and depressing. All 4 of his children were going to come in for a nice family weekend, but one by one they all cancel, and De Niro must travel around the country to surprise them with a visit.

Along the way there are moments of light hearted humor as De Niro plays the stereotypical old man. He shows off pictures of his kids to strangers. He doesn't know how to use his luggage. He still uses a camera that requires rolls of film. But forget those minor laughs; the meat of the story is internal.

It's the story of a father finding out that he doesn't really know much about his kids, and it's mostly his fault. They shared everything with their mother, and only the generic good news with dad, and now he wants to change that. There's actually a lot more depth to this story than I anticipated. He may play the bumbling, out of touch parent, but he's still mentally sharp. And yeah, he wants to hear what's really troubling his kids, but is he prepared to deal with? And sure, the kids want to be there for pop, but there's a lot of bad shit to talk about, and they just want to protect him.

This isn't the usual Christmas movie that comes out every year (you can't tell by the sucky Christmas-movie poster). It's actually one that a lot of family's can relate to. De Niro anchors the movie with quiet sympathy, more than making up for a supporting cast that phones it in. It's not the best or most memorable film by far, but it resonates with you. I can recognize it's mediocrity, but there will still parts that affected me emotionally, and that fascinates me.

B

Review: Fantastic Mr. Fox

Unfortunately, even the great directors sometimes direct big fat stinkers. Spielberg has done it. Lucas has done it. So has Scorsese and Jackson. But what about Wes Anderson? Okay, so he doesn't really aim as high as the other directors on the list when it comes to scale, but so far he hasn't made a bad movie.

Bottle Rocket - Cult classic
Rushmore - Brilliant... his best work.
the Royal Tenenbaums - Genius... my favorite of his.
the Life Aquatic - Sorely underrated
the Darjeeling Limited - Overlooked gem (though wouldn't it be a million times better if Luke Wilson was cast in place of Adrian Brody?)

I love all of these quirky movies, but did Fantastic Mr. Fox live it to its predecessors? Here's a hint: So far I've spent the entire review avoiding the film, and the first paragraph is a little obvious with its foreshadowing. Mediocre Mr. Fox falls way short, and is mostly an interesting, bizzare, and shallow movie. How is it that Rotten Tomatoes scored this one as 92% fresh?

Critics are praising the voice work, led by Clooney, Meryl Streep, and Bill Murray. I thought all of the voice acting and dialogue to be blank and dull, probably to keep in pace with the blank, dull puppets. All the actors felt out of place except for Wally Wolodarsky as the opossum, but I'm apparently one of the few that felt this way.

The animation and set pieces were definitely unique, and that was primarily what works for the movie. It's supposed to be offbeat; not quite for kids, yet not quite for adults either. Not really a cartoon, and not really live action. The techniques are ambitious and intentionally different from any other movie this year, but they aren't best suited to the story provided. I know that it's about a fox who has settled down, yet it's his nature to steal and be mischievous. Along with that is a lot of family drama and neighborly conflict, but I rarely had time to really care for or process the plot. I was constantly drawn to the stylized look of the film.

And in the end, that's really what killed it for me. I left the theater thinking, "okay, what was my favorite part of the movie?" and came up with nothing. After a few minutes I gave up and decided that I enjoyed the music for the montage when all the animals are digging. The bottom line is that the film looks weird and great, but the characters and story are bland and dull.

C+

REVIEW: 2012

For whatever reason, Roland Emmerich's disaster movies got worse and worse as I grew up. Independence Day was (and remains) and awesome helping of jokes, emotion, explosions, and lots and lots of cheese. I loved it then and love it now. I remember Godzilla being mostly laughable, but I've sat through it a few times on TV since then. But I cannot stand The Day After Tomorrow. I saw a couple scenes on FX (it's ALWAYS on FX these days), and I found it empty and boring. The one thing I will applaud is that Emmerich loves to center the action around a flawed, grounded everyman (Jeff Goldblum, Matthew Broderick, and Dennis Quaid). It holds true to the saying "It's amazing what humans are capable of when they must..."

I went into this movie expecting an awful mess of CG, no plot, and lots and lots of cheese. The first 20 minutes doesn't help the plot since they breeze through 3 years in a couple scenes while trying to introduce several different storylines. The good news is we don't spend too much time lounging around. The end is near. The sun's increased activity is melting the Earth's core and it's going to cause a shit-ton of problems (volcanoes, earthquakes, and tidal waves).

This time around, John Cusack walks us through armageddon. He's a has-been author/limo driver that barely sees his kids. He catches wind of the bad news from a conspiracy hippy nut (a hilarious Woody Harrelson) while camping at Yellowstone. And then just like that, it goes from bad to worse to worse-than-worst. California gets the Earthquake to end all earthquakes and Yellowstone blows it top like a hydrogen bomb. I enjoyed this much more than the disaster in The Day After Tomorrow because you can easily see the destruction. Instead of blizzards and rainstorms (low visibility), we clearly see the quakes, waves, and eruptions. Despite it being 100% CG, the visuals are pretty amazing.



And on top of that, the family dynamic is surprisingly NOT terrible. John Cusack has to run into LA and rescue his kids, ex-wife Amanda Peet, and her new boyfriend Tom McCarthy before it all goes to hell, and there subsequent trip around the world is fast paced and pretty entertaining. The supporting characters (Danny Glover, Oliver Platt (awesome), the bad guy from Serenity, the boss from Just Shoot Me, and some rich Russian guy) provide a wide range of people to be invested in.

However, the biggest and most glaring drawback is the goofy plot. It's hard to sit back and believe everything that's unfolding. The Dalai Lama drives a pick-up truck? We care about saving the giraffes? Wait, wait, wait... Africa???? Really? Plus, the tone is all over the map. There's subtle humor like Arnold's press conference (too bad it wasn't really Arnold), and the looks that John Cusack and Tom McCarthy share. There's a welcome intensity at some moments, but it's ruined with jokey gags like the one with the puppy. And finally, it seems like there's just an endless wave of death. Phone calls between people about to die. Seeing large groups of people wiped out. Watching some of the supporting characters sadly die... I just couldn't tell what this movie wanted to be.

If your smart, you already know what this movie is going to be. The destruction is ambitious and jaw-dropping, but the plot blows. The only saving grace that makes me consider sitting through this again when it's on FX is that most characters are worth watching. It's definitely a dumb movie, but still an entertaining, dumb movie.

C-

REVIEW: Where the Wild Things Are

If you're like me, Where the Wild Things Are was one of the few books you could stomach early in life, maybe for no other reason than it was a first glimpse at illustrated monsters (creepy yet oddly realistic-looking) in school.  Maybe it was because library trips usually meant being forced to read about old English women, Jesus, or even a dead bird once. This was the first book I enjoyed, though isn't exactly a tough read, even when you're 6.

So how do you turn 10 sentences into 101 minutes? Kudos to the suits at Warner Bros. for staying true to the themes of the book, while also giving the film some substance. This very easily could've been another Christmas-Season-Toy-Marketing movie (something that your pals at Disney tried/failed to do 20 years ago), but it is probably the polar opposite. Spike Jonze and company add layer upon layer to this Max's story, and each character adds a different dynamic to the kid's psyche. Max's life isn't roses, and he's surrounded by modern social dysfunction like ADD, a fractured family, and (gasp!) environmental concern. When he finally snaps, he imagines himself off to a mysterious island full of giant Wild Things. It starts well, but Max eventually realizes that the monsters on the island are even more dysfunctional than the monsters in his household. Like LOST meets The Office.

And to me, pain was the underlying essence of the movie. While Hook, for example, was a children's tale re-imagined with a magical Spielberg environment, Wild Things hits us with a solid dose of fear and insecurity. At times, it's is so hell-bent on storytelling from a confused 9-year old perspective, we are often left with frustrating, confused scenes. I don't remember the actual Wild Things being so whiny and childish in the book, but what else would a child know? I don't remember them being so relentlessly unhappy, but I suppose that's how frightened/lonely/insecure children would see it. There are a few scenes where this leads to utter stupidity (owls), and does nothing but pro-long the movie. In the book, Max eventually grows lonely and misses his mother; in the movie, Max realizes his escape is actually more combustible than reality.

A solid movie, but I ultimately left feeling uninspired. I have to admit that the kid in the movie ----- unlike 99% of movie kids (see: Phantom Menace, Dick Tracy, The Neverending Story, One Tree Hill, etc, etc, etc) --- was NOT annoying. The voices were fun, especially Tony Soprano as a friendly (...or is he?) wild thing that delivers the tear-jerker scene, and Paul "Bowling Pin" Dano as the biggest loser of the wild things. And a few people are complaining about the hipster soundtrack -- I'll say that's it only feels wrong for some of the movie, although Herb will probably blast the entire thing. Lastly, enough can't be said about the original way it was filmed, with giant larger-than-life puppets rumbling around the woods. Creepy, just like the original book was. HHhhooooOOOWWWWwwwllL.

C+

Video of the Week

...and potential Carny nominee for Worst Film, Worst Actor (Brendan Fraser), and Goofiest Run by an Old Man (H. Ford).

Review: Zombieland

It's kind of unfair that every zom-com for the next 20 years will be compared to the genius of Shaun of the Dead, and Zombieland is no different. Like Shaun, it's a send up of conventional zombie horror flicks, but ALSO like Shaun (fortunately), it offers a lot more than just cheap laughs.

Whereas Shaun of the Dead offered a humorous glimpse of how normal folk would handle a zombie outbreak, Zombieland skips past that and asks "how would normal folk deal with the aftermath?" Where would you go? What would you do for fun now that nothing is off-limits? How would you deal with the day-to-day zombie threat? It's set at least a few months after the outbreak. Most of the United States is dead or a zombie. That leaves our 4 main characters traveling the road hoping to find whatever it is they are looking for. Our main hero, Columbus (playing the same character as he did in Adventureland) is trying to head home to hopefully find his parents alive. Tallahassee (Woody Harrelson, who steals the movie) is in search of some tasty food and enjoys killing zombies. Finally, two sisters, Wichita and Little Rock (Jules from Superbad and Abigail Breslin) are heading west to an old family vacation spot (a theme park).

Along the way, we get a look into what their lives were like before the plague. Some of it is humorous, some is heart wrenching, and some is just boring characterization. The important thing is that this doesn't really feel like a road trip movie because the plot is moving pretty quick. Like Wedding Crashers, our weird anti-social hero has created some Zombie Survival rules that usually accompany his voiceovers. Most people will get a kick out of the Double Tap rule, but my favorite is rule number one, simply titled Cardio. It's pretty simple: don't panic, because zombies are easy to outrun. Also hilarious is an expression I've never heard before for droppin' a deuce (taking the Browns to the Super Bowl). And finally, every review I saw mentioned an awesome cameo, but they all purposefully withheld the name to preserve the surprise. I must say that this person's cameo was most welcome and freakin funny as hell. I'm also shocked that it's been kept a secret so long.

Nonetheless, despite not being as good as Shaun of the Dead, absolutely everything works for this film. Music, plot, gore, humor, characters, it's all great. And here's a clue to the cameo: Their initials (you see them on the gate outside their house) are BM (I first thought Bette Midler and was way off). Go see this movie and thank me later.

B+

Empire's 50 Greatest Movie Sequels

Everyone loves a good list. I saw this Empire effort on IMDB a few weeks ago and thought it was pretty solid, for the most part. There are 50 on the list, so I am not going to go over every single one, but I thought I would highlight those that are noteworthy. Check out the complete list: Empire




50. Shrek 2 - yawn

39. National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation - Now we're talking. Easily the best of the vacation movies. It seems like It's a Wonderful Life has run its course, and A Christmas Story is getting a little old, is this now the quintessential Xmas movie? The film is pure comedy with a lot of slapstick and now-famous one-liners. This movie is funnier than anything Adam Sandler or Will Ferrell has ever done.

36. Mission Impossible III - I was never that crazy about it, but it's on TV a lot, and I think it gets better and better with each viewing.

35. Back to the Future Part III - I prefer this to part 2, and I think a lot of people agree with me. The Back to the Future trilogy does not get a lot of buzz when the topic of best trilogies are discussed. That's a shame, because this is good stuff.

26. The Color of Money - A surprise inclusion. Scorsese, Paul Newman, billiards, what can go wrong? O yeah, Tom Cruise, but still a solid film.

25. Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade - A lot of people think this is right up there with Raiders. An essential inclusion to this list, and Empire correctly points out that this is probably the funniest and most quotable film of the Indiana Jones franchise. I would say a great conclusion to the Indy story, but Crystal Skull kind of ruined that.

23. Back of the Future Part II - Wow, ahead of part 3. Surprised me a little. Still a good movie.

22. Spider Man II - Pretty big when it came out, not so much anymore. Is Spider Man anyone's number one favorite superhero?

21. Return of the Jedi - Subtract the ewoks and it's close to a perfect movie. The worst of the trilogy, but look what it's up against.

18. The Bourne Ultimatum - Solid sequel. Solid trilogy.

14. Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom - Kind of surprising that this is above Crusade and this high for that matter. The darkest of the trilogy. I think as time goes by, it might get more and more popular. It's already a kind of dark, cult classic.

13. Batman Returns - I like the inclusion. This feature, as well as Batman Forever, are slightly underrated in my opinion. Great villains and great performances by Danny DeVito and Michelle Pfeiffer.

11. X2 - I mean, who doesn't like X-Men, or this movie for that matter.

9. Superman II - I was never really into these movies, but those villains in this one were really cool.

7. The Bourne Supremacy - This is really good. You actually like and root for Matt Damon, which can be tough in a lot of his movies. Empire states that this series, and this movie in particular, is responsible for the new direction in the Bond franchise from smooth Pierce Brosnan to hard-ass Daniel Craig.

6. The Empire Strikes Back - Nothing more needs to be said about this movie. The thing I don't get is that it's all the way down on this list. In my opinion, this is the second-best sequel ever and the best movie out of the entire Star Wars franchise. On my personal movie list, I have this as the 5th greatest movie of all-time.

5. The Dark Knight - I think this has been talked about a little bit on this website. I was blown away in the theater but was not ready to proclaim this as the greatest thing in the world. But with each viewing, my opinion keeps swaying to that very proclamation. Easily the best film of 2008 and one of the best movies in the past ten years.

4. Toy Story 2 - WTF, I thought only Dan liked crappy Pixar movies.

3. Terminator 2: Judgment Day - I probably would not put it this high, but I definitely understand why it is.

2. The Godfather Part II - Yeah this better be on the list. Should be first, but I'll definitely settle with it being second. I have talked and written about G2 at length on this website. The best movie of all-time in my opinion.

1. Aliens - A surprise number one pick that is pretty common for these Empire lists. Wasn't Tyler Durden number one in the Empire character list? With that said, this is a great movie that is still under-appreciated. Definitely one of the most suspenseful and heart-pounding movies of all-time. If Avatar is good, will James Cameron enter the Steven Spielberg echelon of directors? Terminator, T2, Aliens, Titanic, Avatar? This probably should be in the 5-10 range. I would probably have the Godfather Part 2 number one, TESB two, and the Dark Knight three.


-no LOTR? Are they considered one big film and not an original with two sequels?

-omissions - The Matrix Reloaded, Revenge of the Sith, Kill Bill Vol. 2, The Godfather Part III (believe me, it's good),

FILM: Mario Kart: The Movie (Trailer)

After blowing our minds for 15+ years on the small screen, everyone's favorite Nintendo franchise brings its red shells, battle modes, and Mushroom Cups to Hollywood. Released this past week, MKTM's trailer gives us a sneak peak at what surely will be the most dramatic racing movie since Too Fast Too Furious. For you purists, this one delivers the goods: A) Mario as the lead, B) Wario as the fat, evil villain, and C) all the supporting characters in their comic relief glory. Critics will be surprised by the superb acting, soundtrack, and stunning emotional layers to MKTM (Mario hitting rock bottom, the origins of Baby Mario, etc.). While I do think this trailer reveals a little TOO MUCH plot (SPOILER: A dumb main character dies!), a story of "loyalty and love" has this reviewer licking his chops to get to the theaters. Ah, too bad its a fake. Daisy sucks.

AVATAR Trailer!

After months of hype and big promises, James Cameron's Avatar movie finally has a trailer. Every single film critic/blogger who has caught a sneak peek at Avatar footage has said that it's mindblowing.

In my opinion, this film is either going to be a huge critical/financial hit or it's going to flop big time. I don't think we are going to see much middle ground here. The scope, look, and feel of the movie is so unique and ambitious that it could be really polarizing. I think it's going to kick ass, but it's probably going to kick ass and make little profit, if any.. Watch the trailer and judge for yourself. It's like Doom meets the Night Elves in Warcraft III and it's set in a world that Atrus from Mist must have drawn up.

Granted, it's meant for IMAX and 3D and screens much bigger than my laptop screen, but I'm impressed, and you should be too.