The best episode of the G.I. Joe cartoon I ever saw...

G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra is in that category of films that's a bit hard to review. No one in their right mind is expecting greatness from a movie directed by Stephen Sommers (The Mummy), much less from a movie based on a line of toys. Still, Transformers and its sequel Revenge of the Fallen turned out to be a wonderful spectacle of CGI eye candy and quite entertaining. And considering I played with G.I. Joe way more than Transformers, I was hoping some nostalgia for one of my favorite toys as a kid would allow me to escape and have some fun with this in the same way. Even the actors themselves weren't kidding themselves into thinking this was some sort of genre defining movie. Back during production of the film adaptation of G.I. Joe in which she portrays the Baroness, Sienna Miller succintly summed up exactly what to expect: "Guns, tits, ass, and no acting!" And honestly, I think she was spot on.

The plot of G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra is pretty straightforward. Destro creates the ultimate terror weapon, his henchmen (Baroness, Storm Shadow, Zartan) steal it from NATO, and the G.I. Joe team (General Hawk, Heavy Duty, Snake Eyes, Scarlett, Breaker) along with their new recruits (Duke, Ripcord) are tasked to save the world from Destro's nefarious plan. In the background is the Doctor, who seems to be the real brains behind Destro's organization with a backstory that isn't all that hard to figure out before the "big" reveal towards the end of the film.

For the most part, I thought the casting of the film was actually quite good. Sienna Miller and Rachel Nichols look hot, Ray Park in his Snake Eyes outfit looks ninja cool and his moves are even cooler, and they don't give Channing Tatum too many big words to say. Wild Willie...er...I mean, Dennis Quaid pretty much calls in his performance, but he's not asked to do a whole lot either except look leader-ly and whoop and holler when the Joes win the final battle (that was pretty much a blatant knock-off of Star Wars--dogfights, sword fight between Snake Eyes and Storm Shadow, General Hawk at the main base with a big holographic globe watching the battle unfold).

Steven Sommers and the writers take the right approach in this movie by making it essentially an action-centric film with lots of explosions, high-tech gadgets, and fights that defy the laws of physics. I was pleased to see that they even tried to make some of the technology for G.I. Joe a bit believable using ideas that are in the early phases of development already today (e.g. invisibility cloak). The writers even manage to explain how Cobra manages to get all these nameless soldiers to fight their battles without complaint (i.e. nanomites that allow for mind control), which always perplexed me as a kid when I would watch cartoons--perhaps a bit silly, but explains a lot nonetheless. And in some sense, this movie felt a lot like the old cartoons, save for the fact that people actually die in this film rather than miraculously parachute out of danger. Whether you feel that's a good thing or bad, I leave that opinion to you.

It's when the film stops having fun, and tries to be serious when the film breaks down. Granted, the draw for me to G.I. Joe as a kid was always the backstories behind each character, but the way they sort of tried to incorporate flashbacks for each of the main characters really slowed the pace down, and didn't add much to the movie at all. The story itself hinges on the background between Duke, the Baroness, and Cobra Commander, which was kind of silly, and wasn't helped by the fact that Channing Tatum and Sienna Miller had absolutely no chemistry. And Zartan? He's still the dumbest villain ever. EVER!

In the wrong frame of an adult mind, this was probably a laughable film, best enjoyed at 2:00 AM with a few too many beers. But G.I. Joe was never really meant for adults. I think this movie targets exactly the right market--young boys who still play with toys. Had I been ten years old, I probably would have been talking about this movie for the next month. Do you need to go rung out and see this? No. But if you've got nothing to do on a weekend afternoon, or when it comes out on DVD, it's kind of fun. And in the end, this movie comes down to one question: Ninjas and hot chicks in tight leather--do you really need anything else? Just for that, I give it a...

James Bond vs. Vampires...

Over the past couple of weeks, I've managed to catch two of the most anticipated movies of the fall, the latest 007 film Quantum of Solace and the movie adaptation of the teen sensation book Twilight.  I was a bit surprised by my reactions to each.

First up, Quantum of Solace.  After Daniel Craig's first stint as James Bond in Casino Royale, I was pleased to see that the franchise had gotten a fresh reboot into something that was a bit less preposterous than what the Pierce Brosnan movies were escalating into and before they got to the absurd realm of the later Roger Moore films.  Bond was still a debonaire spy who looked good in a tux and was still quite smooth with the ladies.  Yet, this iteration of Bond was not indestructable.  He could screw up.  He could bleed.  He could be tortured.  And he could even love.  

Quantum of Solace seems to pick up with that notion, by opening up with it's first scene as a continuation of Casino Royale.  Literally moments after the last scene of Casino Royale, Bond is in quite an exhilarating car chase scene through the cliffside roads of Italy.  This will later be followed by just about every chase sequence possible--on foot, in a boat, on a plane.  Lots of action sequences, just like any good Bond film.  So far, so good.  The problem is that the action doesn't seem to flow very well, and the pay off at the end of most of these scenes isn't satisfying.  Marc Forster, known more for his dramatic films, lends a bit of artistry to the action by using unusual angles and lots of montages.  A foot chase underground is intercut with a horse race going on right above them.  A shootout is mixed with scenes from Puccini's Tosca being performed in the auditorium nearby.  I actually liked what he was doing with this, except he goes a completely different direction with the rest of the action sequences, filming them in the standard flow of action way we're all used to, which seems to give the whole movie a bit of a disjointed feel.  

There are flashes of classic Bond goodness.  Daniel Craig still fits the role well, despite his non-classic looks for Ian Fleming's ultimate British agent.  We get just a peek of his usual playfulness during a hotel changing sequence with a female British agent sent to bring Bond back to England ("Fields.  Just Fields."--although pay attention to the credits, her name is Strawberry Fields, and probably the only playful name we usually come to expect in Bond movies).  There's even a nice touch involving her that harkens back to a famous scene from Goldfinger--a nice sort of Easter egg for all the devout Bond fans out there that's almost as cool as the scene in Casino Royale that explains how Bond got his Aston Martin DB5.  We get a glimpse of the ongoing friendship between him and his CIA contact Felix Lighter.  And his relationship with M is also developed well.  

Even the way the ended the film was quite clever when you look at it as if Casino Royale was the beginning of the story.  The final scenes of Quantum of Solace are very reminiscent of how Bond waited in the shadows on a snowy day that started the previous film.  And they even save the classic walk of 007 across the screen before he shoots directly at the camera for the end of Quantum as if to say that this segment, in combination with Casino Royale, is finally over.

But in the end, it's just not enough.  Why?  Because the villain wasn't scary.  At all.  He didn't even have any scary henchmen.  And his diabolical plan?  It involves controlling Bolivia.  Bolivia!  No offense to Bolivians, but who cares about Bolivia?  Granted Le Chiffre wasn't all that scary either, but at least you got a twinge of fear when he was literally busting Bond's balls in that torture scene.

Finally, the worst offense?  No, not the theme song (although that was a disaster).  The worst offense is that Bond doesn't bed the Bond girl at the end.  That just seems like blasphemy.  I mean, come on.  They were stranded in a chasm in the earth in the middle of nowhere.  He couldn't pass the time like he usually does when a beautiful woman is around?  I know this is going to sound completely sexist, but what is the Bond girl for?  

All in all, Quantum of Solace was a bit of a let down.  It closes out the events of Casino Royale well, I guess, and lays the ground work for a sinister group of evil to fight in future films, but it just doesn't quite deliver as a film all its own.  As the usual words at the end of the credits say, "James Bond will return," and I hope its with a bit more of the classic ingredients put back into the formula. 

In contrast, I found Twilight a bit of a surprise.  Usually I wouldn't have had much interest in this movie.  Lemon, however, picked up this book on a whim awhile back and has been reading the entire series ravenously since then.  As all fans of this series (which apparently is some phenomenon with teen girls that almost rivals the Harry Potter craze with younger kids), I was "forced" to watch with my wife.  Based on the first book of a series by Stephenie Meyer, Twilight introduces us to Bella Swan, a teenage girl who moves from Phoenix, Arizona to the small town of Forks, Washington to live with her father while her mother and her boyfriend travel the country.  Her adjustment as the new kid in school seems to go relatively well until she seems to spark the obvious disgust of Edward Cullen.  Of course, the outward nausea he seems to exude towards her at first really is essentially love at first sight mixed in with a bit of hunger, as Edward is actually part of a family of local vampires.  

This is a no doubt a teen chick flick, complete with longing gazes into each others eyes and some sappy dialogue.  There was even one particular scene that looked like something out of a cheesy John Tesh music video and that I might put up there on the "roll your eyes" kind of scale as the obligatory chick flick sing-along-scene (which, thankfully, this movie did not have).  The romance itself, central to the entire series, isn't even developed all that well.  Yet for some reason, it all just seemed to work for me.  Perhaps I'm intrigued by the whole vampire angle.  Edward belongs to a vampire family that are strict "vegeterians" as they only feed on the blood of wild animals and not humans.  Running around are a group of more traditional blood-suckers who will feast on their human prey at will and eventually come to spoil all the love and harmony.  Maybe it's the hint of future things to come.  The Cullen family had apparently made a pact long ago with the Native Americans in the area who descend from a wolf-respecting tribe--can you say vampire vs. werewolf throwdown in the future sequels?

But in the end, I was just kind of impressed by the whole abstinence message this movie seemed to convey.  The typical teen drama seems to portray love at first sight and true love as something that can only be visualized by sexual intercourse, and never seems to emphasize the importance of waiting.  What a better metaphor than a male teenager with hormonal urges who has to control himself before literally devouring his girlfriend, and a girlfriend that needs to figure out how to slowdown her own impulses to give up her entire life strictly on her feelings of first love?  In a pop culture world where I think sex is thrown around way too easily for eye candy and quick stimulation, it was nice to see a story treat it as something special to wait for.

So there you go.  Two movies.  One a bit of a disappointment.  One a bit of a surprise.  Oddly enough, I didn't like one because it wasn't naughty enough, and I liked the other because it wasn't really that naughty at all.  In the end, though, I give them about the same rating.

And this is why I wouldn't do well in the movie business...

According to Box Office Mojo, Speed Racer has pulled in a little over $93 million worldwide since its release back in May. Considering this was supposed to be a major summer blockbuster and the fact that it cost $120 million to make, that adds up to a definable flop. Critics seemed to hate it, too, which probably didn't help its abysmal numbers.  

I mention all this because I'm a bit perplexed as to why it did so poorly after watching it on DVD last night.  I happened to miss out watching it on the big screen only because Lemon had no interest in seeing it, and I never found an opportunity to sneak off to the theater to see it alone.  After finishing it, though, I was disappointed that I hadn't seen it on the big screen.  The visuals are amazing!  It was like tripping on acid without the acid.  I imagine this is what they were going for when they tried to bring Dick Tracy to the movies.  It was truly a live action cartoon.  

Sure, the physics were preposterous.  Sure, the script wasn't the most intricate thing ever.  Sure, other family-friendly cartoons like any of the Pixar movies probably have more heart and soul.  It was fun to watch nonetheless, and I felt was a pretty entertaining movie.  

So why did it do so horribly bad?  Is there something I missed?  Granted, this endorsement is coming from a guy that still enjoys Joe Versus the Volcano whenever it's randomly showing on TV late night, but still, the special effects of this movie alone should have gotten it to at least break even in it's box office sales.  Even some stinker sci-fi movies from Paul W.S. Anderson did better--that's kind of insulting.

Mindless summertime fun at the movies...

I always find kind of hard to rate a pure summer popcorn flick. Sometimes, we have an easy time suspending our knowledge of reality to just sit back and have some fun. Other times, it's quite difficult to watch an over-the-top action sequence and go, "Oh, c'mon. That's not just impossible, that's damn silly." The Matrix and its sequels cleverly got around this whole issue by simply placing almost all of its outlandish action and stunt sequences in a world where there were no rules and everything was possible. Superhero comic book films try to play within the world we know, yet somehow we tend to give those a pass, as well. Play a John Woo flick like Face Off or Mission: Impossible 2 though, and some (yes, I'm talking to you, FG) roll their eyes and contemplate walking out of the theater altogether. So this summer gave us Wanted, and I'm sitting here trying to figure out where it falls on this scale.

Loosely based on a comic book mini-series by Mark Millar and J.G. Jones, Wanted takes the medium of its source material and its endless boundaries to the big screen to deliver an action-packed, violently crazy movie that's quite entertaining to watch...if you can stand a few flipping car sequences, magic healing baths, and an assassin's ability to bend the path of bullets, among other things. The film starts out by introducing us to Wesley, a poor sap of a guy stuck in a dead end cubicle job with a cheating girlfriend at home and lots of anxiety issues. Little does he know that he's the son of one of the world's most lethal assassins and shares the same genetic traits that give him the natural abilities to be the ultimate killing machine. After his father is killed, Wesley is given the chance to avenge his death by recruitment into The Fraternity, an assassins guild originating from an ancient group of weavers that somehow keep peace in the world and are mystically told who their next targets for death will be via a magical loom. Yeah, sounds a bit silly, but the basic premise is kind of cool as it's presented in the movie.

Now don't be too skeptical about the inclusion of Angelina Jolie. As any good macho action flick, there isn't any romance involved in this. Maybe a gratuitous flash of her butt (which I was surprised she agreed to given her Hollywood clout these days), but otherwise she's quite the dangerous woman with a gun (or a car), and she seems perfectly cast in appearance to what you would imagine a female comic book character come to life as being. Her role is actually relatively secondary, though. The real focus is on Wesley, played by James McAvoy, a strange choice which makes sense when you realize the need to have the wimpy guy at the beginning established so that we can actually empathize with his situation and care about what happens to him as the story progresses. Morgan Freeman, as always, is reliable, and I got quite a hoot out of him getting a bit out of character and doing a little something more in tune with Samuel L. Jackson towards the end.

But to the real reason you'd go see this movie--the action. Yes, it's WAY over the top. Yes, it requires ALL KINDS of suspension of disbelief. But if you can put that on hold, it's presented quite well. Much of the sequences owe a lot to The Matrix trilogy, and at times it seems like they almost copied scenes from those groundbreaking film. But, hey, it's the summer. This is no season to think and to judge. Go see Wanted, enjoy it for what it is, and chow down on a tub of popcorn (yes, I'm talking to you, FG).

A mystery romance...

CHICK FLICK WARNING: This is a review of a romantic comedy. Please stop reading now if this will make you nauseated or contemplate suicide, as "The Life and Times of Chester Cheetah and the Kool-Aid Gang" will not be held liable for any problems this might cause to your machismo.

Classic romantic comedies follow a relatively routine plot formula. If you don't know it by now, a quick viewing of any Nora Ephron movie such as When Harry Met Sally, Sleepless In Seattle, or You've Got Mail will probably get you back up to speed:

1. Boy meets girl.
2. Boy and girl seemingly hate each other at first, and insult each other repeatedly.
3. Boy and girl get involved in other relationships to hide the fact that they actually like each other.
   
4. Boy and girl get stuck in some nonsensical predicament to realize they really love each other.
5. Boy and girl go through crazy hijinks to finally meet at the end and live happily ever after.

These movies are all fine and good, especially when you pair a couple like Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan with great chemistry to play your leads. I actually enjoy these films for the most part, but at times, it really does feel like a chick flick in the end.

Initially released in theaters on Valentine's Day, one would have expected Definitely, Maybe to fit in with the typical genre movie. But instead, I was really surprised to find a plot that was quite different, yet still quite touching and even more grounded in reality than most. The movie revolves around Will Hayes (Ryan Reynolds) telling his daughter Maya (Abigail Breslain) the story of how he met her mother. But instead of a straight forward romantic tale, Will decided to throw three of his prior loves into the mix so that his daughter can guess who her father ultimately ends up with. Is it his college sweetheart Emily (Elizabeth Banks), idealistic hipster April (Isla Fischer), or ambitious journalist Summer (Rachel Weisz)? Maya and the audience are left to figure it out until the end of the film, and in the process we see how Will has grown over the years, as well. To make it even more complicated, the film starts out establishing that Will is about to proceed with a divorce from this mystery woman, so if we really do find out who she is, will they spoil the mood with this impending seperation?

The mystery, of sorts, angle to the whole movie kept me drawn in. And unlike typical films, the writer/director Adam Brooks manages to create three potential women that are truly likeable, rather than villinizing two of them to make the ultimate true love stand out. He also shows how finding your true love sometimes isn't a smooth path. Now most romantic comedies make this journey quite hard, too, but Definitely, Maybe fortunately doesn't resort to crazy chases across Manhattan to catch the girl before she walks down the altar with another man, leaves for Europe, or other nonsense. It's a gradual process of growth and realization that Will has, and it's refreshing to see.

The saccharine, cliched lines are minimal in the film. There's not too much dependence on a eclectic soundtrack to set the mood, either. Instead, we see the transitions of time with the backdrop of the 90's--it's actually quite odd to watch a "period piece" of sorts, and realize that I actually lived through the entire period as an adult. Ryan Reynolds, who I used to enjoy watching back in his TV days on Two Guys, a Girl, and a Pizza Place, loses quite a bit of the sarcastic humor that is his usual trademark to play something a bit more subdued. His chemistry with all the female leads is great, and one actress in particular establishes herself as one of those screen characters you just sort of crush on yourself--I'd tell you who, but I think it would give away the ending.

Anywho, if you're looking for a DVD to rent and watch with for a mini date night at home, this one fits the bill quite well.

Hulk smash!

Back when we were kids with nothing better to do on a Saturday afternoon except beg Wander's mom to drive us downtown to Comics N Stuff for our weekly infusion of superhero goodness, we often dreamed about what some of our favorite Marvel characters would be like on the big screen. Fan mags would often report that an X-Men or Punisher movie was "in the can." Alas, none ever materialized, and we were left to dream on.

Now when we're all grown up, after most of us stopped reading comic books on a regular basis, an avalanche of the films we prayed for have come. And now I find myself wondering if adulthood has swayed my expectations as to what a comic book film should be.

The first adaptation of Hulk by Ang Lee was a somewhat more cerebral look into the psyche of Bruce Banner, the Hulk being the literal manifestation of the hidden conflicts of a man with suppressed rage and daddy issues. For those of us who kept arguing that comics were much more literature than mere kiddie reading, Hulk should have been a masterpiece. Instead, fanboys grumbled, critics criticized, and the general moviegoing public didn't come. Knowing there still was potential for a movie franchise, however, Marvel Studios gave the big green guy a second chance with The Incredible Hulk. The result? An adequate summer popcorn flick, but in some ways still not the magic combination I would have hoped for.

The new version of The Incredible Hulk is essentially a reboot of the franchise. No references are made to Lee's film. Instead the entire origin story of the Hulk is compressed into a flash of scenes during the opening movie credits and retold, although the basic premise is preserved. After a gamma radiation experiment that goes terribly wrong turning him into the Hulk whenever his heartrate reaches a certain threshold, Bruce Banner (Edward Norton) is forced to leave his love Betty Ross (Liv Tyler) and evade capture by General Ross (William Hurt) and the U.S. Army.

Louis Letterier's approach to this film seems to be in keeping with the spirit of the old Hulk TV, The Fugitive, or even his older work with The Transporter movies--keep the story kinetic and keep our hero running. For the most part this works to keep us entertained. Starting with Bruce Banner hiding out working in a soda factory, the film wastes little time with any real character development as it moves through Virginia and into New York City with almost nonstop action. This is oddly perhaps the flaw in the movie that keeps me from feeling like it's up to par with more superior superhero movies such as Spiderman, Batman Begins, or the most recent Iron Man. Something about how Letterier cuts the action together just seems to lack a sophistication that these other movies had.

The film slows down only to reunite Bruce and Betty for a brief moment. Liv Tyler, despite some rather corny dialogue at times, is pretty adorable in her part. Nothing is really established to piece together what their relationship was like before the movie, but somehow her presence and her interactions with Edward Norton make up for this deficit. Edward Norton, is OK as Bruce Banner, although I'm not sure if it's just that the character himself is a bit dull or if the script was lacking, but his acting skills seemed somewhat wasted in the film. William Hurt does an adequate job as the stereotypical military asshole, and Tim Roth as the primary villain William Blontsky and Abomination, plays his role quite well.

The CGI work is probably on par with what was done in Hulk. The Incredible Hulk looks sort of real, but still noticeably cartoonish (and luckily, not quite falling into that "uncanny valley"). Remarkably, though, the CGI wasn't nearly as distracting to me in this movie as it was in Ang Lee's film, and the action sequences with the Hulk himself are actually quite exciting. This, too, is a bit odd given the fact that this new version of the Hulk seems to have somewhat more tame powers than what Ang Lee's version did.

A few Easter eggs are dispersed throughout the film to keep any comic geek happy with some indirect references to S.H.I.E.L.D. and Captain America, a couple of cameos Stan Lee and Lou Farigno, and, of course, the well publicized cameo by Tony Stark. The appearance of Robert Downey Jr. is a prime example of why nothing beats watching a movie in the theater with a full audience--once he came on screen, the entire theater was whooping and hollering it up.

In the end, this new take on the Hulk seemed to be almost a 360 degree departure from Ang Lee's version--almost zero character development, and almost full on action. If that's your thing, this film will be quite cheesy for you. For me, I would have preferred something a bit in between. Rumor is, Edward Norton was quite upset with the final cut of the film, and wanted something a bit more with that balance that I was hoping for. Perhaps a director's cut will show us what this movie good have been. Letterier, himself, has said in interviews that he has at least 70 minutes worth of footage that he cut and will include on future DVD extras. Still, it was an enjoyable movie for a summer weekend, and I'd recommend going to see The Incredible Hulk.

Oh, and don't bother waiting through the final credits--there's nothing at the end. Hey, you never know with these Marvel movies these days! ;-)

I asked the alethiometer if this was a good movie, and it told me, "Meh."

You'd think that anyone embarking on making an epic adaptation of a highly praised trilogy like Philip Pullman's His Dark Materials could simply go to the Steven Spielberg playbook of moviemaking to ensure success. Did Chris Weitz, director of The Golden Compass do that? Let's find out.

Rule 1: Find and tell a kid-friendly story that appeals to both young and old alike. Now I've never read the first part of this series that this film was based on, but it's purported to be on par with C.S. Lewis' The Chronicles of Narnia. And the idea of a world where your soul takes the manifestation of an animal "daemon" who accompanies you wherever you go, where armored ice bears rule the far reaches of the Arctic north, and magical Dust holds the key to traveling between a myriad of parallel universes, I'd almost believe that this is true. Unfortunately, it almost seems like the rules of this world are a bit too complex to fully absorb in a two hour movie, at least that's how it felt watching this film. Trying to figure out the laws of this world kind of weighed down this film, even for a relatively intelligent adult like me. I wonder what a 10 year old would think. This is the first of a planned trilogy, though, so hopefully they got all the introductions out of the way to make room for some meaty stories in the future.

Spielberg Grade: Fail

Rule 2: Use a sassy child actor as your main character. Dakota Blue Richards takes the lead role as Lyra, a young orphan girl left in the care of the scholarly Jordan College. Unfortunately, I think she almost got upstaged by her transforming daemon. Still, I think she has enough charisma and presence to establish herself as a good lead for the film.
Spielberg Grade: Pass

Rule 3: Wow them with CGI animation. The CGI-animated daemons and armored bears are believable characters that actually keep up with the likes of Nicole Kidman and Daniel Craig. Whether or not that's a result of the animators or good acting by the real people in the movie, I don't know, but it's impressive.
Spielberg Grade: Pass

Rule 4: Who needs characterization when you've got a musical score to manipulate the audience like a marionette? This is the problem I have with most blockbuster movies these days. No one seems to take much care in developing a worthy orchestral score anymore. I guess a lot of films have resorted to the trendy hipster soundtrack, but I think an original score still goes a long way. I'd venture to guess that Star Wars wouldn't be half the classic it is without John Williams' score. The Golden Compass is one of those films that begs for a theme song that pulls at your childlike emotions, yet I can't even begin to remember what music they had.
Spielberg Grade: Fail

I'm sure there's other rules, but this post is getting long, and I'm getting bored writing it. Basically, I thought this movie was OK and is entertaining, but didn't live up to its potential. The best things about it were the armored bears and a supporting character of Lee Scoresby, an aeronaut played by the handlebar-mustached iconic cowboy Sam Elliott. Kind of sad when you think of all the CGI and Oscar winning/nominated talent that was in this production. I'd like to see what they do with the next two movies, but based on how well this first one is doing, I'm not even sure they'll green-light the rest of the trilogy.

A flurry of movie reviews for your procrastinating pleasure...

I've managed to watch a flurry of movies over the past few weeks given my monk-like existence living by myself, and I've gotten quite behind in throwing my Cheetos of endorsement to some mighty good flicks this season.

First up, No Country For Old Men. This may be the best movie of 2007. This film seems a bit less quirky than most of Joel and Ethan Coen's earlier works, but still holds up to the fine quality of moviemaking we're all accustomed to from them. Based on a book by Cormac McCarthy (whose prose doesn't easily lend itself to movie adaptations), No Country For Old Men follows Llewelyn Moss (Josh Brolin), a nobody guy hunting on the plains of west Texas who stumbles upon a Mexican drug deal gone bad and ends up with a briefcase full of cash. Hot on his trail is Anton Chigurh (Javier Bardem), a hired bounty hunter who seems to embody the devil himself, seemingly having no one to answer to except fate itself. Throw in a gang of Mexican drug dealers trying to recover their money, and a Tommy Lee Jones as the local sheriff trying to keep Moss out of trouble, and the entire mess becomes a bloodbath where you're not really sure what's lurking around the corner.

If for nothing else, this movie is worth watching strictly for Javier Bardem. This may be one of the scariest villains on film in quite some time, ranking up there with Jack Nicholson in The Shining or Anthony Hopkins as Hannibal Lecter in Silence of the Lambs. You may never feel comfortable around a tank of compressed gas again. And if Bardem doesn't get an Oscar for his performance, I can truly say he got robbed. The Coen Brothers manage to use only lighting, camera angles, and some strategic moments of sustained silence that will keep you on edge for the entire movie--all of this with nary a soundtrack to use as a crutch.

What's the central theme of this film? I'm not quite sure, other than an exploration of evil, and the influences of fate that seemingly have no bearing on whether we are good people or bad. There are forces of nature that exist that we can't control which will kill you or allow you to live with seemingly no reason at all other than the a flip of a coin. Like Cormac McCarthy's books, it takes some time to really digest the deeper meaning of it all, and I haven't yet had the time to figure it all out. Still, if you want a movie to chew around for awhile, this one is it.

*******

Next up--Beowulf. Beowulf was one of those epic poems I actually enjoyed reading back in high school. Telling the tale of an ancient hero slaying monsters and dragons, I'm surprised it hasn't got the high-dollar Hollywood treatment before. I was actually a bit hesitant to see this, though, given the use of that motion capture animation Robert Zemeckis has grown so fond of. I guess it's sort of cool to be able to manipulate actors at will using this technology. How else to get Anthony Hopkins to cavort around in nothing but a sheet in a beer hall, give Ray Winstone six-pack abs, and get Angelina Jolie to show full frontal nudity? Still, just a brief glimpse in those animated eyes gives you a soulless body staring back at you, which is kind of freaky.

The action, though, is top notch, and you don't need much in the way of soulful eyes to ramp up those types of scenes. The kinetic scenes alone probably saves me from giving this a "Stale" rating on the Kool-Aid Gang Cheetos scale. Given the freedom of computer animation, the laws of physics can be thrown out the window to provide the means to have epic-sized battles between mere men and dragons that will get your heart rate pumping along. And because it's all in 3-D, I managed to give it a pass on those animated zombie eyes, and stepped up it's rating just a bit. But watch this movie without the those special glasses, and I'll call this movie kind of "Bland."

*******

Finally, to round out my backlog of good films to review--Before the Devil Knows You're Dead. There's nothing spectacular about this movie about a simple jewelry heist that goes terribly wrong, but it's a good drama nonetheless. The beginning scene, watching Philip Seymour Hoffman's naked white chubby ass having doggy-style sex with a very naked and beautiful Marisa Tomei kind of puts you in an awkward situation, not knowing whether you're enjoying what you're watching or not. It's seems wholly out of place, a pairing that seems to be totally mismatched, and almost seems to be foreshadowing the whole clusterfuck that's about to happen.

Everyone in this cast has "Academy Award Winner" or "Academy Award Nominee" attached to his or her resume, so it goes without saying that the performances are great. Nothing that will get more Oscar credentials for them with the next Academy Awards, but good nonetheless. This is one of those movies that probably would play just as well in the comfort of your home on DVD as it did on the big screen.

Damn, it feels good to be a gangsta...

I was trying to remember a movie Denzel Washington starred in that I didn't like. Considering his resume, that's kind of a hard task. Same goes for Russell Crowe. Both are well known to be two of the more consistently good actors in the business. So it came as a surprise when the film that I disliked for each of them happened to be the one they both starred in--Virtuosity. A lot changes in 12 years, though, and mediocre films like that tend to get buried when you cover it up with a pile of quality movies like these two guys have. Would a reprisal of this team-up yield the same results? With Ridley Scott directing them, of course not. Still, it wasn't as great as I thought it could be.

American Gangster tells the story of Frank Lucas, a driver and right-hand man to a powerful crime boss in Harlem. When his boss suddenly dies, Lucas finds an opportunity to make a name for himself by using good ol' American entrepreneurship to sell a quality product at a competitive price by cutting out the middle man. With discipline and smarts, he finds himself at the top of the New York heroin trade while cleverly alluding the law. Meanwhile, Richie Roberts (Russell Crowe), a by-the-book New Jersey police detective, is put in charge of a task force to bring down the drug trade which eventually puts him in an intersecting path to Lucas.

It's no surprise that Washington and Crowe give strong acting performances. At this point, I wouldn't be shocked if this was just second nature to them. Ridley Scott puts together a solid film, visually on par with any of his great work, and engrossing from start to finish. Unfortunately, all of that put together was just good. Going into the theater, I was expecting something on the scale of The Godfather. Instead, this was just an entertaining movie that I'll probably forget by next year. The problem, perhaps, was trying to make this a great film. Movies that focus on both sides of the law tend to show the similarities that both good and evil men inherently share. We're all capable of good deeds and terrible deeds, but it's the choices we make in life that define who we are. In the case of Lucas, his evil is depicted in his ruthless actions to prove himself to other mobsters trying to move in on his territory, going so far as to shoot a crime lord in the head in broad daylight on a crowded Harlem sidewalk. The inherent badness of his profession and the endless lives that the drug trade is destroying almost seems to be lost on him as he enjoys the spoils of his riches. At the same time, he remembers to take care of his mother and family, and tries to help out some of the poor in his neighborhood. Richie Roberts, too, has his duality. Rather than keeping a stash of unmarked cash for himself that no one will notice is gone, he turns it in at the scorn of the rest of the police division. However, his home life is a wreck with his womanizing ways and the neglect of his son.

Michael Mann's Heat was perhaps one of the better films to capture this and move a film into a true climactic satisfying clash between it's two leads, Al Pacino and Robert DeNiro. A lot was said about these two greats finally meeting up in the same scene together for the first time in both of their illustrious careers. The buildup to the sit-down between them in a generic coffee shop and their eventual showdown along the runways of LAX seemed to truly capture two men on opposite sides of the law that were really the same in many ways. The Earth didn't shake and lightning didn't strike when Pacino and DeNiro were finally on-screen together, but it was a truly memorable moment in its own way. I think American Gangster was trying to achieve the same thing, but the final intersection between Washington and Crowe was completely anticlimactic, and almost made me wish they had scrapped most of the Richie Roberts story, even despite Crowe's great acting work. The real meat of this film is the rise and fall of Frank Lucas, and Scott should have focused on that 100%.

Still, I enjoyed watching this movie. It just had the potential to be so much more, I think. Don't expect it to garner too many nominations come awards season.

A familiar family in a somewhat unfamiliar place...

Can you believe The Simpsons have been on television for over 18 years? It's hard to imagine that we've been enjoying the antics of Homer, Marge, Bart, Lisa, and Maggie for over half of my lifetime. What started out as a filler in between skits on The Tracy Ullman Show is now a national icon that has managed to become one of the most irreverant satires on American families, religion, values, and pop culture. So it's amazing to think that it took the suits at 20th Century Fox this long to make The Simpsons Movie a reality.

Now I'm more of a casual fan of The Simpsons. Unlike some here in the Gang, I caught an episode here and there, but I never watched it religiously enough to be able to quote too many lines from the show or to be able to tell you what Bart had to write on the chalkboard that week. As funny as the show always ended up being, it was still a cartoon with self-contained episodes with no real continuity, and perhaps this aspect of the show is why it never caught on into my "can't miss" television viewing. That being said, I was still looking forward to seeing The Simpsons Movie, which I did this weekend.

And the result of this translation to the silver screen? Actually, it felt like a really good episode of The Simpsons on TV. Maybe a little grander. Maybe a little more freedom to stretch their creativity in this medium (and with a PG-13 rating that means a little brief nudity and a bong). But otherwise, I kind of felt at home. About the only thing missing was my couch. The basic premise of the film involves the local lake that has become a waste dump for the community that is so toxic that the U.S. government (led by the Director of the EPA pulling the strings for President Arnold Schwarzenegger) orders the city to be isolated and quarantined. Just like an episode from the television series, Homer has a hand in creating the whole mess, forcing the Simpsons to flee to Alaska. Meanwhile, the EPA concocts even more devastating plans for the town of Springfield, and, of course, Homer must save the day in the end.

For any Simpsons fan, I don't think the movie disappoints at all. Just about every memorable character from the television show makes an appearance (including my favorite, Comic Book Guy). There's plenty of laughs throughout the movie, and a little bit of heart with Bart coming to terms with the fact that his dad isn't perfect and Homer realizing what it is to do the right thing. And to complete the full feeling of the TV series, they even throw in a couple of celebrity cameos.

But, unfortunately, that may be the biggest flaw of this movie. It almost felt too familiar. As I said before, I'm just a casual fan, not a fanatic. I enjoy The Simpsons when I catch it on TV, but it's never been one of those shows for me that I keep thinking about weeks and months after I've seen an episode. So I left the theater feeling the same way--like I was well amused for the entire hour and a half running time and that I got my money's worth. However, I can't say I'll be thinking about this movie for years and years to come.

He's nailed the diagnosis, but I'm not sure he's got the right prescription...

So I did a bit of a naughty thing a couple of evenings ago, and watched a pirated copy of Sicko off the Internet instead of waiting for its premiere in theaters today.

A couple of my earlier posts and comments should have clued you into the fact that I went into this viewing a bit skeptical as to how Michael Moore would portray the health care crisis here in the United States. As a whole, though, I thought it was a pretty good movie. He makes a solid argument that the health care system in America is so inherently broken that, in comparison, medical care in Canada, the United Kingdom, France, and even Cuba looks downright Utopian. Unfortunately, in painting such a rosy picture of medical services and its universal access in other countries, I was left still wondering if I had been manipulated. I can't say he lied about anything, but am I getting the whole picture? I mean, you've always got to be just a wee bit skeptical when you can't find anyone that's not completely in love with how your government does things. There's always at least a handful of people that like to complain about something, right?

One would expect that in countries where there's no bills to pay, no cashiers at the hospital to collect your money, and cheap medications, people would be burdened by higher taxation. Whether or not they truly are, however, was kind of glossed over from my perspective. Instead, Michael Moore cleverly shows an "average" French family living a comfortable life in a comfortable house able to afford the comfortable number of two cars, and all the while enjoying the comfortable benefits of free health care, cheap daycare, 35 hour work weeks, and lots of holiday time. And as if this wasn't enough, they get free physician house calls, too (which obviously would never work in our litigious American society). Do they worry about taxes? Didn't seem like it--I'll give him that. But I'd also argue that this has become the lifestyle expectation in France, and perhaps something the "average" American would not tolerate easily. Could you really imagine turning over more than a third of your pay for income taxes AND paying an additional 20% in sales tax on most products you buy in the store? You'd have rioting in the streets, and not the peaceful protest marches Moore shows in France.

Should physicians under universal health care worry about being underpaid? Well, a general practitioner in the UK makes roughly $170K, according to an "average" physician Michael Moore interviews in a London hospital. And that's a pretty comfortable living for him, his wife, and their baby. Why? Well, because he can still drive a new Audi and living in a $1 million home on that salary. Sounded pretty good until I did the math. If he's making only $170K and having to payoff such a high mortgage and the car payment for a nice German luxury car, what does he really have left over at the end of the day? Doesn't seem so comfortable to me, after all. And as far as Canadian physicians? Moore never tells you that they get substantially less salary than American ones do, which is probably why you see a large number of Canuck doctors crossing over the border to work in the U.S.

What about cheaper drugs? The last segment of the film has Moore taking a group of 9/11 volunteer workers with chronic medical problems to Cuba in hopes of getting them medical care that they were denied in the United States. In Havana, they visit a local pharmacy where an inhaled medication that costs $120 in the U.S. ended up being only five cents in Cuba. Five cents! This brought the woman who needed this medication to tears. That just about made me want to cry, too. But then I wondered, how could it possibly be only five cents? I can't even get a can of Coke for that cheap. So who's flipping the bill? A similar story happens in the United Kingdom where the National Health Service issues a flat rate of around $12 for any medication prescription, whether it's 120 pills of anti hypertensives or 60 pills of aspirin. Well, in the case of Cuba, five cents might sound like chump change to us, but remember that an average Cuban probably only makes somewhere in the ballpark of $15/month. As far as the U.K.? Well, the government negotiates wholesale prices from the drug companies and allows the NHS to essentially subsidize the medications costs for the general public. That's all well and good, but if the U.S. did the same, I'm wondering if the negotiated costs would go up globally to increase the profit margin, since they're not making the money from the American market. After all, pharmaceutical companies rely on profits to invest in research and development. Take away the profits, and making drugs becomes a losing endeavour when you think about the money lost in the research of failed medications that never come to market.

Well, but what about the story of a cancer patient that can't get coverage for his chemotherapy because it was deemed "experimental" by his insurance company? A sad case, but Moore never really tells us whether such treatment would have been covered in his other Utopian systems. Part of the reason that France can afford to provide universal health care is because there's a strict system of what is standard of care and what is not. An "experimental" therapy might not be covered in their system either, which is why a significant number of the French actually buy supplemental health care to cover such things that fall out of the guidelines of the governmental system.

And as far as a governmental single-payer system being the savior of the U.S. health care crisis, all I can say is we already have examples of such methods in this country in the form of Medicare and the Veteran's Affairs Hospitals, neither of which inspires confidence to me that this is the answer.

Anywho, my purpose here is not to poo-poo all over Sicko. I think Michael Moore has put together a powerful movie that really does pull viewers into the emotions and pain that many Americans must endure as they try and navigate through a medical system that doesn't seem to care. I'm not sure he's convinced me that a single-payer system is the answer, but he certainly makes the case that we can't continue to be so indifferent about our current way of doing things. Perhaps the best idea he puts forth is this notion that this country needs to become more "we" than "me." Ultimately, I think Michael Moore has nothing but the best intentions with all of his movies, and truly is trying to make us think with a more "we" attitude. But unfortunately, because of his divisive reputation, this movie may not be the catalyst to get there no matter how good it is.

*** (out of *****)

Someone forgot to tell them--three's a crowd...

When I heard that Venom was going to be in the third Spiderman film this summer, I totally geeked out. I watched all the trailers over and over again, and read whatever news I could about Spiderman 3 on the internet. This movie was going to be nothing short of legendary, and who would have doubted it? After all, Sam Raimi hit a homerun way out of the park with Spiderman 2, and it just seemed like he couldn't go wrong with the third installment. Alas, as I watched Spiderman 3 this weekend, it felt like one of those lofty baseballs that look like they're just about to clear the fences until the center fielder jumps up and grabs it for an out.

Taking up where the last film left off, Spiderman 3 introduces us to a much happier Peter Parker, adjusting well to his newly minted fame from his alter ego as local New York City hero Spiderman. His love life with Mary Jane couldn't be better, and he's finally back on track in college. As with any good movie, introducing a man high on life only sets him up for a painful fall, as Spiderman soon must deal with issues of hubris, jealousy, and revenge. The use of the alien symbiote straight from the pages of The Amazing Spiderman was perfect for this exploration of Spiderman's baser instincts. Unfortunately, this is all wasted in the film during a laughable section of the film as Peter Parker runs around town in full "emo" style. The fact that I was reminded of the embarrasment of all comic book movies, Batman and Robin, should convey a bit of how I felt with this overly campy sequence.

Luckily, in the action department, Spiderman 3 doesn't disappoint. Scenes with Harry Osborn duking it out with Spiderman over the streets of New York City are especially well done, and the special effects of the Spiderman franchise continue to set escalating benchmarks with each new film of the series. Spiderman seamlessly swings and jumps all over the place, and actually makes you think that such feats of acrobatics aren't so far fetched after all.

Despite the action, though, the movie is still flawed. Unfortunately, it seems that Raimi felt the need to force too many characters into this film for the sake of making an over-the-top summer blockbuster. Working through the themes of vengeance and justice would have worked well with the use of Harry and the Sandman alone. I'm not even giving fault to the introduction of the alien symbiote into the mix. As I stated, this was perfect for the themes explored in this movie. But throwing in Eddie Brock/Venom in at the end as a prominent villain in this movie was just one too many. We understand a bit about Sandman's plight, but are never given the time or space to feel any remorse (or really anything at all) for Eddie Brock. Harry Osborn's journey, which started in the first Spiderman film, comes to a hasty unsatisfying conclusion which was only cleared up by an akwardly placed observation from his butler (which also begs the question as to why he didn't reveal this important fact to Harry a long time ago). Perhaps the better way to construct this film would have been to leave out the transformation of Eddie Brock into Venom until the very end as a foreshadowing of things to come in a later film. Anyone who reads comic books knows the importance of Todd McFarlane's run on The Amazing Spiderman and his introduction of Venom to the comic pages. In fact, the modern revival of the comic book medium and the stratospheric rise of Marvel Comics as an industry during that time, is probably a major reason why there are so many comic book movies being made today. Knowing that, the way that Venom is forced into this movie seems insulting to casual and die-hard comic book fans alike.

Rumor has it that Avi Arad over at Marvel Studios adamantly wanted Venom in this film, perhaps fearing he could not keep the team of Tobey Maguire, Kirsten Dunst, and Sam Raimi intact for a fourth movie to devote to a full script about Venom. Spiderman 2 left us wanting so much more, only because it was such a good film itself. I now find myself wanting so much more, only because Spiderman 3 was kind of a disappointment and I still want to see what could have been. I guess they haven't turned the one-armed Professor Connors into the Lizard yet, though, so a fourth installment must be in the works. We can only hope.

*** (out of *****) -- And that's a bit generous only because the action was spectacular, and the central message of the film was nice

Was it just me, or did anyone else feel like they had to go home and do some sit-ups after this movie?

Hmmm. With all the hype behind this movie (from myself included), the stellar box-office returns it raked in for its opening weekend ($70 million), and the fact that it enthusiastically had Frank Miller's endorsement as being completely faithful to his source material, I'm almost a bit afraid to write my opinions about 300 on this page, for fear I'll be ridiculed and thrown off a cliff like a defective Spartan baby. But my fortune cookie from last Saturday's dinner said, "Do what you believe is right," so I'll just say it--300 wasn't great, it was just OK.

The star of this film, of course, was the stylized visuals created with a mix of cinematography and green screen CGI magic. The faded out colors with the somewhat golden-bronze wash emphasizing the crimson red of blood and ominous shadows certainly make this film look more like a painting than a movie, and pays respect to its graphic novel origins. This may be the only reason why I would highly recommend seeing 300 on the big screen before it hits DVD. Unfortunatly, I think there may have been too much exposure to the final product in the promotional trailers prior to the film's openings. I remember seeing The Matrix for the first time and being completely blown away by the bullet time visuals that completely changed how action films were shot ever since. With 300, I wasn't so much impressed, as I was satisfied, having seen so much of the slow-motion/realtime-motion action sequences prior to sitting in the theater.

The biggest disappointment with the film, though, was that I never really got the sense of the importance of this battle. There's a lot of talk about fighting for freedom and the preservation of Greece, but I never got the essence of what that really meant. Was living under Persian rule really that bad? I don't know. Perhaps the modern take on this story and its implications on the world as we know it today is that the stand of the 300 helped preserve Greece, and therefore Western civilization. Instead of the United States being the world superpower it is today, the Middle East would be the center of the world had the 300 crumbled easily under Xerxes armies. No wonder audiences are trying to weave some political propaganda into this movie. But that's just me trying to put some greater importance on this event in history--the director never really developed that for me, which is a shame.

The secondary story with the Spartan Queen trying to rally up reinforcements for her husband seemed unnecessary. In the end, her efforts seemingly had no impact on anything that went on in the movie, and may only have been included to give the audience a bit of a break from the tense action going on at Thermopylae. And although I can't say I mind seeing Lena Headey's boobies, the sex scene between her and Gerard Butler seemed a bit gratuitous to me. I guess we're supposed to understand the deep love between Leonidas and his queen after this, which is supposed to resonate throughout the entire movie until his glorious death, but it just doesn't work. In fact, Gladiator, a film where you only get a glimpsing shot of the protagonists family, does a much better job of conveying that sense of family longing without resorting to some cheap eye candy to pander to the nerdiest of comic book fanboys out there.

Alas, in my mind, 300 will fall short of being the groundbreaking film that the hype made it out to be. Essentially, it was good action movie eye candy that was entertaining, but not all that satisfying. Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow actually already accomplished much of what 300 does visually, and has since been lost in the bins of DVD obscurity. Both of these films essentially forget what makes a truly great film--characters and good plot development. But until a director can meld these new technologies to tell a compelling story, I guess we'll have to snack on these kind of movies for awhile.

Let the arguments commence--the comments section is now open.

(**1/2 out of *****)