Dark Shadows

Dark Shadows directed by Tim Burton staring Johnny Depp, Eva Green, Michelle Pfeiffer, and Helen Bonham-Carter. 

This movie is as lifeless as the vampire in it. I've got to say Burton has become a parody of himself over the years, as he continues to make live action movies that are as stiff as the claymation figures in his other (highly better) cartoon movies. 

I don't even know where to begin on how terrible this movie is. Even Depp over the years since Captain Jack Sparrow has been doing every movie he's been in as if it Jack Sparrow was acting in that movie, thus he's become a parody unto himself also, which is I guess why him and Burton keep making movies together. What I continue to find funny about Burton is that his cartoon movies have so much more passion in them than his live action movies. They also have more life, which is ironic considering there are more live actors in the live action movies than his cartoons. 

The screenplay for this movie is just flat out terrible it's all over the place narrative wise as it refuses to define a main character and then will go long stretches where the main character, or at least who I thought was the main character, isn't even on screen driving the storyline. It’s a love story where the two love interests have little screen time together.  Which begs the question: how are we to believe their love if we never see them together and when we do it’s with clunky dialogue straight from the George Lucas book of puppy love he so perfected in Attack of Clones? I also find it funny how much sympathy I had for the villain of this story over the main character played by Depp. His character kills at least 12 innocent people, where as the villain actually helped the town she was in and made it a thriving industrial town and she genuinely seemed to care when she found out some of her employees got killed by Depp’s character. And I’m supposed to root against her? I found myself rooting for her instead of the lazy, lay about family of Depp’s character.  Who seemed more like the politicians we have in Washington than the independent, villain business owner who actually was a hard worker and wasn’t just living off the silver spoon in her mouth.  I'm sorry but it felt like an all out attack on capitalism and and independent business owners world wide, with the lay about politicians leeching from everyone else propped up as heroes.  I don't know any world where politicians are the heroes.  Here's rooting for the witch, which Eva Green totally vamped out.

American Gangster

American Gangster directed by Ridley Scot staring Denzel Washington and Russell Crowe. 

This movie was going to rise or fall based on Washington and Crowe’s performances and all it needed was a descent screenplay to help them out with some half way descent direction. It was a descent screenplay with competent direction from Scott, but ultimately it was Washington and Crowe that made this movie fly and be better than it was. 

I know this movie is based on true events and that does help things along a lot, but to me this movie played like the second brother to Michael Mann’s Heat. Speaking of Heat, this movie felt like it was molded from a little bit of Heat and Serpico as it explored both sides of the law and the criminal (like Heat did) while at the same time dealing with crooked cops (as Serpico did). 

Three things hindered it from aspiring to Heat’s cinematic level: 

1. The movie didn’t have enough towering acting set pieces for Washington and Crowe.  Unlike Heat where there were a lot of scenes given to De Niro and Pacnio that helped flesh flesh out and establish character, while giving them some good dialogue to act with and just letting them really go at it.  In this movie Washington and Crowe aren’t given enough of those scenes to help lift their character and the movie into the classic level (also the first time Washington and Crowe get together on the screen they have coffee, much like Pacino and De Niro in Heat).  

2. There needed to be more scenes with Washington and Crowe’s crew.  Doing this would have given them more acting scenes and helped to flesh out the people around them, which is something Heat did marvelously well.  

3. The direction on this was nowhere near on par with Mann’s Heat but then again I blame this on Scott who, at his best, is a competent director. But, even that being said, I would say this is one of his three best movies (Alien and Blade Runner being the other two), which I find funny because not many people talk about this film. I don’t understand why?  Because it’s still a good movie. 

I watched the director’s cut which added an extra 18 minutes, bringing the running time to around 3 hours, but I never once felt it was too long, as it balanced out Washington and Crowe’s life very well. Another thing that made this movie a good watch was the attention to the time period Scott brought, which was pitch perfect and really helped to be an extra character throughout the movie, as it gave the movie a distinct feel in every frame. 

The movie alone is worth watching for Washington and Crowe’s performances that prove here what good actors they are. Even when they’re given much dialogue for a scene they can still convey a lot of information with just a look from their eyes or body posture. And both actors really seemed to energize any scene they’re in even if they’re just standing there. Also I really like this poster. It's very subtle and simple and the black and white color really bring home the themes at play in the movie.

Homeland Season One

Homeland by Showtime staring Damian Lewis, Mandy Patinkin, and Claire Danes. 

I was at the library the other day and found the first season of this series. Way to go library. 

The overall premise for this show is interesting as it’s like a modern day reworking of The Manchurian Candidate: where a POW soldier is found eight years later and has been converted to the enemy’s side so he can subtly weave back into the government/military and preform an act of terror. 

First of all this series is seriously saved by the acting of Damian Lewis and Mandy Patinkin.  They alone are the reason to watch this series and elevate it to another level. Every time they are on screen it’s something to watch. Second, I don’t quit know what to make of this show as a whole because it was all over the place emotionally and politically. 

There was nothing really to ground myself to anyone in this series despite what the writers tried to do. The main character I had no sympathy for, so everything that happened to her in this show I never once felt sorry for her even though I got the feeling the writers were wanting me to feel something for her. In the end I felt nothing for her at all and the only thought that went through my mind was, “You get what you deserve. “ Everything that happened to her was because of her own doing. Her storyline throughout the series (considering she’s the main character) I was never fully invested in.  I think the writers tried to cover up this “craziness” of hers, by her being bi-polar, which the more I started thinking about it I felt was a gimmick that allowed them to justify her actions at the beginning, even though she was mediated the whole time. 

But Damian Lewis’ characters storyline had a lot more emotional weight to it in about every scene and they really fleshed out his character to a great deal where you understood why he was doing the things he did.  Even though I don’t fully believe he could have been as brainwashed as the writers claim, but I’m willing to put a lot of that aside because at least they did a good job of explaining his past and the brainwashing process he went through. So I mean it was no surprise at where the writers were placing most of their content towards: it was feeling sympathy for the terrorist and I did. But I’m not stupid, I still could never remove from my mind that this guy was working for a terrorist despite everything the show did to justify what he was doing.  He was working for a guy who killed innocent people on a frequent basis, while this same guy was mad at our government for doing the same thing.  Apparently the ends always justify the means.  It was the snake eating its own tail metaphor and no on in the series ever once brought this up, if they had it would have been a much better and more fleshed out story line. 

This lack of information, in my opinion, is the one of two failing errors in this show.  The other being the main character I talked about above. But despite all of this the show was very well paced and had me compelled to watch it until the last episode. The fact this show beat Game of Thrones or Justified to the drama series at the Emmy’s is a crime, because those two shows are much better written with a lot more believable characters. When crazy things happen in those two shows I’m never scratching my head in confusion because the plot stays true to the characters whereas in Homeland I never fully felt it did.  Some things that happen in Homeland that seemed to happen for the sake of dramatic or soap opera reasons, instead of character driven reasons that made sense. But then again this is from the producers of 24 where about everything that happened in that show was based on for dramatic reasons and a lot of times made no plot sense what-so-ever. In the end it was still one hell of ride as is Homeland.

Y The Last Man

Y The Last Man written by Brian K. Vaughan and illustrated mostly by Pia Guerra.

What starts out sounding like a storyline made specifically for a porn film, some kind of plague kills everything on Earth that has a Y-chromosome (in lay mans terms that's every man on Earth is killed in a matter of minutes by some unknown plague) except for one male and his pet male monkey.  But this story is in the Oh! so brilliant hands of Brian K. Vaughan, who slowly turns it into something much more than just a last man alive on Earth story. Essentially this is a post apocalyptic story but one done with a twist, that twist being only one man alive in a world of all women.  Vaughan brings so much to table here, as he comments on all sorts of things ranging from the sociological to the military aspects of a world without men.  But never, once, does he lose the focus of the story or the characters involved in the story.  I would venture to say this is one of the 10 best comic series ever written.  I've read it twice and it was as good the second time as it was the first time I read it.  There was just a lot to take in the first round as Vaughan foreshadows all kinds of things in every story, setting up the ending and other stories that lay ahead.  It has one of the most gut wrenching endings I've read, not just for comic but for a novel as well. But it's an ending that's faithful to the story he was telling.  It's also a story that leaves no balls up in the air and little, to no, loose ends untied when the final page is turned.  How many stories can boast that?  Vaughan is in total control of everything from the panel layouts to the splash page, which are few and far between, but when they show up they mean something.  This isn't so much a comic as it is a well written story that I would put against any novel ever written, it is that good.

Two things make this story work exceptionally well.  One is the characters and two is the realism brought to the story.

Characters: this story has some of best three dimensional characters that I've read for a any story, and yes, I would put most of the characters in this book up against the Game of Thrones characters any day of the week.  They are that in depth.  Vaughan goes into the back histories of about every main character in this story, by doing this he gives the reader a lot of context to judge those characters with when they make decisions.  Also his characters change as the stories goes on.  They start out thinking and acting one way and then something impacts their life and they actually change.  So the next time we meet that character he/she acts differently than they did before.  You know just like it is in real life and not the fake universe of Star Trek where nothing seems to change anyone from day-to-day no matter what happens to people.  I just don't see such detail and care given to characters now-a-days that Vaughan gave to these characters.  Especially for a comic, where motivation and continuity are more four letter words and only needed if there's some implausible storyline that "needs" to move forward.  I've always said you create good characters and they can move a story line forward no matter far fetched or crazy it is.  But if you give a good story great characters and you've got something super special and that's what we have here with Y the Last Man, something super special. 

Realism: the realism of this story just amazed me as it takes the characters months and years to get to places, which makes sense when the world has lost a lot of things that help travel along because it would be this way.  Vaughan doesn't cheat anything to make sure the realism stays near the forefront.  When people in here get injured, they stay injured and it takes a long time for them to heal, which is normally where Vaughan will time jump between issues.  Another thing that helps with the realism of this story is how the characters relate to each other as they comment on things they've been through whether written about or not.  By doing this Vaughan lets the reader be intimate with the characters because some of the scenarios they comment on were things that happened in previous issues.  It might be just a little comment but it lets the reader have a connection with the conversation and thus a connection with the characters.  It also helps to makes the characters more realistic as people in real life are always bringing things up like that in conversations.  

One of my favorite things about this Y the Last Man is I've always liked the logo that was created for it.  It really helps to give it an iconic visual touch that helps to make it stand out all the more  because when you see that Y with the abstract man standing it, you automatically know what it is.  And it immediately catches your attention because something is at once familiar and yet a little off.  Everything about the design of it just jumps out and demands to be looked at and taken seriously.  It's a bold design for a logo and one of my all time favorites, as is this entire series.  It needs to be read by a lot of people.

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey directed by Peter Jackson staring Martin Freeman, Ian McKellen and a bunch of people as the dwarves. 

I went into this movie with low expectations, knowing there was going to be a lot of bloated and extended scenes that didn’t have to be bloated or extended out as long as Jackson was going to extend them out. But boy the first hour and half of this movie tested my nerves to a limit that those expectations actually went below what I was expecting. 

My first inclination this was going to be the case was when I heard Jackson was going to take a very slim book (The Hobbit) and turn it into a trilogy. That kind of thing just reeks of money grabbing, considering there’s just enough story line in that book to make two movies if the director can maintain the pacing and length of the movie. But then Jackson is the director, so I knew this wouldn’t be the case. And well it wasn’t the case. The first half of this movie was so bad: pacing-wise, character development-wise, plot-wise, and well just about everything-wise that I was bored stiff.  Because Jackson hasn’t yet seen a walking or running scene where the camera is pulled so far back just shooting people walking or running that he didn’t like. This is definitely the case of the first half of this movie as he seemed to prefer those kinds of shots to anything else involving character or actual plot.

And was it me or did everything just look too fake and crystal clear? Gone was the lived in dirty, real look of the other Lord of the Rings films only to be replaced by the computer world generator. I had the same kind of feeling when watching The Phantom Menace that I had watching the first hour and half of the Hobbit. 

I don’t even know where to begin on how bad the first half was. First of all everything in this round 2 of Middle Earth had me getting The Phantom Menace vibe where computer generated everything seemed to overpower all logical story telling devices. Tolkien started simple: with a hobbit.  That simple beginning helped to set the reader right into the character of Bilbo Baggins, you know the actual main character of the story. Where does Peter Jackson start? Right at the Lonely Mountain detailing a long history of dwarves, treasure, dragons, mountains, and names, names, names.  Ending with the dwarves leaving said mountain to the dragon. At least Tolkien knew how to get the reader to care about something all of what Jackson did could have been told much later in the movie to a Bilbo Baggins to give some context as to where the dwarves were going and why they were going there, which would have made his reasons for staying with them all the more clear. 

Where the first half of the movie had the pacing and awkwardness of a George Lucas written love scene, the second half of the movie was paced and written extremely well. I was really glad Jackson actually gave his actors something to do besides run, walk, or fight. I really liked the Gollum and Bilbo scene.  It was done with a lot of passion and Martin Freeman and Andy Serkis nailed every aspect of it. It was really nice to actually see Freeman act, versus what Jackson had him doing in the first half of the movie. Then Jackson let Freeman follow the Gollum scene with a good scene of him with the dwarves that would have been better if he had let Bilbo hear the history of the mountain, because then the home references would have had more meaning with the audience and with Bilbo when he started telling them why he was staying. 

It’s funny also because all of the fluff of the first half would have been better spent delving into the dwarves character(s), thus actually making the audience care about them because as it stands I can only remember one of the thirteen dwarf names. Even James Cameron did an amazing job with the many Marines in Aliens making them all distinct and individual in the short time frame he had. But instead Jackson prefers shots of endless walking and running because you know nothing sells character development better than a little walking and running.

Redshirts

Redshirts by John Scalzi. 

If you’re a big fan of Star Trek or any of the other spin off shows from the Trek universe like Star Trek: Section Eight the Shuttle Bay Crew or Star Trek: Entitled Journey, you’re going to love book. This book is about those pesky “redshirts” that always seem to die in either ever episode or every other episode. This book wants to put a face on them and give those "redshirts" a real back story before they die real quickly. 

For the most part Scalzi succeeds but I still never really felt a connection to any of characters in the story or at least to care about them beyond “redshirt” characters. He did give them enough background and more details than “redshirts” normally get, to have me care about them beyond those “redshirts”, which I guess was the main reason for the story. But I still would have liked there to be more to the story than just some parody of those Star Trek “redshirts” if he had succeeded in that I think this book could have been much better than it turned out. But there is enough scenes in the book that comment on those “redshirts” that will bring a good smile to your face and for some might even bring a hearty laugh from the belly. Some of Scalzi’s insights are just delightful to read. 

The book does enter some META territory near the end that I thought was going to derail the book but Scalzi didn’t let the story get away from him unlike Gaarder did with Sophie’s World.  Instead Scalzi ended Redshirts like Sophie’s World should have ended, the right way. I won’t go into details but let’s just say the META parts do get carried away but still stay true with the flow and confines of story and don’t for once feel like a gimmick because you know this actually based on Star Trek and there were sometimes those writers went super META.

Winter's Bone

Winter’s Bone written and directed by Debra Granik staring Jennifer Lawrence. 

Now this is how you make a movie. I find it strange that this movie most likely had about a quarter of the budget (if not less) of Dark Shadows, or at least what they paid Johnny Depp to star in that terrible film.  But yet this movie is ten times better than that over decorated piece of poop.  It doesn't rely on special effects, over the top action, or a budget that could finance a small nation, instead it relies on the old, time tested material of storyline and characters.

One of the best things about Winter’s Bone, and one of the reasons I didn’t see it when I first heard about it, was it's simple premise: a daughter tries to find her father, so he can show up on a court date or they are going to lose their house. There’s something about simple story lines that scare me. They are so easy to mess up and become some pretentious art film, where imagery tries to mask any resemblance of a story line or narration thus leaving me not caring anything for the main character or the story line being told because I can tell the writer and director didn’t have faith in their own story line, so why should I care about it when all they care about are images and interpretation. Simple story lines are hard to get right, because to do so the writer and the director must have faith in the characters and the story. What I mean by that is that the writer and director must believe enough in the story and character to let them unfold on the screen and not replace them with pointless imagery or arty film school moves. Luckily the writer and director of this film, Debra Granik, has enough faith in her story line and main character to let them unfold in front of the audience without the use of cheap gimmicks. It’s all the better for it because this movie is so economically sound that everything works in its favor.  

It also has to be said that Granik has found the perfect actor to portray her main character, in Jennifer Lawrence, who embodies this seventeen year old character with such life that I almost forget I was watching her play a character. Her character seems that real and her plight to find her father just grows as the movies goes on that I wanted her to find her father because I had become so invested in her, what is essentially, a quest movie . I’ve got hand it to Granik, she is patient and belief in the story shines with confidence.  Because as the movie begins there’s not a lot of dialogue, instead there's an abundance of imagery, but not the kind of imagery where everything has be interpreted.  These are visuals that help to tell the story.  She lets the visuals tell the story of this character and these aren’t pointless arty visuals. These are the kind of visuals that show what is going on and help the viewer to engage with the main character. Everything about Jennifer Lawrence character is set up with those shots. 

Granik also lets the set design of everything act as a character in the movie, as they fully enhance every scene giving a lot of weight to what is going on. There’s a lot to be said by using location shooting over sets, especially when the sets used only enhance the story line and not distract from it. The simplicity of this movie just amazed me. Simplicity is the best thing ever. This film is simple throughout, but that simplicity masks a complication that’s pumped under the surface of the film.  Because as the film goes on we begin to see the more complicated things going on, as the main character also sees them going on.  Despite all the cruelty lurking under every rock and under bush Lawrence's character knows she has to journey on to find her father, or she’s going to lose her house. This is a fact that’s constantly bubbling under the surface of every scene and provides the believable motivations of the Lawrence’s character to find her father, and it helps the viewer to sympathize with her with a deservedly earned sympathy. I didn’t think there was anything cheap about this movie. It earned everything I invested into and it’s a perfect way to spend a night watching a movie.

End of Watch

End of Watch directed and written by David Ayer, starring Jake Gyllenhaa, Michael Peña, Anna Kendrick, and Natalie Martinez.

Honestly I thought I was going to hate this movie.  It has the one thing I really don't like that many directors think is the only way to direct, and that is with hand held cameras and found footage.  So I went in prepared to not like this movie at all.  But I found myself enjoying this movie a lot.  It does the one thing most movies now-a-days seems to avoid at all costs, and that is it builds characters and actually develops them.  As this movie played out I found myself caring about these two guys more and more.  The conversations they had together as they patrolled their part of the city rang true with heart beats of honesty.  I don't know how much was improvised or scripted but it felt real and organic, nothing felt manufactured. 

The story line is simplistic in nature: it's about two guys patrolling their squad car through their assigned part of the city.  There are times the action of that patrolling is set aside for some views into their personal life as we get to know their wife and girlfriend.  All of that helps to establish them as characters and make us care about them.  There are few mishaps in the screenplay that I felt could have made this movie better.  Those mishaps happen when the action of a scene shifts from the two leads onto other gang members.  Narrative-wise this doesn't make sense because the opening of the movie is about how Gyllenhaa's character is going to film everything for a college class he's taking.  So by focusing on other areas where he's not present makes no narrative sense.  But I was willing to forgive this because I became really enthralled in the history, character, and relationship of the two leads.  The various episodes they find themselves into as their weeks and months patrolling made for some interesting scenarios as they find themselves going deeper and deeper into some areas they didn't mean to.  I think the screenplay would have been much stronger if it would have just focused on them for the whole movie.  Then the audience would have been as much in the dark about what was happening as they were, so when then got really bad the shock would have been more effective. I really liked how the little scenarios they found themselves in grew the over all story that started out small but slowly started to expand.  So much so that no one knew just how big a deal it was what they were doing until it was too late.  It was a good movie and worth watching.

This will be a rant, just so you're warned.  This is probably one of the best hand held camera directed movies I've seen, where the whole movie was directed with a hand held camera that didn't look like it was directed by someone freezing their butt off or someone with ADD.  Normally when the director uses a hand held camera there is so much shaking and jerky motion going on that I can't tell what is happening in the scene.  The scene becomes lost in a dizzy array of swinging motions where the action is all happening off screen, or the camera is so up close that all I can make out is a face or some part of the body that is doing something that I can't make out.  Everything becomes so cluttered and jumbled together that is doesn't so much resemble a movie as a really bad edited MTV video without the music.  And the whole production of the scene is lost because there is nothing visually to connect me to the scene but shakiness and unfocused energy.  But for some reason this kind of direction really gets the juices going for a lot of critics, who fell it helps to put them in the movie and makes them feel the intimacy of what is going on.  There's intimacy going on all right but I would put it in the instant gratification and masturbatory category rather than the communication category where all should be put.  The directors job (as is all writers and artists) is communication.  If they can't communicate with the audience then their is a problem their idea will get lost.  Unfortunately today, in dealing with all forms of media, interpretation has replaced communication.  The more vague and distant an artist is then the more wise and thought provoking their idea must be.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  The more vague a distant their idea is means they have no idea what their trying to communicate, as they mask that ignorance with laziness.  Laziness has become the new medium most artist apply to their works because they are to lazy to try to establish their idea and actually communicate with their audience.  With End of Watch I never once felt lost in world Ayer presented to me.  He communicated with assured confidence and never let a scene become lost in the hand held camera world.  I always knew what was going on.  Unlike some films that masked their in-adequateness with miscommunication The Hunger Games,  Lost in Translation, and anything "directed" by Paul Greengrass, to name just a few.  I find it funny that these guys and girl use held hand camera with confusion, when Stanley Kubrick used it with great communication in 1971 (yes you read that right 1971) with A Clockwork Orange.  And he never let the scene or production get away from him with the hand held camera.  The audience always knew what was happening in every scene and got to see the production, which helped to establish the world he was creating as it communicated to the audience everything that was going on. 

Ex Machina

Ex Machina: Volume 1-5 written by Brian K Vaughan, drawn by Tony Harris.

I’ll say this about Vaughan, he doesn’t write comic books.  He writes stories and is probably the best writer in comics out there right now. Whereas Alan Moore has kind of gone off his rocker over the last few years.  Neil Gaiman seems more concerned with writing actually books without pictures. Grant Morrison, in my opinion, has never made a great comic, even though he, and a lot of comic media tend to propagandize other wise.  Brian Michale Bendis is stuck in the cesspool of Marvel comics, which is nowhere close to him writing his brilliant Powers comic, instead he churns out recycled Marvel story lines that seem "fresh".  Jeoff Loeb and Kurt Busiek are so overrated I don't have time right now to write about them and how bad they are.  Mark Waid is still one of the better writers out there, when compared to guys on this list, and is highly underrated. 

And every other comic “writer” out there seems to just want to churn out the daily superhero monthly fodder, where continuity and actual storylines are in a alternate universe. Everyone of Vaughan’s comics actually have an overarching storyline with continuity unlike anything from Marvel or DC now-a-days, where if you mention continuity all you get in return in a blank face with questioning stares. Vaughan knows how to write stories and he knows how to write them extremely well. I’ve read a lot of the books he written since I first read is best written book Y-the Last Man, which was not just one of the best comic books I’d ever read, but one of the books I’d ever read. 

Ex Machina is probably not his best written book but it’s still up there in the comic book realms of needing to be read because of how he approaches a story is so different from the main stream comics and even most of the comics that are considered edgy or independent. What he does so differently from them is actually tell a story and create interesting characters whereas most independent and edgy comics seem to just want to be different and push buttons instead of actually having a story to tell. Vaughan has an interesting story to tell. 

Ex Machina has roots deeply planted in Moore’s Watchmen as it plays with the notion of applying real world philosophy and physics to superheroes. Vaughan’s interesting premise is: what if a superhero reveals his identity and quits fighting crime to go into politics and make a difference on the political level? It’s an interesting idea and I’ve got to give Vaughan credit, he does a nice job of balancing both party lines of politics without ever revealing where his actual political beliefs lie. It takes a good writer to set aside their own beliefs for the sake of the story. I think Vaughan is brave to make a comic book about superheroes and politics. 

This is a character based story that focuses on Mitchel Hundred.  Vaughan does a great job with the flashbacks that help to build the character of Mitch into a full fledge character instead of the typical cardboard characters of Marvel and DC.  You really get to know who Mitch is as the story goes on as Vaughan injects all kinds of humor, wit, history, and politics into Mitch's character.  There's a lot going on in the story with many questions raised about Mitch's power to communicate with anything electric/machines.  Vaughan doesn't disappoint in revealing questions the reader wants answers too. 
There is always a thread of something else being rotten in Denmark weaving its way throughout the story, but don’t worry Vaughan reveals enough about it so as not to pull a Lost or X-files and leaves the comic with an actual ending.  There are still loose threads dangling but they work because the reader knows as much as Mitch does as to what is going on.

This was my first time sampling Tony Harris’ artwork which was a good marriage between him and Vaughan.  They complimented each other very well. Harris’ detailed and often realistic artwork made the story Vaughan wrote about come alive and not seem so cartoony. Since the story was at a higher maturity level, than typical Marvel or DC comics, it needed an artist to match that writing and Harris’ delivered with every issue creating some very beautiful artwork. His cover designs alone are worth just gazing at with the amount of detail he put into them.

The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel

The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel directed by John Madden staring Judi Dench, Tom Wilkinson, Maggie Smith and Bill Nighy. 

I'm still a firm believer that if you get a bunch of British actors to star in anything, it immediately makes the production that much better. This movie is proof of that. Not a perfect movie by any standards but the quality of the actors in it make it that much better and believe me it does. To see them acting is alone the best reason to see this movie. I also like the fact the actors are older and not the new, hot, young things that Hollywood keeps pushing onto the public because let me tell you this group of actors can act circles around anything Hollywood throws before the public. Honestly there's just not enough movies now-a-days that star older people or at least ones that have a half way decent storyline, which this movie does and really seems to care about the characters in the movie. 

This is just a good little movie about what happens when time finally catches up with you and the decisions that have to be made when your body and life finally start to wear you down. Those decisions, as they always do, will end up defining you as time moves on, no matter how old you are. A good movie and worth seeing for the acting alone, as I said above.

Four Weddings and Funeral

Four Weddings and a Funeral directed by Mike Newell written by Richard Curtis, staring Hugh Grant, Andie McDowell, Kristen Scott Thomas, John Hannah, and Mr. Bean himself Rowan Atkinson.

I never saw this film when it came out, but I remember it being touted as the best British film of all time or one of the best British movies of the new era. I never really bought into that before and after seeing Trainspotting this movie had a lot to live up. It’s not the best British movie ever or of the new era of British films.  But to tag it that is do the movie a disservice because it’s a good movie on its own right and should be judged on that and that alone. If anything I would call this movie the British version of When Harry met Sally because the similarities between these two movies have more in common than being labeled the best British films of all time or of the new era and then compared with those films. 

The one thing that works remarkable well with this film is the frame work (as the title tells): there’s four wedding and one funeral that bring the whole cast together over the spans of months (for three weddings and one funeral) then I think it’s year(s) for the fourth wedding. It’s this frame work that makes it very similar to When Harry met Sally.  But where When Harry met Sally spans decades this movie spans months and I think a few years. 

Richard Curtis does a remarkable job with the screenplay as he presents a certain group of friends that meet for the title occasions and it’s through the occasions that we get to know them as individuals and as characters. It’s a unique device (this framework) to use and works extremely well. We don’t get to fully know these friends but we get enough scenes with them that some rough characteristics and character developments can be judged from those few scenes. And Curtis makes each of those friends’ unique characteristics on their rights that they are easily identifiable. If you don’t know who Richard Curtis is he’s the guy who helped write Black Adder and wrote Notting Hill.  So knowing that you'll know what kind of comedy you're in for if you watch this movie.  Also his movie screenplays over the years explore the word "love" and relationships a lot that's just something I think he's really interested in. 

There are a lot of laugh out loud funny scenes in this movie that alone are worth watching for.  The best one being Rowan Atkinson conducting a marriage ceremony for the first time, where his nerves get the better of him and along with that Curtis gives a lot of in the wrong place at the wrong time or saying the wrong thing at the wrong time scenes that are truly hilarious. A lot of times the dialogue flies fast and furious, which is something Curtis is known for, and he doesn’t disappoint here, so you’ve got to pay attention when people are talking. It’s a good little romantic comedy as it showcases some things Curtis has become fascinated with over the years in his other movie namely: love, relationships, and marriage. The questions he asks about all of those are worth diving into.

The Master

The Master directed by Paul Thomas Anderson staring Phillip Seymour Hoffman, Amy Adams, and Joaquin Phoenix. 

I still don’t know quite what to make of this movie. It wasn’t a great movie, or at least I dodn’t think it was, but I still couldn’t stop watching it when it started. I think that’s one of the better things about Paul Thomas Anderson, is that he’s more than capable of making a beautiful movie that will pull the viewer along into a world you haven’t seen before. One thing can be said for Anderson is that he makes interesting films and is more than able of transporting the viewer to another time and place. He did this with Boogie Nights and There Will Be Blood with breathtaking mastery. I think the only thing that hinders The Master from really reaching those two movies previous heights is there just doesn’t seem to be much of a storyline to hang anything on here.  But unlike most Hollywood movies Anderson doesn’t fall victim to over the top action, sex, violence, or over used technobabble to confuse the viewer when there’s no storyline. There is a storyline here just not a typical one.  But this movie is missing something that would have made it better and what that something is, right now, I don’t  know.  Maybe with time and a lot thinking I’ll be able to figure it out, which is I suppose the core of a better movie that with time it will get better. This movie could be like that but right now I don’t have a desire to see it again, but I can say I’m still grinding it over in my head since I saw it. Even that being said this is still a highly interesting movie to watch and there are a lot of things going that make it much more than what Hollywood is producing now-a-days. I’m surprised Anderson found the backing for this film because of those reasons I mentioned above.  But then he did have Hoffman and Adams doing a marvelous job while Phoenix truly transformed himself into an enigma of a person, which matched the opposite enigma of Hoffman’s character. Adams does an amazing job playing the wife of, basically, a cult leader as she doesn't let that persona of Hoffman overshadow her. She more than holds her, but then she’s always done that in every film I’ve seen her in.  Just look at what she did in Enchanted and be amazed with how much depth she brought to that role in a kids film. I think she’s one of the best American actresses out there right now and that’s a high compliment from me because I think British actors and actresses are the best out there. Anderson gave these three (Hoffman, Adams, and Phoenix) some good dialogue and scenes to work with and they more than stepped up to deliver. This is not a movie for everyone but if you’re in the mood for an interesting character study and a beautifully shot film that will transport you back to an early time period of America, you can’t really go wrong with this movie. And just like the subject matter of cult, journey, duality, and character this movie doesn’t have a definitive ending and the journey to these places can be difficult but if you going in knowing that I think you’ll have a good time.

The Monster Squad

Monster Squad directed by a Fred Dekker but writing by Shane Black who wrote all four Lethal Weapon movies and directed Iron Man 3.

80’s nostalgia night but my wife bailed on this movie about half way through it, can’t say I blame her either.  I’ve got to admit it’s not as good I remember it when I was kid.  This movie just tries too hard to be Goonies but is nowhere near as good as that movie.  Frankenstein is basically Sloth.  The fat kid in Squad is Chunk.  The cool kid is Mouth.  The main character is Mikey.  I mean they are missing the big brother, Data, and a few other things but other than that this movie is trying to be Goonies.  From how the kids relate to creating the sense of wonder that Goonies captured to well.  It tries so hard that it’s not as fun to watch today as it was when I was kid.  But I’ll give Goonies one thing, it’s still a pretty good film even now-a-days.  It’s got some memorably lines and really good villains.  Plus I think it fulfills every kid’s dream of finding buried treasure.  

Monster Squad doesn’t have the same kind of narrative drive that Goonies had.  It seemed to take itself too seriously with the whole end of the world scenario that just didn’t click this time around with me, as it did when I was kid.  For a movie with this many monsters in it, it should have been a lot more fun than it turned out being.  There was just something missing for the fun to be sucked out of this picture.  But I will give this movie one thing it’s not too long and the last twenty minutes or so just fly by as the movie finally gets fun as the Monster Squad finally starts doing some monster butt kicking.  It was fun to see the cool kid not crack under pressure, as he takes down two vampire chicks and the werewolf.  He didn’t crack under the pressure but stood up the challenge.  

It was interesting to see how much this movie had dated with the times.  From the clothes, to the language it was just a product of its time.  I mean the hard-nosed kid's clothes were so “not cool” that he was a constant distraction, instead of being hard-nosed.  This I found interesting because my son loves the movie The Explores and the hard-nosed kid in that movie is truly hard-nosed, and would beat the crap out of the cool kid in Monster Squad and yet that movie hasn’t dated nearly as much as this movie has.  Monster Squad just doesn’t seem to have the same kind of heart as Goonies and The Explores.  I think it definitely comes down to heart and along with a good storyline and some interesting characters.  Even after watching this movie last night I can't say really remember too many of the characters, but I can still recall most of the characters from Goonies and The Explores with ease.  Falls back on the old philosophy I've come to say about movies, and that is, no matter how bad or crazy the storyline is, good and interesting characters can move anything along.     

The Last of the Mohicans

The Last of the Mohicans directed by Michael Mann, staring Daniel (the best actor to ever act in front of camera) Day-Lewis and Madeleine Stowe. 

I hadn’t seen this movie in a long time but I’ve got to say this movie has only gotten better with time.  It has aged far better than a lot of other movies will in time. I didn’t really expect that to be the case when I started watching it but was pleasantly surprised as the story, visuals, and direction completely swept me away. 

I’ve always liked Michael Mann as a director but one of the good signs of a director is how well their movies adapt with time and his movies seem to hold up well as time goes on. One of the reasons I think his movies hold up well over time is because doesn't just churn out movies by the Hollywood machine.  He makes movies he actually cares about and it shows. I personally think Heat is still his best movie, but I could hear any argument for the case of The Last of the Mohicans being his best. I also have to say this movie is one movie not directed by Stanley Kubrick that looks directed by him.  A lot of the shots and fluidity of the camera movement reminded me of a Kubrick movie. 

I was also caught up in the maturity of the storytelling because Mann doesn’t patronize the viewer but respects the viewer enough to let the visuals tell the story instead of putting in all kinds of unnecessary monologue or exposition (which Terrance Mallick seems incapable of not doing for every film he does). Mann forces the viewer to pay attention to what is going on visually because if the viewer doesn’t pay attention certain things that happen later will make no sense.  To keep that visual storytelling going take a lot of patience and maturity. Fortunately Mann was up for the challenge when he made The Last of the Mohicans. Another thing that makes him a great director, is his ability to make an action movie set in this time period.  And make it honest to god action movie  (of that time period) without diving into the Bay and Bruckheimer theatrics of over the top set pieces, but still have the action set pieces be absolutely great. These action set pieces are truly great, violent, full of tension, and nowhere near over the top but feel completely realistic for the time period they are set. 

Another thing Mann needs to do is always work with great actors because he seems to do some of his best work when working with great actors (De Niro and Pacino: Heat, Pacino and Crowe: The Insider; Fox and Farrell: Miami Vice [one of the most underrated movies of all time]).  Here he teams with Daniel Day-Lewis and Madeleine Stowe who help to bring this simple story to life. Need I say more about Day-Lewis the greatest actor ever? This is one of his best performances and who would have thought he could have been such a bad ass action hero? I sure didn’t think Day-Lewis would star in an action movie.  But only he would find the action movie set in this time period and make it as fun and attention-ed to detail as this movie is, which is probably one of the things that attracted him to this movie. I really like what the story and Stowe did with the character of Cora Monroe.  She’s a total woman of her times but is never reduced to the simple damsel in distress, as she picks up a gun to defend herself, never screams her head off in fear of a situation, she always seems in control of her emotions, no matter the chaos surrounding her, but yet she falls completely in love with the wild man of the forest. They did a good job with her character. And also Mann makes one of the best and most passionate kiss scenes ever with Day-Lewis and Stowe that doesn’t have to be reduced with over the top with sex or nudity. It just has to be to shot well, acted well, lit well, and have the right music to fully bring that scene together. 

This is a movie for the ages that only gets better with time.

Rust and Bone

Rust and Bone written and directed by Jacques Audiard and staring Marion Cotillard. 

Yes this movie is French with English subtitles and if you choose to see it, see it subtitled because it’s always better to read and actually hear the actors act and this movie proves that statement with ease. This movie works on a lot of levels and is a very assured screenplay by Audiard where everything in the movie has a point. There is nothing that is shown that doesn’t play or have some effect later on. This is also one of those rare movies where the director shows a lot of things instead of telling the viewer what is going on.  But what he shows actually means something to what is going on in the movie, with the character(s), and pertains to the story line.  It's not like a lot of those pretentious arty people who think interpretation of pointless and relentless scenes of anything, but the actual story line is the only way to communicate. This movie proves those people so wrong with every frame of this film. This is one of the more reassured films I’ve seen in a long time where the writer and director (this time the same person) were very confident in the script, the story line, and the characters they had created. 

The actors here do a great job of bringing these characters to life. You actually care about them, warts and all. This movie doesn’t hide the warts.  It displays them in full force, not as some shock material, but in a real true way that’s faithful to the characters and the story line. 

 Ultimately this is a love story but a love story that has a lot of things being played around with it theme-wise, which is one of the things that made me want to see the movie. It’s a story about a guy who likes to do MMA fights, just for the fun of it, who meets a woman who got her legs amputated and is trying to put her life back together. It was this idea of a person who basically mutilates people for a living, who then meets a person who was mutilated, and the love that slowly blossoms between them that intrigued me to the story. 

 I would describe the overall style of the movie as very raw.  It appeared as if was shot on location a lot.  The characters didn’t seem to wear a lot of make-up, and the direction had a lot of hand held camera work, not the kind that ‘s annoying, but the kind that actually looks directed, but still somewhat real. All of that really added to the movie giving it a very naturalistic feel which is something Terrence Malick has been striving to do for a long time but failed miserably with every attempt he’s tried since Badlands, because he forgets that it’s people and characters who make a movie interesting. Without interesting characters a movie is nothing.  And there is nothing for the viewer to care about.  No matter how many things get blown up, no matter how many over the top action set pieces there are, no matter how much visual vomit is thrown on the screen to be interpreted, no matter how much social/political/religious/ideological commentary is thrown into the movie, if you don't have characters that are developed and that the audience will care about, everything is for nothing.  This movie never forgets about the characters.  It makes the characters interesting. It gives them history.  It gives them emotions.  It makes them work through things.  It gives them choices to make.  It lets them make bad choices and good choices.  It lets them be characters and it lets them develop.  These characters become so interesting that the last 15 minutes of the movie will be some pretty gut retching stuff at least it was for me, because honestly I didn’t know where the story line was going, with those final 15 minutes, which is something that doesn’t happen to often when I watch movies. It was good and faithful ending to the movie and this movie is well your time to see.

Dredd

Dredd staring Karl Urban and Lena Headey. 

There is absolutely no way this Dredd can be confused with the Stallone Judge Dredd. If these two Judge Dredd’s met in a bar this Dredd wouldn’t even bother kicking the butt of Stallone’s Dredd. It would just kill Stallone’s Dredd as he walked into the bar that is how vastly different these two Dredd’s are. And this Dredd is highly superior to Stallone’s Dredd by leaps, bounds and every way possible. It’s dark, it’s brutal, it’s over-the-top insane on violence, and it’s nihilistic to the core, which is exactly like the British comic book it’s adapted from. 

This adaption of Judge Dredd puts every emphasis back on the Judge part in this futuristic society as  being the judge, jury, and executioner in every way possible. If any criticism can be pointed at this movie I would put it on the world building as it needed to explore a society where this kind of violent crime and criminals have arisen to warrant this kind of police state. With there being that many criminals and crimes committed in this society and so few Judges I just wondered how the Judicial system could survive. A little more exploration of this I think would have made this movie even better as it could easily have acted as a commentary on society, crime, criminals, and law enforcement. Robocop did a much better job of mixing in commentary amongst the insane violence.  Robocop also managed to inject a lot of humor to make things a little more real. Dredd is all business, but other than that I thought this was a brutal action movie.  Just don’t go in thinking it’s going to be Die Hard. It’s comparison to Robocop is accurate because Karl Urban acted like Robocop throughout the movie as he didn’t even take his helmet off and was all business, just like Robocop was throughout his movie. And he needed to be because dealing the scumbags and criminals he was dealing with: you shoot to kill you don’t shoot to maim. He didn’t play around in this movie. If the criminal had a gun pointed at him chances are that criminal was going to die, there was no and if’s or but’s about it, which is exactly how a cop needs to be in a situation like that.

Total Recall (1990)

Total Recall directed by Paul Verhoeven staring Arnold Schwarzenegger, Sharon Stone, Michael Ironside, Ronny Cox, Benny, Johnny Cab and Kuato (who I found myself liking all the more this time around). 

Now this is more like it.  This is the real deal Total Recall, not that phony baloney newfangled remake. It’s funny how the fights scenes and action sequences in the remake are remarkably better and choreographed so well, but yet they fail in comparison to the original in everything they try to do. There’s just something being said for Arnold plowing through people with his massive frame. What the original film lacks in choreographed action and polished scenes, it more than makes up for it in sheer brutality that just assaults the senses instead of trying to finesse its way into them. I suppose that’s part of the pleasure of watching this or any Verhoeven film, because the sheer joy of doing what he’s doing is on the screen in every frame which was another thing the remake lacked: the joyfulness of just being a movie. Verhoeven always brings that “kid in a candy store” mentality to his films but doesn’t ever preach or patronize the viewer with pretentiousness. He just makes a film and yes even the wildly, insane over-the-top Showgirls is loads of fun to watch now, because of how bad it is, which is something even the remake of Total Recall will never be able to achieve. 

I was just amazed at how everything in this movie looked fake and super cheesy. It seemed more like I was watching a TV show than a movie.  But then Verhoeven would hit me right in the head with a crazy amount of bloodshed and gore that reminded me I wasn’t watching a TV show I was watching a movie. Maybe that’s why a lot of his films have that type of TV show feel to them, because it instantly gives the viewer easy access into the movie, making them feel all warm and comfortable.  Lulling them into a peaceful quietness, before Verhoeven comes along to shower them in blood and gore to remind them it’s a movie not a TV show.  Even though he destroys that peacefulness the viewer can't really turn away, because they already had been suck into the movie so they had to keep watching. I don’t know if this is true or not but it’s a theory I’m working on. 

I will tell you this though no one on the planet earth can moan or groan like Arnold. I mean he ought to trademark that sound because it’s so easily identifiable as him that’s it’s a joy to hear whenever he fights or is trying to do anything physical. Verhoeven virtually made that sound part of the soundtrack of the movie he used so much of it and the movie was all the better for it. In fact I think this movie can be seen a whole metaphor for Arnold. Just the massiveness of his size and just how he over powers everything on screen.  Verhoeven uses all of this in the movie, from every fight scene to everything Arnold does.  In the movie he’s like a living embodiment of the whole movie, even down the to the psychological aspects of the movie one thing always stands true: Arnold dominates everything. This can almost be seen as a sci-fi version of Conan the Barbarian. 

I also forgot how violent his movie is, granted it’s nowhere near as violent as today's outpouring of torture porn.  But the violence of the movie has a Road Runner and Wiley Coyote feel to it every time it happens. I think this is because it just gets so crazy that I couldn’t help but start laughing at it. That’s another thing this movie is funny and I mean funny. Whereas I was laughing at the remake for all of the wrong reasons, I was laughing at this movie for all the right reasons. It’s that funny, even the violence and insane amounts of gore were so over-the-top there was no striving for realism but only for the comedy of the absurd. My feeling on the absurd is: if you’re going to go absurd go all the way, don’t go half way absurd, because then you just don’t have the passion for it and it will show.  You have to go absurd all the way. 

And this movie than goes absurd all the way and it all the better for it.