“The Avengers” or the fanboi next to me just jizzed in his pants!

Well the long awaited “Avengers” does not disappoint.  From start to finish, the pace is fast, sometimes even brutal; with non-stop action and great moments of humor.  This mother of all sequels, being a sequel to no less than five films, brings together a multitude of powerhouse superheroes from the Marvel stable.  Even if you are not familiar with “The Avenger’s” world, chances are you know the characters individually from the movies and the comics or even just as pop culture references.  However, if you are one of the many, mainly young men who love and revere this world chances are you just spent two and a half hours in heaven.

I went to this movie with two friends of mine, both pretty much admitted fanbois and I have to say watching the one sitting next to me squirming and giggling like a seven year old girl with a new easy bake oven, was almost as entertaining as the movie, itself.  He was in ecstasy. 

And he was not the only one, this movie really delivers on almost every level.  The characters are complex, and familiar.  The story straightforward, but not too simple.  Conflicts exist between almost all of the characters, not just the “good” guys versus the “bad” guys.  These are not easy going relationships.  Egos and motivations conflict almost as much as humans and aliens do. 

Loki, played by Tom Hiddleston, is not just a super powered villain from another world, he is a man corrupted by disappointment and cynicism, who heedlessly unleashes seemingly unstoppable forces on the Earth as payback for real and imagined hurts inflicted on him by his brother Thor, played by the super hot Chris Helmsworth.   Soon it becomes apparent that Loki is not the biggest threat to the earth, that even if he is defeated the forces he has unleashed will continue on without him.

Chris Evans, as Captain America is even hotter than Thor.  With a butt that you can bounce a quarter off of  prominently featured in many of his shots, the girls will not lack for eye candy.  As is the case for the guys with Scarlett Johanssen as Black Widow in her skintight black jumpsuit.  Mark Ruffalo and Robert Downey Jr. as Bruce Banner and Tony Stark, respectively, provide the brains and a lot of the humor to the story.  Plus the up and coming Oscar nominated Jeremy Renner delivers as the surprisingly dangerous Hawkeye.

Altogether, this was two hours and twenty-two minutes packed with action and excitement.  Once again Joss Whedon proves that he is the baddest of the bad, when it comes to providing high-powered action with great emotional content.   I say you may want to see this more than once before you are done and if you are already a fan of this franchise, you may need to bring an extra pair of pants!

“Mirror Mirror” or I love your outfit, what else have you got?

Well, I guess I can only blame myself for wasting my own time.  My friends all seemed to feel that this movie was not worth seeing.  Apparently they were not the only ones.  I arrived at the theater, and I was the only one there to see this movie.  I guess that should have been a clue. 

The problem is I have really enjoyed Tarsem Singh’s previous movies.  They are usually very colorful, visually stunning and imaginative, with a bit of a dark disquieting undertone.  “The Cell” (2000), is a very beautiful and frightening look into the mind of a serial killer, “The Fall” (2006) is a visually intriguing story of an injured stunt man and the lies he tells to himself and others, and most recently “Immortals” (2011) showed us how simple, yet strikingly evocative set decoration and costuming can really elevate a good story to a great movie.

Then came “Mirror Mirror”.  A lot of people talking about it were not enthused.  I know some who said they preferred to wait for he next Snow White flick “Snow White and the Huntsman”.  But because I usually enjoy the vision of Tarsem Singh, I thought I would give it a try.  What a disappointment.  The interesting visuals consisted mainly of the costumes.  The special effects were blah, nothing new at all.  The accordion legs of the dwarves was an effect a high school film buff could accomplish at home.  The forest was uninteresting, the sets cliché.  Even the mirror, ostensibly the central thesis of the movie was nothing.  The queen’s entrance into the “world” of the mirror was derivative at best, an effect notably used in Jean Cocteau’s “Beauty and the Beast” (1946). Perhaps it was meant as a nod to the brilliant Cocteau, but if it was then Singh should have taken more pages from his book and infused his mise-en-scene with a more sinister or magical atmosphere.  Instead it read like a cartoon; brightly colored, and one-dimensional. Supposedly a comedy, it even lacked much humor.

The characters were uninteresting too.  Snow White was bland, if pretty.  Prince Charming was vapid and one note.  The dwarves were weird, with costumes resembling a cowboy, a frenchman, a conquistador, and a mountain man just to name a few.  The queen was angry and obvious. 

Ok, a non sequitur here, but when did Julia Roberts become so grim? I have noticed it for a few years now.  It seemed to begin some time after she did “My Best Friend’s Wedding” (1997).  She has lost her “sparkle” for lack of a better term.  She used to be able to play darker or sadder moments and yet retain that certain inner charm that would come through in lighter moments.  However, in all the movies where I have seen her in recent years, she seems to have lost that light.  Something about her demeanor just seems depressed or unhappy.  I don’t know, maybe I am just misreading it, but there you go.

Anyway, back to the movie, don’t go! You will be sorely disappointed.  If you want to see a good example of this director’s work rent “Immortals” (2011) out now on DVD.

“American Reunion” or S+B2=Π

OK, that is sex plus beer squared equals pi (it’s a pun, get it?), for those of you who are formulaically impaired.  In other words, American Reunion faithfully follows the American Pie franchise formula that has been so effective for all the sequels. 

Unfortunately I don’t have much more to say about it.  The movie was entertaining, but there is nothing new to really talk about.  The characters, like all of us, are older, and for the most part their priorities have changed, but they continue to get into the same messes and make the same mistakes.  The only difference is that instead of youth, parents and school interfering with their sex lives it is now stress, kids and work that interfere with their sex lives.  But Jim is still a dork, Stifler is still a putz, Finch is still searching, Kevin is still stuck on Vicky and Oz is still a jock.  Even Stifler’s mom is still the same.

So, if you are looking for something new to have happened to these characters, you will come away disappointed.  But if all you want it so see them again, have some laughs and enjoy the same goofy complications as always, you can still enjoy this movie for what it is, a formula that works, but doesn’t change.

“The Hunger Games” or can you say perfect?

Wow! That was wonderful.  This is exactly what a book adaptation should be!  I was really concerned about how this would turn out.  I am a huge fan of the books, and after the  “John Carter” fiasco I have to admit I was pretty nervous.  But this movie knocked it out of the park for me. Unlike the horrible “John Carter” adaptation, where the screenwriter apparently, (and mistakenly) thought he was a better plot writer than the original author (he wasn’t) and completely reworked the story in a way that was not an improvement, “The Hunger Games” was beautifully adapted.  It probably helped that the author Suzanne Collins worked on the screenplay with the director Gary Ross.  The result is a wonderful and accurate translation of the book to film.

The casting also played a big part in the success of this film.  Jennifer Lawrence was perfect in the lead role of Katniss Everdeen.  I was afraid that Josh Hutcherson, known for the “Journey to the Center of the Earth” and ”Cirque du Freak” would be too Disney for this role but he did a very solid and believable job as Peeta. 

Gary Ross captured the essence of the book very well.  Although some small characters were left out (I would bet because of time restraints) all of the major plot points were in place and even most of the small details.  Ross was not afraid to let the audience infer what was happening, especially in the flashbacks.  He did not try to over explain. He apparently understands that we are sophisticated movie viewers and can understand these ideas without heavy handed, over direction and that it was not necessary to explain Kat’s internal confusion about her relationship with Peeta, we understood.

I have to admit; this movie left me hungry for more, if you will pardon the pun.  Now I can’t wait to see “Catching Fire” brought to the screen.   I was totally drawn into the world of Katniss.  The long running time did not even matter.  It moved by so quickly I did not realize that two and a half hours had passed.  I just left me wanting more.  Well Done!!

“John Carter” of Mars or why I’m never happy with Edgar Rice Burroughs translations

Well, I went this week to see “John Carter”, I had been waiting for this for months, and I was very, very excited.  I love ERB and all his books; I have read and reread the Tarzan books since I was a kid.   And I thought the John Carter of Mars series was a great way to start a new Sci-Fi franchise.  Effects have finally gotten to the point where all of the great alien characters from the “Princess of Mars” can be believably brought to life.  And they were, but in a story really different from the one written by Burroughs.  I am not really sure why moviemakers always feel the need to rewrite his books.  They have remained popular for almost a hundred years, due in large part to their solid, engaging characters and exciting stories about men and women in situations completely alien to our experience, but still very recognizable to the reader.   The only movie that has ever been even slightly on target was the 1984 version, “Greystoke”, and even that took quite a few liberties. 

I wish “John Carter” had only taken a few liberties.  Basically they have taken ERB’s characters and rewritten the storyline almost completely.  If I, like the friend I went with, had never read the books, then I may have enjoyed the film (he did), but because I have read the books, more than once, all my brain kept telling me is, “this is wrong, this is wrong!”

John Carter became an angry PTSD suffer, obsessed with gold, instead of a highly competent, courageous, and experienced warrior.  His friend Powell became his enemy and the mysterious means of transport to Mars became an amulet (because we cannot leave anything unexplained, even though that is what ERB meant to happen). His super strength, on Mars becomes only the ability to jump incredible distances, and his military training does not even come into play.

Tars Tarkas and the green Martians became savages living in huts, instead of savvy, highly political movers, living in a marble city.  Sola, became a victim, instead of a strong female character. And even the story of the river Iss and their religious mythology was completely changed with the most important aspects left out.  (Apparently even alien stories that debunk religion are against the PC Disney mindset.)  And the war between the different factions is dropped as secondary to the “gladiator/arena” scene.  The friendship between Tars Tarkas and John Carter was never developed, even though that is very important to this story and later stories.  

I wish I could say I enjoyed this more, but I am hesitant to recommend not seeing it.  If you have never read the books it could be a very entertaining movie, however, if you have read the books and are a fan of Edgar Rice Burroughs, you may be greatly disappointed, I know I was. 

“Underworld: Awakening” or and….?

At 88 minutes “Underworld: Awakening” is rather underdeveloped.  I am not really sure why the makers of this film decided to go with such a short time.  There seems to be a lot of the story left out, and the character development just isn’t there, why didn’t they use the extra half hour to build the plot and the characters? WHY? WHY? 

Ok, seriously though, the newly added character, Selene’s daughter, is brought in with a sort of Ta Da!! flourish, but then they do next to nothing with her.  At one point Selene says “she has to be protected, she is more powerful than all of us.” Really how does she know? The little girl hasn’t done anything, in fact she doesn’t do much through out the whole movie, they don’t even give her a name.  She turns blue a couple of times but that is it.

Michael doesn’t even get any dialogue, except to say “we’ll leave when she gets here”.  Then he’s done, for the whole movie.

Admittedly I love Selene’s character, she has always been my favorite.  And I did enjoy the movie in a shallow way.  Watching Selene kick ass is always worthwhile.  But the story development just isn’t there.  There are even new character’s added to the story, i.e. the vampires living underground, led by a random elder.  But nothing about them is explained; who is the elder? are they all that are left? how do they survive? The movie doesn’t even try to explain anything about them.

At one point Selene’s daughter calls her cold, though even that is not demonstrated.  Apparently she is cold, because she hasn’t hugged her daughter or something?  However, at that point they have been running from the powers that be non-stop, so when should she have stopped that to have a tender moment, I don’t know. 

All of that said, I did enjoy the show in a very superficial way, but I was left wondering about way too much.

“The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo” or girl fight in the snow

Rooney Mara vs. Noomi Rapace, that is the question.  There is no real way to review this movie for me without comparing the two versions.   I really love the Swedish version, so I was a little hesitant about seeing the American remake.  However, a friend told me that is was good, and I should see it, so I did.   This is what I think; the American remake is a solid movie, and in some cases it may be more true to the book (that’s what I was told, though I have not finished reading it so don’t quote me on that), but it wasn’t quite as absorbing and atmospheric to me, though perhaps it is more linear.

The original Swedish film has a harder edge to it.  Noomi Rapace in particular plays a much harder character than Rooney Mara.  Mara seems to be trying to tap into Salander’s inner hidden sensitivity, while Rapace is showing us what Lisbeth wants the world to see, a tough, hard-shelled badass.   I have to admit, I prefer Rapace, she lets us see the seething lava of anger just below the surface waiting to explode, the result of a life filled with inequity and betrayal.  Mara, on the other hand seems a little more like a victim in her attitude (the lack of exploration about her back story contributes to that).  The rape scene is a good example, strangely the US version is more graphic, but I felt that Mara’s performance was more about the sexual violation, whereas Rapace’s was more about the loss of control. A small caveat, but there you have it, the nuances are where the Swedish version triumphs.  One other small factor is the chase scene toward the end, in the Swedish film that is a much more surreal moment, the chase lasts quite a bit longer and the way it is filmed is much more frightening, artistic and atmospheric, and the end of the chase much more deliberate.

Both movies have a very nice production value, and most of the other actors are fairly interchangeable, though I also prefer Michael Nyqvist over Daniel Craig (which is strange because I really, really like Daniel Craig), but Nyqvist seems more real as a reporter.  Craig looks a little too chic, like a male model in his winter wear.  Also, the Swedish movie concentrates more on the workings at Millennium, which is key to Bloomqvist’s persona.

The other thing that is really noticeable is Lisbeth back-story, or in the case to the US version, the lack thereof.  The Swedish movie moves back and forth through time, flashing back to bits of Lisbeth’s childhood and the pivotal moment that shapes her whole life.  The US version mentions once in passing, as pillow talk no less, that she set her father on fire.  It doesn’t indicate at all how central that moment is in her life.  Though the Rapace film doesn’t really give you much more information, it really gives you a feeling of how much that action impacted her life, and the flashbacks give you a better picture of her splintered psyche. You can see she is on the edge of losing it at anytime, and that all that prevents that is the iron control she keeps on her emotions.  

In the end, I am a little ambivalent about this movie, it is a good, entertaining movie, but if you have already seen the Swedish version it will not cover any new ground. So, in the final analysis, I will say, see it if you hate subtitles, but otherwise, the Swedish version is the one to see.

“Haywire” or advanced ass-kicking for girls

All right!!  I have to say; don’t believe it when Dr Pepper 10 tells you that women don’t like action movies.  I LOVE a good ass-kicking movie.  It can even be a fairly bad movie from the story perspective, as long as the action is tight! It’s even better if the story makes sense.

This film falls into the second category.  Deliberately made to look like a B-Movie, or even an exploitation movie, but with an A-Movie cast, it sports a color palette that moves back and forth from a blue gray color to a washed-out yellow  and looks like you parent’s old photos from 1972.

The movie is something of a dichotomy.  The male portion of the cast reads like a Who’s Who of contemporary Hollywood; Channing Tatum, Michael Douglas, Antonio Banderas, Ewan McGregor, Michael Fassbender, and Bill Paxton.  While the female portion on the cast is just the relatively unknown Gina Carano, former American Gladiator and MMA fighter.

Carano is not the best actress in the world, at the beginning of the movie she seems a little bit stiff, but to make up for that she brings an easy athleticism to her role that make her totally believable as Mallory Kane, a former marine now working as a mercenary for a private security company.

The story follows Mallory as she completes a job rescuing, what she believes is a kidnapped Asian scientist, but all is not as it seems.  Soon she learns that she has been used to kidnap a murder a foreign journalist.  Mallory begins a rampage directed at the men who lied to her and used her as their patsy. 

Carano inhabits the character of Mallory with a relaxed confidence that makes you believe she can handle any situation, and her extreme competence with all aspects of the physical action easily convinces that viewer that they are watching an action star.  You cannot help saying “cool!” about the way she runs up the wall and lands on her target pinning him to the ground. This movie should lead her to much bigger and better things.  And the ending is spot on.

It’s called what? or the best movies you’ve never seen. (Part 1)

Ok, I have seen thousands of movies. I have rated almost three thousand movies on Netflix alone, and I have seen many more movies than that.  So I know that there are many under appreciated movies out there.  So in an attempt to remedy this I will be posting ongoing lists of my favorite unknown movies.

To that end I will begin with my general best movies list:

                                                              (in no particular order)

“Oldboy”(2003)

Wow, this is a FΩ©ked up movie.  The second film from Korean director Park Chan-wook’s loosely connected “Vengeance Trilogy”, “Oldboy” tells the story of Dae-su, an every day family man who is inexplicably kidnapped and held prisoner for fifteen years, then just as abruptly he is released:  again, with no explanation.

At his release Dae-su is anonymously provided with clothes and money, which he uses to begin his search for answers.  As his journey progresses he is lead into a world where money paves the way for vengeance and madness.  This is not a film for the squeamish, if you have a hard time with blood be prepared to look away.  But if you can take a bit of gore, the payoff is a pretty mind-blowing film.

“Titus”(1999)

Based on Shakespeare’s “Titus Andronicus” this stunning film is filled with beautiful men, scenery and insanity.  Visually stunning, the film is also filled with fabulous performances by Sir Anthony Hopkins as the title character of Titus and Jessica Lange as Tamora the goth queen.  Allan Cummings is slimy and conniving as the easily led Ceasar, Saturnius.  The cast also includes some  wonderful actors in supporting roles, like Colm Feore, Johnathan Rhys Meyers and  Angus McFadyen.

Titus and Tamora  begin a war of ever escalating acts of revenge, leaving a trail of bodies in their wake.  The production has very interesting and distinct look to it, from the first entrance of Titus and his troops, coated from head to toe in mud, and the subsequent shower scene to the maiming of his daughter, (which is both creepy and cool) to the final brutal dinner party.  This is a film that you won’t easily forget.

“Crash”(1996)

This is David Croneberg’s “Crash”, not the 2004 morality tale/sob fest by the same name.  In this movie a group of people have come together because of their mutual sexual fascination with car wrecks.  

It stars the ubiquitously deviant James Spader (Man do I LOVE him) as a man whose work and home/sex life have become stagnant.  When he is involved in a terrible car accident, he stumbles into a strange world of sex fueled by car crashes.   Elias Koteas, plays Vaughan, a man who claims to be a scientist studying the phenomenon, but in truth he has been drawn in to a ferocious sexual game that includes Rosanna Arquette as a woman held together by braces and prosthetics (there is a really disturbing scene featuring sex involving a horrible scar).

The cast also includes Holly Hunter as a woman who likes anonymous sex in cars, particularly wrecked cars and Debra Kara Unger as Spader’s confused wife.  Be warned this film contains some pretty explicit and strange sex scenes, but like any car wreck you just cannot look away.

“Oscar”(1991)

OK, just don’t judge all Sly comedies by “Stop of my mom will shoot”.  This is another animal entirely.  I cannot tell you enough how much I love, love, love this movie.  This is perhaps one of the best, underrated movies of all time.  The plot is clever, the dialogue witty, witty, the costumes and sets are beautiful and accurate to the time, and the cast, ironically enough is full of Oscar winners and nominees. 

Just to give you the Oscar roll call:  Sylvester Stallone-2 nominations, Don Ameche-1 win, Peter Reigert-1 nomination, Marisa Tomei-2 nominations, 1 win, Chaz Palminteri- 1 nomination, Kirk Douglas-3 nominations, 1 win. Ornella Muti-3 David (Italian Oscar) nominations, 1 win. Plus Emmy winners, Tim Curry, and Ken Howard, and Emmy nominees, Linda Gray and Harry Shearer.  Not to mention a plethora of great supporting characters like Kurtwood Smith, Martin Ferrero,  Joey Travolta and the Iconic Yvonne De Carlo.

This movie is modeled on the classic Shakespearian comedy. It actually has all of the elements listed in wikipedia as standards of Shakespearian comedies:
    ·   A struggle of young lovers to overcome difficulty, often presented by elders
    ·  Separation and re-unification
    ·  Deception among characters (especially mistaken identity)
    ·  A clever servant
    ·  Tension between characters, often within a family
    ·  Multiple, intertwining plots
    ·  Use of all styles of comedy (slapstick, puns, dry humor, earthy humor, witty banter,  
        practical jokes)
    ·  Happy Ending, though this is a given, since by definition, anything without a 
        happy ending can't be a comedy

Set during prohibition, the story revolves around “Snaps” Provolone, a gangster who has made his money selling illegal liquor.  On his deathbed Snaps’ father asks him to go straight.  Unable to deny his dying father, Snaps agrees.  On the first day of his honest life, a multitude of situations arise, designed to keep Snaps from getting out of the business.

You do have to pay attention to the dialogue; it is filled with fast witty banter, and great timely lines like, “its the Music you kids listen to today, don’t think I haven’t heard the words to “Minnie the Moocher”.”  This film is a great little rollercoaster ride from start to finish. 

“Strings”(2004)

This is one of the most unusual movies that I have every seen.  All of the characters are marionettes.  Expertly manipulated by Master Puppeteers, these marionettes are very human in their movements and gestures.  Originally made in Sweden, with Swedish actors doing the voices.  It was re-released in America with English speaking actors doing the voiceover, very much like “Howl’s Moving Castle”.

The main character, Hal, voiced by James McAvoy, is the son of a king.  When his father commits suicide in despair over the warring state of the kingdom, the king’s brother, Nezo steals the suicide note and tells his nephew Hal that the neighboring kingdom had the king assassinated.  Nezo hopes to eliminate Hal by sending him to be killed by their “enemy”. Hal leaves the kingdom and begins a quest for vengeance. 

This movie is really interesting in the way that it constructs a whole world for the marionettes.  In this world your “head string” is what connects you to God.  If your head string is cut, you die. If the string to you legs is cut you become "lame".   New children are born when the father carves a new wooden baby, which the “pregnant” mother brings to life by connecting strings which have grown around her own  to the wooden infant.  Even the gates to the castle only have to consist of a single bar high above head height that blocks the strings from passing.

As Hal travels the land looking for answers he meets Zita who helps shed light on the reality of war for Hal. This path leads Hal to a new understanding of how ignorance and misinformation can lead to war, and how tolerance can bring understanding.  This is one of the most beautiful and magical movies ever.  A must see for all ages.

Well that’s just a start on the best movies you’ve never seen, I will have more for you soon.

“Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy” or the film that came in from the cold.

This was a very engrossing, tightly woven, and well-paced film, that doesn’t talk down to the viewer.  Gary Oldham is fantastic.   As is my newest favorite British import, Tom Hardy. 

With very much a LeCarre atmosphere, this movie evokes the kind of spare twisted feeling common to the 70’s and the cold war.  As complex as the cold war itself, the twists and turns of “TTSS” keep you guessing all through the movie. 

The pace of the movie is one of its best features, never moving to fast to follow, but not so slow you get bored.  The pace feels very natural, as the film moves back and forth between the past and current events. 

Unlike in many thrillers, the filmmaker, Tomas Alfredson, (director of the superb “Let the Right One In”) does not give away the surprise too fast. Sometimes in a film you can tell who the bad guy will be, just by how long the camera lingers on a particular character, or by how much weight the character seems to bring with him.   Alfredson, on the other hand, leads you down many paths.  Drawing your attention first to one character and then another, making you unsure which one is the traitor, so much so, I even found myself wondering if there was a cabal involved.

Generally I am not a fan of cold war films, but this one is great.  Gary Oldham is fantastic a George Smiley, a man we want to like, but who disconcerts us with his willingness to subvert the truth in pursuit of his objective. The cast is chock full of great character actors and everyone turns in a solid, convincing performance.  Though as usual, Tom Hardy (looking disturbingly like a young Don Johnson, though not acting like him) dominates the screen in every scene he is in, as does the laboriously named, but imminently likable Benedict Cumberbatch as Smiley’s right hand man Guillam.  Well worth the money, I say, go see this one.

“Mission Impossible; Ghost Protocol” or fun, fun for the fourth time.

Well that was fun.  I liked this, even though it is a fourth installment.  Tom Cruise knows how to deliver on the non-stop action, and Brad Bird’s signature is there to see in the looks of all the action sequences.

As with past MI movies the action sequences have to deliver bigger more adrenaline filled thrills.  This time though instead of using faster cars, trains or automobiles the action is more about individual, physical challenges.  Because of this there are no big impossible action sequences where Tom is hanging from the wing of a jet, or some other improbable location.  This is refreshing; instead they rely on added elements like the big storm in the middle that adds excitement to what would normally be just a car chase.  In this way, thinking outside the box MI4 delivers. 

The locations are exotic and the actors, solid. Though both Michael Nyquist and Anil Kapoor, come off a little clichéd as the Swedish dissident and the Indian playboy respectively.  It is a little as though the casting director was told to find the most visible actor from Sweden and India and automatically cast them.  These are small caveats though, for the most part the story moves along well and the action is the star.  If the ending is a little cheesy, well, Tom has earned his cheese, and it is all in the name of wrapping up a secondary story line, so it plays.

All in all I say yes to Ghost Protocol and to all of those MI movies to come.  As long as they can keep the action solid and the stunts fresh they will have an audience.