Front Row Center

New stuff coming!

2010-02-22T20:01:00.002-05:00

Hello everyone. This is just a little note to fill you in on some things. You may have noticed that recently updates have been few and far between in the Front Row Center world. There are a few reasons for this. Joe is in his last semester of grad school, Watson is in grad school, and me, well I've just been deciding how I want to do my reviews from now on.

See, we've decided to completely rebuild Front Row Center from the ground up. (We'll do it better than Domino's new pizza, I promise!) We are in the process of getting ourselves an honest to goodness real website with a catchy new group name. We also will no longer be reviewing on our podcasts. Instead, we will be discussing topics in cinema, we will be critiquing, and do all that stuff we learned to do in film school, but somehow neglected to do.

I will be posting a few new reviews here coming up, at least until our new site is up and running. We hope that this new incarnation of our little experiment will be more accessable, less rambling, and, yes, more enjoyable. So stay tuned folks, 'cause the times, they are a changin'.

Blu-Ray Review: A Serious Man

2010-02-10T22:07:00.000-05:00

Well, well, well... The Oscars are a month away and, slowly but surely, more of this year's Best Picture nominees are starting to appear on DVD. This week sees the release of Joel and Ethan Coen's A Serious Man. You'd think after the success of No Country for Old Men that the Coens would be able to get any film they wanted into wide release. Not so, apparently, as A Serious Man never made it to most theaters in its initial run. Now that it's in the running for Best Picture, it'll likely show up on more multiplex screens, but why do that when you could just pick up the DVD or Blu-ray?

Speaking of which, how is it? Well, I'm here to tell you just that.

By the Coens' standards, A Serious Man is a relatively simple film. It tells the story of a Jewish physics professor named Larry Gopnik (Michael Stuhlbarg), whose normal, simple life slowly starts falling apart. It starts when his wife informs him that she plans to divorce him and marry a family friend (Fred Melamed), and his troubles escalate as his brother (Richard Kind) becomes more of a nuisance, his children become more of a nuisance, and one of his students attempts to bribe him for grades.

Joel and Ethan Coen are never at a loss for the smart gag or a fun visual shot, and this film is no exception. They take their jabs at late 1960s culture, Jewish traditions that they no doubt experienced growing up, and the kind of domestic troubles that they've always tackled in oddball ways. Like in many of their other films, characters interact as though they're from two completely different movies. It creates a fascinating dissonance between Larry (and the viewer) and the people around him. It's almost as though Larry has been dropped into an alternate reality in which his life has always been falling apart. This is key to the Coens' brand of humor; in some ways it's similar to the awkward relationships between characters on, say, The Office, but never goes for the obvious joke.

There are a number of twists and turns along Larry's search for meaning, but compared to films like The Man Who Wasn't There or Barton Fink, A Serious Man is pretty cut and dry. You could say that the film is sort of the Coens' version of the Old Testament story of Job, and there are indeed some elements of that, but the heart of the film lies more in simply taking life's hardships in stride rather than letting them weigh you down. Despite such an inspirational message, however, A Serious Man is a considerably dark film, and the Coens wouldn't have it any other way.

This is a film that isn't particularly enhanced by the hi-def transfer. The disc features Universal's standard "My Scenes" feature, which allows to you bookmark your favorite scenes, but other than that, there's nothing here that's any different from the standard DVD. The film's blu-ray transfer does indeed look sharp and vibrant, but this is a film where story takes precedent over visual design (not to slight the Coen Bros.' direction or Roger Deakins' excellent cinematography). It's not the kind of film with which you'd show of your home theater system, though it's definitely worthy of your blu-ray player, I guess is what I'm saying.

THE MOVIE: 8/10 - This is vintage Coen Bros., and while it's arguable whether or not it's their best work, it definitely ranks among their most interesting. The mix of humor and, well, seriousness isn't everyone's cup of tea, but if you're familiar with the Coens' other films, you should at least get a kick out of this one.

THE BLU-RAY: 7/10 - The film looks and sounds great, though it's not outstanding as far as blu-ray transfers go. Simply put, it doesn't disappoint.

THE FEATURES: 5/10 - Coen DVDs are notorious for being scarce on the features, and A Serious Man is no exception. Three featurettes are all you get here. "Becoming Serious", your standard 15-minute making-of feature. "Creating 1967" is just as long, detailing the look of the film. Finally, "Hebrew and Yiddish for Goys" is exactly what it sounds like: a brief series of definitions of Hebrew vernacular for the uninitiated. Blu-ray and DVD share the same set of features.

OVERALL: 7/10 - A Serious Man is among Joel and Ethan Coen's best and the blu-ray transfer is impressive, though the extras are scant. There's no reason not to pick this up, though if you have your doubts or don't have a great HD system, I'd say save yourself a few bucks and pick up the standard DVD instead. I guarantee you'll enjoy the film just as much.

Review: The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus

2010-01-11T16:44:00.002-05:00

I've been waiting two years to see this movie. No, no, no.... It had nothing to do with it being Heath Ledger's last movie. No, I'm a Terry Gilliam fan. He's never made a bad movie, in my opinion. Sure, some are average, but he's at least got a stunning visual style and won't compromise his vision. This is his first movie since the very polarizing Tideland, which came out in 2006. This movie won't be quite as controversial, I don't think. It doesn't require a change of thought patterns for the viewer like that one did.

The movie is about a traveling sideshow attraction, and more specifically the people involved with it. The sideshow is run by a Dr. Parnassus (Christopher Plummer) who has lived a thousand years. See, he made a deal with the devil for eternal life. Now the devil keeps making additional bets to tease Parnassus, making Parnassus' end of the bargain possibly not need to be paid, but Parnassus keeps losing the bets. What Parnassus owes the devil is his only daughter Valentina (Lily Cole), due at the age of 16, which is just two days away. To foil things even further, another member of the team, Anton (Andrew Garfield), has a crush on Valentina, and the team rescues a man hanging by his neck from a bridge. The man turns out the be an amnesiac, who they end up calling George (Heath Ledger). He joins the team and they set off to improve people's souls. How, you may ask....? Why the fake mirror that the sideshow is about... It takes you into Parnassus' mind, where you can fulfill your deepest desires. However, the devil is often there too, to fool you into choosing selfish desires.

The movie is a bit difficult to understand at times, but then again almost all Gilliam movies are... even 12 Monkeys. The visuals are amazing, and include a sort of tango through floating broken glass, climbing ladders into the clouds, and dancing, singing, pantyhose-wearing coppers! (I'm not kidding on that last one either.) Now, I do have to point out that the movie does take a good thirty minutes or so to get going, and even then it'll leave you wondering what the heck it's trying to get to for a while. Unlike a typical Hollywood film, it's really not a build, ebb, build, ebb type of movie. It doesn't go by the same formula as those movies. In fact, as with most Gilliam movies, at the end of the movie you're left feeling somewhat cheated of something. Of what? It's hard to say. It's just a feeling I always get after every movie of his. Is it of a happy ending? A meaningful resolution? Sanity? (Usually yes on the last one...)

Now, I know most people will not be seeing this because it's Terry Gilliam. Most will be seeing it for Heath Ledger and the cameos by Colin Farrell, Jude Law, and Johnny Depp. Well, they are in there, with Johnny Depp's screen time being the shortest, and Colin Farrell's the longest of the cameos. Heath Ledger had actually done most of the stuff he was supposed to. They changed the script so that each time the George/Tony character entered the mirror, he changed appearances... Those were the parts that Ledger had not filmed, or at least not completed. It works remarkably well.

It's not Gilliam's best work, nor his least best. It's better than Brothers' Grimm, but not quite up to the level of Time Bandits or Brazil. If you like his movies, you'll probably like this. If not, I'd stay away. It's not for everyone.

**** out of ***** (4 out of 5)

Ep. 67: The Last Episode Ever?

2009-12-30T11:57:00.000-05:00

Once again, the Front Row Center Podcast goes live tonight at 9PM (Eastern)! Click here to visit our show page!

Tonight, we'll be tackling the many sordid issues surrounding James Cameron's Avatar. We'll be offering up our own thoughts on the film, as well as discussing some of the ulterior readings of the film (of which there are definitely a few).

Also tonight, we'll talk for a few minutes about Guy Ritchie's Sherlock Holmes, the Golden Globe nominees, this year's National Film Registry selections, and more.

Finally, we'll take some time to discuss the future of the show. We may soon be switching to a new format, and whether that means leaving TalkShoe or staying on in another form remains to be seen.

So if you'd like to discuss Avatar or Sherlock Holmes, or if you know anything about the technical side of podcasting, we'd love to hear your thoughts!

Joe's Decade in Review: Genre Cinema All-Out Attack!

2009-12-28T23:15:00.005-05:00

Like many others, this decade in cinema has been one of joyous highs and and dreadful lows. While traditional fare continued on pretty much as it always had, the big-budget spectacle became a beast like no other. Many of this decade's high-rollers were inexplicably critic-proof; no amount of negative press kept films like Transformers 2 from raking in all the money in the known universe. Sure, some critical darlings have raked in the big bucks, but more than ever the gulf between the critic and the audience is distressingly wide.

For better or worse, we soldier on into a new decade of cinematic surprises. There will be inevitable excesses, as filmmakers like Matthew Vaughn, Quentin Tarantino and Rian Johnson will continue to deconstruct popular genres and blur the line between the sublime and the ridiculous. There will be bigger and better explosions as the summer blockbuster train rolls on, so long as there's material to adapt and dollars to spend. And there will be files; terabytes and terabytes of files. Digital media will continue to change the way we watch movies, though it'll be a slow transition.

I could play Nostradamus from here to Doomsday, so for brevity's sake I'll leave you with these, a pair of lists. First, my favorite movie from each year; not exactly a top ten. I made an entire Top 100 list, and the ordering there is quite different (To see my full list, coming soon, visit my other blog here). Then, five that I just absolutely hated. Enjoy.

O Brother, Where Art Thou? (2000) - Joel and Ethan Coen have a knack for making the antiquated and mundane seem fresh and exciting, and their ode to The Odyssey (never read it, my ass) is among their most entertaining. George Clooney is brilliant, as is the faded color palette and folksy soundtrack.

The Royal Tenenbaums (2001) - Wes Anderson's spent the past eight years trying to recreate the visual poetry of his third film, and for good reason; it's still his best. The ensemble cast plays beautifully off one another, and the visual design is just a fantastic.

The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (2002) - The whole thing is great, but if I had to pick one, it'd be The Two Towers. There's a palpable sense of despair that the other two simply don't have, and even though Aragorn going over a cliff is the single most idiotic turn of the whole trilogy, Jackson makes up for it by having the battle at Helms Deep be one of the greatest things ever put to film.

Big Fish (2003) - Tim Burton's fanbase will tear me to shreds, but I don't care. This is his best movie. It's an ode to nostalgia, but an even bigger ode to storytelling, to embellishing the truth for the sake of entertainment. It's probably the best film Terry Gilliam never made.

Shaun of the Dead (2004) - For a debut feature, Edgar Wright's zombie film is remarkably nimble in storytelling, and at the same time densely intricate in its construction. That it's a sly comment on cultural complacency is really what sets it head and shoulders above every zombie film since (even Romero's).

Serenity (2005) - Almost five years on, the fanboyish fervor has worn off and I've been able to watch Serenity with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight. Yup, it's still the best space opera since The Empire Strikes Back, and every bit as inventive, goofy, and thrilling as you remember.

Stranger than Fiction (2006) - Another film about the intricacies of storytelling, this one more obsessed with the telling than what's being told. Will Ferrell's performance is equal parts pathetic and charming, and it's the best he's ever been. This is one I'm sure won't wind up on many Best-Of lists, largely because most see it as a poor-man's Adaptation.

Ratatouille (2007) - Outside of Toy Story, which lives on it's own little pedestal, this is my pick for Pixar's best film. In typical fashion, Brad Bird pushes his animators to the limit, telling a story that's as rich in plot as it is in beautifully rendered scenery. Much like Remy's food, this is one to savor one little bit at a time.

The King of Kong: A Fistful of Quarters (2008) - Here's another film about obsession over the mundane. What starts as an examination of competitive video gaming slowly becomes nothing less than the best sports movie of the decade. Think I'm crazy? Watch it and see if you aren't cheering for Steve Weibe to kick Billy Mitchell's ass at Donkey Kong.

The Brothers Bloom (2009) - Most of you never saw this, because it only played in a couple hundred theaters, so when it hits DVD (if it hasn't already), go find it. Nine times out of ten, I hate caper movies, but Rian Johnson's goes so far out of his way to make this the Ulysses of caper films that it won me over in spite of myself.

And because I can't leave it at just ten: Unbreakable, Snatch, Road to Perdition, Oldboy, The Incredibles, Grizzly Man, Pan's Labyrinth, No Country For Old Men, Iron Man, and The Fantastic Mr. Fox.

Now, five things I hated this decade...

...You know what? Throw a rock at a horror film or sex comedy and I probably hated it. Also: remake fever, Star Trek, Will Ferrell (Stranger than Fiction notwithstanding), vampires, Hancock, "____ Movie"s, any Part III that wasn't Star Wars, postmodern fantasy and My Big Fat Greek Wedding.

Good riddance.

Trent's Decade in Review: A Retrospective Spectacular!

2009-12-25T17:02:00.003-05:00

Well, in a few days, for some of us (those not going from 2001 thru 2010, but instead from 2000 to 2009), the decade will end. I, for one am happy to see it go. Compared to the first decade and a half of my life, this last one sucked. I am really hoping for a better next ten years.

The last ten years in entertainment have been ones with vast changes of both good and bad potential. We've seen the oversaturation of reality TV, 24 hour news, and internet serials. We've seen a proliferation of remakes, video game adaptations, and comic book movies. The last ten years started off with a boom of independent film, which has all but died in the last two years with the economic downturn.

Herein are 50 of my favorite films from the past decade, with the first 25 being my absolute favorites. Other than that, there is no order to these movies in terms of how much I liked them. I feel that would be unfair.

1. Almost Famous (2000) - This is the only movie on this list that I consider one of my five all-time favorite films. It never gets boring, because it's all about character nuances. You actually feel as if you're hanging out with rock stars.

2. Spirited Away (2001) - This is, in my opinion, the best anime film created. It's a beautiful, odd story, and unlike quite a few anime, not too short.

3. The Royal Tenenbaums (2001) - It's probably Wes Anderson's best movie. It's got so many characters, yet we end up knowing each one so well, and yet they still surprise us. Gotta love the quirkiness.

4. Lord of The Rings (2001-2003) - Probably the most astounding piece of film-making at LEAST since Star Wars, but in my opinion, this is better film-making.

5. Adaptation. (2002) - Charlie Kaufman's best script and Spike Jonze's best film.

6. The Eye. (2002) - This movie (the Chinese original), fits so much into this thriller that I was amazed. It's moving, haunting, frightening, and yes, a bit of romance is there as well. Seperates itself from all the other Asian horror films.

7. Master & Commander: The Far Side of The World (2003) - A seafaring movie that's full of historical accuracy and yet manages to have it's exciting parts. It's not about battles, but about life on a ship, and I like that about it. It's got great acting, music, and cinematography to boot.

8. Capturing The Friedmans (2003) - The most disturbing and provacative documentary I've ever seen. Just to see that back in the 80s, how they handled child sexual abuse cases was frightening. Moreso is the fact that even with this documentary, we don't know if the people involved were innocent or guilty of the abuse.

9. The Incredibles (2004) - My favorite Pixar movie of the past ten years. I know most prefer Nemo, Ratatouille or Wall-E, but this gets my vote because it just entertained me more. I connected better. Still, they're all great (except Cars).

10. Eternal Sunshine of The Spotless Mind (2004) - Heartbreaking, funny, and a mindscrew at the same time. Everyone owes it to themselves to see this. Just don't expect to understand everything the first time through.

11. Serenity (2005) - Science fiction for the most part was not as good this decade, but this is one of the best ever made. Those that like this owe it to themselves to see TV series Firefly as well. It's very much a space western.

12. Batman Begins (2005) - I like this better than The Dark Knight. Sure, it's not as philosophical or epic, but it's more fun, and has a villain not seen in a Batman movie before. Also, less annoying hype and anti-hype.

13. Apocalypto (2006) - Also known as Mel Gibson's OTHER movie. Sorry guys, this is better than Passion of The Christ. Not much dialogue, but man what a chase. If only the Mayans had as many fans as Jesus this would have done better.

14. Casino Royale (2006) - This is probably the best Bond film made since The Spy Who Loved Me back in 1977. Daniel Craig is a great Bond, and the story was updated nicely for modern audiences.

15. The Departed (2006) - Martin Scorsese outdoes himself. This is the best mob movie ever made in my view. It also proves the phrase, "there's always a bigger fish"... or rat in this case.

16. Letters From Iwo Jima (2006) - This Clint Eastwood directed film is better than it's counterpart Flags of Our Fathers by a long shot. It's from the Japanese point of view, and has more humanity, action, and even humor. One of Eastwood's best.

17. Pan's Labyrinth (2006) - Guillermo Del Toro is one of the best dark fantasy directors out there, and this is his best. It's in spanish, but it's such a sad, depressing movie, and yet so beautiful.

18. Hot Fuzz (2007) - Most would probably put Shaun of The Dead instead, but this one's humor has stayed funny longer for me. It may not have as much social commentary, but it's easily at least as funny as Shaun, plus you get Timothy Dalton.

19. The Orphanage (2007) - Another movie all in Spanish, but this time it's a thriller. It's got some of the most haunting scenes in it, yet still it's sad. Think of a better version of The Others, and you get this.

20. Ratatouille (2007) - Pixar's other best movie of the decade. More for adults than kids this time.

21. Let The Right One In (2008) - A Swedish vampire movie that's both brutal and sweet.

22. Speed Racer (2008) - A lot of people hate it, but a lot love it too. I love it. It's just what a live action cartoon should be, and my god, the visuals!

23. Avatar (2009) - The move forward is special effects we've been waiting for, and it legitimizes 3D.

24. Fantastic Mr. Fox (2009) - Another Wes Anderson film for the list. It's his first real kid friendly movie, though not just for kids. It's zany enough for kids, but is for everyone. Mr. Fox is fantastic.

25. Zombieland (2009) - It's like Little Miss Sunshine with zombies. Sound awesome? It is.

and the runners up....

26. O Brother Where Art Thou? (2000)
27. High Fidelity (2000)
28. Moulin Rouge! (2001)
29. Devil's Backbone (2001)
30. Dogtown and Z-Boys (2001)
31. Donnie Darko (2001)
32. Minority Report (2002)
33. 28 Days Later (2002)
34. Signs (2002)
35. Lost In Translation (2003)
36. Mystic River (2003)
37. Pirates of The Caribbean: Curse of The Black Pearl (2003)
38. Kill Bill (2003/2004)
39. Million Dollar Baby (2004)
40. Harry Potter and The Prisoner of Azkaban (2004)
41. The Squid and The Whale (2005)
42. Thank You For Smoking (2005)
43. Tideland (2005)
44. Children of Men (2006)
45. Clerks II (2006)
46. Little Miss Sunshine (2006)
47. Darjeeling Limited (2007)
48. Grindhouse (2007)
49. The Dark Knight (2008)
50. Gran Torino (2008)

I will not do a worst of list, because while this decade did have some clunkers, I try not to see movies I know will be horrible.

Rock on 2010! Ow!

Coming Soon: The Decade in Movies

2009-12-23T21:47:00.002-05:00

The 2000s are coming to a close, and you know what that means... Retrospectives aplenty!

Because we just have to keep up with the Joneses, each of us here at Front Row Center will be offering up our own thoughts about the past decade in movies. The best of the best, the worst of the worst, all the stuff in the middle, and what it all means.

Some of us might do it in the form of a list, some might ramble in a number of paragraphs, others might even compose some free verse (unlikely, but then again stranger things have happened).

So have a Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukkah, pleasant Festivus, or whatever holiday you celebrate, and come back soon and often. Keep a weather eye on our humble little page. Great things are afoot...

Review: Avatar

2009-12-21T01:26:00.002-05:00

I don't need to tell you that James Cameron's latest film is a great movie, that it's already become a cultural touchstone akin to nearly every one of his other films. It's a bygone conclusion that Avatar is a fantastic piece of cinema, but simply leaving it at that is meaningless. At this point, the movie being anything less than stellar would be viewed as a failure on at least some level. Thankfully, the reality is that Avatar is every bit the amazing movie-going experience that the months of hype have suggested. And then some.

The story is deceptively simple. Jake Sully (Sam Worthington) is a paraplegic marine whose been contracted to the alien planet of Pandora. There, he's tasked with operating an avatar, an alien body engineered to be controlled by Jake's brain. His mission is to infiltrate the native population, a race of animalistic, ten foot-tall humanoids called the Na'vi. There, his mission is to convince them to leave their home so that the human colonizers can mine the precious rock underneath. Of course, over time Sully takes a shine to the Na'vi, particularly the chief's daughter, Neytiri (Zoe Saldana).

If this story sounds familiar, that's because it is. Avatar is an amalgam of half a dozen other stories, and spins them all together into something wholly unique. There are shades of Apocalypse Now, Dances with Wolves, The Matrix, and even the Pocahontas/John Smith story in Cameron's tale, and it's a testament to his talents as a storyteller that everything is integrated so seamlessly.

Calling Avatar derivative is no great leap, but criticizing the film for it is to completely ignore the concept of the Monomyth, Joseph Campbell's term for the story that mankind has been retelling ever since the first cave painting. Every story is derivative of some earlier tale in some way, shape or form, and it's the storyteller's duty to pass such stories down through the ages. I'm not simply saying "The Monomyth exists, therefore Avatar must be good." What I'm saying is that the way Cameron distills other tales here, along with some of his own ideas, is inspired, and just because the premise evokes other stories is no basis for criticism.

If I have any criticisms at all it's that, believe it or not, the film feels a bit too short. So much time is given to Sully's exploration of Pandora and the Na'vi culture, that when it comes time for the action to really get going, things become a little rushed. There's still a good payoff at the end, but the climactic battle between the humans and the Na'vi feels about 10 minutes too short. There can't possibly be material cut out of the film. At 162 minutes, it's not like Cameron was worried about the film being too long. What's there is fine; it's great even. I guess I just wanted to see more...

Technically, however, Avatar is a film like no other. CG technology has come a long way since Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings films, and even further since the days of Tron. The world that James Cameron creates is almost tangible in its construction. The forests, the creatures, even the clouds, all of it comes to life through Cameron's lens, and the 3D technology really makes this world pop. It took ten years and countless millions of dollars of development, but all that time and money definitely paid off. Sure, there are moments where the visual effects feel a bit cartoonish, but none of it ever looks phony. The depth of the jungles on Pandora is staggering, and the nighttime scenes are really where the 3D shines.

There really isn't a sour note to be found in this film. The story, such as it is, sweeps you up in its eco-grandiosity (can I say that?) Worthington and Saldana have a lot of chemistry together, and some truly great character moments shine through all the special effects. Sigourney Weaver and Stephen Lang also turn in equally strong performances as Sully's science advisor and commanding officer (respectively). The human element is solid in this film, but the focus is clearly on the Na'vi, and Cameron manages to cull some really unique performances through all the CG and motion-capture.

Only time will tell if Avatar is destined to become a classic, or if it will sag and age the way Titanic has begun to (go watch it again if you don't believe me). For now, though, the film stands as one of the greatest technical achievements in a year littered with outstanding science fiction. Whether time will favor Moon, District 9, or Avatar, what's clear is that James Cameron is one of Hollywood's last remaining sure things.

****1/2 (4.5 stars out of 5)

Review: Princess and The Frog

2009-12-15T17:05:00.004-05:00

All my hopes for hand-drawn 2-D animation hinges on this movie. How do I feel after seeing it? I kinda still have my fingers crossed. It's no secret that I loathe the new 3-D craze. Does every animated movie have to be shown in 3-d? According to movie studios, that's a big whoppin' "YES!". Personally, I think those studio bigwigs should be put out to pasture. However, at least Disney allowed a new 2-D hand-drawn animated film to come along with The Princess and The Frog.

The story is about Tiana (Anika Noni Rose), a waitress who longs to own a restaurant, as was her dead father's dream. She works two jobs to save up the money to buy a place, never having the time to do anything else. At the same time, Prince Naveen (Bruno Campos), is looking for a rich wife, as his parents have cut him off, and he refuses to work. When a Shadow Man (Keith David) hears this, he tricks the prince and his manservant into a deal. Little did they know that it included making the prince a frog and the manservant turning into the prince so that the Shadow Man could get rich off the prince's wishes. Well, Tiana ends up kissing the frog and turning into one herself, so the two frogs go on a wild journey through the bayous to look for an old-lady witch doctor to help them, meeting a few friends and randomly bursting out into song along the way. In Disney fashion, the movie includes a wishing star, an evil magic man, catchy songs, and a happy ending.

So what's wrong with that picture? Well, for one, the songs may be catchy, but they are not memorable. It's one of the same problems that I thought Enchanted had a few years ago. I do not remember the tune to one song in this movie, even though I saw it yesterday. I remember I liked most of them, but I don't remember the words or tunes anymore.

Also, the movie didn't feel Disney enough. As I watched the movie, I felt that it had more in common with the animated version of Anastasia that came out in the late nineties from 20th Century Fox than with Disney. Now, Anastasia was a animated movie TRYING to be a Disney movie. This is a Disney movie trying to be a Disney movie. The Disney of today is not the Disney of fifteen years ago. Today it's all about little girls and tweens. Those are Disney's primary audience outside of Pixar. Fifteen years ago, Disney was for the whole family. This movie is a microcosm of Disney's entire problem. The movie is so girly that I doubt boys will go for it. All the men in the story have large character flaws, whereas all the girls are good. It's almost sexist really. Well, I suppose that at least the princess didn't have to be rescued by the prince... Well, not entirely. Anyways, if Disney wants to make money, they need to go back to being for the whole family.... both genders. Disney Animation needs to look at Pixar for inspiration.

Now I do not mean to say that this is a bad movie. No, in fact I found it to be a good movie. It was entertaining, funny, and whimsical. It was great to see hand-drawn animation again. The story was also an interesting spin on a classic story, as Disney is famous for. The movie may not be another Cinderella, Aladdin, Lion King, or even a Dumbo, but it's not down there with Tarzan, Home On The Range, or Treasure Planet. In other words, it's not a classic nor a masterpiece, but it is a solid, entertaining, warm animated film.

The movie has also been nominated for a Golden Globe for Best Animated Film. I feel that it has a good chance of winning, though I hope that Fantastic Mr. Fox or Up gets it.

I'd put this one on the same par as Peter Pan, Hercules, Alice In Wonderland, and Sword In The Stone. It's not for everyone, but it's another Disney animated film in a long line of them. Therefore, it's automatically remembered and loved by many.

*** 1/2 out of ***** (3 1/2 out of 5)

Review: Invictus

2009-12-15T16:40:00.003-05:00

Everyone who listens to our podcast, knows me, or even reads here (so nobody), knows that I am a HUGE Clint Eastwood fan. I've seen most of what he's directed, and about half of what he's been in. That may not seem fan worthy, but please go look up how many movies the guy has directed or been in. It ain't a small number. With that in mind, let's take a look at his newest attempt at Oscar-bait, Invictus.

The film is about how Nelson Mandela (Morgan Freeman) , the newly elected and released from prison President of South Africa, attempts to bring his country together. After a few months of his country not improving the way he wanted it to, he decides that it's a lack of pride for the most part. He wants the official rugby team of the country to go for the World Cup. Now, this team has been doing terrible, but Mandela has faith in Francois Pienaar (Matt Damon), the team's Captain. He hopes that the world will see a new South Africa, and that the World Cup would bring the two different races of his country together.

People have been waiting for nearly two decades for Morgan Freeman to play Nelson Mandela, based purely on looks. I can now safely say that he does a bang-up job. He was nearly perfect in the role. Even Matt Damon was good, which I was weary about. After the eye-rolling performance that Leonardo DiCaprio did of a South African in Blood Diamond, I was relieved to see a better performance of an American doing the accent and, indeed, the whole role.

The movie did have a few negatives for me. By the end of the movie, it seemed to turn into a generic sports film a bit. I know it IS a sports movie, but one would expect more from Eastwood. His direction of the sport is confusing and without focus. (I hated writing that.) Also, at times the message seemed a bit on-the-nose. There's somewhat a bit of a melodrama vibe in this sport/politic biopic. Perhaps it was intended, but it kind of rubbed me the wrong way when the South African children's chorus started up whenever we were supposed to feel elated. It's fine in other types of movies, but I didn't feel it was really needed here.

Overall the movie was very good, but not one of Eastwood's best. Both of the movies he directed last year were better, in my opinion, mainly in regards to directoral style and story. The acting is better here, however. The movie has been nominated for three Golden Globes (Actor, Supporting Actor, and Director). I hope it wins at least one, preferably the first two.

*** 1/2 out of *****. (3 1/2 out of 5)

Review: Everybody's Fine

2009-12-15T16:10:00.004-05:00

I realize that this review is a few weeks late, but so be it. I've been busy. I actually saw this movie almost two weeks ago now. The movie is about Frank Goode (Robert De Niro), and his attempt to go see all four of his children, since they all canceled on their promise to come visit him after his wife died. Now, the kids were all closer to their mother, as Frank was always one of those fathers that you just didn't tell negative news to. You could never live up to his expectations. Well, Frank goes by train to see his kids, against his doctor's orders due to his heart condition. His first visit is the son he was always worried about, who is an artist, but he's not at home. Whilst visiting the other kids (Sam Rockwell, Drew Barrymore, Kate Beckinsale), he notices that things are not as fine with his kids as he was led to believe, and that especially goes for the son that wasn't home. The other kids are hiding what is going on with him from Frank.

Now from that bad plot synopsis, the movie may sound shmaltzy, dull, and overdone. I'm sure quite a few people will say it is, actually. I, on the other hand, see this movie as a melodrama. We're supposed to get so worked up by the end of the movie that the tears start flowing. (It actually almost happened to me!) A lot of people don't like soundtracks and very obvious plot points pushing their emotion buttons. I, on the other hand, don't care, because that's what melodramas are supposed to do, and that's how they do it. It's how they've ALWAYS done it. Of course, it didn't help that the trailers made people think this was some sort of comedy...

De Niro may have been a bit miscast here, but you need a big star to get anything greenlit these days. I was fine with the choice, but I guess Alan Arkin could have done just as well. I don't think we needed the medium-grade stars we got for the grown-up kids either. It made them feel underused; especially Sam Rockwell, who's such a versatile actor, and always so underused.

I wish this movie had done better. It was a good melodrama, yet the highest it got box office-wise was #10. People would rather see Old Dogs I guess. I'm also gonna blame the fact that this is based on a well-liked Italian movie that came out a full nineteen years ago. If it had been sooner, perhaps it would have done better. Who knows.

The film has been nominated for one Golden Globe. (Best Song, I Want To Come Home) I would say find this on DVD or Blu when it comes out. It's worth seeing at least once.

*** 1/2 out of ***** (3 1/2 out of 5)

Tonight! - Front Row Center Podcast, Ep. 65

2009-12-02T14:38:00.001-05:00

Front Row Center is going live once again tonight, at 9PM (Eastern). Click here to visit our show page.

This week's podcast promises to be an interesting one for a couple of reasons.

A) We have oh-so many things to discuss that we didn't get to cover last time. These include the ginormous box-office take of The Twilight Saga: New Moon, and...um... Actually, that might've been it.

B) We've only got one movie to discuss this week. Old Dogs. That should be fun...

C) We've got other fun news tidbits to discuss this week, including the release of the Iron Man 2 teaser poster (hey, I didn't say it was big news), as well as the nominees for this year's Independent Spirit Awards.

In other words, we're probably just going to wing it tonight. Those always make for the best episodes, I say!

Into The Vault: The Devil's Backbone

2009-11-20T20:53:00.005-05:00

Before there was Pan's Labyrinth, before Hellboy I or II... before any talk of the Hobbit movies, there was simply a Mexican director who had made a cool Hollywood movie and one independent film called Cronos.

The movie is about an orphaned boy who is left at an underfunded orphanage during the Spanish Civil War. The life there is pretty brutal, between the teasing, the violent handyman, the many secrets hidden by the other people, an unexploded bomb in the courtyard, and a creepy ghostly figure that shows up from time to time. We know from the beginning of the movie that a kid died in the orphanage, and that this is who the specter is of. The question is why is he haunting the place.

Yet the movie is not just about ghosts as a literal interpretation. A ghost, as the narrator eludes, is simply a secret. This movie is full of secrets too. Every single character seems to have one, and all the plots are brought together in the end. This was done to the same effect in Pan's Labyrinth, which was the spiritual sequel to this movie.

The movie does not have a set genre. It's not a horror movie, as the American DVD distributors like to make you think it is. At least it's not in the usual way. Horrible things happen in this movie. Yet the movie is also a western, a war movie, and a boy's adventure story. Del Toro even mentions in one of the commentaries that it's his "Mario Bava western." Mario Bava was an Italian director known for his stylish horror and giallo films, and Del Toro is a big fan. I love that this movie isn't set to a specific genre. It keeps you guessing, and sets up for some amazing left turns.

I think my favorite aspect of the movie is how there's a sense of somberness throughout the whole movie. No one is happy in this thing. The orphanage is in the middle of nowhere and is falling apart. It's a very creepy place, even in the daytime. The owner of the orphanage is despondent and is sleeping with the handyman out of self-pity. The handyman is sleeping with her to find where she keeps some gold, so he can steal it. At the same time, he also has a girlfriend who knows nothing of the affair. I'm still trying to get my head around how Guillermo Del Toro fit all of this stuff into one movie and ended up with it being fantastic!

It's a shame people don't know more about this film. It's a true work of art and just as good as Pan's Labyrinth. If you take out the fantasy elements of that movie, and replace it with gothic horror, you'd have a good idea of what to expect. It's ruthless, sad and very romantic (stylistically, not lovey-dovey) yet is not altogether a downer. There's some hope in there too. It's really a shame that this movie didn't get a surge of popularity with the release of the popular Pan's Labyrinth and Hellboy II. It truly is Del Toro's best film so far.

Tonight! - Front Row Center Podcast, Ep. 64

2009-11-18T17:14:00.001-05:00

I figure what with this whole blog here and everything, I might as well plug our biweekly podcast!

For those of you who don't know, we host a podcast every two weeks (or three, in this week's case) where we review the movie's we've seen, have some heated discussions about said movies, and even chatter on about recent movie news. It's kind of an all-inclusive podcast, but we try to keep things current.

We record each podcast live on TalkShoe.com, and one of the perks is that you, the audience, can listen in live and talk to us in the chatroom during the show. How awesome is that? I mean, TalkShoe's been around for years, but I still think it's pretty cool...

Anyway, this week we'll be reviewing 2012, The Men Who Stare at Goats, A Christmas Carol, and The Box. We'll also be doing a once-over on some of the most recent movie news.

If you'd like to join us, we'll be starting our show at 9PM (Eastern). I'll try and post an update the day of the podcast from now on, just as a reminder.

Follow this link to our show page.

2012

2009-11-16T02:04:00.001-05:00

People seem to be completely torn on the merits (or lack thereof) of Roland Emmerich's latest film, 2012. There are those who say the film is simply a tragic miscalculation on the level of Transformers 2. Their argument is, in a nutshell, that the film is completely devoid of merit, that there's nothing to enjoy, and that it's a complete waste of celluloid. Then, there are the more level-headed viewers such as Roger Ebert and myself, who acknowledge that the film isn't without it's faults, but that there's so much spectacle on display that it's hard not to find something, anything, to enjoy here.

The film is a portmanteau of sorts of half a dozen other disaster films. When scientists discover that solar radiation is heating up the Earth's core, Adrian Helmsley (Chiwetel Ejiofor) takes it upon himself to enact a three-year plan to preserve humanity. John Cusack plays Jackson Curtis, a virtually unknown author who acts as our everyman. When it starts hitting the fan, Curtis and his family flee an earthquake in Los Angeles to Yellowstone National Park. When Yellowstone explodes, they take a plane to Las Vegas, where they get a connecting flight to China, where the world's governments have been building giant arks in which to survive the coming tsunamis.

This is the plot in its simplest form. I'm ignoring about three dozen other primary and secondary characters, as well as two or three big action sequences. Not that they're not important, but... Actually, parts of this movie are pretty unimportant. The most damning thing I can say about 2012 is that this really is not a tight script. Emmerich seems bound and determined to borrow wholesale scenes from The Poseidon Adventure, Volcano, Earthquake, and even his own The Day After Tomorrow. If he wanted this to be the disaster flick to end all disaster flick, he definitely swung for the fences. However, certain characters add little to the proceedings, such as Oliver Platt's chief science advisor, who acts as the film's de facto villain. Being the antagonist isn't really the problem, but rather that his character arc fizzles out so thoroughly by film's end.

At 160 minutes, 2012 is definitely a long film with a relatively thin plot. However, what the film lacks in narratve efficiency, it more than makes up for in sheer spectacle. As stated above, there are at least six big action sequences in the film, and the best of these is easily the explosion of the Yellowstone caldera. The resulting mushroom cloud and raining fireballs is definitely a sight to behold, and seeing John Cusack running for dear life is popcorn entertainment at its finest. What sets this apart from obnoxious crap like Transformers 2 is that A) the action is easy to follow, and B) while it is dumb, it never attempts to insult its audience's intelligence.

And despite the relatively poor script, the cast acquits itself nicely. Ejiofor and Cusack come off the best here, the former getting the bulk of the big hero speeches. It seems sort of antithetical to cast an actor of John Cusack's calibur for a film that mostly just requires him to run away and look frightened, but 1408 proved the man can handle genre as well as he can handle drama. Oscar-worthy it ain't, but he does his best with the material Emmerich tosses at him. Danny Glover, Woody Harrelson, and George Segal are among the dozens of other actors relegated to the film's sidelines, but make good use of their limited screen time (Harrelson in particular).

Somewhere in this preposterous soup are mixed in themes of morality, humanity, the preservation of culture and all that jazz. It's almost standard issue for this kind of end-of-the-world flick, but its presence never gets overplayed. We see the Mona Lisa being put into a vault and replaced with a reproduction, supposedly for safe keeping for after the end comes. I understand why, but it's a theme which is brought up only once more, over two hours later. It really only serves to pad the running time, and it's just not really necessary.

If you've made it this far, you've probably gathered that I'm giving this film a pass. But why? It's not a great piece of cinema, destined to win a dozen Oscars. It's the popcorn flick in its purest of forms. The spectacle has been amplified ten-fold, with every dollar of its $225 million budget on full display. If you don't get a visceral thrill (or chill, your choice) watching the USS John F. Kennedy riding a tsunami wave into the White House, among other things, then you're clearly not the audience for this kind of movie, and you probably shouldn't be watching it in the first place.

The rest of us acknowledge that 2012 is an action flick from the master of the genre (faint praise though it may be) capitalizing on popular end-of-days myths, and we put down our $9 knowing full well what we're getting. 2012 delivers precisely what it advertises, and I enjoyed every moment of it. Mind you, I enjoyed it on the basest of levels, but I enjoyed it nonetheless. If you ARE planning on seeing this, see it in theaters. It might still be enjoyable on DVD, but to get the full effect, you really need to see it on the big screen.

3.5 / 5

The Box

2009-11-08T15:00:00.003-05:00

People, I must say I am very, very surprised. A little movie that I thought would be woefully lacking ended up being one of my favorite movies of the year so far. The Box is actually a whole lot of preposterous fun.

The basic plot of the movie is thus. There's a couple (Cameron Diaz and James Marsden) with an adolescent son (Sam Oz Stone) in Richmond, VA in 1976 that has fallen into money trouble after the mother loses the tuition waver for her son to go to school, and dad doesn't get the promotion he was so betting on. Well, Frank Langella shows up at the door one day with a box contraption in his hands, a briefcase of money and a badly burned face. He tells the couple (well, the mother since Marsden isn't home at the time) that he has a proposal to make. They take the box, and if they push the button on it they will get 1 million dollars, tax free. Somewhere, someone they don't know will die. Don't push the button, and nothing will happen, and they don't get the money. (He gives them 100 bucks just for allowing him in though.) He tells them they have 24 hours to make a decision. To make a long story short, the button ends up being pushed, and the effects are larger than anything you could imagine.

The most interesting part for me was that the movie was set in Richmond. I didn't know this before I went to see it. I saw the movie while in Richmond too. It's evident they filmed it there, as what few landmarks they have are in the movie... at least the ones they had in 1976. That's another thing I liked. I love movies that are set in some recently past time. Movies set in the present are rendered uninteresting when everything can be solved using the internet or a cell phone. Richard Kelly has set a movie in the recent past before. Donnie Darko was set in the mid 1980s, and it gave that movie a feel that you couldn't have if it was set in the present. It made things more interesting. The same can be said here. I think setting a movie in the past like this throws the audience. Things are familiar, but at the same time very different. It can create an odd sense of mystery or dread, and I must say I have no idea why it does.

The film is much more complex than the trailer or plot summary would make one think. It's definitely a wild ride from start to finish. Does everything make sense? It seemed to for the most part, but I'm sure when I watch it again, I will notice a few plot holes. The movie is just under two hours, but had a rough cut of three hours. I think it'd be interesting to view that full cut one day, and I hope I can. I'm already willing to call this movie one of the best of the year, so I can't imagine the director's cut making me think otherwise.

I wasn't ready for the movie to be as creepy as it was, which I should have been, as I found Donnie Darko to be a bit creepy too. It's obvious that Kelly stole something from the '78 version of Invasion of The Body Snatchers, because there are scenes where people in the film will just stare at the main characters or just randomly start to follow them with blank expressions. Now it may sound like I'm just gushing over this movie, but it did have it's faults. I couldn't connect with the main characters because they acted like they were having all this financial trouble, and were worried about how they would live their life. Sounds reasonable, considering the circumstances right? Not when you count that Marsden works for NASA, Diaz works for a private school, they live in a nice house in downtown Richmond (which is not cheap even in '76), and Marsden drives a nice Corvette. Heck, that's better than I'll probably EVER do. I just can't believe that, sorry.

The movie worked in a lot of philosophical ideas that were very interesting as well. John Paul Sartre is brought up quite a few times in the movie. I propose that anyone interested in philosophy go see this, as in that context it's perhaps even MORE interesting. I think this movie is better than both of Kelly's other films, (not a hard thing with Southland Tales), and I am eager to see where he goes from here.

Is the movie preposterous? Yes. But damned if it isn't interesting and fun as hell. I tell you, a movie hasn't had me as engrossed this year since Knowing, which had the same creepy mysterious feel as this. I heartily recommend this.

**** out of *****

Review: Astro Boy

2009-10-26T14:22:00.002-04:00

For what it's worth, I know next to nothing about the Astro Boy franchise. I've never read the manga, I've never seen the anime. I am, for all intents and purposes, an Astro Greenhorn. I wandered into this movie expecting very little. Imagi Studios' previous film, TMNT, was one of the most fun film experience I've had in recent years, and so I at least expected this film to be somewhat entertaining. And for the most part, I got what I asked for. Astro Boy is a film that really doesn't have too much to offer, but what it lacks in diversity, it more than makes up for in good vibes and sheer spectacle.

The film begins with a nicely-stylized vision of the future, Metro City an island of technology floating high above the junkyard known as Earth. The city's president (Donald Sutherland) initiates a test of his newest weapon, the Peacekeeper. In a first-act twist that can only be described as completely depressing, the head scientist's son Toby (Freddie Highmore) gets caught in the Peacekeeper's path and is promptly vaporized. Out of despair, the scientist (Nicolas Cage) builds a robotic replica of his son out of dud missles and hair folicles. Powered by a mysterious blue energy called Positive Energy (Negative energy is red, make of that what you will), the robot (henceforth known as Astro) awakens with no memory of his recent, gruesome death.

The bulk of the film follows Astro as he casts himself out of Metro City and into the wilderness. Out there, he meets a series of strange characters, including a comically inept band of communist robots (seriously, they have posters of Lenin and Trotsky in their hideout). Astro also meets a group of kids who took a wrong turn on their way to Neverland and Geppeto's maniacal little brother. Here, he learns the value of family and compassion and all the things that they usually try to teach kids in films like this.

The film borrows themes and plot points from Frankenstein, the writings of Immanuel Kant and René Descartes, Iron Man, The Matrix, and several other sources that I'm almost positive I missed. I appreciate that the filmmakers didn't shove references to any of the above down my throat, instead allowing me to identify them at my own leisure. What's more, I like that they introduced philosophical ideas like "I think, therefore I am" in a kids movie like this. With the film's underlying message that knowledge and learning is a virtue, it's at least sending kids the right message about learning.

While the film is relatively by-the-numbers, I nevertheless had a fun time watching some above-average animation of robots fighting robots. That's really all I asked for anyway. Chances are slim that this film will garner a sequel (given it's paltry $7 mil box office take), but I'd like to see more of this universe.

***1/2 (3.5 out of 5)

Into the Vault: Godzilla Final Wars

2009-10-23T16:35:00.002-04:00

In his 55 year history, Godzilla has appeared in no less than 28 feature films (not counting the Roland Emmerich film). Out of those 28 films, the general consensus is that the original, Gojira, is still the best of the bunch. So why wouldn't I nominate that film for inclusion? The simple answer is that it doesn't fit the spirit of The Vault. Gojira is more at home on a list of the most influential or popular films of all time. The Vault is more about great films that, for whatever reason, are underappreciated. Who doesn't know/love/appreciate the first Godzilla film?

Thus, I present to you Godzilla: Final Wars.

The most recent in Toho's Godzilla canon can best be described as a loving tribute to all things science fiction. On top of being a kaiju monster flick, Final Wars features aliens, mutant soldiers, spaceships, airships, lasers, zombie mutant soldiers (not flesh eaters), asteroids, explosions, wire-fu, CGI, rubber monster suits, UFC champion Don Frye, and more!

But I'm getting ahead of myself. So what's the story here? To put it simply, monster attacks have broken out all over the planet, and a race of aliens arrives on Earth to vanquish the monsters. Soon thereafter, humans and aliens have created an alliance between the two worlds. Soon thereafter, the aliens proceed to re-release the monsters, newly brainwashed, to wreak havoc the world over. It's up to an elite force of mutant soldiers (specifically engineered to battle monsters) and the most badass of American generals to stop the monsters and the aliens at all costs. Their plan: release Godzilla from hibernation to...well...destroy all monsters..

Yes, it is silly. Yes, it is ridiculous. And yes, it borders on incoherent. But I posit that Godzilla: Final Wars is a love letter to the last fifty years of action cinema, and director Ryuhei Kitamura set out to make the zaniest, most entertaining action film he possibly could. There's wire-fu fistfights that directly pay homage to The Matrix. Fighter jets fly into alien motherships a la Return of the Jedi. Hell, the aliens are referred to as X-Men. This is all on purpose, and it's not being done as parody. As much as this is film is an homage to Godzilla's legacy, it's also the kind of over-the-top action flick that they just don't seem to make anymore.

Of course, this is first and foremost a creature feature. No less than fifteen monsters make appearances in Final Wars, and several others are shown during the closing credits. Some of Toho's most famous creations, as well as a few that haven't been seen in decades, turn up for one more battle. Even the American Godzilla (referred to here as simply 'Zilla') makes an appearance, and it's easily one of the best scenes in the entire film. These monster battles are as goofy and charming as they've ever been, but true to Toho's Millennium series of films, the battles in this film feature some pretty stellar effects work.

In the end, you may prefer other Godzilla films to Final Wars, but you can't deny this film's go-for-broke attitude. It's so infectiously entertaining that I say it's a shame more people don't know about and absolutely adore Godzilla: Final Wars. If this truly is to be the last Godzilla film (though probably not), I can't think of a better way to go out than on top of a pile of defeated monsters.

Review: Where The Wild Things Are

2009-10-21T18:13:00.004-04:00

...and that's the expression that parents and some critics thought would be on the kids' faces whilst watching this film. I went to a showing of the film that was positively brimming with kids with their parents. No kid left the theater crying, but they weren't positively elated either. To be honest, I didn't have either of those reactions either.

This movie was originally supposed to be released last year, but after some test screenings involving kids running out of the theater or some such rumpus, Warner Bros had director Spike Jonze (Being John Malkovich, Adaptation) reshoot some things. After a huge marketing blitz starting back in July or so, the movie has finally come out. It cost $80 million dollars to make, not to mention the amount of money they have spent on marketing the thing. Was it worth it?

Let's get this out front. I'm very glad this movie was made. It was one of my favorite books as a kindergartener/first grader. To have this and Cloudy With A Chance of Meatballs released in the same year as movies should have made this year fantastic for me. Well, Chance of Meatballs just stole the name of the book, not the full plot. Where The Wild Things Are went the other way. It took the minimal plot of the book and ran with it. The book was about a boy sent to bed without dinner. In his room, whilst pouting, the kid dreamed up this imaginary land where he became king of the wild things until he got homesick. The movie sticks to that, but instead of going to his room, Max (Max Records) runs away from home due to his mom (Katherine Keener) bringing home a guy (Mark Ruffalo). No one seems to understand him, so he goes and becomes king of group of emo creatures... How...fun?

This movie has thus far been a love it or hate it movie with viewers. Most of the hate comes from people who are made simply for that fact that hipsters like the movie and other people do as well. For evidence of this, simply go to the movie's message board on IMDB. On the other hand, a lot of people are praising it, and giving it the best review possible. These people are mainly hipsters and fans of the original book who were predisposed to give the movie a glowing recommendation. Now, sure, some people of both persuasions do have their points, I'm sure. I just haven't seen any.

I thought the movie was good. I didn't think it was great. In fact, it's my least favorite Spike Jonze movie so far. He's only done three of them. His cinematography here just isn't up to par with the beauty of Being John Malkovich (the chase scene through Malkovich's mind) and not to the zaniness of Adaptation (the birth of the world sequence). Now I do understand he had to keep this somewhat kid friendly and understandable... but at the expense of experimentation? Not to say the movie isn't experimental at all. In fact, I sat there wondering what the kids would think of the first 20 minutes of the movie. The first twenty minutes is Max going through many many emotions throughout a lonely day at home. It's not quite montage, the camera work is eratic, and it's kinda confusing. It was a brilliant 20 minutes of acting from Max Records, but also a great emotional journey though. It's pretty telling when a snow fort being trampled and going from laughing to crying in under five seconds almost brings a tear to your eye. It's hard to bring an audience reaction like that from a few seconds of film.

The constant changing and rawness of emotions throughout the whole movie is also the film's downfall. It leaves you just DRAINED after the movie. You have nothing left. This perhaps explains the sheer silence after the movie was over. No one said it sucked, no one said they loved it. People just left. Even the little kids were silent.

As to the potential scariness of the film, all I have to say is over-analyzed. I saw nothing in this film that would scare a child over 7 or 8. The movie is PG, which means that should be about the starting age to watch the movie with a parent without the parent having seen it first, I suppose. There are far scarier PG films out there. Anyone seen Return To Oz? Now THAT will give an eight year old nightmares... I know from personal experience. Now for a little soapbox moment... Parents, just chill okay? Kids can handle things more than you think. I saw Jurassic Park for my eighth birthday. It didn't negatively affect me, and this is miles more tame than that movie.

The movie was about what I thought it would be. It featured great acting from Max Records, who should have a promising career from here out. It was a heartfelt adaptation of the book, sticking to theme, plot, and feel. It was a bit too long, and a bit too heady for the average viewer. It seemed to be tailor made to hipsters, the Hot Topic shoppers, and film critics. It was a very good adaptation... One of the best I've seen of a book, but it was not the second coming of the mythical Film Genie either. We all still wait for that.

***1/2 out of *****, and that ain't bad.

Zombieland

2009-10-08T18:16:00.004-04:00

Alright, to kick off our triumphant return to Blogspot, I shall review what is so far, I believe, the best movie of the year. (Not that it had to try very hard.) That movie is...

Zombieland! What's so great about just another zombie comedy? Zombies getting dismembered by theme park rides, the search for the last Twinkie, it's a road trip, it's better than anything else out. Yeah, I'm sure there are tons more reasons for different people too. I wasn't honestly expecting the movie to be that great when I went in to see it. I had not looked at critical reviews, had not listened to what my friends had thought... I just went. By God am I glad I did too! Quick rundown? Sure, why not...

So Jessie Eisenberg of Adventureland fame, (two amusement park movies in a year for him. Hmmm.) is one of the last survivors of the zombie apocalypse it seems. He's done so well by strictly adhering to a set of rules he's devised ranging from making sure a zombie is dead by killing it twice (the double tap), to fastening your seatbelt. He finds out he's not alone when along comes Woody Harrelson playing... well... Woody Harrelson really. They end up traveling together, with Woody searching for Twinkies and Eisenberg trying to get to Columbus. They meet two girls played by Emma Stone and Abigail Breslin, who, to put it mildly, are a bit apprehensive of the guys. The girls are trying to get to an amusement park, where they think there are no zombies. Along the way they get to know each other better.

Yeah, the plot is pretty much a zombie version of National Lampoon's Vacation if you think about it. Four people who don't get along very well go cross country to find a theme park that's disappointing once they get there.
"Sorry folks, the park's closed. The zombie out front should have told ya."

Now, the movie isn't a great cinematic achievement or anything like that. It won't change the face of cinema. (Although, sadly, I think it has officially killed the zombie film as a horror movie.) If it had come out before Shaun of the Dead, then maybe, but it didn't. Speaking of Shaun of The Dead, I think this movie is more mainstream, more fun and punchier than that one. Shaun was more lip service to fanboys of Spaced and horror films. This is just plain old disgusting fun. No great revelations or classic movie homages here. Instead we have heavy metal meets Adventureland meets Dawn of The Dead (remake) meets Bonnie and Clyde. Those won't go together normally, but they do here.

The movie is the most fun movie of the year, so you all should go see it... NOW! I'm even going to go see it a second time. But don't forget to fasten your seatbelt (rule # 4), check the back seat (rule #31), and... go to the bathroom BEFORE you go see it because you need to beware the bathrooms (rule #3).

***** out of *****. Fan-bloody-tastic!

Moving Back In!

2009-10-02T17:07:00.000-04:00

After an interesting summer playing with all the toys over at Webs.com (and after picking up a couple more writers), Front Row Center has decided to move back to our blog here. Nothing against Webs.com, but maintaining the site got to be kind of a chore, and with time at a premium these days, simplicity is king.
So over the next couple weeks, you'll be seeing new reviews, articles, and all kinds of fun stuff. We'll even be porting over as many of the blog posts from our Webs.com site as we can, so if you're new to Front Row Center, you can catch up on everything you missed at our other site.

If you ARE new to Front Row Center, then welcome! We're looking forward to informing and entertaining you about the big, wacky world of movies!

Review: Surrogates

2009-09-27T22:22:00.001-04:00

There's a certain kind of excitement that washes over me whenever I read about a sci-fi movie which deals in a particularly heady subject. For me, good, well thought out sci-fi is one of the best things in the world. The worlds they present, the questions they pose, the conversations they spark; well-made science fiction can get my friends and I to argue and discuss and think about life's smallest issues as well as its grandest controversies. At the same time, there's a certain kind of disappointment when a film with such promise squanders all of its potential. Jonathan Mostow's Surrogates is just such a film.

The film presents a near-future in which 99 percent of the world's population (think on THAT one for a few minutes) operate robotic avatars from the safety of their own homes. The robots look like flawless humans; physically superior versions of our fragile, ugly selves. When the son of the surrogates' inventor is murdered through his surrogate, detective Tom Greer (Bruce Willis) is called on to find the killer. Have I killed your interest yet? Because this is precisely where I started tuning out. Such a fantastic concept is given a backseat to a standard, run-of-the-mill murder mystery.

This wouldn't be such a big problem if the murder mystery weren't so completely labyrinthine. In any other movie, it would be fairly straightforward. With the presence of surrogates that anyone can swap out at any time, it becomes increasingly difficult to keep track which person is controlling which robot. And then when you throw in red herrings and other typical murder mystery cliches, it all makes Surrogates more complicated than it needs to be, and less interesting than it ought to be. Add to this the fact that the because movie isn't even 90 minutes long, there's little time for the movie to settle into any kind of rhythm, let alone explain itself clearly.

For what it's worth, the practical and CG effects for the actual surrogates is pretty top-notch. In his robot form, Bruce Willis looks younger than he has in decades, which admittedly was the point, but it's offset by a hairpiece that's pretty laughable. Other actors and their robo-selves come off better though (Rosamund Pike in particular), and on a purely basic level, the concept works.

Surrogates probably would've played better during the summer months where audiences might have been more willing to shut their brains off and enjoy the ride. As it stands, the movie washes over you and seems to dare you to try and analyze it. Instead, it squanders its massive potential in favor of exploring territory that was already effectively mined in I, Robot. It's not really a bad film, but it could have been so much more. In some ways, I think that makes Surrogates even worse.

2 ( ) stars out of five.

Review: G.I. JOE - The Rise of Cobra

2009-09-09T22:36:00.001-04:00

Simply for reference, I'm going to link you to my review of Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, because these are essentially the same movie.

Almost every complaint that I leveled at Transformers 2 can reasonably be applied to G.I. JOE - The Rise of Cobra. It's loud, it's flashy, it's grade-A stupidity, and there are too many plot threads going on at once. However, these two films differ on two key elements: Stephen Sommers' G.I. JOE at least attempts to make something resembling sense, and it never forgets to include that most crucial of summer blockbuster elements. Fun.

The Rise of Cobra is a simple enough story. US soldiers Duke (Channing Tatum) and Ripcord (Marlon Wayans) are attached to a unit transporting a case of biomechanical warheads. The unit is attacked by super-armed terrorists Anna (Sienna Miller) and Storm Shadow (Byung-hun Lee), who are then thwarted by G.I JOE, an international super squad. Duke and Ripcord tag along back to the G.I. JOE base, where they're integrated into the team. From there, it becomes a long episode of the cartoon, complete with the Cobra terrorists stealing the warheads, attacking Paris, and G.I. JOE striking back.

In between the obligatory plot points, we're shown a lot of cool gadgets, no end of villainous posturing (by Christopher Eccleston and Joseph Gordon-Levitt, of all people), and several good gags along the way. It should be noted that G.I. JOE is by no means a good film. There's no question that it's exactly the same kind of lowest-common-denominator filmmaking that made Transformers 2 such a ridiculously huge hit a month ago. As the lead actor, Channing Tatum sucks all the energy out of any scene he's in which, as it turns out, is most of them. To balance him out, though, is a mostly well-chosen cast of Joes and Cobras to keep the film moving. In fact, the amazing thing about the movie is how Tatum is the only one underplaying his role, when all around him are actors hamming it up. It's almost as though Stephen Sommers forgot to tell him he was starring in a live-action cartoon.

Walking in, I had a pretty solid idea of what I was in for. I knew I was sort of in for a repeat of Transformers 2. For the first five minutes or so, that's what I got. There was even a certain point early on where I completely zoned out and started thinking about something else entirely. Thankfully, once the action started, I was surprised at how easy most of it was to follow. While still chaotic and generally silly, there was never any confusion about what was going on. Then I got to know the characters, and I was pleased to see that the film isn't nearly as far removed from the 1980s cartoon as I was expecting.

Of course, for every interesting turn, there are a couple that are completely unnecessary. The car chase through Paris is fun, but drags on for far too long. Just about every major character has a character-building flashback (Storm Shadow has at least three), which give us details that were alluded to more fluently in previous scenes. These scenes seem engineered to keep the less astute viewers up to speed, but to the keen eye they just feel tedious.

I suppose that I enjoyed G.I. JOE at all stems from the fact that my expectation was very, very low. Of course, my expectation for Transformers 2 was equally low, if not lower, and I ended up hating that film. So where's the disconnect? Perhaps it's the fact that this film isn't nearly as in-your-face obnoxious. Perhaps it's because there are no mind-bogglingly stupid gaps in logic (not that it's air-tight or anything).

For whatever reason, I actually had a good time with G.I. JOE - The Rise of Cobra. Granted, this isn't the kind of film I'll be revisiting any time soon, but for what it is, it's exactly the kind of fun that this summer has been sorely missing. If you don't expect too much out of the film, it's surprisingly fun. I realize that's faint praise, but that's exactly the kind of film this is. Light, fun, and not too awful.

I'm giving this one 3 stars ( ) out of five.

In Defense of Exorcist II: The Heretic

2009-09-02T23:39:00.002-04:00

I’m not here to claim that John Boorman’s Exorcist II: The Heretic is a great movie that should be canonized, but I am here to try and help out a movie that undeservedly gets thrown on lists of “the worst films ever!” The movie definitely has its problems, but the biggest problem with it isn’t even intrinsic to this film itself: John Boorman created a sequel to The Exorcist that isn’t really a horror movie. It’s more like science-fantasy cum suspense, which I will get into later. Boorman had not been a fan of the first film; he turned down an offer to direct it on the grounds that he was raising two daughters and didn’t want to do a film focused around the sadistic torture of a young girl. As such, when he saw a script treatment for a proposed sequel that was more about internal spiritual conflict, Boorman was eager to make a film that was decidedly more positive. The end result was far from what audiences wanted, and Boorman himself became more of a heretic than any of the characters in his film.

So what, then, is it about this movie that makes it so different? The first film was essentially about a spiritual conflict as well. However, it is the approach of William Friedkin and William Peter Blatty as compared to that of Boorman in which the key is found. Friedkin and Blatty relish in making the spiritual conflict as physical as possible with the demon and priest relentlessly duking it out through the body of Regan MacNeil. On the other hand, Boorman moves the spiritual conflict primarily inside the character of Father Philip Lamont.

Granted, the demon is found still to be lurking inside of Regan, waiting to wreak more havoc, but the conflict is never really racked upon her body. Instead, it is done telepathically and mentally amongst Father Lamont, Regan, and the demon. There is also an additional manner of spiritual conflict in this film, as Regan has been seeing a therapist who uses cutting edge technology to try and help her after what she dealt with all those years before (she’s in high school in this film). Whereas the priest is willing to incorporate a device that allows telepathic communication into his spiritual world, the therapist is highly reluctant to allow any spirituality into her science. Overall, I would say the greatest difference between the first and second Exorcist films is the maturity of the directors. Friedkin wanted to make his film as grotesque as he could (not that I have anything against gore in films whatsoever), whereas Boorman wanted to make his film more of a meditation on metaphysical spirituality. This huge gap in tone inevitably created the audience backlash that has it ranked as one of the worst films ever.

Of course, other problems in the film didn’t help its case at all. For one, the aforementioned device that allows telepathy between its two users is never really explained. Granted, in horror and fantasy films it is commonplace for weird things to work a particular way on the simple grounds that they are fantastic, but this device is introduced with a name that screams “science!” but is given no explanation whatsoever as to its scientific basis. Heck, it didn’t need to be good science in any way explaining how it works, but any explanation would have made it seem more like a device that was the result of research rather than magic. On top of this is Linda Blair’s acting, which isn’t particularly bad, but I would have to say she is the weakest among the main characters. I understand the desire to cast her again as Regan MacNeil, but the film could have been just that much better if a casting call had been put out to find someone of the same caliber as the other leads in the film, which includes Richard Burton (Lamont) and James Earl Jones. The other big sticking point for me in this film was why Sharon, Regan’s caretaker, lit herself on fire near the end of the film. I got it that she must be giving up on hope and this was meant to foil Lamont’s tenacity against the demon, but I still didn’t really understand why she was giving up. If there had been more set up towards her despair at possibly losing Regan again, I would have understood, but she seemed stable up until that scene.

That all said, I still stand by the fact that this is a good film, just not a great one, and if you can get past its weaker parts and the fact that it is incredibly unlike the first film, you should be able to find an interesting study of man’s spiritual relationship with good, evil, mankind, and science. I can understand why the film made fans of the first film so incredibly angry, as it is more of an anti-sequel due to Boorman’s reservations about the first. But when it comes to the worst films ever made, I find it impossible to include a film such as this, in which a talented director set out with specific, intelligent intentions of discourse. Such a list I could understand including, say, Michael Bay’s Pearl Harbor, which is nothing but a self-aggrandizing schlockfest and poor attempt by a self-righteous hack to make his own version of James Cameron’s seminal Titanic. But in no way is Exorcist II offensive to the cinematic palate as truly terrible films are, and as such people should perhaps reevaluate on what conditions they judge a film terrible, other than it not meeting expectations of a franchise or genre.

Blu-Ray Review: Hot Fuzz

2009-08-27T22:32:00.004-04:00

Officially, Edgar Wright's brilliant Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz aren't slated to hit Blu-Ray shelves in the US until late September. Best Buy, however, has released the two a full month early. Days ago, I scoured the internet looking for any kind of review, but all I could find were useless user reviews on Amazon.com. Thanks, guys, I know all about the movie itself. What about the features? The digital transfer? THAT is what I'm here to give you today.

If you're not familiar with Hot Fuzz, you're missing out on one of the best comedies of the decade, and one of the most well-executed parodies ever made. It's your basic fish-out-of-water plot. Nicolas Angel (Simon Pegg) is a London supercop who's so good at his job that the higher-ups transfer him to a small village to keep him from putting everyone out of a job. From the moment he arrives in Sanford, Angel begins investigating a series of murders with his new partner (Nick Frost), and the two end up arresting or killing half the town.

The plot itself is deceptively simple, but the devil is in the details. The movie flirts with half a dozen film genres, and pulls off each one with ease. It's a buddy comedy, it's a slasher flick, it's a murder mystery, it's an over-the-top action movie, etc. Of course, if the movie is parodying anything in particuler, it's the Tony Scott/Michael Bay-style action flick. Edgar Wright admittedly loves movies like Bad Boys II, and that love is apparent in every scene. Just like with Shaun of the Dead, it's to Wright's credit that Hot Fuzz is just as good a cop movie as it is a comedy.

This is a film that works infinitely better on DVD than it did in theaters. On the big screen, you're simply overwhelmed by the ridiculous spectacle of it all. At home, you can take full advantage of the pause and rewind functions to catch jokes you might have missed or watch your favorites again. What I love about Hot Fuzz is that with each viewing, I either catch a visual gag I missed the last time, or a whole series of one-liners and references that hadn't occurred to me until now.

So how's the blu-ray? In a word, great. The film already has that desaturated, high contrast cop-movie feel to it, and the 1080p transfer really looks crisp, bringing out the occasional flourish of color quite nicely. I can't say it's a reference quality transfer, as the difference between this and the standard DVD isn't too noticeable. But considering Hot Fuzz didn't have much of a budget (about $13 million) anyway, this is as good as it's ever going to look.

Then there are the features. Every single special feature from the 3-disc standard DVD is present here. No less than five audio commentaries, production diaries, trailers, deleted scenes, outtakes, storyboards, interviews, it's all here. Even Edgar Wright's hilarious student film Dead Right is included, with it's own commentary no less. Also, as is the custom with blu-ray discs, there are some interesting "U-Control" features as well. At $20, If you've somehow held out this long on Hot Fuzz, you'll definitely be getting your money's worth and then some with this blu-ray. I can only assume the Shaun of the Dead blu-ray received equal treatment, and I sincerely hope it did, because this disc is exceptionally put together.

THE MOVIE: 8/10 - Hot Fuzz is equally hilarious and thrilling, and proves Edgar Wright to be the Quentin Tarantino of comedies. Wright knows his action movies inside and out, and directs Hot Fuzz like he's been doing it for decades. Truly great parodies are few and far between. This is Wright's second great parody in a row.

THE BLU-RAY: 9/10 - Not quite reference grade, but definitely a step up from the standard DVD.

THE FEATURES: 10/10 - Three discs worth of special features are all crammed onto this one disc. Some might argue that the number of features detracts from the quality of the film transfer, but if that's the case I definitely can't tell.

OVERALL: 9/10 - This is easily one of the best values for your blu-ray dollar. And if you're upgrading from your standard DVD, this'll give you a little extra room on your shelf. A hilarious, well-produced movie and a well-spring of features, all for a decent price. How can you beat that?

Review: District 9

2009-08-24T22:34:00.001-04:00

There are two types of science fiction. Soft sci-fi and hard sci-fi. Soft sci-fi is the kind of science fiction that's more about the action and spectacle of seeing things go boom, or take a sci-fi concept to tell an otherwise contemporary story. It may take place in a futuristic or science-fictional setting, but there's little real science in it. Think Transformers or The Time Traveler's Wife. By contrast, hard sci-fi deals more closely with scientific concepts in telling its story. Gattaca, Blade Runner, 2001, all of these would be considered hard sci-fi. Very rarely will you find a movie or book that can blend the hard and soft without diluting the whole thing. District 9 is the rare film that manages to do just that.

28 years ago, an alien spacecraft entered Earth's atmosphere and came to rest hovering over Johannesburg, South Africa. Deciding to be the first ones to make contact, human military units cut their way into the ship and discovered a plethora of worker aliens on the brink of death. The aliens are removed from the ship and placed into temporary housing in a new district of Johannesburg. District 9. Present day, MNU (think United Way meets FEMA) employee Wikus van de Merwe (Sharlto Copley) is tasked with evicting all the aliens and relocating them to new, supposedly more efficient housing (District 10).

Needless to say, things don't go smoothly for Wikus. Almost immediatly, he's infected with a mysterious alien fluid, and his body is confiscated by MNU for testing. What began as a sort of faux-documentary soon becomes something more streamlined, as we follow Wikus' struggle to escape MNU, survive as a fugitive, and unravel the secret of District 9. I'm only giving you the basics, and saying any more would ruin one of a hundred surprises that District 9 has up its sleeve.

District 9 had something of a checkered production. Early on, director Neil Blomkamp and producer Peter Jackson were in the planning phases of a Halo movie. When the studios refused to give them the budget they wanted, Jackson gave Blomkamp considerably less money ($30 million) and carte blanche to make whatever he wanted. The result, District 9, is adapted from Blomkamp's original short film "Alive in Joburg". You can see the Halo influences in the film. A lot of the vehicles and weapons used in the film were clearly meant to be Spartan assault rifles and Warthogs. Not that that's important to enjoying the film, but it's something interesting to notice.

Now, earlier I said that District 9 blends the hard sci-fi and the soft sci-fi remarkably well. Yes, there are high-minded concepts like bioengineering, apartheid, war crimes, weapon smuggling, etc. There are some really tough issues to deal with in District 9, but they're not overbearing. If you don't feel like contemplating alien apartheid, there are plenty of well-executed action sequences to keep you occupied. And not only are they well-executed, but the effects work is remarkably convincing for such a small budget. The aliens (derisively referred to as 'prawns') occasionally look too plasticy, but they never stick out like sore, alien thumbs.

But perhaps the single greatest thing about District 9 is its central character, Wikus. Wikus' journey is not an easy one to watch, but Blomkamp knows exactly when to make us fear for him, when to cry for him and when to cheer for him. And trust me, you WILL be cheering for Wikus before the end. But perhaps even more surprising than the human story is the alien story. Wikus meets up with an alien engineer named Christopher Johnson. Christopher and his Earth-born son have a plan for getting the mothership back online, and they form a tentative partnership with Wikus. While Wikus' story is predictably grim, Christopher's story goes to some fairly dark places of its own.

Overall, District 9 is a complete tour-de-force of sci-fi storytelling. It's completely engaging, fascinating, terrifying, and even a little heartbreaking. I'm not even sure what I can compare this movie to, and I think that's going to be my ultimate praise. This is a wholly original work that any fan of science fiction owes it to themselves to see at least once.

5 ( ) stars out of five. Seriously.

In Defense of the Avatar Trailer

2009-08-20T22:34:00.001-04:00

If today's internet buzz was any indication, Avatar Day (tomorrow) is going to be insane.

Let me back up for a moment. Today, Fox released the first official trailer for James Cameron's latest sci-fi epic, Avatar. You can watch the trailer in all its 1080p glory over at Apple.com. Go on, I'll wait.

Done? Ok, let's continue.

Already, the internet is all atwitter over what to think of this behemoth. Seriously, Twitter just exploded this morning. The reason for my posting here today is because all the buzz over this thing is decidedly not good. People are complaining that the CG looks plasticy and fake. There's no sense of story; there's only one line of dialogue; it looks like 10,000 BC meets Aliens. From the established movie bloggers, the primary complaint seems to be that the sense of scope is completely missing from the 25 minutes of footage that all the Twilight fans got to see at the San Diego Comic Con.

So let me say this as clearly as I can. THIS IS A TEASER. For all intents and purposes, it doesn't make too much sense for James Cameron, Fox, et al to reveal everything as early as August. What is it about the concept of a teaser that people just don't understand? A full trailer will probably hit some time in October, and that's going to be the one to scrutinize.

The other issue is the CG element. Complaints that Cameron's 10+ years of research and development were all for naught seem a bit overzealous, don't you think? From those who were actually at Comic Con, the CG does indeed look gorgeous. This is a film clearly meant to be experienced on the big screen, so why nitpick it on a 14 inch computer monitor?

Sure, the average joe moviegoer probably isn't going to be able to make heads or tails of this trailer beyond "Some guy puts his brain into an alien and flies around and does stuff. And he's blue." Going online and actually looking up the plot synopsis or (God forbid) waiting for the full trailer will reveal much more about the nature of the film, and I honestly hope the moviegoing public will show that kind of enthusiasm for this film. Say what you want about the teaser, but it shows far too much promise for the general public to poo-poo it right away.

I guess my plea, if there must be one, is for you the viewer to keep an open mind about Avatar. There is a very good chance that James Cameron WILL blow your mind, but you need to be willing to take that journey. Chances are, if you haven't seen the teaser by now, you'll be seeing it in front of Inglourious Basterds this weekend. An initial hatred of this teaser is only the first step in your ultimate disappointment. A better trailer will come, trust me. For my part, the clarity of the CG is secondary if the story is one worth telling. I can't wait to see what else Avatar has up its sleeve.

Review: Ponyo

2009-08-17T19:38:00.001-04:00

Ponyo may not be the greatest Hayao Miyazaki film of all time, but this is very possibly the best film for kids the director has delivered. Many children’s films in America try to rope in parental appreciation as well by including more risqué jokes that will go over their children’s heads (I’m looking at you and your ilk, Shrek). This film keeps the humor sweet and simple, but crafted well enough that children and adults will enjoy it alike. Just look at the scene where five-year-old Sosuke and his mother communicate with his dad, a ship captain, via morse code and lanterns across the water, culminating in a short spousal argument blinked back and forth. Who can’t find some amusement in that?

While Ponyo lacks the epic scope of his most recent efforts Spirited Away and Howl’s Moving Castle, Miyazaki successfully adds some of the weight of those films to his formula for charming, deceptively simple children’s movies such as Kiki’s Delivery Service and the seminal My Neighbor Totoro. Whereas those two films focused primarily on the familial and social interactions of their young protagonists, this film gives equal weight to the conflict of man versus nature, as well as giving more focus to the adult relationships in the film. Miyazaki’s films have long been known for their pro-environment themes, which are never subtle but are rarely heavy-handed, more of just matter-of-fact, and it’s nice to see him include it in this film by showing how pollution contributes to throwing nature out-of-balance (the moon is almost crashing into the Earth). In fact, this balance wouldn’t be anywhere near as thrown off as it gets in the film if it weren’t for the magical goldfish Ponyo getting tossed into a glass jar by a fishing net, which then washes ashore, allowing Sosuke to find her and subsequently introduce her to the world of humans. The environmental message is simple enough for anyone to understand (pollution is bad and can destroy the world by throwing nature out of whack), but it never proselytizes, which would be to the loss of the charming story.

Another pleasant thematic change in this film as compared to his previous films for kids is the inclusion of the father who can’t bear to let his daughter ago. Ponyo’s father is at first adamantly against her becoming part of the human world, but upon seeing the joy it has brought her and at the behest of her mother he comes to understand that it’s not so bad to let his daughter go live her life the way which makes her happiest. Of course, that message might not be as obvious to the younger kids in the audience, but it’s a nice showcase of the difficulties of maturation that can at least bolster the notion that a child growing up is inevitable and okay on both sides of the generational gap.

Visually you can’t really ask for more out of an animated film than what Miyazaki brings to the plate in Ponyo. Whereas the foreground is more or less in his traditional style, the backgrounds have been rendered to look as though they were fashioned with crayon, colored pencil, and pastel. And considering this film was done in two dimensions by hand, they very well could have been crafted with these media. Even with the distinct smoothness of the foreground up against the softer impressionism in back, never do the two seem at odds with each other, but somehow seem to belong as parts of the same whole. By far this film is one of the best arguments to come out in the past few years to keep 2D animation alive. Disney may be going back to 2Danimation with The Princess and the Frog, but there really seems like there’s no way they could bring the level of brilliance and artistry that Miyazaki and his Studio Ghibli present here, so I’m glad to have seen such a great argument here for other artists not to abandon it.

While the visuals definitely take the cake as the best part ofthis film all around, the soundtrack isn’t too shabby either. Granted, since I saw the American release I didn’t get to hear the original Japanese tracks, but Miyazaki has a sweet deal cut with Disney so the American dub for his films is never lacking. For instance, this film has Liam Neeson asPonyo’s father, as well as Tina Fey and Matt Damon as Sosuke’s parents, to name a few. And yeah, Disney did rope in MileyCyrus’s little sister Noah to voice Ponyo, and the youngest Jonas sibling, Frankie, to voice Sosuke, but they’re kids voicing kids and their director got them to do the job just fine. Plus, with John Lasseter as an executive producer and Skywalker Sound working on the American release, it’s no wonder the American soundtrack is just fine. As for the music, the score is highly European in style and didn’t seem evocative of anything Japanese. In fact, some portions reminded me of Wagner’s works, which doesn’t surprise me at all since after a little internet sleuthing I turned up that the film was in part inspired by Wagner’s Die Walküre (for example, Ponyo was named Brünnhilde until Sosuke renamed her).

I would definitely recommend this film to people of all ages and walks of life, unless of course you absolutely can’t stand animation or movies without sex, drugs, and/or violence. But for everyone else, this is one of the sweetest, most heartfelt, and dazzling films to hit cinemas in a while, and it would be a shame to pass it up. And if you’re a Liam Neeson fan, you can always just pretend this is a sequel to Taken since his daughter goes missing in this one as well.

Into the Vault: Dune

2009-08-09T01:33:00.002-04:00

Although David Lynch's Dune (1984) was maligned in many a review, I actually quite enjoy it, albeit in its own way and for what does work in it. A lot of people deride this film for its flaws, and while I can definitely agree with at least some of them (the pacing is definitely screwed up), I try to appreciate what Lynch was able to make work under the terrible production requirements of the De Laurentiis clan. In other words, I find the film by the director to be quite enjoyable, but the film by the producers is quite flawed.

One of the first things a person might notice working for this film before even watching it is just how phenomenal the casting choices were, and they hold up past the credits. The young Kyle MacLachlan gives a subtlety to his transformation from "simple" Paul Atreides to the leader Muad'dib so his progress never seems jarring, even with the fast-paced editing Lynch was forced into so he could meet the requirement of delivering a two-and-a- half hour max film. We first meet Paul bright-faced and eager to learn about the universe he is about to travel into, but as he undergoes more and more hardships he smiles and beams less, adopting a stern glare that is yet not brutal, and a hard line to his mouth. One delectable performance of note is Sting as Feyd-Rautha, who barely talks but never needs to very much, his mad eyes taking in everything around him as if it is only a matter of time before he consumes it all. The only real complaint I have about the characters and acting in the film is the fact that not everyone is given as much screen time as they should have, such as Patrick Stewart as Gurney Halleck and Linda Hunt as Shadout Mapes, but this is most likely due to the fact that these characters were meant to be given more screen time but were forced into underdevelopment due to time constraints. And Lynch fans will be delighted to see many of his regulars pop up, such as Jack Nance as a Harkonnen captain, Dean Stockwell as Dr. Yueh, and Everett McGill as Stilgar.

As I've mentioned before, perhaps the greatest flaw in the film is the editing, which is constantly on the move, the plot rolling by at the pace of a trip down the open highway. We never get to sit back and really just take in the characters for who they are instead of for what they are doing. I highly doubt this is David Lynch's fault, though; if he needs to slow down and let shots and plot digest for a while in the viewer, even if it pushes the running time to three hours plus, he is a filmmaker who understands that this must be done. As such, I feel that the pacing problem in this film is simply because Lynch was forced to tell this story in under two and a half hours by the De Laurentiis'. The assembly cut he first delivered was four and a half hours long, and while this was longer than his final product was going to be, you can tell this movie is still much shorter than it was meant to be. Considering how the rest of Lynch's repertoire shows his capable skills for taking as much time as needed, from his first film, Eraserhead, to his latest, Inland Empire, I find it more than likely he is not to blame. Granted, David Lynch is one of my favorite filmmakers and I'm sure I am biased on this, but the fact that I really feel this film would have worked so much better if it weren't for the money behind the film, I find it quite easy to take the rushed editing in stride and enjoy the film. Plus, for the amount of story that Lynch had to cram into two and a half hours, the plot is amazingly coherent and still flows logically.

The other major point for which this film should be watched is the brilliant set designs, props, and costumes. The artistic direction of the film shows that Lynch is trained as a fine artist and knows how to make things simply look engaging. The homeworld and fleet of the Emperor are brilliantly barogue in design, covered in lavish gold and mirrors, evocative of Varseilles, but of course in space; this is science fiction, after all. The palace and accoutrement of the Atreides seem more indebted to 19th century European sensibilities, which reflects well the more pragmatic qualities of that house. Arrakis, the planet also known as Dune, didn't leave much to artistic design since it is simply desert, but the filming location in Chihuahua (yes, it's a place in Mexico, not just a dog) worked perfectly well in evoking the sense of what it should look like. My personal favorite for overall design, though, is the lodgings and clothing of the Harkonnen's, the brilliantly mad, technologically obssessed antagonists of the tale. With bright greens and steel blues everything about them seethes industry gone mad, where men have been lost to money and the progress of power through machines. Even the servants of the house are dehumanized, all outfitted with "heart plugs," designed for the film by Lynch, which act exactly how they sound in name: if one is pulled out, the heart is unplugged and leaks everywhere.

Of course, a review of Dune wouldn't be complete without mentioning the giant sandworms that live in the sands of Dune, and boy do they look good. I'm not exactly sure how they were created, but they definitely show that you don't need CGI to make a giant, awesome monster. These things have teeth like a lamprey but honestly look like they could crush you, interacting logically with their environments, never as if they'd been tossed in as a background layer.

Oh, and yes, other than the "Prophecy Theme" by Brian Eno, which is simply a great melody, the music is by Toto, but you wouldn't really notice other than the fact that there is electric guitar in the instrumentation. So don't let this fact distract you from the film or make you think that you're in for some post-'90's film featuring actual rock music throughout. The score is instrumental and more rooted in traditional film scores than many other '80's soundtracks, and therein lies the great distinction: this film has a score by Toto, not a soundtrack.
Another part of the film that is highly discussed is the manner in which the "weirding way" has been interpreted. In the original novel it involves intense, precise psychological control of one's musculature and nervous system, which would understandably be difficult to portray in film as opposed to literature, so it makes sense that it would be changed. And changed it is: the weirding way has become weirding modules, which are essentially guns that focus the energy found in certain sounds (which the wielder must make with his or her own voice) for different effects, but usually the end result is essentially a laser blast. By creating these weirding modules as a mode of combat based around sound, Lynch is able to literally turn Paul Atreides' adopted name Muad'dib into a "killing sound," as his name will trigger a lethal bolt from a weirding module. Although the weirding modules can definitely seem a little silly, watching these great warriors shouting odd noises to kill people, it's an engaging manner in which to present an idea or a sound representing an idea as directly lethal. Moreover, the sound of an army wielding these modules ends up evoking the battlecries many armies from around the world would use to intimidate their enemies; this time the battlecries just happen to be lethal themselves.

One part of the film on which I definitely am left ambivalent are the voiceovers. I understand why they're there in a film that has to cram so much plot and character development in such a short time; it really does help further the narrative in a logical way. But at the same time I really enjoy seeing plot and character development rather than essentially being told what plot and character development is occurring. Again, though, the time constraint put on the film definitely makes it impossible to properly develop these things through visuals and dialogue, and I did get used to the voiceovers as the film progressed.

In the end, Dune is definitely a flawed film, and by far David Lynch's weakest effort (even he doesn't like discussing this film, as he sees it as the one time in his career he truly sold out), but there is still so much to enjoy in the film that it shouldn't be overlooked based on its demerits. Instead, go in and appreciate the film for everything good that is there, because it honestly would be a better than good film if David Lynch had been allowed to do an actual three hour cut of it.

N.B. There is an extended cut of the film, but this was done without Lynch's consultation. Although there are a lot of things that do work nicely within the longer running time, the cut was made without Lynch's consultation, and as such he had his name removed from that version of the film. So if you want to see Lynch's Dune, the theatrical cut is the only way to go, as it is the only cut he has given approval to.

Review: Moon

2009-07-20T22:39:00.001-04:00

A lot of different stories fall under the category of science fiction. Space opera, time travel, cyberpunk, etc. And though the 2000's have given us a number of great films in each of those categories, few if any have reached the heights of Star Wars, Back to the Future, or Blade Runner. Enter Duncan Jones' film Moon. I'm not saying it's as great as any of those films, but what it is is one of the purest science fiction films of the decade. It's not as grandiose as the Star Wars prequels or as ambitious as, say, Danny Boyle's Sunshine, but in it's own way manages to fascinate and entertain in equal measures. It gets so many of the minor details right that it really sucks you into the story.

Moon's story is a simple one. Astronaut Sam Bell (Sam Rockwell) works on the Sarang mining base on the far side of the moon, where he's been working alone for the past three years. His only companion is the base's robotic system, named GERTY (voiced by Kevin Spacey), and after three years Sam is starting to suffer the emotional stress of isolation. During the final two weeks of his contracted stay, Sam discovers the base's dark secret (it's always a dark secret, isn't it?), and begins frantically searching for a way home.

I don't want to say anymore, because even though the film's twist comes 30 minutes in, the story is every bit as fascinating for where it doesn't go as where it does. Certain parts of Moon are, indeed, predictable, but the film is deceptive in that it telegraphs just enough so the viewer thinks they have it figured out. At other times, the film suggests certain forboding possibilities and then leaves it up to the viewer whether or not such things are the case. The film offers several possibilities as to how Sam might end up dead, and then shows remarkable restraint in not overplaying its hand.

So yes, this is indeed a wonderful little piece of science fiction, but the real reason to seek out Moon is for Sam Rockwell's excellent performance. He's more or less a one-man show here, and he's able to run the gamut of emotions, from emotional distress to violent rage to giddy aloofness, all in a matter of minutes. Rockwell never oversells it or underplays it, but manages to hit that emotional sweet spot and make the viewer feel for this poor guy.

All the best science fiction films are about more than what's presented on the surface. In just over 90 minutes, Moon manages to tackle space exploration, alternative energy, artificial intelligence, genetic engineering, space madness and, yes, dark corporate secrets. That it meshes all of these into one brief, cohesive film is an impressive feat unto itself. The finale is a bit on the underwhelming side, but there's still enough here to satisfy any sci-fi fan. If you need a good, hard science fiction film to take the edge off junk like Transformers 2 or Star Trek, you owe it to yourself to check out Moon.

4.5 stars ( 1/2 ) out of 5.

Review: Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince

2009-07-18T02:21:00.003-04:00

Harry Potter is back again to grace us with the sixth installment of the series, and it's time to rollout a report card for the latest film. One of the biggest things I noted about Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince off the bat this time around is that you better be at least a little familiar with the series, as this is definitely part six of an ongoing franchise rather than a film you can pick up by itself. If you're not familiar with any of the staple characters (and this means all of them, not just Harry, Ron, and Hermione), you're probably in for a good amount of confusion as to who's who. Not a single character is really given an introduction besides the single major new addition, the well intentioned but dithering Professor Horace Slughorn. Many plot points are given with an understanding that you already have a good grasp of how the world of Harry Potter works, otherwise you might be scratching your head when Professor Dumbledore suddenly pulls out a bunch of vials containing memories. However, while this may be a detriment in ways, it is definitely necessary, as the plot in this film puts in place the beginning of the end of this saga. By the film's tragic close you can tell that every piece has been put into place so that a conclusive finale is just around the corner. So although some may be alienated by the insider tone of the film, too much explanation at this point in the series would have definitely detracted from what was necessary for this film to set up for the next.

As for how this measures up then in terms of the rest of the series, it's best compared to the previous installment, Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, which was also directed by this film's helmsman, David Yates. Similar in visual style in many ways, they differ greatly in how they advance the plot. Where Phoenix was non-stop action, adventure, and intrigue from beginning to end, Yates and screenwriter Steve Kloves have definitely slowed things down this time to allow the characters to develop at a slower pace, all the while slowly building up the bleak atmosphere now dominating the wizarding world since war with Voldemort has more or less broken out.

One of the most distinct tenets of the character development in this film is the heavy presence of the fully teenaged romances the main trio is involved in. Hermione pines over Ron while he obliviously misses her advances and falls for a quidditch fangirl who wants to do nothing but snog him. Meanwhile, Harry pines for Ron's sister Ginny, which Hermione takes note of but Ron is oblivious of for the longest time, butting in at awkward times. While this all may seem a bit more soap opera than many were hoping for in what is otherwise a very dreary film, it serves not only as effective comic relief, but also emphasizes just how dark everything else is. These three are but teenagers caught up in a conflict that is far beyond the usual drama of their age group, which really brings to the forefront just how tragic it is that these otherwise normal teens have to deal with such terrible things.

And as for how dark the film is, I am simply astounded this film was rated PG by the MPAA, for I would severely hesitate about bringing a child under the age of ten to this film. Talk of murdering people as protective magic; a plot to assassinate a major character; willfully poisoning a mentor at his behest for the greater good; all of these alone would make a film heavy material for most kids, let alone all of them and more in a single film. There are also parts of the film that would definitely be very creepy to a lot of kids, such as when Harry and Dumbledore are attacked by gaunt golems in a very dark cavern. But of course, there are only a few times in the film that violence actually leads to bloodshed, so that means it must be acceptable for children, right?

The cinematography in the film is quite fantastic, going from dilapidated urban settings and the claustrophobic interior of Hogwart's to expansive views of the British countryside and moors. The darkness pressing on the manmade settings and the light bathing the shots of the countryside create a brilliant contrast, especially during the winter scenes when the land is covered in pure white snow. These jarring changes of scenery help keep the viewer subconsciously on edge throughout the film, adding to the level of tension permeating Hogwart's.

All the actors from the previous films are back in fine form, but a special mention must be given of Tom Felton, who brings a wrenching humanity to Dracy Malfoy that was never really seen in the other films. He may be a right bastard, but he still has a conscience lurking underneath his tormented interior somewhere, and Felton gives life to the turmoil beneath Draco's bravado, which he has never been able to show anyone in his life. Jim Broadbent plays Slughorn effectively, never overtaking a scene in anyway, which is exactly what is needed in a character that never wants too much attention because of the secret he can share with no one.

All in all, Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince is a welcome addition to the series. When the action actually picks up it will keep you gripped, and during the lulls you'll get to know how all the characters have matured in the wake of the previous film's events. If you've come to know the characters well, you'll find the humor and pathos of their lives touching, happy to see who they have grown into, but upset at what they must continue to suffer. The special effects are top-notch, and you should really pay attention to the details in the scene where Dumbledore puts a completely trashed room back in order and everything flies back together as if put in rewind, with characters standing in the midst of it all. After the successes of both Order of the Phoenix and Half-Blood Prince, which are only the second and third feature films directed by David Yates, I am more than curious to see where his career takes him as a director once he finishes with the rest of the Harry Potter series.

Review: Bruno

2009-07-12T22:40:00.003-04:00

Bruno is a difficult film to review. On the one hand, it is extremely funny. This is the hardest I've laughed at a film all year long. If anything else, Bruno at least has that going for it. But on the other hand, the novelty of Sacha Baron Cohen's shtick has clearly worn off. Gone is the charming aloofness of Borat, a character who simply didn't know better, and in its place is a character whose shocking abrasiveness exists out of some bizarre desire to become famous at all costs.

The film opens with Austrian fashion reporter Bruno (Sacha Baron Cohen) committing career suicide by appearing at an Italian fashion show wearing a velcro suit. Following the incident, he decides that the only course of action is to go to Hollywood and "become famous". The bulk of the film is little more than a series of ridiculous sketches wherein Bruno tries out various methods of achieving fame. Starring in a TV pilot, organizing a charity, attempting to end the conflict between Jews and Muslims, etc.

Sure, there's a loose framework of a story what with Bruno narrating the transitions between segments, but look past that and you'll see the film for what it really is: an 82 minute exercise in baiting homophobes, idiots, and assholes. And yeah, that can be funny (and often is), but there's nothing to it. There's no reason for Bruno's flamboyant rampage across the country.

I think part of the problem is that, after Borat, we're all looking for the gimmick, the shtick, the gag. Borat worked because most people had never heard of the character or the comedian underneath. Now, Cohen's got to go pretty far out of his way to get a rise out of his audience. It's still pretty easy to prank on unsuspecting people, but it feels like Cohen's trying too hard to entertain or shock his audience. Here, the line is thankfully drawn at gay sex onscreen, but I have a feeling Cohen would go there if he thought it would get a reaction.

I guess my complaint boils down to the fact that Bruno is largely without subtext. The movie is hilarious, and parts are certainly eye-opening (the finale, with Bruno playing the role of Straight Dave at a UFC event), but it all means nothing. Borat worked because there was at least a through-line to the character's roadtrip across the US. Bruno's quest to become famous simply reveals the film to be nothing more than the PR stunt that it wants us to think it's mocking.

If this kind of comedy is your thing, if you enjoyed Borat at all, you'll probably find Bruno pretty hilarious. I definitely did. Just don't try to read too much into it, because you almost certainly will find it lacking.

3 stars ( ) out of five

Review: Away We Go

2009-07-09T22:41:00.001-04:00

Depending on what stage you're at in your relationship with your significant other, Away We Go would either make a perfect or a terrible date movie. Having seen the film by myself, I personally couldn't say, but I'm willing to bet that you wouldn't want to see this on a first or second date. Away We Go is the kind of film that likely will appeal more to newlyweds and parents than to teenagers on a first date.

Not to suggest that its demographic is set in stone or anything; that's based solely on the characters and their situation. The movie begins with Burt (John Krasinski) discovering that his longtime girlfriend Verona (Maya Rudolph) is pregnant. Cut to months later, when the two visit Burt's parents (Catherine O'Hara, Jeff Daniels) to deliver the sonogram photos. Here, Burt's parents announce that they're moving to Belgium right before the baby is due. Burt and Verona take the news as an opportunity to pull up stakes and find a better home for themselves and the fast-approaching baby.

From there, the film hits its groove as a road trip movie, with our couple bouncing from Phoenix to Tuscon to Madison to Montreal to Miami in search of the perfect place to raise their daughter, only to find that all of their family and friends are tragically bad role models for both them and the baby. Verona's former boss (Allison Janney) is a lush who sees no problem with disparaging her two pudgy kids in public. Burt's childhood friend Ellen (Maggie Gyllenhaal) is a hippie/feminist/whatever with some... odd views on sexuality. Their college roommates (Chris Messina, Melanie Lynskey) have adopted four kids while repeatedly failing to produce their own.

It seems like everywhere you look in this film, there's a horrible (or at the very least tragic) individual threatening to kill any hope for Burt, Verona, and even the viewer. But to what end? To show that everyone in the world is a terrible person? That it doesn't matter where you live, problems exist everywhere? That's getting close to it, I think.

It still puzzles me why the film is little more than an episodic journey in bad parenting, but the counterpoint to that is the fact that John Krasinski and Maya Rudolph are pretty great in this film. They're our proxies. They think all these people are just as messed up as we do. Krasinski plays Burt as a big kid who's whole-heartedly dedicated to bringing his own kid into the world the right way, and a lot of the film's charm rests solely on his shoulders. In contrast, Maya Rudolph is calmer and more subdued than her work on Satuday Night Live suggested she could pull off. If Krasinski is the comedic center of the film, Rudolph is the emotional center.

Overall, Away We Go isn't anything to rave about, but it's a far sight better than most of the big, dumb action movies released this summer. If maybe not a truly memorable film, it is at least the perfect counterprogramming to the summer movie season. I'd recommend it to anyone looking to escape from the exploding excess of films like Transformers, or those seeking a fresh take on the whole rom-com genre.

4 stars out of five

Review: Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen

2009-06-25T22:36:00.001-04:00

I am a male human. I am twenty-two years old. I am a sci-fi geek. As a kid, I watched my share of Transformers cartoons. I am, for all intents and purposes, the primary target audience for Michael Bay's Transformers movies. And yet, I'm not sure whether I'm supposed to take Revenge of the Fallen seriously or if it's the biggest, most expensive and mind-numbing practical joke of the year.

One thing is certain: this film is definitely not a misfire. Michael Bay and his three writers knew exactly what they were doing when they put this film together. Revenge of the Fallen is a film that takes everything ridiculous, overblown and aggravating about the previous film and amplifies it tenfold. For lack of a better comparison, it's Michael Bay's version of Crank 2. Despite being a blatant ripoff of Independence Day, 2007's Transformers was at the very least coherent. The sequel is far too scatterbrained and schizophrenic to even concentrate on one plot thread, let alone a dozen.

The film opens in Shanghai, with the Autobots working with a military team called NEST to hunt down rogue Decepticons. Despite being a little hard to follow, this is a great concept for the film to start on, but the whole thing just goes downhill from there. Meanwhile, after killing Megatron with the All Spark at the end of the first movie, Sam Witwicky (Still Shia LaBeouf, still annoying) is off to college, but not before discovering a sliver of the All Spark in his sweater, which imprints Cybertronian hieroglyphics onto his brain. A Decepticon named The Fallen then arrives on Earth in search of the Matrix of Leadership, which he plans to use to destroy the sun (I guess). The only one who knows it's location? Yup. Sam.

That is literally the shortest plot description I can give you without simply saying "The Decepticons want something and the Autobots have to stop them from getting it." Actually, that's all this movie is. It's a fetch quest. How Michael Bay managed to turn such a simple premise into 150 minutes is beyond me. Of course, the plot doesn't really matter. We're paying to see giant robots fighting, and by God that's exactly what Bay gives us. What seems like the entire last hour of the film is dedicated to a battle in and around the Pyramids of Giza, and while it's definitely intricate and an amazing feat of special effects work, it makes practically zero narrative sense.

Entire plot threads are introduced only to be abandoned or twisted inside out thirty minutes later. Characters die early in the film, only to be brought back at the zero hour. Other characters seem motivated entirely by whims or hair-brained notions of their importance to the plot, others serve seemingly no purpose other than to maintain continuity, and still others show up for brief cameos, when I'm fairly certain they were killed off in the last film.

Thinking about Revenge of the Fallen for too long will almost certainly give you a headache, if the screening didn't do that for you already. Failing that, the comic relief will drive you insane. Not because it's hilarious, but rather because it's not and there's far, far too much of it. In particular, two Autobots named Mudflap and Skids. Of all the CG robots in this movie, they're the only two that actually resemble cartoon characters, and they're 100% walking, talking racial epithets of the worst kind. Between those two and Sam's mother, this film features three of the absolute worst characters to show up in a film this year, possibly this decade.

Dogs humping dogs, robots humping people, robots speaking jive, robots walking with canes, people visiting robot heaven, John Turturro's ass. Oh, and robot testicles. Indeed, Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen truly has it all. Every visual excess that you could possibly want in a summer blockbuster is right here, lovingly captured on film for all eternity. If I have anything positive to say about the movie, it's that Michael Bay does, indeed, know how to make a film look good. For every horribly stupid gag or plot point that Bay throws at us, we at least get to see what we paid for. Giant robots kicking the crap out of each other. But, ya know, sometimes that's just not enough.

The only reason I would possibly recommend seeing this would be to see how gloriously stupid the film truly is.

2 little angry faces out of 5.

Moving Out

2009-06-07T11:54:00.002-04:00

Hey gang,

I guess I should probably let everyone out there know that Front Row Center is officially switching over to an account over at Webs.com.

Over the past week or two, we've been tinkering with that site, and think we've finally got it where we want it. There, we've got a blog, forums, video gallery, photo gallery, and a whole lot more. It's pretty exciting.

So please, go check out our new site at http://frontrowcenter.webs.com.

Oh, also, we're still looking for another writer or two. If anybody's interested, just email us at FrontRowCenterShow@Gmail.com and we'll let you know what we're looking for.

Review: Up

2009-06-03T22:42:00.001-04:00

The question of whether or not the new film from Pixar Animation Studios is any good is a moot one. Of course it's good. So far, Pixar's track record is ten for ten. The debate rages on about Cars and A Bug's Life, but nobody will argue that they aren't at least well-crafted, if certainly not instant classics. At this point, the question with Pete Docter's Up is instead how good is it?

Up shares a lot in common with Monsters, Inc., Docter's previous film, both in general quality and the way in which it tugs at the heartstrings. Like Ratatouille and WALL-E before it, Up deals in a more sophisticated range of emotions that will almost certainly hit adults like a sledgehammer. At the same time, the film balances its emotional weight with some truly weird humor and all sorts of sight gags that'll keep the kids laughing.

The film opens with perhaps one of the best montages ever put to film. We follow an adventurous young boy named Carl as he meets his new best friend, an equally adventurous girl named Ellie. From there, we watch the two plan for an adventure, only to give in to the slow march of time and the realities of life. After Ellie dies, urban construction threatens to take Carl's house, so rather than be put in a nursing home, Carl vows to take the trip he and Ellie always dreamed about: to Paradise Falls in South America. From there, you've seen the trailers. Carl and a stowaway boy scout named Russell fly off to South America in Carl's house, fitted with hundreds of balloons.

From there, not only does the plot get kinda strange, it also starts to fall apart a bit. The journey that Carl and Russell take is never in question. They go to South America, make an unexpected friend, meet an unexpected villian, and hijinks ensue. Up's greatest strength lies in its ability to mine unexpected depth from characters in such wacky circumstances. Without going into too many spoilers, Carl becomes a sort of father-figure to two characters, Russell and a talking dog named Dug. That dichotomy of mentor/protege is what drives the second half of the story (not to mention the presence of talking dogs).

However, interesting though all that might be, the plot itself can't evenly support such weirdness. I guess you could call the narrative a series of curveballs, because the plot does go exactly where you think it'll go, but the surprise is in how much time the film spends on any one part of the story. Personally, I thought Carl's journey to Paradise Falls would be the driving force of the movie. Instead, he and Russell make it there fairly quickly. There was never any question that it would happen, but the way the film gets from point A to point B is a bit maddening. I'm glad that my expectations were warped somewhat; I guess what I'm saying is that there has to have been a better way of pulling that off.

All narrative clunkiness aside, Up is a fantastic piece of animation. If you don't leave the theater quoting Dug or the other dogs, you'll be marveling at the artistry behind Carl Fredrickson's facial stubble, or at the very least talking about how cute the short before the film, "Partly Cloudy", was. It's wonderful to finally have a film this summer to rave about, however mildly. Compared to some of the in-your-face explosionfests so far this summer, Up is a welcome hour and a half of fresh air. (Heh.)

4 stars ( ) out of five.

Bond Review #7: Moonraker

2009-05-21T23:13:00.008-04:00

First off, I’d like to apologize for not having a Bond Review last week like I said I would. I’m starting to run behind on these things. However, since it seems that MGM/FOX is not releasing the blu-ray sets as fast as originally appeared, it would be better for me to slow down a bit anyway, lest I run out of Blu-Rays to review. Oh well, without further delay, here is the promised review of Moonraker.

At the end of The Spy Who Loved Me, it was announced that Bond would return in For Your Eyes Only. Two years later we get not that, but Moonraker. After Star Wars came out, everyone jumped on the sci-fi bandwagon, James Bond included. The results are spectacular, as in full of spectacle… Yet it’s way too out there, even for Bond. James Bond goes into outer space… Um… yeah…

In Moonraker, Bond is sent to investigate the hijacking of a space shuttle right off the back of a 747. He goes to question Hugo Drax (Michael Lonsdale) first, as he heads the company that made the shuttle. When Drax tries to get Bond killed a few times over, he starts to get suspicious. Bond ends up following Drax to Venice, then Rio, then to the Amazon, and finally into outer space. Now, maybe this doesn’t sound too out there for a James Bond movie… It’s how it’s done. The space ending is so out of left field, and it makes the movie feel like a rip off of the Bond film that came just before this one, The Spy Who Loved Me. Another plot to restart the human race not living on land. This time with a magical plant extract killing the humans left on earth. James Bond is NOT science fiction!

That being said, the film feels a lot different that Spy Who Loved Me. That movie was probably the best of the Roger Moore Bond films. It was the pinnacle of the gadgety, quip filled Bond movies. Nothing could surpass it. Moonraker tried very hard to do so, but it ended up going too far. Gondolas turning into cars, spaceships, speedboats with hang gliders… it’s all too much. The humor is also out there. There’s a scene where Bond is escaping some assassins in a gondola turned car… The score suddenly changes to some sort of classical symphony whilst showing people’s (and animals) reactions to the sight. You even see a pigeon do a double take. There’s also product placement galore. Look for it especially when Bond is in Rio. The whole segment of the film is filled with it. It’s something that Bond had never really done before.

I do have to mention, though, that this is the last movie where James Bond looked young enough to play Bond. After this movie, he started to wrinkle at a ghastly rate. Also the movie has some of the greatest action sequences in the series. The skydiving fight at the beginning, the cable car segment, the ambulance escape, the speed boat chase, and of course the laser battles in space are some of the greats from the whole film series. In fact, I’d go as far as to say that the action sequences really have nothing to do with the plot. In fact, in the making-of documentary, it was said that the producers just wanted to use specific locations, and built the plot around the locations. The movie has nothing to do with the book of the same name.

Locations: 10/10 We have great locations here, used to their optimal potential. We visit Venice, Rio, the Amazon, and outer space. The selection here is diverse and beautiful. It’s one thing that the early/mid Roger Moore movies did very well. They are all effective travelogues until View To A Kill.

Villains: 5/10 Michael Lonsdale is a very boring villain. One of the worst. I’m of the assumption that they chose him just because they had to have French actors due to them filming a lot in France due to tax issues in England. However, I will bump up the score a bit because Jaws is back, although in a slightly more humane form. It’s nice to have one of the best Bond henchmen back though.

Bond Girl: 4/10 Lois Chiles as Holly Goodhead is just okay. She’s forgettable, but she isn’t bad. She’s also a CIA agent in the movie, so she isn’t totally helpless like some Bond girls. I’m just really “meh” about her.

Direction/Design: 8/10 This was directed by Lewis Gilbert, and was his last Bond film. He directed You Only Live Twice and The Spy Who Loved Me before this, so in effect, he directed the three most over the top Bond movies there are. The movie has great set design and huge production values, but the direction is pretty pedestrian.

Theme Song: 5/10 This is the third, and last Bond song sang by Shirley Bassey. It’s better than Diamonds Are Forever, but not as good as Goldfinger. It’s more a ballad, and I think that’s what I like about it. It stands in stark contrast to the other Moore-era Bond songs. Other than that, it’s not too memorable.

Overall: 4/10 I like individual set pieces of this movie, but as a whole it really kinda sucks. It’s a hodgepodge of action sequences put in without any regard for plot. The villain is recycled and boring, the story just about as boring as that… I like the outer space stuff technically, but story wise it doesn’t belong in Bond… ever. The movie is a fun watch, but the brain must be left at the door, my friends.

The blu-ray is magnificent, boasting probably the best picture quality I’ve seen from the older Bond movies I’ve seen on the format so far. The making-of is one of the longest in the series, and even ends in a collection of bloopers! The commentaries could have been better though. I’ve heard better in the James Bond blu-rays. I do recommend it though, as the picture quality is excellent, and it’s great to see Bond in it’s most flamboyant, even if the results are not great in the story department.

James Bond Reviews will return sometime soon with... From Russia With Love.

Angels and Demons

2009-05-15T22:38:00.002-04:00

Three years ago, Ron Howard's film adaptation of Dan Brown's "The Da Vinci Code" was met with a lot of controversy, but decidedly negative reviews. That film was a plodding snoozefest when compared to likeminded series like Indiana Jones, National Treasure, or even The Librarian. Thankfully Howard's follow-up, Angels & Demons, fares a bit better than its predecessor on pretty much every level.

After the events of The Da Vinci Code (the book occurs before Da Vinci, but the film is written as a sequel), professor Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks) is recruited by the Vatican to investigate a bomb threat from a secret society known as the Illuminati, who've also kidnapped four Vatican cardinals. Accompanying him is physicist Vittoria Vetra (Ayelet Zurer), recruited to recover a canister of antimatter stolen from the Large Hadron Collider. Together, and with the help of the Vatican police force, the two race across Rome to rescue the four cardinals and prevent the antimatter from being used to destroy Rome. Yes, you read that last part correctly.

The plot is twisted and convoluted in certain places, and it seems like writers Akiva Goldsman and David Koepp (not exactly a screenwriting pedigree) are desperate to up the tension and add suspense at every possible turn. Ticking clocks ("one cardinal will die every hour") are fine. It's what many action movies and thrillers are built around. But when you introduce the idea of rolling blackouts early on, there's no drama when our heroes' lives are endangered by it an hour later.

The scene I'm referring to turns out to be a red herring, and that's one of the film's key problems. There are far, far too many red herrings. If you haven't already figured out who's behind everything already, the red herrings force you to give up the chase and just turn your brain off. I'm willing to bet they're counting you to shut your brain off, because the film features a bizarre fourth act completely undoes all of the heroic drama that the climax could muster. The film seemed like it would actually go out on a high note, only to renege on it completely. It really doesn't work, and I'm not sure if the problem is with Koepp/Goldsman or Dan Brown.

But, for what it is, Angels & Demons does have its moments. The action may be on the mundane side, but the investigative side of the film is actually quite interesting. Whereas The Da Vinci Code felt like one long history lesson after another, Angels & Demons manages to balance the information without feeling like too much exposition. The film itself looks gorgeous, featuring great cinematography of some of Rome's most historic landmarks. Tom Hanks does well, but there's nothing groundbreaking about his performance. The real highlight of the film is Ewan McGregor, whose Carmelengo McKenna is perhaps the most interesting character in the film. He's young, seems poised for greatness, yet is all too conservative about his duty. Compared to the other clergy in the film, his is a character we want to learn more about, but are never afforded the chance.

If you're like me, and you enjoyed the premise of The Da Vinci Code more than the delivery of the film itself, you should enjoy Angels & Demons somewhat. It's not a great film by any means, but it is a fun diversion for an afternoon. It's decidedly average, but at least falls on the positive side of average.

3 stars (***) out of five.

Connor vs. Connor

2009-05-14T00:54:00.003-04:00

Crossovers and spinoffs have been a part of storytelling ever since Odysseus and Aeneas left Troy going in opposite directions. Perhaps the most popular form of crossover fiction is the sci-fi mainstay "Franchise A vs. Franchise B". Alien vs. Predator. Robocop vs. Terminator. Batman vs. Superman. Star Trek meets the X-Men. Freddy vs. Jason. Army of Darkness vs. Marvel Zombies. Turtle vs. Bunny. I could go on all day. Few such crossovers ever really work, and most of them are just plain silly. But there's one crossover I'd like to propose for serious consideration.

Highlander vs. Terminator.

Now, sadly, I wasn't the first to think of this, but let's think about this for a second. What better fit for a franchise that constantly meddles with time travel than characters that transcend time? It's better than ninjas vs. pirates. It's immortals vs. robots, two character types that are fairly similar, if only on a base level. The only way to really kill either is to cut off the power source (head). Of course, the danger with Terminators is the fact that they're freaking legion, whereas the number of Highlander immortals, by their very nature, are dwindling. So that's a negative.

However, the great thing about the Highlander universe is that the only thing that really matters are the characters. You could drop Connor McLeod (or Duncan or whoever, doesn't really matter) into the Terminator universe without much difficulty. Unless he has the misfortune of being in a major city on Judgement Day, chances are he'll survive the fallout. But then comes the previously mentioned army of T-800s and Lord knows what else.

Here's where things get a little tricky. Unless a Terminator directly witnesses one immortal behead another, it's not going to know enough to do the same to the Highlander. It'll fire away at him, probably hit him a couple times, but it wouldn't kill him. Of course, a T-1000 wouldn't have much problem with that. Remember what happened to Todd in T2. No heads were removed, but the potential is definitely there. Ooh, there's a challenge for the Highlander... Of course, it's doubtful that Connor's sword would be enough to destroy even a T-800.

In my proposed Terminator/Highlander film, there would undoubtedly be more than one immortal. Otherwise, what's the point? Early in the film, Connor squares off against another immortal, only to have their duel interrupted by a Terminator. The two team up to incapacitate the robot, after which Connor catches his erstwhile partner off guard, beheads him and a Quickening ensues. Connor then gains all the knowledge of the other immortal, including key information on SkyNet. Weaknesses, plans, etc. Maybe this other immortal once worked for CyberDyne Systems. Then, Connor finds his way to the Resistance, where he helps John Connor concoct a plan to finally take out SkyNet.

Maybe John Connor doesn't believe McLeod. How could someone know so much about SkyNet unless they were actually a robot? So Connor tries shooting McLeod a few times. McLeod doesn't die. John Connor still isn't convinced. As far as he knows, McLeod is 100% machine. So they come up with a test. They place McLeod in front of a giant magnet. When switched on, the magnet does nothing. Maybe it picks up his sword. But not him. That's enough for John Connor, who agrees to let McLeod help, but still falsely suspects him of being some kind of trap set by SkyNet.

I realize what I just did was tantamount to fan fiction but, really, that's no worse than some of the other dumb crossovers we've seen. I even think this is a better idea than some of those. I think a Highlander would fit right into the upcoming Terminator movie. And really, with the Highlander franchise as labyrinthine and convoluted as it is, would anybody really care?

What do you think?

Star Trek 2009

2009-05-10T15:06:00.005-04:00

... or as I will call it from now on, Star Trek Supplemental. Seriously though, the movie was a great achievement. It had about everything I wanted. Leonard Nimoy as Spock, a great cast (except John Cho and Zachary Quinto), and a nice origin story. It was action-packed, fun, and most of all, revitalizing. Let's face it everyone, this going from one Trekkie/Trekker to everyone else, the series had a lot in common with the current Republican Party. So much that it's actually very funny. How, I hear you say? Well.... People stopped watching Trek just as much as people left that party, it had been taken over by people obsessed with everything being canon/party line, and it's attempt to go back to it's roots (Enterprise/no spending) just didn't mesh with people anymore.

The series needed to get a mainstream audience to make more money. It needed to go moderate without pissing off its base. In most respects, the movie does this quite well. I'm very happy that the original canonical series and films are not affected here. Due to circumstances in this movie, we have a Back To The Future II situation where the "time line SKEWED into this tangent, bringing us to an alternate" Star Trek. I've heard many say that this was just an easy way out to dodge Trekkie loyalists. Well, they kind of had to do this. Trekkies are very anal. I should know. These are people who sometimes don't count Star Trek VI as canon because Gene Roddenberry didn't like it. In fact, most Trekkies loved this movie.

I didn't love this movie. I did really like it, but it didn't feel right to me, just like Enterprise and Star Trek Nemesis didn't. To me, Star Trek is about a few things. Without these, Star Trek would be simply another science fiction franchise. Star Trek is about exploring new worlds, the Federation hegemony, social commentary, and the trifecta of Bones, Spock, and Kirk. This movie gives us two of those pretty well in the trifecta and the hegemony. I can deal with not exploring new worlds. Most of the films didn't do that anyway, and even the shows left that mission after a while. Star Trek was first and foremost a social commentary though. Look at the best of the old episodes and that's what they are. Yes, even Wrath of Khan, because it was about the terrifying possibilities of what even a peaceful helpful tool could become with the Genesis device. People blame Rick Berman and Brannon Bragga for destroying Star Trek in the 1990s. They didn't. Trekkies did by being so devotional to canon. You know who else is like that with their series? George Lucas. And we see how that turned out. Lots of changes to once great movies.

As you can plainly see, I'm very conflicted with this movie. I understand this was needed, but I will miss the old series, and the next few years are going to be hell. Just like when Batman Begins came out, everyone is jumping on the bandwagon about how the original Trek movies and series were crap, and that those of us who didn't completely love the new movie are out of touch, nerds, and irrelevant. Can we fight back at that? No. It's useless. Today's movie culture dictates that you have to agree with the majority, or they'll beat you into the ground with the tyranny of majority. It's kinda like that first scene in Clockwork Orange with Alex and his friends beating up that old drunk guy while he's down. And ya know what? It makes me want to hate the new Star Trek when I really don't. I tell people I like it, but have issues with it, and they attack me. Sorry folks, new and cool doesn't exactly mean better. I just hope that in a few months people start to see the movie's shortcomings, like they did when Transformers got old. Everyone loved that when it came out, now it apparently sucks. I think it was okay.

People, movies do not have just two categories, Suck and Rule. There are movies that are mediocre, average, and good as well. This was a good movie. It was a mediocre Trek movie if you are comparing it to the ideals and outlines of the Trek series.

It truly is supplemental to me. It's a "what if" scenario that I'm okay with calling canon along with the original series. However, it is just an aside. I prefer the stories about the Federation working to better man and alien-kind and trying to make new allies to that of let's have a rootin' tootin' adventure about national defense. I mean, yeah, that's fine. It worked for this origin story. I just hope that future films in this series start to be about exploring new worlds and seeking out new life and new civilizations. Hey, it's possible. I trust that JJ Abrams will push for that. Heck, in some ways that's what Lost is about, even. I'm not sure I trust the writers of Transformers to do it though.

I know this wasn't really a review, but more of a critique. My review would be about the same as Joe's, which is right below this. However, I'd actually give the movie a better rating. It's a good movie by itself. Hmmm...

** out of ***** as a Star Trek film.

**** out of ***** as a movie by itself.

Star Trek

2009-05-10T00:59:00.005-04:00

I was primed to love every minute of Star Trek. The trailer had me psyched to see it. Early word was that the film was one of the best Trek movies ever, perhaps even THE best. I bought my Burger King promo glasses, I rewatched a couple of the previous Trek movies and hoped that, at worst, J.J. Abrams would deliver a film that was at least better than Mission: Impossible III. Well, he at least succeeded that far, but only by so much. Abrams' prequel/reboot/whatever is an entertaining ride, no question, but it falters in trying too hard to appeal to as broad an audience as possible.

Possible spoilers. Fair warning.

The film opens with the USS Kelvin being attacked by a gargantuan Romulan mining vessel, captained by Nero (Eric Bana). The acting captain of the Kelvin just happens to be father to James T. Kirk, and the day just happens to be the day James is born. Baby James, his mother, and the rest of the crew escape while 'Captain' Kirk attacks Nero's ship head-on. Fast forward 25 years, where we meet back up with Jim (Chris Pine), who is dared to join Starfleet by Captain Pike (Bruce Greenwood), who served under Kirk's father on the Kelvin. From there, we watch Kirk go through Starfleet Academy, verbally spar with a young commander named Spock (Zackary Quinto), find his way onto the brand spanking new Enterprise with an equally young crew, and then come face to face with Nero himself.

As a movie, it is certainly a step in the right direction from the decidedly less enteresting Insurrection and Nemesis. The production benefits from a mostly well-chosen cast and top notch effects work. Of this younger crew, Chris Pine and Karl Urban (Kirk and Bones, respectively) come off the best. Pine gets the reckless swagger of Jim Kirk down to a science, while Urban is a dead ringer for DeForest Kelley, both in appearance and performance. Additionally, Eric Bana's Nero is a character that is quite compelling for his limited role. Perhaps not on the level of Khan or the Borg Queen, but a character absolutely deserving of more screen-time. As this is an origin story (kind of), the movie relegates Nero to the background while we get acquainted with this new, younger Enterprise crew. His scheme, as genocidal and devastating though it may be, is ultimately shrugged off as a means of getting things in place for subsequent films.

Perhaps the most disappointing portrayal is Quinto as Spock. He's not bad, necessarily, but his take on Spock's emotionless visage is a constant wide-eyed stare and slightly pursed lips. It simply proves that his casting was purely aesthetic. He looks the part but can't quite act it. The problem is amplified by the fact that Leonard Nimoy himself shows up for about 20 minutes as the future version of Spock (or rather "Spock Prime"). The difference is staggering. In fact, Nimoy's role proves to be (ironically) the emotional high point of the film. There's a warmth in his portrayal of Spock that is absent from the majority of the film.

And I think that's the primary problem with this new Star Trek. The newness of everything is glaringly apparent in almost every aspect of the film. From the frantically paced plot to the equally fast editing and whiplash-inducing camerawork, to Abrams' over-indulgence on lens flares, everything about this movie smacks of the "dumb summer action movie" that Abrams clearly intended on making. That, in itself, isn't necessarily a bad thing, but when it comes at the expense of the science and (yes) logic that the series always championed, it sort of defeats the whole purpose of Star Trek.

I could go on about how the new Enterprise looks like a flying iPod or how the crew's standard operating procedure seems to only consist of "Move over, let me do that," but it's pointless. The movie is, in fact, a dumb summer action movie, and on that front it succeeds. There's nothing stopping you from enjoying Star Trek on a visceral level. Even moviegoers with no working knowledge of the Star Trek universe will get a kick out of this film. For my part, I don't think the franchise needs to be playing around in Luke Skywalker's backyard. For this series to thrive, it needs to leave the space opera behind and, yes, boldly go into new sci-fi directions. Star Trek is certainly a fun ride, but there are a few major kinks that need to be worked out before the sequel arrives.

3.5 stars (***1/2) out of five.

Bond Review #6: Never Say Never Again

2009-05-09T22:40:00.005-04:00

Yes folks, we finally have one... A Bond movie that is also a "ugh" movie. It's very dated, it's boring, and sadly I must say that Octopussy, which is not one of the better Moore films, that came out the same year, was a better film.

The idea was to remake Thunderball, as the book rights were not owned by Cubby Broccoli, the producer of the EON James Bond pictures. Well, of course, EON did not like this idea, and the makers of this film and EON were in court every day of filming fighting over what could and could not be put in this movie. What could? Anything that was mentioned in the book Thunderball. What couldn't? Anything in the original Thunderball movie, or anything NOT in the book. It sounds impossible, right? Well, they did it SOMEHOW. The results are not very pleasing though.

We do get Sean Connery back to play Bond, which of course many people wanted to see. The problem with this is that Sean Connery was between his handsome phase, and his full white haired cool-looking phase that he was in, say when The Last Crusade came about. Here, Bond is balding, and he looks kind of ill throughout the whole thing. He kind of even looks worse than Roger Moore looked in Octopussy, which is pretty bad. Even the two sex scenes were kind of embarassing.

Well, how about the plot? The plot is that SPECTRE, run by Blofeld (Max Von Sydow), wants to of course plot extortion and terrorism. I mean, that's what two of those letters stand for in their name after all. One of SPECTRE's agents, Largo (Klaus Brandauer), had two nuclear bombs stolen, and is planning to use them in an extortion attempt on various governments for lots of money. Sound kinda stupid? Yeah, it is, even for Bond. You see, Thunderball was originally written as a script because Ian Fleming was getting tired of his books not being turned into movies. This script didn't get made, and so he turned it into a book. There was a reason it wasn't made. It's kind of stupid. Even when they eventually did make Thunderball as the fourth Bond film, it was a disappointment compared to the previous three films.

Surprisingly, this movie is directed by Irvin Kirshner, three years after he directed The Empire Strikes Back, and his first movie since that one. I won't blame the movie's shortcomings on him though. The music score is terrible because post-production was rushed. He originally wanted James Horner, but couldn't get him. He got a guy that Barbera Streisand worked with. Ugh. The plot is terrible because they legally had to stick to the book. Ugh. He did have good intentions for the movie, but he had a lot of hurdles he couldn't jump.

The movie came out in 1983, and it shows big time. The theme song is horribly dated, and I'd say the worst theme for a Bond movie. It really is a cold war story as well, as most 1980s Bond movies were. These things can't really be helped with a Bond movie though. They are all products of the time they were made in. It's usually one of the great things about Bond. It's like vintage wine. Just don't drink the bad years. 1983, I guess was a bad year with the recession and all.

Locations: 5/10 Bahamas, some Arabic region that is never named, London, the ocean. It's pretty typical Bond here. Some of it is shot rather beautifully, others really bland. Average.

Villains: 8/10 This is one place this movie does well. Brandauer is great as the villain Largo. He's carefully insane. You know, he seems sane on the exterior, but just underneath, he's a crazy psychopath. There's also Barbara Carrera as Fatima Blush. She's a certifiable looney from the beginning. In fact, if you've seen Goldeneye's Xenia Onatopp, you've pretty much seen Fatima Blush. She's a sex obsessed assassin getting pleasure from killing. The other villain is only seen for a total of three minutes, but he gets third billing for the movie! Max Von Sydow plays Blofeld, complete with white kitty cat. He isn't given much to do really.

Bond Girl: 4/10 It's Kim Basinger playing Domino. Ya know, she was the one part I didn't like about Batman, and I don't like her much here either. I have never liked her in any movie I've seen. Sure she's pretty, but she plays the same...exact...character ever single time. She's never more than something pretty to look at while you wait for our hero to do something else. And even if she is pretty, she isn't drop dead gorgeous. Still, they could have done worse.

Direction/Design: 2/10 Now I know I said I do not blame Kirshner for the film being so Ugh-worthy. The production designer though... he gets a LOT of the blame. It has exactly 3 good sequences. The video game in the arcade, the underwater chase of Bond by the tiger shark, and the stuff in the health spa. Other than those aspects, this movie is pretty much a complete failure design-wise. It's as bland as the year 1983 probably was.

Theme Song: 0/10 It's god awful. They play it during the opening scenes, as they couldn't imitate the EON Bond films. I'd have prefered black on white text to this. It ruins the scene. The song is bland, it's boring, it's annoying, it should never have existed. Yes people, it's that bad.

Overall: 3/10 It took every ounce of willpower I had to watch this movie again with the commentary on. I can not for the life of me figure out why this movie made 160 million dollars in the box office. I guess people were just lured in by Connery. This is one I may watch once every five years or so, but no more. Octopussy even was better than this, and it came out the same year.
The blu-ray is not the best. It's got okay picture and audio quality, but it was not put through the Lowry process, not being an official Bond film. The extras are a bit on the fluffy side. You get a trailer, 4 featurettes on various aspects of the film, and a commentary track. The most interesting of these is the featurette on the movie's legal troubles. The commentary track with Kirshner too often falls into telling us what's going on on-screen.

James Bond Reviews will return next week in... Moonraker.

Ugh: The Stupids

2009-05-06T16:30:00.001-04:00

I could just end it here. That poster is the funniest part of the entire movie (it's funny because it's true). However, we must soldier onward...

Sure, with a movie titled The Stupids, you have to expect it to be stupid on some level, perhaps in some kind of cleverly satirical way. But no. This is different. This movie goes beyond stupid and into a level of filmic idiocy only reserved for Air Bud sequels and direct-to-video sex comedies. I have to believe that John Landis was messing with us here. Now, granted, I'm sure a project like The Stupids was all he could muster up at this point in his career, and he's clearly trying to make the most of the material, but not even the man who brought us The Blues Brothers and Animal House could save this one.

Tom Arnold stars as Stanley Stupid, the dumb patriarch of an even dumber family, who discovers that his garbage is continuously being stolen. He trails the 'thieves' back to the landfill where he witnesses a black market arms deal, instead believing that it's part of a conspiracy to steal everyone's mail, all run by an evil genius named Sender (as in 'Return to Sender'). The family's subsequent adventure getting into and out of mortal danger, making a series of horribly, yes, stupid assumptions, and just generally engaging in a number of eye-rollingly embarrassing activities.

So, why exactly does The Stupids make me go 'Ugh'? Well, for one, this movie seems like decent material for a dark comedy, or at least some kind of smart satire. Instead, Landis and his crew seemed perfectly content to take this thing down the kids-comedy route. The thing is, certain gags or scenes might undoubtedly go above some kids' heads, or simply seem too dark. You can see Landis' desire to take things darker at pretty much every turn, but for whatever reason, it never happens.

So we've established that the movie is one giant missed opportunity. That alone can't make it ugh-worthy, can it? No. There's also the matter of craft. John Landis' style just doesn't work for this particular film. You can just tell that he's aching to toss in one more violent gag or explosion or anything to make The Stupids enjoyable even for him. I'm sure the finale, a bizarre military shootout in a warehouse full of explosives, made him as giddy as a kid in a candy store.

Tom Arnold is constantly mugging for the camera, clearly assuming that that is the height of comedy. I'll admit it, I laughed when he turned to the camera, stared straight into the lens and shouted, "Oh my God!" Other than that, Arnold's just not that funny. He talks his way through a poorly staged rendition of "I'm My Own Grandpa," which, for some reason, plays (in its entirety) over the end credits.

There are three actors that appear in the film whose presence here simply vexes me. First, there's Robert Keeshan (aka Captain Kangaroo), who pops in and out as a museum curator named Sender. He ends up being the object of Stupid's misguided pursuit to end Sender's reign of terror (something I never thought I'd ever have to type). In Stupid's fantasy scenario, Sender is played by none other than Christopher Lee, clearly doing the best he can with his limited screentime and even more limited material.

Then there's Mark Metcalf, playing the colonel that the Stupids chase after, who actually IS involved in a black arms deal. Landis fans will recognize him from Animal House, but I better remember him from his Wile E. Coyote-ish characters from two Twisted Sister videos. Neither of these men have much to do here, and you'd be better off watching the videos linked above, an episode of Captain Kangaroo, or The Man with the Golden Gun.

The Stupids. I can't, in good conscience give such a film more than 1.5 (*1/2) stars. Ugh.

X-Men Origins: Wolverine

2009-05-04T13:21:00.010-04:00

The 2009 summer movie season began this past weekend not with a bang, but with the constant snikting of claws. As a typical, summer action film, X-Men Origins: Wolverine is certainly a fun movie, every bit as entertaining as any other action film you're likely to find this summer. As an X-Men film, however, the end product is considerably lacking.

The film begins in the mid 1840s with an all-too-brief scene featuring the death of the man young Logan (here called James for some reason) calls 'father'. He and his brother, Victor, then flee into the night, transitioning into the film's title sequence, where we see the two as grown men, fighting in every major US war since the War Between the States. It must be said that this is a fantastic sequence, showcasing not only the fact that these two are basically ageless immortals (regenerative healing factors, potato, potahto), but also Logan's growing disdain for Victor's growing bloodlust.

The film proper picks up in Vietnam, after the two have just been executed (or not) by firing squad. Here, the two are recruited by military man Stryker (Danny Huston) to a team of mutants embarking on covert operations in Africa. We meet a number of mutants here, several of which turn up in varying capacities later. Logan (Huge Ackman, natch) decides to quit the team at the end of the first act, and the remainder of the film plays out like one part Highlander, one part Death Wish, one part X2. Years later, Victor (Liev Schrieber, acting circles around Tyler Mane from the first film) begins picking off his former teammates, which inevitably draws our hero back to Stryker, who offers to make him indestructible in order to hunt down and kill Victor. Thus, we enter the Weapon X part of the plot.

I feel like I've explained the plot enough, but saying any more wouldn't really matter, because after Wolverine gets his signature claws, the plot degenerates into "Meet mutant X, fight mutant X, mutant X takes us to mutant Y, repeat". The first forty-five minutes or so actually represent a decent Wolverine film, at least on par with the original X-Men, easily miles ahead of where Brett Ratner took things in The Last Stand. Sadly, as Robert Frost would put it, nothing gold can stay. The way the second half of the film handles character is basically what kills the movie for me. After the care that was taken to introduce characters like Wade Wilson (Ryan Reynolds) and Wraith (Will.I.Am), the film decides to take not only the comics, but also its own continuity and toss it out the window.

The first sign of trouble comes when Wolverine encounters The Blob (Kevin Durand). Early in the film, we meet the character, whose power is basically his tankproof skin. Fast forward 45 minutes, he's now a morbidly obese boxer. This is the Blob we know from the comics, the Blob who was always a morbidly obese carnival act. I get why they made the change for the film, it just made sense. But it's only the beginning. Blob points us in the direction of Remy LeBeau, aka Gambit (Taylor Kitsch). Here, his original power of charging objects (which then explode) somehow gets translated into explosive telekinesis. Sure, his MO is throwing playing cards, we know that he's a skilled card player, but that in no way denotes an ability to make playing cards float through air. Also, he can now apparently do any and everything with a bo-staff. These things, while cool to watch on screen, are just categorically wrong.

Then there's Cyclops who, in his brief cameo, showed that he can now shoot heat rays out of his eyes rather than the concussive beams that he's used not only since 1963, but also in the three previous films. It's an incongruity that I'm glad I'm not the only one to have spotted. Then, of course, there's the whole Deadpool fiasco. In that instance, I'm okay with the changes they made (well, a few anyway), because it does at least work within the context of the story. Still, though, it's indicative of the filmmakers deciding to do what looks cool rather what the fans want. I doubt any fan of Gambit or Deadpool is clamoring for more of the characters as portrayed in this film.

And that, I think, is what this film ultimately comes to. As much as Tom Rothman and everyone at Fox claim that this movie is for "the fans", it's clearly not. This is one of those movies whose inevitable failings tend to get chalked up to it being "just a dumb summer action movie." This is a movie for fans of the other movies, sure, but the care that Bryan Singer took in creating the X-universe is all but gone here, replaced with on-the-nose soap opera flourishes and CG claws that look two or three more renders away from looking at all realistic.. Whenever Logan looks up and screams over the dead body of a loved one, we laugh rather than feel for him. When Logan and Victor race toward one another with the intent of killing one (three times, even) another, we don't care because we know both will fight each other once again in the 2000 X-Men film. Moments like this are peppered throughout the film, and do little to keep us invested in Logan's journey.

X-Men Origins: Wolverine entertains on a purely visceral level, but for the "fans", there are too many holes, incongruities, and false notes to really stir up much enthusiasm. For their part, Liev Schrieber and Hugh Jackman are a lot of fun to watch together (and apart), but the plot, continuity, and barrage of special effects simply can't keep up.

2.5 stars (**1/2) out of five.

Bond Review #5: Goldfinger

2009-05-02T00:26:00.008-04:00

Well here we are again. Another week, another Bond movie. This one is renowned worldwide. It’s got some of the most memorable set pieces such as the giant laser beam ready to emasculate our hero. It’s got the Bond girl with the most memorable name. It’s got the first Bond theme song with words during the title credits… one that has gone down in history as one of the most memorable Bond songs. There are so many classic things about this movie.

Goldfinger came out in book form in 1959. It was the seventh Bond novel. Five years later, it became the third movie in the series. Dr. No and From Russia With Love were big hits, and expectations were huge for the third adventure. It’s very obvious that those expectations were met and surpassed. The movie launched the world into Bondmania. But how did it accomplish that? What’s so different about this movie as compared to the first two films?

Well, to begin with, this is one damned gimmicky flick. Bond had gadgets in From Russia With Love, but they were practical, and it was all in one briefcase. With this movie, we get introduced to the Q Branch labs, where there are several insane tests going on while Q is giving Bond a rundown on his newly issued equipment. This is the first time James Bond is given a cool, gadget filled car! (Well, that’s used on screen anyway…) A car with an ejector seat?! Why hadn’t anyone thought of that before? Machine guns, bullet screen, smokescreen, oil spill… It’s almost Speed Racer-light! (Okay, maybe not) Also we have Oddjob, Goldfinger’s Korean henchman with the steel rimmed hat that he throws to kill people. Huh?! Or what about killing someone and then painting them gold… in the nude, just as a calling card? Killing a guy slowly by strapping him to a table with a giant laser beam coming slowly up between his legs?

I guess I’m just trying to say that this movie is so out there that it’s damned cool! With all it’s gimmickiness, it launched the Bondmania with the items that came out in support of the film. A hit single by Shirley Bassey, toys for kids, more mainstream interest in the Bond books, and so on.

The movie concerns Bond being told to find out what this guy Goldfinger is up to. Somehow he’s controlling the gold market, and MI6 can’t figure out how! After Bond messes with Goldfinger’s token girl and makes him lose money in a card game, Goldfinger has the girl killed and painted gold. Bond continues to follow Goldfinger, getting caught quite a few times only to escape. Well, this stops after he’s taken out of the country into Kentucky. There, he learns that Goldfinger no longer wants to control just European gold supply, but America’s too! He has to try to get Goldfinger’s crack pilot, Mrs. Pussy Galore, to somehow help, but is she immune to his charms?

Seriously, this isn’t my favorite movie in the series. It’s not even my favorite Connery film. However, it is a strong movie. It’s fun, it’s intriguing, it’s suspenseful, and it’s the reason Bond is still around to this day. It added essential parts to the successful formula that Bond now uses. This brought gadgets, the idea that more girls are better, and the pop title song. I think if the Bond movies had stuck to the same style as the previous two, the series wouldn’t be around today. Those movies are just as good as this one, but this movie set this series apart from the likes of Hitchcock or other run of the mill spy movies. It was epic!

Locations: 7/10 We have beautiful countryside here in abundance. Kentucky hills, Miami Beach, Switzerland… Like all early Bond films, this is also a travelogue. This is the first time that Bond is filmed partially in America. It worked well here, but not so well a few films from now. I’m still amazed at the interior Fort Knox set. It sort of makes up for the fact that Goldfinger really doesn’t have a fortress. He lives on a Kentucky horse ranch…

Villain: 10/10 “No, Mr. Bond, I expect you to die!” Some of the most famous words in Bond lexicon, spoken by Auric Goldfinger. Man, this guy is badass. He gases his own flunkies, is willing to kill off an entire town, almost succeeds in splitting Bond in half and doesn’t even have the want to watch it happen… Man he’s cool…. In a creepy way. (The producers decided to get Gert Frobe to play him by seeing him play a child molester in a movie.)

Bond Girls: 10/10 We’ve got a case of the classics here. Jill and Tilly Masterson, both killed by Oddjob, but both very beautiful. Jill of course is then covered in gold paint, which is one of the most remembered shots in Bond history. Then we have the ever popular Pussy Galore. I still wonder how they got away with that name in 1964! Ms. Galore is every bit James Bond’s equal. She always seems to be one step ahead of him. It’s just too bad she doesn’t come in until the last half of the movie. She’s played by Honor Blackman, who is known for playing Cathy Gale in The Avengers. A few films later, the other major Avengers girl, Diana Rigg, would also become a Bond girl.

Direction/Design: 10/10 This is one beautiful movie. It’s hard to believe that the beginning scenes in Miami are mostly shot on a soundstage. The blending of location to soundstage is unbelievable. The movie is also more kenetic than it’s predecessors. There’s more action here, and with a different director, things are done differently. This is the first Bond film directed by Guy Hamilton, and it’s the best of the four Bond movies he ended up doing. If there’s one thing this guy knew how to do, it was make things pretty. This is the only time, however, that he ended up shooting a Bond movie with a great script, sadly.

Theme Song: 8/10 Why not ten for this, if it’s so iconic? Because it’s so darned cheesy. People make fun of this song like gangbusters. It’s so over the top that you can’t help it. Sure, Thunderball is cheesier, but it sounds like she’s singing a lusty love song to Goldfinger himself… an obese, kinda creepy looking bad guy. It kinda ruins the intended effect I think.

Overall: 10/10 I know that doesn’t add up to the above scores, but that was never my intention for these overall things…. It’s just how it worked out for the first 4 reviews. This is an essential Bond movie, and it’s a classic for a reason. It’s a great movie, not just a great Bond movie.

The blu-ray was fantastic. There’s even more special features here than on most Bond blu-rays. The normal making of is here, but there’s also a longer documentary on the Goldfinger phenomenon. It’s very interesting. There are also of course two commentaries and various other little things to keep you informed and occupied. The picture quality was astounding, even in the shots where opticals were used. Sound quality was also great, though don’t expect too much surround. It was originally mono, ya know.

James Bond will return with the review of… Never Say Never Again.

The Soloist

2009-04-25T21:22:00.005-04:00

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0821642/

Based on the book by LA Times reporter Steve Lopez about a true story, The Soloist features Jamie Foxx as Nathaniel Ayers, a schizophrenic musical savant who is now homeless and living in Los Angeles. Robert Downey Jr. plays Lopez, and the role affords him almost as much range and diversity as his charading in Tropic Thunder. The comic relief is well-timed and serves to bring us back to the genuineness of Downey's character, rather than distracting from the dramatic tones.

The film follows Lopez as its protagonist than Ayers, and the audience will identify with Lopez as the everyman as he encounters Ayers. Lopez is a popular columnist for the Los Angeles Times, and as he is coming up a deadline for a new story, he finds Ayers playing a violin under a statue of Beethoven. He tries to approach Ayers, and this is when we see that besides being homeless, there is something that seems to be wrong with Ayers. His speech is rambling, repetitive, and often nonsensical, but with moments of clarity that reveal his talent and intellect. Lopez later finds Ayers playing in a tunnel and speaks with him again. We find out that Ayers had attended Juliard, but dropped out, and flashbacks are presented throughout the film as they are triggered by voices Ayers hears, which tell us more about his past. They develop a friendship, and public interest rises as Lopez writes more columns about Ayers.

Foxx is in peak form to nail the idiosyncrasies of Ayers' condition, which had to have been a difficult role to play consistently and seriously. However, it is Downey's portrayal of the fascination and frustration of their relationship that carries the film. I was expecting a character piece on schizophrenia, but Foxx portrays Ayers in such a way that he is treated almost as a non-character, with Lopez's character arc being central.

There isn't much in the way of plot, which may bore some viewers. As a true story, they had to stick to some degree to the true story. Given this, there isn't much that actually happens. There's basically one note to the story - Ayers is a musical savant, went to Juliard, was overwhelmed by his untreated schizophrenia, and is now homeless. That's it. That's the story. So the only thing that makes this story continue to be compelling for two hours is the relationship with Lopez. However, since Ayers is largely a non-character human plot point, the real story is about Lopez's frustration, his relationship with his ex-wife/editor, and his desire to redeem his failed responsibilities with his family by taking responsibility for Ayers. This journey also introduces Lopez to the greater homeless population of Los Angeles, which is where the larger part of his character arc presents itself. The few scenes where these elements are highlighted are basically what makes this movie worth watching.

---------------------

The second major element of this film is its presentation of the homeless, and I couldn't help but draw some comparisons with Pursuit of Happyness. Both are based on true stories about homeless men. There are a number of montages in an around the homeless shelters that introduce us to some homeless people in both movies, and each one presents a completely different message.

Pursuit of Happyness gives us Will Smith as an ordinary man who falls on homelessness due to unfortunate circumstances piling up on him, and he is unable to pay his rent. He picks himself up by his own intellectual abilities and perseverance and becomes a successful stock broker. The message here is a classic American dream story line.

The Soloist, on the other hand, shows us homeless people as a category of society, rather than just as people who don't have homes. They are portrayed, as Lopez says in the movie, as "broken, helpless souls." The majority are mentally ill, helplessly addicted to drugs, or otherwise unable, categorically, to function in society. The film tries to show us diamonds in the rough, with Ayers' talents, and a few other bright characters and relationships in the shelter. However, the movie ends by telling us that Ayers' mental state is as precarious now as it was when Lopez met him, though he does now have an apartment to live in.

These are both true stories, about real people, so it is impossible to say which portrayal is more accurate, but I think Pursuit of Happyness will remain the more popular with a wider audience in the long run because of its consistency with our hopefulness and values as a culture.
-------------------------

Final Thoughts:
This film tries to do a lot of things, without a lot of plot or substance to do it around. For each of the things this movie does well, there's another movie that does it better.

If you want Jamie Foxx playing in a dramatic biopic about a talented musician: Watch Ray.
If you want fantastical escapism through a fairy tale about the magic of music: Watch August Rush.
If you want an uplifting based-on-a-true-story about homeless people: Pursuit of Happyness.
And if you want Robert Downey Jr., actually this is probably his best role.

I recommend to check it out, but you don't need to watch it twice.
3.5 Stars.

Hating a well liked movie is an internet crime?

2009-04-25T12:48:00.002-04:00

I really have to get this off of my chest. This happens at IMDB, blu-ray.com, and pretty much anywhere else there is an internet forum on movies.

I was at blu-ray.com, which is a fantastic site, and looking at their message boards. It's something I like to do on sites, browsing message board subjects to get various takes on a subject. It's also a damned annoying activity because there's always someone in a thread that wants to stick the proverbial internet bayonet in you repeatedly.

I was reading this subject by this guy who just doesn't like Blade Runner. He bought it, watched the final cut and the theatrical cut, and didn't like either. I am also one of the few sci-fi fans that doesn't really care for Blade Runner. I find it pretentious, slightly boring, and I just never got what all the fuss was about. Well, this person who said he didn't like the movie over there is now being accused of having no taste in film, that he's spoiled by modern effects, and how pretty much he's a lesser person for not liking this movie.

I know the internet lets out peoples' real selves because of the anonymity of it all, but this is the equivilant of putting people in the internet stocks and taunting them. It's really stupid. If these people like all the movies ever made that are considered classics, can't I call them sheep, narrow-minded idiots, and without a shred of originality in their lives? I dislike quite a lot of classics... Requiem For A Dream, Pulp Fiction, Blade Runner, Apocalypse Now, even Rashomon. If I, like this guy, have no taste, why do I like Memento, Jackie Brown, Alien, The Deer Hunter, or Sanjuro? Those are all classics or cult classics...

To say such things like, "you have no taste" without knowing what other movies a person likes or dislikes is one of the dumbest, damn fool things you can do. All people are different, and if everyone all liked the same movies, life would be really, really boring. I know this argumentative style will not die, but in fact will fester and grow, as it has since the beginning days of the web, and that saddens me. People talk all about intelligent discourse, but it's never done.

Sorry, I just had to rant people.

Regular posts are on the way

2009-04-24T19:43:00.002-04:00

Hi, folks. Just wanted to check in and let you know that I've been extremely busy with exams and paper writing lately. After next Wednesday, I'll be done with finals, and able to concentrate on regular posting around here.

I'm cooking up a DVD series, so don't think I've just been ignoring you. Once I get everything in order, I'll be embarking on a DVD retrospective on Batman. It'll include the old movie serials, the animated features and, of course, the 90s Batman films.

So stay tuned!

Bond Review #4: The World Is Not Enough

2009-04-22T21:06:00.008-04:00

Ah yes, The World Is Not Enough... This one was the first Bond movie I saw in theaters. Of course, by that time I had seen every Bond movie that came before it. I can remember being so excited to see the movie, as at the time I was even more obsessed with the series than I am now. I also remember being slightly disappointed in the movie after seeing it. It had not lived up to the two previous Brosnan Bond films, Goldeneye and Tomorrow Never Dies. Even to this day it seems to drag to me. I now realise that I was not alone in that sentiment. It seems that most had, and still do, consider this movie to be a drop in quality from the other 1990s Bond movies.

Don't get me wrong. It's not horrible. It's just a very "meh" movie. "Meh" is a step above "ugh". It has its bad points, (Denise Richards, bland locations, a stupid plot), and it has its good ones, (Sophie Marceau, the action sequences, the theme song).

Let's start with the less than stellar, shall we? First, let's try to comprehend the plot. James Bond, (Pierce Brosnan) is sent to protect a girl, (Sophie Marceau) from a man named Renard, (Robert Carlyle) who once kidnapped her and held her for ransom. He's apparently interested in killing her and sabotaging her oil pipeline so that he can control the world's oil supply. By the end of the movie there's helicopters with buzzsaws, snowjets with parachutes, a hijacked submarine, and Denise Richards as a nuclear physicist. Yes, you heard me right, nuclear physicist. I don't know who decided that would be a good casting decision, but that person should never do casting again. We're talking about a girl most consider to be a ditz in real life, and you want us to believe she's a nuclear physicist? Ooooookkaaayyyy... Not happening here. Also not happening are the locations. My God, the director here, Michael Apted is a noted documetarian. He should be able to pick locations well, but the best we get is... an exterior shot of the Guggenheim and a small island fortress about the size of a lighthouse. It's really THE most drab looking Bond film ever made. Sure, we go skiing in the film once, but that's the most we get.

Now, before I start making it sound like this is the worst Bond film ever, (it's not), or that I absolutely hate it, it does have its good points. The action here is your standard James Bond action. Ski chases, gunfights, remarkable escapes... But with additional directoral flair that the previous two films didn't have. It is not really better than the rest of the films in terms of amount of the sequences or the type, but it's staged better. Also I should mention that Judi Dench gets more screentime in this movie, and Dame Dench is always a delight, so that's a great plus. Michael Apted wanted to bring to the forefront more character interaction, which he didn't really succeed in except with Dench. Finally she's in the action for a film! Sophie Marceau is also a pretty good Bond girl, even if she isn't all that she seems. She's stunning to look at and isn't too annoying, two positives that few Bond girls have both of. She also gives us the first unintentional nipple shot in the Bond series. (Either unintentional or the censors didn't catch it!) She also has a past, and issues coming from that past that are important to the story, which I believe is a first for the Bond series.

Locations: 2/10 Ugh... A submarine, Bilbao, a little fortress on an island off Istanbul, and Kazakhstan. Not really the most photogenic of places. This is THE most drab Bond film. I have no idea what Apted was thinking. According to the commentary he wanted to put in actual exotic places... as in buildings. Um, yeah, not a great idea Mr. Apted.

Villain: 4/10 I love Robert Carlyle, but he's just not that great here. I dunno if it's because he's just a pawn and that diminishes his charm or if it's that he's given nothing to do but look evil and be bald like all the other bad guys in the movie... He doesn't even respect Bond as most villains do He doesn't wine and dine James Bond. It's something new for the series but it doesn't quite work.

Bond Girls: 5/10 Denise Richards is not the worst Bond girl. I'm sorry to those that hate her, but there are worse. At least she's good looking in a slutty way. She's smart in the movie as well. The ONLY problem is that she's so horribly miscast. Sophie Marceau, as I mentioned earlier is a great Bond girl being mysterious, stunningly beautiful, and smart. Good casting on that one.

Direction/Design: 7/10 The movie is overall drab looking, but the direction is spot on. Michael Apted is a documentary filmmaker most of the time, and the look of the film shows that. Natural lighting whenever possible, cloudy days, and a lot of copter shots. It's a bit odd to watch really, and Apted was an interesting choice to direct.

Theme Song: 10/10 This is one of my five favorite Bond songs. It's performed by Garbage and it is astounding. The music video, which is on the Blu-Ray is also a very good music video. I think it harkens back to the Bond themes of the 60s, which was a welcome departure from the 80s rock songs. I mean those are great, but a change is good sometimes.

Overall: 5/10 It's not a bad movie, but the plot is hard to follow, it's not pretty to look at, and it seems to drag so much, especially in the middle. In all, quite a forgettable film, and the only forgettable Brosnan Bond. (Though one is memorable for how bad it is.)
The blu-ray for this one is sadly just like the film. Pretty meh. It's filled with fluff pieces and the commentaries don't really tell you much. The reason it's like this is that all the special features were ported over from the first DVD releases which were right after the movie was released. It's not newer original stuff, which is usually more truthful. The picture and audio also are a bit disappointing. You think a newer movie like this wouldn't be as subdued.

James Bond will return in a week in... Goldfinger.

Grand Theft Auto: Crank

2009-04-16T18:39:00.011-04:00

With Crank: High Voltage dropping tomorrow, I thought I'd take a look back at the first film. Now, I'll be the first to admit that Crank is not for every action fan. It's the kind of movie that appeals to people who like their action wild, wacky, and completely, utterly ridiculous. Crank has that in spades. Some might criticize it for simply being a video game on film. And guess what? They're right. Even the two directors admit that it's a video game movie. But it really stuck me this week that that might really be the film's point.

What got me was a message board discussion of the upcoming sequel, and the posters arguing over the justification for it. Isn't Chev dead? How can he survive falling from a helicopter? WTF? One poster laid it out by saying something along the lines of "When he beat the final boss, he got the high score and earned an extra life." Now, despite the fact that he was probably being facetious, I think that's a fairly apt way to look at the film.

I mean, when your opening credits look like this...

...It's pretty clear what you're going to get. But going further, the movie is more or less an 87 minute riff on everything that the Grand Theft Auto series has been cultivating since GTA2. First of all you've got your basic components. The film's overworld map is represented here by Google Earth, complete with logo, compass, coordinates, and location names.

Powerups? Crank's got 'em. Red Bull, energy pills, electricity (which the sequel will inevitably expand upon), hard drugs, medical remedies. Anything that might possibly get someone wired is in this film (short of coffee, strangely).

Then you've got that strange scene about two-thirds of the way through where Chev drinks the "Haitian plant shit". It's unclear whether he goes on some kind of drug trip, or what, but what is clear is that this wasn't just another 'powerup'.

Then, of course, you've got the little gameplay elements. To anybody who's ever played a Grand Theft Auto game, how often have you gotten bored of the story mode, only to find yourself steering a car into oncoming traffic, or walking up to a stranger and punching out a guy in a suit, just for the hell of it? If you're like me, the answer is "A lot.". You get those sequences here.

Particularly in Vice City, if you've ever found yourself in the mall, you know how tempting it is to just cut loose and wreak some havoc. Of course, you can't really crash a car sideways onto an escalator, but that's just about the ONLY thing you can't do.

Which brings us to that final scene. It all comes down to Chev and the 'final boss'. They're both hanging from a helicopter high above Los Angeles. At this point, he's lasted longer than anyone expected. He's probably earned a six-star wanted level, made a whole lot of GTA money, points out the wazoo. The boss is defeated, Chev crashes back down to reality, and he's dead.

But then that extra life kicks in, and here we are. Of course, High Voltage could negate all of this and just go the dumb-action-and-that's-it route. Though, I certainly hope not. So, if these movies do find a substantial audience, I'm pretty sure it'll be anyone who's ever played and enjoyed the Grand Theft Auto franchise. If anything could be said to be Crank's Ur-text, GTA would probably be it.

Just food for thought, I guess.

Bond review #3: Live and Let Die

2009-04-13T23:31:00.007-04:00

This was the first pre-Brosnan Bond film I ever saw. It's still one of my favorites just because it's probably one of the funniest of the series, and also one of the weirdest. It's also the first time Roger Moore played James Bond.

I realize that many people dislike Roger Moore, or more accurately dislike the films he was in and his interpretation of Bond. For a while though, he was my favorite, as I'm sure he is to most 12 year olds. Why? He's got cool gadgets, lots of sexual puns, and he never loses his cool. Now that I'm older, I find Sean Connery and Timothy Dalton to be more to my liking.

1973 was the height of the blaxploitation craze. Some also thought it was the end to the James Bond era as Sean Connery had now just quit the role for a second time and said he'd never play Bond again. (Never say never, Mr. Connery!) The studio had already tried once to fill Connery's shoes, and the results were a great movie, but a very poor Bond. When it comes to Live and Let Die and Roger Moore, what we get is an okay Bond film and an okay Bond. Yet it's not a forgettable one. After all, what other Bond movie has all of the bad guys being black? It was a daring decision at the time, and quite a few people today consider the movie to be racist. It may be a bit, but it's nowhere near the racist sludge that the original book was. Besides, all of the black actors who worked on the film has fond memories.

The plot of the movie has to do with Bond investigating the deaths of three MI6 field agents in various places. He finds out the places have one thing in common... Each has a Fillet of Soul restaurant. He gets trapped by Mr. Big and rescued by the CIA. Bond uses a tarot card girl (Jane Seymour) owned by Mr. Big's friend Dr. Kananga (Yaphet Kotto) as leverage. Then there's a bunch of chases and heroin and voodoo rituals.... It's all very convoluted really.

The best parts of the movie to me are the incredible speedboat chase through the Louisiana bayous, the character of the cracker cop Sheriff J. W. Pepper (Clifton James, who played Carr in Cool Hand Luke), and the escape from an island in the middle of a pond full of alligators. Also of note is the character of Quarrel Jr. I'm guessing, since this boatman character pops up in the same area as Dr. No, and shares the same last name as the boatman in Dr. No, that it's supposed to be his son.

When it comes to how good the movie is, it's really rather average when it comes to the Bond films. Sure, it's different in that Q doesn't appear, it's a new actor playing the leading role, the first rock song opening, and all the villains were black, but other than that, it's not much different in feel than the last film, Diamonds Are Forever was. I'm not sure all of the supernatural stuff they put into the movie was a good idea, but it was in the source material after all. (I should know, as I've read Live and Let Die, Golfinger, and Man With The Golden Gun.)

Locations: 6/10 Bond travels a lot in this one, but all the locations are in the same general area of the world really. We start out in England of course, but we only see the inside of Bond's house. Then we have three other locations... The fictional Caribbean country of San Monique which, let's face it, is really just the Dominican Repulic or Haiti... There's Harlem, and then Louisiana. It's very America based, as Diamonds Are Forever was. These may not be the most picturesque places Bond visits, but they give the film a gritty quality which fits it's blaxploitation roots.

Villain: 4/10 Yes, Yaphet Kotto is a great actor, and he's a charming villain. However, he's not attempting to take over the world or blackmail governments... He's a big drug kingpin. I'm not really sure that we needed the best double O agent to bring him down. Also his death is the worst in the Bond series. James makes him swallow an air pellet and he blows up like a balloon, flies to the ceiling (complete with balloon noises), and pops on the roof. It's REALLY stupid. The henchmen are a bit better. They all have their little quirks. There's Whisper who.... whispers. Then there's TeeHee who has a claw for a hand and laughs. Lastly there's Baron Samedi, who doesn't die and has the last laugh in the movie... literally.

Bond Girl: 4/10 Jane Seymour as Solitaire, while pretty to look at, is simply a mediocre Bond girl. She's soft-spoken and was sort of like the captive princess who just needed saving. She does hit people with her handbag though.

Direction/Design: 5/10 The series, after using the 2.35:1 aspect ratio since Thunderball, went to using 1.85:1 for this one. It means the film loses its epic scope a bit, but that fits in with this movie. It IS smaller scale than all the films since Dr. No. Ultimately, the direction and design are fine, but that's all. No bells and whistles here.

Theme: 10/10 This is the main reason the movie is known to people. The Paul McCartney and Wings theme song. It's the first rock song to be used as a Bond theme, and it's one of the best. The song would later become even more popular after Guns 'N Roses redid it in the early 90s. The song fits the mood of the film very well and is well deserving of it's classic rock status.

Overall: 5/10 It's not forgettable, but it's certainly nowhere near the best or worst in the series. It's got a lot of humor and is different from the early Connery films. However, it's very similar in style to the film that preceded it. Roger Moore was a more suave James Bond than Connery, but audiences at the time didn't mind. Worth watching at least once.

The blu-ray for this Bond title is a dramatic improvement over the pretty murky and drab VHS that I owned. The movie uses mainly browns and dark greens, so there isn't much to see, but the blu-ray still made it look beautiful. It was again put through the Lowry restoration process. The extras are plentiful. There are 3 commentary tracks, including one by Sir Roger Moore himself. Also included are a fantastic in-depth making of, trailers, a travelogue, Moore doing a spoof of Bond in 1963, and some small featurettes on various subjects.

James Bond will return soon in... The World Is Not Enough

Ugh: Bones

2009-04-08T15:13:00.004-04:00

Just look at that poster for a moment. I shouldn't have to tell you why this film makes me go, "Ugh." This Halloween, unleash the Dogg? Ugh. But you know what? No. I'm not going to just sit here and harp on this being a bad movie. That's too easy. There is, in fact, a small glimmer of hope within Bones. The hope that, against all odds, this might eventually turn into something resembling a quality horror film.

As the poster might suggest, Snoop Dogg is the main draw here. Nobody's going to see this film because of the story, or because they're expecting a quality horror flick, or because Pam Grier is in it (OK, a few might). Most everyone who willingly sits down to watch Bones does so out of some desire to watch the vengeful ghost of Snoop Dogg murder people.

And, for the most part, that's what they get. But only barely.

Bones tells the story of four urban twenty-somethings looking to reinvigorate their father's old neighborhood by opening a dance club. The building they purchase was once owned by 70s pseudo-pimp Jimmy Bones (Snoop Dogg), who was murdered under especially dubious circumstances some twenty-five years prior. Those that remember the murder (including Pam Grier) hang around the area, making sure that nobody uncovers what truly happened that day.

As the kids uncover Bones' bones and continue to disrespect his pad, Bones begins his ghastly killing spree. With every kill, more of Bones' body reconstitutes itself, a la The Mummy, which ultimately leads him to rising from the dead to seek out those who had wronged him all those years ago. Along the way, the film reveals its mystery to us through increasingly longer flashbacks, despite the fact that we've already guessed what's going on twenty minutes ago. By film's end, what started as an odd, backwards murder mystery ends in what can best be described as one big ripoff of Nightmare on Elm Street.

Which is disappointing, because every time the film actually hits a decent groove, it derails itself with either a terrible joke or too much plot at once. Now, believe it or not, Snoop Dogg is one of the few things that this film actually has going for it. He's not in the film all that much, but he works as the imposing, vengeful demon. The gore isn't too bad either. The blood is that deep red, waxy looking goop that tends to only be found in Italian giallo films.

Other than that, the film is racist without being particularly funny, gory without being really scary, and just the worst kind of derivative. Bones plays like a perverted blend of Candyman and A Nightmare on Elm Street, with shades of "Hamlet" tossed in for (not so) good measure.

I guess I'd give this film two stars out of five (**). Ugh.

Films That Make You Go "Ugh"

2009-04-08T14:16:00.006-04:00

If you've listened to any episode of our podcast, you've probably heard us mention one of these films before.

Sometimes there's a film whose intentions are admirable, but for one reason or another, the thing never connects like they should. You admire the filmmakers for trying, but the final product just doesn't work. These films aren't necessarily bad, but they certainly aren't any good. They're just films that make you go, "Ugh."

"Ugh" at their sheer ineptitude, bad taste, poor production value, or a myriad of other issues.

This is a series devoted to exposing those films in the hope that you, the reader, will be all the wiser the next time you visit Blockbuster, sign on to NetFlix, or even if you're just watching TV. I encourage everyone (including Trent and Watson) to join me in bringing these films to light so that we may mock them communally. So if you've got a film that makes you go "Ugh", let us know, and we'll feature it in a later post.

These are films that make you go "Ugh".

Bond review #2 - Quantum of Solace

2009-04-06T22:02:00.008-04:00

Friends, there comes a time when a franchise wears itself out, or at least a time when the bigwig studio heads think it has. A new direction is needed. Believe me, after Die Another Day they were right. We got Casino Royale out of the deal, which is fine by me. It was different, it was exciting, it was fun. Then, a few years afterwards, we got this one. Quantum of Solace.

It's not based on an Ian Fleming story, even though it takes the title of one of his short stories. Surprisingly enough, it plays a lot like a Timothy Dalton era Bond film. Bond beds only one woman, he's lost some of his humor that was in Casino Royale, and the villain sucks. If those were the only issues, I'd love it as much as I do the Dalton bonds, because truthfully, both of those were pretty well done movies. No, no, no... We have a few problems here.

Problem number one is the editting. Holy crap, was the editor on speed?! I timed one of the fight scenes and ther was a cut every 1.2 seconds! It's outrageous, it serves no purpose, it's headache inducing, it needs to go away. Used in moderation, as in Chronicles of Riddick, (not a great movie), it's fine. Bond can order his martinis shaken all he wants, but I don't think the audience wants to be literally shaken to headache. Shaky cam + fast cuts = bad idea.

The movie isn't all bad. It's short, I believe the shortest Bond movie yet at 106 minutes. It has more Judi Dench, which is always a blessing. We get to see the effects of Vesper on Bond. But what about the things important to a Bond movie, even one that is in a series decidedly different than the one that preceded it? What about the megalomaniac villain? Bond as a sex symbol? The gadgets? Not important here. This one was supposed to be a about story, about people. It failed, sorry to say.

I can't see this as a Bond movie. It's a regular action movie that just happens to have someone named James Bond in it. Now before everyone starts saying it's supposed to be different, and to watch Casino Royale again, chill... I loved that movie both as a Bond film and a regular piece of cinema. I'm down with the reboot. It was needed for today's audience. Yet Casino Royale had more to please me. It was well written, I didn't feel like I was being rushed, and Bond wasn't an action hero.

Here in Quantum of Solace, Bond is Jason Bourne. He's mopey, he's a cold blooded killer, and he's going against the system. The first and third points are part of the reason the series was rebooted in the first place! Let's remember Die Another Day even if I'm sure we don't want to. Bond was tortured for months and came back a mopey beaten man. He went against the system in many of the recent Bonds, and it was becoming lame. Sure he had done it many times of the series, but with Brosnan he did it twice in a row. He got too close to the rest of MI6, and it brought the series down. What with M getting kidnapped in The World Is Not Enough, to Bond being part of a prisoner exchange brought about by M in Die Another Day. They fixed the distance part, but my god, let's not focus on MI6 so much, okay?

The story for this one was hard to follow. All I know is that Bond is trying to avenge Vesper's death whilst MI6 is trying to find out who's putting moles with them, and who they are. Of course, both are related, but honestly I don't remember how. Bond meets up with some South American lady who is trying to avenge her parents' death, and together they end up finding out about a group called Quantum. Then they end up in a desert with a hotel run on fuel cells in the middle of it, and all hell breaks loose. That's about it... Honestly I still don't know what it's about. Bolivian droughts or something. I'm not gonna count off for this though, because stories in Bond films are usually McGuffins.

Location: 5/10 Nothing really here to write home about. We have Haiti, Austria, Bolivia, and Italy pretty much. We spend the most time in Haiti and Bolivia, but these new Bond movies I don't think are going for pretty locations. It felt like I was watching the Bourne Supremacy actually with the brief country hopping.

Villain: 2/10 Man, this was a weak villain. He's a weasley little guy and he's essentially a rehash of Robert Davi's character from Licence To Kill, but more of a weenie. Some would say the real enemy here is Quantum, but since we never really find out exactly what Quantum does, it doesn't count. It's a set-up for the next movie. The evil businessman idea is present in Blofeld, but here the villain is a joke. I don't feel like he'd kill any one of his henchmen just for fun like I did with Blofeld.

Bond Girl: 4/10 She's pretty forgettable. Heck, now I don't even remember her name. Let's just say she's a lesser version of the Bond girl from For Your Eyes Only.

Direction/Design: 5/10 Sure it's done okay, but the action sequences suck. Who decided they needed the director of Kite Runner and Finding Neverland for this action film anyhow? Most of Bond is second unit work, and this second unit director here needs to stop using shaky cam during fight scenes. If I want a documentary, I'll buy one.

Theme: 4/10 This is done by Alicia Keyes and Jack White. It would have been better if it was a simple White Stripes song. I'm glad Amy Winehouse was sacked or whatever though. I personally like the song fine, but it's not a good Bond song, sorry to say.

Overall: 4/10 This is a bit hard to do. It's not good as a Bond film, but it's a great action movie. Since I'm rating these as Bond films, I have to give this one a low score, sorry to say. Hopefully we get an actual James Bond film next time, eh?

As for the Blu-Ray, the sound and video quality is reference grade. I have heard people say it's one of the best on the market to show off your home theater. However, the bonus features are pure fluff pieces and boring for the most part. The music video to the theme is included, as well as some back-patting pieces that say they are featurettes, but are in truth about 3 minutes long. That's about it. No commentary, no BD-Live features, nothing else really.

James Bond will return next week in... Live and Let Die

X-Men Origins: Leaked

2009-04-01T19:16:00.000-04:00

As some of you may or may not already know, just about every other movie news site reported today that a workprint of X-Men Origins: Wolverine has leaked onto the web a full month before its intended release date. After looking into it, the news is 100% true, not an April Fools prank. Now, I personally haven't watched it. I've got better things to do with my time and, frankly, I'm not that interested in watching an unfinished $100 milion action film anyway. I did, however, look into it enough to see whether or not it was a prank to begin with. And it's not. It's real.

So this begs the question: Who leaked it, and why? Some possible theories:

1) Some professional movie pirate got his hands on a copy of the workprint and ripped it for all the world to see. Well, OK, but I'm not so sure that a movie THIS big would be so loosely handled that anyone could get their hands on it so soon. I mean, sure, this isn't the first movie to ever be leaked early, but you'd think movies would be more secure than they used to be.

2) Someone on the project didn't like the way things were going, or didn't like the way they were treated during filming, and leaked the film as a middle finger to Fox. Maybe, but anyone who wanted to work in Hollywood ever again would never pull a stunt like that. Of course, maybe they DON'T want to work in Hollywood again?

3) Speaking of which, there have been reports of considerable strife between director Gavin Hood and Fox exec Tom "F*** the Fans" Rothman over the film, and the reshoots required a few months ago. Maybe Hood himself leaked the film as a middle finger to Rothman? He'd be one of the few people able to even see the film at this point (outside of producers, editors, and focus groups). I'd like to think this is Gavin Hood's doing, but he, too, is not that stupid.

4) Fox executives, in an attempt to not only curb piracy, but also generate interest in the final product, released the film as a sort of viral campaign. This is another likely scenario. Not only does it give fans a quick first look at the film, the bigger result is the publicity that such a stunt generates. I mean, every movie news site on the web is reporting this. Hell, even I'M writing about it. It's also possibly a sign that Fox realizes that they've got a turd on their hands, and they're trying to spit-polish it for all it's worth before May 1st? To me, this feels like the most reasonable explanation.

Or maybe it really is a simple case of movie piracy and I'm just playing conspiracy theorist. At any rate, I sincerely doubt that the movie leaking a whole month before release is really going to damage its potential box office take. The ones who would watch the film online probably weren't going to see it in theaters in the first place.

But I don't know. What do you think?

Bond review: Dr. No

2009-03-31T19:35:00.002-04:00

When I was about eleven years old, I became obsessed with film franchises. If there were more than ten movies in a film series, I had to seek it out. This is mainly due to the fact that I have a the collecting bug. Yes, I love the feeling of accomplishment and the anticipation that comes with slowly collecting a whole series of something. To this day I still collect the Godzilla films, Hammer Horror, animated and live action Disney movies, and the ever-popular James Bond films on the newer formats.

Now I am collecting the Bond films on Blu-Ray. This will actually be my first time seeing some of these in their original aspect ratios, as I collected the films back in VHS days and never upgraded them to DVD. So far I have about 2/3 of what has been released on the format. I have Dr. No, Goldfinger, Live and Let Die, Moonraker, The World Is Not Enough, and Quantum of Solace. I will be getting another every week as I can. There will also be a review every week.

To start off, I watched the first Bond picture, Dr. No. As some of you probably know, James Bond first appeared in a book called Casino Royale. It wasn’t an action based book, and was set mostly at the poker table. They made a telefilm of it in 1954 for the TV show Climax!, and it was largely ignored. Dr. No is actually the SIXTH Bond book. The book was chosen due to it’s stand alone value in the series, the magnificent locations, and it seemed just plain easier to make than, say, Moonraker. They made the right choice in my mind.

In this one James Bond must travel to Jamaica to investigate the death of a British Intelligence officer named Strangways. When he gets there, he is watched by various shady people and he uses these people to get to the bottom of things. In great Bond fashioned, “the bottom of things” ends up being something close to outlandish and far bigger in scope than the first part of the film.

The movie is amazing from the very start. The first gun-barrel sequence is introduced, and I can only imagine the audience of 1963’s surprise when they were shot through a gun-barrel. Now it’s just a quaint opening, but back then it was something completely new. This brings me to the opening titles sequence, which is pure 60s pop art. Brightly colored circles moving in time to the James Bond theme, silhouettes dancing to a calypso version of Three Blind Mice… It really is quite bizarre. One interesting point is the absence of a song for the opening. We just have the Bond theme here in an extended version, followed by an odd verse of Three Blind Mice.

Other than the aforementioned, the movie has everything that would become synonymous with Bond films. We have Moneypenny, Major Boothroyd (though not called Q and not played by Desmond Llewelyn), the Maurice Binder opening titles and gun barrel, the sexually named Bond girl, the over-the-top evil lair, SPECTRE, M, and magnificent locales. For a production crew just starting on a new series, they seem to have gotten the feel for the rest of the series from the very start. Sean Connery was not a huge star before this, known mostly for his role in Darby O’Gill and The Little People (excellent movie), and they took a big gamble on hiring him for the role. Yet again, they made the right choice though.

Now, Dr. No is not as action-packed or as exotic as later Bond movies. Those traditions started with the next Bond film. The movie is more of an old fashioned spy film mostly dealing with questioning people, escaping sticky situations, and foiling evil plots. None of this shoot, shoot some more, kill kill kill. In fact, until the end of the movie it’s actually quite calm. When it comes to locales, here we have just Jamaica. It’s beautiful with its clear blue water, lush green trees, and an almost left behind look to it. The production crew also cast local actors in major roles to great effect.

The film may not be one of the most remembered Bond films, and is most of the time not picked as the best… However it is usually on top ten lists of the series. The Bond girl here, Honey Ryder, played by Ursula Andress, is usually number one of the list of Bond girls. The iconic shot of her rising from the ocean onto the beach singing “Underneath The Mango Tree” is one of the most remembered and erotic scenes in filmdom. Dr. No himself became sort of the prototype for the Bond villain. The physical deformity to symbolize the mental problems, the cool on the outside manner, and of course, the magnificent evil lair. Dr. No has a robotic hand. (Even before Anakin Skywalker!)

When it comes to my views of the movie, it is one of my favorites. It’s a beautiful film to watch. It doesn’t keep my interest as much as most of the other Connery Bonds do, but I think that’s because I don’t feel the danger so pressing here. I never really feel like Bond himself is in danger except in a brief sequence with a spider (in which they used a spider not dangerous to humans). He’s always calm and never seems to get himself into impossible situations as he did later in the series. In fact, the bad guys in this movie seem timid and unsuspecting. All these help to make the movie more realistic, I’m aware, but I’m just stating personal preference.

People, you owe it to yourself to see this on Blu-Ray. The detail is impeccable, and you can see details you couldn’t see before. The make of the Jamaican houses, fallen trees under the water, the material blankets are made of, all are able to be seen now. The disc includes a wonderful commentary hosted by a member of the Ian Fleming Association with members of the cast and crew, a ‘making of’ featurette that is pretty in depth, trailers, and many other goodies. You can find the Blu-Ray for about $20 online.

You may recall that I’m using a ten point system for these films instead of Front Row Center’s normal five star system. I am also grading specific parts of the film. So with that said, here we go.

Location: 8/10 Jamaica is shown beautifully in this film, especially on the blu-ray as you can see everything that’s under the bright green water, the mountains in the distance, every deep green leaf. The location lent itself well to the action of the movie too, especially a fiery car crash.

Villain: 7/10 Dr. No is not the best Bond Villain. He seems to brush Bond off the whole movie. He’s not very commanding, but more a murderous diplomat. He’s very odd.

Bond Girl: 10/10 Honey Ryder is the quintessential bond girl with her tight bikini, hard attitude, and beautiful voice.

Direction/Design: 10/10 Terence Young was a brilliant choice. Jump cuts and inventive lighting. Ken Adams’ production design set the standard for the series, and his work here possibly has not been surpassed.

Theme: 10/10 Just the Bond theme, but it’s the first time it was introduced. Unforgetable.

Full score: 9/10 A wonderful movie in the series and even outside of it.

Next week… either Live and Let Die or Quantum of Solace...

Bond Film reviews to come!

2009-03-29T17:33:00.001-04:00

Hello all. To jump-start this blog, I will be posting reviews of all of the James Bond films. Since they are now coming out on Blu-Ray, I will be updating my collection of them (I never upgraded them from VHS to DVD). The reviews will not be in chronological order, as MGM/FOX are releasing the films out of order. I will, however, be starting with Dr. No.

I will also not be using Front Row Center's usual five star review system, as the bond films are of such differing qualities ranging from the horrible Die Another Day to the amazing From Russia With Love, with a lot in between. I will therefore be using a scale of ten stars. I will also be including Never Say Never Again in the review cycle, but not the 1960s version of Casino Royale, which was a spoof film.

I will also give a small review of the Blu-Rays. I should have Dr. No up by the end of the week, and I hope you enjoy the reviews.

Greetings!

2009-03-23T14:13:00.000-04:00

Hello, internet! Welcome to the official blogging home of Front Row Center, a place where film fans can take movies seriously for once.

Ever since July 2007, the Front Row Center podcast has undergone a number of changes. What started as a two-man operation by Joe and Trent quickly grew into a podcasting trio. A lineup change in November 2007 resulted in Watson's permanent addition to the show. This team still hosts the podcast to this very day. We recorded an hour-long podcast once a week until May of 2008, when college graduation and moving to different cities necessitated a different approach.

Today, Joe Trent and Watson reconvene Wednesday nights, every two weeks to talk about current and classic movies on TalkShoe.

It's our hope that this site will allow us to each share our own thoughts on movies outside of the biweekly broadcast. Also, we've got a message board that you can access over in our links section, as well as a link to our podcast.

Welcome! And may the best movie win!