2012

"Enough with the fat lady! Your obsessed with fat ladies!"

Two families struggle to survive, and a scientist working with the government races to sustain humanity, as devastation envelopes the world.

Civilization is standing on the precipice yet again, and surprise surprise- it's Roland Emmerich's fault. As disaster movies go, it's ambitious. In Independence Day it was the world's major cities. The stakes got upped with The Day After Tomorrow, with the entire northern hemisphere being put to the screws. But on the irreversible devastation scale, 2012 out does them all. Unfortunately, that is pretty much the only difference between director Roland Emmerich's newest nigh apocalyptic outing and the ones that came before. That and the fact that it doesn't have the word "Day" in the title.
The problem isn't that it's a bad or poorly done movie, the problem is that by now we've all got the formula down. It starts with picture perfect sunny days and a divorced couple. Then we watch the only guy who truly understands what's happening get ignored while explaining it. We'll spend the next 10-20 minutes (increasing with each new release) watching all hell break loose. Then take a breather while the president talks about it dramatically.
Of course when he's done there's even more destruction. Then a brave few make their stand, where in there's even more destruction and death, an outrageous and over the top joke, at least one act of self sacrifice (sometimes these two come at once "In the words of my generation...!") and the divorce fences get mended through acts of heroism. And somewhere in there at least one (though rarely limited to one) father and son pair learn that they really do appreciate one another.
I understand that movies of a certain genre often end up having certain things in common, but this is something more. I have to say for me it's getting old. I (nor anyone else I would hope) go into these movies with any hope of truly being moved, but even so- knowing the pattern kills a lot of the fun. I am reminded of my growing disdain for Tim Burton's work. But where he uses the same pallets for each movie, Emmerich uses the same emotional set pieces. Though in his defence, Emmerich is still doing much better than Burton as that the bulk of these "repeat offenses" only apply to his disaster movies.
John Cusack brings his trade mark sarcasm to the pot, which is always enjoyable- but the real stand out performance comes from Chiwetel Ejiofor (your pronunciation is as good as mine). Here's an actor I've been watching for a while, and I'm glad to see him as a leading man. His character is full to the gills with sentiment, but he does well with it anyway. In the end I think the lack of brilliant performances comes more from the material than the talent. Watching this movie it's obvious that the focus is on the destruction, not the characters.
I don't mean to get overly aggressive here, but I think the point is valid. 2012 is porn for disaster junkies. An enjoyable adventure through the end of civilization, I just think that it could use a little more focus on the human element of the story. How will we care whether humanity survives if we don't care about any of the people fighting to be the ones left. Not to mention that it's awfully hard to sit patiently through two and a half hours of brutal apocalypse sustained only on eye candy. That's a long time to spend watching the world end, no matter how good it looks while it's doing it.

The Real Deal Recommends:
Identity: For a spectacular film starring Cusack and Amanda Peet.
Serenity: What? A chance to plug Chiwetel Ejiofor and Firefly? Score!

The Box

"What hurts the most is the lack of respect, you know? That's what hurts the most."

A young family is offered the chance to bail themselves out of financial trouble. All they have to do is press a mysterious button, brought to them be an even more mysterious stranger, and they'll receive one million dollars, but somewhere someone they don't know will die.

Yet another review I'm really having trouble getting started. The words are escaping me, though I chase them with all my strength and speed. So instead of going straight after it, I'm going to try a sort of end run. If this counts as me being a bad reviewer- guilty as charged.
There are people who dismiss the adaptation of books right off the bat. As most often this is the case in terms of movies- I feel it's relevant. "It can never be as good as the book!" they say. "They cut that great scene where..." they holler. But it is my personal belief that anyone who feels this way is missing the point. The movie is not supposed to be the book. Often times they attempt to tell the same story, or expand on what was already written (more on that in a moment), but cinema is a completely different art form.
Saying that one must be exactly like the other is like dismissing a 3rd graders detailed rendition of the Mona Lisa because they did it with finger paint. "Well that doesn't look the same as Davinci's little Billy/Cindy. And you really should have used canvas, construction paper doesn't capture her presence." Your missing the point, and there for missing the joy. If you come to the movie expecting the book you will be disappointed, and what's worse, you'll deserve it.
As I said before, sometimes the movie attempts to tell the same story but within the boundaries of it's medium. Sometimes it tries to tell the same story, and also tries to update it as well. Sometimes it tries to take the source material and expand on it. Sometimes it tries to do all of this. And sometimes, it fails miserably. But this is no reason to discount the attempt straight out of the gate. I think a successful adaptation does a little of all of these things. It retells, updates, and expands on the source material- keeping the main themes alive while making sure it stays relevant and enjoyable. A great example of this is Zack Snyder's 2007 treatment of 300 (bare with me).
Anyone who's familiar with the graphic novel by Frank Miller and Lynn Varley (Yes, I think she deserves to be credited. No, I don't know why nobody ever does) knows that if it had been translated directly to a script it would have been around 35 minutes long. So Snyder and company sat down and built on the story to make it feature length, and update it a bit in terms of making the players a little more 3 dimensional, especially the Queen. But here's the key, they did so while adhering to the overall themes and mood of the source material. Obviously 300 was enjoyable but wasn't the greatest movie of my generation, but it pulled off the difficult balancing act that is pleasing to fans of the book, and yet remaining accessible to any who were unfamiliar with it. And thus proved that movie rights are not a death sentence.
Which brings me to my point. We have seen that it is difficult but possible to take a book and make it a movie without sacrificing the story told there in or the quality of the movie. Which means that the makers of The Box have absolutely no excuse for what the it did to Richard Matheson's short story "Button, Button" -about the divides that can grow between two people, even if they sleep in the same bed. The first forty-five minutes or so of this movie is the Twilight Zone episode based on the same story, and once it's off that track it spins out into oblivion like an unfortunate astronaut. And like the same, once all attempts at rescue have been exhausted you have no choice but to either watch it hurtle towards it's fate, or shield your eyes and cry.
Gone is the emotional core of the short story. instead of focusing on our couple and their emotional journey, we are informed very early on that they are nothing but flies caught in an increasingly elaborate and ridiculous web. Only the web has not been spun by a meticulous and patient spider as one might assume, because I can't imagine such a skilled creature would create something so full of loose ends and meaningless (and sometimes confusing) strands. Case and point: At one point we're told that the mysterious stranger heals eight times faster than a normal human. 'Really?' I thought to myself. 'Than how exactly do you explain the fact that a third of his face is gone? Oh wait, you don't.'
Nothing about this movie works. The performances are decent at best, the special effects are good but completely out of place, and the cinematography is completely without ambition. One could make the argument that it's going for a 70's feel, but if that's true than again, why are all the special effects there? This movie just rattled round and round in my head after I saw it. I grimace when I think about it, and try to forgive myself for not just walking out.
I have a soft place in my heart for James Marsden. 1.) Because he's handsome, and 2.) Because anyone who can make Cyclops and interesting character to me can't be all bad. But even so- it's not nearly enough to save The Box. Short stories and books can become great movies, I've seen it- I know it can be done. But this just isn't one of them. It lumbers and drools like a half tranquilized animal. If anything, it's a case study on what NOT to do with your adaptation. A wise person once said: "If you can't be a good example, be a horrible warning." Consider yourself warned.

Real Deal Recommends:
X2: Easily the best X-men movie, and currently my favorite place to see James Marsden.

Pearls Before Swine

"Houston, we have a spoiler"

I believe this is something we've all been through. You sit down to share a movie you absolutely love with some friends who have never seen it, only to find looks of confusion and disgust when the lights come up. And as your heart breaks you think to yourself, silently, as your inner child weeps: "Why? Why am I the only one?" Pearls Before Swine is a new feature meant for discussing the phenomenon.

With each new post, I will discuss a movie that I am in the minority on, be it love or hate. Sometimes it will just be movies I disagree with friends on. Sometimes it be movies that apparently I disagree with the entire North American market on. but to keep it simple, this first title will be one that strikes close to home.

Hook

Surrounded by people on all sides who'd been swearing by this movie for years, it was really only a matter of time before I saw it. I wasn't against watching it, so much as i just had no real interests. For me it was one of those movies that you always seem to catch the same twenty minutes of on UPN at 1:24 on a Saturday afternoon. But since I had nothing against the movie i sat down to it completely willing to love it- I didn't.

Here's a movie that's directed by Steven Spielberg, with music composed by John Williams, starring actors like Robin Williams, Bob Hoskins, Maggie Smith (the list goes on)- what a pedigree. And yet, I was unmoved. But wait, there's more! It takes the beloved classic Peter Pan and advances it beyond J.M. Barrie's conclusions- and if you don't know, I'm a sucker for artists messing with established narratives. But still, nothing.

So where did Hook go wrong for me? Quite frankly, it never really went right. It's an innovative story that was well written and executed, but in the end it just felt like two and a half hours of a 45 year-old man's naval gazing to me. I'm sure that this is exactly what it was meant to be, but apparently I'm not the intended audience then- cause I wasn't interested. For all it's posturing it felt like little more than a grown man lamenting about getting older. But not in a "at least I've gained wisdom" sort of way. More like in a "Waah, I don't wanna grow up I'm a Toys R' Us kid" sort of way.

We go back to his youth and reminisce with him. See all the friends that he had to out grow in order to have a family. His old haunts, and set pieces; all the things he used to love doing before he got tied down. Even old girlfriends that he still wonders "what if" about. It's all there. Done in beautiful metaphor mind you, but there none the less. And I think we've just outlined the essence of Hook: Peter Pan as a metaphor for mid-life crisis. The story is innovative, the metaphor is beautifully disguised, but in the end it is what it is.

Production wise I think the movie offers all that it can. I spent most of my time with it trying to ignore that the entire thing was probably shot on a sound stage- not that there's anything wrong with that per say. I just feel as though the set design could have used a little more, for lack of a better word, umph. The C.G. elements are quality for 1991, and the plot unfolds with little more than a few pacing issues.
So I guess it just comes down to me then. I was simply unimpressed. I am perfectly willing to agree that the movie is uber quotable ("Ru-Fi-OOOO!") but that and a few other clever moments (plus Julia Roberts' gams) does not a great movie make. If it weren't for a spectacular performance from Dustin Hoffman ("Bad Form!") I would say there is nothing remarkable about the entire thing. Yes, Robin Williams is funny, but not in any way that you can't get from any of his other movies.

The movie is an adventure, and a decently fun one at that. So if it comes down to Hook being the pearl and me being the swine on this one- then so be it. But according to BoxOfficeMojo.com Hook debuted and grossed more than $21 million less than Spielberg's career averages for both. So maybe it's not all me? I am certainly no stranger to movies remaining beloved for the childhood memories they evoke long after childhood has ended. But that doesn't say anything to the quality of said movie- and I didn't see Hook as a child. So if your hanging on and still loving every second of this romp through neverland, more power to you. But as for me, I just don't get it.

I Sell the Dead

"Needs garlic."

On the eve of his execution, a convicted grave-robber recounts his odd supernatural encounters.

There are some movies that you just can't feel 100% about. For all that you might have loved about them, there's one thing that takes away from the over all experience- much like how I felt about Law Abiding Citizen. This is a case of the exact opposite; for all that your unimpressed with about the movie there's that one thing that really works- and keeps you from being able to completely hate it. And that one thing for I Sell the Dead is the cinematography.

I harbor no illusions about being a trail blazer on this subject, considering it won a Vision Award for that very same thing, but still- I call 'em lik I see 'em. And this one deserves the call. The scenes transfer are at least interesting, and at most beautifully done. I watched sequences like the the telling of Cornelius Murphy's upbringing with a smile on my face. But as enjoyable as this one attribute may be, it couldn't save the rest of the film.

If the cinematogrophy was moist and tender, the rest of this movie was dry as a mouthful of sand. Aside from two mostly enjoyable leads (Dominic Managhan as Aurthor and Larry Fessenden as Willie) the cast stirred no real emotions in me. Characters it seems like I was supposed to be interested in died without so much as a batted eyelash- and most of the ones that lived were utterly ignorable. Ron Perlman's performance feels as though he'd read the script the first day of shooting, but then again, listening to him struggle with an (on again, off again) Irish accent was so entertaining it of makes up for it.

Even with all this, the real let down is the story. The premise is incredibly interesting but not much is done with it. This movie is the spiritual successor to a short film called The Resurrection Apprentice, which I admit I have never seen. But after finishing I Sell the Dead I must say it can't have been to much of an expansion as it still felt like a short story rather than a novel. I find myself wishing the story itself had been undertaken with as much flare as the cinematography. As it is it feels as though it was shot as a series of shorts and then sewn together.

The remarkable is out weighed by the completely unremarkable in this cleverly inspired but drably executed comedy. Believe me, it's no more fun for me to say than it is for you to hear, but the truth is the truth. I'd say it's worth a viewing anyway; maybe you'll disagree and have a wonderful time with it. It could be I'm being too hard on the poor movie but- oh well. If I am than I'm too hard on every movie, and am therefore being fare.

Reel Deal Recommends:

Lost: The first and second (A.K.A. the Good) seasons with Dominic as Charlie.

Hellboy: Ron Perlman at his best, minus as the narrator from the Fallout series.

Alas I've not seen Larry Fessenden in a major role in any other movies. I looked him up on IMDB and apparently he's in The Brave One, which I don't remember him in. And even if I did, I would never recommend that movie to anyone.

The Men Who Stare at Goats

"It's a little bit funny, yes."

A reporter in search of a story he can use to validate himself stumbles across a man claiming to be a member of a secret military group of mental warriors, and who is obviously less then sane. But, as he follows the man on his latest "mission", the reporter finds that the man proves stranger and stranger- and more and more interesting.

Shortly after I saw the spectacular film Good Night, and Good Luck it came to my attention that the man who co-wrote it also played the comic relief character Arpid in The Scorpion King (if you don't know why that's funny I can't explain it). It was at this point that I decided Grant Heslov was someone worth watching. And his most recent directorial release The Men Who Stare at Goats proves my claim. It also suggests that he may have a thing for unusually long titles.
With a cast of heavy hitters this movie must be a bit intimidating to anyone looking to dismiss it out of the gate. All big names are in their proven comedy elements: Bridges is the chemically altered philosopher, Spacey is the smug antagonist, and McGregor is the hilariously uninformed straight man. I've said for a while that George Clooney only has two modes: the "Cool Guy", and the "Quirky Cool Guy". With This role he shows his acting chops and stretches himself into a new realm: the "Zany Cool Guy". Along with all that sarcasm must come praise however- because it works.
We are introduced to Lyn Cassidy (Clooney) and immediately let in on the secret that he might be off his rocker. As the movie progresses we become more and more sure of this and one more fact: what he's saying makes sense. The entire story unfolds on one lynch pin thought process: "Just because I'm crazy, doesn't mean I'm wrong." The words Cassidy uses to explain how he sees the world may sound silly, but by the end you agree that they're also accurate.
Nearly every comedic nugget in this movie comes from that dark, mysterious land called irony. You laugh because it's so odd and because it sounds just about right. At one point two sets of rival private security companies (that's mercenaries in layman's terms) have a shoot out on a crowded city street- each believing the other to be terrorists who fired first, and you laugh because it's ridiculous- and because it's uncomfortably believable. Maybe that's the term I'm looking for here. The Men Who Stare at Goats is both hilariously out there, and uncomfortably believable.
Although the talkative pair of high school girls next to me in the theater seemed to feel otherwise, this is a solid, enjoyable movie that left me chuckling. It is full of, at times Cohen-esque, humor and strangely emotional moments that go as quickly as they come. I enjoyed it for the fact that it made me laugh but thoughtfully so, and for it's resisting the urge to conclude the story with heaps of sentiment. And conversely, I hated it for getting "More than A Feeling" stuck in my head for the rest of the weekend.
And in case your wondering: Yes. I did laugh each and every time the word "Jedi" was mentioned near McGregor. And No. I'm not ashamed that it never got old to me.

Reel Deal Recommends:
Good Night, and Good Luck: Great movie directed by Clooney and co-written by Clooney and Grant Heslov.
Arlington Road: Jeff Bridges leads this mind blowing thriller that not enough people saw.
Stay: An interesting psychological drama starring Ewan "You'll Always Be Obi-Wan to Me" McGregor.
The Scorpion King: Because then you'll think it's funny too.

Cirque Du Freak: The Vampire's Assistant

"Actually, the trick totrying to stay awake falling asleep is ."

Two friends looking for something interesting accidently stumble into a supernatural freak show, and brewing vampire civil war.

In my review of Pandorum I said that I had trouble writing it because the movie left me unsure how I felt about it. With The Vampire's Assistant, it's not that I'm not sure how to feel-it's that I don't feel anything at all. I cannot remember another time- though I'm sure one exists- that I had such a ho-hum movie theater experience. When it comes to my thoughts, my mental word processor is almost always set to bold. Whatever I'm feeling be it love, hate, or even confusion, I feel it through and through. With this movie I felt complete indifference.
Performances in the Vampire's Assistant all run Luke warm. They have their peaks and valleys but maintain a pretty even keel. John C. Reilly leads his humdrum army with not a roar, but a passive-aggressive growl. In some moments -particularly when Larten Crepsley is being a bit of a jerk- he is believable at best, but in most he squeezes just barely into the role like a pair of pants one size too small.
The story also adheres strictly to this law of averages. For every interesting thought thrown out (a seer who can't hear her own predictions) there is another that is so done to death that it smells funny in the theater when the characters mention it (there are two vampire sects: The fluffy human friendly ones, and the kill loving mean ones). The only thing this movie really did to surprise me was find a way to somehow make a giant spider adorable- which may not sound like much to you but realize that it's being said by an admitted arachnophobe. It's not much, but it's something.
And then there's the pacing. By no means is a movie required to go slow. To the contrary, too much down time can be a death sentence to certain films. But that said, I could have used a breath in the middle of this one. The Vampire's Assistant races along like it's got something really important to show you, but unless that something is the credits- it's just racing to race. Maybe it's just really excited to show us it's cliffhanger ending! I mean, why bother just making a movie when you can start a trilogy right?
I've heard fans of the books express fears that their beloved series will be lost in the vampire (ahem) revival that pop culture has going right now, or in the undead whirlwind that the Twilight series has kicked up. Well, I'm here to put those fears to rest. Cirque Du Freak: The Vampire's Assistant will not be lost in the shuffle because of Twilight. It will be lost in the shuffle because there's absolutely nothing that makes it stand out.

Watcher X says: "On the movie tickets the title is abreiviated as 'The Vampire's Ass'. Foreshadowing anyone?"

Reel Deal Recommends:
Anything else John C. Reilly has been in, even Talladega Nights.

Ode to a Genre: The Homemade Mocumentary

"...They may take our lives, but they can never take- OUR SPOILERS!"

I hated The Blair Witch Project. Aside from a fairly clever ending, it left me with nothing but memories of all my friends telling me how much I should see it, and anger at myself for believing them. It serves as perfect example of a creed I've lived by for years now: Just because it's new or ground breaking, doesn't mean it's good. The first (while it should always be acknowledged) is rarely the best. In fact often times it's only celebration worthy attribute is that it lays a foundation that, if built upon, can lead to some truly amazing constructions.

For this genre construction has been booming, and in no way limited to it's trailblazer's topics. From zombies in the questionable Quarantine, to the Godzilla homage that was the spectacular Cloverfield, to the newest (and creepy) installment Paranormal Activity. All of these movies share a very basic feature that is the main descriptor of the Homemade Mocumentary: They are all filmed in a way that purposefully gives the appearance of a single camera being operated by a character from within the plot. This means that the entire story must be told with images and audio captured before that one cameras lens and with that one cameras microphone.

This is a genre truly born of our times. We live in an age where most people not only have the means to digitally record events in their homes, a lot have the means in their pockets- and editing technology isn't far behind. This is what makes a site like YouTube less of a global phenomenon and more of an everyday thing. It was only a matter of time before art imitated life.

But I think it goes a bit deeper. I know, I know, we're all sick of the words "Reality T.V." but like I always say: "Cliches only become cliched when their true". In 1990 most of us would have dismissed the term as oxymoronic and gone on with our day- now it's a household term. Why? Because it permeated our culture and took root. And in the same vein, it seems that now more than ever we are seeing the words "Based on a true story" below movie titles. We all know that these movies are as much fiction as anything else, but in their wake are coming more and more works of pure fiction trying to pass themselves off as something more.

Which brings me to another point. Many, though not all, of the movies in this genre come preceded by claims of authenticity. Which is to say that they all claim their true. Of course, it's marketing, but I also think it's yet another another by product of our times. In a world where virtually anyone has the ability to make and distribute a video, we are now that much more jaded. We are a culture of skeptics. I think part of the reason they can make these claims is that most of us won't believe them. In 1938 a radio broadcast set off a case of mass hysteria that is still studied in 2009- I truly do not believe that sort of thing could happen casually today. Yes, I'm sure there are high schoolers out there telling their friends it's real, but in the end we come home from the theater and don't look back.

Not long ago the game-show and the drama laid down together, and from their union was born Relaity T.V. I think we have seen the same thing here: the documentary courted fiction, and eventually she succumb to his charms. And thus, with all the cultural elements in place, the Homemade Mocumentary was born. Some may call it a gimmick, but I call it an inevitable stop on the road this industry has been travelling. Movie makers, in the name of art, blurred the lines between fiction and non-fiction- and raised a crop of movie makers who weren't afraid to just flat out cross them.