Review: "The Book of Eli"

- Posted by Rusty


Movie: The Book of Eli

My Rating: 2 1/2 bites [out of 5]

In Short: Sporting strong visuals, solid characters, and the occasional jaw-dropping action scene, The Book of Eli is, in part, worth catching. Story-wise, however, it doesn’t quite live up to its promising set-up... [full review after the jump]

Full Review: I was talking to my crazy movie-buff friend recently, and we both agreed that the toughest films to critique aren’t the great ones (easy as pie: you just lay on the praise) or even the really bad ones (even easier: lay on the snark and complaining), but, actually, the ones in between. The types of movies that fall squarely in the middle—not finessed enough to be a good movie, and not a complete waste of time like a bad one.

The Book of Eli is such a movie. It’s well-acted, beautifully shot (the desert landscapes have a desolate, haunted look that works perfectly for the film), and, for the most part, quite entertaining. I just can’t fully recommend it, despite its preposterous—but “wow”-inducing!—final twist.

The basic story follows Denzel Washington’s drifter, Eli—a soft-spoken heroic type who’s got a killer way with a sword. He owes a great deal to old-time epic Western imagery—he’s the mysterious stranger, the broken man with a good heart, essentially the Man with No Name, albeit with insane martial-arts abilities. It’s been 30 years since the movie’s mysterious “blackout”, and all this time Eli has been walking in the ruins of North America—an endless mass of empty space, dead bodies, and hiding cannibals. He’s headed to some destination, as we learn, which brings him to a somewhat-functioning town led by Gary Oldman’s Carnegie. Carnegie then discovers that Eli possesses a special book, the very one he’s been waiting ages to find, and, from that point on, ensues the film’s central chase, with Carnegie’s step-daughter, Solara (played by the gorgeous Mila Kunis—yay for fellow Ukrainians!) falling into the mix as Washington’s “disciple”.

I can’t reveal what that book is, but, really, you might have figured it out through the film’s not-so-subtle billboards. I like the basic idea behind the movie, as well as the different reasons it presents for wanting the book—one man wants it for controlling his people, the other for its inherent power and beauty. End-of the-world thrillers are an easy sell for me too—I love the imagery involved, as well as seeing what people are reduced to faced with a world without hope and the slow, steady death of the human race. The Book of Eli works on that level, adding some interesting observations into the equation, like the types of resources that become luxuries and, in a grand scale, the rewards of faith (even if it’s not in a spiritual sense). There’s also good character work and fine performances from all three leads. Washington pretty much owns the market for playing noble, good-hearted men, especially ones put against opposing odds—he does that here with confidence and a light touch of humor. Ditto for Oldman, although from the polar opposite perspective. The chameleonic Brit is a long-time favorite of mine, especially in scene-stealing-villain mode like The Professional and True Romance. The script gives his Carnegie just the right amount of sleaze and intelligence, granting the actor enough juicy material to chew his way through the scenes with Washington. As for Kunis, while far too beautiful and clean-looking be a believable member of this society (her entrance in a rowdy bar, where she’s supposed to be an abused hooker, still screams “movie star”), she holds her own with her imposing co-stars. Coupled with her lovely turn in Forgetting Sarah Marshall, she’s clearly on the rise, and I think we’ll see a lot more good work from her in the future.

The action sequences are impressive as well. Directed by the Hughes Brothers (Menace 2 Society, the Johnny Depp thriller, From Hell), these scenes are shot with an in-your-face urgency and excitement that you don’t often see in big-budget blockbusters. There’s no shaky camera work—just some great stunt work and, of course, slice-and-dice choreography, perfectly showcased in the opening fight with Eli and a group of hoodlums.

Where the film stumbles, though, is in its overall story arcs. It’s set up to be a big ideological clash between Washington and Oldman—two of our finest actors going head-to-head on the movie’s main conflict. Unfortunately, that doesn’t really happen. The launching pad is there, but the execution is lacking, reducing itself to just a few argument scenes between Eli and Carnegie and one big shoot-em-up. Similarly, Washington’s relationship with Kunis, which takes up the second half of the film, ends up being largely incomplete. You’ll see what I mean when you watch the movie—I didn’t buy that she learned so much from Eli (how long were they even traveling? 2 days??), nor that his words had such profound effects on her. It may have been helped by more screen time, but, in whole, Solara’s journey—and its ultimate payoff—feels unearned. I appreciate that the script tried to give these people depth; I can usually forgive plot flaws if the characters and the experiences they go through are well-developed. We have that here to an extent, but it feels like the heroes changed because the script said they had to, and not because they had an organic reason to do so.

But what about that twist? Ah, that I wouldn’t dare spoil. It’s creative and bold, even if it doesn’t entirely make sense. Does it make The Book of Eli worth seeing? Well, not entirely, but it still ranks among the best surprises I’ve seen recently. It’s infinitely better that the typical horror-movie “shocking twist”—it works for the story, rewards you for picking up on some clues, and, even though it smudges “realism” in favor of “gotcha!” awesomeness, it makes for a top-notch kicker to the movie.

So, as you can see, I wouldn’t qualify this as a particularly bad film. It’s just mediocre—capable of more, but its problems prevent it from being much stronger, especially given its premise and the caliber of its cast and behind-the-scenes talent. Of the movies out right now, this is one the better ones, though I suspect some standbys and upcoming releases will strip it of that title. In the end, I’d call it a great rental—on the small screen, and watching comfortably from your own couch, the movie’s faults will be easier to swallow and you could probably enjoy the film’s accomplishments (ie, the acting, cinematography, the clever clues to the finale) with much more enthusiasm.

Image courtesy of Warner Bros. Pictures.
Read more!

Review: "The Princess and the Frog"

- Posted by Rusty


Movie: Disney’s The Princess and The Frog

My Rating: 3 bites [out of 5]

In Short: The hand-drawn-animated The Princess and the Frog is a most welcome return to form for Disney! Although it doesn’t hit the highs of their previous classics, it’s a lovely fairy tale that will sit comfortably on the shelf next to your old Disney VHS’es. [full review after the jump]

Full Review: The Princess and the Frog, in a spin on the Grimm Brothers’ “The Frog Prince”, stars the bright, determined Tiana, who dreams of opening her own restaurant in 1920’s New Orleans. But, when money problems get in the way, she stumbles upon a smooth-talking, very cooly accented, talking frog. Turns out, he’s a prince under a curse by the voodoo Shadow Man (a very colorful, fun villain), and if she kisses him…well, he’ll turn human again and pay for her restaurant!

Ah, but there’s the twist: the mucus-y kiss fails and they both turn into frogs instead, launching a bright, colorful adventure into the Louisiana bayou. Wisecracking animal sidekicks, lots of musical numbers, and one big, last-10-minutes showdown with the villain ensue. And, of course, we get lots of heartfelt moments along the way, with a sweet running theme of making your own dreams come true, not by wishing but through patience, hard work, and dedication—I wouldn’t expect any less from Disney.

Like it sounds, this it the old Disney formula down pat, and it’s a wonderful, familiar sight. What makes this outing extra special is likely the most engaging central couple Disney has ever had. Tiana is getting a lot of positive word-of-mouth for being the first Black princess (long overdue, though still nice to see), but her character is also headstrong, intelligent, hard-working (she even refuses to dance, for she’d rather work and save money for her restaurant!), and has big dreams that don’t only revolve around boys (take that, Bella Swan). She’s probably the most rounded character in the Disney Princess universe and the best role-model for young girls since Beauty and the Beast’s Belle.

As for Prince Naveen…well, he’s a charming, ultra-suave European womanizer (as much as the G-rating will allow him to talk about), but, of course, with a great, big heart too. He’s great fun to watch, and he gets the biggest laughs in this movie. There were also genuine and very sweet sparks between him and Tiana (not to mention an adorable running joke about “slime” vs. “one’s own mucus”)—his journey in the film is really the most rewarding. What a great change of pace from Disney’s stock of unbearably bland princes (I’m looking at you, Prince Eric!).

In all honesty, I wanted to rate this higher, but there were just a few nagging things that prevented it from becoming an instant classic for me. First off, while the story was cute, it just felt too slim to support 90 minutes, resulting in parts of the movie feeling padded and sapping its great, zippy initial energy.

Same goes for the musical numbers: the songs are well-animated—lots of oomph and colors and jazzy tunes—but there were a good one or two that felt like they were filling up time and not pushing the story forward. It doesn’t really help that the songs weren’t too memorable—I enjoyed them when I saw the film last week, but none of them really stuck in my head (compare that to: “A Whole New World”, “Under the Sea,” the opening song of Beauty and the Beast, and many, many more).

Finally, while the cast of characters here is a funky, creative bunch (including a jazz-playing chubby alligator and a Cajun fly), none of them end up really standing out. They don’t really pop off the screen—we like them, sure, but their personalities don’t leave too lasting of an imprint. There are no Timons here, or Abus, or Lumieres—Tiana and Naveen make up for this, but I would have liked to see them surrounded by a more developed group of people. Even the villain, while very amusing to watch and root against, pales in comparison to more deliciously evil Disney baddies like Jafar and Gaston. I know I’m comparing The Princess and the Frog too much to the Disney classics I grew up with; it should stand on its own, and, by all means, it does. It’s just so close to being perfect that it’s a bit of a bummer that it falls short.

Still, my nitpicks aside, I’m sure little kids will eat this up. Even better, all of us crazy Disney enthusiasts (I know there’s a bunch of us out there!) or just fans of good family films will love this too. It’s too charming not to like, brimming with warm humor and imagination, and, despite its shortcomings, I have a feeling I’ll watch this many more times over the years.

If you caught the trailers and I liked what you saw, I’m pretty sure you’ll like the final product too. Go out and see it—you know you want to; even if you don’t come out humming the songs, you’ll still exit with a great big smile on your face. After all, it’s why we adore the old Disney movies.

Good to know that Disney (and not just Pixar) is making those once again.

Image courtesy of Walt Disney Pictures.
Read more!

Weekend Bites: Ace vs. Zombieland... the Zombies win!

Posted by Ace

4 bites [out of 5]

There is finally something worth watching this weekend… or rather something worth spending your $15 at the box office.


Rules for surviving the Zombie apocalypse:
Rule #1 – Cardio
Rule #2 - The Double Tap
Rule #3 - Seatbelts

Alright… so who hasn’t thought of what they would do if, in fact, the Zombie apocalypse broke out? (Personally, I’d probably hull up in a Wal-Mart or Costco or something… that is to say after I killed all the Zombie employees first) With all the strange infectious disease scares floating around, who’s to say that the Zombie apocalypse won’t happen? I’m just saying… It’s something to keep in mind…

But I digress…

When I first heard about “Zombieland,” I naturally wrote it off. I’m not big on horror, or gore, or zombies for that matter. Ever since I was a kid and watched Night of the Living Dead during a daytime matinee on TV, zombies have scared the bejeezus out of me (and yes, there’s still a small part of me, hidden deep inside, underneath this dastardly handsome exterior that still gets a little scared by the “Thriller” music video).

But like I was saying, I wrote this movie off almost the instant I first saw a poster for it, mainly because I didn’t know anything about it. But the first trailer I ever saw for Zombieland was actually at San Diego Comic-Con this year, and it was probably the biggest surprise of the Con. Perhaps a lot more people shared my original sentiment about the movie, and just as likely, we were probably all pleasantly surprised by what the film had to offer. So, kudos to newcomer director, Ruben Fleischer, for breaking my preconceptions about this movie and dissuading me from not watching it.


The film stars Jesse Eisenberg (Adventureland), Woody Harrelson (White Men Can’t Jump), Emma Stone (Superbad) and Abigail Breslin (Little Miss Sunshine) as the last remaining living human beings in Zombieland, formerly known as America.

The plot is pretty simple… Survival.

Eisenberg’s character, Columbus, named after the city in Ohio (a coping strategy for the characters -- referring to themselves as the names of the cities they were from, helps them stay emotionally detached, in the event that they would have to kill one another) narrates the film as he runs through a list of rules he’s compiled which are imperative to surviving in Z-land. Columbus is trying to get to, well, Columbus in hopes of finding his family, and along the way, he runs into Tallahassee (Woody Harrelson), the expert in zombie killing, who’s also on a quest of his own — finding Twinkies. Somewhere along the way, Columbus and Tallahassee get hijacked by a sister duo, Wichita (Emma Stone) and Little Rock (Abigail Breslin). I don’t want to give too much away here, so I’ll just say this: they eventually all team up together.

And like I said earlier, the movie is pretty simple and straight-forward. There aren’t too many twists and turns, but it’s just pure, unadulterated fun at the expense of killing zombies. Drawing its inspiration from another great Zombie-comedy insta-classic, Shaun of the Dead, the film really isn’t a horror movie (and I still find it strange that Zombie movies have become their own sub-genre). Of course it has its moments that startle you, but I can’t really classify this as “HORROR” per se. It’s much too light-hearted for that. Unless you’re squeamish and you consider all movies that feature blood, guts, gore, and Zombies as horrific, then this movie’ll probably scare you.

But it’s not just about gore and guts and zombie smashing, it has a great amount of heart. As the characters try to stay emotionally detached from one another, they find themselves actually growing closer together. Columbus finds another kind of family in his endeavor to find his real family. But I guess being the sole surviving members of the human race will do that to people. Plus, someone makes a really GREAT cameo in the movie… arguably the greatest cameo of all time. Alright, I hyperbolized that just a tad, but it’s still awesome!

That being said, here are my rules for surviving Zombieland…

Rule #1 – Go watch this movie!
Rule #2 – If you’re squeamish… get over it and go watch this movie! (It’s time to Nut up or Shut up!)
Rule #3 – Refer back to Rules #1 and #2…

Images courtesy of Columbia Pictures

Read more!

Weekend Bites: "Cloudy With A Chance of Meatballs"

- Posted by Ace



The ACESTER is back in the game. Sorry for the long hiatus, I had some personal matters to attend to. But now it’s back to work.

Since there was absolutely NOTHING good that opened this past weekend, I decided to check out something that opened LAST weekend, Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs, which opened at No. 1 for the second straight weekend. So now I have the great fortune of reviewing a food themed movie on a food themed movie blog.

Overall Rating: 2 ½ bites [out of 5]

For those of you who don’t know, the film is an adaptation of the well-known children’s book, written by Judi and Ron Barrett. The basic plot summary is about the town of Chewandswallow where it precipitates food and beverages three times a day. It’s been FOREVER since I’ve read the book, but I remember it being featured on Reading Rainbow, back in the day, and honestly, who didn’t love this book as a kid? Who didn’t love the idea of food raining down from the heavens? Or school being closed because a giant pancake smothers it?

But I digress.

Naturally, I was curiously excited about this film. Based on the trailer, I thought there was genuine ingenuity behind the adaptation of turning a twenty page children’s book into a full-length feature film. And to my surprise, it was in 3-D. I don’t think I’ve seen a 3-D movie since Captain Eo at Disneyland, so I was actually pretty excited about it. But to my disappointment, Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs was kind of mediocre. Don’t get me wrong—I’m not being cynical because this is a kid’s movie. I’m a kid at heart and still love watching cartoons. But this one just wasn’t up to par.

The film’s adaptation of the book revolves around Flint Lockwood (voiced by Bill Hader), an aspiring inventor whose inventions usually end in disaster. He finally finds success with the invention of a machine that can create food out of water. Through one disastrous turn of events, his machine is launched into the upper atmosphere over Swallow Falls (later Chewandswallow), causing the food-based weather anomalies.

So here’s the good—Mr. T. His character was probably the coolest and funniest of the cast. And it’s glad to see, or rather, hear Mr. T in another acting gig. Secondly, the Gummi Bear fight scene was the only moment that made me laugh out loud. I don’t want to spoil anything, so I’ll just leave it at that. Lastly, it was great to see that the directors captured a few of the iconic moments from the book, for example the pancake crushing the school, and of course, the split pea soup fog. At least for me, those illustrations in the book stand out in memory to this day.

And now onto the bad news… it just wasn’t funny. It tried really hard to be funny, but the jokes all fell short of hitting its mark. I was sitting in a movie theatre full of kids, and there were very few moments when even the kids laughed out loud. It honestly felt like they were pitching a thousand different jokes, in hopes that at least one of them would stick, rather than letting the comedy come naturally. I can’t recall one other funny moment in the film, other than the Gummi Bear scene.

Some people may think that I’m being a little harsh, but I think that today’s audience has become accustomed to some great animated feature films, all of which possess mass appeal to all audiences. But Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs, which had so much promise and the nostalgia factor, failed to meet its potential.

Image courtesy of Columbia Pictures and Sony Pictures
Read more!

Weekend Bites: "9"

- Posted by Rusty


Review: “9”

My rating: 2 ½ bites [out of 5]

“9” isn’t a bad movie…but it’s the kind of thing where you walk out of the theater and say, “Yeah, that was all right” or “Not bad—it looked cool, and was pretty entertaining.” It doesn’t inspire enthusiasm, but just calm indifference. And that’s too bad—“9” looked like it was going to be something truly special. The brainchild of some great imaginations, the movie has a lot going for it: the back-story and set-up is actually pretty interesting, the voice acting is really well-done across the board—sincere, emotional, and never over-the-top, and the visuals are some of the most beautiful and memorable that I’ve seen this year (if ever in an animated film—really, the effects and details of the post-apocalyptic setting rival some of Pixar’s best stuff). But “9”, running at just a scant 80 minutes, has a story too weak to give any of those elements their due, and we’re left with a film that just can’t live up to its amazing potential.

If you watch the original short this movie is based on, it puts “9” (and its problems) into much sharper perspective (I embedded it below—check it out if you have the chance—it’s definitely worth your time). Shane Acker (who directed this movie as well…and was a UCLA student!) wrote and directed it, gaining the attention of movie giants like Tim Burton and Russian crazy-effects-wizard/“Wanted” director, Timur Bekmambetov—it’s basically one long scene set in a post-apocalyptic world (we don’t know any of the background yet), and revolves around a silent ragdoll and his attempt to stop a mechanized, soul-eating beast. Very cool stuff, and a very impressive achievement for a young animation student. And I’ll give Shane Acker major credit here—he did expand upon his short. The movie tackles similar ground, but with much more detail—after the destruction of the human race, nine dolls (brought to life by mysterious means) band together to survive and take down the source of the world’s demolition, led by the stalwart 9 (Elijah Wood).

It’s a fantastic set-up, and Acker brought out some great mythology, carefully explaining why every human has died out and the landscape fell into the hands of sentient ragdolls and malevolent machines. But Acker, along with his screenwriter Pamela Pettler (“Tim Burton’s Corpse Bride” and “City of Ember,” which fell apart too, story-wise), came up with an interesting short story to supplement the original idea, not a feature-length movie. Really, if you write down what happens in the film on paper, there’s probably 20 minutes of story here at best. True, the filmmakers fleshed out the short, but only in a very limited way, and so we’re left with a movie that tries to stretch a good idea across 80 minutes, offering tons of action, but few characters who grow and develop in the process.


And the resulting movie goes something like this: the characters talk about the plot. They fight a monster. They talk some more about the plot. They fight an even bigger monster. And Repeat, all the way until they fight the final, biggest monster and learn the final secret of the plot. And the characters, all animated with such care and attention to detail, never become the fleshed-out heroes they should have been. It’s fitting that all the ragdolls are named 1 though 9—that’s pretty much the amount of personality they get too—just one or two identifying features per doll, and that’s all they have time to show. Thus, we have characters like 1 (the always stately Christopher Plummer), who’s pompous and cowardly, 7 (Jennifer Connelly), who’s fearless and action-hero-like (a quick kudos to the filmmakers for making a girl the film’s only action hero), and, of course, 9 (Elijah Wood), who’s curious, brave, and is the crucial character for the Future of our world.

Then there’s a character like 6 (Crispin Glover)—my friend and I had the toughest time deciding what his purpose was to begin with. Everyone else contributes in some way—9 leads the resistance, 7 fights, and 6…well…he prophesizes…and sometimes draws stuff to help him prophesize. There’s actually a stretch of the film where 6 goes away, and it only hit me at the end that he was even missing from the group. You see what I mean? A film this well-made, that attempts to give us an original, thought-provoking story, deserved better characters—we needed well-rounded, interesting personalities, those that grow and change through the experience, and not simply move the plot along while we admire their designs. There's a lot more story here to explore, far more details into these characters' lives that are left untouched, and maybe one day we'll get that in a sequel...but for now, "9" needed a more complete narrative, and much less reliance on its fantastic action sequences.


On that note, the action really is something spectacular. These bits are thrilling and brimming with inventive energy—if anything, these scenes prove than Shane Acker is going to have good, long career after this. He stages his action well, and he has a sure hand with delivering the suspense and scares—especially as we meet the bigger machines, with all their whirring parts and endless ways to try to kill our heroes. As an action fan, the film worked great for me on that level, but, after a while, the action started to feel like a time-filler before the final reveals.

Still, as said before, this is one amazing-looking film. Every detail of this world is gorgeously constructed—the ruins, the endless wasteland, the smattering of everyday objects transformed to do something else (Martin Landau’s 2 is a very clever bit of animation and design), and even the ragdolls themselves—all similar-looking, but each composed of minor differences, be they different types of cloth or the inclusion of zippers. It’s clear that a lot of hard work went into this film—Acker obviously has a lot of heart and affection for his vision, and he’s a major talent from just a stylistic perspective. It’s actually kind of fitting that Tim Burton is a producer here—Burton was always visually interesting, but it took him years of experience to become as confident a storyteller as he is today (and it still took the occasional stumbles like “Planet of the Apes” and “Mars Attacks” along the way). I think Acker is following a similar course—his film-storytelling instincts just aren’t there yet—he can wow an audience, but he hasn’t quite cracked the need for the proper amount of emotional investment to compliment those amazing visuals. But I think he’ll get there—that short you see below shows a strong command of story and tone. Now Acker just needs to learn to sustain that momentum—to make the action feel organic to the plot, and not just a way to delay the development of the narrative and characters.


And, so, I’m really on the fence about recommending “9”. It’s very entertaining, and it should satisfy those hoping for some escapist action…but the lack of solid characters and the rather thin storyline might prevent it from being a satisfying experience (like it was for me). I wasn’t upset that I watched it, but I expected something much more moving and powerful. And, so, a fair warning: “9” is partly worth seeing, but it won’t live up to its amazing previews—as it stands, it’s a dazzling piece of work, but it’s more of a missed opportunity than the respected sci-fi classic it could have been.

Shane Acker's original short film, "9":

Images courtesy of Focus Features.
Read more!

Weekend Bites: Ace vs. The Basterds

Posted By Ace

**Editor's Note: Again sorry about the tardiness on this post. It's been kind of a crazy past couple days. Hope y'all enjoy!

Overall Rating: 4 bites [out of 5]


“Describe what Marcellus Wallace looks like!”
“What?”
“Say what again! Say what again! I dare ya, I double-dare ya, mother-$%#@*! Say what one mo’ goddamn time!”

Ah yes… vintage Tarantino! I love it…

… But… I’ll be honest-- I’m not the biggest Tarantino fan.

I would even be so bold as to say that he’s a little over-rated. (Just don’t tell Jules I said that!)

Don’t get me wrong, his movies are great, and anything he touches seems to turn into an instant cult classic. It’s just that… I don’t get what all the hoopla is about.

Now before I get burned at the stake for heresy, let me just explain myself a little bit.


I can truthfully say that I have NEVER seen a Tarantino movie in theatres before. I was like 8 years old when Reservoir Dogs came out, and 10 when Pulp Fiction came out two years later. And at those ages, the only movies that had any kind of relevance for me were Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles 2 and The Lion King. Plus, there was no way in hell my parents were going to take me to watch either of Reservoir Dogs or Pulp Fiction, especially since they wouldn’t even understand what the hell was going on.

But one day, years later, when at long last I had finally grown up, I came home to eat lunch, but mom and dad weren’t home; so I eventually came to the decision to skip my afternoon classes and stay home… because that’s what college kids do. With no adult supervision around, I was free to do whatever I damn well pleased. So I locked the door to my room, lowered the lights, slipped into something more comfortable, crawled into bed and popped in a couple DVDs (No, not those kinds of DVDs). I finally watched Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction. And I thought they were “just okay.” A small part of me also felt obligated to like them based solely on the fact that they were “Tarantino movies.” If I didn’t like them, then there was obviously something wrong with me.

So, in turn, when the Kill Bills came out, I didn’t feel very motivated to go out and watch those either.

Two words— “Net” and “Flix.”

Since I had heard so much hype about the Kill Bills, I thought they’d be the perfect movies to use my Netflix free-trial on. And sadly, I was a little disappointed. I don’t know why. But if I had to guess, it’s probably because all my friends kept saying, “Dude, it’s the best movie I’ve ever seen,” or “Bro, it’s awesome! You gotta watch it!” or my personal favorite, “It’s like… orgasmic… for the eyes!”

But… I didn’t get any of that. They were both just “Eh…” to me.

So when I heard that Tarantino was coming out with another movie, you can probably guess that I wasn’t really sold on watching it. But it’s not entirely to his discredit. The economy is partially to blame (Yea, I said it). $12 a ticket adds up pretty quickly (especially when you and your friends decide to start a movie blog). And realistically, I didn’t see anything in the trailers that was convincing me to go and spend my hard earned $12, plus $10 for popcorn and Diet Coke. I honestly wanted to just sit this one out.

But… because I’m a sucker for impulsively spending my money, and can’t really withstand any modicum of peer pressure, I spent my Friday night watching Inglourious Basterds.

And I must say… I loved it! Well, “love” is a strong word—I really, really, really, liked it!

But before I go into the full on review, here’s a brief synopsis-- It’s about killing Nazis.

Just kidding… not really… the plot really is that simple, but if that doesn’t satisfy you:

The film takes place during WWII in Nazi occupied France and is centralized around three main characters. The first is the Nazi Colonel Hans Landa, played by Christoph Waltz, who’s built quite the reputation for being “The Jew Hunter.” Then there’s Shoshana Dreyfus (Melanie Laurent), the sole surviving member of the Dreyfus clan, who were brutally massacre at the hands of Col. Landa. Years later, she takes refuge in Paris as the manager of a movie theatre. And finally, there’s The Basterds, a band of Jewish-American soldiers, whose sole purpose is to kill Nazis using guerilla warfare tactics. And yes, I classify them as one character, but more on that later. Essentially, all three characters have one goal, one common agenda—to put an end to the war.

So now onto the review…
First and foremost, I would be remiss if I didn’t recognize the phenomenal work that Christoph Waltz put forth in this movie. Not only did he BRING IT as the villain, but he also acted in four—one, two, three, FOUR—different languages seamlessly. (I can’t even act in ONE language!) And like all great villains, he was able to capture the very essence of evil, that menacing aura; from the very moment he appeared on-screen, you could feel the imminent danger, and not just because he was wearing a Nazi uniform. There was something deceptively deviant about Hans Landa, hidden behind all of his charm. He spoke French, he spoke English, he spoke German, he spoke Italian; he was polite and charismatic, cerebral but with an underlying sinister tone. Waltz was able to raise and drop the tension levels at will, stringing the audience along, like a cat playing with a mouse before killing it. But maybe that was the point—to make the audience feel like they were being involved in a meta-theatrical game of cat and mouse.

And since we’re on the subject of acting… sometimes I forget how good of an actor Brad Pitt is. It’s probably because most of his recent body of work that gets any kind of media attention involves either—a) Angelina Jolie; or b) Daniel Ocean (Ocean’s 11, 12, and 13).
But Brad Pitt really held it down as Lt. Aldo Raine, the gritty, albeit eccentric leader of The Basterds. He nailed the role of badass mother-*shut yo’mouth*—if you couldn’t tell by the “Nazi-Hunting-Give-Me-My-Scalps” speech in the trailer and the gigantic scar stretching across his throat. And most importantly he was a character outside of Brad Pitt. What I mean by that is in a lot of Brad Pitt’s movies (more so in his recent films), it just seems to be Brad Pitt acting. It seems like it’s a lot of his own self, his mannerisms and gesticulations, being incorporated into those roles, and consequently, his acting chops are never really on display. But in a movie like this one, where he has to turn on a dirty Southern accent, and really get into a character role, Brad Pitt disappears and all that’s left is Lt. Aldo Raine.

Alright, I think that’s enough about individual performances… Onward to the actual movie… The movie was nothing like I anticipated it to be. Of course it had all of its trademark Tarantino-isms, but it was actually relatively tame in the violence department. It wasn’t ALL blood, guts, and raw violence like the promos were making it out to be. There was actually a lot more dialogue than gunfights and Nazi killing. That being said, you can call it trickery, or false advertisement or whatever you want, one thing is for certain, Inglourious Basterds isn’t what you’d expect it to be based on the trailers. First of all, Brad Pitt may have been the biggest name attached to the movie, but he certainly wasn’t the STAR; that title belongs to Christoph Waltz, who, as I mentioned before, absolutely stole the show. Secondly, “Inglourious Basterds” is kind of an erroneous title—Erroneous! Erroneous on all accounts! (5 points if you know where that line’s from). The reason I say that is because The Basterds weren’t really featured throughout the entire movie. They had a few pivotal scenes, but the movie wasn’t necessarily centralized around them, which segues to my earlier point about The Basterds acting as one, singular character (it made more sense in my head). Other than Lt. Raine, I don’t think any of the Basterds really stood out. All the actors worked as a collective unit to bring the Basterds to life. Granted there were a few that were highlighted, and had their shining moment in the spotlight, but after those moments faded, they just became another Basterd face.

Anyone who’s seen the movie would probably agree that it’s really driven forward by the other two characters, Hans Landa and Soshana Dreyfus. And they would probably also agree that the story being told isn’t a story about American soldiers who are fighting enemy combatants during WWII. If you peel back all the layers and really look at the basic layout of the story, you’ll probably find that the real protagonist is Shoshana. She is arguably the only character that had any semblance of an arc, as the sole survivor of a brutal massacre, and years later, who finds herself sitting face-to-face with her family’s murderer. Without giving too much away, the story is basically about how she copes with her second encounter with the legendary Colonel Landa.

Lastly, the most surprising thing about this movie is the fact that it’s basically a foreign film. A good majority of it was spoken in a different language that wasn’t English, whether French, German, or Italian. At one point in time, French and German were being spoken at the same time. And there’s something to be said about a movie that can attach itself to a mainstream American audience despite the language barrier; the fact that the audience had to read most of the movie, rather than watch it, and still feel emotionally attached to the characters, speaks volumes about the artistry of this film. It was as if to say, good art is not restricted to one language, but pervades all languages.

So why did I enjoy this Tarantino flick more than the others?
I don’t know.

Maybe it was because I got in on the ground floor. I’ve noticed that there seems to be a certain “Tarantino Experience” when you watch his movies in the theatres, when they are fresh and unadulterated by all the hype that follows. I guess that may be true for a lot of movies, but for a director who has such an epic cult following, the hype seems to raise the standard of expectation for every one of his movies. Consequently, if you’re not already in the trenches to experience Tarantino’s movies first-hand, without the influences of blog reviews and hearsay from all of your friends, you’re always left feeling like all of his movies are just… “Eh…”



Images courtesy of The Weinstein Company and Universal Pictures.

Read more!

Weekend Bites: Crazy Russian Travels to "District 9"

- Posted by Rusty

Review: "District 9"
My Rating: 3 ½ bites [out of 5]

Seen the brilliant, misleading trailer? Or the catchy “For Humans Only” marketing campaign (like the picture below)? Good, now go see “District 9”. That’s as simple as I could make this review — this is one of the best things I’ve seen in theaters in a while (minus “(500) Days of Summer, of course, but that’s a total 180 from this film). It’s an intelligent, all-around-pretty-awesome action film, and it still packs quite the emotional punch (my biggest criteria for these types of films). Not bad for a movie I knew nothing about until only a few months ago. Even more impressive for a $30-million alien flick (roughly 1/5 of what “G.I. Joe” cost) from an unknown, rookie director (Neill Blomkamp) and a first-time film actor (Sharlto Copley, Blomkamp’s real-life best friend). It might be a tad overhyped by this point, and I think the violence borders on overkill, but this is still a strong, very well-made movie…and the debut of some impressive new talent. Keep your eyes out for this director-star combo—we should expect some very good work from them in the future…

First off, let’s tackle that pretty cool backstory. About 20 years ago, a giant spaceship hovered over Johannesburg, South Africa (anyone else love the fact that it doesn’t take place in America? How much we want to bet that if a studio made this film, we’d see all the action in, like, Chicago?). The South African government broke their way in, and found the aliens (bug-like beings called “prawns”) starving and slowly dying. With a swift effort, they rounded up all the prawns, and put them in an isolated, guarded, dreadful slum called “District 9”.

Hmm…shades of apartheid? Absolutely, but this is a film smart enough to not beat us over the head with that; yes, the allusion is there, but co-writer/director Blomkamp never loses sight of the story, and the end result goes deeper than just that brutal chapter of South African history. Good science-fiction is never really about the robots, the aliens, or the monstrous creatures, but rather what it reveals about us as human beings. This film is no different — through the relationships with the prawns, Blomkamp emphasizes our inherent mistrust of anyone different, our misguided tendencies to dominate over those we feel are less worthy, to strip beings of their basic human rights following some viciously moronic, racist ideologies. The treatment of the prawns is something we’ve done before, and not just in South Africa (regarding them as inferiors, bordering them in dirty, god-awful slums, sending them to concentration camps following “the will of the people”) — except that we’ve done those things to fellow humans. Chilling, right? It only takes clicking, bug-like aliens to show us how we’re capable of treating each other. And all of that is before the true action even kicks in.

Did I mention that this is a kickass action film? For those who love social commentary, you’ll have that in spades. For pure action fans, trust me, you’ll get something great out of this too. As a guy who loves both, “District 9” was almost the perfect science-fiction story.

In a clever, documentary-like fashion, the film starts off with Wikus Van De Merwe (Copley), a worker for the massive private company Multi-National United (MNU), and his assignment to relocate all the prawns into the specially-constructed District 10 outside of Johannesburg. See, the people are tired of the aliens in such close proximity, so the government designed a “special camp” outside the city where the prawns would be “better off.” Except not really — the new location is really like a concentration camp, and, even though the prawns are supposed to get a 24-hour notice before eviction, MNU decided to speed the process up by serving them their eviction notices…and transporting them the same day. Wikus is a fascinating character to follow through all this. He’s dweeby, maybe not the brightest, but he sure gets along with everyone, and, deep down, he probably means well. But he’s also a bit of a weasel. He cares about alien rights, but only to an extent. He would much rather get the job done for MNU, even if it means sidestepping those pesky legal issues. That is, of course, until Wikus accidentally touches some alien matter. And then…

Well, you’ll just have to see the movie. No way in hell am I spoiling that here! Let’s just say things take a very interesting turn as we launch into the final hour.


As Wikus, newcomer Sharlto Copley is phenomenal — what an amazing debut. Considering this is his first professional acting gig, Copley goes through a powerful transformation in this film, and it’s completely believable the entire way through. This guy’s the real deal, and he should be a around for a long time. There’s one particular scene of him on the phone with his wife which just killed me — it was acted so beautifully, with such real, heartbreaking feeling. I’m not even the type who cries at movies (It’s weird to me too, no worries — just think of it as one of my few manly qualities), but this was the closest I came to that in a while.

However, as much as I loved Wikus, he’s really only half of the emotional center of “District 9”; the real soul belongs to the most unexpected source. At some point in the film, Wikus teams up with Christopher Johnson and his young son…but, bland name aside, Christopher is a prawn, likely the smartest one of the bunch. While a good chunk of the prawns are angry and prone to violence, Christopher is kind and intelligent, and his relationship with his son is the true heart of the film. There’s another scene with Christopher, trying to calmly explain to his son that they’re about to be relocated to District 10. Just watch those eyes, so full of pain and defeat, as Christopher tries to make the concentration camp sound “better” and more comfortable than the dirty shack they have right now. Another brilliant scene, and who would’ve thought that two aliens having an intimate conversation could work so well, on a purely emotional level at that? Or that it’d ring so true to some of the grave injustices inflicted on actual human beings (in addition to space-bugs)?

I won’t spoil much else, but take my word that Christopher has a plan, and putting that plan into gear launches the last 40 minutes of the film, which also happens to feature some of the best action sequences of the year. Those who find the first hour or so kind of slow, just sit back and enjoy these final sequences — the pacing never lets up, and this is some overall exceptional, thrilling work. I mentioned the movie’s budget a while back, and while $30 million is probably more than I’ll ever see in my life…for an action movie, particularly a CGI-infused science-fiction one like this one, it’s virtually nothing. Think of it like an independent film — a “Garden State” for the “Transformers” genre. The special effects are also seamless, and wonderfully used — the prawns look realistic, and the eyes (they really have no mouths, just tentacles) completely life-like. The spaceships, weaponry, and, most of all, that mothership hovering over Johannesburg are all very impressive as well — this is quite the achievement in many ways.

I do wish the film was less violent, or at the very least more subtle in how it portrayed it. Yeah, you could say all the splattering body parts and exploding humans were part of the story, but it still felt a bit gratuitous. That’s pretty much my biggest complaint with the film. My friend, Linda (who did the amazing, ridiculously cool profile picture for our coming-soon revamp), keeps making fun of me, because her and I are on different spectrums. She loves her tasteful violence, while I go for the more mushy, touchy-feely stuff. “District 9” really has both—it works very well on a touching, human level (pretty cool, right? Even though the aliens and Wikus are pretty much the most humane characters), but it doesn’t hold back on the gore front. It could work for many, but I think a quieter approach to the carnage scenes would have made the film more powerful, and given it a much more lasting (and scarier) impact.

I haven’t mentioned producer Peter Jackson at all (who gets the fancy “Presents” credit which opens the movie), even though his involvement probably got this picture made to begin with. If anyone remembers, a few years back, Jackson hand-picked Blomkamp to direct the mega-budget “Halo” movie. That, of course, fell through—I would guess the studio wasn’t too comfortable hiring a first-timer to direct their video-game epic. But, I don’t know about you guys, I’m really glad the “Halo” movie never happened — if it did, we would’ve never gotten “District 9.” Blomkamp is a smart filmmaker, understanding the need for an engaging story and characters we genuinely feel for (much like his mentor, Mr. Jackson). It’s a treat to see someone as big as Jackson supporting an absolute unknown, but he believed in his talent…and he was very right. I can’t wait to see what Blomkamp does next. If “Halo” actually comes together (and that might very well happen, since, as of now, “District 9” is a profitable hit), in Blomkamp’s hands and under Jackson’s watchful creative eye, we should be in for something great.

I can’t get in too much more without revealing some of the film’s interesting developments and clever little twists, so I’ll just say this: that final shot is perfect. Simple as that—moving, bittersweet, and just plain perfect for the end of this story. I heard Peter Jackson coyly mention a sequel to this film, and even though I shrugged off the idea at first, the ending leaves a sequel wide-open…and, damn it, now I really need to see more! If they approach it in a fresh, interesting perspective (which I’m sure these guys will), I’ll be there, first in line, ready to see what they come up with. “District 10”? I don’t know about you guys, but I’m very up for another trip into this world.

So, to sum all this up, without any more babbling on my part…go see “District 9.” It may not be for everyone (especially the squeamish), but if you make it through, right up to that lovely parting shot, you’ll see exactly what I mean — you’ll be as crazy about the whole experience as I am.



Images courtesy of Wingnut Films and Sony Pictures.
Read more!

Weekend Bites: "G.I.JOE" No Joe!

I’ve got good news and bad news when it comes to G.I.JOE.

The good news is I saved a bundle on my car insurance by switching to GEICO.

The bad news… well there’s a lot, so let me break it down.


Overall rating: 2 1/2 bites (out of 5)

I tried to give G.I.JOE an honest shot, I really did. I tried to stay as objective as possible, and hoped that the nostalgia of my childhood would play a more significant role during the entire JOE movie experience. But in all honesty, the movie failed to meet my expectations in a lot of ways, and it’s not like I had high expectations for this movie. Truth be told, I had really low expectations.

Going into the movie, after reading some reviews on Rotten Tomatoes, I thought JOE would at least be entertaining, keeping me on the edge of my seat for the entire 2 hour experience. Maybe it was the gratuitous use of CGI throughout the entire movie, or maybe it was the fact that I watched the movie at 11:00pm, ORRRR maybe it was because I watched it after the UFC bouts on Saturday, but I found myself being really bored amidst all the action sequences; they just didn’t seem to amount to anything mind-blowing.

But before I go into more detail about all the parts that missed the mark, let me highlight some of the… uh… highlights:

1. Sienna Miller looked hot. She may have been the only bright star among a cast of lackluster, gaseous balls.

2. Sienna Miller looked hot.

3. Snake-Eyes and Storm Shadow were badass. Their fight sequences were pretty phenomenal. They were everything you wanted to see as a kid, but put into live-action and on the big screen. Plus, I have to give a shout out to my boy Byung-hun Lee. Representin’ the motherland with style.



And now, back to your regularly scheduled program.

Let me just make this clear – I didn’t hate G.I.JOE. I didn’t love it either. And it's not a terrible film, but it's not great either. And it does have some entertainment value. It just did absolutely nothing for me. I spent all weekend trying to figure out why it did nothing for me and I think one of my cohorts said it best: the movie really had nothing at stake. There was no epic battle between good and evil, and nothing genuinely mind-blowing. It was rather predictable and the end felt rushed in order to fit in the “big secret.” But there are a lot of things to nitpick about, so I’ll just run through the easiest to the hardest.

First and foremost, when did they change the law to allow British people to become President of the United States?? It was kind of disappointing to see Jonathan Price give such a mediocre performance, when I know that he’s a very talented actor. He didn’t hide his accent at all; I guess I can’t really say that -- He didn’t hide his accent well. I really couldn’t buy into the fact that he was the President. It literally was a British man in the Oval office. Bad form.

Secondly, there was also a lot of campiness in the movie. As the movie progressed, the camp also seemed to progress. It was the same 80’s camp put into a big budget film, set in the modern day. And I don’t know if I really had a problem with that because I get what the filmmakers may have been trying to do. They wanted to capture the same fun and enjoyment of the 80’s ‘toon and bring that to the big screen. I get that. But it would have been nice to see something a little grittier, a little rawer. After all, the kids who watched G.I.JOE in the 80’s and 90’s are all grown up now. I’m sure we can handle a little more badass-ery.

One of my biggest qualms with this movie may be the gratuitous usage of CGI. Frankly, there was waaaay too much CGI. Don’t get me wrong, I have nothing against CGI as long as it’s done well and implemented correctly, but that’s where JOE dropped the ball. The action sequences were so chalk full of CGI that I left the theater feeling unimpressed, possibly because it was almost like watching a full-length computer-animated feature film. No, I take that back… it was like watching a full-length computer-animated feature film, and all the actors were just doing voiceover work. In that respect, I guess G.I.JOE never left its animated roots. But consequently, I found myself being genuinely distracted by how much animation, rather than real-life acting was put into this movie (more on the acting later). One scene that was particularly distracting was the scene that took place in the Arctic Circle. My initial critique was that that set was just poorly designed, but I guess that’s what happens when you invest more money into the CGI department than into set design. But I digress. The reason I found it so distracting, aside from the fact that Duke is so badass that he doesn’t need a parka or even a coat to survive in that climate, was the computer generated breath. As if that’s going to mask the poorly designed set, and make the “Arctic Circle” much more believable. The only thing running through my mind was how ridiculous CGI breathing looked. Then again, I guess you can consider that mind-blowing. Outsourcing computer graphics to breathing is pretty earth-shattering.

Lastly, the acting – I guess you really can’t expect Oscar-caliber performances for a movie like G.I.JOE, but at least get a better DUKE! When I first heard that Channing Tatum was going to play Duke, my initial response was – Why?! And now, after seeing his performance, I stand by my initial assessment. From a purist fanboy point-of-view, Duke is supposed to be a total badass, and Channing Tatum really does not evoke that kind of persona. But, I have to be honest, I was a little excited to see if Channing could pull it off, if he had what it takes to be one bad mother-*shut yo’ mouth*! But he didn’t step up (no pun intended) to the challenge. He demonstrated the acting chops of a cave wall, lacking both the charisma and emotional capacity that the script, character, and film required of him. Now if we can only get Channing Tatum, Malin Akerman, and Jessica Alba to make one EPIC film adaptation of another cartoon from the 80’s to effectively ruin my childhood that would be awesome. I hear Thundercats is in the works… hmm…

-Ace
Read more!

Weekend Bites: The Crazy Russian Falls for "(500) Days of Summer"

Rusty here. Sorry about the few updates over the last couple of days, but work got the best of all 3 of us. So, considering the fact that I was supposed to have this up on Monday...let's just call it a Mid-Week Bite and politely ignore the lateness. Either way, this is just too good a movie, so please go see it. Or, if you're brave and are willing to venture through my latest lengthy monstrosity, keep reading for my thoughts on one of the best and most romantic movies I've seen in a while...

Review: "(500) Days of Summer"

My Rating: 4 bites [out of 5]

Fair warning: this is about to get pretty mushy; I’m going to shower a lot of love on this wonderful little movie. So, with that, here’s a quick soundbite version before I ramble away: “(500) Days of Summer” is just a pure delight. It’s lovely without being too sweet, honest without being overly “dramatic”, and written, acted, and directed with absolute charm. I’m not giving it a perfect review based on pretty much one minor quibble, but this is a movie that will get heavy rotation on my poor, romance-ingesting DVD player, right alongside “Pride & Prejudice,” “Love Actually”, “When Harry Met Sally”, and (yep, the guilty pleasure that evolved into one of my favorites), “Wimbledon.”

To be upfront, I don’t share the common “guy” opinions on chick flicks. I wouldn’t have to be dragged to see one by someone I’m dating—in fact, I’m guessing it’ll be the other way around. I genuinely love movies about people in relatable, human situations, all presented with a good sense of humor and plenty of heart. That’s not to say that all of them are good—the typical Hollywood rom-com usually involves some gimmick (It’s all a bet! He’s only pretending to be gay!) that destroys any potential that movie would have to be a sweet, memorable romance.

We’re also treated to such familiar staples like the jackass boyfriend who abuses his girl, but for some reason she stays with him…and only in the end decides to finally go with Insert Charming Lead Here. Or, my personal favorite: Matthew McConaughey is some form of shirtless douchebag who must reform his ways and, of course, thus get the attractive blonde chick (who really should know better!) in the end. Not all of these are exactly terrible, but the corny plot mechanics and piled-on sappiness leave many such movies (if not most) cruising by purely on the likeability of its stars (“The Ugly Truth,” which I’ll review later this week, is a perfect example of that).

In terms of predictability, though, I honestly don’t mind movies being formulaic as long as the characters and their relationships are fresh, engaging, and well-written…and, in the end, I’m really a sucker for good, likeable people falling in love. Well, “(500) Days of Summer” meets that basic requirement, but also provides something funnier, and much more touching and relatable in the process.

The movie, as the narrator plainly tells us, is “a story of boy meets girl,” but, he is quick to point out, it’s “not a love story”. That’s a very accurate description: a “love story” would be selling the movie far too short. There are no bets here, no high-concept premises—it’s a simple, common story, one that most (if not all of us) have at one point experienced. This is, in fact, about a “boy,” Tom (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), a once promising architect and now greeting-card writer, and him falling head over heels for a “girl”, Summer (the lovely and radiant Zooey Deschanel), his office’s new secretary. It’s a premise we’ve seen a million times before, but, trust me, “(500) Days of Summer” will win you over before you know it.

The movie kicks in at Day 288 (it shuffles through most of the 500 days of their relationship), and, since the trailer already gave it away, Summer has just broken up with Tom. Tom, feeling lower than humanly possible, vows to win her back, because she’s not “any other girl…she’s Summer!” For him, she’s the One, for Tom is the type of guy who sincerely believes that—he’s not going to let his soul-mate go, at least not without a fight. And, from there, the film launches into retracing their relationship, but in a refreshingly loose, non-chronological order. And therein lies the film’s great hook. There’s a reason the movie starts with Tom—it’s his version of their relationship. These are his memories, his analyses, his quirks and pains that we’re experiencing. We’re not actually getting all 500 days, but we’re getting the days that matter to him—for better or for worse—these are the ones that truly stick out.

Now, I can’t take credit for this (since I read it an interview with Gordon-Levitt), but the film’s structure is so true to how we think that many people might not actually notice it. And he’s absolutely right—think about your important relationships, the ones that really mattered—it rarely goes straight to day one, right? By all means, it could, but, if you’re anything like me, the mind jumps around like crazy. You remember the first awkward joke, perhaps a moment later when you genuinely connected, which could then launch your train of thought straight through to the first signs of trouble. This movie (in perhaps a far more coherent manner) is that experience—in turns sweet and funny, and, in perfectly natural segueways, quite poignant and heartbreaking when it needs to be.

But the real clincher for me was the characters. Here, we have two of our most talented and likeable young actors, but in characters that aren’t types—Tom and Summer are real people, with two quite different outlooks on relationships (which may or may not contribute to the developments that take place). Tom, especially, is the guy who’s born to believe that there’s that One Person out there for him. Probably from years of absorbing romantic movies and novels (and come on, he works for a greeting card company—the holy ground of mass-produced sappiness!), he’s been waiting for that one person—the girl of his dreams who will come in and make his life better, who will push and inspire him to be the very best version of himself. How do I know this (or at least think I do)? Because I am Tom, at least in all these respects. We’re both (often clueless) hopeless romantics—it goes with the territory to examine every new girl like your potential future partner for life.

One of the many things this movie gets right is the small character details. Tom, quite handsome and charming, is still rather awkward, with a great tendency to play things kind of safe. As such, his initial flirtation with Deschanel is perfectly awkward and sweet, with just the right degree of humor and believable behavior. This aspect of his personality, in particular, really hit home for me. I don’t want to drive away all you readers with long, sarcastic stories of my ridiculous life experiences, but Tom and I probably share way too many corny wooing tactics. For my favorite example: Tom knows Summer’s a fan of rock band, The Smiths, so he makes sure to play one of their songs loudly—you know, just to get her to come over and talk to him. Brilliant, right (in all its pathetic glory)? And, yep, I did that too—a couple years back, with me crazy about a neighbor of mine, I made sure to play movies that she liked, just so she could pass by and it’ll get her attention. Foolproof, right? (Except for the fool actually doing this) Hell, I liked a girl recently, but when it came time to step up and ask her out properly, I totally chickened out. Instead, I kept pushing for us to play some tennis…and only then would I unleash my awesome asking-her-out skills. Oy… Tom and I have sadly too much in common (although I’d guess his success rate is slightly higher)—not my main reason for liking the film, but definitely some bonus, well-written icing on the cake.

Summer, on the other hand, is, simply put, that Dream Girl (at least she’s mine, so I greatly sympathize with Tom)—she’s challenging, funny, beautiful (but in a believable way), sweet (but doesn’t take crap from people)—she’s the kind of girl who’s cool to hang out with at a bar, but, just the same, she can romance the socks off you with a dance at a wedding. However, there’s one big kicker: she’s not interested in “relationships”—she’s uncomfortable with labels, and repeatedly refers to Tom as her “friend,” albeit an extremely close, boyfriend-ish kind. That’s one of the biggest conflicts in the film; Tom, that earnest believer in “True Love Conquering All” tries to change her, while Summer tries to figure out how she feels in what is obviously something great (though not necessarily perfect).

As for Tom and Summer's actual relationship, in all of its 500 sometimes-messy days, the film, from its clever direction and constantly sharp script (by relatively new duo of Scott Neustadter and Michael H. Weber), refuses to take any easy ways out. Yes, Tom and Summer are extremely compatible—they make each other laugh, their eccentricities match perfectly, their mutual “couple” vibe is infectious, and, really, they just look great together (Deschanel and Gordon-Levitt have an easy, likeable chemistry—I’d love to see them work together again). But perhaps it’s not enough. We know Summer slips away from Tom, and the fact that Tom can’t do anything about it breaks him down completely. There’s thus a real emotional honesty here that’s rarely seen, at least in popular Hollywood films. The film’s smart enough to ask: what happens when one person is completely in love, while the other person…well, really likes the other a lot? I’ve been more-or-less on both sides of that equation, and, to put it as crudely as possible, it sucks either way. Someone’s going to get hurt, and, in this case, Tom goes through an entire journey in understanding why he and Summer can or can’t be together. He comes out a slightly different person, but whether it’s for the best, or how it affects them as a couple…well, you’ll just have to see and find out. I won’t reveal the ending here, but suffice to say that it is happy in its own way, and very right for the characters and their places in life.

And in all my rambling, I still haven’t gotten to the many other great things about this film. For starters, there’s the superb all-around character work. Kudos to the writing and the casting, but every minor character feels like a believable person in this world. Best of all, Tom’s friends actually act and sound like real friends—they don’t deliver punch lines and plot points, but rather try their best to support their friend in what is obviously the greatest (and soon-to-be most heartbreaking) thing that ever happened to him. There’s also a charming relationship between Tom and his very wise, very supportive 12-year-old sister. He comes to her for advice, and she delivers it—honest-to-goodness great advice, unhampered by our “adult” habits of sugarcoating the truth to make the other person feel better. It’s a lovely touch, amidst a film filled with many of them.

I mentioned the actors briefly in the beginning, but Gordon-Levitt and Deschanel again demonstrate why they’re some of our best young actors. Gordon-Levitt, especially, has been doing solid character work for years (if you haven’t already, check out his knockout performance in “The Lookout”), but, here, he’s relaxed and very loveable—the character might very well be a grown-up, slightly more rounded version of his character in “10 Things I Hate About You". I can’t wait to see him as the villain in this weekend’s “G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra”.

Deschanel does fine work here as well. It’s hard not be smitten with Summer—that smile, that quick wit, and, man, oh, man, those eyes. In “Almost Famous,” I remember Cameron Crowe just did a full-on, loving camera zoom on her face, and I don’t blame him. Those eyes are so expressive, so alluring, so full of unspoken feelings—it works beautifully for Summer, who, unlike Tom, doesn’t give out her heart for a lifetime commitment…at least not right away.

If I have any complaint with the film, it’s that Summer is actually a little less developed than I would have liked. The writing is still strong, and Deschanel is a capable enough actress to make even the silent moments resonate, but, in the end, her character remains slightly a mystery—her motivations not always clear. Remember how this movie is pretty much Tom’s perspective? That could very well be why Summer is somewhat elusive. It is all Tom’s impressions, and Tom never understood a few very crucial things about Summer. Would it cheapen the movie if Deschanel had a clear perspective as well? To give her a more concrete point of view? I honestly don’t know, but that’s the one area of the movie where I felt it was lacking. It could be a complaint that will minimize the more I see this, but, as of now, Summer was the sole element of the film that I wanted more of.

First-time feature director Marc Webb (currently circling a “Jesus Christ Superstar” remake), who has a long and pretty distinguished track record in directing music videos for the likes of Green Day and others, makes an assured debut here. A lot of former music-video directors tend to play down substance with as much style and flash as possible, but Webb shows a pretty admirable restraint. That’s actually saying something in a movie as stylized as this one—among many things, we have an impromptu musical number and split-screen “expectations” versus “reality” footage (when Tom expected to sweep Summer off her feet, but ended up failing miserably)—but all that flash works perfectly for the story and the feelings expressed. Webb’s added touches all feel organic to the emotions at play, from the euphoria of love in its early stages to the downright depression when all of Tom’s hopes and dreams and great visions of love fall apart. Webb also works very well with his actors, especially noticed by the nice underplaying of Tom’s friends, who are obviously meant to be comic relief, but never come off as overbearing or annoying. I think he’s got a very interesting career ahead of him, and, after this, I’m incredibly curious to see how he’ll take on my favorite rock opera.

This was another way-too-long long review, but I can’t stress enough that this is a wonderful film. It’s infinitely better than your “average” date film—it digs deeper, and comes out far more truthful and enjoyable. Go see it—you won’t be disappointed. Or, if you’re anything like me, just buy it on DVD—you’ll probably end up seeing it repeatedly anyway, savoring each experience. True, I’ve only seen it once, so I can’t be sure...but it feels like a keeper. My “Love Actually” and “Pride & Prejudice” DVDs...you officially have competition.

Image courtesy of Fox Searchlight.

Read more!

Weekend Bites: The Crazy Russian takes on “Harry Potter”

Privet from the Crazy Russian! This is a bit belated, but in honor of the film’s IMAX 3D release (and the fact that I wrote this way before we launched the blog), I figured it was the perfect excuse to post it (and, really, Ace and Luke owe me a lengthy Potter post…one of many more to come!). So, bear with me, people, for a long (looong) look at the excellent new Harry Potter flick.

Review: “Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince”

My Rating: 3 1/2 bites [out of 5]

It’s too easy to give me a “Harry Potter” movie. Over the years, I tried to downplay my crazy love of J.K. Rowling’s boy wizard hero, but, in the end, I simply can’t (it’s just not worth it—the Potter obsession is just too big a part of me!). Harry Potter was and always will be the very reason I love to read—it was these books that first sparked my imagination, and every book and film release since the summer where I first discovered it was a major event for me. On the page, the series is pure, simple magic—one of the best recent examples of intelligent, imaginative storytelling. And, so far, the screen versions have all captured Rowling’s vision, managing to become (flaws and all) strong, stand-alone entities in their own right.

With that, as you probably guessed, I loved “The Half-Blood Prince,” although with some reservations. Series-wise, for me, this is near the top of the heap, underneath the brilliant “Prisoner of Azkaban,” and slightly edged out by “Order of the Phoenix.”

But, first, the positive stuff. I’m going to avoid major spoilers for non-Potterheads and newbies (but, come on, it’s high time you jumped on that bandwagon—you’re only denying yourself something awesome!), so work with me for the broad strokes. The sixth novel may just be my favorite, but it’s probably also the trickiest to adapt. Harry Potter matures greatly (as he should, for a boy like Harry experienced far too much pain and tragedy to live the normal life he dreams of) and starts to slowly understand there’s a greater destiny in store for him—that inevitable confrontation with the Dark Lord, Voldermort. Professor Dumbledore, perenially wise and always planning something, makes it his personal mission to set Harry on this path—but, of course, he knows far more than he lets on.

The book walks us through lengthy sessions of Harry and Dumbledore sifting through different memories of Voldermort, trying desperately to find a weakness within the Dark Lord. And there’s the catch: a good chunk of the “Half-Blood Prince” novel is dedicated to flashbacks (via people’s memories, made interactive through the magic of Dumbledore’s special Pensieve) and, to put it simply, not much actually happens, Voldermort-rising/fighting-forces-of-evil-wise. In fact, extended sequences in the novel just had Dumbledore and Harry sitting and talking about Voldermort’s history—riveting stuff on the page, but could you imagine that on screen? For me, though, that’s what made the novel so wonderful: Rowling raised her game as a storyteller, presenting a mature portrait of evil and its motivations (for, really, Voldermort was the character with the most development) and a much stronger focus on the burgeoning and awfully funny and endearing relationships, particularly between Harry’s closest friends, Ron and Hermione.

So how does the film fare? Well, ace “Potter” screenwriter Steve Kloves (every movie but the 5th one) proves up to the challenge (as always): as a time concession no doubt, most of the flashbacks were tossed out, but the engaging teen romance, with all its high emotions and stolen stares and awkward feelings is put straight to the forefront. Harry’s best friend, Ron, says at one point, right before fainting: “these girls…they’re going to kill me, Harry.” It’s a great indicator of the film: this is by far the funniest “Potter” yet. Sure, the film never forgets that these are dark, “mad times”—Voldermort’s armies are spreading, their havoc and murder toll steadily rising (they even attack Ron’s house, the Burrow, in an added scene for the movie), but Rowling was smart to keep those details as more of a looming presence (until the book’s climax, that is), and, like life inevitably gives way to, everyday things like secret crushes, friends, and, well, “snogging” (that’d be making out for all us non-Brits) take up all of our attention. Fortunately, following the book’s lead, the film deals with these teen emotions and raging hormones honestly, and, in many ways, quite poignantly. There’s one particular scene with Harry and Hermione—a quiet, intimate scene where they talk on the staircase—it’s a bit expanded from the book, and it’s just lovely—you’ll see what I mean in the final film. Returning director David Yates isn’t afraid to push these kids (or, really now, young adults), and, in turn, all three leads—Daniel Radcliffe (Harry Potter), Rupert Grint (the ginger-haired, wisecrack-prone Ron Weasley), and Emma Watson (the bright and Muggle-born Hermione Granger)—prove once again that their acting is on the same plane as their great adult co-stars.

On the Hogwarts front, Jim Broadbent joins the already stellar cast as Professor Slughorn, a jolly, loveable man (but somewhat conceited and obsessed with the wealthy and powerful), who nonetheless holds a dark secret that could reveal crucial information for Harry and Dumbledore. Slughorn was a lively, memorable character on the page, and Broadbent, always delightful, brings him to life like I imagined, although with a much greater (and sadder) humanity. This is a guy you think you know right away, what with that cheerful laugh, and Broadbent’s endearingly large eyes, but the film carefully picks apart those layers, bringing out something borderline tragic. It’s another very positive feature of the series—the “Potter” movies aren’t afraid to slow down, to dig deeper, show some genuine emotion—in the summer of the mindless action/giant robot-assault of “Transformers,” it’s really quite refreshing…and very much appreciated.

As said before, though, I think this one falls just short of the series’ high marks of “Prisoner of Azkaban” and “Order of the Phoenix.”

Look no further than the title, and you’ll find my biggest problem. In the story, Harry finds a mysterious old Potions book, signed and belonging to someone called “The Half-Blood Prince.” I get that important chunks of the novel had to be cut out (by all means I support it—it goes with the adaptation territory), but that entire thread is just not given the weight it deserves, particularly since it leads to a terrific, dramatic revelation of the Prince’s identity; here, it ends up seeming more perfunctory than the mad, fiery passion witnessed form the book. (You honestly get the sense that if the filmmakers weren’t stuck with “Half-Blood Prince” in the title, they would’ve gladly got rid of it). Trust is major theme in this movie—throughout the course of this story, Harry begins to realize what’s in store for him, and who he places his trust in is vital in the events to come. We know he has Ron and Hermione, but there’s a seeming betrayal near the end, which, while well-staged, is just not as emphasized as it should have been; a greater focus on the Half-Blood Prince would’ve given the movie a stronger thematic backbone, and transition very well to what’s in store for “Deathly Hallows”. Considering how zippy the 2 ½ hour run time is, an extra twenty minutes or so would’ve been just the trick for the sake of clarity and drama.

And, of course, much like the book, the movie still feels like an elaborate set-up for the final chapter. This wasn’t so much a problem with the book, but rather a downside, particularly since all of us insane readers knew we had to wait at least a year longer to find out what happens. While this movie can mostly stand on its own, deprived of many of the book’s added details, it can’t escape the feeling of treading water. Even the ending isn’t really a stopping point—it’s just a quiet cliffhanger before the final movie, which, judging by what this film left unsaid, will have a lot of concepts to fully explain to the audience.

And, on that note, here's a quick confession: I actually wrote a much more positive review of “Half-Blood Prince” initially. But, after a few more viewings, and some time to settle, I finally figured out why this film didn’t blow me away like the 3rd and 5th ones of the series did. “Prisoner of Azkaban” and “Order of the Phoenix” were confident, streamlined entries that had to sacrifice important details from the novel for the sake of a clear narrative on film. Both of them put Harry’s emotional journey—his maturation and growing confidence as a wizard—straight to the forefront, and it worked amazingly (for me, at least). Here, the filmmakers try this to the extent that they can, but to prepare audiences for “Deathly Hollows” next year, this film has a great deal of set-up it needed to accomplish. Which, inevitably, leads to a sort of awkward give-and-take between the great relationship and character elements it wants to squeeze in, and the vast amount of exposition for the final two films—we thus got good bits of both, but, in the end, neither the character arcs nor the necessary backstory were really given the exposure they deserved. As such, things like the poor, very ignored Half-Blood Prince got shortchanged, as does Harry’s slow embrace of his great destiny, and the Harry-Ginny flirtation and brief relationship (although, to be fair, I really liked the changes to that last area). The final product still works very well—it’s, as always, entertaining, engaging, and very well-made, but I think a stronger balance of all these story elements would have been possible, and, for me, would have raised this film even higher in the Potter series ranking.

My gripes aside, this is still a very good film. One of the great things about the entire franchise is that there’s never really a bad movie. True, the omissions from the novel are sometimes very disappointing, but the stories (and all that credit really goes to J.K. Rowling) are always solid, and the filmmakers always find some choice beautiful, emotional or, hell, just plain exciting moments to walk away with (case in point: Harry’s flight on the Hippogriff in the 3rd film, Dumbledore’s duel with Voldermort in the 5th, and, as weird as it sounds, that scene on the staircase with Hermione and Harry, as well as a tribute to a character’s death, in this film).

All of the returning vets, like Maggie Smith, Robbie Coltrane, Helena Bonham Carter, and MVPs this time around, Michael Gambon (as Dumbledore) and the amazing Alan Rickman (as Professor Snape, relishing each and every one of his twisted, delectable line readings) still find the right balance of pathos and humor to bring to their roles. And, as I mentioned earlier, all three leads are wonderful—selling us on their friendship, but with Grint and Watson getting more to do than in the last movie, “Order of the Phoenix”—Grint has some great comedy bits and very believably portrays romantic cluelessness, while Watson gets some touching moments, nicely conveying Hermione’s heartbreak. Finally, a special shout-out to Tom Felton, who, without giving too much away, finally gets to show more shades of Draco Malfoy than the pompous, sneering bully, and he proves himself a very capable actor (not to mention a far more interesting character).

I was very impressed with Yates’ work on “Order of the Phoenix”—it was a more self-assured and overall stronger entry than Mike Newell’s “Goblet of Fire”, and Yates displayed a real grasp of the character of Harry and a comfort with Rowling’s world. Here, he continues to show that he’s a good fit for the franchise; the actors respond well to him, and visually, it’s likely the most gorgeous film since “Prisoner of Azkaban.” We’re in for very good things as Yates takes on the two “Deathly Hallows” films.

There’s really much to like in the new “Harry Potter,” as my unnecessarily rambly and wordy review hopefully pointed out. Obvious confession: this franchise means a lot to me, and, on the viewer’s part alone, despite all minor problems, it’s so rewarding to see Warner Bros. take such good care of it. Very few studios have maintained this level of quality over six consecutive films (let alone gone this far for a large, interconnected story), and I’m positive that in 2011, when all is said and done and oodles more box-office records are broken, this is a series (just like the books) that will remain and continue to be important for many years to come.

Image courtesy of Warner Bros. Pictures.

Read more!