Paddington

Paddington is a shockingly sharp / smart little film.

I don't say "shockingly" to be dismissive of the genre, IP, or concept at all. This is a very underrated,  accessible family film, and I'm surprised more people aren't saying, "You should see Paddington."

Some of the cinematography is arrestingly subtle, I think Paul King directs brilliantly, it has more fantasy elements than I expected (yes, in addition to the talking bear) and the output from the entire cast and crew is great.

Pacific Rim

I've been raving about Pacific Rim since I saw it opening weekend, and didn't realize I hadn't yet written about it.

It's a fantastic, big-robots versus giant monster film, has the requisite Guillermo Del Toro visual panache, and is a needed film.

(What?)

I avoid reviews before movies, but I remember after seeing them movie hearing a phrase from one reviewer who said, "This is exactly the kind of movie we need" -- And that resonated with me.

I don't know what his/her meaning was, but for me, movie going has changed for the (far) worse over the years. Theaters not being competitive (not running their establishments like a business), spoilers rampant and tough to avoid on social media streams before the movie even comes out, disrespect and distraction from audience members during a showing, etc.

(Thank goodness for Alamo Drafthouse.)

But then Pacific Rim comes out.

It's a movie meant to be seen in the theater, and it drove people to the theater. It's a genre film, and that genre is "anime mecha" (cartoon giant robots). And it delivered a live-action version of that genre in a brilliant way that pulled in the Neon Genesis Evangelion crowd, and the crowd for which that esoteric franchise isn't accessible or attractive.

It pulled off tropes from Japanese action cartoons in a live-action film, and did so not only believably, but in a way that made people cheer out loud in theaters.

Charlie Hunnam as the lead is solid. Charlie Day is engaging as not over-the-top comedy relief. Rinko Kikuchi is empathy-grabbing without being maudlin -- I would love love love to see a Breakfast at Tiffany's remake with her as Holly Golightly, or My Fair Lady with Ms. Kikuchi as Eliza Doolittle. (Give me a moment.)

And  Idris Elba? Totally sells cancelling the apocalypse. Every time.

It's a fun film to see in digital 2D. And IMAX. And D-Box. Multiple times.

(And I'm hopeful for a director's cut with tons of extras.)

Man of Steel

I find Man of Steel to be a great, true-to-the-franchise revamp of the caped blue boy scout's movie persona.

Superman is a tough character to pull off. How do you make a god-like super being "believably unbelievably powerful" and not boring?

One piece of it is getting an actor that can pull it off.

Henry Cavill? Check. And for so many reasons.

Whether he does "as good as" or "a better job than" Christopher Reeve is academic. For many of us, "Christopher Reeve is Superman" is a reality, but that doesn't box out other people in the role. Superman and Superman II will always hold a special, carved-out and long-held place in my heart. That doesn't mean people like Cavill, Tim Daly, or even Brandon Routh don't get some space, too.

There's a visual aesthetic to Superman. There's a tapered look in everything from the "S" symbol on the chest of the hero to ... the hero's chest itself. Physically, Henry Cavill looks like Supes.

Fortunately, he acts like it, too. Cavill pulls off the conflicted, gradually informed Last Son of Krypton, pragmatically informed Only Son of Pa and Ma Kent, and adopted son to the People of Earth. That's a lot of layering for any role.

And having producer Christopher Nolan, director Zack Snyder, and writer David S. Goyer certainly pulls the package together nicely.

I actually like the gradual ties back to Clark Kent's childhood upbringing. With very true-to-real-life elementary, middle and high school, and young adult life happenings under the tutelage of Kevin Costner's Jonathan Kent and Diane Lane's Martha Kent (both are stellar portrayals). The asynchronous flashbacks -- which differ from the Richard Donner, serial childhood -- have the dual purpose of breaking up the narrative into non-boring chunks, and makes the childhood recaps more relevant to the matter at hand. I think they also resonate with people raising kids as best they can, not trying to do everything for them, and knowing we can't protect them from or prepare them for everything.

"Superman as a badass" is pulled off really well. The sheer power and destruction of some the fight scenes show the untapped power of the hero -- but also highlight one of my criticisms of the film.

"Realistically", there is no way there could be the level of destruction shown in the film without massive, massive loss of human life. Given how counter this would be to the core of the character (and that core exemplified in this treatment of him), it definitely breaks the fourth wall a bit. The recent DC Animated film, Superman vs. The Elite, actually does a good job of showing what a disregard for casualties would look like.

To be honest, I was geek-terrified for this film. Not because I was worried it would suck -- Despite a recent, decently long track record of good comic book films, I live in a place where I expect them to suck (and films like Green Lantern don't help my genre PTSD).

No, what I worried about was jacking with the core of the character. I heard complaints that Donner's 1978 Superman "was for a time", and "too patriotic and 'America and apple pie'." I was worried we'd get a darker-for-the-sake-of-darker, "we are the world", being-patriotic-is-being-insular garbage layer on top of the film.

Fortunately, not so much. And definitely not enough to pollute the film.

Other criticisms include a bit of disjointedness in the flow. This may be a casualty of wanting to get slot certain moments in, or a lack of fluidity in editing (which, to my mind, is one of the hardest parts of movie making).

The other criticisms I have are inconsistencies that I shouldn't mention, because they create spoilers. Let's just say they revolve around Superman having spent a lifetime soaking up our yellow sun's radiation, so he should have a lifetime of difference in strength and attributes, based on that.

There's also a bit much of "Cavill cacophony". He yells. Emotionally. A lot. Christopher Reeve yells once in 1978's Superman, and it is powerful, bone-chilling, and believable. I unintentionally chortled at the third Man of Steel yop.

But these are all minor quibbles. The movie is great fun as a summer action flick, a comic-book genre film, and for this comic book afficianado. It pushes the franchise forward on new legs (better, I'd argue, than DC's "New 52" reboot), and I'm looking forward to the announced Man of Steel 2.

(And a quick aside in support of the last reboot, Superman Returns. While that film had its issues, it was intentionally -- In Bryan Singer's own words -- a kind of "love letter" to the Richard Donner films, and what they meant to Singer in his life at that time. Looked through that lens, the film holds up a lot better, and in a lot of way excuses "Routh's portrayal of Christopher Reeve playing Clark Kent playing Superman".)

(And an aside aside: Patriotism is not passé. Pride and accountability in values is not insular. Both of those attitudes from faux global elitists is a prime contributor to the decline of our society. Face.)

Wreck-It Ralph

Wreck-It Ralph is Disney's highest-grossing (non-Pixar) animated opening in history -- and it deserves it.

Besides being a solid all-ages animated film, it is a great, great nod to all things video game history (and other than not laughing when other folks in the audience might be laughing, that's not a barrier to entry for the film).

I'm a big, big John C. Reilly fan (since meeting him during his Criminal project), and I love to see him consistently moving up in the entertainment world -- The guy is genuinely talented, and is working his tail off in the Biz.

Wreck-It Ralph is fun, visually impressive, and has neat messaging about being yourself, using your gifts, and "the core of being" is more about who you are, and less about what you do -- But what you do (and your attitude while doing it) says a lot about that.

My minor quibbles with the film include a lot of time spent in one single environment -- which is totally organic to the film, but the "I make this stuff and it kind of breaks the fourth wall" side of me wonders if this was done to constrain costs.

The other thing to be aware of is while this is a good family film, near the end, one bad guy gets very (and very unexpectedly) dark and a bit scary, so if you have younger, more impressionable kids, it's good to know that going in (kind of like taking kids of the same age into Cars 2 is not as "safe" as the original Cars).

And, yes, this has some neat moments of heroism and sacrifice that are the telltale elements of what makes a film resonate longer with me that bubblegum fare.

Dredd

I'm a fan of Judge Dredd as a character and a franchise, so I'm pretty happy the new Pete Travis Dredd movie does a spot-on job of translating the UK long-run, homegrown comic book success to the big screen (something the 1995 Stallone vehicle wasn't able to to do).

For me, the comic (running in some form or another since 1977) is a fascinating take on police states, one man as judge/jury/executioner, and vigilantism (the latter two, I'd argue, being different things).

Gritty and uneven, the Dredd comics for me shared a common ancestry with the thematically and artistically "messy" work of people like James O'Barre (the man behind The Crow, later turned into it's own successful (first) film with the late Brandon Lee).

Dredd is an odd character. Not as in offbeat or cartoonish, but in compelling, high-caricature fashion. In some ways, he's a broken-mirror parallel to Marvel's Captain America -- Not "Bizarro Cap", but a man living in and empowered by a system, code, and framework for operating into which he's deeply, deeply bought, and it informs everything he does.

He's not like Marvel's Punisher, who in his best portrayals is a tortured soul dealing with the devastating loss of his wife and children -- and in his worst, he's a screw-lose psychopath with a penchant for arbitrary bloodletting. To be fair, there are some portrayals of the Frank Castle character -- like those by writer Matt Fraction -- that bring the character closer to Dredd's consistently monochromatic umbrella of "assess guilt and mete appropriate judgement".

(And by "monochromatic", I don't mean pejoratively. Think along the lines of a dog (who can allegedly see only in black and white), with the faculties of a human being, the rolled-up hyper training of S.W.A.T. soldier / beat cop / F.B.I. agent, the need to instantly sift through and separate black, white, and myriad shades of gray, and act on those differences.

The film is set almost entirely within a single mega-city -- a monstrous evolution of today's high-rise living buildings that can house seventy thousand people, multiple communities, crime syndicates, and environments. The challenge of successfully pulling off the movie equivalent of a video game "corridor shooter" is impressive.

But what strikes me as most impressive about Dredd are two things:

1. Karl Urban is Judge Dredd
   
2. The brilliant gimmicks that enable movie tropes

Let's face it -- Karl Urban's got chops. To try to dismiss his portrayal of an "emotionless character" as "easy" would be to both miss his range of play (just look at 2009's Star Trek), and the nuanced character of Dredd himself.

To be honest, that's what made the movie fun for me. Urban brilliantly portrays this tough, stoic character -- who never takes off his mask --and shows weight, diversity, humor, and even worldview growth through the course of the movie. And he does it only from the nose down.

(In the comics, Dredd's face was never shown -- the one time he did remove his helmet on-panel, a large "Censored" bar was placed in front of it.)

Secondly, from a guy from "The Biz" side of movie making and acting, I love the conceits that allow for movie tropes to play out, "organic-in-the-context-of-the-movie".

I don't want to give anything away, so all I'll say is the Slo-Mo drug as an excuse to do cinematic things like camera and composited slow-motion sequences, hero poses, and special FX, is just brilliant. Astoundingly so.

What I didn't see (and can't comment on) is the 3D aspect of the film -- I prefer the higher-resolution of 2D prints.

That said, this is a film I may see again for the 3D, which warrants some defense.

Like a lot of folks, if I see one more 3D filmic ax thrown at my head, I may run out the theater screaming obscenities.

But this film (besides the pretty VFX) might get 3D right.

My beef with 3D in movies and video games (aside from the gratuitous and arbitrary nature of its use), is the "outside-of-the-plane" implementation that causes such rigid viewing position, occasional headaches for sensitive people, and even sometimes eye-stabbing pain (thank you, Uncharted 3 multiplayer UI).

Well-done games (some on the Nintendo 3DS, for example), do 3D behind the plane -- "shadowbox" style. Dredd 3D (I hope) makes use of the perfect opportunity of the amped-up version of a skyscraper spiral staircase to leverage this particular implementation of 3D to interesting effect.

As far as franchise fans go, the film will treat you to the violence of the comic (though the gore side of that violence was surprisingly high for my expectations, and isn't necessarily required for violent films). You'll also get nuanced bits from the comic book series, like "dirty judges", the gang wars, and some nods to the then-futuristic tech depicted in the serials.

Which is the final thing I like about Dredd -- it's true to the source material. I expect (and want) IP to be different to adapt across different consumer mediums,but for broadest success, it should be true to the source. The Guardian's Phelim O'Neill maybe said it best when he commented on the film, in the context of complaining about other adaptations changed too much when moved to film: "In a world of compromised adaptations, Dredd is something of a triumph."

Rise of the Planet of the Apes

I saw the Rise of the Planet of the Apes, and I am deeply impressed.

I honestly was expecting a great movie. I was not expecting a powerful, moving, and in some ways, important film.

It was all of that.

Yes, I'm tired and impressionable and a ganglion away from my raw emotions right now, but the initial trailers really mislead about what the movie has to say. There's deeper stuff here.

James Franco does a solid job. Well cast, emotive, and not over-used. John Lithgow is brilliant, and his portrayal of a victim of Alzheimer's is poignant and moving and appropriately hard to watch. No, it doesn't show us what it is to live with the disease day in and day out anymore than a movie sex scene shows what a lifetime romance is, but his portrayal is at least less tawdry.

And Andy Serkis gives one of the most powerful utterances I'm heard in a film in a long, long time.

But what's important about a science fiction movie with apes?

I dunno -- maybe what it says about medical ethics, humane treatment of lesser creatures, family love versus obligations, desperate hope in the face of futility, greed, playing god, and revenge versus reckoning?

You know -- light, sci-fi fare.

The film is a prequel to the 1968 film -- and yes, there are earlier entries in the franchise (I had to argue that point with a cheeky cashier who not only didn't understand The Customer is always Right, but she also doesn't know her classics).

Rise does a good job setting up the small set pieces needed to dovetail into Planet of the Apes, and other than one over-done piece of dialog, wasn't hamfisted about it (the extraneous bit of dialog was jarring, and would be OK for homage, but not prequel). On the positive flip side, there's a bit of nifty easter egg here for the first film's leading man.

There also are some neat solid artistic-but-not-art-house composition and shots in the film, if you're into that kind of thing (I am).

On a not-quite-minor point, I'm impressed with the movie's clever use of end credits as epilogue. Some, "But how did" questions get deftly answered in the graphics there. Cheeky Cashier missed that.

I recommend the film. It's not War and Piece, but it is a solid offering that pulls the bandage off of some unresolved debates, watch the small moments, and enjoy the fun ride.

TRON: Legacy

I caught an IMAX 3D showing of TRON: Legacy at the Bob Bullock theater in Austin, TX, and really enjoyed it.

Some reviewers have griped about the "lack of story" (which is pretty subjective) but the film definitely has something that's been missed from a bunch of the bandwagon pseudo-journalist hater reviews.

Mythos.

In some surprisingly subtle strokes, Kevin Flynn (Jeff Bridges) is granted a corporate and entrepreneurial legacy, Alan Bradley (Bruce Boxleitner) is given historical and surrogate weight, and the world of TRON is given a shape -- a texture -- the first movie didn't have.

For me, vehicles largely set the tone for (or at least the believability of) a film's universe. Genndy Tartakovsky's Star Wars: Clone Wars animated series arguably created a richer universe by believably bridging the technology from Episode II, Episode III, and even to the original trilogy, than the new trilogy itself did.

Probably largely due to Lead Vehicle Designer Daniel Simon and Production Designer Darren Gilford, Legacy's vehicles possess a form and function they didn't before. Most people understandably tune into the lightcycles on this front, with the updated look and functionality that technology limited before. But in the opening scenes featuring the contemporary Recognizer (updated by Visual Effects Supervisor Ben Procter), the vehicle shows a form and function that was not only lacking, but broke the fourth wall for me when I saw the original film as a kid ("how do they get in and out of there without dying?").

Thematically, the film does some interesting stuff. There's a lightish poke at the pseudo-digirati, the requisite fear of technology overtaking humanity, and so on.

But what I was surprised by was the exploration of fatherhood from three angles: biological child, adopted child, and orphan -- father as "daddy", "buddy", and "sensei". I'd heard complaints about "the father angle" being "worked" as an emotional hook, and maybe there is some of that. Or maybe it's a topic explored broadly across three viewpoints, and there is only so much time and space to do that in the bounds of a movie, let a long a film who's "hook" is its visual panache.

As far as performances go, I'm a biased Bridges fan, and enjoyed his reprisal of Kevin Flynn. Some of his statements and actions are wonderfully anachronistic -- which they should be, given his "man out of time" predicament.

Garrett Hedlund and Olivia Wilde are solid in their respective roles of Sam Flynn and Quorra (I think Hedlund has the potential to be like Daniel Craig as he matures (and should play his son in the interim), and Wilde is really coming into her own), and Bruce Boxleitner? Wicked cool" (I wanted to be you, Scarecrow.)

The other notable actors in the film -- the digital ones -- are a mixed bag, but trend more on the positive. Virtual young Jeff Bridges treads into the uncanny valley at times, but that's because more often, it's frankly just uncanny. Due to composition and more subtle emotions, the virtual Bridges works quite well, and is an impressive entry into the virtual acting space. It's largely only with the bigger emotions that the acting breaks down a little, but kudos to Disney and director Joseph Kosinski for pushing the envelope, and not waiting for someone else to crack the perfect virtual actor for them. The first TRON was about pushing film technology; it's nice to see the new one do its equivalent.

So, overall, TRON: Legacy is an enjoyable film -- the expected "visual tour-de-force", but with more mythos, acting highlights, and technology showcases than I fear people will give it credit for.

(Footnote -- the DAFT PUNK score for the movie? Wicked tight.)

Thunderbolt

I just watched Jackie Chan's "Thunderbolt" - an under-the-radar illegal street racing film of his from 1995.

Despite its horrible dub, and it being one of the bigger commercials I've seen since "Mac and Me", it had some surprisingly good stuff.

The stakes are higher in this film than what Western audiences are probably used to seeing in a Chan film. Sure, there are some trademark funny moments, but the tone is, overall, darker, more urgent, than (say) "Rumble in the Bronx" or "Drunken Master".

There is a prison break scene that rivals Western 90s films like the later "Lethal Weapons", and a villainous attack on Chan and his family that is insidiously innovative, and genuinely tough to watch.

My favorite scene may be Chan's destructive rampage through a pachinko parlor. It's not his best choreography, but there is an anger - a wanton, destructive abandon - that's surprising, and pretty compelling.

There are also some nice, quiet moments, like the sweepers prepping a recognized track in the pre-dawn hours. These kinds of things can be common in Eastern films, but but so much the more globally accessible ones.

Overall, I can see why I've missed this flick in the past; but I am glad I finally caught up to it.

Alice in Wonderland (3D)

I saw Alice in Wonderland in 3D at the Alamo Drafthouse in Austin today. If you haven't seen the film, and want to avoid spoilers, you may want to wait to read this until after you've seen the film the first time, and before you see it the second.

I was impressed with the film's visual style, acting, and -- most of all -- characterization. There are "people" in this film in the most unexpected places. Be sure to watch the dormouse (Barbara Windsor), and listen to the bloodhound, Bayard (Timothy Spall) for some of the more important statements in the film. They are not throw-away.

Of course, it's a Tim Burton film, so of course is it has acting from Johnny Depp, Helena Bonham Carter, and music from Danny Elfman. And of course they are brilliant (if you like each of them -- which I do -- and I seem to have blessedly moved past my "I'm done with owning everything Danny Elfman phase"), but the film has a panache, an inpretentious importance, and a kind of fantasy fun.

And the film is fun, and strikes a weird balance between importance and diversion. The denouement is soulful, Anne Hathaway's meta-commentary performance on being royalty is subtle brilliance (and not heavy handed), the climax is rallying, and the fallout feels "right".

It's a movie that could be about fighting fatalism, more than a bit about accountability, and a great take on "what could have been", and "what is".

Your mileage may vary.

The Book of Eli

(I'm going to be as vague as I can with any details on this film, but it's hard not to say anything without treading into *spoiler* territory. You have been warned.)



I had no expectations for The Book of Eli, other than I wanted to see it because it starred Denzel Washington, had Gary Oldman, looked to have striking visuals, and was from the guys behind Dead Presidents and Menace II Society.

In essence, the film is an different take on a missionary journey in a post-apocalyptic world. Washington portrays Eli, a drifter (a "walker") with a holy purpose, who is at cross purposes with a barren world; a struggling, devolved society; and the intent of his own mission.


The movie is tough. While not particularly gory, it is at times brutal, and briefly visually (and less briefly, thematically) unsettling.


Eli is front and center in the film, but shares time with the town baron he battles (portrayed by Oldman), a tag-a-long foil (Mila Kunis), the underrated Ray Stevenson (Oldman's lieutenant), and even a pleasant surprise performance from Tom Waits.


The cast is solid, with my only criticism being a meta one for Kunis (would someone that attractive really exist in a post-apocalyptic brothel?).


I'm surprised the film hasn't spun up more controversy on both sides (but maybe I'm just not paying attention). It has the potential to make Judeo-Christians uncomfortable with its portrayal of their faith, and the anti-religious expecting the non-religious post-apocalyptic film it's being marketed as irritated at the content (one couple did walk out muttering during my viewing of the film).


It's a worthwhile film I strongly recommend, if for no other reason than the discussions it could possibly engender (the top-notch acting and cinematography are extra perks).

Daybreakers

I caught a matinee of Daybreakers yesterday at the Alamo Drafthouse Village (avoid the brunch scones), and find it a good, worthwhile film.

It's a newish take on vampire lore (not unique to the film, but not as tired as a lot of genre conceits), stylish and at times gritty, and it did a good job of sucking me in (ahem).

The basic premise is that it's the future, vampires are the dominant population, and humans are facing extinction as they're farmed or hunted for blood. But blood's running out, and unless a substitute is found, vampires face their own extinction as they devolve into brainless animals.

Vampire fandom aside, I'd watch Ethan Hawke or Willem Dafoe just sit and drink coffee, so I was likely to enjoy this movie just because of them. The hard-working Claudia Karvan makes a great muted romantic foil, and I appreciate that she's strong and sexy without being overbearing or slutty (both in-character and in the film).

Despite my enjoying the film, I do have to say it is amazingly uneven -- on pretty much every front (other than the acting, with the possible exception of Sam Neill, who plays up the whole "evil corporate entity"" role way too stereotypically).

By "uneven", I mean from the pacing to the focus on the mythos to the cinematography to the dialog.

Pacing ranged from staid and thoughtful to frantic and music video-like. The film didn't feel like it knew what to do with the mythos -- here was this great take on a modern vampire utopia, complete with the mundane versions of non-vampire living (commuting, getting coffee, etc.), that was at first set up and explored, and then thrown out to focus on serial happenings.

Ironically, this caused the film to lose a bit of its humanity, as it bulleted through plot points, at the expense of the relationships and exploring the societal impacts of this whole system.

The shooting is great, though there are some marquee moments in the film I found jarring, because you can almost see someone working hard to pose the actors and setup the shot, for the sake of it looking "bad-ass", at the expense of authenticity (and frankly, I almost laughed out load when I saw them).

At the same time, there are some great nods to traditional vampire tropes (staking, etc.) that are put in in surprising, fun, and non-obtrusive ways.

Overall, a worthwhile flick, at times unnecessarily gratuitous, but, overall, a good movie to add to your queue.

Tropic Thunder

I had not scene Tropic Thunder. Last night, I fixed that.

It's easy to dismiss films of this genre as low-brow tripe -- and that's partially the fault of how it was marketed -- but it's a good film with solid (and at points amazing) acting.

The cast includes Jack Black, Ben Stiller, Steve Coogan, Bill Hader (SNL), Nick Nolte, Christine Taylor, Robert Downey Jr., and Tom Cruise -- the latter two of which put forth amazing, unexpected character roles. I recognized these two in the role, but a surprising number of people don't.

And for those folks that are in the biz, I think you'll enjoy all of the in-jokes and industry self-effacement.

Lotta fun, lotta great real-world (limited CGI) war effects, and fun DVD "special features".

Zombieland

So, every once in a while, I watch a move, read a book, play a game, or shoot a film that makes me very, very happy.

Zombieland did that to me tonight.

In the game space, we talk about "Triple-A" games, where the sum total of the experience is stellar, even if there are minor miss-steps in some of components (graphics, gameplay, design, hook, basics, etc.). And a really amazing AAA game wouldn't have any miss-steps.

Zombieland is amazing triple-A.

I don't want to spoil the movie, but there are zombies. Lots of them. Filling the land. Creating a zombie land.

And the various trailers do a good job of showing the film for what it is -- a survival horror comedy film.

But not flick, which is why I'm glad it falls outside of the summer throwaway popcorn diversions, but before the slasher shocktaculars of this Halloween.

And not the stuff underneath that multi-genre classification.

Firing on all cylinders, Zombieland is fun, funny, horrific, heartfelt, and polished -- not an easy combo, by any stretch -- and it doesn't fall into the tropes that horror films can fall into (cartoonish titillation, overly cheap startles, etc.).

From the overall gimmick to the VO narrative to the text special effects, the movie's a treat.

The one thing that I thought was a miss-step -- overdone gruesomeness in the first act of the film -- is actually a factor of production and narrative. First, gory, detailed effects are expensive -- use them early to get the affect you want, then cheat them later. Second (and more importantly), even though this is a comedy survival horror film, it's a survival horror film. The audience needs to get that this situation is bad, and not "pristine - get - shot - by - stormtroopers - with - lasers" bad. It's messy, gory, scary bad. Done and done.

OK. No more. See the film. If you're of age. And not overly squeamish.

X-Men Origins: Wolverine

Just finished X-Men Origins: Wolverine.

I'm a comic book fan. Look, I know you need to make changes to adapt IP from one medium to another, but why these changes? Not all of them felt necessary or additive.

Inglourious Basterds

Quentin Tarantino pulled off a(nother) good one.

I need to write more, but I'll wait until the film's had its run for a while, and see if I come back to it. Don't want to spoil it for anyone.

District 9

I've been looking forward to District 9 for a long time.

Helmed by director Neill Blomkamp, and produced by Peter Jackson, District 9 9 is the big-screen realization of South African independent director Blomkamp's Alive in Joberg.

I've watch Blompkamp for a little while now (though most people seem to know him as the Halo insterstitials director), and I am so stoked his short film has gotten big-screen commmercial play.

The film is pretty true to original, with the budget to do the stuff Blomkamp wasn't able to do before. This is one of his strengths -- despite being a wunderkind storyteller / director / visual effects wizard trapped in a mortal body, and despite being able to pull off effects he has no right to pull off without a budget -- he doesn't try to show what he shouldn't show.

Lesson to folks making films: Take a page from Mr. Blomkamp. Too many films fall over because they're trying to show something they're not equipped to show -- actors who can't get their emotionally, special effects that don't come together, too obviously cheated locations that rob the moment of import, etc.

I don't want to say a bunch about the movie, because I don't want to give stuff away, and if you don't know about the movie, going in fresh will be a ton of fun.

Be warned -- this is not a "popcorn summer movie". This is a sci-fi genre film that's not about the sci-fi; that's just set dressing for the important stuff. And it's pretty important stuff.

Oh, and while not a comedic movie by any means, the documentary trope gives some great moments, and there's a particular funny moment I found funnier -- and have put that item at the bottom of this post, so as not to spoil it for those purists among you.

Sharlto Copley is stunning in the lead role, and keep in mind, his only two acting credits are District 9 and the original Alive in Joburg. It's the kind of acting to which I aspire.

While the film was great, and did a great job of holding onto original vision while being commercially accessible, it was a bit heavy-handed at the very end. Uncharacteristically so. Kind of like, "Wow, that's kind of ... hey, wait, oh, now it's obvious, and I was already there!"

For now, here's the Alive in Joberg precursor film (but checkout Spyfilms.com for the high-quality version with far far superior sound).



Now, if only they would give me a Tetra Vaal film; or even Tempbot:



Spoiler(ish) from District 9: A sci-fi weapon trope is the gravity gun ("grav gun"). There's a brief, not overdone moment where a grav gun is used to unexpectedly grab and launch a large pig, killing a man. It's wicked fast, slickly executed, and not telegraphed.

Now let me ruin it for you.

The man was killed because ... (wait for it) swine flew ...

(It's hilarious! It's topical! I slay me!)

Brüno

Saw Brüno last night.

Too-short summary: More gratuitous than Borat, with less plot.

The Hangover

I went to see The Hangover as a throw-away evening, and was pleasantly surprised.

The movie was funny, fairly intact on the narrative side, and had some laugh-out-loud moments.

My only criticism is that while good, actors Ed Helms, Zach Galifianakis, and Rob Riggle didn't feel like they were acting that much -- or at least acting out of the type they've nailed very well. Maybe Helms was.

The same may be true for Bradley Cooper, but I'm sadly not familiar with him. I do now want to catch up on more of his stuff (and am now looking forward to his role in the A-Team reboot), thanks to this film.

Prince Caspian (Blu-ray)

I finally got around to watching Prince Caspian on Blu-ray last night.

The film does well, even if it isn't the emotional powerhouse of the first Narnia film (nor the commercial one, grossing roughly half of its predecessor's box office earnings).

Caspian is a tougher book with which to follow The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, but arguably a needed setup for following films.

Titular hero Ben Barnes does a solid job (though his accent seems a bit inconsistent in the more emotional moments), and I hope to see more of him in the follow-up film, and in other projects.

And while Warwick Davis will always be Willow to me (and Wicket), I'm impressed with the amount of work he does, how hard he works, and his diversity in roles (and people probably don't remember his previous tie to the 1980s TV incarnation Narnia franchise).

I'd really like to see more of Anna Popplewell (who portrays Susan Pevensie, and has an absolutely stunning on-screen presence), and William Moseley (High King Peter Pevensie). Though given the nature of the Narnia storyline, this will have to be via other film vehicles.

Long-time actor (and first-time villain) Sergio Castellitto makes a convincing baddy, with the boudoir scene being his most powerful.

I thought Pierfrancesco Favino (General Glozelle) was ridiculously underutilized in the film, and now I'm going to have to run out and grab a few of his French films to see if I'm right.

The next film in the series is allegedly The Voyage of the Dawn Treader, which will make (I think) for a far better film than Caspian (think Jason and the Argonauts(ish), which could be tough, given that film's possible relaunch in the same 2010 year as Dawn Treader).

Again, Caspian is a great film, the Blu-ray transfer is solid, and I hope more people will start liking or disliking the Narnia films based on their own merits (and those of the talent), without liking / hating them just because they're pro- or anti-christian.

The Dark Knight

It's been too long since I've posted a micro review of anything on the visual front, but Christopher Nolan's revisited take on Batman has been rattling around my head since opening night, and I need to jot down a few thoughts.

My opinion? Not to overstate it, but The Dark Knight is arguably not only the best comic book movie to date, but one of the best movie movies to date.

Nolan takes -- and deconstructs -- the comic book genre more than he did with Batman Begins, showcasing an appropriately gritty, costly version of the genre's tropes.

The Dark Knight is alternately a heist movie, a mass serial killer film, a psychologically thriller, a morality play, and -- while it might even be a comic book flick -- it's thankfully not a tights flick.

What makes it good?

Well, there's story; the brilliant, wave-upon-wave story from the Nolans (Chris and Jonathan) and David S. Goyer, making the nearly 3 hours fly by in an exhausting rush. "Wave-upon-wave", because there are at least three instances where it feels the film could be escalating to its climax, only to build on that moment and ratchet the intensity up, yet again. There are sub-plots that don't get lost amidst the movie's spine. And, unlike Spider-Man 3, all of the baddies showing up in this film don't get lost amidst each other. And there's the whole genre diversity thing I mentioned earlier.

More important to me, I'm a fan of those too-few films showing "The Clean Win is a Lie."

The short version is this: Big stuff, important stuff, comes at a cost.

There's a truism that says if I say "yes" to something, I'm saying "no" to something else. It follows that the bigger the yes, the bigger the no. The bigger the stuff, the bigger the cost.

There are people who are heroes, and they make sacrifices. So, it likewise follows that if there were a world with super heroes, they make would super-sacrifices.

The Dark Knight showcases this better than most films (independent of genre).

And, of course, there's the acting.

Christian Bale, the already beyond ridiculously inspirational actor who woke the world up in American Psycho, delivered an emotionally brutal performance in El Maquinista, has had five films released between Begins and The Dark Knight.

Then there's Gary Oldman, who's bringing depth and cost to Batman's Gordon, and Michael Caine, who makes Alfred more than just a comedic button.

Morgan Freeman, who could read a phone book and keep me rapt, far from faxes in his performance as the additive cast member Lucius Fox, Wayne's confidant and tech supplier.

Aaron Eckhart, D.A. and more, with a storied career of his own, has perhaps his defining moments within this film. Gripping and tragic.

And that brings us to the greatest and most tragic part of film.

Heath Ledger redefines the Joker, bringing the insane, Alan Moore / The Killing Joke brutality of the Crown Prince of Anarchy to the big screen (Cesar Romero this is not). Ledger also pulls off the not-insignificant feat of bringing character acting to a marquee role. The mannerisms and idiosyncrasies are distinctly what he brings to his portrayal of the Joker. With all due respect to Jack Nicholson, this is the Joker, and Ledger's performance will either keep everyone away from ever touching the role, or elevate it as the role to beat, and provides a tragic exclamation point to the senselessness of Ledger's death.

So, yeah, I like the film, and not just because of the genre -- but because it's a a great film, and a fantastic vehicle for a bunch of talent in front of and behind the camera.