A Reaffirmation on why I love movies

I love movies.

I love them because they're transportive, because they're sentimental, because they're exciting.  I love them because they tell you so much about the people who make them.  I love them because I can watch the same one, over and over, and continue to get something back from it.  I love how they move me.  I love everything about them.

And apparently so does Martin Scorsese.

Hugo is a giant love letter to cinema.  Affection saturates every frame.  Set against the lush backdrop of Paris in winter, there is not a moment of this film that fails to remind you how powerful movies are and how deeply they resonate with people.  It starts as a mystery: Hugo, an achingly young boy who lives orphaned in the walls of a train station taking care of the clocks, is trying to fix a small automaton, a project originally started by his father.  Fixing the automaton is how Hugo stays connected to his father; he is convinced that, once functional, the writing machine will reveal a hidden message from the deceased Monsieur Cabret.

To fix the machine Hugo steals bits of clockwork from George (Ben Kingsley), who owns a toy shop in the train station; his god-daughter is Isabelle, enchanted with the idea of the great adventure and loquacious from devouring every book she can get her hands on.  She meets Hugo when he's caught by George and has his notebook (full of mechanical sketches done by his father) taken from him by the older man.  Working together, Hugo and Isabelle begin to discover that the automaton is more than it seems and may help George re-discover his purpose in life.  (I won't tell you who George is, if you're trying to preserve the surprise, although IMDB has his full name listed.  If you're interested in the real person Kingsley is portraying, click here.)

I'm not the first person to use the phrase "love letter to film" in description of Hugo, and I use it now because it's the only phrase I can think of that encompasses the beauty and poetry of this film.  Scorsese gives us a symphony of light and clockwork, punctuated by gusts of steam from passing trains and the snowy streets of Paris.  Visually this movie is stunning: the train station is all warm, golden light, framed by the faces of clocks and ornate iron grates.  Paris is blue and white winter, with the lights of the city (and especially the Eiffel Tower) picked out like stars in the sweeping shots of the city.

Asa Butterfield as our titular hero has huge blue eyes that break your heart in nearly every shot.  He and Chloe Moretz (as Isabelle) are the focus of the film, and they do an excellent job of the heavy lifting.  I'm always ready to simply accept the job that child actors do in films, and when a young person comes along who can actually carry his scenes next to a veteran like Kingsley I'm properly impressed; both Butterfield and Moretz pull their roles off beautifully.  Moretz should start winning awards any day now, if she continues doing this well.

It was interesting to me that Scorsese chose to do a movie that's essentially an ode to silent film and the history of film in 3D; I understand now, I think.  We get scenes from some of the earliest films made, and to think about how far the film industry has progressed since those first efforts is really breathtaking.  About 98% of the time I think 3D is poorly done and completely unnecessary; here, it's beautiful and thought-provoking.  The early filmmakers were inventing the wheel that Hollywood keeps trying to re-imagine, and every once in a while a film comes along that shows you not only a new way to build that whee, but a whole new purpose for it you could never have imagined.  Hugo is this kind of movie.

Go see it.  You won't be disappointed, I promise.

Horror Movies I Secretly Kind Of Like

In the spirit of the impending holiday, I thought I might do another top ten list.  Everyone likes lists, right?

Despite my almost pathological aversion to horror movies, I have managed to see a handful in my movie-loving life.  I present to you: The Top Ten Horror Movies I Could Bring Myself To Watch, And Also Kind Of Really Liked (But Don't Tell Anyone).  These are in alphabetical order, rather than ranked in any sort of fashion.

American Psycho

I've heard mixed reviews about the book, but this film is phenomenal.  Christian Bale is just so GOOD in this role: you feel like you're being personally invited by Patrick Bateman to watch his mental unraveling, and as the things he does escalate up the horror scale Bale manages to preserve that smooth, shiny edge which makes the whole film surreal in addition to terrifying.  Bateman's shark-toothed grin will haunt you while you ponder the movie's messages of social emptiness (preferably while listening to Huey Lewis and the News).

Cthulhu (2007)

NIGHTMARES, you guys. Legitimate nightmares, made all the more insidious by the fact that while I was watching this one I wasn't all that scared.  In this little indie jewel, a history professor returns to his birthplace in a little seaside town in Oregon for a funeral, and discovers that his family (and the whole town) is deeply involved in an Elder Gods cult.  The movie is filmed in a very amateur, hand-held camera style, but it adds to the creepy atmosphere.  Dan Gildark, the director, is sparing with his jumpy moments and horror images, which makes them all the more effective - the film's stark style will give you chills during the last beach scene.

The Dark Crystal

More frightening than Labyrinth and Willow rolled into one, if you ask me (that scene were the witch turns everyone into pigs?  Scared the HELL out of me as a child).  The lack of human faces makes the dark fantasy setting even more eerie, playing up the alien nature of the gelflings and skeksis and of the environment itself.  The scene where Kira, one of our gelfling heroes, is being drained of life by the vicious, vulture-like skeksis, has pretty much haunted me since I first saw this as a child.

In The Mouth Of Madness

If Stephen King had written Cthulhu, the result would have been In The Mouth Of Madness.  The story of Sutter Cane, a horror writer who molds reality with his macabre stories, is like a batshit Neil Gaiman; one fabulous sequence has him banging on a typewriter in a church while a thick wooden door pulsates malevolently behind him.  A wonderfully nihilistic horror film that blithely plays with your sense of reality, and laughs the whole time: some of the things in this film are so completely absurd that, like Sam Neill's John Trent, you can't help but laugh helplessly.

Jennifer's Body

At this point, you might have guessed that I appreciate my horror balanced with a nice dose of sarcasm or tongue-in-cheek, and this particular film has a heaping share of both. Megan Fox is COMPLETELY believable as a man-eating demon (gee, I wonder why...?), but she also clearly is not taking the movie too seriously, and neither is anyone else.  They're having fun with it, which is good, because shit is ridiculous and the movie totally owns it; the indie punk Satanic band members are just icing on the demonic cake.  It's kind of like Buffy, if the script had been more self-conscious and less tasteful.

Let Me In

What I didn't know about this before I saw it is that it's actually a love story.  The relationship between Abby the vampire and Owen the outcast kid is sweet and awkward, even after you see Abby flip out like a ninja to snack on some hobo.  Low lighting and fantastic sound editing are used to great effect, and Chloe Moretz-as-monster brings some much needed excitement to a movie that could have ended up over-wrought and moodily dull.  The tender moments and the scary bits add to the tension, and the ending is both touching and depressingly inevitable.

The Ruins

The Ruins should have been a dumb creature feature, but it actually has a lot going for it that makes it quite effective.  A group of co-eds goes hiking in Mexico and ends up on a Mayan pyramid covered in a parasitic, man-eating plant; native people surround them to keep them on the pyramid or kill them so as not to spread the growth of the plant.  The plant itself is a surprisingly fantastic villain; it creeps under the skin like an alien parasite, mimics human voices to separate the co-eds, and eats away at them, driving them insane. It almost feels like a medical horror, featuring sequences where the plant gets under the skin like some kind of bug, threads its way into injuries, and one particularly imaginative amputation scene that ends with cauterization by frying pan (these kids are nothing if not resourceful).  Not for the faint of heart.

Saw

They go way downhill after number two, but before they descend into tasteless torture porn the Saw franchise was more about psychological horror than spilling blood.  Asking that all important question, "how far would you go to save your own life?" Saw the first is all yellow lighting, fast-paced editing, and clever film shots that don't quite show you all the gore it hints at.  Where the subsequent films lose their restraint in favor of cheap shock value, this first film reaches in and grabs your brain right in its survival center. Plus, that ENDING.  Whatever criticisms you have about the sequels, you have to acknowledge that, at least for the first outing, someone on the scriptwriting staff was really being clever.

Silence of the Lambs

Will we ever have another villain as charismatic as Hannibal Lecter?  I rather hope not.  Anthony Hopkins is a complete scene stealer in this classy slasher flick, dominating the background with his panoramas of intestines while Buffalo Bill skins his victims in the main plotline.  A film that's become iconic for a reason; the scene where Jodie Foster bumbles around in pitch black while being stalked by the night vision goggles-wearing Bill still gives me chills.

A Tale of Two Sisters

Unlike the other films on this list, I never re-watched this Korean horror film and have no desire to - but that doesn't mean that, while I was watching it, I didn't appreciate its construction and effect.  Equal parts mental exercise and ghost story, the family elements and the relationship between the young sisters are surprising spots of warmth in an otherwise chilling movie.  It's also a kind of fairytale, a play on the Cinderella story, and rather beautiful - the camera work finds beauty in an imposing wardrobe as well as a shot of a dead bird.  Even when it's being poetic, though, the tension still pulls you thin, and waiting to find out what's inside that wardrobe made my knuckles go white.

The Avengers

I wanted to write about my reaction to The Avengers trailer about a week ago, but I had trouble because there aren't all that many interesting ways for me to say I AM EXCITE, MAY SHOULD GET HERE FASTER.  So, there you go: it's a fabulous trailer, and I have high expectations for the films.

I think it's both interesting and worth mentioning that Marvel has basically taken a backwards approach to The Avengers franchise; usually, you get the ensemble film and THEN the spin-offs.  Do to necessity, perhaps, Marvel gave us the spin-offs first, and now has the herculean task of bringing together half a dozen disparate, egotistical, arrogant and powerful characters.  Some things we should note that Marvel did particularly well in preparing for this task, which are also all reasons why The Avengers has more potential to be wonderful than to fall on its face:

- Giving the characters worth caring about their own films.  Let's be honest: Black Widow, Hawkeye, Agent Coulson and Nick Fury are pretty awesome characters, but none of them are strong enough to carry their own films.  And Marvel wisely didn't try; instead, they built them up through other, more interesting movies.  The Thor movie is sort of the exception, and I think it suffered because Thor himself isn't a very interesting character, but the argument can be made that that film was more about Loki than Thor anyway. 

- Hiring fabulous writers that (most importantly) have experience with ensemble casts.  Joss Whedon writes really good dialogue, and he has shown in multiple venues that he writes distinctive voices for multiple characters really well.  Zak Penn, the other credited script writer, worked on one of the best comic book movies of the last ten years (X2), and fabricated two sequels that, compared to their originals, were veritable works of genius (Norton's Hulk and Elektra, the latter of which I will defend until I die because I actually thought it was fun).  He also wrote X-Men: The Last Stand, and regardless of what you thought of that particular film (I liked it), the dialogue was as solid as its predecessors.  These guys know what they're doing.

- The casting is perfection.  I've already written about how impressed I am with Chris Evans' Captain America (read my review here), and at this point it pretty much goes without saying that Robert Downey Jr. = Tony Stark (similarly to how Patrick Stewart = Professor X).  Chris Hemsworth as Thor was one of the only interesting things about that movie, and Mark Ruffalo certainly can't do worse at being Bruce Banner than anyone already has.  And if I need to mention Sam Jackson's Nick Fury here, you really haven't been paying attention.

- Not introducing a new villain.  I've just convinced myself that the purpose of Thor was actually to introduce Loki, rather than Thor himself, and all of his daddy issues, which means that The Avengers won't have to dedicate valuable time to introducing a brand new villain.  What I hope this means is that we'll get to spend more time seeing how all these egos learn to play nice together, which is honestly more interesting to me than villain backstory.  Which leads me to my last point:

- We're essentially done with backstory.  All of the establishing is done.  We know everything about these people that we need to, so we can get right into the meat of the story.  It really, really bugs me when filmmakers waste time, or spin out a movie longer than it should be; hopefully, with The Avengers we'll get no wasted space.

Drive, or Ryan Gosling's Official Oscar Bid

I knew precisely three things about Drive before I walked into the theater:

1. Ryan Gosling plays a stunt driver, who
2. Moonlights as a criminal getaway driver, and
3. May or may not curb stomp someone.

Turns out that this was exactly the way to experience this slow-like-honey action film.
I don't actually want to say a whole lot about this movie, because I loved it and I want you to experience it the way that I did.  So, first off, I'm going to say officially: I loved Drive and you should PROBABLY go see it immediately.

Drive is a strange, strange little action movie that does not behave at all like an action movie should.  Oh, in some respects it's all there: car chases, fight scenes, high stakes, a variety of guns and shivs.  But the tension is constant; there are no adrenaline spikes because you're nervous all the time.   Nicolas Winding Refn pulls his shots out like taffy, stretching every moment until you're ready to jump out of your skin.  Everything pulls in Drive, from the repetitive refrains in the soundtrack numbers to the long stretches of artificial light.  Flickering lights in the elevator, streetlight passing over Gosling's face, the yellowed glow of shoddy apartment light; Gosling and Carey Mulligan (playing, quite effectively, Gosling's rundown neighbor with a young son and a husband in prison) are frequently bathed in artificial light.  Instead of looking cliche, it ends up feeling very dreamlike and warm.

It's the Ryan Gosling show from start to finish, commanded not only by the force of Gosling's performance but also in the very composition of the film.  Gosling mirrors Refn's pacing, reveling in the pauses and joyfully taunting you with every bated breath you're forced to take until he finally, FINALLY delivers his lines.  It's in those pauses that Gosling's performance really shines; Gosling does most eloquent acting in the pauses before he speaks, and in the way he clenches the steering wheel, and in the way that he drives.  It reminded me of Heath Ledger's performance in Brokeback Mountain, in that Gosling delivers a full body performance without actually needing to say anything at all.

Drive keeps you simmering without ever quite bringing on the boil; it has moments with more actions than others, sure, but the filming style and lighting and music act together to give even the most violent sequences an ethereal, almost sleepy quality.  It's a demanding movie that requires a lot from its audience, but if you can have some patience and revel in the silences with Gosling and Refn, the payoff is totally worth it. 

Girl With The Dragon Tattoo: NSFW

I'm deeply excited about David Fincher's The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo.

On the one hand, I get that Hollywood is kind of jumping the shark by remaking foreign films less than a decade after the original film comes out.  Especially considering the international film market in America.  But I look at it this way: sometimes a story is just TOO GOOD to be left alone.  Which is probably the case with TGWTDT - the books are so popular, and the story is so good, that the American film industry couldn't leave that golden egg untouched, even if the Swedish films are barely out of the projection rooms.

I get that a lot of people are upset, considering the acclaim that Noomi Rapace has gotten from her portrayal of the problematic anti-heroine, Lisbeth Salander.  I get that many people see this film as unnecessary.  Y'all know that personally, I did not enjoy the Swedish film and I did not enjoy Rapace in the role - my entry discussing that little skeleton in my cinema-loving closet can be read here.  Like I said at the beginning of this post, I'm deeply excited about Fincher's version and I'm deeply excited about Rooney Mara as Salander.  Which brings me to what I want to talk to you about today: that controversial movie poster.  (This is also why this particular entry is NSFW - nipples are about to be unleashed.)

(Side note: all of Mara's piercings are authentic.  She got them done as part of the job.  I kinda hope she keeps them, not because I find them particularly attractive but because I'm pretty tickled by the idea of that kind of method acting.  Plus fake piercings typically don't look as good as the real thing.)

Can you hear the movie audiences of America complaining about this image?  However I feel about it, it's not hard to understand - we are not used to bare breasts hanging out in our advertising.  Or in public at all, really.  Fincher is obviously making a statement with this poster about how prepared he is to "bare it all," so to speak, and I support that - not to mention that the image itself is starkly beautiful.  But I get the objections people have to it.

Well, almost all the objections.  Here's a quote from an Entertainment Weekly forum about this image:

"Lisbeth Salander is fighting back from being a victim. To have her posed in such a vulnerable state (and yes, when you’re nude, you’re vulnerable, whether you’re “strong” or not) really negates the power that the Lisbeth character has earned. She is supposed to be the protector, not Blomquist. I doubt that Stieg Larsson would have approved this campaign."

There's a lot of this going around.  That the problem with the image is that it cuts down how strong Salander is, how it misogynistically shows Craig as Blomkvist protecting her, restraining her, and how it negates a powerful female protagonist.

The problem with this view is that it's wrong.  If you haven't read the book and plan to, no worries, I'm not going to let fly any spoilers.  But suffice to say (and you've probably gotten a hint of this just in all the talking about this movie that's going on) Salander ISN'T strong, and that's the point.  The entire third book is about all the people she's managed to get in her corner banding together to save her.  I'm not saying she's a damsel in distress, but Salander is a broken, prickly character whose story arc is about learning how to share her problems with people she learns to trust, and how ultimately her problems are SO big she can't save herself on her own.  Blomkvist is protecting her in the poster in the same way he does through every single book.

I'm not trying to take anything away from Salander.  She's incredibly resilient, resourceful, and intelligent, but she only ever projects the appearance of strength to other people.  Inside, she's crumbling, and it's up to Blomkvist (and eventually others) to catch her pieces and put her back together.  This is what her story is about.

Trailer Talk: The Woman In Black

I don't like horror movies.  Maybe I've mentioned that here?  Well, to amend that: I don't like supernatural horror movies.  Saw?  Halloween?  Whatev, I'll watch those all day.  But ten minutes of The Ring, or The Grudge, or any of that ghost shit, and I'll avoid the basement like the plague and make my sister sit outside the bathroom while I'm showering, JUST IN CASE PHANTOM HANDS GROPE MY HEAD (note: this actually happened.  Not the head groping, the making-my-sister-sit-outside-the-bathroom.  The Grudge wrecked my shit for a LONG time.).

Do you know who I do like?  Daniel Radcliffe.  Which is what makes this practically an EMOTIONAL dilemma.

I'm sure that everyone is aware by now that his next big feature film, his first one post-HP, is a Victorian-esque GHOST STORY called The Woman In Black.  When I first heard about it, and saw some set photos, I was excited - the summary sounded interesting, the pics were intriguing.  What was being presented at that time was an emotional drama about a widower and a father (played by Radcliffe, who looks surprisingly grave and age-appropriate in the high-collared jacket, wan makeup, and 5 o'clock shadow) who goes to this desolate English town to try and sort out the estate of a dead woman.  I was led to believe that it would be about him dealing with his grief, and maybe learning how to get along with his kid(s?), and that it would be srs bsnss but not, you know, fucking TERRIFYING.

HOW NAIVE I WAS.

Maybe two weeks ago (because I am a terrible entertainment blogger and don't keep up very well with movie news, apparently) I started to hear...things.  About the trailer.  And the actual story of the movie.  I began to get concerned.  So I watched the trailer.  And the trailer?  Is pretty much horrifying (if you're like me, and are actually terrified by stuff that doesn't scare 16 year olds.  I'm not ashamed.).

It was like if someone set out to push all of my horror movie buttons.  There are creepy dolls and attics, and a passel of children who chant a creepy rhyme, and REFLECTIONS IN THE WINDOWS (this is a big one for me, reflections in mirrors/windows of things that aren't there or suddenly turn out to be there wig me out and make me not want to use the bathroom alone for like a month) and freaky writing on the walls and I just...I can't.  It's a really well put together trailer and you all should go watch it, but it is basically a warning label: MARTHA.  DO NOT SEE THIS.  YOU WILL REGRET IT.

I KNOW this is not a movie I should see.  I know this for a fact.  But part of me still wants to because I'm so interested to see Radcliffe in a different role, and see what he can do as an actor.  Maybe I'll wait for the DVD, so I can be scared out of my wits in my own house.  Or see a matinee, because sometimes all I need to exorcise the ghosts is a heavy dose of afternoon sunlight (and a margarita).

We'll see.  Until then, have a trailer:

Captain America, also I'm really sorry

Google is telling me I haven't posted sine July 19, and I'm really sorry about that (to all 12 people who read this).  The truth is that the last movie I saw in the theaters was Captain America, and it was probably the best movie I've seen this year so far, but then all the newspaper and magazine and "official" reviewers also really liked it and I didn't feel like I had anything unique to say about it.  But I realized I do, so here it it:

One of the biggest reasons this movie succeeds so profoundly is because Captain America is kind of a silly hero, especially considering the position of cynicism most people have in regards to patriotism.  But this movie is utterly unapologetic about this; it owns the Cap, in all his patriotic red-white-and-blue glory, and somehow never manages to make him feel silly or unrealistic.  It's not making fun of him, it's celebrating the ideals someone can have and the heights those ideals can aspire you to.  Literally the only reason Steve Rogers can BE the Captain is because he believes in duty, honor, and always doing what you can to do what's right.  Chris Evans shines here because he's earnest and boyishly idealistic, even after his transformation from Uncanny Valley lightweight into hulking muscle (which, despite what Ebert may think, is 100% real Evans).  I was skeptical when I first heard about the casting, but Evans really owns it.

(Side note: God bless Atwell and whoever wrote her part, because bitch is AWESOME.  She handles a gun as well as anyone, and she has a spine of steel.  She may be in a skirt the whole time, but you never forget that here is a woman who can punch you in the face just as hard as Tommy Lee Jones.  She ROCKS.)

Not to say that there aren't humor moments in the film; there totally are, and they work.  Hayley Atwell especially has marvelous comedic timing and one of the best deadpans I've seen.  She and Evans bounce off each other in a romantic but not sickening way, which brings me to the next thing I think makes this movie great.

It is a period piece set during World War II, and the filmmakers have embraced this past just the aesthetics.  The sensibilities are there, too - no one gets naked in this movie.  People have Heroic Kisses, but there's no sex, and I appreciated the stream-lined quality this gave the film; the Cap is here to do a job, y'all, and that job is SAVING YOUR ASS.  The effects are great on this score, also, as the filmmakers had a tricky job to do with the tech in the movie.  Hydra and the Red Skull are dealing with some pretty advanced stuff, but it keeps a measure of that 50's quality - yes, it's science fiction, but it doesn't look like it's from space or 2,000 years from now.  It's all Tesla coils and blue lightning (a neat callback to the future Iron Man thrusters, but that's a discussion for another day) and even the machinery works.  It's very Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow, and I mean that with the most sincere flattery.

Which brings me to Hugo Weaving, who I pretty much want to play bad guys all the time.  As the Red Skull he's skulking, whiplash smart, and utterly terrifying...despite having a candy apple colored face.  The facial effects are kind of silly, and it's a testament to how well Weaving plays the articulate gentleman bad guy that he can overcome the visual and still be a chillingly sociopathic Nazi science genius.

So that's why I liked Captain America.  Well, that and all the REALLY COOL action sequences.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2

I'm sure this makes me unbearably old, but I don't think I'll be attending any more midnight premiers of movies.  Yes, the excitement and anticipation is super fun, but the fact of the matter is that I am simply not suited to staying up that late.  This happened to me when I saw Watchmen for the first time, and again this past Thursday when I saw Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2, which is why I'm bringing it up.  I am apparently incapable of appreciating the editing or pacing of a film and become completely biased in a negative way towards whatever I am watching, even if I really want to like it.

Which is why I'm super glad I got a second chance to see HP again last night; even though it was SO SOON after the first viewing, it gave me a second chance to really appreciate what I was seeing.  And despite its flaws, there are a lot of great things happening in that movie to appreciate.

I kind of want to write you a dissertation on the way I felt about the book, and how that effected the way I felt about the film, but keeping in mind that this is a film review and I would like to stick to that theme (read: no spoilers included), I'm going to make that a separate entry with a big SPOILERS tag on the front end.  Even though I'm an advocate for book-to-movie adaptations, and have written pretty extensively about them (even in regards to the Harry Potter franchise), it's hard for me to separate my feelings about this particular adaptation from how I felt about the book, since it's, you know, the end of the most important cultural touchstone of my generation.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1 was a better movie than it had any right to be.  The portion of the book that it's covering is largely our heroes wandering around blindly in the woods; it is very similar to the ENDLESS RUNNING that occurs in The Two Towers.  But David Yates managed to make it poignant and bleak, with a few key moments of excitement that sky-rocketed my expectations for this final film.  If Yates could do this with the interminable camping scenes, what could he do with the thrilling battle of Hogwarts?  It's better material and more cinematically written.  I was ready to love this movie; I knew I would cry, but I also expected to be left emotionally satisfied by the conclusion.

Well...

Coming out of the midnight show, I was pissed.  There were things I expected to see, things that were fairly integral to my love for the book, that weren't included.  The movie did not take the opportunities I thought it had to improve some of the shortfalls of the book.  There was not enough Alan Rickman.  I was disappointed, and I was angry, because it was the last chance of the franchise.  It wasn't the ending I wanted.  I thought the pacing was choppy and the editing poor (remember what I said about being cranky at midnight?).  I spent most of Friday stewing about the fact that I had to go see it AGAIN, which I had agreed to do when I anticipating loving the film.

Now, after having that second viewing, I'm so glad that I did.  Some of the issues I had (those missing scenes, mainly.  And there still wasn't enough Alan Rickman) remained, but the film is not actually poorly paced OR edited.  It wastes no time, picking up precisely where Part 1 left off, and plunges us into action pretty much from the get-go.  Our trio is fine form here, bringing their best to the table - and reminding us that even though we met them as babies, they've grown into capable and talented actors.  Radcliffe, Watson, and Grint rage and cry and fight and if there is a bit of scenery-chewing, it can be excused because they're holding their own against such formidable talents as Rickman, Maggie Smith, Helena Bonham-Carter and Ralph Fiennes, all of whom also bring their A-game.

I could probably write an essay on each of our veteran actors here, so I'm going to leave it at this: when Voldemort awkwardly hugs Draco, it looks exactly like someone who has never given a hug before but only seen other people do it.  It's squirmingly uncomfortable and also kind of awesome.

The other thing I'd like to heap praise on is the visual tone.  Yates has pretty consistently given us a chillingly bleak setting, in cold greys and blues and deep haunting blacks; Deathly Hallows serves that up in spades.  One of the opening scenes looks ominously down at Hogwarts while a ring of Dementors hang, robes fluttering, in the air; it's the creepiest thing I have ever seen.  And, I think, the best thing about the 3D version (which was surprisingly clear and well-deployed), as it gives the Dementors another dimension of ethereal whispiness.

There are definitely still flaws.  These movies have always suffered (some more than others) from poor vetting; here, Harry brings up Lupin's new-born son, who has actually never been mentioned in either Deathly Hallows film.  Sure, I know about Teddy, but at this point the films have an audience that hasn't read the books, and forgetting to edit little things like this is pretty much unforgivably sloppy.  (We all might recall Snape's vehement proclamation, "I am the half-blood prince!" from movie #6, which should have been a revelation...if we'd known at all what that even meant.)  I would argue that understanding Snape's relationship with James Potter is just as important to the story as his relationship with Lily: those two people define Snape's actions and motivations through the whole series, and this should have been our chance to finally get his whole story, and we just...don't.  This is the shortest of the Harry Potter movies, and it didn't have to  be - at the very least, I hate that this pivotal sequence got slashed at the expense of added material.

Alan Rickman has always been good in these movies - here he is FANTASTIC.  His performance is subtle and layered and the amount of emotion he relays in one well-deployed eyebrow is astounding.  His only flaw is that this should have been the Snape-Show: his backstory, told in a beautifully composed flashback sequence, should have been at LEAST twice as long, and as this was the shortest film in the whole franchise, Yates could have easily doubled the time devoted to Snape without denting the audience's patience.  What is there is amazing.  There just should have been more of it.

There should have been more of a lot of things.  More backstory, more Deatheater deaths, more victorious good guy battle sequences.  Maybe fewer inspirational speeches?  Certainly more fact-checking by Voldemort (although that's a hold-over from the book, so perhaps Yates is not to blame for that one).

What the movie lacks in accuracy or dedication to the source material, it starts to make up for with powerhouse performances and jaw-dropping visuals (the dragon break-out from Gringotts is my personal favorite).  I missed the more personal moments from Rowling's battle scene, where she focuses in on small groups of people; but I loved the sweeping views of the cinematic battle, and the destruction of Hogwarts is nearly as heartbreaking as any character death.  It's not my favorite of the Potter films, not even my favorite of the Deathly Hallows halves; as a whole, I'm still a shade disappointed with what I wanted to be the most emotional, jaw-dropping, heart-wrenching film of the series, and it just...wasn't.  But it had its moments, and what it did well, it did VERY well.

I just wish it had done more.

Transformers: Dark of the Moon

Things Michael Bay is really good at:
- Choreographing and filming elegant, exciting fight scenes where I can actually see what is going on
- Doing so with massive CGI robots that have tons of moving parts and robotic detail
- Making me care about said robots way more than I care about people
- Attracting big-name movie stars that give his destructo-fests a wonderful touch of class
- Incorporating 3D into a film in a way that not only doesn't make me want to claw my eyes out, but actually complements and elevates the film

Things Michael Bay is not good at:
- Making me care about Sam Witwicky or his replaceable sex icon girlfriend
- Editing
- Filming attractive women in a way that is not reminiscent of pornography
- Patching up plot holes
- Coming up with film names that don't suck

I had a TON of fun at Transformers: Dark of the Moon last night.  It didn't really come close to the transcendent greatness of the first Transformers, but it was so far and away better than Revenge of the Fallen that I forgive it for that.  Above are the highlights of my experience; allow me to elaborate a little bit for you.

The main problem with Fallen, in my opinion, was that it was too chaotic and unrestrained.  There were too many bots, to much story that didn't fit together, too much going on.  It all became a sort of mash-up of a movie, where everything blurred together and I was too busy trying to remember who exactly I was watching to really enjoy any of the explosions or high-octane action sequences.  It lacked the much-needed control of the first film, which tempered the action and thus made the fight scenes that much more poignant.

Well, Dark of the Moon brings a lot of that back.  The story is uncomplicated and (mostly) easy to follow, even though it's way too front heavy; the first hour is a twisting, over-complicated mess of human interest that doesn't actually bring anything of value to the film, considering later plot reveals.  Shia LaBeouf, who I actually like quite a bit, is whittled down into a rage-spewing asshole for no reason I can see, now now accompanied by a new unbelievable sexpot girlfriend played by the wooden Victoria's Secret model Rosie Huntington-Whitely.  At this point in the franchise, Bay really doesn't need to spend so much time with Sam - he was endeared to us with as the awkward, incidental-hero in the first film.  We don't need to spend so much time being force fed that again, especially since, as I said, Sam's primary emotion seems to be "NO ONE UNDERSTANDS ME" rage. 

But oh, once we get to the heart of the story, the movie really takes off.  Turns out the Decepticons are not only back, but they never really left - and we have a new ally prospected from the moon in the form of Sentinel Prime, voiced with all the gravely authority Leonard Nimoy can conjure up (hint: it's a lot).  All the Autobots are back in fine form, and are more sympathetic and interesting to watch than any human onscreen.  There are a few moments with the bots that are truly heart-rending, because of both this and Bay's peerless fight choreography, which is not only seriously great but comes along with some truly spectacular cinematography.

Bay has remembered why we're all sitting in the audience in the first place, and corrects another heinous error from Fallen: instead of bombarding us with robots whose names we're never given and who just clog up the screen, he focuses on the ones he's already made us care about.  Yes, there are a whole shit-ton of bots in Moon, but most of them are background material.  Also, instead of throwing a bunch of new robots onto the screen, he gives us a few of new key players (Sentinel Prime and Shockwave, most notably), and gives more screentime to Sideswipe, who I love (although the convertible look doesn't really suit him).   Bay does lose track of Optimus' character toward the end, which in hindsight is a little disturbing but which I actually didn't think much of until later.  He doesn't jive so well with the bot we met in Transformers, who was so hesitant to kill anything that he almost sacrificed himself for the cause, but he's had a couple years on Earth to ruminate.  He's not the same character he was in the first film and it shows.

The movie is almost achingly long at 2 hours and 37 minutes, and I've already noted how a lot of that could have been fixed by axing the tedious, plodding bullshit in the opening acts.  It also hurts to know that those sequences were kept in at the expense of later tidbits, which were then not wholly expunged; a few characters drop lines that don't make much sense, and there are obvious gaps in the climactic action sequence, where I suspect either bits that were planned for got cut or were never even filmed.  They're not obvious, but they are distracting.

You know what else is distracting?  The way Bay insists on filming Rosie like the camera is caressing her every.  Single.  Time.  Megan Fox had one gratuitous scene in the previous films (checking Bumblebee's engine in Transformers, air-brushing the motorcycle in Fallen), but every time Rosie is onscreen it feels like we're suddenly in a porn flick.  It makes me think two things: first, that Fox isn't full of complete shit when she talks about how Bay made her feel objectified and how uncomfortable she was during filming, and secondly, that she may have forced him to have some restraint when she was onscreen.  Rosie, an underwear model, is undoubtedly more used to being displayed as a sex object, so I'm wondering if she just let Bay go to town because it was something she was already acclimated to.  As a result, she's even less of a character than Fox was, and doesn't provide LaBeouf with someone semi-interesting to bounce off of.

The last thing I want to say is that all directors planning to make movies in 3D should take note of Moon.  Not only does Bay incorporate 3D in a way that's not distracting, but it actually adds to the visual depth of the film.  It's not a gimmick, it's an artistic tool - unlike the blurry, tacked on crap that I've pretty much come to expect from 3D films (Clash of the Titans, I am looking at you so hard right now). 

The first Transformers still proves to have written a check it can't cash in the form of its sequels, but Dark of the Moon goes a long way towards correcting the sins of Revenge of the Fallen.  At its best, it is a breath-taking visual achievement of surprising intensity that leaves you clutching your armrest as the action rolls over you.  At its worst, it plods through its human characters' stories like an obligation.  But it's got some tricks up its sleeves, and that last battle will leave you wide-eyed.  Definitely worth seeing on the big screen.

Actors Miscast

The other day I found out that Natalie Dormer is playing Margaery Tyrell in season two of Game of Thrones.  I think this is the first serious miscast that HBO has done in the series, and I said so on Twitter - and then my friend Spencer said, "Hey!  Talking about miscast actors would make a good blog post!"  And I agreed.  His first example was Harrison Ford as Jack Ryan in Clear and Present Danger, which unfortunately I can't comment on because I've never seen the film.  But!  I came up with some pretty solid examples of my own for you!

I think it is sometimes easy to forget that what actors are doing onscreen is their job - some are better at it than others, and some probably enjoy doing it more than others, but when it comes right down to it they are all doing it to support themselves.  And, if they're good (and lucky), eventually they get to the point where they can pretty much pick and choose the roles that they play.  Most of the time, this is a good thing - a good actor in a good (or even halfway decent) role can really take a movie from "merely good" to "truly great."

But sometimes this doesn't happen.

For whatever reason, whether they need the paycheck or they thought the role would be fun or they got persuaded against their better judgment, actors we like take roles that suck.  Or, they take roles that don't necessarily suck, but that they're really not right for.  Here are my thoughts on some seriously miscast roles, and who I would have preferred to see in them instead.

Alan Rickman, Sweeney Todd
: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street

I love Alan Rickman.  Sometimes I go see things just because he's in them (Bottle Shock, Perfume: the Story of a Murderer, Blow Dry, and Dogma, to name just a few).  And in his defense, most of those are really good films (well, except Perfume).  But he is an obvious weak link in Sweeney Todd, a film that I will freely admit I didn't care for anyway, because he can't sing.

I'll say it again: Alan Rickman can't sing.  And Sweeney Todd...is a musical.  See the trouble here?

Under normal circumstances, Rickman would have been pitch-perfect as the nefarious, brooding Judge Turpin.  But he apparently can't hit a note to save his life.  And the film definitely suffered for it.

So who would I rather have put in this role?  Um, duh:

Mandy Patinkin is broody, grizzled, and experienced on both the screen and the stage.  And I know he can sing, because I have the original Broadway recordings of several of his performances.  He would have brought the same kind of gravitas as Rickman to the role, with the proper pipes behind it.

Edward Norton, The Hulk

I CAN'T be the only one who said "lol whut?" when this casting decision got announced.  Edward Norton is brilliant and refined and introspective at his best, and the Hulk...well, the Hulk is a giant green man-thing that breaks windows and tears up SWAT teams.  I kind of get what Leterrier was going for here, because I think the right way to get your audience to sympathize with this particular Marvel being is to get them sympathetic with Bruce Banner, but this almost takes it too far.  Hearing Norton say that iconic tagline ("You wouldn't like me when I'm angry...") with all his dark subtlety was too much for me.  Norton should save his talent for the bigger roles that demand it, like, say, Eisenheim in The Illusionist.

A better choice by far:

I'm cheating a little, because Mark Ruffalo is already slated to take over the Hulk in the upcoming Avengers flick.  But I don't care because if I'd given it some thought beforehand he probably would have been my choice anyway.  Ruffalo generally has a less complicated approach to his characters than Norton - and that's not an insult, by the way.  I thought he was excellent in The Kids Are All Right, Shutter Island, and The Brothers Bloom, all characters which he played very straightforward.  And that's what this role needs; you shouldn't have to work as hard as Norton did to make the Hulk sympathetic.  He suffered a horrible scientific accident, and that's really all the depth he needs.

Ruffalo is also a little meatier than Norton, so visually he fits the role much better as well.

Speaking of The Brothers Bloom...

Rachel Weisz, The Brothers Bloom

Rachel Weisz is one of those people who always comes across as an incredibly likeable person in the real world, because of all the charm and depth she brings to her characters.  But as Penelope the heiress, the bubbly, frenetic multi-hobbied romantic interest, she's wasted.  Penelope was written with charm, she didn't need the excess that Weisz brought to the table, and the end result was someone so saccharine that I was frankly irritated with her by the end.

She needed a bit of tang to go with all that sugar.  My suggestion?

Amanda Peet is ALSO a charming woman, but she can do rough-around-the-edges in a way Weisz really can't.  That kind of edge is what Penelope needed to go from being a pretty simple, bored, rich girl to actually being interesting.

Brad Pitt and Tom Cruise, Interview With A Vampire

I don't really know how the emotive, whiny Louis translated into tall, naturally blonde, caustic Pitt...or how the commanding, charismatic, and decadent Lestat became the smaller, weaslier, naturally brunette Cruise.  In a movie where the mood should have been everything, these actors were hitting the wrong notes.  My solution?

Switch the roles.

Pitt is physically larger, commands more of your attention, and is more naturally likeable.  Cruise is small and dark and squirrelly, and while I really do like him and think he's turned out some brilliant work, he needed to be the needier, whinier, more sycophantic Louis.  As the tempestuously moody, libertine-dandy Lestat he just falls way flat.

Kristen Stewart, Twilight

When you're working from shit source material and you have shit characters, you need a REALLY GOOD and REALLY LIKEABLE actor to have a hope of saving the final product.  Not only did Twilight serve up a steaming pile of crap story, but it did so with a cardboard actress whose main source of emotion seems to be raking her hands through her hair.

How would I have saved Twilight?  Could Twilight be saved? (Probably not.)  But a step in the right direction would have been...

I'm torn, actually.  Both of these girls could have pulled off the role with a modicum of charisma:

Amber Tamblyn and Emma Roberts both have a wonderful acerbic wit that would have made Bella passingly tolerable.  I feel like, if the directors had let them, they both could have brought a much harder edge to the character and made her slightly less of a pathetic mess.  But maybe that's wishful thinking on my part.  And they both at least know how to smile for pictures on the red carpet.

I think I come down slightly in favor of Roberts here, but mostly I come down on "Why did this movie ever get made in the first place?"

Ben Kingsley: BloodRayne, Prince of Persia: the Sands of Time, Tuck Everlasting, The Love Guru

BEN.  YOU WERE GHANDI.  YOU HAVE AWARDS AND AN OSCAR.  STOP IT.

Sorry, that last one is more of a first-class actor in bad movies, rather than in wrong roles.  But I needed to get it off my chest.

Got one I missed?  Let me know in the comments!

Just because you disagree with me doesn't make me wrong

I enjoy reading Entertainment Weekly.  I find it a good microcosm of the things that are happening in the entertainment world.  Yes, they occasionally over-saturate with the flavor of the week (I find their non-stop coverage of Twilight and Hunger Games exceedingly tedious, for example), they can get away with it because they ARE producing a magazine every week.  I also enjoy spending time on their website, although I may spend too much time (and take the results too personally) in the comments sections of movie reviews.

Today an article by movie reviewer Owen Gleiberman popped up on my Twitter feed that I found extremely fascinating.  But what was more interesting to me were the comments - people who had missed Gleiberman's point, or who were arguing for the sake of arguing, or who were just taking the opportunity to slam Transformers 2. 

(The article, in case you were wondering, discussed the tendency of critics to latch on to one movie altogether and across-the-board pan it, usually unfairly and because they are trying to make a point about the evil nature of the "Hollywood machine."  The example he gave was Transformers 2: Revenge of the Fallen, a film which Gleiberman gave a B in his review two summers ago, and which he stands by.  I give him a lot of credit for continuing to support his opinion, which brings me back to what I want to talk to you about.)

There is a strong urge for movie fans to treat their opinion about a movie as definitive fact.  It's never, "I thought this movie was bad," but rather "This is a bad movie."  Gleiberman's article was followed by a slew of comments in this vein; some choice ones include "... it wasn’t enjoyable by any stretch of the imagination," "Groupthink was thinking that the first one was any good in the first place," " It's anyone with a radar for decent entertainment [that thought Revenge of the Fallen was bad]," and perhaps my favorite, "Michael Bay is an untalented hack with zero ability to create a mediocre—let alone coherent—film."  What all of these have in common is not only the assumption but the demand that people agree with them - and if you do not, as I don't, you are not only wrong but probably stupid for thinking so.

When did it become a crime to enjoy a movie?  No, I didn't think Revenge of the Fallen delivered on what the first Transformers promised, but I certainly had fun watching it and have every intent to watch it again.  I like a lot of movies that many people consider to be bad (see a list of 50 of them here), but that doesn't make my opinion any less valid than the opinions of those who DON'T like them.  Film is art, and like all art, it's subjective - and I have long said that there's an audience, no matter how big, for every film. 

I agree with Gleiberman, by the way.  I do think that many critics and audience members panned Revenge of the Fallen across the board in part because they were expected to.  The movie was the second highest grossing film in 2009, after Avatar.  And it wasn't in 3D, so you can't accuse Bay of grubbing for dollars with a jacked up ticket price.  Someday we as a media culture will stop thinking of summer films as being "lesser" than those offered in the fall, but until then, I'm going to stop being ashamed of liking the movies that I do.  And I'm certainly going to try to stop thinking less of people who disagree with me.

Tumblr'd Posters: Part 2

More of my favorite movie posters!

Coraline

Two things this does right off the bat: establishes the adventurous nature of our titular heroine, and the eerie tone of the alternate world (without straight up telling you that there is an alternate world involved).  It tells you that things are not as they seem and give you tiny hints as to the weird-ass things that go on (the button and the cat in the title text, the creepy painted-on-the-wall text).  On my tumblr I noted that I could have done without the text, but frankly I think that's because I've read the book so I knew exactly what I was getting into - the tagline is kinda creepy, kinda sneaky, and importantly, like I said, establishes a tone without giving much away.  For someone who HADN'T read Coraline, it's a pretty effective line.

Wall-E

Oh man.  Separating my incredible love for this film from my analysis of the poster, it is still a pretty rad poster.  The wistful expression on the robot makes him endearing before you even get to meet him, and filling most of the image with sky puts you in Wall-E's place a bit - you're looking into this expanse of blue and maybe wondering what's out there.  It also reflects the simplicity of the opening scenes on Earth (where we are in the poster) when there's no dialogue at all.  The sky is huge and at first glance empty, but it's beautifully colored with some good cloud and stars detail; what looks simple is actually richly nuanced.  Oh man do I love this movie.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows

Most of the Harry Potter movies had really, really good posters.  But there is nothing more haunting than this image of Hogwarts on the horizon engulfed in flames.  It utilizes the orange/teal color motif that many posters do now (because it's so visually arresting) but it's much more effective here because of how sparing the orange is.  The text is a lot like a hammer, dropping on your head right before you take in the burning castle.  I kind of want to cry just looking at the poster.

The Fountain

Oh, THIS MOVIE.  I've seen it a couple of times and I still don't really know everything that it's about.  But what I do understand is encapsulated in this image pretty damn well: it's visually detailed and emotionally brutal.  I love how the hand reaching up looks like it's being dragged down, much like how Hugh Jackman's character(s) struggle against scenarios that look truly hopeless.  I also love the contradiction inherent in this poster, being gray-toned when the film is SO brilliantly colored.  It's why I picked this one instead of the more common poster with Jackman and the tree.

Stay tuned for part 3!

My favorite science fiction movies

I saw X-Men: First Class last Friday, and it was pretty great!  (Read my full review here.)  Watching it got me to thinking about how much I liked X2, which reminded me how much I love superhero/science fiction film, which reminded me of how much I loved putting that animated films list together, which led to this!

Science fiction is a pretty big component to my life - it's most of what I read, my friends are all nerds, I was president of the club in high school (no joke!  I also like going to conventions when I have the money.).  And since recently there has been a spat of TRULY EXCELLENT science fiction film produced, it made sense to me to do my top ten favorite sci-fi flicks.

Remember: this list and a (hypothetical) list of what I would consider the top ten BEST sci-fi movies are probably not the same!  But these are the ones I go back to over and over again - partially because they're really good movies, and partially because they're fun or enjoyable and I like watching them over and over.  (This is why there are no Star Wars films here - I do not deny their superiority in the genre, but when it comes to a movie I want to watch on an average Saturday night, Star Trek wins every time.)

Also, these are not ranked because I kept changing my mind.  So I just ordered them alphabetically.

District 9 (2009)

2009 was a wonderful year for science fiction film, and ALSO for summer movies, which are two of my favorite genres.  District 9 and Star Trek both opened to critical acclaim - expected for D9, less so for Star Trek (which you'll see further down the list), but both ended up being far better than anyone really thought.  And D9 does a lot of things incredibly well: yes, the apartheid metaphor is rather heavy-handed what with it being set in South Africa and all, but D9 starts obviously and works its way into the subtle, even while the movie becomes less mockumentary and more flat-out action.  By the end you don't know who to root for, because you've seen deplorable as well as sympathetic behavior from all the major parties involved.  It's too easy to hate the humans, and D9 doesn't ask you too - like Vickus, our main character, is forced to, it asks you to give everyone a fair hearing.  And it breaks your heart a little, too, and I'm a sucker for that.

Equilibrium (2002)

 

I think everything I love about Equilibrium can be summed up in a scene about a quarter of the way through the film, when Christian Bale rips the frosted sheet off his window and looks out at the city he lives in really for the first time.  It’s raining, but the view is also bathed in sunlight, and the whole thing is rich and emotional and beautiful.  It’s one of the first things to affect Bale’s character in an emotional way, and he makes you feel that with every heaving breath and wide-eyed stare.  He’s almost suffocating in beauty.  While Equilibrium can feel a little overwhelming at times (there are a lot things that are never explained, like where exactly this is all taking place), but the story at its root is deceptively simple and ultimately beautiful: it’s a movie that wants you to celebrate in the things that make you feel.

Also there is a puppy.

The Fifth Element (1997)

 

Of the two big sci-fi adventures that Bruce Willis is part of, this one is clearly superior (not that I don't love Armageddon, because I do, but let's be serious here).  Willis strikes just the right tone as our embittered, reluctant hero, getting dragged along to save the world despite his own preferences or his best interests.  Mila Jovovich has never been more charming, either before or after, and her character Leeloo has rightly become iconic.  The amount of asskicking this woman does is BREATHTAKING.  

But what I really love about Fifth Element is how COLORFUL it is.  It's a joy to watch, not just because of the wonderful characters and dialogue or the tense action, but because every shot is a neon beam of color against the outer space backdrop.  The visual style is akin to a Vegas light show, which is perfect for the pulpy feel and elemental themes of the whole adventure.

Inception (2010)

Is it a dream or reality?  If you really get bent out of shape over that very last image, you're missing the point.  And the point is an extraordinarily well-told and well-acted film with hyperactively memorable effects that excavates the depths of human imagination.  This is a movie that definitely rewards repeat viewings, as you're going to miss little background details the first time you see it while you're trying to process the story.  There are moments when it's a little too in love with its own cleverness, sure (the hospital scene springs immediately to mind), but overall this is going down in film history as the movie that pulled science fiction out of the "genre film" box and into the mainstream in a way that even Star Trek couldn't.  It also cements the notion that big summer blockbusters can *gasp* be Best Picture material; unfortunately, even though District 9 was nominated the year before, it didn't really have a chance at the title.  But Inception did, and hopefully people will remember that in Oscar seasons to come.

Independence Day (1996)

Yes, the science in this movie has problems.  But I fall firmly on the side of, "In a movie about an alien invasion, why are you worried about what kind of vehicles Will Smith can actually pilot?" and "They blew up the WHITE HOUSE, people.  WHO CARES if Jeff Goldblum wrote a fake virus on a Mac that somehow works on an alien computer system?"  In other words, if you're complaining about the realism of the hard science elements, you're probably thinking too hard.  I firmly support rollicking violent movies with lots of explosions, and Independence Day hands those out like candy.  Fortunately for us, the violence is side-by-side with  truly brilliant and sympathetic characters, and one of the best "We will survive!" speeches this side of Return of the King.  It's hard not to get a little teary when Bill Pullman is pulling out all the stops like that, and when you have actors as likeable as Pullman, Smith and Goldblum, it's impossible to resist pumping your fist in the air victoriously after the final confrontation.  Give in to the fist-pumping, my friends. 

Jurassic Park (1993)

I had originally intended to write a thing about how compared to any other movie that came out in 1993, Jurassic Park is still easily the best looking of the bunch, but then I looked at a list of everything released in 1993 and there were some supremely excellent releases then (Nightmare Before Christmas!  Dave!  True Romance!  Benny & Joon!).  SO.  New plan.  I would still like you to consider the effects in Jurassic Park, though, because movies are made NOW that don't look this good.  The tension in this movie is just so well done - never before has a single cup of water been so terrifying.  The way light and shadow are used to enhance the prey-like feeling of being stalked by dinosaurs, and the use of animatronics, still make this one a great late-night scare.  Plus, awesome performances from Sam Neill and Jeff Goldblum, two of my favs.  There will LITERALLY never be a moment as breathtaking as when Neill sees the brachiosaurs for the first time, jaw open and fumbling with his sunglasses.  Even thinking about it recalls the swell of music and that soaring, breathless feeling you get with pure, cinematic joy.

The Matrix (1999)

why martha do you like dystopian future movies NO WHY DO YOU ASK.

If you asked me what I thought the defining film of my generation is, my answer would be The Matrix.  Not only is it a technical marvel wrapping up a fairly simple story that's saturated with intriguing philosophical questions, but it manages to capture the human/technology relationship in a captivating way.  From the beginning the machines are running the show - think about it, when's the last time you woke up in the morning and didn't check your e-mail first thing?  The Matrix makes all of those little decisions (checking your e-mail, updating Facebook, even punching in a Google search) a little bit chilly when you think about how much you rely on various tech to get through your day.  But instead of continuing this thesis on why The Matrix is RELEVANT, I can tell you short and sweetly why I love it so, so much: exciting action, empathetic characters, amazing effects.  Oh, and also its cultural relevancy.

Minority Report (2002)

Tom Cruise gets a lot of flak from people, and to be fair, dude is sort of nuts.  But he's definitely a brilliant actor and Minority Report showcases some of his best work.  One of the few cases where (in my honest opinion) the adaptation eclipses the original work, this film shows two sides of science fiction to great effect: you get the high-tech glossy side, with shiny technology and gleaming metal surfaces, and the seedy, dirty, dystopian worldview that remains so popular today.  While classism isn't necessarily the point of the movie, it is an integral part of the world the movie takes place in, and if there's one thing I love it's rich, complex world-building.  And heart-pounding chase scenes!  Also a good dose of clever cinematography, such as when Cruise and the pre-cog are on the run in the mall and she keeps foreseeing little details like the umbrella.  Sometimes I feel like I get a new detail every time I see this one, it's like a film that keeps on giving.

Star Trek (2009)

I confess to literally not caring AT ALL the first time I saw a teaser for this one.  I have never been a Star Trek fan; I'd seen a handful of episodes, mostly for an anthropology class I took in college (I know, right?), and I was not really impressed or charmed by Shatner or the kitschy feel of it all.  But then the release date was announced for my birthday, and we actually got to see bits of the footage in trailers, and I'm completely in love with Chris Pine, so you know.  These things happened.  And I saw it opening night, and I LOVED it.  Pine is the PERFECT Kirk, with all of Shatner's fratboy bravado but none of the scenery chewing, and Zachary Quinto encapsulated Spock's cool logic while bringing a good dose of human sensitivity to everything.  The only issue I had with it was that I wanted Eric Bana's Nero to be more...something, I don't know.  It's like, they try to make him a sympathetic villain, but then also try to cash in on the Kirk/Khan relationship, and both end up not quite getting there.  But otherwise this movie is one of the finest ensemble casts in years, and provides scads of entertainment every time I watch it.  Which is a whole lot.

X2: X-Men United (2003)

Technically, I suppose superhero movies are their own subgenre of film at this point, but X-Men has too many science fiction tropes going on for me to leave it off this list.  I also happen to consider X2 one of the best superhero movies to have been made this side of The Dark Knight.  It's pretty much the perfect sequel - it picks up a few loose threads from the first film but also has its own stand-alone story, and William Stryker makes a much better political foe than Senator Kelly does in X-Men.  I really enjoy watching Magneto and his Brotherhood circle warily with Professor X and his X-Men, as they figure out how to work together out of necessity; plus I have always been enamored with the relationship between Professor X and Magneto (which, as a side note, is mostly why I loved X-Men: First Class so much).  Finally, it's hard for me NOT to love this movie, since Nightcrawler is my very favorite X-Men character and in general I think the movie does a really good job with him.

X-Men: First Class

You may remember from my Trailer Talk for X-Men: First Class that I was a LITTLE excited about this film.  Well, I saw it on Friday, and it did not disappoint.

I have been an X-Men fan for a long time.  I loved the first two films - I think X2 is one of the best superhero movies this side of Batman.  I didn't even hate the third one so much, I thought it was fun and a decent way to end the trilogy.  (I never saw Wolverine.)  One of the reasons I can enjoy the movies so much is because I'm not a stickler for continuity - I don't think you can be, and stay a sane member of the X-Men fandom.  The writers have played with the timeline SO much and SO frequently, and there are SO many continuities at play, that to put it all into a movie basically requires a lot of cherry-picking while doing the best you can to preserve the spirit of the characters.  This is why X-Men: First Class succeeds so very, very well.

The obvious stars here are Michael Fassbender and James McAvoy.  As pre-supers Charles and Erik, they are electric together and bring so much life to the relationship between the two characters.  I was always sad that the only real allusions to this friendship, which I believe is one of the most important and far-reaching in comics, in the previous films were pretty brief.  So I was extremely happy that it got explored more fully and to great effect here.

The action sequences are superb, and for once the "side-line" mutants all get a pretty strong spotlight.  The training montage is extremely well done, so that it doesn't feel stale at all.  The cinematography overall is extremely clever, and makes parts of the film feel like classic James Bond - appropriate, considering the Bond Girl-esque ensemble January Jones sports for most of the movie.  The 60's aesthetic works well, and the styling and costumes feel period-appropriate without being derivative.  The whole thing looks completely great.

Kevin Bacon was an excellent Sebastien Shaw, and my only real complaint about the villains is that I think there should have been MORE of them.  Here, Shaw is ostensibly representing the Hellfire Club and also mongering World War III.  Except that the Hellfire Club is FULL of wealthy and politically influential people, and I wish the filmmakers had portrayed it that way.  Shaw is certainly a good leader figure, but I had a hard time believing he could exert as much influence as he does without any kind of additional evil backing.

I'd like to take a moment to address some concerns regarding Ms. Jones, as well as Jennifer Lawrence, who inhabits the role of adolescent-Mystique with verve and aplomb.  Many people on the internets (at least, that I have come across) feel as though these roles have been marginalized, and two of the most powerful female characters in the franchise reduced to arm candy and and frivolous teenager.  To which I reply: well, yes.  But that doesn't mean they're not ALSO powerful females.  Jones as the chilly Emma Frost certainly holds her own with the boys, proving to be even a force for Charles Xavier to reckon with.  I agree that Lawrence could have used a scene or two to stretch her muscles and show some kick-ass, but this is not the same Mystique we get in later films.  It is pretty well acknowledged that she does a hell of a lot of inward thinking between know and then, and we get intimations of her changing views throughout First Class.

You can't afford to get too picky when it comes to continuity in the X-Men universe, but this film certainly does its best to be an honest prequel to the older films.  I think it hits that without jumping the shark into "reboot" territory - this movie slots right in to the timeline of those movies.  Right down to Xavier's mansion, which looks a hell of a lot like the set used in the trilogy even if it's not the identical house (I think it is, though) and the look of Magneto's helmet.  It's clear they paid attention and it pays off.

In summary, if you're willing to let go of the comic continuity (any of them) and just have fun with it, First Class is an incredibly well-acted and well-set summer romp.  It is definitely a step in the right direction for the franchise.

Also, if Marvel would like to make either He Reads Minds, He Broods Broodsomely: Together They Fight Crime or Michael Fassbender: Nazi-Killing Super-Spy Ultimate Bad Ass, I will be first in line for my tickets.

Trailer Talk: The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo

It's an abundance of posts!

I thought about waiting on this, but it's so timely that I just CAN'T. The first teaser for David Fincher's The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo has been released, and I have so many ~feelings~ about that I need to share them with you before it becomes old news.

(See the teaser here)

Why I'm excited: Yes, I saw the Swedish version with Noomi Rapace.  My blasphemetic reveal for the day is that I didn't like it. 

I have reasons, I promise!  And I enjoyed some things about it: the mood was pretty excellent, it was very dark and it was faithful to the book's story.  BUT.  It suffered from two pretty huge faults for me, and first and foremost was the casting of Rapace.  Rapace is no doubt a talented actress, but in that role with the severe haircut and whatever makeup effects they used on her face made her look WAY too old.  In fact, I think the whole cast suffered from that; I didn't find Blomkvist or Erica to be particularly charismatic or interesting.  I know that admitting I don't like Rapace in that role is tantamount to movie-fan-death-sentence, and her attitude was right, but the visual was distracting.

The second issue I had was that through the majority of the film I was incredibly bored.  One of the things I loved about the book was how exciting parts of it were, especially the climactic action sequences; but the film was SO dark and SO moody and SO slow-paced that I struggled not to sleep through it.  I was watching events unfold, and I wanted to be excited, but it felt so flat and lifeless that I couldn't get there.

Which is why I'm so stoked for Fincher's film, and why I love the adrenaline-infused teaser.  Using so many jump cuts that you only get impressions of what you're looking at, the teaser leaps frenetically from hostile winter scenes to eerie faces to what I assume is a glimpse of a horribly graphic scene that I wasn't sure would make it into the film.  Rooney Mara, inlike Rapace, looks young enough to capture Salander's childlike stature, and I appreciated the call-back to the Swedish film with the shots of Mara on her motorcycle.  It feels like Fincher is acknowledging the first film without feeling obligated to stick too closely to it.

I also think that Daniel Craig is perfect for the Blomkvist role; he's attractive in a very world-worn way, and can handle the quiet nature of Blomkvist's reporter attitude but will definitely be able to bring it for the action.  And that heart-pounding music overlaying the teaser simply reinforces it: this is not your moody arthouse film.  This is a huge tale of intrigue, murder, investigation, politicking, and danger.

I can't wait.

Photo from Rope of Silicone - click the pic to go to the site