Birdman- Michael Keaton Returns

Though the ad campaign for this movie may seem confusing, the movie itself is much more so. 

"Birdman" follows the attempts of a washed-out superhero movie star Riggan Thomson (Michael Keaton) as he attempts to reinvigorate his career by writing, directing, and acting in a Broadway adaptation of a famous novel. Emma Stone plays his newly rehabilitated daughter and Edward Norton his dangerously deranged new actor. The story charts the struggling play as well as the telekinetic abilities and increasing psychosis of Riggan. It also features fantastic performances by Zach Galifinakis, Amy Ryan, and Naomi Watts.

A film like this defies genre. It is a thriller, a play within a movie, and a psychological profile of an aging man in the depths of post-stardom depression. Few movies outside of the work of Kubrick can claim to explore such a wide variety of themes and story-telling devices. The movie encompasses the role of actors, the effect of celebrity on a person's psyche, the effect of superhero movies on modern cinema, theatre vs. movies, modern criticism vs. art, social media and networking, and the nature of personal relationships in a world starved for truth.

The most compelling aspect of "Birdman" is its use of stylistic drumbeats and continuity of scene. Almost the entire soundtrack consists of a single drummer soloing continuously with intermittent breaks of classical music. The visual style is particularly fascinating as most of the movie is dominated by what is perceived to be one continuous scene; the cuts between scenes are cleverly hidden so as to be unnoticeable, giving the whole movie a constant feeling of rushing forward irresistibly. Every scene flows into the next without pause, lending to bizarre jumps in time and a blending of various locations into one. 

The genius of this visual choice is that the entirety of the film is designed to develop like a stage play. The camera moves in between locations by following characters through hallways in long tracking shots. These transition shots serve as the "scene changes," and often utilize a moment of darkness, reminiscent to the lights going down on a stage. The performances, though completely authentic, are largely theatrical in style, featuring dramatic monologues and angry confrontations between two characters. 

Another important facet of "Birdman" is its use of Michael Keaton, Emma Stone, and Edward Norton. All three are veterans of superhero movies; Norton for "The Incredible Hulk," Stone for her role of Gwen Stacy in "The Amazing Spiderman," and Keaton for his most famous role as Tim Burton's Batman. This was obviously quite intentional, as numerous references are made to the various actors that dominate the superhero movies of the past few years. Some commercials made it seem like Keaton once again plays a superhero, but this is not at all a superhero movie. Riggan's telekinetic abilities are kept unclear for the entire movie, and one questions whether he truly possesses the supernatural abilities as shown or if they are nothing more than an extension of his psychosis.

"Birdman" earns a WATCH IT for great performances stellar visual design and themes combined with a unique, percussive score. What did you think of the film? Leave your comments in the boxes below.

Guardians of the Galaxy-You Already Know It's Great, Why Are You Asking Me?

I know that this blog often reviews movies from decades past, but this review feels more untimely than those because everybody's already seen the damn thing.

"Guardians of the Galaxy" is a sci-fi superhero comedy set in the Marvel universe and featuring a diverse and fantastic cast. As a crime-fighting superhero team-up movie, comparisons to "The Avengers" are unavoidable, and you might be shocked by what I have to say about the two films. 

The movie follows Peter Quill (Chris Pratt of "Parks and Rec"), a rogue, galactic traveler with a trail of past lovers crisscrossing the galaxy...okay, he's Han Solo/Captain Kirk, alright? That doesn't make the character any less compelling as we see him lose his mother as a small child and get abducted by a group of junk-collecting pirates. We see Peter explore a desolate planet and venture through dark temples to find an ancient artifact...okay fine! He's Indiana Jones too, but he's still great. The artifact in question is a sphere containing one of the six Infinity Gems. Any comic book nerd worth their salt knows the significance of this item and it is fittingly the driving force of the entire movie as Peter meets up with the rest of the Guardians for different reasons. Gamora (Zoe Saldana) is hired by Ronan, servant to Thanos and all around bad guy, to retrieve the Infinity Gem. Rocket Raccoon (Bradley Cooper) and Groot (Vin Diesel) are bounty hunters trying to capture Peter. Drax the Destroyer (Dave Bautista) is a lone warrior who lost his family to Ronan and seeks revenge. The five heroes make their way through the galaxy to protect the Infinity Gem and defeat Ronan.

I like this movie better than the Avengers movie. Now calm down and lower your pitchforks. I know that the Avengers franchise was a long time coming and has hailed as a shining beacon of nerd culture for years, but as a movie I believe that "Guardians" stacks up better. Right off the bat, every character's motivation is made very clear and every character is fleshed out. Every actor, including the vocal styles of Cooper and Diesel, was absolutely top notch and well suited to their character. These are the biggest issues that put this movie above the Avengers, because with the exceptions of Robert Downey Jr. and Mark Ruffalo, the Avengers cast isn't as perfectly crafted as the Guardians. There are no weak links in the Guardians chain. Also, five main characters is much more manageable than six Avengers, plus Coulso, plus Fury, plus whoever the hell Cobie Smulders plays.

The stylistic choices in this film are perfect. The movie starts in a flashback in the 80s and the soundtrack of Top 40s hits from that time make the film that much better. The music is played up for laughs at many times, but it also serves as a genuine score that perfectly fits the tone. Whether it's a quite moment between characters or a roaring action sequence, there's always a classic hit to give the film that extra push from good to great. The visual style is also fantastic as the Guardians travel to various planets and destinations that are all unique and brilliant in their design, so much so that this movie should be a model for the new Star Wars films. Every new location is bright, vibrant, and imaginative in ways that few movies can match.

While every Joss Whedon movie is genuinely funny in is own way, the comedic chops of the Guardians are second to none. I saw this movie during its second week on a Tuesday and the theater was still rolling in the aisles at the pure hilarity that this movie manages to convey throughout. Pratt expertly plays the charming, bumbling rogue and every Guardian brings their own brand of comedy to the table. I'm incredibly surprised by whoever made the commercials for this movie and didn't give away any of the jokes but I'm glad they did. Walking into the theater without having any idea what I was about to see was a rare joy for a modern film.

The action sequences and special effects are also great but do I need to say that? All movies look good now, it's everything else that's difficult to pull off.

Ok, did anybody else notice the huge Galaga reference?

When Ronan ordered his ships to kamikaze dive bomb the city, Rocket immediately pulled Star Lord's ship close to the ground and aimed the cannons skyward. Then he said "Shoot the ships before they hit the ground!" That sentence is the entire premise, motivation, and instruction for the game Galaga. Also, Rocket's position as he strafed along the ground is the exact visual given by the ship you control in the arcade game.

Also, for background, in "The Avengers"- Marvel's other super hero mash-up crime-fighting team movie- there is a throwaway line where Tony Stark, on the bridge of the Hellicarrier, calls out a random worker for playing Galaga on his computer while he is supposed to be working. "That man is playing Galaga. He didn't think we'd notice, but we did."

Coincidence? I THINK NOT!

"Guardians of the Galaxy" earns a WATCH IT TWICE for excellent performances from the entire cast, great musical and visual style, and impeccable comedic timing. I know that no one is going to disagree with me about how good this movie is, but what was your favorite character/location/scene? Let me know in the comments below.

Dawn of the Planet of the Apes-They Don't Care Anymore, So Why Should I?

Vague references to a bunch of bullshit that doesn't pan out.

"Dawn of the Planet of the Apes" is the sequel to the prequel to the reboot of the Planet of the Apes movie series and if I have to explain what is wrong with that then you might as well stop watching movies in general. It shows how a colony of apes and a colony of survivors of a human pandemic must work together and fight each other for mutual survival.

For a much better and more concise review of this film's merit and the state of Hollywood in general, visit Peter K. Rosenthal at The Onion here:
http://www.theonion.com/video/the-onion-reviews-dawn-of-the-planet-of-the-apes,36436/

The motifs of the movie are the nature of humanity, fear of humans toward outsiders and toward ourselves, and war caused by lack of communication. These are shown throughout the film in an adequate manner but really nothing to write home about. Or, really, for that matter, to write a review for. I just ended two sentences in a row with prepositions and I hate myself for. That.

The films seems to dance around in various themes and symbols without really committing to anything. The main ape's name is Caesar and the warlike structure of their society is sort of like Rome. Also, the apes live in the woods and hunt large packs of animals like the Native Americans. The king is betrayed by a friend, which is also like Caesar, but then the king's killer takes power and tries to control the king's family so it's more like Hamlet, except that the king doesn't die because they couldn't think up a Lion King-esque way that the king's ghost could visit his son so instead he just tells his son about the murder on his death bed. It's really just a bunch of impotent bullshit.

There's some hunting scenes, there are contrasting scenes that show the structure of the ape society versus the structure of the human society, and there are battle scenes. The scenes that show the home life are interesting but mostly predictable and the battles ebb and flow in a completely arbitrary way. One minute the apes and humans are working together and the next their fighting. One minute the apes are charging the front of the human base and the humans easily mow them down with machine guns and explosives but as soon as it seems that the apes are dying by the scores they suddenly break the wall and take over the entire human village. There's also some scenes where the apes and the humans work out relationships and family issues but I don't even care any more.

I really just can't commit any kind of emotion for this movie. Even hatred seems far to virile for this tepid, watered-down excuse for a story. It's not awful but it really should not have been made. "Dawn of the Planet of the Apes" earns an AVOID IT for just being another example of Hollywood greed and apathy. Fuck it. Do you think this is a good movie? Please explain why you're wrong in the comments below.

Godzilla-Matthew Broderick's Day Off

Finally, a real Godzilla movie in America!

For those of you that don't know, the 1998 Godzilla featuring Matthew Broderick was so hated by Toho, the company that owns the rights to Godzilla, that they decided that it was not, in fact, a Godzilla movie. Despite the movie's title, the monster featured throughout the film is actually "Zilla," a completely different beast. Which is good, because Godzilla isn't a pregnant, size-changing, iguana-looking motherfucker that can be killed with a few missiles. Godzilla fucking rules.

The new American Godzilla begins in Japan, as it should. Actually, the title sequence begins with old archive footage of the nuclear tests on islands in the Pacific. According to the film, these "tests" were actually the military attempts to destroy Godzilla, who could not be destroyed even by repeated nuclear assaults. We then see Ken Watanabe as Ishiro Serizawa discover a collapsed mine that reveals the remains of an enormous creature and the freshly hatched egg of another one. Bryan Cranston is Joe Brody, a scientist working for a nuclear plant in Japan as it is destroyed by a mysterious natural disaster. He spends the next few decades trying to uncover a government conspiracy that quarantined the areas surrounding the plant. We also follow Aaron Taylor-Johnson as his son, Ford Brody as he travels the world following the path of the monstrous creatures that have arisen to wreak havoc on the surface world.

What I love most about the new incarnation of Godzilla is that the plot revolves entirely around the monsters. The human moments, however, help to anchor the monsters in reality and help to create a more emotional impact with the audience. The monsters have their own stories, and even though their mythology stretches back to millions of years before humans came into existence, their paths and those of the human characters interact in surprising ways. For example, one of the biggest themes is the power of family, shown by Ford's begrudging love of his father and his dedication to keep his family safe though he is separated from his wife and son for almost the entirety of his screen time.

As I said, the movie focuses solely on the monsters. All of the humans, even Bryan Cranston, are entirely secondary to the real action of the movie. This perfectly reflects the true meaning of the film, that man is powerless in the face of nature. Originally, Godzilla was a metaphor for the destruction of the atomic bomb in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In the modern imagining, Godzilla and the other monsters are a metaphor for natural disasters. Case in point: the first big disaster of the movie is the destruction of a Japanese nuclear power plant by what is believed to be an earthquake. Though the movie version took place in 1999 instead of 2011, this perfectly reflects the disaster at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant. The rest of the film follows suit, as many of the scenes of destruction are eerily similar to news footage of earthquakes, hurricanes, tsunamis, and other natural disasters. The monsters truly show the power of Mother Nature against the feeble efforts of mankind.

"Godzilla" earns a SEE IT for awesome (meaning "inspiring awe") set pieces that emphasize the incredible scale of the action throughout epic monster battles. Leave your comments on Godzilla in the comments below.

Safety Not Guaranteed-Enjoyment Guaranteed

I don't quite know how to classify this movie, so I'll call it a dramedy rom-com.

"Safety Not Guaranteed" is a fascinating movie because of its origins in the annuls of the internet. The story is that a few years back a man posted an advertisement asking for a companion to time travel with him. The interesting part is that it is unclear whether somebody actually posted the ad or somebody posted in an online forum claiming that somebody else posted an ad. So this movie is either based on a story or it is based on a story about a story.

The movie follows Aubrey Plaza as a depressed twenty-something working as an intern for a magazine. She volunteers to track down a man advertising for a time travel companion and finds the strange gentleman to be more than she can understand. As she continues to gain his trust to find information for the article, she groes to understand the man and his reasons for wishing to travel through time.

The film follows its bizarre premise through to the end but manages to bring a surprising amount of heart to the equation. "Safety Not Guaranteed" explores themes of loss, love, nostalgia, longing, and faith through the lens of a confusing rabbit hole of convoluted lies and deception, set to a jaunty rom-com with fittingly jovial music. The movie manages to weave an enjoyable story while keeping you guessing at the real nature of the story and the truth that surrounds the story.

"Safety Not Guaranteed" gets a Watch It for an interesting tale wrapped in a memorable premise and enjoyable storytelling. Disagree with me? Great! Let me know in the comments below.

Transcendence-Terminator: Judgement Depp

Well, at least he lost the white face paint...

"Transcendence" is a new movie starring Johnny Depp that, get this, is NOT directed by Tim Burton and is therefore a palatable piece of media. Johnny Depp portrays Dr. Will Caster, a brilliant mathematician and computer researcher who is targeted by the anti-technology group RIFT and is rapidly dying as an effect of an assassination attempt. As his body decays, his wife Evelyn (Rebecca Hall) constructs a computer to replicate his brain patterns and preserve his mind.

The movie follows the course of Will, in computer form, as his mind expands and becomes more powerful, controlling much of the internet's power and building an underground research complex to continue experimentation and technological developments. Will soon becomes near omnipotent and the military, allied with RIFT, attempts to shut him down.

The film is well-paced and thrilling, but the intrigue of the film does not come from the spectacle of CGI or the brief battle scenes, but rather from the chaotic mind of Will. The film adeptly serves as both a sci-fi movie and a psychological thriller as Will's mind is brought into question. The main question that hangs over the entire film is whether Will's mind was successful transferred into the computer or is the AI simply pretending to be him? However, the larger question is whether a computer can successfully replicate a human mind to the point that there is no difference between the replication and the original. Can a human mind truly be created? These questions culminate in one of the final scenes of the movie which brings into the question the motivations of every major character. The final moments of the movie indicate the tiniest glimmer of hope imaginable but leaves the film with a resonant sense of completion.

"Transcendence" earns a "Watch It" for surprising philosophical questions exemplified in an engaging sci-fi thriller. I must confess, as soon as I saw Mr. Depp's face on the poster of this film I set my expectations as low as possible and came out shockingly impressed.

As always, please leave your comments below and let me know what you thought of "Transcendence."

The Truman Show-Well, Now I'm Paranoid

I feel like this was just a short documentary on Jim Carrey's real life.

"The Truman Show" shows the life of one man is exists as entertainment for the rest of the world. Everyday Truman Burbank lives his life and ignores dozens of hints that the world around him is not real. The world has been watching Truman's life from birth, 24 hours a day for 30 years. Truman is an overly cheery and quirky man who seems to have a spring attached to the bottoms of his feet with each step.

The film follows Truman's suspicions as he begins to accept that the idyllic world in which he is enveloped cannot be real and everyone that he meets on the street is a facet of the world that has been pulled over his eyes to blind him from the truth.

Woah. It just got pretty Matrixy in here. They both seem to pull from similar source material, namely the Allegory of the Cave, and both movies fail to grasp the lesson to be gained from this thousand year-old parable. At the end of the movie, Truman, with the help of his Morpheus character, a woman with whom he had a brief fling in college, finally reaches the point where he has escaped the all-seeing eyes of the cameras that surround him and finds the edge of the false world in which he has been imprisoned for his entire existence. Truman has been deeply programmed to fear water and boats, but overcomes this to sail to the painted blue wall that made up the sky above the horizon. He finds the exit leading to the real world and opens it as he is once again found by the cameras. Truman stands before the door.

The creator of Truman's world, Christof, speaks to Truman from the heavens of the domed reality and tells Truman that he is on TV but will not leave his world because he is afraid. Truman turns to the camera, giving his signature "Good afternoon, good evening, and good night" before exiting through the open door to Christof's surprise. As he leaves the television forever, the viewing world cheers, happy that Truman has finally found peace and has been given the chance to enter reality.

This is where "The Truman Show," like the Matrix before it, fails to grasp the Allegory of the Cave. One man has the possibility to leave the cave and become exposed to the outside world, but as soon as he attempts to release the rest of the cave dwellers from their prison, he finds that they are so deeply ingrained in the system that they cannot possibly accept any other truth. Truman was born into the cave, but he manages to bring the entire viewing audiences into the cave with him. The viewers are more involved with Truman's life than their own, and the film has multiple depictions of parents neglecting to feed children and obsessed fans wasting away in blithering happiness in front of the television set. I guess Ray Bradbury was right. When Truman exits the cave, he forces the viewing audience to exit with him, entering a new reality where Truman will no longer be on the screen to comfort them and entertain them at all hours. Mere minutes after Truman left the show, there would be riots in the streets. People unable to cope with such a drastic change to their lives would commit mass suicides and society as a whole would grind to a halt. We would like to believe that Truman would meet up with his lost lover, but in reality she would be killed before he could even reach her. Truman himself would be destroyed attempting to leave his cave, as his own life was an idyllic wonderland and reality is filled with millions of wild, destructive people thirsting for his blood.

Even if the hellish uprising of millions of distraught fans did not happen, Truman could never have a normal life. He would be swamped by thousands of fans every day who know every intimate detail of his life. Truman would either become a Messiah or a destroyer of worlds.

Despite the radical implications of the story, "The Truman Show" is an entertaining ride. I give it a "Watch It" for a unique story and great, over-the-top cheesy acting.

Disagree with me? Great! Let me know in the comments below.

Saving Mr. Banks-From This Psychotic Control-Freak

I'm probably going to get angry just writing about this woman.

Mrs. Travers, played by Emma Thompson, is the author of the beloved Mary Poppins series of children's books and proud owner of a stick so far up her ass that it has long since ceased to be a stick and has grown into a mighty oak tree. From her first moments on screen, Travers manages to alienate herself with the audience as well as every single person she encounters. Travers has been resisting the efforts of Disney to buy the rights to her books for 20 years but finally needs the money. Travers flies to California to meet with Walt Disney and the writing team to work on the script for the upcoming movie.

From the start, it is clear that Mrs. Travers has no clue what the film is supposed to be, insisting on "no animation" and "no songs." She also does her best to drive the Disney team insane so that the movie is never made, insisting things such as "no red" in the film. This, however, is merely an accentuation of her normal unbearable personality. Walt Disney, played by Tom Hanks, suffers every torment of the author because he made a two decade-old promise to his daughters to bring Mary Poppins to the big screen. Walt is portrayed as a childish, energetic business man who, above all, truly believes that he is creating magic in the form of his theme parks and movies. No mention is made of Disney's antisemitism.

It is not a sin for a movie to attempt to be Oscar-bait if the production can truly capture the hearts and minds of the audience and make adults feel young again, children feel inspired, etc., etc., but "Saving Mr. Banks" falls a bit short. Primarily, the attempt at creating an award-winning movie is far too transparent by the fact that Tom Hanks is in it and it's a movie about making a Disney movie. I can hear the accolades now. Regardless, Emma Thompson's character is not only unlikable but impossible to relate to due to her commandeering manner coupled with latent senility and relentless criticisms. It's like they tried to personify everyone's mother, but rather than the loving figure we come to respect in adulthood, they show the mad tyrant we see as a child, but without the part where she feeds and provides for us. Tom Hanks isn't much better, as his character is little more than a lavish business man who happened to create a product that is very close to the hearts of children and adults in the audience. The actual portrayal is a paper-thin character with a funny voice. Without Tom Hanks filling the shoes, the character of Disney would have seemed like a sentimental banker who tricked a starving writer into forking over the rights to his movie. Though both actors fill their roles to perfection, the roles themselves are highly flawed.

The main backbone of the story centers around Travers' relationship with her father back in Australia. Her father, like Mr. Banks, was a banker, but the similarities seem to stop there which is why it seems odd that this man inspired the character. Travers' father suffered from heavy alcoholism which lent itself to him playing with the children jovially and guiding them through magical worlds of imagination while also getting fired from his job. Travers' aunt, the inspiration for Mary Poppins, shows up when the father of the house turns ill and whips the family into shape, just like her character would later do for the Banks'.

Travers' father was a dancing, happy, foolish alcoholic who needed to straighten up and take care of his family. Mr. Banks is a straight-backed, aristocratic banker who needed to learn how to have fun and take care of his children emotionally, though he was already supporting them financially. How did Mrs. Travers learn the completely opposite lesson from her own life experiences? The scene in the movie that finally softens her up to the audience and the tormented writing crew was "Let's Go Fly A Kite," which comes about when Mr. Banks finally chooses to behave more like a child and have fun Mrs. Travers loves the song, despite her previous assertions that Mary Poppins is meant to show children the hard reality of life and do the same for Mr. Banks. Unless the Disney crew completely switched the motivations for every major character in her book, Mrs. Travers doesn't understand her own life story.

All this confusion makes the film seem very disjointed and emotionally mixed-up. The aforementioned "softening" scene for Mrs. Travers is borderline ridiculous in its execution and downright wrong in its motivations. I still can't understand why a woman with her personal back story would right a book that dictates how a father should be more playful and childish rather than more serious about supporting his wife and children. All in all, the flashbacks to Mrs. Travers screwed-up childhood do little more than confuse the issues of the movie they are making, which is why it was a poor decision to make these flashbacks the center of the entire plot. "Saving Mr. Banks" earns a "See It" if you enjoy the always remarkable Tom Hanks and a cute story based on an entirely dark and disturbing story.

As always, if you agree or disagree with my biased and rambling opinions, please let me know in the comments!

Hunger Games: Catching Fire-Better Than A Battle Royale Ripoff

Seems like an awful lot of water for a title like that...

Hunger Games is an interesting series. It's taken a lot of flack for appearing to be little more than a knockoff of a Japanese thriller, but regardless the books have garnered enough success to enlist the acting talents of the incomparable Jennifer Lawrence, Woody Harrelson, Elizabeth Banks, and Josh Hutcherson. I have not written a formal review of the first Hunger Games movie, but personally I found it to be remarkably average. Nothing really stood out to me about this relatively faithful, plain-Jane adaptation of an interesting book series. I enjoyed the series myself, but the movie failed to deliver on the premise of the book, partially by its unwillingness to be bloody enough to make even the most weak-hearted of preteens cringe.

"Catching Fire" is a different story. It seemed to broach most of the conflicts of the book with the subtlety and tenderness of a freight train, showing the truly torrid love triangle of Katniss, Peeta, and Gale in a way that the first movie fell short of accomplishing. Katniss is recovering from the trauma of the Hunger Games in her home town when she is forced back into the spotlight with Peeta on their tour around Panem. Katniss, like every "victor" that survives the Games, has severe PTSD from the whole ordeal and finds comfort in sharing her struggle with Peeta. Katniss is also forced to continue her fake romance with Peeta in order to convince the country that her defiance of the Capital at the last Hunger Games was prompted by love rather than rebellion. All this makes her relationship with Gale strained to say the least.Despite their best efforts to convince the world that their love is real and the Capital is the rightful governing body, the country begins falling into rebellion. To stop the spread of Katniss' symbol of rebellion, President Snow has the surviving victors thrown back into the arena for the 75th Hunger Games.

I'm starting to become worried for Lawrence, as she seems to thrive in the role of emotionally damaged yet dangerous woman caught in bizarre relationships, as she has already shown in "Silver Linings Playbook." Lawrence has truly come into her own with Katniss, and every scene that doesn't involve the character's customary stony stare is a powerhouse of emotion. Woody Harrelson is fantastic as always in delivering on the comic relief that a story this depressing desperately needs. In addition to the acting, the visual effects of this film elevate it even further, though the classic orange/blue contrast is starting to become a little tired.

My only issue with this movie would have to be the same that I had with the new "Les Miserables" movie. My issue is that I do not understand the appeal of a close-up so close that I can look up the nostrils of an A-list Hollywood actress. Yes, Ms. Lawrence is quite beautiful, but I'm pretty sure that I would be able to distinguish her emotions from a distance of several feet instead of inches. Close-ups can be nice, but when the actor's entire head no longer fits on the screen it seems excessive. The film even ends on an extreme close-up and cuts to black, and I think it might have been a bit more intriguing had I not seen the same camera angles of the same actors a dozen times previously.

"Catching Fire" earns a See It for great acting, visual effects, and a story with twists and turns that will keep anyone who hasn't already read the books wondering what will happen next for the entire run time.

Until next time, what are your thoughts on the movie? I love to hear the opinions!

Scott Pilgrim vs. the World-So Many Numbers...

Saying "stylized Edgar Wright movie" is like saying "violent Quentin Tarantino movie," but "Scott Pilgrim" takes it to a whole new level. Pun intended.

Our story follows the daily life of slacker bassist and "lady-killer jerky jerk face" Scott Pilgrim as he struggles with life, love, and insane, over the top visual effects. Scott was dumped by his girlfriend a year earlier and is still struggling to cope with the loss through dating and cruelly dumping women, including a seventeen year-old Chinese high school student. Scott meets Ramona Flowers, edgy-hipster-girl-with-dyed-hair-and-a-dark-past extraordinaire and falls head over heels. Unfortunately he must fight her seven evil exes to earn the right to date her. So, you know standard stuff.

From the beginning of the movie, I felt a little left out because I have never read the graphic novel series that the movie was based on. I am a strong advocate that movies should be able to establish their own world without the crutch of any source material, and "Scott Pilgrim" accomplishes this admirably. My issue, however, was with the character of Scott. Is he really this much of a whiny piece of shit in the books? I usually find it easy to separate actor from character, but all I could see for the first hour was Michael Cera being Michael Cera: seemingly soft-spoken and intelligent with a bit of wit and sarcasm, undercut by deep psychological trauma that makes him an insufferable asshole. I can only assume that they picked Cera because he matched the character perfectly but damn it if it doesn't seem like he didn't have to put in an hour of work on this one.

Aside from the pitiful character of Pilgrim for the first half of the movie, the rest of the cast and characters form a delightfully tangential world among themselves. Every character seems to have their own desires and emotions rather than being a uniform backdrop to the kitschy nightmare that I feared at the movie's start. Many noteworthy and entertaining actors jump in and out of the narrative at will but few of them can exit a room without tossing a quip over their shoulder. The humor is spot-on, the acting is great, and the entire atmosphere, as in many of Wright's films, is fast-paced and fun enough that we, the audience, can disregard some of the bat shit insanity. Though I wouldn't put the film on the same level as "Shaun of the Dead," Edgar Wright's brilliant directing is still very apparent throughout the film.

The visual effects can be jarring and unsettling, but I found myself right at home. That being said, I have strange sensibilities such that tossing around a few Zelda sound bites can bring me to the edge of my seat. That being said, Edgar Wright does a fantastic job engrossing the viewer into the manic world of Scott Pilgrim. It begins subtly, with just a dash comic book-esque onomatopoeia thrown in for flavor, but this rapidly changes after the first battle. As Scott begins to fight with a strength and speed that seem unlikely for a twenty-something Canadian bassist, surrounded by enormous glowing hit counters and high scores, reaction shots of the audience looking around in disbelief help keep the world in check. Fighting like Greek gods hurling lightning bolts at each other is not normal in this world, but that doesn't prevent it from happening shockingly often. After the first fight, the video game styled effects come fast and loose, popping up at every opportunity, but by this point I was hooked. The style is charming and flashy and, as I mentioned before, I'm a sucker for video game references.

I'm having trouble quantifying my feelings for "Scott Pilgrim vs. the World" but, being the reviewer, it is my solemn duty to soldier on through all adversity. I thoroughly enjoyed the movie because I have an unusually high tolerance for Michael Cera and a Pavlovian response to pixel art and big, glowing numbers. Many people, however, are not as easily charmed by these things as I and I must make my decision for the masses...or at least the masses of fans and friends of fans and average moviegoers who have already seen it. "Scott Pilgrim vs. the World" earns a "Watch It" for excellent acting, well-paced action, and the pure style, humor, and brilliant editing that we have come to expect from Edgar Wright.

Until next time, what are your thoughts on the movie? I love hearing the opinions!

The Wolverine-Days of the Future Referencing the Past Looking In A Mirror

Wait, so now WHO is the bad guy?

"The Wolverine" is the latest summer blockbuster that has allowed Hugh Jackman to don the trademark sideburns and wife beater for the fifth time...Jesus, he must want to get away from this by now. The fact is, Jackman has been playing this character for about a decade-and doing a fine job of it-and the impact of the character is starting to dilute, in my opinion.

"The Wolverine" starts with the titular character living alone in the North American wilderness, having taken a vow to never hurt anyone again. This vow lasts about five minutes into the movie, as expected, and he seems to have no problem slicing through dozens of people later on. Logan is plagued nightly by the centuries of memories he's lived through including the ghost of Jean Gray, who appears in his bed most nights to taunt his thoughts and actions. The movie starts with a flashback to Nagasaki, where Logan rescues an officer named Yashida in a scene that is about as pleasant as you would expect for viewing an atomic bomb devastate a country.

Back in present day...meaning the future, I guess...it's never really established, which is kind of a trope for X-Men at this point. Anyway, back in the future, Logan is picked up by a Japanese mutant working for Yashida, one of the most powerful men in Japan. Yashida wishes to thank Logan for saving his life, as well as making him a strange offer. Yashida seems to understand what Logan has been through, and offers him a release from his immortal life. Logan refuses and Yashida dies, unable to convince Logan further. However, Logan is attacked in the night and finds the next day that he is not healing as well as before when Yashida's funeral is attacked and Logan is put in charge of protecting Yashida's granddaughter.

From the title, I thought this would be a sequel of sorts to "X-Men Origins: Wolverine." However, it is more like a sequel to "X-Men: The Last Stand," as it takes place an undisclosed amount of time later. It is a spiritual successor to "Origins," in that it focuses entirely on Wolverine and his life, as well as answering the question "How many times can we murder Wolverine in the most gruesome ways possible, just to have him heal again?" Also, "How many times can this dude fall in love with every girl he meets?"

This is one of those movies where there are three acts that are so vastly different that they don't seem to be driving towards any sort of goal. Also, there are a bunch of random villains and even after the movie was over I'm still not sure who the main antagonist was because there are so many surprise enemies. It starts with Logan being brought to Japan. Then he is protecting Yashida's granddaughter at a small cottage in a quiet village. Then he is attacking an enormous facility wherein a giant mech suit of adamantium was built. There are so many twist and turns that half of the movie I was wondering who were the real bad guys and what was their motivation.

The plot kind of peters out halfway through the movie and is replaced by standard save-the-girl movie bullshit. Wolverine is simply too damn powerful to ever be killed, though they come pretty damn close. As with the latest Die Hard movie, I am tempted to say that fans of the series would enjoy watching it, but that is too cheap for a blog with such integrity as this one!

"The Wolverine" earns an Avoid It rating for lackluster writing, poor pacing, and confusing storytelling. Despite some memorable acting performances, including those of Mr. Jackman and the enormous veins in his arms, this movie ultimately fails to deliver.

Until next time, please leave your thoughts on the movie in the comments. I love to hear the opinions!
-kmaker

A Good Day to Die Hard-Is It Really?

Since I just wrote about a crappy movie trying to be Die Hard, a Die Hard movie should be a treat, right?

There is a fantastic author for Cracked.com by the name of Daniel O'Brien. He has written multiple articles about Die Hard as a movie, as a series, and as a way of life and I recommend you go read some of them now. He has taught me what Die Hard is and what Die Hard means, as well as how Die Hard has been corrupted. Basically what it boils down to is the fact that "Die Hard" has one of the most well-structured plots in action movies and shows that the protagonist doesn't have to be super soldier Jason Bourne saving the world from ultimate destruction. John McClane was just a New York cop trying to reconnect with his wife and stop a terrorist from killing one room full of hostages nothing more.

Now, John McClane is a super soldier immortal, killing machine, iron-legged, bullet-dodging, super hero saving the world. He is no longer the Die Hard we fell in love with. And this sad.

"A Good Day to Die Hard" is kind of a mess, to be honest. John McClane goes to Russia to see his estranged son who is locked in Russian prison only to find his son escaping from Russian prison while being chased by Russian terrorists. This plot may seem simpler than the bizarre cluster fuck that the fourth movie was, but it gets crazier.

Nothing is ever established in this movie. We see Jack McClane, John's son, talking to some sort of headquarters about some mission that we don't understand, and we later learn that the headquarters is a group of spies and the mission is to find a file, but we never really to get to understand why this spy group even exists. It's even stranger that John, who saw his son just a few years earlier, had no clue that his son was involved in any kind of "spy shit" as he calls it.

This movie immediately goes off the rails, quite literally. Jack is being chased by Russian terrorists with John in pursuit of them. John has no idea what any of the back story or motives for any of the people involved in this chase, he just knows that his son has escaped from jail. Hell, for all he knows, the people chasing his son are the Russian police. However, John McClane immediately steals several cars to tear through Russian traffic costing millions in damages and countless civilian lives, because he's Die Hard and he feels entitled to being Die Hard by this point. Honestly, at one point in the movie a sniper is firing upon them and Jack immediately hits the ground to crawl away while John stands up straight, grabs a machine gun, and blows away two dozen attackers as they run through the door with their own weapons. He freaking knows he's immortal. And that is no fun.

The plot is just bonkers. There are secret agents, double agents, triple secret agents, terrorists everywhere, prisoners that turn out to be terrorists, and plenty of explosions that only seem to kill innocent bystanders and not people that have names. Nothing about the story is restrained or concise, so the storytelling loses everything that made the original great.

The action sequences are insane and rapid, but for the most part they could be considered memorable, if watching twenty explosions in a row is memorable to some people. A few unexpected twists come here and there, but most of the movie is just predictable, over-the-top action fodder.

As much as I have been tearing down this movie, it does have a spark of life that I can't deny. I love Die Hard, and I can't help but notice the little elements that make it special int he world of action movies. Die Hard has always been a family man, so it was nice that they actually allowed significant pauses in the action for John and Jack to talk. These are not teary, emotional diatribes, but rather little hiatuses that allow for some character development. Unfortunately, this is diluted by the fact that most of the dialogue between John and Jack takes the form of standard, snappy Die Hard one-liners.

Standard, snappy Die Hard one-liners are in great supply, another element that helps to make this movie still feel like a Die Hard movie. This includes plenty of one-liners that John says in the company of absolutely no one, in classic Die Hard style. There are a few references to the first movie, including John's uncanny ability to recognize undercover terrorists, and a beautiful shot of a man falling off the side of a building with the exact expression used by Alan Rickman just twenty-five years ago.

"A Good Day to Die Hard" is an insane, over-the-top, ADD-driven action movie, and despite the deep love I have for Die Hard and all he stands for, this movie cannot overcome the sins of the previous movie and the sins of all modern Hollywood action movies. Avoid It. Though it hurts me to say.

Until next time, please share your thoughts on the movie in the comments!
-kmaker

Lockout-Goddamn, This Guy Wants to be John McClane

Like Arkham Asylum, except without that pesky plot to get in the way.

"Lockout" is a moving starring Guy Pearce, an actor I respect mainly for his portrayal of Leonard Shelby in "Memento." Thus ends the portion of this review where I can be nice.

Just about everything in this movie is done wrong. This movie imitates "Die Hard," in the same way that everybody imitated Austin Powers for a few years. We have our action hero, Snow, who is "the only man for the job" for reasons that are not explained to us. Because he's a criminal under federal investigation for murder? No, that would make him the last person they would want for the job.

Anyway, there's a big super prison in space that puts all of the inmates in stasis sleep to prevent violence. The president's daughter is sent up to investigate the humaneness of the prison's treatment and is given an interview with one of the inmates. Now, the prison warden, who is attempting to convince the president's daughter to APPROVE the space prison, decides to send out the craziest Scottish fuck in the whole prison. By the way, they already built an enormously big prison in space. I think they already have approval.

So this one inmate manages to steal one gun and shatter straight through every nonexistent security protocol in the place. Seriously, he kills half a dozen people and blows up a room, then marches into a security room to beat up a dumb ass that had no clue anything had gone wrong. REALLY? How does that make any sense? The inmate then orders the dumb ass to wake up every single prisoner in the building, to which said dumb ass complies, because there are no security measures to prevent this from happening. All of this is done by one psychopath with a gun and no former planning. It is absolutely laughable how pathetic this prison is, much more so for what is supposed to be the most advanced super prison ever built.

So now, Guy Pearce has to fly up to the space prison and save the president's daughter. This involves crawling through different levels and air ducts, murdering guards at every opportunity, and making an endless stream of wisecracks to his black friend on the other end of a radio. See where I'm getting the "Die Hard" ripoff? The only thing they forgot to steal from "Die Hard" was a coherent plot, competent pacing, and a decent goddamn movie.

A bunch of stuff happens, people are killed, main characters escape death, and two hours of my life are gone. There's a weird twist ending in which the president's daughter magically solves the secret of some subplot that nobody cares about, the black good guy turns out to be bad because he knew the combination to a briefcase or something, I really don't care. It's all a bunch of bullshit. And I think they even had the audacity to try to set up a sequel, but it's possible that the writing was so bad I didn't even realize that they were trying to tie up loose ends.

This film is truly not worth your time. Pearce's acting is stilted and unoriginal, pacing is crap, the plot makes no sense, the writing is terrible, events happen left and right with no coherent feel, and even the special effects are nauseatingly bad. Truly a waste of time. I don't feel like I need to say it, but "Lockout" earns a solid No One Should See It.

Until next time, what are your thoughts on the movie? I love to hear the opinions!
-kmaker

Monsters University-Just Like Your Dad Remembers!

The latest heartwarming adventure from the corporations that will soon own the very hearts they warm.

I am the kind of guy that thinks everything new ruins everything old. "Classic rock is so much better, why would anyone listen to (insert popular culture reference)?" "Prequels and new Indiana Jones are crap, why don't people just watch the Original Trilogy?" "There's no way this soulless corporation could capture the magic of the original indie production team!" I will defend these statements to the death, but there are exceptions, namely PIXAR. "Toy Story 3" taught me how to cry again and "Monsters University" successfully brings us back into the magical world of monsters.

"Monsters, Inc." was an incredibly bizarre story with strange repercussions in dimensional physics and reality, but managed to wrap a sprawling, zany story in so much heart that it makes me ache with nostalgia. That being said, as soon as I saw advertisements for "Monsters University," I said that it couldn't capture the soul of the first movie. The fact that it was a prequel did not help to assuage my doubts, since there have been so few good prequels in the history of movies that one of the best ones is "Temple of Doom," which most people are unaware is a prequel.

However, not only does "University" capture the heart, it completely justifies itself as a prequel. As soon as the movie started, I realized that I had always wanted to know how Mike and Sully got to where they were in the original movie, and I was ready to get back into that amazing PIXAR storytelling.

The "animated short" that comes before the movie, in classic PIXAR style, is brief and charming. However, the reason the above words are in quotes is because PIXAR is having a nice little romp through the uncanny valley, because at no point in the short can I tell if anything is actually filmed or if it is entirely animated. The point is, its kind of creepy, despite the simple and likable story it portrays about sentient umbrellas in a big city.

Now, on to the movie.

Right away, I have to admit that the movie suffers from Second Installment Syndrome, or SIS. The world has already been so well established that the first ten minutes of the film rush by in a montage that shows a brief clip of the early catalyst for the story followed by ten years of character development in ten seconds. The storytelling is immediately too rapid, despite many good moments of character development, but most of that comes later.

Like "Cars 2," "Monsters University" has shifted our protagonist to the secondary character, except this time it doesn't suck. We see Mike as a young, misfit child and later as a slightly less young, misfit teenager off to scare school to work hard and fulfill his lifelong dreams of being a scarer. As I said the opening plot seems to take shape quite rapidly, as Mike and Sully meet and find that their philosophies on scaring are completely opposite, Mike being a hardworking student and Sully living off of his family name and natural talent at scaring.

Mike works to prove he can be scarier than the blowhard jock and succeeds until they are kicked out of scare school and must strike up a deal with the terrifying Dean of Students to rejoin the school. Mike and Sully must work together to turn their fraternity into the best scarers on campus.

Despite the rapid progression of the first twenty minutes, the movie really gets into its stride in character development. We really get to understand who Mike and Sully are, as well as many other memorable characters. The story ties up with "Monsters, Inc." in a nice little bow, but we get to see how Mike and Sully's relationship led them to be the best scarers in the company.

PIXAR is truly doing some great things with animated movies, especially now that they are appealing to three different generations of viewers. PIXAR started out by making movies that were marketed towards young children, but so undeniably good that adults could not help but be entertained. Now, with "Toy Story 3" showing a grown up Andy going off to college and "Monsters University" showing classic characters as college-age teenagers, it is obvious that PIXAR is marketing to the kids who watched these movies over a decade ago and are now moving on to the next big phase of their lives. It is a great marketing strategy and shows maturity in the way the company is growing.

I believe that PIXAR is also marketing to a third generation into addition to young children and college kids: their parents. "Toy Story 3" showed us Andy's mom to represent the parents that were sad to see their birds leave the nest, but "Monsters University" does not even show the main characters' parents. Instead, this movie is supposed to remind parents of when they were in college, as this clearly represents an 80s-era monster world. This becomes apparent through several references to older music and style, in addition to showing how a certain monsters with no experience are able to start at the bottom of a company and work their way to the top. That's some 90s shit if I've ever seen it. This is intended to make adults nostalgic for the good old days while making the teenagers look forward to their college years to come.

"Monsters University" earns a ranking of Watch It for incredible character development and storytelling, as well as a memorable cast of voice actors that put this movie among the ranks of the PIXAR greats.

Until next time, what are your thoughts on the movie? I love to hear the opinions!
-kmaker

The Lone Ranger-Hi Ho Silver, Awaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay!

The latest summer blockbuster to be advertised more than political campaigns, but I can't hold that against it.

"The Lone Ranger" is a fast-paced, action-packed, fun-filled, hyphen-described, western action adventure. I was surprised by how competent the movie was in its ability to be a western. A lot of movies are westerns in setting alone, but I saw many classic western elements including a posse of rangers on a long desert ride, plenty of trains, seedy bars, prostitutes, corrupt leaders, and lots of gun slinging. I found myself immersed by the classic spaghetti western style and ready for a fun ride.

The movie also paid its tributes to the classic Lone Ranger with an extended use of the classic Lone Ranger theme song. As soon as the song begins, you can just feel the energy of the film rise to a fever pitch as the action scenes go on and on to the climax of the movie. "Die Hard" may have been the first to use classical music to highlight action sequences, but when that classic them came to its conclusion I found myself absolutely floored. Also, a quick homage to the classic Lone Ranger catchphrase was very much appreciated.

The story does a lot to explain who and what the Lone Ranger is. Even though we live in an unfortunate era in which every single movie has to be an origin story, in this case I can let it slide because the Lone Ranger is such a classic and mysterious figure. I actually want to know what his story is, rather than be told for the tenth time where Spiderman came from. I know where Spiderman came from, bro. Quit telling me.

Despite everything I like about the style, one major storytelling choice almost turned me off. The movie begins in 1933 at a carnival where a young boy discovers a tent depicting scenes of the Wild West. He views a display of an "Indian savage in its natural habitat." The mannequin comes to life and is revealed to be the one-and-only Tonto.

I have compared storytelling styles to "The Princess Bride" before, but this takes it to a whole new level. Tonto begins telling his story to the young boy, describing a scene in which he and the titular Ranger rob a bank. The boy immediately interrupts to say "Whaaaaaat?! Lone Ranger didn't rob no banks!" In "The Princess Bride," the boy interrupts to speak the mind of the audience, saying "This is a lame kissing story!" In that case, good old Grandpa assures us that this is going to be an awesome movie and the audience no longer cares how dramatic the story telling is, we're on board. In the case of "The Lone Ranger," everybody saw the bank robbery and assumed it was going to be explained later (it is), so the kid interrupting does just that-interrupts. I was trying to watch a movie and, instead of being the voice of the audience, the kid becomes the voice I want to shut the hell up.

Also, in "The Princess Bride," the kid once again interrupts a dark point in the movie at which it is believed that the princess married the evil king. When the kid interrupts, he is once again speaking the voice of the audience because we don't know if she actually married him and we later find out that it was just a dream. At a dark point in this movie, it is believed that the Lone Ranger is dead and the kid interrupts to say "Whaaaaaaat?! Lone Ranger ain't dead!" Yeah, kid, we all know that he's not dead because this scene takes place twenty minutes into the movie. Look at the title. We know we have to watch two more hours of him doing things.

Despite this hiccough in the storytelling, the plot is actually very well structured and engaging. "The Hero's Journey," or "monomyth," is a story structure that has been used literally thousands of times, but it is still effective when well-executed, like in The Matrix, Star Wars, and The Odyssey. It includes the call to adventure, supernatural aid, death and rebirth, transformation, and return, all of which is prominently shown in "The Lone Ranger."

We see John Reid as a prudish lawman in contrast to his brother Dan, a heroic Texas Ranger. Dan is on a train that is also transporting the cannibal Indian-killer Butch Cavendish in addition to Tonto. Tonto wishes to kill Cavendish for his crimes, but the train is hi-jacked by Cavendish's men. Tonto and John are forced to fight together, but both Tonto and Cavendish escape. John joins his brother as a deputized Ranger as they go into the desert in search of Cavendish. When Dan and the rest of the Rangers are killed by Cavendish's men in an ambush, John is saved by Tonto and forced to become the Lone Ranger to avenge his brother and save Texas from a political conspiracy.

The story is well-paced and fantastically zany, with that classic Jerry Bruckheimer style which is scientifically designed to push the boundaries of your understanding of reality. However, unlike some sequences in Pirates of the Caribbean, I felt that "The Lone Ranger" rarely pushed the envelope too far, despite some events being entirely dictated by luck or some supernatural force. The action sequences were epic and engaging without going too far.

However, one scene in this movie, near the end, almost killed the critic in me. Tonto is on a train which is driving down the rails near another train. The other train has a pile of rocks in cargo. Tonto needs to get to the other train. So what else could he do but jump one hundred feet off of a bridge and land, feet first, on the pile of rocks in the cargo? These scenes are not bad because they disengage the audience from the movie. In most cases they don't. However, this scene was an absolute failure of directing and screenwriting. They literally could not think of any other way for Tonto to get to that goddamn train. The fall would have killed him three times over if he was falling into a lake, much less onto the back of a goddamn cargo train. For shame, Hollywood. You had a fresh, well-paced action adventure and you couldn't resist throwing in some stupid bullshit.

Armie Hammer and Johnny Depp trade lines in every scene, showing their acting prowess in a variety of situations. Johnny Depp is best in roles that portray characters that are mostly crazy, but with enough charm to be universally loved. Despite Tonto's one-word descriptions of most scenarios, Depp still gives a great performance. I will not comment on whether or not the portrayal is racist or offensive or an affront to human dignity, because I really don't know. Tonto did succumb to several hurtful Native American stereotypes, but the story is extremely sympathetic and surprisingly accurate about the plight of minorities during this time. White men slaughter Indians, Indians attack settlements, and Chinese are little more than cannon fodder to get shot at railroads to get the country built for the benefit of people that are not Chinese.

"The Lone Ranger" earns my ranking of Watch It for storytelling, excellent pacing and action scenes, and great acting, including a few memorable scenes with Helena Bonham Carter. Oh, I didn't mention Carter is in this? You saw the commercials that said Johnny Depp is in this, are you surprised? Those two need to get surgery to get their damn hips separated.

Until next time, what are your thoughts on the movie? I love to hear the opinions!
-kmaker

King Kong-Racist or Revolutionary?

King Kong is a story that has been remade more than Friday the 13th, and I'd like to find out why.

In Quentin Tarantino's 2009 movie "Inglourious Basterds," there is a scene that takes place in a basement bar involving several Jewish American soldiers disguised as Nazis playing a drinking game with a famous German film actress and a high-ranking SS officer. God, I love Tarantino.

The game involves placing the name of a famous person, real or fictional, on one's head and attempting to guess what the name is through a series of questions. The SS officer determines that his person-King Kong, unbeknownst to him-lived in the jungle, was taken away for the profit of other people, and arrived in America in chains. After determining that his person was not, in fact, the story of the Negro in America, the officer announces that he "must be King Kong."

Now, this is one of those moments which Tarantino uses to point out how much smarter he is than everyone else at understanding movies, but I love Quentin enough to let it slide. In fact, I completely agree that the parallels between King Kong and slavery are quite prominent. However, I believe that the parallels run deeper than that.

Why is King Kong scary? Not because he is a giant monster rampaging through a city, but because he is black. Allow me to explain.

There is an unfortunate trope in Hollywood that directors don't want to show black people "taking our white women." Unless they are Will Smith. Cracked.com wrote an interesting article about it here:

http://www.cracked.com/article_19549_5-old-timey-prejudices-that-still-show-up-in-every-movie.html

Before I proceed, I would like to establish that the racial undertones to the King Kong story go far beyond the idiotic and racist "apes look like black people" concept. King Kong is not a slave allegory because of his appearance, but rather because of the story parallels described by a Nazi in a Tarantino movie. While Tarantino has not always been at the forefront of racial sensitivity, the King Kong theory definitely holds water when compared based solely on story. King Kong was taken from the jungle in chains and transported to an American port for the financial benefit of white men. Are we clear? Good.

Now, King Kong is a truly memorable and effective story based on the tropes mentioned above, ergo, King Kong is black. While watching Peter Jackson's 2005 remake "King Kong," I noticed that Ann Darrow HAD to be a beautiful, blonde, white woman. I figured that her appearance probably developed from attempting to emulate Marilyn Monroe's appearance as perhaps the most famous American pin-up girl.

However, I started to think that her appearance was more meaningful than that, and I had to come up with enough thoughts to put into a blog post. King Kong falls in love with Ann, and Ann looks into Kong's eyes and sees a creature so close to humanity that she can feel the emotions he feels. She sees an intelligent, caring creature that truly loves her and is willing to do anything to protect her, despite the bubbling rage within him. She sees something that no one else could possibly see and, Stockholm Syndrome or not, starts to care for the great monster.

Unfortunately for these star-crossed lovers, this was 1933. America barely considered black people to be of the the same species as white people. They were much less willing to acknowledge a giant killer ape as a person capable of emotion and even thought. Even today, there are still people out there that fill with rage at the very idea of interracial marriage. These people are what I like to call "Southerners or grandparents or over-privileged white assholes." 

So, when we see the army chasing King Kong through New York with guns, tanks, and airplanes, they are not defending the city from a monster, they are defending the poor, defenseless white girl in the brute's hand. They cannot allow this escaped slave to make off with one their white women! They are defending American idealism for God's sake! USA! USA! I found it particularly interesting that the white boys in the airplanes are the final attack on Kong, in a movie that takes place eight years before the Tuskegee Airmen first took flight.

So, does this make the story of King Kong racist? In my opinion, no. While there are so many incarnations of Kong throughout pop culture that some of them are shown as mindless brutes, but the true story of King Kong is a love story as well as a tragedy. Two lovers from opposite ends of the world struggling against the cruel way of the world to find happiness despite what "society" deems is appropriate. Sadly, their love was never meant to last, and death follows them inevitably. In Peter Jackson's "King Kong" especially, Kong is shown as a troubled, caring monster that struggles with his own emotions but knows that he loves Ann more than he cares for his own safety. The audience is allowed to empathize with Kong more than any character in the movie.

"King Kong" is so revolutionary because it has always been a beautiful love story posing as a monster movie. Despite the similarities and equal cultural relevance the movie holds with Godzilla, they could not be more different. Kong is nothing more than a lover fighting against societies conventions but is tragically killed by society.

The final scene of "King Kong" has always been poignant and moving. Kong is on top of an enormous skyscraper, fighting airplanes while trying to keep Ann safe. Kong is repeatedly shot, and looks down to see the pain and anguish Ann is experiencing. Kong looks into her eyes and loves her so much that he is forced to give up the fight and loses his grip on the building. He falls to his death in the middle of New York and the audience is left with that timeless quote, "It wasn't the airplanes...it was Beauty killed the Beast."

King Kong is a moving, powerful story that has been told for almost a century and will be told for years to come. It tackles the paranoia and fear of white men against a physically superior "black" monster. It allows the audience to empathize with a vicious monster and root for him against all of societies destructive pressures. Most importantly, it shows that even though the monster loses, society is not always right. Sometimes cultural prejudices must be overcome to truly understand the rest of the world. Therefore, King Kong is one of the most revolutionary, racially-charged movies of the early 1900s.

Also, I would have to rate Peter Jackson's "King Kong" as See It because of a few odd scenes that throw off the flow of the movie and the fact that it's over three hours long. Not at all bad, but maybe not necessarily worth that much time.

Until next time, what are your thoughts on the movie? I love to hear the opinions!
-kmaker

World War Z-Thrill A Minute, Because Pacing Doesn't Matter

Like every zombie pandemic movie ever, but not classic or humorous.

"World War Z" follows Gerry Lane as he struggles to protect his family in the midst of a vicious pandemic that transforms the world's population into vicious, man-eating beasts. So nothing new there. Brad Pitt stars as Gerry, who is forced to step back into his old job as a vaguely-identified "investigator" for the UN to attempt to track down the source of the infection. Gerry travels around the world to discover the cause of the zombie apocalypse while trying to keep himself and his family alive.

I didn't like this movie that much. It may seem like I'm discussing my feelings on the film too early, but at least I presented an entire paragraph worth of supplementary information before doing so. I cannot say the same for "World War Z." The movie starts off with a series of vague newspaper headings and news reports discussing outbreaks of rabies and infections around the world before the title screen is shown. The footage then rapidly cuts to an innocent suburban family scene with Gerry Lane and his wife being awoken early in the morning by their two rambunctious young daughters. The children then immediately demand pancakes, which Gerry happily makes for them as the family goes about its morning business. They then proceed out to the streets to contend with early morning traffic.

This is approximately 90 seconds into the movie. The family is playing 20 questions in the car and just generally doing their damnedest to be adorable. However, outside, things are starting to look vaguely threatening. Traffic is backed up for miles and people are beginning to run down the sidewalk for reasons that are not apparent even to them. A police officer in a motorcycle rushes past the car and takes off Gerry's side-view mirror to general confusion. As Gerry steps outside and has a brief conversation with a fellow commuter, it becomes apparent that nobody has any fucking clue what is going on.

Not to be deterred by a complete lack of foreshadowing outside of the opening credits, the movie barrels down the tracks full speed and the city is overtaken. A random explosion caused by nothing is seen in the distance and a police officer orders Gerry back into his car and is immediately pulverized by a runaway truck. The truck, either driven by a zombie or driven by some dumb ass freaking out at the extremely early stages of apocalypse, then proceeds to tear through dozens of cars and human lives, clearing a path for Gerry and his family to escape from the debilitating traffic jam. The family crashes and forced to continue on foot as hundreds of people are already infected and taking down civilians.

This is about seven minutes into the movie. Come on, Hollywood, give me some foreplay for God's sake.

The movie progresses as rapidly as the imagined virus does: overly fast, without direction, and poorly executed. The action sequences are tense and engaging, but I found myself caring less and less as the film progressed. Gerry attempts to follow a trail of clues that leads him from an aircraft carrier off the American coast to South Korea, where the dumbest scene in the movie occurs.

In the plane headed to South Korea, where the virus possibly began, Gerry speaks with the leading virologist in charge of studying the pandemic. This guy is a fucking creep. He gives Gerry a three-and-a-half minute diatribe on the methods used by "Mother Nature" to attack the human race. He grins from ear to ear describing Mother Nature as the greatest serial killer. Really? As if a large majority of biological terrors on the planet were not invented and manipulated. by humans for the purpose of murdering millions of other humans. Psychopathic rant on how "Mother Nature is a bitch that loooooooves disguising her weaknesses as strengths" aside, the young Frankenstein doesn't turn out to be much of a scientist. The dumbest scene in the movie is set: the plane lands on a runway in South Korea, the night is dark and stained with pouring rain. The door underneath the rear end of the plane descends to the ground, releasing soldiers who stand ready to defend Gerry and the virologist from zombies. They mostly fail at this task, and one of the trained and experienced soldiers is easily murdered by a single zombie. The scientist, frightened by the combat, runs back up the ramp which, despite being UNDERNEATH an entire plane, is suddenly slick with rainwater. He falls and consequently shoots himself in the head with his own gun. So dies humanity's last hope.

Gerry quickly recovers from this minor setback, continuing the investigation with no former knowledge of virology, traveling from Korea to Israel and eventually to an WHO where the climax of the movie takes place. While the ending to "World War Z" is more original than the paths most zombie infection movies take, it cannot make up for the fact that the movie is disjointed and dysfunctional, the plot line is as thin and wavering as a kite string, and action sequences fall flat when there is little engaging storytelling to hang them on.
Additionally, I found that the zombies, being completely CGI failed to have any weight or realism in their actions. Despite the clear violence and aggression shown by the individuals in the mob, the mob itself seems like less of an inevitable force and more like a pile of nearly-liquid rag dolls being rolled down a hill. Also, the developmental hell and multiple rewrites and reworkings that the story underwent was extremely apparent in the viewing.

For disengaged storytelling and poor execution, I give "World War Z" a ranking of Avoid It. While mildly interesting at times, the movie just overall fails to properly convey a cohesive message to the audience. Not worth the time lost or the price of admission.

Until next time, what are your thoughts on the movie? I love to hear the opinions!
-kmaker

Warm Bodies-A Delightful Zomb-Rom-Com

And the blokes behind "Shaun of the Dead" thought they were clever.

"Warm Bodies" is one of the few films in recent years that explores a territory that is truly unexplored in the world of movies. How many movies, outside of porn, feature a human kissing a zombie? Truly remarkable stuff. This film is not satisfied to skirt by on novelty, however, and also features great acting performances matched with well-executed cinematography, writing, and music to make a memorable film.

"Warm Bodies" begins with the internal monologue of one of the millions of zombies wandering the earth, shuffling from place to place until hunger draws them closer to human dwellings. I was immediately hooked. R, the protagonist, describes the way he goes about each and every day which is, indeed, the same as every other zombie. R takes up his residence in an airport with dozens of others, but R is inherently different. In addition to the fact that we, the audience, are inside his head, we also see that he enjoys his own private residence in an airplane and enjoys hoarding away trinkets from the world before it was destroyed. Like WALL-E, but a zomb-E.

"Warm Bodies" follows the adventures of R as he falls in love with a living human girl, Julie, and saves her from the rest of the zombie population while taking her as a pseudo-prisoner in his home. He provides for her every need and always attempts to "stop being creepy" while around her. Interesting concerns for a zombie. Julie undergoes a strange Stockholm Syndrome in which she is at first understandably terrified of R but soon sees that he is different from the others. R protects Julie and loves her, so much so that he begins to come back to life. R inspires other zombies to do the same, and the zombie population begins to regain its humanity.

A movie in which an actor plays a zombie that is able to talk for most of the movie seems like an opportunity for overacting and cheesy dialogue, but Nicholas Hoult portrays R very believably, and the progression from a zombie to a human seems not only natural, but inevitable. The dialogue offers many laughs and the casting was generally superb.

What is fascinating about this film is that humans are not even onscreen for the first ten minutes, and I already found myself empathizing with R in his continual restlessness as he shuffled among the other zombies. This empathy for zombies is the root of the movie, and allows the audience to not only connect with R, but with the entire zombie population.

Another interesting thing about this movie is that it may be the first movie featuring zombies in which precisely 0 of the antagonists are zombies. The problem of "Who's the antagonist then?" is solved by the "Bonies." Bonies are the zombies of the zombies, un-dead people that gave up on any attempt at humanity and ate any extraneous flesh off of their own bodies until they were nothing more than bones and muscle. Bonies are faster and more vicious than any zombie, and are obviously willing to consume zombie-flesh.

The most important aspect of this movie is that it flips the script on everything we have been taught about zombies and movie monsters in general. Not only does a zombie fall in love with a human girl, but he inspires others to do the same. The zombies have their own monsters to be wary of. We empathize with zombies so much that we begin to view humans as the enemies until one of them learns to have sympathy for a zombie herself. Several mediums have shown us the concept of a group of humans disguising themselves and walking among a large group of zombies, such as "Shaun of the Dead" and "The Walking Dead," but "Warm Bodies allows the opportunity for R to walk unnoticed among the humans as he becomes more and more lifelike.

The movie pays its tributes to George A. Romero, advocating the stern "Zombies can't run" rule...until they are no longer zombies. And the movie even makes fun of this rule in one of the earliest scenes: as R and a group of "friends" begin their long march to the city, the narration remarks "God, we move slow. This might take a while..." Another classic zombie trope that is turned on its head is the concept of "BRAAAAAAINSSSSS." Zombies still eat brains in this world, but for entirely different reasons. When zombies eat human brains, they catch glimpses of the memories of that person's life. This seems like a strange idea to throw into an already strange movie until R is able to see through the eyes of a person he killed and witness himself as a monster. "Warm Bodies" changes the perspective on zombies in so many ways that it could almost create a new genre in itself.

The "rom" part of zomb-rom-com, a term I came up with myself but honestly probably didn't, is also handled quite well. Just another way in which this movie flips expectations around is that R manages to fill all the rolls held by Edward Cullen but much better. R protects Julie, provides for her, loves her, and watches her while she sleeps because he cannot. Edward does like, half of these things. And when R watches Julie sleep, it's endearing and not fucking creepy like Edward. Fuck vampires. No, don't fuck vampires, I meant...forget it.

The movie is often self-referential in its humor, including a scene in which R is about to be given a makeover to appear human and "Pretty Woman" begins playing in the background. However, Julie cuts the montage short by saying its "not funny" and the music is changed. The way in which the zombies are shown coming to life, namely, by a large animation of a glowing heart in their chest beginning to beat, is a bit cartoonish but enjoyable nonetheless. I noticed a scene near the end of the movie that was obviously and overtly reminiscent of "Romeo and Juliet," in which the girl is sitting wistfully upon her balcony, daydreaming of her lover who appears just below her and calls her name in the night.

This may be obvious to many of you already, but it took me a full eighty minutes to realize that "R and Julie" was, in fact-shock and awe!-"Romeo and Juliet." It may seem paltry and a little bit lame, but the concepts fit the ideals of the movie. The Montagues and the Capulets are now the humans and the zombies. The funny part is that the zombies accept Julie much faster and with much less pressure than the humans are able to accept the zombies. However, this movie has a much different and much more cheerful ending then the classic tragedy.

"Warm Bodies" is a thought-provoking and entertaining film, showing the extents of love on a battlefield to the inherent awkwardness of young men, regardless of vital signs. This movie earns a Watch It rating, and I would definitely recommend it for a first date...if your date doesn't mind a touch of gore with their rom-com. And really, why would you?

Until next time, what are your thoughts on "Warm Bodies?" I love to hear the opinions!
-kmaker

Source Code-OK, Hang On Just 8 Minutes...

Not a review, more of a demand...

"Source Code" is an action thriller starring Jake Gyllenhaal as Colter Stevens, a army helicopter pilot who finds himself suddenly thrust into a government program in which his mind is supplanted into the body of a man who died in a tragic train bombing. However, he only has eight minutes in the body for each jump before he is ripped away from the memory and forced to start again. Colter has to discover the cause of the bombing and its bomber and relay the information to the technicians who are communicating with him in the interrim and help prevent further terrorist attacks.

This premise may seem like a lot to swallow, especially since I'm not that great of a writer. However, the action sequences are tense and thematic, the dialogue is smartly written, and Mr. Gylenhaal gives a great performance as the struggling pilot attempts to make sense of the events on the train.

Now, I'm not going to go into the details of the plot because this is not a review, I just have a bone to pick with this movie.

SPOILERS: I have already spoiled some things in the other movies I have reviewed, but this is a suspenseful sci-fi action thriller, so I feel obligated to warn those that haven't seen it, for it is definitely worth a See It rating...I guess I lied about this being a review.  Also, for anyone who has seen this movie or plans on seeing it, I would love to hear your theories on this movie, because I am honestly a little lost.

Now, my issue with this movie comes from the mechanics of the Source Code machine, which is able to project Colter's mind into the body of the man he is controlling, Sean. Now, the creepy inventor of Source Code, who seems to be attempting to act as if he is equal parts Agent Smith and Severus Snape, details that the machine works by accessing the eight minutes of short-term memory stored in the mind of Sean before he died, thus the time limit. So at first, it appears that the machine is nothing more than a simulation based on the data provided by Sean's mind, which is what Colter initially believes.

HOWEVER, this makes no sense at all, because Colter is privy to plenty of information that Sean could not possibly have seen or known before he died, including the location of the bomb and plenty of environmental information of events that occurred outside of the train. Colter is able to roam freely within and without the train, and unless Sean scanned his eyes over every inch of the surrounding world during his eight minutes, this cannot be a simulation.

The inventor later states that Source Code is actually giving Colter access to an alternate reality...this is extremely different from just accessing the memory of Sean's deceased mind. Regardless, I think I can assume that the machine somehow generates a parallel reality from the information of Sean's brain, while not actually using the memories stored therein. Okay, that's a little more involved and a little less explained, but it's a movie, right?

Now, keeping in mind that Colter is able to view and interact with the alternate reality generated by the Source Code device, the inventor still clearly states that the world within the source code, but Colter comes convinced otherwise. After completing the mission of gaining the necessary information, Colter reenters the machine saying he is going to save everyone on the train, including the woman he has fallen in love with. Colter succeeds in his task and stops the bomb within the alternate world as his body dies within his own world. Even after he succeeds, Colter expects the world to be once again ripped away from him.

However, the simulation does not end. Colter finds that he is able to continue living as Sean, despite the intended purpose of Source Code. The machine has somehow managed to transport Colter into a world in which he is able to stop the terrorist attack and sends a message to the technician that helped him get there, telling her that "Source Code worked even better than you imagined."

So what the hell happened? Did Source Code just manage to manufacture an entirely real, alternate reality from nothing? How did the inventor think he was creating a simulation generated from the short-term memory and instead become the God of an entire dimension? 

Also, at the end of the movie, Colter is walking in Chicago and sees a shiny metal monument in the park that he, as well as the audience, realizes that he caught glimpses of as he jumped in and out of Sean's mind multiple times. So how the hell did that happen? Is Source Code not only able to generate entire universes, but also able to show the user flashes of the best possible reality that could exist within the constraints of some dead guy's mind? 

Now, I'm not saying this makes "Source Code" a bad movie-in fact, you should See It-but this brings up too many questions for me to ignore. I'm already making concessions for the fact that Gylenhaal gets to steal Sean's body away and make off with the girl that already wanted to bang him. I like the ending to the movie, but I feel as if I was tricked by the premise of the Source Code device, and just saying "It worked better than we thought" is not good enough to satisfy the movie critic in me.

Maybe you guys know what's up?

Until next time, what are your thoughts on the film? I love to hear the opinions!

-kmaker

Cloud Atlas-A Metaphysical Dance Across Time

If I had a religion, it would be Cloud Atlas.

"Cloud Atlas" is a movie that attempts to reach further than most movies have any right to. Adapted from the novel of the same name, the film weaves together six narratives that span the course of thousands of years, from a 19th century ship upon the Pacific to a post-apocalyptic future. I will not bother to attempt to explain the plot, because each time period has its own story line and unique characters that would take an entire novel to explain-go figure.

However, the stories manage to fit into the medium of a movie nonetheless-albeit a movie almost three hours in length. The movie features the acting of Tom Hanks, Halle Berry, and Hugo Weaving, among others. Each actor plays several characters, which perfectly fits into the film because each actor is representative of the reincarnated soul of the characters, so we are able to see how the soul progresses throughout the ages. This is the true magic of this movie, as the characters are so well fleshed out that each could be described as 3-dimensional, but should instead be described as 4-dimensional, because the souls are the true characters that bend and weave through time as many different characters.

The main theme of the movie is the distinction between "Us and Them." "Cloud Atlas" shows that this distinction is a complete falsehood, as in another life, you could be one of "Them" and they could be "Us." All barriers are an illusion, and in the grand scheme of the history of the world, race and gender are just characteristics that can easily be changed in the next lifetime. The movie shows slavery, homophobia, discrimination against women, discrimination against the elderly, fabricants forced into a new form of slavery, and the distinction between Islanders on Hawaii and the race of futuristic beings that live above them. All of these differences are meaningless, because in the end, all souls are equally valuable and bodies are just vessels for the "stuff" that is human life.

The first forty-five minutes of this movie are incredibly confusing, as the film quickly jumps through all six narratives without much explanation. The six stories describe Adam Ewing on a sailing ship to San Fransisco, a young bisexual composer in Europe, a female reporter working in California, an elderly British man, a cloned Korean woman in Neo Seoul, and a tribal goat-herder living in a demolished Hawaii.  The stories span the centuries but are united through the incredible use of themes that fill in gaps in the narratives by showing how the characteristics of these people are reverberated throughout time.

Tom Hanks easily gives the best performances of the movie, and each of his characters shows the true scope of his acting abilities. For example, Hanks starts out as a slimy, racist doctor who befriends Ewing during their voyage. He later appears as a reserved scientist who quickly falls in love with reporter Luisa Rey, played by Halle Berry. His next role is a spurned, vulgar British novelist who casually murders a critic who gave his book a bad review. Hanks' final role in the movie shows him as a goat-herder in post-apocalyptic Hawaii who once again meets Halle Berry in the form of Meronym, a woman from a race of people with superior technology who are separated from the island dwellers.

Tom Hanks' roles are so incredible in this film because his character arc does not confine itself to one lifetime, but rather all the lifetimes that we view throughout the movie. Hanks plays some truly despicable characters, but he is later shown as a good man plagued by guilt and fear. The character arc shows how an evil man can seek redemption, even if it takes thousands of years.

The most visually gripping story by far is the tale of Sonmi-451, played by Doona Bae-a fantastic South Korean actress-a "fabricant," or clone, living in a futuristic version of Seoul, South Korea. This part of the movie is directed by the Wachowskis, and they show they still have the ability to create a fantastic setting for the story. Neo Seoul feels like a massive, living city with transparent highways and high speed vehicles in a truly epic police chase as Sonmi is freed from her slavery as a fabricant and pursued by authorities. Hae-Joo frees Sonmi from her captivity and shows her the real world while falling in love with her. Sonmi is eventually able to release her Orison to the world, a proclamation that details her understanding of life and the world. "Our bodies are not our own," she states. Every sin and every kindness affects all the people around us, and those actions reverberate throughout all of time.

Sonmi's story is truly moving because it once again shows the power of this movie. We see Sonmi executed for her crimes against the established order of the world, and we see Hae-Joo brutally murdered in battle. Sonmi states that she still loves Hae-Joo and, in fact, she will always love him. As we see both these lovers die, we see their souls, thousands of years earlier, reunited in San Francisco. Adam Ewing and his wife meet once again and it seems that the dead are resurrected decades before they were even born.

"Cloud Atlas" is an incredible story, and I could honestly write about it for hours, especially if there is any aspect of the story that you would like to discuss in the comments. This movie earns a Watch It Twice and then some, and is probably my top movie of 2012.

Until next time, give me your thoughts on the film. I love to hear your opinions!
-kmaker