The Spiderwick Chronicles

I saw this on DVD just recently. This is a well made film and is certainly worth a rent for an afternoon of getting your fantasy geek on. It's got good effects and it isn't light on being a little dangerous. The only downfalls to it are the two boy actors whose inexperience on screen really make it tough to champion them and the sister who as a character is so annoying. The story is taken from a children's series for young readers and it shows. I have no involvement or much care for the 'plot' nor the hokey mom doing what's best for her kids even if they hate her because dad is a womanizing jerk that has no cares for his kids once they are out of sight and out of mind subplot. Yeesh. That said though, it's a decent laundry movie.

I give Spiderwick Chronicles a 3 out of 5 stars.

The Happening

Oh M. Night, why do you do this to me? This is going to be a bit of a short review because I'm at work, but I had to get this out there. DO NOT SEE THIS MOVIE! I saw this yesterday and I honestly can't think of one good thing to say about it. I am a fan of Mark Wahlberg, especially after his role in The Departed, but this was some of the worst acting I've ever seen. The same goes for Zooey Deschanel and John Leguizamo. Totally unbelievable. The plot was so incredibly predictable that it was hard to remember that this was written by the same man that gave us The Sixth Sense! I won't give it away for those that still want to see this, but there were several times that I said "Really?" out loud. The worst part is, it was totally left open for The Happening 2. I would have rather been watching old reruns of What's Happening! "Hey hey hey!" The bottom line is, I give this .5 out of 5 stars

Iron Man

So the good news is Iron Man is a big bunch of Saturday fun out at the movies. There are good laughs and there is great action and special fx, and there are more quiet character driven moments that remind me a lot of similar scenes from the best of the Spider-Man flicks.

This is a film that does have a few nitpicks with some of the standard Marvel Comic ways of film making. Though, good news, it is by pure force of will and guts that these are soundly over come by the aggressive style of Robert Downey Jr. as Tony Stark / Iron Man and director John Favreau who creates some solid practical effects instead of overusing CGI. Favreau also is pro active in not making Iron Man yet another Marvel Zombie film by making the film a sci-fi / tech / geek / gear head adventure rather than a superhero film. This allows him to massage his way past some of the worst offending cliches of such films and move it into a more real world / real film scenario, and for the most part it works. You find yourself caught up in the characters and what's going on more than you are caught up in spectacle ala Transformers. Robert Downey pushes the film along so fast and so intensely that when it's over, after nearly 2 hours, you feel like you're just getting warmed up for the big event, and after the credits you find out what that big event will be by the time Iron Man 2 and 3 roll around with a nice cameo from Samuel L. Jackson as Nick Fury as portrayed in the Ultimates comic book universe that Marvel runs outside the continuity of the regular Marvel universe - where Nick Fury is a fifty something white guy. Mark Millar and Bryan Hitch basically drew Nick Fury as Jackson in this comics universe that is more tied into the Marvel movie universe as we shall see with the Hulk, Thor, Captain America and Avengers flicks.

Alongside the DC Batman and Superman franchises, this is a good example of how you do a comic book adaptation correctly. Favreau and Downey went so far as to bring in the current creators of the Iron Man continuity to be a think tank and script advisers. They also hired in top talent from Industrial Light and Magic as well as having top actors in all key roles in the film. Suddenly they have a film that people want to see, that's well made, that's not dumbed down and that is respectful of the source material. Wow. Imagine. It's big box office and on top of that, was not affected at all by the release of other popular video games and movies at the same time! So now finally, the big realization has forced its way into Hollywood execs brains - you do a comic book movie on the cheap and it's a dud, you treat it and its fans with respect and top quality and you're rolling in the dough... and how long did that take?

This summer we're getting Iron Man, Batman, Narnia, a Will Smith Superhero flick and The Hulk. Way to go Hollywood... now if you can just put together in your head the idea that when you release months worth of crap films, no one goes to the movies... because they're crap films you might actually find a way to make a consistent dollar and become an art form instead of just a feature length trailer for folks to buy the DVD...

So... go see Iron Man if you have any need to see wide screen sci-fi / comic book guys throwing down with big bad super villains - you will have fun.

I give Iron Man 4.5 out of 5 stars, way up. Robert Downey is Tony Stark and an acting force to watch out for in the future.

The Orphanage (El Orfanato)

Available at Amazon HERE
This is a Spanish Language film produced and presented by Guillermo Del Toro (Hell Boy, Pan's Labyrinth) and directed by new Spanish director Juan Antonio Bayona. As with Pan's, there isn't an English dub, merely English subtitles, but as with Pan's, this is no detriment to the film and after the first ten minutes you'll forget that you're reading subtitles.

The film is a mystery / thriller / horror film. Not so much a who dunnit, but a what happened? It also is a bit of ghost movie and in that regard, it does some good spooking. It's not about shocking violence in the way Pan's tended to be, but it's more of a what's around the corner kind of scary. It's very character driven with the central heroine played by Belén Rueda. It focuses on her and her family and the life they hope to kick start by taking over a long dormant orphanage that she was raised in.

The plot of the movie is Rueda trying to establish a school for mentally challenged children at this orphanage while trying to deal with the HIV+ young adopted son of her own. The boy begins to have some very strong relationships with invisible friends and Rueda begins to wonder just how much of this is true and how much is it her son's imagination. When her son goes missing, she uses police detectives as well as psychics to help her find him. From there it's one creepy piece of the puzzle after another.

There is a nice twist in the film, more subtle than say The Sixth Sense, but when you get to it, it's pretty jaw dropping as you immediately start piecing together the ramifications of the reveal... then there's the ending... where you go... oh sh!t... one more time.

The acting is uniformly strong, the children are creepy and the medium in a trance going through the house is very creepy and unnerving. The only role that really didn't need to be there was her husband. Compliant, ambivalent and ready to bale out is all he's about and with a tweak here and there, they could have written that part out all together. The mother is very strong and from the DVD extras, such a strong performance and such a strong script are not common in Spain... and I'm not sure why that would be or why they would so strongly underscore that in the extra making of featurettes. The only way it could have been a stronger film would have been to have a stronger director rather than a first timer, but with del Toro behind the scenes, there was a strong guiding hand.

And! I can finally say... this is a REAL horror film. It doesn't rely on gore or torture and it's actually scary and spooky and just that kind of thrill ride when you really want something solid and well done. There is some CGI, but it's not the main thrust of any of the effects. On their budget, the CGI went, apparently, to stuff like making the house big enough and that type of stuff. So kudos there as well.

I was not sure what to expect from this film, but Mr. del Toro is batting a thousand with this release following up Pan's. The pair together would make a nice weekend's entertainment.

I give The Orphanage a 4.5 out of 5. Great solid horror film here without relying on the torture of women and gore. I would give it a five, but I know that some out there really hate reading their films, but this one is worth it.

Cloverfield DVD

From Amazon HERE
So I spent an hour and a half watching Cloverfield. Sigh. What it is: a proof of concept of a good idea. What it's not: A good movie. Well, okay, it is well made, it's an interesting idea, but the final product just really doesn't deliver what you want from such a movie.

CF is a monster movie. We know this by now, so no spoilers there, and it's shot from the first person perspective of a character named HUD (Heads Up Display to you first person shooter fans) who is apparently using a wide screen cinema camera. Which everyone is commonly equipped with, not a regular video, standard perspective, camera. It uses state of the art technology to bring a monster the size of the twin towers to life in the middle of Manhattan. Okay... so far so good, but first we have to get to know the characters and understand their inter relationships... and then we have to have a reason for them to run around downtown while the monster is rampaging. Ok check... we got all that. Should make for a heck of a scare film with popcorn just being gobbled nonstop.

Well, the execution of the idea makes you put your popcorn to the side as the herky jerky camera work ala Blair Witch just makes you want to puke in your shoes. By the end I did have a headache from the nonstop camera bouncing. To make matters worse, instead of it being a chance to really give the viewer a tunnel view into what is going on by picking very specific shots, you get shots of the ground, of the dark, of peoples shoes, people across the way, the sky, etc. What you don't get is shots of the monster or the military fighting the monster even when those elements are within mere feet of the camera man. In a monster movie with state of the art special effects, I want to have the camera whirl up to show me a monster wailing away just above me while I poop my pants from the vertigo of such a huge beast. I also don't want twenty minutes of shots of the hapless victims while they tell us why they have a reason to flee together. I want monsters, I want fleeing, I want cars being thrown and buildings being stepped on when I pay to see a good monster movie.

The other bad thing is many many times the film jumps the shark in the decisions the characters make. When the army is evacuating everyone and all points lead out and you know that loved ones are probably dead, okay... the hero might go on, but most likely everyone is going to get on the first flight out and the army probably wouldn't have it any other way. The characters also like to stand in the middle of the path or road where everyone else going the right way has to smack into them and push them. They also go to a near collapsed building on the vain hope that a friend is alive, climb 52 floors, climb over to that building, find her with a rod through her, pull her off the rod, and she gamely retraces the route and is never plagued by said wound for the rest of the film. This among many ridiculous plot turns makes you just want to turn the film off, and there were many times when they were shooting endless shots of dark that I almost did.

The monster is also lame. It's built anatomically strange, it's a sea creature, but instead of staying in the water, it went up on the land and started wailing away, which I don't blame it, especially after the army started shooting rockets into it.

On the geek side, there are some interesting things to see as a proof of concept, but you know what? I'm frickin' sick and tired of all the sci fi and horror films being released currently being good ideas expanded into a feature film. Could you just think it through one time?

I rate 2 out of 5. For DIE HARD monster film fans only.

The Martian Child DVD

As a fan of John Cusack, and yes I'm still waiting for a truly great film from him, I rented this combined with the fact that it is based on a true story, more or less, of David Gerrold who, among many other things, wrote the Star Trek episode, The Trouble With Tribbles. He took on the challenge of adopting a boy from a foster home as a single father after the death of his wife.

The movie is pretty much that same scenario, with Cusack taking on a child to kind of fill in the hole left by his wife's death. The kid being eight and bounced around in foster care was a big enough challenge, but like Gerrold, he also took on the challenge of a boy so emotionally abused that the boy took on the reality that he must be from another planet. This boy believes, as much as a mentally and emotionally abused child might, that he is from Mars, complete with hiding from the sun and wearing affectations to complete his fantasy.

Now with this you could have one of three films. The Hallmark channel film, The Lifetime channel film or a gutsy indy film about the struggles of the day to day care of such a special needs child. Now I'm going to say that what we wound up with was pretty solidly a Hallmark channel film that never really challenges you or the characters and all is well at the end. That being said, the tone of the film is fine, the acting is fine, particularly of the odd, Martian boy as played by Bobby Coleman. He deserves high praise for his ability to control and improv his character though being only eight years old. It's worth it to see this performance alone. There is also a good turn by sister Joan Cusack who is really begging to be given something more to do in this film as she chews her way scene to scene and by Amanda Peet (Saving Silverman, Igby Goes Down, The Whole Nine Yards) as John's love interest.

The film is engaging and worth a look as a passing some time laundry film for Cusack fans, but I really would have liked to see the nuts and bolts of this relationship. The guy is an author on deadline and he's trying to take care of a seriously emotionally helpless little boy who was just dumped somewhere with his sister (and where is she?) and apparently tried out and returned by at least one prospective adoptive family, I mean there is more than enough meat here for a really serious drama, with some comedy... the stuff he does as a Martian is pretty cool for an eight year old actor... and I really would have liked to see that movie much more than this one. In that regard, if you ask yourself if this another half hearted attempted at creativity by Hollywood, well yes.

(Isn't it something like 85% of Hollywood output is rated generally poor in an average consensus like at Rotten Tomatoes? And they wonder why American box office is in a slump? But I digress...)

So I give it 2 of 5 stars, 3 if your a Cusack fan just for a breezy, generally good family type film that you can watch in a group or casually ignore as you do laundry.

No Country For Old Men

The latest Ethan Brothers film makes it way to DVD under the heavy heavy accolades of critics and the nods of the Oscar nominating committees. It's exactly what they are saying the movie is and it is exactly not what the audience is expecting to see. This is no Raising Arizona with humorous quirky twists through out, this is a serious dramatic turn that is more about the creation of their art than it is making an audience pleasing film. Each scene is carefully measured and staged and every look or glance of the ensemble has weight and merit. This is not to say that it is a heavy, ponderous film, but that it is a showcase for young directors on how to make the most of what they have. In many scenes the first thought I had was, 'this is a Quinton Tarentino scene'. And that's not necessarily a bad thing. It means that scenes take time to show you very specific things like boots walking or wind blowing or the expanse of the desert. There is as much story there as there is in what the actors do or say. Many scenes though were almost copies of things Tarentino has done in Kill Bill. The attitude, preciseness, the choice of subject to follow was very Kill Bill except for the sudden switches to other scenes equally in your face.

The performances are perfect. Josh Brolin... who knew the kid from The Goonies could act? You don't even realize it's him until you kind of recognize him from Planet Terror or American Gangster. This is an amazing performance alongside equally good turns from Tommy Lee Jones and the incredibly creepy villain Anton Chigurh as played by Javier Bardem (Love In The Time of Cholera). I believe each and every one of these characters. I don't necessarily like them all or think that they are all capable of doing what they are setting out to do, but I believe them in their world.

And it is violent. It's a game of finding a stash of money at a crime scene and trying to secure it and your family safely away from trouble. Unfortunately that may not be possible and even the kindly sheriff who never had to carry a gun may not be able to help. It's over the top in its gore as much as Kill Bill was, except there is no blatant in your face winking. It is not heroic. It tries to be heroic though, and it places it's characters in heroic situations, but it's all smoke through a key hole as they all race to figure out just where and who has this money.

The ending is not exactly satisfactory. When it ends you kind of don't realize that the stories over. You want to see it end the way your mind has been waiting for it to end. For me, it was a good ending. Most things are resolved and the story of the sheriff is wound down as well. I give it two thumbs way up, but with the caution that it is not a slam bang action adventure of guns and cowboys in the desert. It's a character portrait with a lot of violence and moodiness. It is definitely worth a rent, but it may not be the film advertised on TV. The studios made it seem to be more mainstream than it really is. But it's Cohen Brothers. How mainstream would it be?

I rate this: 4.5 out of 5 stars. Great performances and movie making, but it may not be quite what the general audience was expecting. Well worth it just for Josh Brolin's performance alone.

- Eddie Presley

Beowulf the DVD

This is a review of Beowulf as presented on DVD. It's an animated film from last year that so much hype was raised over. The question here though is not so much as what kind of film it was, but more along the lines of when does tech become a hindrance and not so much an aid. This film was more about watching a proof of concept than it was watching a story. As with Ratatouille, the question quickly arises, if you wanted that street background to be photo realistic down to the shine and rust on the shutters, why didn't you just film it? For Ratatouille however, it was a Disney / Pixar film and those questions about backgrounds and undergrounds were left there in the background, but for a film where you're being asked to believe in a near photo realistic world with accurately modeled and presented human beings, then you're asking me to sit there and judge not just the background, but everything in the film. And the answer is a resounding NO, the people do not look real and the world does not look real, nor does it look hyper stylized as an animated film typically would, particularly such a comic booky genre type film. I'm left to repeat that over and over again watching hands that don't quite connect or grasp, feet not exactly right on the ground, lips too big and out of sync. Now if this had been a hyper realistic comic booky world like Ratatouille and Toy Story, then I can forgive all of it as I become a part of a world defined by it's art and design where hands, feet and lips squish and expand of their own accord.

From there you drift into one question after the other about stuff that has nothing to do with the execution of the movie at all. First of all, you have all these great actors - Ray Winstone, Brendan Gleeson (of Mad-Eye Moody fame), Crispin Glover, John Malkovich, Anthony Hopkins among several more and you are going to spend the effort to film them perfectly and then rotoscope over them with only near perfect representations of themselves. Why? You have these guys live and in the flesh. You have a serious adaptation of a great Saga. Let them get on a sound stage and chew up the scenery with each other. It's like having all the great British actors found in the Harry Potter films but only having them in the films for like 5 minutes. These guys are a movie by themselves, just point a camera and shoot.

In the extras of the DVD, you see the director, Robert Zemeckis, telling his wide eyed actors on their first day, that yes this is an animated film, but you'll still be in make up for hours getting little dots each day, you'll be on a soundstage acting and speaking your parts that will be recorded and used, you'll be interacting with not just each other but full on props and animals, but you're in an animated film. Again. Why? Well, in another few breaths he says, after filming a massive boat in a storm scene that would have taken days and days to film for real, 'look how quickly this is getting done instead of taking weeks to film'. Then he goes on to express his great satisfaction at having 15 minute turn around times for set changes and stuff. So... the advantage to this is doing it on the cheap? Doing it fast? Well, I'm guessing you're now going into months and months of post production, no? You're going to pay an army of folk to create this entire world from scratch and animate this film. So have you really saved time? Saved money? Saved effort? I'm not so sure. If you're going to present a photo realistic animated film, why not just film it and have CGI effects ala LotR? That way, it looks, you know, real without having to generate by hand fake realness. Now if your going to make a unique hyper realistic world that we will become immersed in and want to be real, sure go for it. Create something new and something totally original that marks this film as it's own art and it's own imagination.

Another thing that bothered me technically about the film was Beowulf's privates - or more exactly the lack thereof. Beowulf purposely and sensually strips for the viewer and for the queen. He will fight for ten minutes following in the buff, but you will never see Beowulf actually nude. In fact, the film suddenly turns into an Austin Powers slapstick farce as every arm stump, leg stump, dagger, sword, table leg, shadow and passerby all amazingly just find themselves in the right position to cover Beowulf as he flings himself through the scene. Though, once every upright object he could hide behind is used up, they have to resort to the ridiculous poses Beowulf has to put himself into so that he isn't exposed to anyone.

Instead of these ridiculous stunts, why didn't they just leave him in a loincloth? They also do this with Anthony Hopkins with a very loose drape which should have been wrapped about him and stop all that hide and seek nonsense. The same for Angelina Jolie. Instead of covering her in oil that drips off her, why don't you just keep her covered with scales or drape? If want to just blatantly exploit her for $$$ ... just do it... and settle for the R rating ... otherwise... stop with the farcical visual stunts and move on. Nothing takes you out of movie faster than the director basically stating directly to the audience, "Hey! You almost saw something dirty! Ha Ha."

I mean, who is this movie for anyway? Youngsters and their money? Or are you making an adult film for adult viewers? Well... stop with the kiddy naughty naughty stuff and treat your audience with at least an ounce of respect and maturity.

This movie is really just a proof of concept. This is the technology (motion capture / digital rotoscoping / 3D animation / 3D projection / virtual camera) and here's some neat stuff you can do with it. I'm just not sure if this is the right film for the technology or even if it's the right application of the technology to this film. And I don't really want to be thinking that while this film is going on. I certainly don't think that during The Incredibles, Ratatouille or Surf's Up.

The film itself is okay. It's a good popcorn / laundry movie. The animation of the faces in some scenes is pretty much photo real, but in others it's video game quality animation. Most of the big pieces and big sets look like video game cut scene animation. The story by Neil Gaiman, (Star Dust, American Gods), is pretty good and the performances are great. It's just a shame that I have to see such great actors speaking through blocky video game mouths. Neil Gaiman did a good job working through the Saga and retelling it by drawing lines from things left hanging or added on in the original and making it work more singularly as a story and more circular as a plot by having the tale repeat and use the same characters over to show how history can repeat itself no matter how great the hero. Good stuff. The ending is left "open". It's a fade out as you are kind of led to the idea that oh no, it's going to happen again. I say the evil beast is spurned and killed by Beowulf's right hand man... and hey, they left it open... so that's what I say happened.

I rate this: 2 stars out of 5. A good laundry film that you can tune in and out of while you do your housework. Decent animation, but really, why not just film these great actors doing what they do best?

Superbad

Well, I finally saw Superbad last night, and I must say I was not impressed. It was mildly funny, but it did not live up to the Apatow hype. I expected more from the man that brought us Anchorman and 40 Year Old Virgin. There were some funny parts. The stand outs were definitely Bill Hader and Seth Rogen as Officers Slater and Michaels. Most people would recognize Rogen as Cal from 40 Year Old Virgin, but not a lot of people know Bill Hader yet. He has started getting some larger rolls lately, but he is a stand out on NBC's SNL. Although SNL has been lagging in consistency the past few seasons, Hader has been a shining star.

The two main stars, Jonah Hill and Michael Cera delivered solid performances, but were hindered by the over use of vulgarity that I can only imagine was used to give us the impression that these two were typical high school seniors. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy a good use of the f-bomb as much as the next guy, but seriously, they used it like 10 times a sentence. Granted I haven't been a high school senior for more years than I like to think about, but do they really say "f&*#" that much?

The newcomer, Christopher Mintz-Plasse, gave the most believable performance as a high school student. Probably because he was a high school student when he was discovered.

Over all I would give Superbad 3 out of 5 stars. I'm glad I saw it, but not upset that I waited this long to see it. It has a nice message about friendship and what that means to two guys that have grown up together, but are now at a crossroads. Definitely a rent, or wait until its on TV.