Lockout (2012)

Hoo boy. Where to start with this one. I remember that I was looking forward to this film, partly because A) It came right the hell out of nowhere, so it had the element of surprise going for it, B) It looked interesting enough, what with a prison in space, and C) I like Guy Pearce.

Well actually, that last part isn't 100% accurate. I am not irritated by the presence of Guy Pearce. I really don't have anything negative to say about him, but neither do I gush over his performances. He's kind of the definition for me of an "average" actor. He gets in front of the camera, says his lines in a competent but very "straight C student" manner, and at no point am I really buying what he's saying. But it's never bad enough to tear down my suspension of disbelief. 

If I see him on the box, I say to myself "Oh. Guy Pearce. I didn't even know he was in this. Cool." Then I set the case down and reach for the newest Val Kilmer movie.

Movies like "Lockout" are not helping my neutrality on Guy Pearce. If there was going to be a movie that made me jump on The Pearce Express, if such a thing existed, this ain't the one. And again, much like Guy himself, it's not that "Lockout" is overtly bad so to speak. It's just so damn "straight C student" average that it's difficult to care. Although this is where the analogy breaks down a bit, because honestly, "Lockout" isn't pulling a C average. This is like the C student getting wasted the night before finals, sleeping through half of them, and subsequently getting his GPA pounded into the D range.

You know it's on when The Guyster turns his gun all ghetto-grip.

The idea of "Lockout" is that there is a prison that has been built in space to hold the world's most vile criminals, the world's only "Ultra-Max" prison. The point of that is, of course, that the prison is escape-proof, because there's literally nowhere to go. For some reason that I honestly forgot by the halfway point (it doesn't matter) the President's daughter, played by mobile landing strip...er...forehead...er...actress...yeah we'll go with that, Maggie Grace, goes to the prison along with some secret service guys in order to interview some prisoners for some reason.

I think it had something to do with uncovering an EEEEEEEVAL corporation's plans to use prisoners as test subjects for the effects of cyro-freeze for long term space travel. Why the corporation using them as frozen test subjects is EEEEEEEEVAL when the prisoners were frozen in stasis anyway is a bit hazy, especially considering they are all mass murdering psychopaths. It seems to me that using these criminals (in a manner that doesn't hurt them in the least, by the way) to do some good for the betterment of mankind, like the exploration of freaking space, is something of a noble idea. Weyland-Utani these guys ain't.

Bitch please...

Anyway, of course the pooch gets predictably screwed when one of Maggie Grace's secret service idiots does a titanically stupid thing and winds up inadvertently arming and setting loose one of the inmates, who promptly frees every other inmate in the prison. This takes him about 34 seconds, by the way. This scene is so bone headed for so many reasons that it really helps sum up why this movie kind of just sucks.

1) Before the interview, the secret service guys are told to relinquish their weapons. Of course, the one guy is a freaking idiot and keeps the gun he has in his boot on him. What a pro. But besides that, are you telling me they didn't have to go through a metal detector or any security screening whatsoever? They just took his word for it? This is supposed to be "THE MOST ADVANCED PRISON EVER MADE," and it's easier to bring a gun through its security than it is to get through a TSA checkpoint?! More on the advanced nature of the prison in a bit.

2) Why, of all the prisoners there, do they trot out the most insane, clearly psychotic, uncooperative, dangerous inmate they could possibly find for the President's daughter to interview? This guy is like if you took SID 6.7, crossed him with The Joker and gave him "killing Tourettes" where he has a clinical need to murder something every 14 seconds. This guy actually knows the secret service guy has a gun because he smells it on him. Oh yeah. that sounds like a great person to talk to: The guy who can smell guns. Let's get Barbara Walters on this!

A more trustworthy face you couldn't hope to find.

3) Why in the sweet hell are the secret service guys even on the same side of the glass as the criminal? Aren't there prison guards for that? You know, people TRAINED for it? People who wouldn't, say, bring a gun into the room with the ridiculously dangerous man? But nope. Not a prison guard in sight.

4) THE GLASS ISN'T BULLETPROOF?!?!?!?

5) There are no security countermeasures in place at all? No bulkheads being automatically locked down? No knockout gas? No shutting off life support? No electrified floors? No collars on the inmates like "The Running Man?" No machine gun turrets? Like NOTHING?! That's all this ultra-max slam has in the way of security? A non-bulletproof pane of glass, two unlocked doors and a dude with glasses armed with only a clipboard to guard the button that lets EVERY CRIMINAL LOOSE AT ONCE!?

6) You're telling me that somebody actually programmed a command on that panel to "Open Every Door And Immediately Thaw Every Prisoner." When in the name of Odin's Mighty Butthole would you ever need that, especially when the inmates seemingly outnumber the guards about 10 to 1? That seems like not only an absurdly pointless command to even make possible to execute, but a mind-shatteringly dangerous one as well, for situations, oh I don't know JUST LIKE THIS ONE. Let's face it, when the glass on this piece of space junk isn't even bulletproof, I'm guessing prisoners getting out is a real possibility!

I don't even know if it's worth it to continue. That scene is pretty much the dumbest thing I saw in that film, and it really never gets any better. I'm surprised I haven't even mentioned Guy Pearce in it yet, which is a plus for him because he honestly pissed me off, too.

I think this is the only movie I've seen Guy Pearce in where he was memorable enough to annoy me. It's the same thing that got me about Tony Stark in "The Avengers," which is that every goddamn line out of his mouth is a quip or a joke or snide sarcastic remark. It's one thing to have a character who makes funny comments, or has a sense of humor, or who is irreverently sarcastic. But it needs to be tempered with "normal person speak."

No human being on earth is going to have something smarmy to say in response to everything single thing said to them. Even Snake Plissken said "What?" a couple of times. But it always makes me grind my teeth down to a fine powdery residue when I am forced to suffer through a character that talks like Oscar Wilde writing John McClane. And again, even John McClane, as badass and funny as he was, didn't have a "Thanks for the advice" moment every line. When they do, I don't want to see them kicking ass, I want them to shut the hell up!

"Uh...something witty...um...how do ya like THEM apples...supplements...damn it, CUT! Gimme a minute...damn it...apples...come on, Guy, THINK!"

There were other grievances I had, but it really just wound up being a haze of annoyances that held me in a perpetual state of "why the hell am I watching this?" for 90 minutes. From the absurdly bad CGI in the beginning bike chase that looked like bad PS2 graphics, to Peter Stormare's incredibly annoying "where the hell are you supposed to be from" accent (seriously I can't stand that guy), to a shot of adrenaline, instead of being injected somewhere that makes sense like the heart, being shot into someone's eyeball (and not the tear duct, right in the middle of the freaking pupil, because that works) to that really bad blowjob joke that was in the trailer, to none of the inmates stopping the craziest inmate from constantly screwing everything up by killing stuff, to gravity suddenly working in space, and finally to a free fall from orbit around Earth to ground taking less than 20 seconds...it just wasn't working for me.

It's unusual to say, but Guy Pearce is too good for this. Or perhaps this is the perfect Guy Pearce vehicle. Maybe he's really on to something with the whole "being in a bad movie" idea. If the movie is bad enough, it would make a middling actor look much better in comparison. In that case, well done?

Not bad.

THE BOTTOM LINE - There are so many better sci-fi action flicks out there that would be a far superior film to this. Hell, just watch "Escape From L.A." Even that brain-dead schlock is way more fun at least. Watch "Doomsday." Watch "The Running Man." Anything but "Lockout." It's just a waste of time. Skip it.

The Flowers of War (2012)

Movies like "Flowers of War" are difficult to talk about. On one hand, you can talk about the story and characters and whatnot, and that's all well and good, but on the other hand, sometimes there is just a power and intensity to a film that sort of defies description. And while I could certainly give a reader a good notion of what is in store for them would they chose to watch this film, there's no way to properly convey raw emotion, which this film is bursting at the seams with.

I could probably start by giving everyone a heads up when it comes to "Flowers of War": This is a tough movie to watch. Not tough in the sense that it's bad, but tough in the same way that a film like "Schindler's List" is tough to watch. There are films out there which are thematically more similar to "Flowers of War" than "Schindler's List" is, but in terms of tone and gut reactions to horrible things happening, it's a similar feeling. I was almost reminded of the kind of unease I experienced while watching "Requiem For A Dream" or in particular "A Clockwork Orange," especially when it came to the scenes of graphic violence done to women. Only in this case, there's additionally violence done against children, specifically young girls.

Yeah, you'll probably be able to tell if you'll be able to stomach this movie based on the inclusion of the phrases "A Clockwork Orange" and "young girls" in that previous sentence. Even the thought of those two subjects being merged is enough to make you want to cringe. So heads up, anyone who wants to watch this film.

But if you are feeling brave enough to give it a try, if you're anything like me, you'll find that "Flowers of War" is a very, very good film worthy of your attention. Is it going to be a bumpy road? Oh yeah. Will it be worth it at the end? Absolutely.

This movie has not yet begun to be bleak.

The story takes place in China in the second Sino-Japanese war. The Japanese invade Nanjing, and lay utter waste to the city and distribute wholesale slaughter to pretty much anyone they can find. Christian Bale is a mortician named John, who was on his way to perform burial rights for the pastor of a church/school in the city when it was attacked. Caught up in the fighting, he takes refuge in the church with the student body of about a dozen 14ish year old girls and the slightly older assistant, who is the only boy. At first he's content to take his pay and leave, but it's pretty clear that although John is a bit of a crass jerk, he's got too much of a heart to abandon the girls.

A complication arises pretty soon, however, when a dozen prostitutes come knocking at the door, demanding to be let in for protection. John is all about this, naturally, but tensions escalate pretty quickly between the students and the courtesans, and soon there's another little war taking place in the church. All the issues are soon rendered pretty moot, however, when the Japanese occupy the church, but not before doing some truly horrific things that end up being only a taste of what is to come. That is when John disguises himself as a priest, and basically becomes the girl's protector.

The main complication of the story comes up when the Japanese commander of the occupation forces orders the girls to sing at a party they are having in a few days time. Knowing the horrors that await the girls if they go, most likely involving rape and murder, John must find a way to get them out of the city before that happens, no matter the cost.

Christian Bale plays the role of John in a way that reminds us that despite being awesome, he really is a phenomenal actor, capable of extreme ranges that having him going from a roaring volcano, bellowing at the Japanese to stop their depravity, to a whispering, mewling mess of a man who has finally reached the end of his ever-thinning rope. I think between playing a comic book legend, sometimes we forget Bale is a master's course in acting onto himself.

"Hey ladies. Did I ever tell you I'm The Goddamn Batman?"

Playing the head courtesan, Yu Mo is newcomer Ni Ni, who I'm hoping shows up in more stuff, because she was dynamite, and ends up being the heart and soul of the film, more so than even the children, oddly enough. That's not to say the kids weren't good, because they most certainly were, but it's Ni Ni who ends up hammering home the emotional punchline of the movie.

If there were downsides to "Flowers of War," it would be three things, and the amount this bugs you may vary from person to person, but here's my trite complaints, and believe me, they are trite because it was hard to find too much fault with this film.

First, I can't help but feel that the Japanese are really, really portrayed poorly. I know that they wrecked Nanjing. That's on record as one of the worst atrocities in modern wartime. What got me is that there was not a single Japanese character who was given even the slightest shred of humanity. No, every one of those monsters is completely evil. Even the least evil among them, the Japanese commander Colonel Hasegawa, played wonderfully by Atsurô Watabe, despite being shown early on as sympathetic and looking out for the girls fate, he really is only setting them up to be slaughtered like sheep.

You're telling me not a single Japanese soldier in the entire army wasn't a serial rapist with a bad case of pedophilia? None of them? There's got to be at least a few who aren't...

The second thing is that the subtitled dialogue is a little stilted. I don't know if it's too literal of a translation, or if there's no real way to truly convey what's being said in English while having it sound right, or if they really do talk like that in China and Japan, but it's really weird. It's kind of hard to describe, but I can sum it up by saying it's a lot like anime subtitles. You fellow anime fans can relate to this.

Think back on how many times in anime you've read a subtitle that says something like: "You're mean!" or "Is he truly a man such as that?" or saying a person's name as a reaction to that same person saying something. Or even more annoying, when they are loudly talking about a person with other people while that person they're talking about is standing right the hell there, clearly not 5 feet away, but paying them no mind. Does any of this ring any bells?

Is that normal over there? I'm sorry, but if you're talking about me behind my back, but doing so in a fashion where I'm obviously supposed to hear you, I'm saying something. Maybe "Screw you," or "Shut up" or something. Either way I'm saying something. Maybe it's a cultural thing, but it seems incredibly rude. 

"Helloooooo nurse."

The final thing is something which I'm still not sure if I liked or not: the ending. Now, I'm not going to say a word about what actually happens, except to say it's really, really moving and gut wrenching. Adding to the sadness is the voice over narration that's been going on throughout the film by one the students, which plays up not only the tension but foreboding doom that awaits.

The problem with the ending is that there are really two separate paths to follow at that point, and we only get one of them. The other path is really left a mystery, although one can assume what happens. And while what probably happens is not something that we'd probably want to see in the first place, there really is no closure going on for the second half of the ending equation. I won't call it a bad ending, in fact it's beautiful, but it does reek a bit of unsatisfying.

That being said, this movie is a powerhouse.

THE BOTTOM LINE - "Flowers of War" may make my Top Ten of 2012. If not, it's getting an honorable mention. This is an amazing film, and I'm very glad I saw it, but it wasn't exactly a pleasant trip. Be warned, there are scenes that will be seared into your retinas for days. This could be a textbook definition of a "heavy" movie. If you've got the gumption, Highly Recommended.

The Amazing Spiderman (2012)

I really don't care too much about Spiderman. It's not that I don't like him, I just don't really care that much. He's got sweet powers and he's funny and he swings around like whoa, and that's cool and all, but I guess I'm just a Batman guy at heart. Maybe I just like a superhero who's just as crazy as the villains he's fighting. Or maybe I'm a sucker for Michael Keaton. At least I'll take The Keaton over Toby McGuire any damn day of the year. All that considered, Spiderman has never really done much for me.

On the plus side, he's not Superman. Nuts to that boring Boy Scout.

It's a weird thing, however, to have a reboot of a series that is still so relatively new, like they did with "Spiderman." The Sam Raimi trilogy isn't even old enough to ride all the coasters at Ceder Point yet, so it's quite off-putting, and some would say insulting, to start from scratch again so quickly. Of course, some might also say that after "Spiderman 3" the only possible option was to throw everything out and start again.

Personally, I was unsurprisingly neutral on the issue. I liked the first "Spiderman," and still consider it a darn fun movie. I never understood the big deal about "Spiderman 2." What I got out of that movie was basically the feeling that I had just watched the first movie again with Willem Dafoe's parts and the origin story all cut out of it. It wasn't bad, I was just bored with it. And while I didn't have the searing fanboy fueled hatred of "Spiderman 3" that everyone else had, I didn't think it was necessarily good, just OK. Oddly enough I think I actually got more enjoyment out of the third film than the most likely objectively better second one. Go figure.

Betrayal!!! Everyone knows Venom had 275 teeth! NOT 319 like the movie had! This movie sucked!

So clearly my taste in the whole Spiderman issue is suspect from the very beginning. For that reason, feel free to take whatever I say next with a grain of non-fanboy flavored salt. That isn't to say that "The Amazing Spiderman" is about to get a scathing pounding from me, because it's not. It wasn't bad. It just wasn't that great.

First off, I'll start with what the movie does best, because what it does well it does very well, and most of what it does well is the cast. Andrew Garfield as Peter Parker is leagues, miles, continents, planets, parsecs, GALAXIES ahead of what Toby McGuire did for the role in the previous films. There really isn't a moment in the entire film that he isn't completely convincing. And he has a voice that fits the character as well, which is important when he's Spiderman because obviously, we're not seeing his face. Garfield also has a great sense of comedic timing which helps turn in some really funny lines that we would come to expect from Spiderman.

He also looks like a high schooler, something that Toby McGuire never convincingly pulled off. I don't know, to me Toby McGuire always looked like someone had artificially aged a toddler to be 26 by the time he was 2, but the equation wasn't quite right so his body never caught up to his giant head.

In fact, I'll just go down the list and say the rest of the cast was also great. There really was no weak link at in the entire film, even though I got the feeling that Emma Stone as Gwen Stacy was...how should I put this...not necessarily wasted, but given a kind of boring character. It's not her fault, and she does fine, but there really wasn't much to her besides "love interest." At least they didn't pull the damsel in distress thing.

God, I miss her with red hair...

Denis Leary was great as Gwen's dad, although the years have not been kind to him. Dude's aging fast. Rhys Ifans as the villain, Dr. Conners aka The Lizard plays your standard well-meaning-but-still-making-dumb-mistakes-by-making-himself-the-test-subject-because-they'll-shut-him-down-otherwise scientist, but he does it well. He does have moments of some pretty intimidating menace make him a fun villain, although at times you do start to wonder why he's continuing doing what he's doing considering that each time he does it he turns into a giant destructive lizard. Really, dude? Does it really look like it's working as you originally planned?

"It's science, you wouldn't understand..."

For me though, the guy who stole the show apart from Garfield was good old Martin Sheen as Uncle Ben. Good god was he awesome. He is so real in that way that only a true pro like Sheen can pull off. You wonder at times if he's even acting at all, considering that I'm sure he's had many a conversation raising kids that were probably identical to the talks in this movie. It was also nice to see Sally Field again as Aunt May. I can't even remember the last time I saw her in anything.

Apart from the cast, the action in "The Amazing Spiderman" is really good. Spiderman moves in a very organic, almost animalistic way that makes sense when you consider his powers, and he integrates that into combat in a very cool fashion. It was also nice to see his "spider sense" kick in more often, and in a (generally) more subtle way than the slow-motion, over the top way the previous films flaunted it. All this made the action really good...

...when the movie decided to have it.

My biggest problem with "The Amazing Spiderman" was that honestly, it's kind of a boring talk-fest. It's not that there isn't good stuff being said, it's just that Peter Parker gets way, WAY more screen time than Spiderman. And even though that's normal for the first part of a superhero origin movie, by the halfway point it starts to get a little annoying, especially since the action that is in it is so good. The could have spent a little less time on Peter dating, and a little more time on Spiderman kicking some Lizard butt.

This also leads into another problem I had, which was that I never felt a strong connection with what exactly Peter Parker's goals were. It's no spoiler that Uncle Ben gets killed by a robber that Peter lets go moments before that disaster strikes. That's a very well done scene, and Peter's resolve afterwards in finding the man who did it was honestly the most gripping part of the film for me, because he's using is powers, but not knowing what he purpose is with them yet. He's just a very angry kid, and it's pretty dark for a while there.

Then he gets a suit somehow (we never really find out where or how) and not too long after that, the whole "Uncle Ben's Killer" plot is just dropped from the story like he just up and forgot about it. For some reason, that whole "entire driving purpose behind his character" is forgotten, and he's like "Welp, guess I'm Spiderman now. Let's do this."

Excuse me? Didn't you have some unresolved issues? Couldn't you resolve them before just changing your goals? There is a scene on a bridge where he saves some people, and I suppose that's supposed to be his big realization moment that he needs to use his powers to help people, but the fact that the robber is never even brought up again really irked me a lot. I mean, it was kind of an important thing!

"Hey Uncle Ben. Hypothetical here, but if you got killed and I swore vengeance but kind of just forgot about it, how upset would you be?"

And also, I can't finish without bringing up something that really, REALLY bothered me: the last line of the film. Now, spoilers below, because to fully understand, I have to spoil.

At the climax of the film, Denis Leary's character is mortally wounded by The Lizard. After the fight is over, he tells Peter with his dying breath that he needs to stay away from his daughter, for her own sake. Peter promises him that he will, and later, breaks up with her.

This is a great scene. It's reflective of Peter's journey into a selfless, noble superhero who realizes that he must put the good of others before his own, because his late Uncle Ben taught him that he has a responsibility to use his talents to better serve the world. After all, even though the movie never actually says the immortal line that is the tagline and philosophical lynchpin of the entire Spiderman mythos (why they don't say it I have NO idea): "With great power comes great responsibility."

And then...we come to the last scene. Cue the class room. Peter comes in late. He says "Sorry I'm late. It won't happen again." The teacher looks at him, scoffs, and says "Don't make promises you can't keep, Mr. Parker."

Peter then takes a seat behind Gwen and whispers to her, "But those are the best kinds of promises." Gwen smirks, we cut to Spiderman swinging around New York, roll credits.

BULL. SHIT.

Way to make that whole emotional scene not three minutes beforehand mean absolutely dick. I mean, yeah, that's totally cool that you took a character who finally discovers that not everything revolves around him, who is on a journey to be a great hero, who just made a huge sacrifice to protect the person he loves, and did a complete backwards 180 to turn him into a selfish, lying douchebag.

If he truly loved Gwen, he would leave her alone. He has seen the effects of what his actions can have on other people. Stuff like, I don't know, her freaking dad DYING. I just can't believe that a noble sacrifice in a superhero movie was so promptly negated by a selfish action. Way to make me intensely dislike Peter Parker in the last 30 seconds of the film. What the hell.

Doooooooooooouche.

THE BOTTOM LINE - "The Amazing Spiderman" has some really good stuff in it. This has been compared a lot to "Batman Begins," and while it's nowhere close to as good as that, I can see where people are coming from with that analogy. It's dark, it takes itself seriously, and the acting is all top notch. However, it's just one of those weird "can't put my finger on it" situations where I walked away not overly impressed. Maybe I just really don't care about Spiderman. But if you at all liked the others, this one is the best since the first one, and at least in the acting department, better. Recommended for at least a rental.

The Artist (2011)

I remember feeling nothing but absolute apathy for the 2012 Oscars. Out of the ludicrous pile of 10 Best Picture nominees, which by the way the Academy needs to cut the hell down on, there was only one, ONE film that I gave even the slightest crap about. That movie was "Moneyball," a good film, but Oscar bait all the same. And even if it was good, I wouldn't have chosen it for any kind of Oscar. It wasn't that good.

"Hugo" and "War Horse" were among the absolute worst I had seen that year, and "Tree of Life" I will count till the end of my days one of the worst, most painful experiences I've ever subjugated my poor brain to. So of course these were among the nominees for Best Picture. And "The Muppets," the best film I saw that year, was nowhere in sight. The only award it got was for Best Original Song for "Man or Muppet," which was honestly probably the weakest song of the whole movie. Clearly this awards show has passed me by.

That, or the Academy has their heads up their asses. You make the call.

Of course there ended up being two movies that ran away with pretty much every award that night, the first being "Hugo" (screw you) and the other movie, the one that took home Best Picture, being "The Artist," a film I honestly hadn't even heard of. This makes sense since it only got a limited release in the States. The only thing I knew about it was that it was in black and white, and was about the era of silent film. Sounds just pretentious enough to be ready for Oscar.

And after finally seeing it, I now know that being in black and white and about early Hollywood was only the tip of the pretentious iceberg of "The Artist." Had I known that it was also not only in a 4:3 aspect ratio, which makes watching at home in an age where every TV is widescreen completely annoying, but that it is also actually silent with intertitles and everything, I would have just called it right then and there that it would get Best Picture. It doesn't matter if it's good or not. That is pretension of the highest caliber.

The only time he's not wearing this stupid smirk is when he's got a gun to his head.

Let's get one thing out of the way first and foremost: "The Artist" is not a bad movie. It just has it's head so firmly planted up its own colon that it's seeing it's lunch again 4 seconds after swallowing. It's clear that there is a lot of passion going on with the making of this film. The people involved obviously love silent movies, and want to pay tribute to them. And honestly, they do a great job of that. The look of this movie is dead on, and it would be very easy to think of this as a film from the late 1920's if you didn't know any better.

The story is also in the same style as an old fashioned drama, following the fall of fictional silent film star, George Valentin. At the advent of "talkies," George dismisses them as a doomed gimmick, only to find himself ruined and out of work a few years later, after his studio quits making silent films. Eventually he is brought back around from the brink of suicidal despair by an actress, Peppy Miller, who George had an almost-there romance with years earlier, and his career is rekindled. There's a bit more to it, but that's the movie in three sentences. It's not a bad little story, actually.

But did it need to be silent? I would argue that the gimmick of having no sound except for the music is more detrimental to the film than good. In fact, this could have probably been a really interesting period piece had it been made in sound. You know, like every flipping movie of the past 90 years. However, the silence is just plain distracting in how much it draws attention it itself. As quiet as "The Artist" is, it is screaming at us the whole time at the top of its lungs, "LOOK AT ME! I'M ARTSY!"

John Goodman? One of the best actors around? Naw, we don't need to hear him. #wastedtalent

I really hate to say that, because I sound like your average popcorn slamming, lowest common denominator, movie going clod. But the fact remains that it's really difficult to get into a silent movie made in 2011 because it's hard to imagine why they did it. It doesn't add anything to the film. In fact you're taking away an indescribably huge part of the film experience.

I've read that the director, Michel Hazanavicius, was interested in making a silent film for years because of the "image-driven nature of the form." I'm guessing what he means is that by not having dialogue or sound, the picture is more important and somehow more pure. That is cosmically stupid.

I've got news for you, Michel, image is always and will always be important, even if there is sound. This isn't radio. This is a movie. The very essence of a movie is the projection of images being shown at 24 frames every second so as to make the illusion of movement, and by putting these images in a specific sequence, conveying a narrative. Sound does not detract, it does not carry the film, and it does not mean that the images are somehow less important than if there was no sound over the top of them, and to suggest that is honestly pretty snooty.

It would be like suggesting that by drawing a picture of a rainbow in normal black pencil, it is somehow a more pure rainbow. That's the kind of pretentious crap that hipsters and film school graduates ponder over a venti vanilla no-foam soy macchiato.

He would have shown up, but coffee is too mainstream.

What could have made this film far more interesting, in my opinion, is if it had only been silent in the beginning, and going to sound at around the end of the first act. In fact, for a second I thought that was precisely what was going on. There is a scene where George has a nightmare that is actually in sound, although it's not true sound but stock sound effects, however the effect is still very jarring when it happens. Had the rest of the movie continued in that fashion, it would have been a pretty neat effect that would fit with the plot, since at that point George is looking at his own ruin due to the rise of the "talkies." Unfortunately, he wakes up and that's that. It's back to silent for the rest of the movie.

Except for literally the last 15 seconds of the film. That's in sound, and while it was nice to finally hear John Goodman, one of my favorite actors actually speak, it's so jarring and confusing and honestly completely nonsensical that all it does is highlight the fact that it was so much better to hear them speaking in the first place!

So did "The Artist" deserve Best Picture? Good gravy, no. The only reason it won was because it had the silent movie gimmick going on. Had it been in sound, it would have been a passable period drama that was trying really hard to be old fashioned. And nobody would have given it a second glance.

"Mug for the camera...aaaaaaaand GIVE US ALL THE OSCARS!!!"

THE BOTTOM LINE - If you've never seen a silent movie before, this will be ROUGH. It's such an archaic way of making a film that it's really difficult to sit through, unless you're familiar with really old films, or can at least appreciate them. It might be worth seeing as a curiosity, but in the end it's really nothing special. Recommended if the concept of a silent film made in 2011 intrigues you.

Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows (2011)

I like Guy Ritche. While "Revolver" didn't do much for me, I thought that "Snatch" and "Lock Stock N' Two Smokin' Barrels" were two very fun movies, and the first "Sherlock Holmes" was an awesome time. Of course, the first time I saw "Sherlock Holmes" I thought it was a confusing, disjointed mess that I couldn't make heads or tails of, and I slept through what seemed like a good half hour of the film.

This may seem odd, but I do have an excuse: I was ripped off of my freaking gourd. It was Christmas evening, and after I had put forth a long day of heavy drinking my friends called me up and asked if I wanted to see a movie with them. I said "Sure, as long as you drive." So while being so drunk that my back molars were singing "Anchors Away," I saw "Sherlock Holmes." This was a mistake.

"Sherlock Holmes" is not a movie for stupid people. Nor is it a movie for people not paying attention. Nor is it for people who are drunk to the point of reaching a plane of incorporeal existence. And while I don't consider myself part of the first group, the second and third group counted me among its VIP members that evening. So that was that. I did not like "Sherlock Holmes."

Then when it came out on DVD I watched it sober and loved it. Lesson learned: Guy Ritche is one director you don't want to watch drunk. Him and Darren Aronofsky. Ritchie because his plots are really twisty turney, and Aronofsky because if I did I'd probably want to kill myself afterwards due to apocalyptic depression.

Anyways, after waiting an obnoxiously long time for "Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows" to come out for rent (I sadly missed it in theaters) I'm happy to say that the sequel continues the first film's intelligence and entertainment factor. I dare say that it may be a tad more intelligent than its predecessor, in fact. But while the script is smart, and the characters fiendishly so, I can't help but feel that some of the entertainment factor may be ever so slightly lacking. And while the character is great, I have to say that it's due to the fact that the villain, Professor Moriarty, is a bit too obfuscated.

That is actually pretty ironic when you think about it, really. The whole point of Moriarty is that he is this criminal mastermind who is orchestrating Machiavellian plots without ever revealing himself or his true intentions to anyone. Holmes is the only one who can keep up with him, which is why him and Moriarty play so well off each other. These two are locked in a game of mental chess that only they know the true maneuvers of.

Like the game of chess they play which is AMAZING.

And that's why it's a problem for us. It's so tiring at times trying to figure out what exactly it is that Moriarty is up to. This makes sense, of course, and watching Sherlock figuring it out is fun, but as a result I found that I wasn't ever really intimidated by Moriarty. He has the makings of a fantastic villain, and Jared Harris does a phenomenal job playing teh eeeeeeevals, but I couldn't really get scared of him because I had no flipping clue what it was that he was doing. Now, they do explain his master plan, and he is killing people and torturing Sherlock with a meathook (good gravy), but I never picked up "World Shattering Consequences" from his plans even though that's what they amounted to. Perhaps a scene earlier in the film which laid his plans bare would have been helpful.

Now the main reason people see this film, and any film with Robert Downey Jr., is for Robert Downey Jr. And while I wasn't a big fan of how they turned Tony Stark into a mugging chuckle-head in "The Avengers," besides that I can't really think of a single performance he's given which wasn't spot on to the point of running away with the film. "The Avengers" was the only movie I couldn't stand him in. Everything else has been gold. And it's still true for "Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows." He just so completely owns the role of Holmes that, like pretty much all of his characters, it's hard seeing anyone else doing it. So nothing has changed in that regard from the first movie.

If anything, Holmes is a bit more high strung in this movie, which in many ways is a lot more fun to watch, but he is climbing so many walls he should invest in some mountaineering gear. This is due to both meeting his intellectual equal (some would say superior), and Watson getting married, which brings up a facet of the movie which some might consider a tad...unnerving. Since there's no real polite way to say this, it's best to just come out and say it:

Holmes and Watson just need to bang and get it over with.

Now that's not being judgmental or insulting to the characters. I'm not even saying that either Holmes or Watson are gay, but there are some unresolved feelings and issues there that need to be addressed one way or the other on the right-quick, because the fate of the world could literally hang in the balance. I mean think about it. Moriarty is trying to cause a world war, and our only hope can't think straight because he's trying his best to underhandedly and subtly oust the bitch stealing his BFF. Is this really the best thing for the fate of the world?

Come on, Watson. For the sake of all mankind...give Sherlock some sugar.

Ok, ok. That's my little immature wink-wink nudge-nudge moment for this entry. Don't worry, there will surely be more. That whole dynamic between Holmes and Watson just makes it that much more interesting to watch anyways, and Robert Downey Jr. and Jude Law both are having so much fun playing these characters that it's impossible to not like them. It's seriously one of the better on-screen buddy movie pairings I've seen in a very long time.

Also, on a closing note, it's nice to see me liking Noomi Rapace again. She's really growing on me as an actress, and while I wasn't as taken with her as I was in "Prometheus," her Madam Simza was another step in distancing myself from her Lisbeth Salander, which I am grateful for. And any movie where Noomi Rapace takes over for Rachel McAdams is doing at least one thing right.

THE BOTTOM LINE - "Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows" may not be as instantly memorable as the first film, but it's a fine addition to what will hopefully become at least a trilogy. Don't expect it to be as surprisingly good as before, but it's well worth the time. Recommended.

21 Jump Street (2012)

I've never seen the TV show "21 Jump Street." All I know is that it was a gritty cop drama back in the day starring a young Johnny Depp. That's about it. So when I heard it was being made into a comedy starring now-not-fat Jonah Hill and Channing Tatum, I was skeptical for obvious reasons. Even though I have no nostalgic reasons to feel defensive of the show, it seemed like a betrayal no matter how you sliced it. And what exactly are the odds in Vegas for something being improved by the addition of the phrase "comedic re-imagining" without the inclusion of Mel Brooks? I wouldn't put too much down on it.

I have to admit that there were lines in the trailer that made me laugh. Jonah Hill staring at a knife sticking out of his back and saying "When did I get stabbed? That's awesome!" in particular got a hearty chuckle from me. The rest I wasn't really sold on. For as funny as that one line was, right after that we got Jonah Hill getting hit by a car and mumbling "I think I crapped my pants." That's when I got worried about the level of humor involved. It kind of looked like something Seth Rogan would be in, or maybe Kevin James if it was PG-13 and involved a Rob Schneider cameo.

What I'm saying is that it didn't look that funny. Holy crap was I wrong. "21 Jump Street" was amazing.

There's not really much you can say about a good comedy aside from the fact that it was good. It was funny. It was well written, it had an effective character arc for Jonah Hill and Channing Tatum so they weren't just bumbling idiots but actually seemed like real people, and there was an interesting enough story going on between all the funny stuff that it didn't seem like just a gag reel. And most importantly, I liked these characters. That's actually pretty rare for me and comedies.

::flip:: "Are these supposed to be loaded?" ::flip:: "What?" ::flip:: "We should probably unload these." ::flip:: "Naw, man. Come on. ::flip:: It's no fun that way." ::flip::

I found it quite intriguing what "21 Jump Street" did with these characters. Jonah Hill and Channing Tatum are two guys who went to high school together, and weren't exactly what you'd call friends. Jonah Hill was shy and while he never did anything to make himself a nerd or a geek, he was smart so of course he was unpopular. Channing Tatum was a popular lunkhead jock. Perfect casting right there.

After graduation they both become cops but wind up sucking at it pretty hardcore. Since the department wants nothing to do with them, but they still look young, they are transferred to the 21 Jump Street division, which is an undercover job going into high schools to bust drug rings. So they're go back to school, something Jonah Hill dreads and Channing Tatum thinks is going to be a cakewalk.

But school has changed in the 5 some years since they've been gone, and there's a whole new dynamic. Students are more PC, tolerant, and socially aware than before. It's not cool anymore to drive a flashy, loud car - now it's cool to have a hybrid. Kids in honors classes aren't mocked and given swirlies, and punching someone in the face isn't generally looked upon as an awesome thing. Also, there are hipsters, which completely confuses the two main characters.

Now whether or not this is a realistic change is subject to debate. It's pretty out there to think that the entire social dynamic of students can change that much in 5 years. That never really bothered me too much, though, since the film kept it pretty well within the lines of plausibility.

What that change does to the characters though is interesting. Channing Tatum is no longer the cool kid. His thuggish, arrogant behavior is met with scorn and shock, and while Jonah Hill isn't exactly Mr. Popular, he's no longer the object of ridicule. Because of that, they have to basically relearn how to act in high school, to some pretty funny results. In particular, Channing Tatum having to take AP Chemistry led to some of the bigger laughs I got from the classroom segments of "21 Jump Street." It's awesome to see the frustration and rage building up underneath the exterior of a character who's never had to think that hard about anything in his life. You can almost see the solder melting.

Aww, he's wearing a science sweater! Those are the best sweaters!

It would also be remiss to not mention Ice Cube as well. As is normal for any movie that he has a supporting role in, he runs away with every scene he's in. Someone needs to make a movie staring him and Samuel L. Jackson and call it "Angry Yelling Black Dudes." It would basically be the best movie of all time. In any case, Ice Cube screaming at Jonah Hill to "stop bothering Korean Jesus" had me near tears. Well played, Mr. Cube.

THE BOTTOM LINE - It is difficult to write about a comedy that was good without just repeating all your favorite jokes, which places them out of context anyways. Let it suffice to say that "21 Jump Street" was a huge shock to me with how much I liked it. Any diehard fan of the show might be a tad offended (especially due to an in-cannon cameo that gives a rather embarrassing death to characters from the show), but if you can look past that, "21 Jump Street" is probably going to wind of being one of the best comedies of the year. Recommended.

Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance (2012)

Oh Nicolas Cage. You put me in such a good mood. Every time I see a movie with your ridiculous toupee of the moment, a little flutter in my soul lifts up to spread a smile on my face. With only a moment's hesitation, I reach out to pick up the case, imagining with glee the wonders that await me in this next magical adventure with the world's foremost authority on "uber-acting." The spasms of his face, the high-pitched, off-kilter delivery of his lines, the sudden explosions of yelling incoherently, his oddly maniac giggle...entertainment awaits us.

I was one of the few people who didn't hate the first "Ghost Rider." It wasn't a fantastic film, but I found it reasonably entertaining. And despite whether or not Nicolas Cage was necessarily right for the role of Johnny Blaze, I found his performance genuine and, let's face it, even-keeled as far as his performances usually get. For anyone rolling their eyes at that statement, just think back to "Face/Off."

Yeah. Now remember that in "Ghost Rider," Nicolas Cage is playing a man whose skull is on fire half the movie. And Caster Troy was the more over-the-top performance. Don't tell me the man only has one setting! He's got at least 4!

He's either acting or attempting to implode a man's skull using only the power of his mind.

For that reason, I was actually looking forward to "Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance." In particular I dug the artistic design and vision they were going with, which seemed more realistic and less cartoony than the first one. What I was unaware of was the fact that this film was directed by Mark Neveldine and Brian Taylor, the same team who did "Crank." And while that may have been an odd choice, had I known that before, I would have made more effort to see it in theaters, which I didn't get an opportunity to do.

Man, is it obvious that this was by Neveldine/Taylor. "Ghost Rider: SoV" contains much of the same kind of frenetic, super charged action that could be found in "Crank," although to a much less, PG-13 level extent. And while a hard-R version of this movie would have been awesome, let's face it, Marvel don't roll that way what with tickets sales and all, even though I'm pretty sure the hit to their pockets would be minimal. It's not like anyone saw this movie to begin with.

Also very present is the same style of fourth-wall obliterating humor that was so prevalent in the "Crank" series. There are several "wink at the camera" moments that, to be honest, are pretty jarring. For example, for those who saw the trailer, the much-maligned exchange of dialogue: "What if you have to pee when you're on fire?" followed by Nicolas Cage's response of "It's awesome. It's like a flamethrower" is actually in the film, complete with a cutaway to the Rider standing in some kind of void where he is floating in blackness, back to the audience as a jet of flame shoots from his groin. He then turns his head and nods in an "Oh yeah" moment. Then *BANG* back to the movie. They also do the exact same extreme close ups as the main character flies down the road on a motorcycle in a state of near maniac rage/rapture that "Crank" did. I guess that will be in every Neveldine/Taylor movie.

 Seth McFarlane wishes he could write a cutaway this awesome.

What it all boils down to really is a matter of personal taste of whether or not it will work for you. Me personally? It didn't really bother me. It seemed to fit the tone of the film, which was essentially a big(ger) budget B-movie. And that's fine. I dig that stuff, especially when Mr. Cage is involved. But I can imagine that if you'd never seen "Crank," or weren't familiar with the kind of movie Neveldine/Taylor make, these kind of scenes might seem horribly distracting. Just know that "Crank" got way, WAY sillier than this one.

The story concerns Johnny Blaze hiding in Europe because he doesn't want to be working as the Devil's errand boy. Now, right from the beginning I found it difficult to discern whether or not this movie was a sequel or a retcon. It seems that events from the first film still...could have happened? They aren't ever mentioned, but I suppose they are possible. The real confusing part is right in the introductory storybook-style flashback of how Johnny Blaze made his deal with the Devil. The story is still the same, but the scene where he signs the contract is presented in a totally different way, with no real reason I can see to change it. That along with no mention of anything from the first film makes me think that "Ghost Rider: SoV" is meant to be its own thing, and the first one might as well have never happened.

 This will make people who hated the first "Ghost Rider" happy, but the real question is "Does the second movie do a better job?" I would have to say "yes" for two reasons. The first concerns art design, and the second concerns how Nicolas Cage portrayed the Rider.

The first "Ghost Rider" had a Rider whose skull was a clean white, with a shiny leather jacket and elaborately boned-themed bike. It worked okay, but when Neveldine/Taylor's version of the Rider is on screen, it's clear that there is a much better way to portray Hell's Collection Boy.

Like this.

In "Ghost Rider: SoV," the Rider's skull is charred black, which gives it an air of desiccation and wear. His bike is a cobbled together husk of blackened pipes and gears, much more utilitarian than flashy, and it looks like it's driven a million miles instead of right off the showroom floor. And finally, in a touch I thought was borderline brilliant, when the Rider is out, and flames are licking all around him, his jacket is in a constant state of melting. During any of the long, slow closeups of the Rider, bubbles can be seen slowly rising to the surface of the leather, popping and running down as they melt. It make total sense, makes him look scary, and it's a really cool effect I dug the hell out of. Between the two movies, I'll take the grungy, scary looking one any day.

Secondly, Nicolas Cage plays Johnny Blaze in a much different way than he did before. In this film he's playing it really really tortured. He's in a constant struggle to keep the Rider inside him because he can't stop it from coming out, especially when evil is near. The problem is that he has no control when he becomes the Rider, and basically everyone around him is going to die, something he'd like to avoid. So it makes total sense why a big part of the movie is Johnny Blaze trying to find a way to exorcize himself and get rid of the curse.

And of course this is all played in a deliciously hammy way by one of my favorite hams. Watching Nicolas Cage deliver in a sweaty, face-twitching, barrage of rising falsetto shrieks such awesomely corny lines as "He's scratching at the door! He's scratching at THE DOOOOR-AH!!!!" is exactly why I watch these movies. Magnifique.

I had the same reaction when they cancelled "Arrested Development."

You know, between this, "Drive Angry" and "Season of The Witch," two movies which I really liked a lot, Cage seems to be drawn to this kind of enjoyable schlock. I say more power to him if the entertainment factor keeps up. Now, I would say "Ghost Rider: SoV" is the weakest of those three films, but it's hardly the worst of his filmography.

THE BOTTOM LINE - I can't say with a straight face that "Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance" was a good movie. It was a cheesy, dark, zany, over-the-top Nicolas Cage ham-fest with motorcycles, lots of nicely shot action and a Christopher Lambert cameo. If that sounds like a good time to you, bon anniversaire. Cautiously recommended.