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.

John Carter (2012)

Am I the only person who found it impossible to not say John Carter's name like Arnold Schwarzenegger? You know, cause it's really close to "John Conner?" Didn't you ever look at the poster and think "John Conna! Cum wit me if you vant to live!" Or maybe you actually saw the movie and when John Carter gets transported you maybe thought to yourself "Nygaah! Git you ass to Mah's!"

Nobody? Ok then. Disregard that last paragraph.

"John Carter" is of course famous for failing. Along with "Battleship," this film was the first of two huge financial disasters for Disney in 2012. Both of these films had budgets that could have fed a small country for a few months, and both of them tanked like a horse in Skyrim. (/nerdjoke) It's pretty clear why "Battleship" went under, even though I thought it wasn't that bad. I think the main problem was that people couldn't get past the fact that the genesis of it was a board game. It wasn't great, but it wasn't as awful as people made it out to be.

With "John Carter" it was the advertising. This has been a note of record, and I'm pretty sure plenty of people in that department got fired. And rightly so. The trailer for "John Carter" was a big, jumbled mess that didn't tell us anything about the movie we were supposed to be excited about. I thought it looked like it was trying to tackle too many ideas, and I had no idea what anything was or what was going on at all. It was a terrible trailer and advertising campaign. And it was so quietly shuffled out of theaters, head hung low, that I never got a chance to see it.

So I finally got to see "John Carter" and I have to say, I'm really glad I didn't blow $9.50 on it. Had I seen this in theaters I would have been ticked off. Or maybe not ticked off but tired and bored. I didn't give two craps about this movie. And it's not because it was overly bad, which it wasn't, but because it just was so bland and unmemorable. That's a weird thing to say about a movie as admittedly visually stunning as "John Carter" is, but it's true. "Bland" is the only word to describe it, not because there is any notable lack of tradecraft, but because it's just so unbelievably stock.

It's really sad when you can see stuff like this in a movie and say "It's been done."

The story concerns an American Civil War soldier who, through some technology never really explained, is transported to Mars (Oh, I'm sorry. Barsoom. More on THAT later, because THAT didn't get old). Thrust into the middle of a conflict between two countries on the planet, he leads an uprising to stop the war. Or something like that. I know it involves these 4-armed bug type creatures for some reason, and there are these pale dudes who are kind of like gods but not. Oh, and there's a princess.

See, this is what I'm talking about. I saw this movie yesterday and I've already forgotten nearly everything about it. I can't even remember a single character's name besides John Carter, and I only remember him because his name is on the freaking box art. I had no clue what was going on, but at the same time, I knew everything that was about to happen, because the story is so paint-by-numbers.

I know that "A Princess of Mars" by Edgar Rice Burroughs is a classic sci-fi story that has been the inspiration for a lot of films. I've never read it, and nobody I know has ever read it, true, but I'm aware that it exists. The fact that it is a story that other films have lifted heavily from does give it a pass on being derivative. After all, we can't blame an old story for being influential. But that doesn't mean that it will be fresh and exciting when we've seen this story a hundred times before. It will be boring. Like "John Carter" was.

It's a shame, but when a story has been mined so much that nearly everything about it has become a trope or cliche, that's going to be boring as hell and annoying to sit through despite how pretty you make it look. It's not the story's fault, but that's the way it is. Fortunately, Hollywood doesn't do that too much.

OH WAIT.

There were two other things that irked me about "John Carter." Or at least, these were the things in the movie that were memorable enough for me to remember that I didn't like.

The first was the cast. Taylor Kitsch as John Carter was...how to put this nicely...bad. He was bad. Between this and "Battleship" (Headlining two earth-shattering bombs in a row. Ouch.) I'm not sure he's going to have much of a career. And based on his performance as John Carter, which essentially consisted of him squinting and grunting while seeming like he was distracted by the football game on the TV in the next room, I can't say that I'll be too sad to see him go. It's not a good thing when Channing Tatum has more charisma than you do, I'm just saying.

Lynn Collins as the token Princess was also quite irritating. It's not that she did a bad job necessarily (she was better than Taylor Kitsch, anyway) but I can't stand her character. It's that same "I'm a Princess who is tough and strong and totally a strong role model but ugggh I have to run away from everything and get somebody else to fight my battles for me" crap that you always see. Also, she's another one of those chicks with a "kind of" accent. It's kind of there. Enough to where she can't pronounce "John Carter" properly. It's "Jawn Cah-tah." I hate that accent. Oh, and she whispers a lot. Why does every Princess do that? She's like Liv Tyler in "Lord of The Rings." You just want to chapter skip through her scenes.

On the plus side Willem Dafoe is in this movie. That's cool.

Oh wait. You don't see him? That's crap.

The second thing was that the culture of Mars, oh sorry, BARSOOM, is shoved in our faces pretty hardcore. That's not a problem by itself necessarily, after all it lends credibility, but geez give us some time to adjust. You want to know why I don't remember anybody's name? It's because they are all these crazy alien names that are impossible to remember, and many of them sound the same. I swear there was one word that was used to address like 4 different people. It sounded like "Rejjick" or something, and it was really confusing for me because I was thinking that was the name of Willem Dafoe's character, and then all of a sudden that's what they're calling Ciarán Hinds! About halfway though the movie I realized that it must mean "king" or "leader" or "Your Majesty" or something. Could have used that info earlier, guys. Or here's a thought: "Don't do that."

I think that maybe if "John Carter" was a TV series this alien culture could have been more gracefully introduced as to not be so jarring and disorientating, but we are thrown on Mars (oh sorry, BARSOOM) at about the 15 minute mark, and are there until about the last 10 minutes. That's about an hour and a forty five minutes that we are dunked headfirst into this culture with all the subtlety of a freight train. That's not nearly enough time to adjust to the amount of stuff they throw at us.

 For reference, as the credits roll on "John Carter," Gandalf hadn't even fought the Balrog yet in the Director's Cut. And there's two movies left. #doingitright

You know, I just realized something. I can perfectly sum up how confusing "John Carter" is: I don't even know if the people on Mars were originally from Earth. I don't even know if the aliens are aliens. That's pretty bad.

THE BOTTOM LINE - "John Carter" isn't a bad film, but I just didn't care. It was a stupendously boring and confusing cluster of stuff being thrown at me in front of a bunch of pretty CGI. Don't waste your time. Skip it.

Red Tails (2012)

Remember when Cuba Gooding Jr. was relevant? Take your time, it's been a while. Well, to give you a little reminder, it was around 15 years ago. That's the last time anyone cared about Cuba Gooding Jr. And while at first it was hard to understand why that was, considering the man won an Oscar for saying "Show me the money," it became clear after a while: Cuba Gooding Jr. makes horrible movies.

I think "Radio" was the final nail in his "take me seriously" coffin, but Cuba Gooding Jr. used to be in decent films. "Jerry McGuire," "As Good As It Gets," even stupid stuff like "Outbreak" was far better fare than what he started doing in the 2000's, but I think it was right around "Pearl Harbor" when he lost his dignity. Leave it to Michael Bay to make someone's career tank.

The point I'm getting to is that there is a bit of irony going on with today's movie, "Red Tails." The irony is that this is a movie about the Tuskegee Airmen, who were a group of black fighter pilots that held one of the most prestigious records in World War II. Cuba Gooding Jr. is in this film along with Terrence Howard, another actor far past the point of being cared about. But their washed up status isn't what is ironic. What is ironic is that for Cuba, this is familiar territory.

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you a good movie.

"The Tuskegee Airmen" is a great flick. It was a 1995 made for TV movie starring Cuba and pre-"Matrix" Laurence Fishburne. I remember watching the crap out of it when I was a kid going through my "fighter planes are awesome" phase, which to be fair I've never completely grown out of. I love fighter planes, and a good movie featuring fighter pilots doing their thing is a guaranteed great time for me. So "Red Tails" is looking promising!

Too bad comparing "The Tuskegee Airmen" to "Red Tails" is like comparing having a nice Jack Daniels and Coke on the rocks on a warm spring night to having a dog turd floating in a dixie cup shoved down your throat with a funnel whilst being chained to the ground in the desert in the middle of July.

This movie was abysmal.

"Red Tails" is like a perfect storm of bad. It is cast with middling to bad actors, the script is a mess, the action, for a pretty as it is, is boring, and for a movie that is two hours long, it feels like about 70% of the film was cut with the spastic, whiplash inducing edits and abrupt endings of scenes. But more than anything else that is infuriating about "Red Tails," and there's a lot, this has got to be the worst example I've ever seen of unforgivably bad dialogue.

There is no scene during the entirety of "Red Tails" that doesn't feature some corny, overly scripted, exposition heavy, completely unrealistic, soul crushing, over-the-top, horribly delivered terrible line that would be the stuff of legendary mockery in any other film. And it's like every single line with these mugging jackasses. If you're having trouble contemplating the horrors of what I'm talking about, think back on some of the worst lines you've ever heard. I'll get you started:

"A barrel roll. That's a good trick!"

"Are you an angel?"

"Hold me like you did by that lake on Naboo."

"I don't like sand. It's coarse and rough and irritating and it gets everywhere. Not like here. Here everything is soft and smooth."

"Anakin, you're breaking my heart!"

"NOOOOOOO!!!!!"

(Huh. Was there a pattern going on there?)

It's a showstopper like that every other line. It's really astounding how utterly, completely, shockingly BAD the words spewing from these actor's mouths are. And I realize looking back on it that the dialogue is the kind of stuff you'd hear in a video game. It's not hard to imagine having a controller in your hand, frantically pressing the "A" button in an attempt to skip a cutscene when lines like "The sky is blue, and my guns are hot!" are spewing from the actor's mouths.

There was a point in this film that I was trying to give credit to the actors and say that it wasn't their fault, and nobody could have delivered those lines well...but I lost hope before the end. I'm just going to come out and say it - These actors are terrible. All of them. And I was really trying to cut them some slack. But it was nails on a chalkboard BAD all around.

The final indignity came during the climax of the movie, during the biggest mission of the pilot's careers, deep into Germany. In what was at first shaping up to be a heartbreaking moment (had the rest of the movie been an effective lead in, anyways), Lightning, the main character Easy's best friend, is shot up as he saves Easy's life and takes out the anonymous German ace who functions as a kind of villain in the lamest way possible. As he spirals out of control, dying as he says goodbye to his friend and wife, the beginnings of an emotional payoff seem to be occurring.

Then he crashes into a fiery ball as Easy, flying overhead, in his anguish over his best friend's death exclaims "DAMN you, Lightning!" with the same kind of intensity he would have had if Lightning had borrowed a pair of Easy's underwear and not washed them before giving them back.

Now, it's a stretch, a REAL stretch, but I could actually see that line working if a more talented actor had attempted it. Maybe Morgan Freeman. MAYBE. Even he might have had trouble with that one. But I can also imagine Morgan saying "Now, isn't that kind of a silly line? Why would I curse him? That makes no sense in context. Wouldn't I save the anger till later? I would imagine Easy would just be sad at that moment."

"Meh. I'm bummed. I guess."

Oh and by the way - that important mission deep into Germany which would basically validate the black pilots and help turn the tide of war? Dropped after Lightning's death. Apparently stuff like the mission (see also: what he died for) isn't really important. "Red Tails" just jumps straight from that to them landing saying "Gee, good thing the mission was successful. But Lightning didn't make it!"

Not like seeing the successful outcome of the mission would be any kind of emotional catharsis at all.

That brings us to the rest of the problems. On top of everything else, the editing and pacing in this film is a joke. There's not a single scene that flows into the next one organically. Scenes just abruptly end with the grace of a sledgehammer to the balls. Not only that, but this film desperately needed another pass in the editing room to trim about 20 minutes off, mostly by eliminating two exceedingly stupid and useless subplots.

The first is a romance between Lightning and an Italian girl that basically has Lightning come off as a stalker, and the other is a prison break with another character that plays out like if you condensed "The Great Escape" into 2 minutes. Because it's totally viable to build up effective tension in that amount of time. It's so laughably stupid and out of place that it stuns me that anyone thought it was a good idea. These plot threads go absolutely nowhere, but keep popping up to throw an anchor down on any momentum the plot may have gathered by a fluke accident.

I can't really say much more than that. It's unbelievable how badly a good story like this was botched, especially when it's been done before to much greater effect. "Red Tails" is a joke, and George Lucas should once again be ashamed of himself.

Did I mention he produced it? You know, I hate to jump on bandwagons...but George is really making it hard to not hate him. Between him and Spielberg I'm not going to have any childhood favorites left to be a fan of soon.

Look at him. He knows he should be ashamed.

THE BOTTOM LINE - "Red Tails" is making my list of Worst of 2012. There's no possible way that it's not. I pray it's not. If I have to watch 10 worse movies this year, I might kill myself. "Red Tails" is pain to the point of unwatchability. And it had the gall to feature the awesome Bryan Cranston. For shame.

Prometheus (2012)

Sometimes writing this blog sucks. When a movie reaches a certain level of quality it quickly becomes really hard to write anything about it out of fear of sounding redundant. Or sometimes there's just so much to talk about that you either write a novel or nothing at all. Here's one of those moments.

I'll own up to something right off the bat here, so everyone knows where I'm coming from with this. I am a HUGE "Alien" fan. The "Alien" franchise is one of my favorites of all time, right up there with "Star Wars." And while I didn't see them as a child, the "Alien" movies helped define my taste in both the science fiction and horror genres, and was a big part of my adolescence.

I'm such a big fan I even like "Alien Resurrection." Now, don't get me wrong, that is a terrible movie, but I still inexplicably have fun with it despite how terrible it is. "Alien Resurrection" is a glorious wreck of two trains, one carrying Joss Whedon writing a story about cloning while not knowing how cloning works and the other carrying 5,000 gallons of KY jelly. And he had the gall to come out and say that the reason it sucked was because all the actors said their lines wrong. Did he read his script? What an asshole.

Yup. Totally Sygourney Weaver's fault right there...

I'd been keeping on and off again tabs on "Prometheus" for years, ever since it was called "Alien 5." Then Ridley Scott changed the name, it became a prequel, then it wasn't a prequel, then it was, and it just kept going back and forth until I stopped listening. It was too painful to hear every time they made a big change. Eventually I walled myself off from it and kept in the dark. The only thing I allowed myself to see was the trailer when it was first released. And it looked so good that out of all the movies coming out in 2012, the only one that I was more excited about was "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey."

Needless to say, the expectations were sky high.

I ended up seeing "Prometheus" twice, in actuality. I saw it on opening day, but I realized I couldn't write a review of it at that point, because I didn't really know what I thought. I knew that I didn't hate it. I knew that I enjoyed myself, but I didn't know if that was because of my "fan-goggles" or not. Perhaps the fact that I was practically wetting myself with joy every time I saw something familiar was tainting my opinion of it.

So I went back and watched it again a few days later. And I'm happy to say that "Prometheus" improves drastically on a second viewing, and it confirmed my original thoughts on the film: "Prometheus" is really, really good.

Whoa! They made a "Mass Effect" movie? Sweet!

The thing about "Prometheus" is that there's a lot of ideas going on in it. Any movie that asks the question: "Who are we and where did we come from?" and attempts to give some answers is biting off a big mouthful to chew. Aside from that, there are recurring themes of evolution, rebirth, and parricide that really give "Prometheus" what I have to be snobby and call "an intellectual edge" that makes it a much smarter film than any film in the "Alien" franchise to date. Not to say that "Prometheus" is better, or that the others weren't "smart," but they were horror/action films. "Prometheus" is a before anything else a sci-fi film.

Not really knowing where to begin, I'll just start by saying that the cast was phenomenal. I was happy to see that Noomi Rapace confirmed my suspicions that her portrayal of Lisbeth Salander in "The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo" series was simply the result of a horrible character, and that she is actually a very good actress. I enjoyed her greatly in "Prometheus," although it is inevitable that comparisons to Sygourney Weaver will occur, since she is the Ripley character of this one.

Is she as good as Sygourney? That's impossible to say since Ripley and Beth are two completely different characters. I'd say that overall Beth isn't as emotionally (or physically) strong as Ripley is, but the way Noomi plays Beth, she never comes off as weak - just realistic. In fact you could argue that Beth is far more logical and intelligent than Ripley since she thinks about things instead of acting out of blind emotion (re: running back into the alien hive to save Newt). Perhaps that evens things out. Ripley is a badass, Beth is smart.

Noomi is also looking a HELL of a lot like Kari Byron in this. Ridley Scott must have been reading my "wish list."

 Oh baby. You can bust my myth any day. Awww yeah... #needsgirlfriendbadly

And of course, adding to the lovely factor is Charlize Theron, playing the corporate jerk who doesn't really care about any of the crew, kind of like Paul Reiser's character Burke in "Aliens." Between this and "Snow White and The Huntsman," she really can play wicked quite well. The real star here, though, is Michael Fassbender, who seems to be on a mission to completely dominate every single movie he is in. His portrayal of David, the ship's synthetic (robot) is, in a word, stunning. He had a lot to live up to, filling the shoes of Ian Holm and Lance Henriksen, but Fassebender is a mack-daddy, so of course he pulls it off.

And if you squint really hard and huff a lot of paint, Fassbender kind of looks like the love child of Ian Holm and Lance Henriksen.

I know there has been some division among fans, however. Honestly, I don't get it, but if someone wasn't paying attention, they might come away with misconceptions since this is not really like the other "Alien" films, at least at first glance. There really isn't any horror element to it, at least not in terms of what we've come to expect. Whereas the other movies were essentially slasher movies in space, "Prometheus" is more of a suspense/drama. The gore, for the most part, isn't really there like in the others, there is less emphasis on action, and there is more of a sense of mystery and discovery than tension and dread, although those do make themselves known on occasion.

But at the same time, there are a lot of similarities, particularly in the pacing department. It begins slow and it takes it's time until a nasty discovery is unveiled which threatens the crew. Slowly they begin to get picked off, just in this case not by a monster in the conventional sense. There is the equivalent of the chestburster scene, and although it is much later in the film, I would say that it's far more intense since the scene in the original was much quicker. A corporate betrayal is uncovered, and the ending is actually quite similar in a lot of ways. There's also a "fourth act" confrontation, which "Alien" basically invented. Hell, even the android's severed head starts talking.

And for being not as action-oriented, there are some legitimate squirming-in-your-seat nail biting moments that I imagine would be especially rough for anybody who has ever given birth. C-Section nightmares all around, kiddos.

 Nobody can watch this scene and tell me later it wasn't intense as all hell.

So I guess I don't understand where the split comes in. It may anger some to hear this, but take it from a person who is quite protective of the series: This is not a betrayal. This is "Alien" with an intellectual spin on it, and there's a lot to talk about in it.

When I talk about an intellectual spin and "big" ideas, dig on this:

SPOILER WARNING

According to "Prometheus," a race of aliens ("The Engineers") created human life on Earth by sacrificing one of their own into the primordial waters. In fact, that is presumably what's going on in the very first scene. The very first scene of the film is the beginning of life, and "The Engineers" are for all intents and purposes, God.

When the crew find the alien ship on the distant planet, it was on a course for Earth. It's reason was to wipe out all life in order to start again. It had been sitting there for around 2,000 years. Now, "Prometheus" takes place less than 100 years from now. Can you think of something possibly God-related that happened about 2,000 years ago that might make the creator of human-kind upset? Something that might make them say, "Ok, you've all had your fun, but you all suck, and it's time to start from scratch" perhaps?

That's right. "Prometheus" drops the hint of the idea that Jesus was an alien. That's a big idea.

/SPOILERS

"Prometheus" may be upsetting for someone looking for a movie just like what the rest of the movies were, but was that really all you wanted? Getting the same thing over and over again can get boring, and I personally didn't want to see Ridley Scott get back in the directors chair only to do his best James Cameron impression. James Cameron is the guy doing the best impression of James Cameron, anyways.

I guess what I mean is that if all you wanted was to see "Aliens" again, throw in the DVD of "Aliens." After all, there really was no improving on that one anyways. When I get Ridley Scott, I expect a high level of quality, and hopefully some interesting intellectual angles. And that's exactly what I got.

Well, that and a whole lot of creepy H.R. Giger looking architecture.

THE BOTTOM LINE - "Prometheus" was not what I was expecting, but that didn't stop it from being very good. It's a fine entry into the "Alien" franchise which gets better with repeat viewings, since there's a lot to take in, and I dare say it's objectively the best of the series since "Aliens." If it doesn't make my Top 10 of 2012, I will be shocked. Its biggest problem is that it will feel very hollow if it's not followed up on. This NEEDS a sequel, or even better to be made into a trilogy to be linked into the events of "Alien." Highly Recommended.