Man On A Ledge (2012)

It must be hard to be Sam Worthington. He's at the mercy of an insane person.

Think about it. His career has to wait for James Cameron, that anal-retentive, off-his-rocker-crazy perfectionist who takes 20 years between each movie in order for technology to catch up with his fever dream visions of making stuff that isn't real look still-not-real-but-boy-is-it-pretty-and-shiny. And Sam ain't doing jack in the meantime. The only time anyone cared about Sam Worthington was when he was in "Avatar," and it would appear that the only time anyone will care about him again is whenever Cameron makes the sequel. That's rough.

That may be a bit harsh, but come on. The biggest thing the dude's done in the 4 years since "Avatar" are the "Clash of The Titans" reboots. That is not exactly prestigious. And now we have "Man On A Ledge," which doesn't thrill and entertain so much as confirm my suspicion that Sam Worthington is trying guilt-trip James Cameron into making "Avatar 2" faster so that he can have a career.

 "Do it, Cameron! Do it or I'll jump! I swear I'll jump!"

Whatever. "Avatar 2" is still probably going to be crap, just like the first one was. Maybe this time it'll be a 4 hour long rip-off of "The Postman." Which would actually make that movie shorter, come to think of it.

I'm going to tell you straight out, for "Man On A Ledge," I'm going to spoil the crap out of this movie. I'm doing it because I don't care, and honestly, neither do you. You just don't know it yet. It's a dumb film that is under the impression that it's clever. Even with Ed Harris as the villain, which under any other circumstance would be awesome, it manages to also be boring. And the reason it's boring is because, going back to the first point, it's dumb. Although there might be something to be said about the entertainment factor of watching a train wreck.

The only way for me to try and make sense of any of this mess is to break it down into steps.

1) Businessman (Ed Harris) loses a lot of money during the economic collapse.
2) He sells his gigantic diamond to make some money to survive.
3) In an effort not to be humiliated, he frames a seemingly random cop (Sam Worthington) and says that he stole the diamond, cut it up into many pieces, and sold them.
4) Cop is convicted of this and goes to jail.
5) Cop and his brother set up this elaborate heist to break the cop out of jail and steal the diamond from the businessman, in order to prove that he didn't steal it the first time. Among other things, this plan involves the cop creating a huge distraction by standing on a ledge, and their father faking his own death and becoming a bellhop at the hotel across the street from the businessman's building. (Oddly enough, the father bit makes more sense since the only reason the ledge thing is necessary was to make a crowd cheer in order to make enough noise to cover up an explosion. If that's your plan, try harder.)
6) Absurdly, the plan actually works, up to the point where the brother and his girlfriend (two people who are not career criminals yet are pulling of "Ocean's 11" style heist-aerobics) find out that the diamond is not in the safe they thought it was in. At this point their plan is officially tits-up. Everything past this point couldn't have been planned by them.
7) The businessman, seeing that his security measures performed admirably and exactly as intended despite being penetrated, decides to take the diamond out of his super high tech safe that the thieves couldn't possibly break into and instead puts it in his pocket because...um...because...well...he's dumb.
8) The brother and his girlfriend break into the businessman's office and wait for him, since there is apparently no security leading to his office (what?), and steal the diamond off of him. Keep in mind, they did not know that he a) had another safe or b) had the diamond on him. And even if they did know that (which they couldn't) their entire plan hinges on him removing the diamond from the safe after the break-in. Which, even as flimsy plans go, is a stretch and relies on the businessman being galactically stupid.
9) In a beautify orchestrated series of hand-offs and tag team switcharoos involving their dad undercover as a bellhop, the brother manages to get the diamond into the hands of the cop.
10) Using crooked cops and a gun, the businessman gets the diamond back, making the whole switcharoo stuff pointless.
11) Using dumb luck and convenience, the cop manages to punch the businessman in the face and shows the diamond to everyone in a big crowd including the media, which apparently clears him from wrongdoing, exonerates him, and makes him a free man. They all have a drink.

And if there was any kind of sense or logic in this movie, step 12 would be that he goes to jail for stealing the diamond. Because here's the special thing about that little plan. Yes, it's true that it may clear you from that first charge when you hadn't done it. That's true. But there's still that second charge. You know, that time when you actually did do it? Yeah, you're going to jail for that. You are so sued. That would be some kind of record, wouldn't it? Going to jail for doing a crime you did to prove you hadn't done the exact same crime before?

He should write a book called "If I Stole The Diamond."

I mean, look at all the things he could be arrested for, which he absolutely 100% did do. There's escaping from jail, assaulting two police officers, creating a public disturbance, being an accessory to a robbery, assaulting a SWAT team member, assaulting the businessman, and destruction of public and private property which would probably factor in the hundreds of thousands of dollars of damage, if not millions of dollars. And let's not forget that he and his brother made, planted and detonated explosives on the roof of a building in New York City, which I'm sure would get him prosecuted under some kind of anti-terrorism act. This dude is going up the creek for sure.

But no, it's a movie, so proving that you were the victim once automatically clears you from any wrong-doing you do later. I like to call that the "Lisbeth Salander Defense." And it bugs the crap out of me every time it happens. Even when it's emotionally moving and what we'd probably like to see happen, like in "A Time To Kill."

But that just doesn't fly with me. As strong and sexy of a defense as Matty McC can give, Samuel L. Jackson totally shot Keifer Sutherland to hell, Noomi Rapace gladly tried to kill her father with an axe, and Sam Worthington did enough here to put him away for a few decades. Or at least as long as they put away weed dealers. Which is about the same, since justice is awesome like that.

"Come on, honey. Let's commit some crimes to prove our innocence."

But more to the point, there's some other utterly perplexing stuff going on here. Go back and look at #2. The businessman sold the diamond. That's how he got the money to keep him afloat during hard times. I don't think I'm misremembering anything with that, because they even say during one of the conspiratorial exposition scenes something like "Out of nowhere he gets $40 million. He's back on top." So that would imply that he sold it. Besides, if he didn't, why would he hide it? And what was the $40 million from if not the diamond? So that brings up a very important question that I don't remember the movie ever answering: How does he have the diamond in his safe if he sold it?

Perhaps he bought it back from whoever he sold it to, but I can't recall that ever being mentioned. And yes, it's true that I was kind of bored by "Man On A Ledge," but I wasn't bored to the point of missing out on a plot point like that. My lone vodka and tonic isn't going to make me miss it. I just think they either didn't think it was important enough to mention, or they just plain screwed up. I'll let you speculate, but you can go ahead and guess which scenario I find more likely.

"I have money. Don't ask questions."

There are two ways to go about looking at a movie like "Man On A Ledge." The first way of looking at it, and I think this is the manner in which both the filmmakers want you to watch it and the way the average movie goer actually does watch it, is that it's just a movie and we should all just let it roll over us and not worry about silly things like plot and making sense and all those trivial things that I get called pretentious for pointing out.

The second way to look at a movie is that yes, it does matter if a movie makes sense in its own universe. I'm not saying that every movie needs to have both feet firmly planted on the ground. I loved "Machete" for crap's sake, and that movie had its feet so far off the ground it could be hired to do repairs on low-orbiting satellites. I'm not saying a movie can't be fun or ridiculous or not worry about trivial stuff in the plot.

But a movie like "Man On A Ledge," which is obviously proud of its caper and working really hard to make a lot of pieces fit together throughout several *GOTCHA* moments can't really excuse itself by throwing its chips in with the outlandish absurdity of movies that were never meant to be taken seriously in the first place. I really believe "Man On A Ledge" wants to be totally serious.

Alright then, "Man On A Ledge." You want to be taken seriously? Then get ready to be looked at as such. You're proud of your caper? Fine. Explain to me how in the hell these seemingly average people with no mentioned training besides "breaking into nice houses back in high school" are able to pull of these heists like Ethan Freaking Hunt in "Mission: Impossible." Where did they get the gadgets? How did they get the intel on Ed Harris' high-tech vault? How are they able to even remotely pull off this insane job when Genesis Rodriguez's character, in fact all of them, are too stupid to have the foresight to realize that when you have a red-tinted flashlight, everything you're looking at is going to be tinted red, including wires you have to cut? Why did she apparently not even study the wiring diagram to know exactly which wire to cut? Instead she has to rely on Sam Worthington to coach her through it via radio, but she just ends up having to guess in the end anyway? Are you for real? Seriously, her jackass boyfriend just advices her to "Cut the reddest looking one." What a pro. Glad you planned that out. Why does the heat sensor in the vault room not pick them up when they've entered despite having taken no measures to counter it? Why does the floor sensor not set off the alarm since they're just walking around casually? Why is there a conveniently located human-sized ventilation shaft located on the ceiling precisely above the safe, leading to an easily accessible opening in the room next to it which is located ON THE GROUND?

Do I even need to bring up the question as to why she needs a flashlight when it's clearly lit in there?

This could actually be a pretty good parody of a heist movie if it weren't taking itself so seriously.

THE BOTTOM LINE - "Man On A Ledge," while not necessarily the worst made or produced film I've seen this year, is probably one of the more irritating in terms of how much more credit it gives itself than what it actually deserves. This is a dumb, dumb movie that makes no logical sense in even the simplest terms, and for a heist movie, which as a genre is one that depends on rigorous attention to detail in order to properly work, that's a big problem.

Skyfall (2012)

Let's get this out of the way quick, because it's going to come up at some point in this discussion anyway, and it's probably best to lay down the law first. There is only one true James Bond, and that's Sean Connery. Timothy Dalton was okay. George Lazenby actually tore it up as Bond even though everyone considers him the worst, but that's just because he only had one movie. But seriously? People really consider Roger Moore better than Lazenby? Are you all high?

Anyone who would place Roger Moore's goofy ass above Lazenby is insane. Did you even see "Moonraker?" Do you really think that "James Bond IN SPAAAAAAACE" is anywhere close to a decent Bond flick? That's among Roger Moore at his zaniest, and I frigging hated when the Bond series got zany. There's tongue-in-cheek and then there's "Three Stooges" territory. Frakking lasers and Jaws having a romance with a geeky nerd with big braces...man, that movie sucked. Even the one-liners were just painful.

"I believe he's attempting re-entry, sir!"

GAH! I HATE "MOONRAKER!" You too, Roger Moore!

Truthfully, although my favorite is of course Connery, I've always felt that Pierce Brosnan is the closest to how I always envisioned James Bond in my mind. True, his movies went downhill quick, but he was the one who I think sold the character better than the rest. He looked the part exactly, and he was smooth as hell. Connery was smooth too, but that was back in the 60's, when being smooth really just amounted to drinking lots of scotch and slapping chicks on the ass. Those were the days.

So where do I place Daniel Craig on the list of Bonds? Well, that's kind of hard for me to say because honestly, I'm still not convinced he's been in an actual Bond movie. True, he's been called both 007 and James Bond many times in the films he's done as that character, but they've never had much of a "Bond" feel to them. They've lacked that sense of fun and camp the others had, and I've missed that. That being said, I think Craig is a decent spy/action hero, but in terms of being James Bond, meh. He's okay. He's had his moments. And at least he can deliver a one-liner surprisingly well. And he's not Roger Moore.

That counts for so much. So very, very much.

Although I actually enjoyed "Casino Royale" a fair amount, it didn't really seem like a Bond film. It was too dark and brooding for that. On the other hand, it was a cool reintroduction of the character which could have worked very well as the first in a new series. All they had to do was start doing the gadgets and add a bit more camp and ease off on the emo-ness and they'd be fine.

So what did "Quantum of Solace" do? The exact opposite of that. There was no fun to be found in that movie. Only dour expressions, zero high-tech toys, and James Bond basically taking on the mantle of The Punisher in a tuxedo. And he was fighting an evil environmentalist. Oooh, take that, Donald Pleasence.

Honestly, there was no place for "Skyfall" to go but up from "Quantum of Solace." And I think the makers of the film knew that from the beginning, and set out to bring us closer to the feel and style of the Bond movies we've known and loved for 50 years, a goal reenforced by the filmmakers coming out and saying that "Quantum of Solace" is officially and completely unconnected to "Skyfall." As much as the thought of linked Bond movies is intriguing to me, this could only be a good thing, and I was very glad when I heard that. Because honestly, I would dread having to watch "Quantum of Solace" again as a recap.

And true to expectations, "Skyfall" is indeed leaps and bounds ahead of the previous installment. LEAPS AND BOUNDS. In fact, it's probably safe to say that "Skyfall" is the best of the Daniel Craig series thus far, not at the very least on a film making level. It's fast-paced throughout its long run time, the story is surprisingly deep for a Bond film without ever coming across as plodding or overly dense, and the action is - and I only bold this for the emphasis it rightly deserves - beyond outstanding.

 It's the SOOOOOOOOOOOUL PUNCH TRAIN!!!

While it never reaches the camp or fun of previous Bond incarnations, "Skyfall" contains many moments of pure outrageous, over-the-top, jaw-dropping moments that are right up there with driving a tank down the streets of St. Petersberg and flinging a huge Soviet to their death from an airplane by cutting the laces off of your boot. Now we can add "gutting a train with an excavator" and "dropping a subway car on someone" to the list.

Yes, you read that right. The villain literally drops one of these on Bond. So much win.

But it's not always the elaborate set pieces that make the action pop in "Skyfall." It's the intense hand to hand duels and the shootouts that are riveting. It is such a nice change of pace to watch an action movie where everything is clean, crisp, and easy to follow in terms of who is shooting who and what's going on. Again, going back to "Quantum of Solace," the editing in that movie was so bad that the fight scenes were nearly incomprehensible due to it being way too close, jittery and fast paced.

"Skyfall" has not only some of the best filmed fight scenes I've seen in a Bond film, but one of my new favorites, period. It's a scene taking place near the top of a skyscraper, after Bond catches a ride hanging from the bottom of an elevator, just barely able to hang on till he gets to the top (Jesus Christ...). The whole fist-fight is done in one take, with the camera static and very slowly zooming in, and the only thing you see of the two is their silhouettes against the neon Chinese skyline. It's a gorgeous shot and one of the more brutal fights in the whole movie because it feels the most legitimate. It reminded me not a little bit of what Quentin Tarantino did at the end of "Kill Bill, Vol. 1," with Uma fighting those guys in that blue room.

There are significantly fewer beheadings, however.

The whole movie is full of beautiful camerawork, now that I look back on it. It would not be a stretch to say that if "Skyfall" isn't the best looking Bond movie ever made, it's got to be a contender for second place. The only Bond movie I would say that even comes close is "Goldeneye." But I've got a feeling "Skyfall" would win. I just can't emphasize enough how good this movie looks.

The best example of that is probably the requisite opening montage after the beginning scene. It is beyond a doubt the best title sequence ever. Seriously. It is beautiful, moody, haunting, and once you've seen the whole film you realize that it's actually quite expository without giving away anything.

The only problem is the song. I couldn't stand the song. And had it been performed by somebody like Shirley Bassey or dare I say Lady Gaga (actually that would have been awesome) I would probably think it was just fine. But I can't lie. I can't stand Adele. She sounds like Amy Winehouse but without the cocaine. And I couldn't stand Amy Winehouse, either. I just don't understand why it's so impossible for some singers to enunciate certain syllables.

Pro-tip for Adele: It's pronounced "Sky Fall." Not "Sky Fwallrrr"

Here's where I have to bring up the only other negative thing I can say about the movie besides who they got to sing the song. "Skyfall" to me, felt like two different films. For about the first hour and forty minutes, it's fantastic. It feels like an old school Bond flick with fun, over-the-top action shenanigans and Daniel Craig being a smooth badass.

The plot of "Skyfall" is that while on a mission in Turkey, Bond gets shot during a royally botched mission and is missing, presumed dead. Of course, he's not, and is in fact enjoying his life off the grid when a series of attacks on MI-6 draw him back to protect both MI-6 and M, as always played by British treasure and professional stern lecturer, Dame Judi Dench. Despite not being anywhere near physically or psychologically at peak condition, he's put back into active service to track down a man who is attacking MI-6, and seemingly knows their every move before they make it.

We go to exciting places, get in exciting chases, have thrilling gun battles, witness trademark Bond smarm, finally finally get to meet Q and get some manner of gadgets. I don't care that it was simply a gun and a tracking device. The gun had a Judge Dredd thingy that made it so that only Bond could shoot it. That counts as a gadget! And I'm so glad we got one of those at last. It only took 3 movies into the Daniel Craig series. Sheesh.

We even got an memorable villain in the form of Javier Bardem. He's no Alec Travelyn or Scaramanga, but his character has a unique kind of menace - the kind that you're not quite sure what this guy is capable of. Is he a bit eccentric, or is it that just a front for being completely unhinged and capable of anything? It's hard to tell at first. In fact he comes across as not a little bit femmy and wussy, but pretty soon it's clear that this guy is not a person to be screwed with. In fact he usually only comes across as non-threatening because he's the one screwing with you, and he's the only one who knows it. There's also the matter of effects work done regarding his face, but that's a matter I'll let you discover for yourselves because I'd hate to ruin the surprise. Holy crap.

Javier Bardem has the ultimate "Problem, bro?" face.

All of this stuff is golden. I loved it. It felt old-school. This was the movie I had been waiting for. And then the last 40 minutes hit. Now, I can't say that the last 40 minutes were bad. They weren't. In fact in any other movie it would have been perfectly fine. The problem I had was that at that point, it stopped feeling like a Bond movie, and started feeling more like a Bourne movie.

Once they leave London to go to a safe place in Scotland, that's when the feel changes. We aren't chasing the bad guys down anymore. We aren't going to exciting, exotic places anymore. Instead we bunker down, dig our trenches, set up our booby-traps and wait for the bad guys to come to us. And it's not that it's done bad. In fact it's quite suspenseful and serves as a rather thrilling action climax. But it doesn't feel like James Bond anymore. It feels like Jason Bourne. And that knocked it down a peg from where it had been before. Not a large peg, mind you, but a peg none the less. Essentially it took "Skyfall" from a "twice in the theaters" movie to a "I'll watch it again when it comes out to rent, maybe" movie.

Every spy movie today is trying to be Bourne. Don't drag Bond in with it, too.

But on the other hand, it does serve a purpose. The last part of the film not only lets us in on what the word "Skyfall" means anyway, but also gives us some in-depth background on Bond for the first time. We still don't know a huge amount about him, but it's way more than we've known before. And while I am a bit let down that this background came at the cost of slowing down a great movie, it's cool that we're getting information previously unknown.

I have to give the makers of "Skyfall" credit. They got Bond right on this one. Now what they need to do is to not mess it up. The end of "Skyfall" sets Craig up beautifully to become the James Bond we know and love. Everything is in place (and everyone, too. Yay awesome character introductions at the end!). A lot has changed, but this could be the start of the Bond as we've known him since "Dr. No." All they need to do is cut out the emo and crank up the fun once again, and they're golden. They just have to not screw it up again like "Quantum of Solace."

They could not be in a better position to consistently knock them out of the park from now on.

"Very good, Bond. Now, allow me to demonstrate our newest prototype: An Aston Martin complete with machine guns in the headlights and an ejector seat."

"Already have one, Q."

"I beg your pardon?"

"I have one in my garage. Drove M to Scotland in it."

"But, but how? Who made it for you? How did you acquire it? You've never used gadgets like that before."

"...An excellent question, Q. Perhaps the 60's?"

THE BOTTOM LINE - "Skyfall" is objectively the best of the Daniel Craig Bond flicks. Easily. It's gorgeous, exciting, and a hell of a lot of fun. It loses some steam at the end, but that doesn't stop what came before it from being awesome. I think I'd still rather watch "Casino Royale" though. I'm not sure why. It's so awesome to see Bond back on track. This movie rocked.

The Monitor (2011)

You know, I've almost unwittingly made another little trilogy for myself here. I've already done an IFC Midnight trilogy and a Shark Attack Week trilogy since there happened to be a surplus of both IFC Midnight and shark movies on the wall at Blockbuster at the time. But between this entry today and yesterday's "The Tall Man" I'm most of the way to a Weird Dramas That Are Misleading Based On First Impressions That Involve Children In Danger trilogy.

Only that would be way too long of a title. And I'm seeing "Skyfall" tonight, and something tells me that would not be a very accurate description of a James Bond movie.

"The Monitor" is a Norwegian film staring an actress I used to dislike but am becoming quite a fan of, Noomi Rapace. I'm finding it difficult to remember why in the world I wasn't a fan of her before, because ever since "Prometheus" I've enjoyed her greatly in everything I've seen her in. To me she's very naturalistic and as capable of appearing both badass and vulnerable, sometimes at the same time. And she's very convincing when she does either.

Actually, that's a lie. I remember exactly why I didn't like her earlier. I freaking hated the Swedish "Girl With The Dragon Tattoo" series. But hey, she helped bring awesomeness back to the "Alien" franchise, so she is officially forgiven in my eyes.

Like "The Tall Man," this is a movie that doesn't deliver exactly what one would expect from it based on the box art or the description. In fact, the description that is written on the case is laughably inaccurate, leading me to believe that the blurb was written by someone who had maybe only seen the trailer, and not the film itself. I say that because it gets rather specific about a plot point that doesn't actually happen, but I can imagine that had you only watched the trailer, you might believe that's where it's going.

I love finding stupid stuff like that. It's almost as fun as reading the descriptions under the ratings, especially when it's a PG-13 movies so they can get really specific about stuff like "TEEN PARTYING AND SMOKING" or "HORROR VIOLENCE" or "GORE AND SLIME." Yes, that last one exists. "Alien Vs. Predator" was rated PG-13 partly due to slime. That's awesome. But I digress.

What's going on in "The Monitor" is that Anna (Noomi Rapace) and her 8 year old son Anders (Vetle Ovenild Werring, who looks like a Norwegian mini-James McAvoy) move into an apartment after being relocated by social services after she divorces her abusive husband. Despite being placed somewhere he could never find her, Anna is still a bit high-strung and doesn't take any chances with her son, who she keeps on a very tight leash.

 Actually, she's one of those moms who would probably use an actual leash on her son.

When it becomes clear that the kid should probably sleep in his own bed at some point, Anna decides that even down the hallway is too far away for her, and buys a baby monitor to put in Anders' room so she can hear if anything happens. Then, one night, a child's horrible screaming comes from the monitor, but it isn't from Anders' room. She realizes that it's picking up another monitor's signal, coming from somewhere else in their apartment complex.

That alone could have made for an interesting movie, but "The Monitor" does something which is either ambitious or kind of stupid. I can't really decide. In any case it did tend to make the whole film feel a little bloated and unfocused. What they did is essentially try to railroad a whole other movie into "The Monitor," because while the child's screams of horror are what drives the film for the first act or so, and it keeps showing up every once in a while to remind us of it, not too far in it starts fading further and further into the background as another plot starts to rear its head.

Plot #2 is essentially asking the question that I always dread a movie asking: "Is the main character crazy?" I really hate when movies go there, because the answer is almost always "Yes." I am having difficulty remembering a movie that started dropping hints about the main character's sanity which turned out to be a red herring, now that I think about it. And it's not that every movie that does that is bad, I'm just tired of the twist because it's expected at that point, and not a twist at all.

Here we have Noomi doing her best "Conspiracy Keenau" face...

"The Monitor" makes it pretty clear, however, that Anna is nuts. They don't keep it ambiguous till the end, so there's a point for them in that regard. At least they didn't attempt to lamely string us along. There's a scene about a half hour in which directly shows us that she is seeing all kinds of crap, and she goes ahead and admits it. Although the true depths of her insanity aren't revealed until the end, which is actually decently effective because you're probably not going to be expecting further reveals if a reveal like that has been made earlier.

There were two things from "The Monitor" that I think worked best for me, and are probably what I would recommend it based on. The first was that I really liked the relationship between Anna and Helge, an electronics store employee played by Kristoffer Joner. They made a cute couple, if a bit awkward and shy, but I really did want to see things work out between the two of them. Especially since Helge is a big, nerdy, almost-loser trapped in a customer service job, which describes me perfectly, and it was nice to imagine me landing a chick who looked like Noomi Rapace.

The second thing was the very ending of the film. Now, due to Plot #2 going on, the film as a whole really doesn't make a lick of sense. However, also due to Plot #2 going on, that complaint is rendered pretty moot, and pretty much anything that didn't make sense can be referred back to that 'Get Out of Jail Free' card. And as annoying as that is, I must admit the argument is pretty watertight.

Nitpicks that don't matter aside, the very end of the film is actually quite poetic. And sad. And slightly revelatory. It doesn't give all the closure that we necessarily want, but it gives us just enough of what we need to make a little sense of everything. A little sense, anyways.

Just a bit.

THE BOTTOM LINE - "The Monitor," or "Babycall" as the dumb original title calls it, wasn't exactly a great movie, but it did its job well, kept my attention, and was unique enough to make it interesting and unpredictable. If you like Noomi Rapace you might want to check it out. Watch it in the original Norwegian with subtitles, though. The English dub sounds like it was performed by an amateur theater company based in Orange County. Totally fit the feel of Norway, you know?

The Tall Man (2012)

One of my favorite things about watching movies is that occasion when you find yourself watching something that completely throws you for a loop and leaves you saying to yourself "What in the crap is happening here?" At least, when it's done well, that is.

I was not expecting much from "The Tall Man." In fact the only reason I rented it was for Stephen McHattie and Jodelle Ferland. On first glance it appeared no more than a standard slasher flick, what with the frankly lame title and the cover, featuring Jessica Biel staring blankly ahead as a generic hooded figure towers behind her ominously.

Seriously, is that the best cover they could come up with? There's an art to making movies look unappealing and bland, and movies like "The Tall Man" are an easy target for it. Look at the cover. It tells us absolutely nothing about the movie. In fact, it's misleading once you watch the damn thing, because not only is it not a slasher film, it's not even horror.

The second thing is the title. "The Tall Man" is just a boring, generic sounding name. The Italian title translates to "The Children of Cold Rock." That's actually far more accurate and interesting, despite not flowing off the tongue quite so easily. Not that any of this really matters to the movie itself, I just bring it all up because "The Tall Man" as a film is better than one might expect upon first impressions.

Although it is a bit ridiculous how often Jessica Biel gets tied to a chair in this movie.

"The Tall Man" is about a run down former mining community in Oregon that has been plagued with the disappearance of children at the rate of about one every 2 months. As a result, a local legend has emerged which tells of a tall, hooded man seen at the scenes of the disappearances, and he's become something of a boogy-man. At the start of the film, Stephen McHattie, playing an FBI agent, is leading the search for Jessica Biel's missing child. We then flash back to 36 hours earlier to see the events that led up to his disappearance.

That's really all the setup I want to give away. Not too far into the movie, "The Tall Man" starts going places I had no idea it was going to go. Suffice to say that at about half an hour in, I was saying to myself "Well, this is going to be a short movie." It almost seemed like the climax of the film, with the confrontation between the villain and the protagonist, had been rushed to the end of the first act. From that point on, it's really hard to tell exactly where things are headed in this film.

In fact, "The Tall Man" made me feel like an idiot for attempting to call it before it was done unfolding completely. I'll admit that I thought I had this movie's number down pat, and there was not a little amount of scoffing on my part going on, I have to tell you. The condescending snob in me started firing up the eye rolls and the "Well, obviously, that's what's going on now" remarks, but it was all for naught, because at about the hour mark the movie had me completely baffled as to what I was watching.

Even Stephen McHattie, in all his craggy faced glory, is trying to figure out what the hey is going on.

The effect was so strong that I honestly began to doubt my own observations. What I first considered to be an impossible place for "The Tall Man" to go ended up being not only the destination, but one that actually made a lot of sense. It wasn't a plot twist for the sake of having a plot twist. It's nice to see something like that handled well, because that is an easy thing to screw up. And I see it screwed up all the time.

If there was one thing I had a legitimate gripe with, it was that once again, Jodelle Ferland got totally shafted in the role she was playing. She is such a freaking amazing actress, but it seems that nobody wants to cast her in a role that really shows her off to the amount she should be. For example, in this movie she narrates the beginning and the end, and she is a reasonably significant character despite not getting a huge amount of screen time. In fact there were several occasions when it surprised me when she popped up after being gone so long, because I had actually forgotten she was in it.

But here's the thing: They made her a mute. A mute! Can you even believe that? That's such a waste of talent. Now, don't get me wrong, she tore that role up like she destroys every role. But come on. Let the poor girl speak, will ya? I'm sure it was a challenging and interesting role for her to take, since she had to convey all those emotions without dialogue, and I respect that, but when I see one of my favorite actresses in a legitimately good movie that I'm enjoying, dammit I want the whole package!

Look at that face. Yeah. Now just imagine how good she is when she's speaking.

Actually, besides Jodelle, the whole cast was good. I'm not a huge Jessica Biel fan, but she was fine. William B. Davis, immortalized as "The Cigarette Smoking Man" on "The X-Files" played the sheriff, which is a weird exercise in suspension of disbelief since it was impossible to not look at him and assume he wasn't a bad guy. Stephen McHattie was awesome as always but like Jodelle, he didn't get enough screen time for my liking. Oh well. At least he was allowed to talk.

So I guess the whole point of this is that "The Tall Man" is a movie that exceeded expectations by a pretty wide margin. I know this entry was kind of vague, but to be honest I feel a bit like I've spoiled the effect by simply acknowledging the fact that it isn't what you'd expect it to be. So I guess I'll shut up now.

You can keep talking, though. Seriously. Like in every movie.

THE BOTTOM LINE - I liked "The Tall Man" much more than I was expecting to. It's a very well made, completely engrossing drama that doesn't telegraph anything, making it a very effective mystery. And if this is your first exposure to Jodelle Ferland, hey there's bonus points for you. Now go watch "Tideland," where she actually speaks.

Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter (2012)

You know, I'm tired of this. I really am.

I'm so sick and tired of watching all these mediocre, unmemorable movies that are so insanely hard to talk about. Why are they hard to talk about? Well, what are you supposed to say about something that is completely and unashamedly bland? Well, besides the fact that it is completely and unashamedly bland, I mean.

The "Mona Lisa" I could talk about. "Guernica" I could talk about. Even Andy Warhol's freaking soup can could warrant discussion. What the hell am I supposed to say about a 2x4 someone dunked in beige paint? That's not even artsy in the most snooty, elitist fashion, although get enough moscato in a Fine Arts major and I'm sure they'll do their damnedest to try.

But that's what "Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter" is. It's a 2x4 dunked in beige paint. There wasn't even a brush involved to import some form of base artistry. There was only dunking. In and out, let dry, print a couple thousand copies, send to the theaters, next on the list.

"Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter" is for me, a perfect example of a movie with no soul. There is no passion behind any of it. It's just an overly flashy checklist of action movie beats which plays out more like watching a collection of videogame cutscenes. Cutscenes with really bad CGI. The kind of cutscenes you would skip upon playing the game a second time. And the worst thing about it is that even though it goes down the list of action movie beats like clockwork, at the same time it's absurdly boring.

THRILL AS HE TWIRLS HIS AXE!!! (Seriously, thrill at it. "Axe-twirling" makes up 58% of this film.)

I think the reason it's boring is because it never gets beyond the gimmick of "Wouldn't it be silly to see Abraham Lincoln fighting the undead?" I can appreciate the concept to a point, I suppose. It's taking something that normally isn't badass and making it badass because something that isn't badass becoming badass equals a form of "awesome," as decreed by Teh Intarnets. And while there may be something to that, it's really not enough to fuel an entire movie. At least if it's actually suicidal enough to take itself seriously, which this film unfortunately does.

This movie actually takes itself WAY too seriously, in fact. As opposed to embracing the ridiculous nature, which might have made it interesting or even amusing, "Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter" is about as somber and brow-furled as "300" or "Priest," two movies of similar tone and style, which fully believe that what they're talking about is no laughing matter - even though all of them are stupid. At least "300" had the decency to be filled with so much blood and gore it would take quantum mathematics to calculate. "Priest" was PG-13 and "Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter" has vampires with black blood.

Make sure that blood is sufficiently not-scary! We can't have red blood in our R. RATED. MOVIE.

What is the point of "Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter?" It attempts to weave Lincoln's life around the idea that he was actually a stalker of the undead, hunting for vengeance after his mother was killed by a vampire when he was a child. After meeting a vampire hunter, played by Dominic Cooper, he becomes a skilled and inexplicably super-powered warrior thanks to the power of the training montage.

There were a couple puzzling things to me concerning the whole process of the training to become a vampire hunter. The first was that (spoiler alert) Dominic Cooper is actually a vampire. You see, in this movie, vampires literally are physically unable to kill another vampire. So Dominic Cooper trains Lincoln to do it for him. This is actually presented as a plot twist near the back half of the film, but it seems an odd oversight that Lincoln could train for evidently 10 years to spot and destroy vampires and never suspected one single time that his teacher was one of them. You know, since he's trained to detect them. Lincoln must suck at being a vampire hunter.

Like that one time Lincoln spotted a vampire due to them not showing up in a mirror, which should have also given Dominic Cooper away since he clearly could have been spotted in the mirror as well since he was standing right next to Lincoln, and shouldn't have made a reflection, but he either did, or Lincoln never noticed it or...yeah, oops.

"My god, he's bad at this. I've been dropping hints for a decade. Oh well. It's either him or Ulysses S. Grant, and that guy's a prick."

The second thing that puzzled me was the revelation that normal, everyday people are capable of acts of super human speed and strength, as long as they are sufficiently angry/enlightened. When first told to chop a tree in half with a single blow, Lincoln is understandably unable to. That is until Dominic Cooper drops some simple Dr. Phil psychoanalysis on him. Then Lincoln is officially a superhero. Seriously, he is. One tree. One swing. Just because Lincoln realized that his mother's murder made him upset. What a revelation.

You know, this kind of reminds me of another soul-reapingly stupid plot element involving normal, everyday people suddenly being able to do physically impossible things due to having some arbitrary mental block removed akin to asking them "Well, how do you know you can't do superhuman things if you've never tried?" What was it, again?

GAH! Damn it, that WAS you wasn't it, Timur?!

That's right. Director Timur Bekmambetov also did the insufferable "Wanted," another movie that insults us with sprinkling some magical mental pixie dust on the hero and saying that *boom* now they're a badass capable of things that are impossible. I nearly put a fist through my TV when I was subjected to the concept of "bullet curving," and it still makes me mad to this day just thinking about it. Some people rage over Ewoks. I have Morgan Freeman telling me that if no one had told me that bullets fly straight, I could curve them by stupidly flailing my arms like that robot from "Lost In Space."

It's just such a lazy way to make a hero awesome. It's boring. It's stupid. It's insulting. I don't like when a movie just says "Here, accept this" for no reason other than it "looks cool." At least give me a reason that is something better than "Consider the following: Do it."

I can't tell you how mad I was when "Mythbusters" wasted half an episode on "Bullet Curving."

By the way, that whole "not physically possible" thing isn't just relegated to chopping down trees with a single swing. There's also that whole thing with "collecting all the silver in Washington D.C., melting it all down, casting bayonets and cannonballs from it, transporting it all by foot 80 miles, and distribute it to an army of 90,000 men...all in around 12 hours" thing. That's fun.

I can't really think of much more to say about it than nitpicking the things that struck me as dumb or weird. Like I said earlier, it was so bland and standard vanilla that I can really just sum it up by saying that I'm guessing there will probably only be one or two scenes or moments from the movie that you remember. And it will probably involving running across horses.

LOADING VAMPIRE.ACTION.MOVE.374b.EXE...PLEASE WAIT...

I'm going to end this entry by saying what I figured I'd be saying before I even watched "Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter" - which is that I got far more enjoyment from "Abraham Lincoln vs. Zombies." I'm dead serious. The Asylum's mockbuster was a far more heartfelt, fun, and enjoyable movie than "Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter." By far.

It was funnier, it was honestly more clever with history despite being somehow more ridiculous, it was absurdly more grounded in reality, but at the same time didn't take itself seriously which paradoxically made it far more believable. And there is also the issue of actor Benjamin Walker not being able to hold a candle to Bill Oberst Jr. in terms of playing Abraham Lincoln.

Bill Oberst Jr. didn't need vaguely defined superpowers to rock hardcore.

I'm serious when I say this, guys. The Asylum one upped Hollywood on this one. Given the director involved, I can't say I'm surprised.

THE BOTTOM LINE - "Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter" is stupid. It's stupid because it's not trying. It has no soul, no purpose, and no sense of fun nor humor. Honestly, the best thing being said about it that I can possibly imagine is "It was what I was expecting." But that's the problem: It's exactly what you expected because it came from a cookie cutter.

Wreck-It Ralph (2012)

I'm going to come out and say something that is contrary to popular opinion. Shocking, I know. But here it is: I don't think that Pixar is the best animation studio. Put down your pitchforks and torches, let me explain.

I think Pixar is good. It would be foolish of me to say that they weren't. But here's the part of the game where I refuse to play ball - not everything they touch is the best thing I've ever seen. That, more than anything else, is one of the biggest problems I have with them. Every time they come out with a movie it gets nominated for every possible Oscar it can be nominated for, it pulls down nothing less than a 107% fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes, and every person tells me it's the best film of the year, and that I should put my eyeballs into cyrogenic stasis after seeing it so that the majesty radiating from the screen can be forever stuck in my corneas.

Why this bothers me is that other animation studios don't really get the credit they deserve, because they are overshadowed by The Mighty Flawless Pixar. In fact, much like the lowly chicken nugget will forever be referred to as a "Chicken McNugget" due to a clown serving the world a pile of deep-fried, vaguely edible protein paste in mind-bending popularity, most people who see an animated film nowadays just assume that Pixar did it. And yes, maybe some confusion arises because they do kind of all have obnoxiously similar animation styles, but still, there is more than one animation studio out there.

And where this comes back around to my main point, being that I don't consider Pixar the best, is that of all my favorite animated films I've seen of the past who-knows-how-long, none of them have been Pixar. Not a single one.

Pixar also never had a scene like this.

"How To Train Your Dragon" was an incredible film. As was "Kung-Fu Panda." As was "Wallace & Gromit in The Curse of The Were-Rabbit." "Megamind" also deserves mentioning. Those were all DreamWorks Animation. Then there was 2011's "Winnie the Pooh," and what is probably my favorite animated movie of the last decade, "Bolt." Those were Walt Disney Animation Studios films.

It's also worth mentioning Laika Entertainment, who is keeping the IV running into the arm of a sadly dying form of animation - stop motion. They're responsible for one of my favorite movies ever, "Coraline," not to mention this year's phenomenal "ParaNorman." All of these movies I've mentioned are superb.

And the only Pixar film I'd lump anywhere near them is "Finding Nemo." Maybe the "The Incredibles" as well, but I'd still rather watch any of the others I've mentioned before those. I don't know exactly the reason why, but I always feel manipulated watching a Pixar film, like they're setting up a tug-of-war game with my heartstrings to make up for the simply average story. I don't know. Maybe I'm just a curmudgeon.

So where does that bring us with "Wreck-It Ralph?" Well, simply put, this is one more instance where an animation studio, in this case Walt Disney Animation Studios and director Rich Moore, who is a "Simpsons" and "Futurama" LEGEND, has released a movie that is better than what I've seen from Pixar. While in it's first 20 minutes or so, it's kind of shaky and falls into "Toy Story"-ripoff territory, not too far into the film "Wreck-It Ralph" takes on a life of it's own to become something that, while perhaps not the most original idea ever, is executed with such charm, style, and humor that it's impossible to not have a smile on your face.

CHARM...CAPACITY...MAXED...ERROR.

I say that it gets close to "Toy Story"-ripoff territory because, well quite frankly it does. The familiar setup of inanimate objects actually being alive (in this case video game characters) isn't a new thing. The theme of old being put out by the new is also an aspect, as video games are probably far more susceptible to that than anything like an action figure is. It's similar, but "Wreck-It Ralph" seemed like more of a personal journey to me, due to it being more focused on being content with your lot in life, and finding something to give yourself both respect and purpose.

The titular character, Ralph, is the bad guy in a "Donkey Kong"-style arcade game. He's been doing it for 30 years, and he's tired of it. Being the bad guy, nobody else really likes him, even though he's not actually a bad GUY, he's just a BAD guy. True, he's not exactly the most social person, and like his name implies, he is kind of a walking implement of destruction. But that's not really his fault, it's just the way he is. He is a bad guy after all.

After a crashed party turns awkward and a challenge is flippantly dished out, Ralph decides to go out and earn himself a medal in another video game to prove that he's worth something. After all, bad guys don't get medals, but if he can go out and do just that, maybe everyone will recognize him for being more than just a villain. And then he'll be able to get some cake, which is actually something of a theme in "Wreck-It Ralph."

NOT THAT CAKE!

Everything up to that point was pretty standard fare, and I wasn't too invested in it, but when Ralph enters the other arcade games was when the movie really started taking off for me. Upon first going into the rail-shooter "Hero's Duty," the scope that "Wreck-It Ralph" was capable of really started to become clear, as the look and feel of everything changed to reflect the newer, more graphically intense modern video games. Going from something like "Donkey Kong" to a dark, intense action game a la "Star Craft" was a surprisingly pleasant jolt.

We're also introduced to possibly the best character in the movie, the intense, brooding Calhoun. She's the commander of the troops in "Hero's Duty," and is kind of a cross between Kerrigan from "Star Craft" and a Renegade fem-Sheppard from "Mass Effect." She's a dead serious, ass kicking powerhouse programed with the most tragic (and hilarious) backstory to make her suitably dour and intense.

She's voiced by Jane Lynch, which helps because Jane Lynch makes an awesome badass. They even make her character look a lot like Jane as well, which makes sense because she's the most realistic looking one of the cast, but the animation on her face is worth mentioning because it's very well done and expressive. And I'm serious when I say that I'd totally play "Hero's Duty." That game looked sweet!

Oh my god I loved Calhoun. So much.

Most of the movie takes place in a racing game called "Sugar Rush," which is like "Mario Kart" meets "Candyland." There we meet who is probably going to be the most divisive member of the cast, Vanellope, played by the comedian everyone but me seems to love to hate, Sarah Silverman. So many people are going to hate her simply because of who the voice is, and also because Vanellope is pretty much exactly Sarah Silverman, only in the form of a little girl and unable to swear because the movie is PG. I'll leave it at this - if you like Sarah Silverman, you'll like Vanellope. A lot. If you don't like Sarah Silverman, it's not a given you won't like Vanellope, but good luck with that.

Personally, I thought she was adorable and hilarious.

So much of "Wreck-It Ralph" is sold based on the chemistry between Ralph and Vanellope that if it didn't work, the movie would have collapsed on itself. Fortunately John C. Reilly, voicing Ralph, and Sarah Silverman play off each other fantastically and make for one of the better character pairings I've seen in a long time. These two characters are so different in nearly every conceivable way, but at the same time are very alike, which makes for some very touching scenes and revelations, which are heart-breakingly well acted at times. This was a particularly nice surprise for me since I'm not a fan of John C. Reilly. But I have to give credit - both of them knocked it completely out of the park here.

Rounding out the cast is Jack McBrayer as Fix-It Felix, Ralph's good guy "nemesis," and Alan Tudyk as King Candy, who functions as the villain of the film. Felix is a predictably dull goody two shoes, but King Candy is a fun character who has most of the best lines in the movie, including several "so bad they're awesome" puns which had me rolling in the aisles. Also helping is that Tudyk gives him the same crazy voice that the Mad Hatter from the old "Alice In Wonderland" had, which was a lot of fun. There's also a great "should have seen that coming but didn't" twist with King Candy.

  I'd also play "Sugar Rush." It had an AWESOME soundtrack. J-Pop madness for the win.

"Wreck-It Ralph" also goes places I wasn't completely expecting it to go. There are moments when I thought I had the next plot point sighted, only to have them deliver something I wasn't expecting. That's not to say it completely went places I wasn't expecting it to go, but a little bit of unpredictability does wonders for a genre that is pretty paint-by-numbers. And that only made the ending that much more satisfying as Ralph finally finds what it is in his life that he really cares about - and makes it so that he's finally happy with himself. It's really quite moving.

Two additional things that struck me about "Wreck-It Ralph," in closing, was that this had to have been an expensive movie. Not for the animation itself, but for the licensing rights. There are so many video game characters from across platforms here that it's amazing they're all in it together. Just watching the characters roll in is pretty impressive by itself, and they're not facsimiles - it's the real deal. There's no Speedy The Porcupine. It's actually Sonic The Hedgehog dishing out advice on staying safe while traveling to other games. That blew my mind.

The second thing was that this was actually a neat little "Obscure Arrested Development Character" reunion! Jack McBrayer was the waiter at the Country Club who has never been spoken to nicely by Lucille, Alan Tudyk was Ann's (her?) father Pastor Veal, and Jane Lynch was Cindi Lightballoon, the one who didn't know what a blooper real was! I gotta say, that's pretty cool.

God, I want the "Arrested Development" movie so bad.

THE BOTTOM LINE - "Wreck-It Ralph" is a fantastic film. That's all there is to it. While I wasn't expecting much out of it, it totally surpassed my expectations and knocked a grand slam out of the park. Is it Top 10 of 2012 material? That has yet to be seen, but it's a contender, make no mistake.

Moonrise Kingdom (2012)

This is going to be one those entries, I can just feel it. It's going to take me forever to write this because the entire process is going to be bogged down by wanting to be fair and objective about "Moonrise Kingdom." I don't have to do that, mind you. This is my blog. I can write whatever the crap I want to. But I do want to be fair, because with a movie like this, I can tell that there will be an audience for it.

I'm just not it.

I've only seen two of Wes Anderson's movies, this and "The Royal Tenenbaums," and just by seeing those I can pretty much guarantee that I'm probably not going to like anything he makes very much. I didn't necessarily hate "The Royal Tenenbaums," but it wasn't exactly turning my dials. I think that's obvious considering I remember absolutely nothing about it besides that tombstone of Gene Hackman's.

But that's not surprising, because it illustrates perfectly what my main issue with Wes Anderson's films are: They are about nothing. Wes Anderson's films are what you would get if the Coen Brothers took their usual drama/comedies about quirky slackers getting their hands on a lot of dirty money, ditched the dirty money angle, made it a slice-of-life drama/comedy and kept everything else. And put Bill Murray in it. I swear, Wes Anderson is like Tim Burton with the amount of recycling he does with his casts.

Some may say that it's unfair to claim "Moonrise Kingdom" is about nothing. Well, they're right, it is about something. It wouldn't be much of a movie without something happening. And for this film, that something happens to be that a boy and a girl run away together on an island, and the adults and the rest of the boy's scout troop go out to find them. The whole film is presented in a very picturesque, storybook style fashion that gives the impression that you're looking at a pop-up book or something. And unsurprisingly, the charm is cranked to 11. This is a film with a death-grip on the throat of whatever cute little animal they're milking the charm out of, and they're squeezing it dry to the very last drop.

I actually noticed in the camera movements themselves that great pains were taken to be sure that the actors on screen appeared as literally two-dimensional as possible. For instance, there were never any panning shots around anybody, many shots were static as the characters walked in and out of frame, and there were a lot of very wide shots with actors on the extreme opposite sides of the screen. What this did, in addition to the bright, cheerful color palate, was to give the impression that you were looking at a picture book. In fact, it's to the point were the house of the main girl looks more like a dollhouse, and I'm not sure they didn't actually use a miniature with some camera tricks to put the actors inside.

If you saw the movie you'd understand what I'm talking about. They look 6 inches tall inside there.

There was also a lot of scrapbook style cutaways and inserts of maps or whatnot that would have looked out of place had this rest of the film not been just as stylistic. One thing I must admit was that "Moonrise Kingdom" was very effective in conveying its style and tone, and it never wavered from that.

However, and maybe I was just in a bad mood, it didn't work on me. It smacked of effort. It beat me over the head with a crowbar covered with Beatrix Potter artwork while yelling "HERE! ARE YOU CHARMED YET!?! HAH?!? HOW ABOUT NOW?!?!?" And frankly, I didn't appreciate it. Now on the other hand, if you enjoy that kind of thing, specifically crowbars with Beatrix Potter artwork on them smashing into your cranium, than by all means, watch "Moonrise Kingdom."

In all honesty, I would have been fine with the tone, and much of the movie as a whole, had it been for some changes to the cast. Not big changes, mind you. Just the two main characters. That's all. Nothing huge.

Now, in this case, one was not as bad as the other, although I felt they suffered from much of the same problem. Kara Hayward as Suzy, the girl who runs away from her home, was actually somewhat entertaining and even occasionally convincing. That is, when she was given an opportunity to emote. This only happens very rarely, I assure you.

Just go ahead and guess what emotion she's conveying. It's the same expression for all of them...

You remember Wednesday from "The Addams Family?" Yeah. That's about the level of passion and intensity she displays about 97% of the time. All of her line readings - ALL of them - are said with the same monotone, lifeless, nobody-on-the-planet-talks-like-that way that apparently is the only way to portray a "quirky" character. I don't really blame her, though. I think Kara is probably a fine actress, and will probably have a good career ahead of her. I blame Wes Anderson, because this kind of dullness is, from what I've seen, one of his calling cards.

Now, I gave Kara some slack, but it's hard to do the same for Jared Gilman, playing Sam, our hero. He's the boy scout that abandons his troop, and I have to come out and say that I found him to be downright unwatchable. He is terrible, and again, I'm not sure if I should blame the actor or the director. I'm more inclined to say it's Anderson's fault for making him read his lines in such a way, but at the same time, at least Kara was able to slightly convince me that she was a real-life person. There's no chance with this Jared kid.

It appears that this kid has no concept of the use of punctuation or normal cadences when speaking. Everything he says is delivered in this rapid-fire, disinterested manner that comes off like a night of really really bad amateur community theater, and it just baffles me that anyone could not find him distracting. He comes off a total creep - or someone who is going to grow up to have a nice collection of human femurs under his mattress. He's supposed to be charming?
 

He also looks like Steven Page from BNL. Which is also weird.

I can't believe I'm throwing up a defense for him here, but even a bad kid actor could do better than the wretched performance I saw here. It's got to be Wes Anderson telling him to do it like that. Apparently when you're a Indie film darling, you can get away with terrible performances all in the name of being "quirky." What a crock.

Oddly enough I did like the rest of the cast, but then again when you've got great actors like Edward Norton, Bruce Willis and Bill Murray it's easy to like them. And although both Tilda Swinton and Frances McDormand were kind of roped into the same Wes Anderson patented goofiness that plagued much of the rest of the cast, they still managed to be likable. It wasn't like "Burn After Reading," where I wanted to take a hatchet to the face of every single last cast member.

Look out, the camera is telling me we're about to get zany! Woah-ho-ho!

Actually, I found myself liking Edward Norton's character a lot. Despite starting off as one of the goofiest, he became one of the most believable and likeable, since he's pretty much the only one with an actual character-arc. Imagine that. He was also able to elicit most of the laughs I got from "Moonrise Kingdom." In fact, I'm trying to think of a laugh I got that didn't involve him, and I'm drawing a blank.

Okay, it's time to wrap this up. Did I like "Moonrise Kingdom?" No. Was it pretty much predetermined that I wasn't going to? Yeah. It's just not for me. But if you like Wes Anderson, all of what I said above can be disregarded, because the reasons that I disliked "Moonrise Kingdom" is probably the reasons you'll love it.

But there's one thing that is not defensible. The dog. They killed the dog. There is a body count of exactly 1 in this film, and it's the damn dog. And there was NO reason for it at all. In fact, I'm still not sure what the crap happened, but the dog is dead. It's name was Snoopy. And "Moonrise Kingdom" had him in the movie for one reason: To die for no reason.

Moonrise Kingdom...you're a jerk.

 
THE BOTTOM LINE - I don't like Wes Anderson, so I didn't like "Moonrise Kingdom." I found it boring and not a little bit pretentious, and it tried way too hard to be charming. But fans of Wes Anderson will probably consider it the masterpiece they consider anything he touches.