I think it’s fair to say I see a lot of movies.

And to be honest, I like a lot of them. As I get older, I find myself liking what I see more and more and there are a few reasons for that. One, I’m starting more and more to look for value than for criticism. I feel no need to validate myself by pointing out flaws. Focusing on the positive is much more productive. A.K.A. I’m going soft in my old age.

Secondly, I select what I see based on what I’m interested in and what I’m predetermined to like. I used to see movies just for the sake of seeing them and being able to review them, which lead to a lot of wasted time and unnecessary aggravation.

Finally, I think movies are getting a bit better as well. It just feels like more things are coming out that I’m into than before. (Obviously I have no way to substantiate that claim or back it up, it just feels that way.)

With all that being said, only a few movies (out of the many hundreds that I really like or love) have truly spoken to me. Only a choice group have affected and actually changed me.

Don’t get me wrong, Casino Royale, Star Trek and Sherlock Holmes are entertainment of the highest caliber and I adore them, but I don’t think differently or live life differently because of them or their message.

But there are some movies that once you see them, you cannot picture a time before them. I can’t imagine what life was like when I hadn’t seen Batman Begins or Vanilla Sky. Those are just two examples and they may seem like odd choices but I’m sure you have your own. I’m not saying Vanilla Sky deserved Best Picture, I’m merely saying that I, Bill George, connected with it. There are some others (Apollo 13, A Few Good Men, About Schmidt, Cast Away) but today, I am adding another one to the list:

Up in the Air

I would write a straight review for it but I’ll spare you the pure gushing that would ensue. In a nutshell: not only was the movie technically sound, scratch that, flawless, but the script was astounding and Clooney’s performance was masterful. I hung on every word, every image, every sound, every cue.

But the best part is: I can’t really explain why. It just spoke to me. I’m sure it had to do with the brilliance of all the aspects listed above combined with my general personality and everything that has happened in my life leading up to the point of viewing. But it isn’t worth pinpointing, sufficed to say the film is now a part of me. A part of my life.

I don’t know how others have reacted to it or will react to it, and I certainly can’t guarantee the same results, but it earns my highest recommendation. See it as soon as possible.

Twice in recent weeks I’ve visited the cineplex to watch the latest blockbusters Hollywood has to offer. First, I witnessed James Cameron’s opus Avatar. (And yes, I did see it in 3D.) While moments ago I finished watching Sherlock Holmes, the latest Guy Ritchie film and Robert Downey Jr. vehicle.

While both are ‘big’ movies with not an insignificant amount of marketing power behind them (more so in the case of the former) they both left indelibly different tastes in my mouth and only one demands a subsequent viewing: Sherlock Holmes.

Holmes succeeds in a number of places that Avatar fails. Most importantly having a strong lead actor playing a mesmerizing character, coupled with a riveting and thought provoking narrative. Granted, Avatar is a visual marvel and is aesthetically stunning. The motion capture, the 3D, the amount of detail. There’s never been anything like it before. Period. (But Holmes is no slouch either, with Ritchie providing a nice stylization all his own.)

However, at the end of Holmes I felt fulfilled. While Avatar left me empty. The story was so dragged out and shallow that I’m convinced the film as a whole will not stand the test of time as anything more than a tech demo.

Where Avatar was a feast for the eyes, Holmes was a feast for the mind. It’s a smart movie with clever plotting and an unmistakable wit, all the while being carried by a leading man who is nothing short of riveting. Downey Jr. is an inspired choice to play the titular character, capturing Holmes’ essence in a way no other actor could. And his chemistry with Jude Law’s Dr. Watson is enthralling.

Every piece of Avatar’s story has been done before in other movies and done better. So many of the subplots and twists are cliches and even the dialogue feels stale. Yet everything in Holmes feels fresh and adventurous.

I understand I’m being very vague and I apologize for it. Part of the reason is because I don’t want to delve into too much detail surrounding either film so has not to spoil any part of them. The other reason is that my feelings stretch far beyond words. I can’t adequately describe how amazing Sherlock Holmes made me feel, bizarre as it sounds, but I know it did move me. And let’s just say Avatar had no such effect.

What did everyone else think? Sound off in the comments.

I hated this movie.

Sorry to be so forward but I figured I’d get the ugly truth out of the way up front. Also, early on I’d like to acknowledge the things that weren’t terrible about the movie, so as to have a clear conscience when I proceed to ridicule it.

Spike Jonze is a visionary director, there’s no doubt about that. I consider Adaptation a masterpiece and he maintains his visual flair here too. The CGI animated faces on the real bodies of the wild things works extremely well. His casting choices, such as James Gandolfini as Carol, are also impressive.

But none of that changes the fact that this movie is nothing but noise.

Our protagonist, an insufferable brat named Max, runs around screaming in the opening of the film (foreshadowing!). As soon as he runs away from home and into the world of his imagination, where the wild things preside, he continues to run and scream. And after he and the wild things run around and scream, they proceed to run around and scream some more, whilst throwing things at each other. And finally he runs home.

The end.

If you’re thinking to yourself that in that synopsis I didn’t mention anything that remotely sounded like a plot, you’re exactly right. Nothing happens in this film.

The vast majority of the film is either, as mentioned, Max and the wild things running around, screaming and having a good time, or bickering with one another. Each wild thing has a distinct personality and each one could be viewed as a reflection of a different aspect of the psyche of a child. Meaning the wild things themselves act like children.

Newsflash: Children are annoying.

Hence, I was cringing throughout the duration of the film. In no way was this immature nonsense something I wanted to (or for that matter would willingly pay to) sit through.

Are there more layers to it? Is there depth and symbolism to be had here?

Perhaps. I didn’t read much into it right off the bat but if you have the patience to withstand the onslaught of noise that it is embedded in, maybe you’ll find something to appreciate that I simply could not.

And to answer the question you may be pondering: no, I haven’t read the book. I remember it from my childhood, the cover at least, but I don’t recall its content. But that is neither here nor there. The film must be able to stand on its own as an individual product. If I read the book it may have set my expectations differently but I still would have had a headache leaving the theater.

(For the record, I expected the kid to go through some actual tragedy and escape to where the wild things are. Then move back and forth between real and fake. The trailer sure made it look that way at least.)

What this movie needs is, well, a storyline. But even more importantly: profanity.

If this movie had some harsh language in it, then I’d be a little more interested in some of these fiery exchanges. Towards the tail end of the film, when I’ve already sat through an hour of pointless fighting and KW steps on Carol’s face and they bicker again I really needed to hear someone say, “Oh yea? Well Fuck you Carol! What have you done for me lately you prick?!”

I have to admit, I became so disinterested in the film toward the end that in between my constant thoughts of “Why am I watching this?” I began to fantasize about the American Military swooping in and carpet bombing the damn island and running a block-ops extraction mission to get the kid out safe. Seeing a laser-sight dot appear on Judith’s head would have made my night.

Okay, I’m exhausted from typing with such vitriol. I’ll sum up the movie by saying the execution was there but I found the content to be unwatchable. Unless of course you don’t mind being audibly assaulted for 1.5 hours.

In my mind no movie has been more marred by the sequels it spawned than The Matrix. While I do believe Reloaded has some merit in terms of worthwhile action sequences, Revolutions is a laughable mess.

Sadly, in the wake of the sequels, their hype and the endless parodies that have followed, the quality of the original Matrix and its status as a landmark action film have been lost. I am here to right this wrong.

Believe it or not, I remember March 31st, 1999 like it was yesterday. Those who know me know my memory (or lack thereof) is borderline clinical, but I’ll never forget the excitement I felt in the theater the opening day of The Matrix.

All I had seen going into the film was the teaser trailer, predominately featuring Keanu Reeves dodging bullets on the rooftop (using a filmmaking technique that would latter be dubbed ‘bullet time’). Not only that, but it featured a voice over of Laurence Fishburne saying that “no one can be told what the matrix is… you have to see it for yourself.” Not to mention using the web address www.whatisthematrix.com. If that doesn’t get you into the theater, I don’t know what will.

As you know, most films open on a Friday and this one was no exception. Yes, it was a school day, but being the student I was and having the parents I have, I was dismissed at lunch time for this particular occasion. Keep in mind that I was a 13 year old American male… A.K.A. one of the exact demographics I’m sure this film was aimed at. And by God did it deliver.

Until this time I had never seen an action movie with a legitimate, thought-provoking storyline. (With the exception of the Terminator series.) I was in total awe throughout the experience. Starting with the badassery of Agent Smith showing up to apprehend Trinity and informing the officer in charge that the men he sent up to do the job were ‘already dead.’ Her escape in that scene is as riveting as it comes for an opening set piece.

Looking back on it and adding it all up you realize just how iconic every scene in that film is and how much it has become a part of pop culture. Red pill vs. blue pill. The dojo. The rooftop. The subway. The construct. And of course: the lobby.

The lobby shootout scene was a watershed moment in my life. (Again, I was 13.) I had never seen anything like it before… ever. Think about it: almost every action movie released since has used slow motion, techno music and/or bullet time. The Matrix changed the way action sequences are filmed. Period.

The other thing about the film that makes it stand out in my mind on a personal level is the fact that I saw it in theaters. Granted, seeing something in theaters versus at home doesn’t have much of an affect on how much you’ll like it. A number of what I’d consider my favorite movies I didn’t discover until they were released on DVD. But still… there’s something special about seeing it in theaters, especially considering the fact that the majority of my peers did not have the pleasure. I’m guessing most of them were not as hip to the movie watching scene at age 13 as I was and they missed out. But now I talk to people who love it and hold it just as dear as I do… but I saw it in theaters. And frankly, that makes me feel special (regardless of whether it should).

So, now that I’ve revisited it in my mind, I’m going to revisit it on disc. I probably should have watched it prior to writing this (that would make this column make sense). But I just had it on my mind and wanted to let it out. Now that I’ve done that, I’m dying to watch it again. By the way, before I let you leave thinking that I think it’s a perfect movie, I readily admit it isn’t. The end is schmaltzy, some of the performances could be better and it could be a bit tighter lengthwise. But there is no doubt that it is a thinking man’s action flick and a landmark film for the genre.

I really feel like re-watching The Mist.

I’m not sure what it is that’s driving me. I saw it when it first came to DVD and it has stuck with me since. Now, Halloween is coming up (or so every store in the mall keeps telling me) and I’m in the mood for something on the scary side. Not to mention, I’ve finally connected the dots and realized that it stars Thomas Jane, the lead of one of my favorite new shows Hung. So I can’t wait to revisit his performance.

So the question becomes: how do I get it?

It isn’t the type of movie I see myself owning and re-watching frequently so I figured I’d rent it. But how should I do that? There’s so many possibilities now. I have my own favorite methods but I’m curious as to how my peers go about this process.

And thus, the following poll:

My issue with buying things outright is that I now limit myself to purchasing only Blu-Rays. So, while I could buy it on the cheap on DVD, I prefer not to continue to build an antiquated library. And Blu-Rays aren’t cheap enough to buy on a whim.

On a different note, it’s sad that all these news stories say Blockbuster and the like are on their way out. Even though my preferred method of rental nowadays is my PS3 and its Playstation Network, I still find myself in Blockbuster at least once a month. Not even necessarily to rent. Everytime I walk through those doors I spend a good hour there. Just wandering. Reminding myself of what’s out. Reading boxes. Seeing if there are any good deals on pre-owned discs. Renting video games.

(Because, let’s face it, Blockbuster is still the best way to rent video games, hands down. Demoes give you just enough to let you know if it’s worth playing more of, but not enough to convince you if it’s worth owning and replaying. That’s where the rental comes in.)

Like I said, I prefer my PS3 now for a number of reasons. The most important one being its convenience. I never need to leave the house. Not to mention leave the house twice. (Once to rent, once to return.) Also, the PSN fulfills my need for high definition. And I’ve always been satisfied with its download speeds, visual and audio fidelity, reliability, playback options etc.

But video stores will always hold a place in my heart. Growing up I used to dream of one day owning my own video store. I’d know everyone in town and make great recommendations and talk movies all day etc etc. But that dream lives on no more, not only for me but for just about everyone. There’s not much to say and not much can be done. Newer methods of rental are undeniably better. It’s just a shame to see such a big part of my/our past fade away.

Others thoughts? Either on the decline of rental outlets or the poll results?

I’ve always been fascinated with statistics. Especially everyday life statistics. Such as the amount of time every year the average person spends waiting in line. Or the number of times we blink. Or the amount of a certain food we eat. I love when we are able to take a step back from ourselves and view our habits through the prism of cold, hard, truth-telling numbers.

In fact, I wish I had a statistician. I think everyone should have a statistician assigned to them. Just to follow you around and keep track of what you’ve eaten, where you’ve gone, how much time you’ve spent doing something, how many times you’ve worn that outfit, how far you’ve walked, how many times you’ve yawned, how many bathroom visits you’ve made etc. etc.

And, as we all know, the knowledge of being observed changes behavior so the statistician would have to be invisible. Maybe God (if he/she/it exists) is doing just that. And when reach heaven he pulls up an Excel spreadsheet and says, “Alright, let’s take a look at the numbers here…”

But there is one statistic measuring my actions that I think I can recount accurately: Most Watched.

We all have a certain handful of movies that we watch much, much more frequently than others. Sick days, rainy days, you name it. The type movie we feel it is our mission in life to show to anyone who hasn’t seen it. The type of movie we not only know all the words to, but every single sound effect, music cue, cut, angle, facial expression etc.

Because of my affinity for film I have can think of many movies that fall into that category (The Blues Brothers, The ‘Burbs, Apollo 13, Tremors, Jurassic Park, Back to the Future, Ghostbusters, A Few Good Men, almost all of M. Night and Spielberg’s work etc.)

But there is one film I know for fact I’ve spent more time watching than any other:

Terminator 2: Judgment Day

I’ve seen it countless times (well it would be counted if I had a damn statistician…).

For a span of two or three years I actually had a New Year’s Eve ritual that involved T2. I was never very big on New Year’s Eve as a holiday or the parties than resulted because of it. And often times I’d just as well stay home, watch the ball drop and hit the hay. But when I was in middle school (I think it was) I made it a habit that every New Year’s Eve, as soon as the ball dropped, I’d pop James Cameron’s masterpiece into my VHS, in order to ensure that the first film I watched of that new year would be non-other than T2.

Alright folks, now I want to hear from you. Shout out your most watched movies in the comments section. I’m really interested to see what kind of mix we get.

Tony Gilroy’s film Duplicity was released this week on Blu-ray / DVD and I could not let the occasion pass without saying something. It is one of my favorite movies of the year as evidenced by the review I posted on my previous web endeavor (IAgreeWithTheMovieDude.com). Because that review came in the waning days of the site and because my love for this movie cannot be overstated, I submit to you my full review of Duplicity:

Tony Gilroy wrote and directed this spy comedy about two former espionage experts attempting to pull off a major con job in the private sector. Gilroy’s name may sound familiar because his directorial debut, Michael Clayton, garnered rave reviews and more than a couple Oscar nominations. Clayton was easily one of my favorite films in 2007 and Duplicity is now one of my favorite films of 2009.

Gilroy once again focuses his story on the cutthroat world of business and corporate moguls. In this case, the always fantastic Paul Giamatti and Clayton veteran Tom Wilkinson run rival corporations in the home pharmaceutical industry (think Johnson & Johnson). Meanwhile, stars Julia Roberts and Clive Owen play former spies (of the C.I.A. and MI6 respectively) with a complicated past who now find themselves reunited working counterintelligence for the companies.

Going too into depth summarizing the story would ruin the experience so I’ll leave it at that. Sufficed to say, Gilroy’s writing is as sharp as ever and the constantly twisting and turning story proves both smart and rewarding. Another part of the film’s success is its editing. Pieces of the present are intersected with moments from the past, blending together seamlessly like chapters in a novel. It’s not linear and that is to the film’s advantage. Gilroy tells us exactly what he wants us to know, when he wants us to know it. Trying to put the puzzle together keeps the film constantly engaging.

Owen gives a fantastic performance in a role that, just like the film itself, is smart, charming and always entertaining. Roberts is no slouch either but she does feel a tad more dispensable. She could have been replaced with someone a little younger, with a little more charisma and the movie may have been better served.

But as is, the film just works. When it is firing on all cylinders it is devilishly clever and thoroughly absorbing. By the end I found myself completely caught up in the action and on the edge of my seat waiting to see if my predictions were accurate. Now that’s a feeling every good thriller should evoke.

BOTTOM LINE: Pure enjoyment for the crime and/or spy movie buffs out there.

Let’s get this out of the way up front: Deathproof was one of the worst movies I’ve ever seen in my life and I still have not forgiven Quentin Tarantino for putting me through it.

And please, spare me the “he was trying to do” this or that. Don’t bother telling me in what light I should view it. It was a waste of my time. Plain and simple. I don’t care if it was a throwback or homage. I don’t care if he made it slow and excruciating on purpose. It was terrible and I’ll never get that time back.

My history with Tarantino has always been checkered. I really love Reservoir Dogs.  Pulp Fiction I’m lukewarm about. Jackie Brown left no impression on me whatsoever. Kill Bill pt. 1 I loved while pt. 2 felt played. His style is often a turn off for me, but the performances in his films and his writing keep me watching.

His latest work, Inglourious Basterds, is his best film to date. I say that without a doubt in my mind. He shows the kind of top notch director he can be when he focuses… but at times he still gets in his own way.

90% of the film is a fictionalized World War II drama about a group of Jewish-American soldiers and German double agents attempting to destroy the Third Reich, and it is phenomenal.

The other 10% is Tarantino being Tarantino: Over the top musical flourishes. Absurd typefaces. Random voiceovers. Unnecessary flashes of imagery, etc. Because his presence is felt so rarely, it proves only to distract rather than enhance.

But the rest of the movie makes up for it and then some. Tarantino has always had a gift for dialogue, but in the past that dialogue has been in a context that is usually fairly entertaining (opening scene in Reservoir Dogs) or worthless (girls in Deathproof).

This time, Tarantino pairs his gift for dialogue with some real substance. The outcome is some of the most riveting exchanges I’ve seen on screen in a long time. I cannot stress this enough: Inglourious Basterds is one of the most compelling movies I’ve ever seen.

A great deal of that has to do with the fantastic performance of Christoph Waltz as Col. Hans Landa. He carries the film and is one of the most interesting and watchable villains Tarantino has ever brought to the screen.

As a warning, all the parts of the film I’m raving about (and also can’t stop thinking about), are subtitled and star no name actors. While the advertisements play up the Basterds and the star power of Brad Pitt, their role is actually fairly small in the scope of the story. Don’t go into the film expecting a constant bloodbath. This is a thoughtful and methodical tale of espionage with some occasional action.

The more I relfect on it, the more I want to see Inglourious Basterds again… right now.

It is the least Tarantino-y of his films and I feel it’s his best. That may say more about my taste than anything else, but believe me when I tell you that this movie is something special.

I like to go into my movies fresh. I mean really fresh. I’ll watch a teaser for something, if there is one, or the first 30 seconds of a full trailer. If I’m watching the trailer online, I’ll simply stop it once I get the idea. If I’m watching the trailer in the theater, I’ll actually close my eyes after a certain point and do my best to ignore the sound.

Neill Blomkamp’s directorial debut District 9 was no exception. I watched the initial teaser trailer and went on a media blackout from then on. But I tell ya, that teaser stuck with me.

It didn’t depict exactly what the movie would be like, but it conveyed the premise and my imagination did the rest. Now I’ve seen the actual film and I’m having trouble reconciling what I saw on the screen and what I saw in my head.

I can’t help but judge this movie two separate ways. It succeeds in terms of execution but also fails by limiting itself to being a pedestrian action flick.

[ENTERING SPOILER TERRITORY]

The film begins by getting the audience up to speed, documentary style, with the events of the past twenty years. An alien mothership has been hovering over Johannesburg and the aliens that occupied it now live in a contained slum known as District 9.

All of this is great, great stuff. The effects are fantastic, the story is gripping, and faux-documentary is always a winning style choice if you ask me (Death of a President anyone?). It begins to scratch the surface of all the sociological questions raised by these visitors… Then we start to follow around one alien affairs officer who begins to mutate into an alien.

Enter 30 straight minutes of running, hiding and screaming. (Lots and lots of screaming.)

Then, in the third act, our protagonist teams up with an alien in a sequence reminiscent of Aliens vs. Predator. Yes, this movie reminded me of AVP. (That’s never a good thing.) Together they proceed to run and gun. And gun and run.

Is it entertaining? For sure. Well done? Absolutely. Original? Eh, not particularly. Unforgettable? Hardly.

I suppose my overall gripe is with the filmmakers’ content selection. I found myself much more interested in the complexities of the mass relocation of a hostile alien race than in a pencil pusher going through a Fly-esque transformation. The vision they present to us in the beginning is worldwide in scope and its ramifications are on a macro scale. But by the end of the picture we find ourselves following a guy and his alien buddy trying to reclaim a MacGuffin.

Speaking of the finale, did I miss something or did it not seem to make much sense? So the ship’s fuel also has the interesting property of causing genetic mutation in humans? And is the fuel just for the drop-ship or the mothership or both? Did he need all that fuel just to fire up the tractor beam (which apparently is all that was really required)? Did he really just fall to his knees and give a ‘go on without me’ speech?

And so I stand before you a conflicted man. I love action as much as the next guy but some more depth would have been appreciated. Lord knows I’m not asking for an intergalactic Crash here, I just want some more effort put into the plotting of the second half. Read the rest of this entry »

Stephen Sommers’ end of summer blockbuster G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra was my first experience with the G.I. Joe franchise… ever.

Yes, it’s true. Growing up I never saw the show, I never owned the toy, I never so much as touched any Joe paraphernalia. It was not a conscience decision by any means. It’s not as though I actively avoided it. It just never became a part of my pop-culture lexicon for whatever reason.

So going into this film I was a blank slate. After I heard it used in the film I distinctly recognized the line, “Knowing if half the battle.” But otherwise, any and all inside jokes or references were lost on me.

But I have to say, as an ambassador of the series, Rise of Cobra did an admirable job. I now find myself much more interested in the story and its characters. And I certainly will watch the plethora of sequels that will stem from this opening act.

The story followed the loose outline I would expect from an action figure based film: bad guy wants to take over world, good guys must prevent it from happening. Any semblance of depth comes from the characters in the elite G.I. Joe unit and their histories/connections.

Other than the occasional flashback to break up the action and fill in the gaps, the film barrels full speed ahead at all times. It also has a distinct beginning, middle and end, all while laying down a foundation for future installments.

What I’m trying to say is: G.I. Joe knows exactly what it is and what it wants to do, and it does it well. It excels at being an entertaining action film. It succeeds everywhere that Transformers 2 failed.

I’m not saying it’s perfect. Some of the flashbacks are a bit hammy and the humor is at times forced. And they never seem to take into account all the civilians that presumably lose their lives during all of the breathtaking action sequences…

After the abysmal Transformers 2, Rise of Cobra redeems the movie based on a show based on a toy genre. Check it out if you are looking for some mindless entertainment.

Oh, and if you see it and don’t like it, you’re probably a communist.

I Love America.

America lost (yet another) icon recently in the form of Mr. Walter Cronkite, who passed away just a few days ago. The legendary anchorman of the CBS Evening News was considered the “most trusted man in America.” I grew up watching clips of his show and hearing about him through my parents and through references within popular culture. I very much admired and looked up to this man.

So when I saw a tribute special yesterday on CBS, I cried on at least three separate occasions. And sitting alone in my apartment wiping away my tears caused me to reflect. When did this start happening to me?

There was a time in my life when I had never cried at a movie or TV show or documentary or anything. No form of media had made me cry. And I prided myself on that fact. It made me feel more together and I actually bragged about it. “Nothing has ever made me cry,” I’d say. But I’ve changed dramatically since then. So I thought to myself: when did this happen? How?

Answer: Clint Eastwood’s Academy Award Winning drama, Million Dollar Baby.

Yes, I can pinpoint the exact film that did it to me. Something happened to me in that theater back in 2004. A switch was flipped. And it’s one that can never be turned off.

I sat in that theater, literally sobbing, trying to hold the tears back as much as possible to save face in front of my sister and father. They may have been crying as well, I don’t know. I didn’t have the courage to turn and look for fear they’d see me in my horrific state.

For some reason it was that film alone that caused me to finally internalize trauma that I see on the screen and make it my own. And ever since then, frankly, I’ve been a mess.

Now, I bawl at almost anything. There are certain things that are guaranteed to do it though: 9/11. JFK assassination. Moments of heroism and self-sacrifice (especially during WWII). Underdogs overcoming unthinkable odds. Great speeches (especially listening to MLK). Anything tragic or unjust. If somebody else starts to break down while talking about something, I’ll break down with them.

[I still am unaffected in general by pure romance. A couple finally getting together at the end of a movie after all they've been through - nothing. I'm happy for them and all, but it doesn't bring it out of me.]

What I’m wondering is if this has happened to anyone else. Shouldn’t emotional maturation be more gradual? I had an instant transformation that I can pinpoint with certainty. Is that weird? Am I alone? Share your experiences in the comments and please speak freely.

In my previous post I fully admitted I have a bias against the fantasy genre, which I would explain later. Well, here we are and I believe I owe you all an explanation. (Keep in mind that I in no way am arrogant enough to pretend I know every single fantasy text in existence or have seen every movie in history. I’m basing my knowledge purely on what I’ve seen and what most frequently appears in popular culture.)

At the very root of my prejudice is a major, internal factor: I don’t find fantasies interesting. Keep in mind this is not something I have control over. For the same reason I don’t like the taste of tomatoes or cringe when I hear certain sounds, whenever I see a movie involving wizards or talking animals or magical potions my brain sends me a signal asking, “is there anything else on?”

However, this hasn’t been the case is every instance and some films have been compelling enough to break through this barrier. Namely, Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring. I still consider that film, the first in the trilogy, to be a masterpiece. Unfortunately, the second film is a bore and the third falls victim to my biggest criticism of the genre: anything goes.

Put simply, a fantasy author has too much power. They can write any absurdity they want and if, God forbid, I try to raise a logistical concern or address a plothole, I am immediately lambasted with, “it’s fantasy Bill. Relax!” Which is tantamount to the old saying, “it’s just a movie!”

But that doesn’t cut it for me. A writer should create the characters and set up the story but once it is underway it should feel as though it resolves itself naturally. The better the writer, the more it seems to flow. The worse the writer, the more you can feel their hand involved, manually arranging and forcing plot developments. And no where is this more apparent than the fantasy genre.

I have two perfect examples that put me in a rage every time I consider them (warning, these do include LOTR and HP spoilers):

First, Lord of the Rings: Return of the King. It’s the second to last (if I remember correctly) battle. The evil army is destroying the good guys. I mean really beating the hell out of them. They are outnumbered to the point of lunacy as the camera flies over the CGI battlefield, showing there is no possible way our heroes can win this battle.

Which is now a problem for our screenwriters. They have written themselves into a corner. The bad guys are about to win, but the good guys have to pull out a victory for the story’s sake. Luckily, this is fantasy, so anything goes.

Out of nowhere (fine, out of one brief scene penciled in earlier to cover themselves) comes an invincible army of ghost pirates! Convenient! Do these extra hands on deck help turn the momentum of the battle? No, they simply win the battle… immediately.

Because they are ghosts, of course, these pirates cannot be struck down by conventional weapons, but luckily for our heroes, they can still strike their enemies. Allowing them to flow over the battlefield like a giant, ectoplasmic tidal wave and single handedly win the battle instantaneously.

It was the single cheapest moment I’ve ever witnessed in the history of film. It forever tainted the series for me. My blood boils when I think of the audacity of the screenwriter playing God like that. But I can’t argue because, “it’s fantasy Bill. Relax!”

(Whether it is explained in more depth in the novel is beside the point because the film needs to be able to stand alone as a product for all those like me who simply watched the LOTR series.)

Another prime example of an author making his or her presence all too clear comes courtesy of the final novel in the Harry Potter series: The Deathly Hallows. This complaint is not specific to fantasies, it is more regarding bad writing in general, but this type of bad writing seems to crop up more in fantasies than anywhere else.

Much like the above example, it has to do with the author creating his or her own plot turning event out of convenience rather than natural story progression.

It occurs in the middle of The Deathly Hallows. Our leads are on the run, apparating every day to random sections of different woods all over the world. To reiterate, every day they are in a new part of a new forest that could be anywhere in the world and is totally at random in order to hide.

… And the story ends.

The book is essentially over. There is no where else to go. Nothing else to do. The characters have no leads, no direction, no forward momentum.

Obviously Rowling has made a mistake and now has to write herself out of it. But, hey, it’s fantasy so anything goes. One night the characters happen to appear in a particular part of a particular forest where a group of people happen to be. And these people happen to have information regarding what’s going on at Hogwarts and they happen to say it out loud and happen to give our heroes something to go off of for the rest of the novel.

That one scene, made purely of forced coincidence, is the fulcrum point of the entire novel and essentially the entire series. I’m sorry, but I refuse to accept that. I cannot let that pass by saying, “oh ok, that works.” My anger towards this event knows no bound. This appearance of the author as the hand of God is far too blatant to be ignored.

Another factor that doesn’t help fantasies in general is the fact that the main ambassadors for the genre, the most visible moneymakers, are some of the worst movies in recorded history. I cannot summarize just how much I hated The Chronicles of Narnia, The Golden Compass and Eragon.

To sum it up, on one level, my dislike for the genre stems purely from the subject matter. On another it is based on the actions of the writer and could actually occur in any book or film. It just happens to occur more often in fantasies and because it uses that moniker, ‘fantasy,’ people give it a pass. But not me.

And you may note that I love superhero movies and science fiction and ask, “are those not fantasy?” No, they are not. There is a distinction. That distinction being that they still occur within the real world and that world has rules (as Morpheus says).

Superman is a fantastical character but he exists in the real world. He is the one anomaly in his otherwise normal surroundings. Science fiction is similar. The idea of bringing dinosaurs back to life is fantasy but it’s based on very real science. As opposed to fantasies where the entire world is created and controlled by the author.

Anybody out there agree? I know plenty of people probably disagree. Sound off in the comments section below!

So this movie taught me a little something about myself: I have become completely and utterly apathetic towards this franchise. I read all the books. I’ve seen all the movies. And still nothing has occurred in any of them that has ever made me say, “wow, I have got to read/see that again.”

There are two main reasons for this. One is my bias against the fantasy genre in general (the focus of a soon to come post in which all will be explained, I assure you). The other is my tendency to cling obsessively to a subject, only to abandon it all together after. And I guess I’ve reached a point in my life where I have moved on from Harry Potter.

When the final book was set to come out (which was an atrocity, by the way) I read all the previous ones in sequence in order to catch up. But the minute I put down the trainwreck that was The Deathly Hallows, I immediately began losing interest in everything I had just invested so much time into.

Sure, I held on long to enough to be excited for the fourth (and even fifth) film, but that goodwill has waned. And going into the sixth, I was simply going through the motions.

Don’t get me wrong, I in no way actively disliked this film. In fact, I enjoyed it and chuckled at a number of moments (the humor was well-played and Alan Rickman is mesmorizing as usual) but I was never excited.

To be perfectly honest: I felt no passion whatsoever. And it seemed to me like the director didn’t either. The film rolled along not because there was a worthwhile story to tell, but because the movie had to be made.

Which makes sense, putting this film on the same level as the book it represents: It’s all set up. Its entire purpose is to build to the eventual finale. And it fulfills that purpose. It’s just not a very fruitful endeavor when put on the big screen for 2+ hours in the hope of entertaining the masses.

So back to the reason you’re here. What did I think of Warner Bros.’ new release Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince? Well, I sincerely thought it was good.

That’s all I can say. It is what it is. If you’ve seen the others you know exactly what you’re getting yourself into and you already know how you are going to feel about it. No surprises here.

IN OTHER NEWS:

- Entourage has returned to HBO for its sixth season. I enjoyed the premiere because it gave us a chance to see the boys together again after all this time. But the series is definitely spinning its wheels. The seasons are becoming very cyclical. Something really has to happen this season that fundamentally changes the dynamic of the show and Vince’s career. Just showing his rise and fall and cheap rise again at the end of each season is not enough. (And yes, having Martin Scorsese call at random when all hope seemed lost, was very cheap.)

- After only two episodes I already expect great things from the new show that now precedes Entourage: Hung. Definitely worth a watch. (It is available OnDemand to those who already have HBO but may have missed it.)

- Quick reminder: Wipeout remains the best show on television. Period.

Hey, remember the first Transformers movie? Yea? I just saved you ten bucks! You no longer need to see Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen.

This sequel to the 2007 summer blockbuster is beat-for-beat the same as the original… minus the novelty, spontaneity or excitement that comes with a new franchise. It is two and a half hours of same old, same old. AKA Michael Bay being Michael Bay. Which, when working with something new and exciting like alien robots that transform into American made motor vehicles, is fine. But that was 2007 and this is now. I need something a little more fresh.

So how does he attempt to liven things up? For starters, introduce a new element to the story in the first minute and leave us in the dark about for the next 149 minutes. Not only that, but also toss in a bone headed authority figure character written with a level of unrealism not seen since the chief of police in Die Hard.

And, for good measure, two new “comic relief” autobots make their debut and in the process set back race relations in this country 50 years. I’m sorry, but the very existence of Mudflap and Skids is an affront to humanity itself. Anyone who laughed at their appearance, antics or dialogue should be ashamed of themselves. And all the people responsible for writing them into the script, giving them a voice, digitally rendering them or letting them appear in the final film should face jail time.

There were so many damn things in this movie that actually caused a physical, adverse reaction in my body. The biggest being the noise level. I still have a pounding headache from the decibel level in that theater as I type this. As for the script itself I cannot count the number of times I rolled my eyes, put my head in my hands or smacked my forehead.

I could go on but I’m sick of sitting here seething over this atrocity. The more I think about it, the more anger I feel. (Oh! And I didn’t even get into the ridiculousness of all the subplots like going to college, capturing a decepticon or revisiting John Turturro’s character! AHH! Memories rushing back! Make it stop!)

BOTTOM LINE: Long on spectacle, short on spectacular.

–

In Other Movie News:

The Academy of Motion Pictures Arts & Sciences, in all of their glorious wisdom, has decided to expand the field of Best Picture nominees from 5 to 10 starting this year. You can find their official press release on the matter HERE.

I, for one, am relieved. That show was already running pretty short. Thank God we’ll have more clips to show and nominees to read off in order to fill all that air time.

One more quick note: I recently saw a commercial for the next Harry Potter. Now I know I read the book two or three summers ago, but I think it’s a bad sign when I don’t recognize a single thing from the ad. Either this movie is going to take some huge liberties with the material or I really need to work on better retaining what I read.

Well, it’s (just about) June 6th.

On this day 65 years ago the allied expeditionary force led by General Dwight Eisenhower landed on the beaches of Normandy in France and proceeded to overtake the German fortified coastline and open a passageway that would lead the allies to ultimate victory in the European theater of World War II… in other words: we pwned the Nazis.

Known as D-Day, this event has come to symbolize the allied efforts in Europe during WWII and has been dissected, reproduced and romanticized in every possible form of media. It is especially spotlighted in the opening sequence of one of Steven Spielberg’s greatest accomplishments: Saving Private Ryan (1998).

America’s premiere director brought that battle to the screen with such brutal honesty it led to veterans walking out of the theater, not being able to handle what felt like actually reliving the war. It was that powerful.

The entire film is an undisputed masterpiece. The cinema had never seen a war movie quite like it before, and any that have come after are considered clones. This is the original.

So on this anniversary of D-Day, I’d like to take the time to discuss what I consider one of the best films ever made by asking myself a question and then proceeding to provide multiple answers. Enjoy:

Q: So, just how good is Saving Private Ryan?

A1: Well, Saving Private Ryan is so good…

… that the FCC doesn’t even censor it. After the movie aired, unedited, on Veteran’s day, the FCC got complaints about it and had to rule on whether the ABC affiliates who aired it had broke indecency standards by doing so. The complaints they cite include:

Following the November 11, 2004, broadcast, the Commission received the complaints, alleging that the aired film contains indecent or otherwise actionable material. The Complainants generally cite, among other things, film dialogue containing expletives including: “fuck,” and variations thereof; “shit,” “bullshit,” and variations thereof; “bastard,” and “hell.” In addition, the Complainants cite the presence in the film of other allegedly offensive language, such as “Jesus,” and “God damn.” They also object to the film’s graphic depiction of wartime violence. Accordingly, the Complainants argue that the ABC Network Stations should be sanctioned for airing material that violates federal indecency and profanity restrictions.

Know how the FCC responded?

The subject matter of the film, the portrayal of a mission to save the last surviving son of an Iowa farm family, involves events that occurred during World War II. As stated in the introduction to the broadcast, in relating this story, the motion picture realistically depicts the fierce combat during the Normandy invasion, including, according to a veteran who participated in and witnessed these events, “things that no one should ever have to see.” Essential to the ability of the filmmaker to convey to viewers the extraordinary conditions in which the soldiers conducted themselves with courage and skill are the reactions of these ordinary Americans to the barbaric situations in which they were placed. The expletives uttered by these men as these events unfold realistically reflect the soldiers’ strong human reactions to, and, often, revulsion at, those unspeakable conditions and the peril in which they find themselves. Thus, in context, the dialogue, including the complained-of material, is neither gratuitous nor in any way intended or used to pander, titillate or shock. Indeed, it is integral to the film’s objective of conveying the horrors of war through the eyes of these soldiers, ordinary Americans placed in extraordinary situations. Deleting all of such language or inserting milder language or bleeping sounds into the film would have altered the nature of the artistic work and diminished the power, realism and immediacy of the film experience for viewers. In short, the vulgar language here was not gratuitous and could not have been deleted without materially altering the broadcast.

And another member of the committee added:

This film is a critically acclaimed artwork that tells a gritty story one of bloody battles and supreme heroism. The horror of war and the enormous personal sacrifice it draws on cannot be painted in airy pastels. The true colors are muddy brown and fire red and any accurate depiction of this significant historical tale could not be told properly without bringing that sense to the screen. It is for these reasons that the FCC has previously declined to rule this film indecent.

If you didn’t feel like reading all of that (which you should, it’s fascinating) I’ll translate: “This movie is too good to change or censor.”

You think they make these exceptions for The Thin Red Line? or Platoon? No. And you wanna know why? They aren’t as good. Period.

A2: Saving Private Ryan is so good…

…that it always runs virtually commercial free. This has a lot to do with the previous answer. The movie is just too good to cut up and sell ad space during. It would be inappropriate to stop in the middle of this depiction of heroism only to try and sell some Volkswagens.

A3: Saving Private Ryan is so good…

… that every video game about World War II that came out after blatantly rips it off. And there are not a small number of them. Let’s list just a few, shall we? Medal of Honor: Allied Assault (and every other MoH), Every Call of Duty (except 4), Day of Defeat, Company of Heroes, Brothers in Arms, Battlefield 1942, et al.

A4: Saving Private Ryan is so good…

… that when you remind people it didn’t win Best Picture, they stare at you incredulously. Spielberg got Best Director, true, but the film itself did not go home with the Academy Of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences‘ biggest prize. And what did, you ask?

… Shakespeare in Love …

Nope, not kidding you. That really happened. It still baffles me to the point where all I can do now is try to laugh about it. But it is hard to laugh about such a travesty.

So, if you haven’t seen it in a while, I urge you to go back and watch SPR on this anniversary of D-Day and give thanks to the brave men and women depicted on screen fighting for the lives we now live.

Pixar’s UP isn’t as funny or entertaining as their best film Toy Story. And it isn’t as interesting as last year’s Wall-E. It isn’t even quite on par with some of their other entries like Ratatouille and The Incredibles. And, to be honest, I’d even place it lower on my list than some non-Pixar CGI films such as Antz and Kung Fu Panda.

All that being said, UP is still a wonderful piece of filmmaking.

It begins with an opening that reinforces the fact that animated films, when in the right hands, can have just as much of an emotional impact as any traditional drama. It is a beautiful, beautiful sequence.

The rest of the film trots along with less heart and more gags. Because of the targeted demographic, the story remains fairly obvious and predictable. It doesn’t have that same ‘anything can happen’ magic that the previously mentioned Pixar films do. Because this story is based on human characters and set in the ‘real world’ so to speak, it just doesn’t have the same panache. No matter how many balloons or talking dogs are on screen, it just ain’t the same as toys coming alive when you’re not looking, robots falling in love, or superheroes living amongst us with secret powers.

Besides the heartfelt opening, one more thing sets UP apart: the third dimension. I saw the film in Disney Digital 3D and enjoyed its use of the technology immensely. The film uses the depth 3D offers to subtly enhance the storytelling instead of distract.

The only drawback is that it softens the color palette a bit. During shots that had no depth I took off the glasses to check out how the film looked normally and it was much more vibrant. But I say the extra dimension was worth it (even for a few more bucks).

As with the previously blogged about Terminator Salvation, some movies just have the bad luck of automatically being compared to superior films based on name alone. In this case it isn’t the name of a franchise, but the name of a studio: Pixar. (Evidenced by my opening paragraph.)

Is UP a great family comedy that excels within the genre? Without question.

Will it be instantly remembered from now on whenever people discuss the Pixar catalogue? Perhaps not.

I’ve had the pleasure (for the most part) of seeing two movies as of late. Most recently, the action blockbuster Terminator Salvation. And before that, the snooze-fest that was Angels & Demons.

The Terminator series is near and dear to my heart. T2: Judgment Day was one of the first movies I even remember seeing and is also one of my favorites of all time. Same goes for the original. Both are phenomenal achievements in filmmaking. They have a smart, thought-provoking storyline that perfectly integrates science fiction and time travel as well as human emotion… that, and they are full of bitchin’ action sequences.

Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines has always made calling the franchise a ‘great trilogy’ dicey. Did it fail on a level that would make me choose to ignore its very existence? Not at all (I’m looking at you Matrix: Revolutions). It had some good action and it followed the canon well enough. As a stand alone action film I would have considered it well above average. But it has the misfortune of being judged as part of a pedigree that has set the bar tremendously high. And thus, most recall it poorly.

Salvation takes place in the near future that the other films only hint at or show snippets of. It is 2018 and the war against the machines (post judgment day) is in full swing. John Connor, while not technically leading the resistance, has become an inspiration to the survivors of the nuclear fire through the radio (as depicted at the end of T3).

This is only the first of what is set to be another trilogy, which I presume will end with the sending back of Kyle Reese that begins the original film. And I’m okay with that. I’ll take it.

Do these movies need to exist? No. The story has already been thoroughly laid out. Is it cool to see, with today’s special effects and stylization, what that war looks like? And on top of that, is it an easy way for the studio to drum up some cash using a successful franchise that requires no heavy lifting script wise? Absolutely yes on both counts.

So in the end, Salvation proves entertaining as fan service but doesn’t make any great strides one way or the other for the franchise. It’s a good blockbuster and it doesn’t mess anything up. Worth checking out if you are a fan of the series.

…oh yea… Did I mention I saw Angels & Demons? Umm, yep. I did. It was… yea. Not worth its own blog post even. I read The Da Vinci Code before seeing that film, this time I went in blind. And that helped me appreciate how poor these films are as products. There is no detail, no subtlety and no nuance. Which are the qualities that make the books so popular. But alas, none of that translates in this format. Don’t bother unless you read the book and can fill in those sizable gaps for yourself.

First let me acquaint you with my level of Trekkery so you know where I stood going into this rekindling of the franchise. (Side note: I just made up the word Trekkery and now realize how dangerously close it comes to sounding like ‘treachery’…) I have seen all the films. I watched the next gen television series occasionally but my knowledge is essentially entirely film based. Of the originals, I really enjoyed 2 (The Wrath of Khan) and 6 (The Undiscovered Country). Most of the others I remember seeing as a kid and thinking they were boring.

So going in I probably knew a good bit more than the average person. But my fandom remained in the realm of casual. Never have I considered myself to be a Trekkie by any stretch of the imagination.

Then I saw J.J. Abrams’ Star Trek.

All I can say is, “Wow.” Sure, there were a few dodgy moments in the story and a few things I scratched my head over. But it succeeds… nay, excels, in so many areas that those plot points (read: holes) are quickly overshadowed.

I’ve known since Mission: Impossible III that Abrams was gifted behind the camera and he has outdone himself once again. He is one of those directors I find myself completely in tune with. His vision, his pacing. Everything. In my book, he does it all just right.

And it doesn’t hurt that he has oodles of cash at his back. The special effects in this film are second to none. The U.S.S. Enterprise is breathtaking. The bridge is gorgeous. And on and on.

The most astounding thing about Abrams is how he can take a franchise as seemingly stuffy and uninviting to the general public as Star Trek, and turn it into the most accessible, thrilling, fun blockbuster in years and not compromise its integrity or hardcore appeal.

Most of that success has to do with the superb casting. When dealing with such well known characters, casting young versions can be nearly impossible. But every single role is filled seamlessly. I was stunned.

This is one of those rare circumstances in which I cannot wait for sequels to be made, assuming that Abrams and the entire cast is on board (pun intended). Now that the franchise has been reestablished with such vigor and glory, I demand more. With this director, this ensemble and those special effects, the potential is limitless.

Okay, it wasn’t boring. But I did find X-Men Origins: Wolverine underwhelming. So much so that I really do not feel like spending the time necessary to write a full review. So (like most of the storylines in the movie itself) I’ll keep this short and underdeveloped:

THE GOOD:

-Hugh Jackman still makes a great Logan and does the character justice. Unfortunately the writers do him no favors.

-Liev Schreiber steps up and plays a convincing Sabertooth.

-The action scenes work pretty well. They don’t fall into the usual trap of super fast cutting.

-Seeing Wolverine fight through American history during the opening credits was badass.

THE BAD:

-I feel like nothing was accomplished after 107 minutes. Which is the major flaw with an origins movie to begin with. When you’ve already seen the ‘After’ picture, the ‘Before’ loses its drama.

-Feels stagnated. It never flows. The film feels like a collection of scenes and set pieces rather than a cohesive experience.

-Uses every action movie cliche in the book.

THE UGLY:

-The final boss. My God, he freaked me right the hell out.

-I know there were multiple easter eggs at the end of the credits and mine was totally lame. I feel robbed. Damn you West Springfield!

-Sound off with your take in the comments below!

With a few exceptions, I usually keep the time between film viewings at a year minimum. That way it maintains some level of freshness. For this first ‘revisiting’ post I watched The Departed for the first time in full since I saw it in theaters in 2006.

It won the Oscar that year for Best Picture as well as Best Editing and Best Director. While the Picture category was admittedly weak that year, the editing and directing ones were not. The sweep was credited to the fact that, while The Departed was a solid movie, it was done by a man long overdue for some gold: Martin Scorsese.

Sentimentality for Marty aside: this movie deserved none of its accolades and was generally overrated. (And yes, I was regrettably part of that hype machine.)

Right off the bat, the first 20 minutes is a nightmare. We jump forward and back through time, music is added haphazardly, and I dare you to try to count the number of shot inconsistencies. We go from a shot behind Nicholson with a cigarette hanging out of his mouth, to a head-on medium shot- cigarette: gone. Leo is leaning forward in his chair during a close up, cut wide, he’s laying back. It’s incredibly aggravating. Then, right when you think the story is off and running, the title card is slapped onto the screen twenty minutes too late. The whole thing can only be described as jarring.

After that, the movie actually begins to flow better. The trade off being, instead of being distracted by the editing, now your distracted by everyone’s atrocious attempts at Boston accents. First of all, not everyone who works in Boston is from Boston. Secondly, not everyone from Boston has such thick accents. And Matt Damon… really? You are from Boston. Therefore, however you naturally speak is a Boston accent. Why force it?

Don’t get me wrong, the story is riveting and the script is superb. My gripes here are with execution only. And the parts that are done right are really, really great. (i.e. Damon calling Leo on Queenan’s phone. The surprising finale. Etc.) And the performances (accents notwithstanding) are solid. Leo carries the whole damn thing and both Alec Baldwin and Mark Wahlberg shine in their bit parts.

But the cutting (or lack thereof given its unnecessary 151 minute runtime), the music cues, Damon’s love interest; they all bring down what could have been an instant classic. Instead, it remains “that Boston cop movie” that everyone loves to remember fondly and talk glowingly about, but won’t stop while flipping past it on TNT.

WORTH REVISITING?: Not as good as remembered, but not a waste of time either. Just plain ‘meh.’