A surprising, exciting film. (Review of "Super 8")

When Steven Spielberg first entered the filmmaking scene, he was celebrated for the wit, charm, and wonder that he brought onscreen, as evident in such films as Close Encounters of the Third Kind, and E.T. And, even though he has produced intelligent and relevant work since then, a spark of creativity has clearly been lost.

However, with his latest directorial effort, Super 8, J.J. Abrams has managed to pick up where Spielberg left off.

From top to bottom, the film is inherently Spielbergian. Abrams even emulated the framing and cinematography of those aforementioned classic works, largely abandoning his typical gritty, handheld approach. The film is no simple homage, though. It places its adolescent protagonists in greater peril than Speilberg's films dare to, and lacks the family-friendly appeal of Spielberg's work.

Interestingly enough, one of the more surprising aspects of this film is its humor, most prevalent in the sequences involving the protagonist, Joe Lamb, and his friends. The fact that the film is willing to not take itself too seriously is a refreshing contrast to the dour blockbusters we have become accustomed to seeing over the past few years.

Focusing your film on children is often a challenge, as child actors seem to rarely have enough charisma and screen presence to fully engage an audience. Thankfully, Abrams was able to select a fine group of young actors who are more than capable of completing that task. Elle Fanning, in particular, stands out as a tremendous talent, and will undoubtedly have a long, prosperous career.

What could have been a superficial series of references to a somewhat dormant style of storytelling is, instead, a wonderful, funny, terrifying memorable film, thanks to Abrams' smart writing and direction.

A True Story Worth Telling ("The King's Speech")

When in the process of adapting someone's life for cinema, there are many things to consider. Like, how to remain respectful of the individual in question, whilst also being able to tell an engaging story, or, condensing the major events of said person's life, so they could properly fit a two-hour running time.


Sadly, one of them never seems to be whether it would be even remotely interesting if the person were not famous. This problem plagues the bio-pic genre greatly, making a great deal of them unable to have any artistic or entertainment value.


However, once in a great while, a filmmaker will recognize the potential storytelling value of a person's life, and create a beautiful work. The King's Speech is one of these exceptions.


It is not so much an account of King George VI's nascent years on the throne as it is a chronicle of a man's struggle to overcome his life-long affliction, for his country, for his family, and for himself. Firth's performace as the titular character is truly spellbinding. He physically embodies his character wonderfully, you often forget that this is Mr. Darcy on screen.


The film also focuses the development of an unlikely friendship, between George, and Lionel Logue, his speech therapist. Logue is the perfect counterpoint to the King: humorous, affable, and agnostic. He is portrayed by Geoffrey Rush, whose inherently wry dispotion helps create a wonderful chemistry between the two actors.


Generally, a British period piece has a rather static aesthetic, preferring to rely on the momentum of its cast. Wisely, director Tom Hooper has avoided this approach, opting instead to rely largely on stylized close-ups, and an era-appropriate color palette.


A beautifully directed, and perfectly acted work, The King's Speech is not only an incredible true story, but a great one, as well.

Revenge is best served digitally. (Review of "The Social Network")

There is a misconception that a film's main character has to be a likable creation. It is inconceivable to follow a person who is not capable of adhering to our moral standards. They have to be upstanding citizens, nay, upstanding people in general. Any flaws they may possess must be eradicated by the end of the picture, to remind us of their horrendous nature.


Sadly, this threatens to rob films of their candor, instead perpetuating caricatures that have no basis in reality, and solely exist to serve a storytelling purpose. It's rare to find a filmmaker who's willing to let their characters simply be, disregarding the desire to constrict them.


With his lead character in The Social Network, David Fincher has proven, amongst many things, that he is that type of filmmaker.


As a result, Fincher's film, if anything, plays out like a revenge story. It may come as a surprise to some people that Mark Zuckerberg's rise to fame was instigated by his sheer hatred and jealousy of his ex-girlfriend, peers, and ultimately, his closest friend and Facebook co-founder, Eduardo Salverin.


Jesse Eisenberg portrays Zuckerberg as a viciously intelligent creature, never failing to dazzle someone with his wit while insulting someone one else with it. Eisenberg has essayed erudite characters before, but never with such a tenacity. Truly, there seems to be something sinister within his performance, causing the audience to not be quite aware of what he does next.


Napster founder Sean Parker arrives in the second act of the film, and quickly becomes Zuckerberg's mentor, for lack of a better term. However, Parker is more interested in finding a rebound after the Napster legal fiasco, and feels like Zuckerberg's Facebook is the new thing. He's charming, unpredictable, and relentlessly neurotic. Justin Timberlake performs every aspect of this character perfectly, coming off as incredibly magnetic. He eradicates any image of the lovable boy band member, and instead presents himself as a true thespian.


Although Salverin is initially Zuckerberg's best friend and business partner, he becomes increasingly aware of his friend's growing ego, and desire to exclude him from the development of Facebook. Garfield exhibits Salverin's optimism and panic beautifully, and will undoubtedly earn him more than a few award nominations.


A film detailing the origins of Facebook seemed an odd project for Fincher to latch on. However, it's pretty evident why he was drawn to the material, as it could be seen as a companion piece to his previous work, "Fight Club." Like "Fight Club," "The Social Network" is a satiric commentary on male psyche. Rather than focusing on their desire to use the act of fighting as a way to avoid being numb, instead, their need to sleep with beautiful women is the core of this story.


Anyone who believes that this is nothing more than "Facebook: The Movie" will be sorely mistaken. This is a true work of art, a great reminder of what filmmaking can achieve.

A true video-game film. (Review of "Scott Pilgrim vs the World")

In 2003, after a seven year absence, Quentin Tarantino unleashed the first volume of his film, Kill Bill, on the world. It was a joyous blast of brilliantly staged violence, and deliciously well-crafted dialogue. However, more so, it was a regurgitation of the pop culture that Tarantino had absorbed, particularly during the '60s and '70s. Not only did it reference films of various periods, but television programs, commercials, songs, etc. It was a visual capsule of what came before.


Since its release, many films have surely strived to entertain, but could hardly be referred to as products of the past, as Kill Bill was.

Edgar Wright's adaptation of the Scott Pilgrim comic book series, Scott Pilgrim vs the World, however, might be not only this decade's equivalent, but superior to Tarantino's film.

In addition to carrying exuberant storytelling, and an idiosyncratic sense of humor, Pilgrim is also an accumulation of geek culture of the past few decades. Fight sequences are staged as video game/arcade boss battles, accompanied by appropriate music. Scenes are regularly augmented by visual onomatopoeia, in the style of a comic book. The majority of the soundtrack is culled from works as varied as "The Legend of Zelda" and "Seinfeld."

Although the film is a natural progression for Wright, having incorporated games like "Tekken" and "Resident Evil 2" into the storytelling of his television series, Spaced, it's clearly his ambitious as well, easily topping the similarly audacious Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz within minutes. Many attempts are made to capture the tone of comic books, often costing from $150-200 million, but Wright's effort succeeds considerably, with less than half of the budget. It isn't simply replicating the frames; it is keeping the intent of those frames valid.

What also helps is casting the right people, and even if Wright failed on his terms, his stellar group of actors would have been able to pick up the slack. Every great young female actress is in this film, including Mary Elizabeth Winstead, Anna Kendrick, and Aubrey Plaza, and doing nothing short of their best. However, Ellen Wong, largely an unknown prior to being cast as Knives, gave, by far, the most compelling, spirited performance of the film. Her energetic disposition is infectious, and tonally complimentary to the piece. Cera, often referred to as a one-trick-pony, doesn't necessarily give a 180, but makes enough interesting choices with the material to distinguish Pilgrim from his other characters.

Revolutionary as it is entertaining, Pilgrim will resonate greatly with the 8-bit generation.

Sweet dreams (and some films) are made of this (Review of "Inception")

Some filmmakers just like to simply tell a story. They like having strong characters, good dialogue, and great performances, but they wouldn't be bothered if their film doesn't stay with their audience after the credits roll. They're content with entertaining them, believing that is their sole purpose.

Then, there are others, who aren't satisfied with that. They want their work to remain on people's minds for days, weeks, months. Even years. They create their films to be discussed, analyzed, and so forth. Their films aren't disposable entertainment, they're art.

One filmmaker who falls into the latter category is Christopher Nolan. From his debut film, Following, he has established himself as having a singular, and uncompromising voice. Its complex structure, essentially telling three acts of the story at once, set it apart from most independent films. His next film, Memento, had an even more unusual structure. The film was, for a lack of a better expression, "backwards," with each scene chronologically preceding the last. However, what made the film have substance wasn't the structure. It was the fact that Nolan utilized it as a vehicle to deal with themes such as perception, subjectivity, and memory.

Memento was critically acclaimed, even receiving an Oscar nomination, which created an opportunity for Nolan to produce films using the studio system, including Insomnia, Batman Begins, The Prestige, and The Dark Knight. Although they had higher budgets than his previous work, it's hard to discern if they were any less of an accurate representation of Nolan's voice.

Inception, his latest film, is arguably his magnum opus. It is certainly his most ambitious. Not necessarily due to having the largest budget, but the absolute lengths Nolan goes with his storytelling. The sheer imagination presented is far more fascinating than the majority of contemporary blockbusters.

For instance, in one sequence, we see an entire city block be flipped, and put upside down on-top of another one. It works not just because of how well it's executed, but because Nolan was able to immerse us in the reality so well, we are genuinely in awe of this act, rather than being numb to it, as what happens to most summer fare (Transformers, for example).

Once again, Nolan uses the concept of inhabiting someone's dreams as a way to continue many of his themes. Multiple narratives, loss of a loved one, etc. And, while the film is visually spectacular, how it interprets its themes is ultimately the draw, and the focus of the film.

An aspect that helps augment the themes is, of course, the characters. Nolan's characters are, generally, beautifully realized, and that remains the case here. They're performed by an utterly sound cast, with acting legends Michael Caine, and Pete Postlehwaite providing cameos. In particular, Levitt and Page are wonderful together, an indie dream-team, of sorts, considering their backgrounds. DiCaprio, as expected, is more than capable of creating a reliable emotional center for us to attach ourselves to, and Cottillard puts a spin on the role of lost love.

The final moments of Inception will be analyzed and debated about for years to come. Nolan would have it no other way.

Shoot to Thrill (Review of "Iron Man 2")

A filmmaker can face numerous difficulties when creating their art. Casting the right people, applying the proper tone, writing the perfect script. Make no mistake, it's an incredibly challenging position to be in.

When the art in question is the follow-up to a successful and critically acclaimed film, then it becomes doubly difficult. Now, there's an expectation. People have come to love the characters and want to see them grow, yet don't want to be betrayed by their development. This is largely why numerous filmmakers don't even bother to produce sequels to their work, afraid of the negative reaction from fans.

The ones that go about the task of doing so often get lambasted for their efforts. However, there are few that have been able to capture the spirit of the first film, and have even exceeded their entertainment and storytelling value. The films that fall into this category that come to mind are "The Godfather: Part II", "Empire Strikes Back", and "Toy Story 2."

And while "Iron Man 2" certainly aspires, and makes a decent attempt, to stand next to those classics, it ultimately comes up short in delivering the goods.

What made the first film so endearing was its strong emotional core, which was accentuated by Robert Downey Jr's performance. You felt a connection to him, you could understand his struggle. However, despite a few attempts in the sequel, you never quite get the same reaction. Although Downey plays it beautifully, you don't buy it as well. His arc feels somewhat superficial, contrived. You don't necessarily care what Tony Stark's problems are. You laugh at his jokes, you marvel at his zeal, but you don't see his heart.

In fact, you could say that about the film itself. The wit, charisma are all there, but you never once get the heart. In the first film, the characters felt like three-dimensional beings, actual people. Here, there are occasional flashes of that, before replaced by quips and special effects.

However, all that being said, "Iron Man 2" is still enjoyable fun. There are some truly memorable scenes, including a court hearing scene which features classic Downey dialogue. Sam Rockwell, who portrays Tony Stark wannabe Justin Hammer, is magnificent; you can't take your eyes off of him. Scarlett Johansson also handles her complex action sequences with great ease, and has solid chemistry with the rest of the established cast. One of my favorite elements of the first film, the relationship between Stark and his secretary, Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow), continues quite well, leading into an interesting and satisfying conclusion of their arc.

While hardly destined to be a classic sequel, by emulating the majority of the great elements of the first film, it is able to be a watchable follow-up.

AJP.

Do we get wiser when we get older? (Review of "Greenberg")

We're all getting older. It's an inevitable, and arguably tragic part of life. Like it or not, the rebellious youth we start off life being will eventually turn into a more softened individual; perhaps married, perhaps popping out a few kids here and there, perhaps paying a mortgage. We're all victims of this.

Even filmmakers have to grow up. In his nascent days, Kevin Smith told the tales of the angry, young man, such as "Clerks" and "Chasing Amy," and then, went on to apply a more mature tone in his later work, like "Jersey Girl" and "Clerks II." Although "Zack and Miri Make a Porno" was a bit of a throwback to his earlier films, "Cop Out" reinforced this older sensibility. Richard Linklater followed-up his look at carefree romance, "Before Sunrise," with "Before Sunset," which featured the same characters, but their naiveté was replaced with mid-life crises.

Noah Baumbach's debut, 1995's "Kicking and Screaming," was a witty, and fresh look at post-grads who refuse to move on from their golden college years. Similar to the previously mentioned works, "Screaming" represented the twentysomething generation, the overeducated drifters. It immediately was drafted into the Generation X ranks, despite Baumbach's discomfort with that label.

However, starting with "The Squid and the Whale", Baumbach focused his attention elsewhere, developing a more mature sense of storytelling. Instead of witty twentysomethings, his characters were a self-destructive family, dealing with the parents' divorce. His next effort, "Margot at the Wedding," continued this theme.

"Greenberg", his latest film, is actually, in a lot of ways, is a meeting of his younger and older sensibilities. This is encapsulated in the two leads; Florence Marr, a twenty-seven year old assistant, and Roger Greenberg, a forty-year old failed musician. Their contrast in life experience is apparent in the majority of their dialogue.

Baumbach has never been one to force the audience to like his characters. He does something much riskier: he presents them as real people. Roger is an embittered, neurotic individual, destined to destroy anyone's attempt at reaching out to him. Florence is flawed as well, making one of the biggest mistakes of her life in the first five minutes of the film.

Ben Stiller, known for his broader work, is able to turn in a nuanced, honest performance, his best since his role in Wes Anderson's "The Royal Tenenbaums." Like Jeff Bridges in "The Squid and The Whale", he understands not only the dramatic aspects of the character, but the humor as well, which could be an oversight made by another actor.

Greta Gerwig is one of the most natural performers to grace the screen. You never once question the reality she presents. Florence is the most developed of the characters Gerwig has portrayed, or at least, it feels as such. Perhaps, it's because it's her most featured role. Regardless, it seems that "Greenberg" will be a great launching pad for Gerwig, and more people will be aware of her immense talent.

Unlike his character, Roger Greenberg, Baumbach has proven that growing older isn't necessarily a burden. At the very least, you can make good movies.

Hardly a "Cop Out"

Re-inventing yourself in the middle of your career is surely an audacious move, especially if you're generally prone to get a decent reception from critics and audiences by staying within your boundaries. Whether or not it actually works out is subective, and pointless to even debate (unless financially speaking, which could be argued. But regardless). But it's quite a commendable feat, one would have to admit, to try something new late in your career.

After his last film, "Zack and Miri Make a Porno," recieved an underwhelming box-office return, filmmaker Kevin Smith had a bit of a mid-life crisis. Although hardly a ticket-led director, he felt that the film should have earned more, and was compromised by a lackluster marketing campaign. However, this would wound up leading to a much bigger revelation: that Smith had lost interest in telling the stories that had defined himself as a director, the tales that helped crusade the pop-culture junkie slacker generation. What would Smith do, having lost this drive?

The answer came to him by way of WB President Jeff Robinov, who, having seen ZAMMAP, sent Smith the script for "Cop Out" (then titled, "A Couple of Dicks.) Smith had largely been disinterested in realizing someone else's script, feeling himself to not be a capable visual filmmaker, simply just a writer who shoots his screenplays. But, after the ZAMMAP fallout, he had a change of heart, and signed on to direct the film.

The film is an unapologetic love letter to the '80s buddy cop comedy genre, and features many of the classic beats of that type of film, such as a rival detective team, damsel in distress, drugs, etc. But with a film like this, you can't simply just admire it at an originality standpoint; Any enjoyment you get will come from the EXECUTION. And in that regard, I believe Smith has succeeded considerably.

Part of directing is knowing how to cast right, and Smith was able to assemble an impressive line-up of actors. There is, of course, Bruce Willis and Tracy Morgan, who play off of each other like a seasoned comedy team; Morgan, in particular, is able to show what else he's capable of than what he is offered on "30 Rock." Kevin Pollak, someone who is never cast as much as he needs to be, plays a great sardonic detective, hoping to poke holes in Willis and Morgan's boat. Adam Brody appears as his inferior, following up on his great performance in last year's "Jennifer's Body." Guillermo Diaz portrays an absolutely insane, over-the-top gangster, who has a sometimes peculiar obsession with baseball. And, finally, Sean William Scott essays the role of one of the most idiosyncratic thieves ever seen on cinema, and hits every comedic note beautifully.

Speaking of beauty, Smith has stepped up his visual game quite a bit. There are several dolly moves and pans; always wisely utilized, and helps a largely vernacular film pop. Perhaps with this film, if nothing else, will prove to naysayers that Smith is a credible visual director, and maybe to himself as well.

Yes, this review is coming from a Kevin Smith fan. However, I had my doubts about the film, fearing that it'd be just a vulgarfest, with none of the wit presented in Smith's previous work. And whilst it's not a groundbreaking masterpiece, ultimately, that wasn't the goal. It's supposed to entertain, which is the primal goal of every film. And it's a genuinely entertaining movie.

AJP.

A Look At: (500) Days of Summer

The subject of love as seen in cinema is a tricky beast. It can be interpreted as being manufactured and having no basis in our reality, or overly cynical, which, in a way, is contradictory to love itself. So what is the best solution? What should filmmakers do in order to properly and creatively portray this subject on film?

Thankfully, Marc Webb and co. did not have to worry about this problem with (500) Days of Summer, because, as the narrator clearly states, it's not a love story.

Instead, the film is about misconstrued expectations, the falsehood of memories, and self-happiness.

These themes are represented in the characters Tom and Summer. Tom is a cat who sincerely believes in the "one," having misinterpreted the ending of "The Graduate." Appropriately, he works for a greeting card company. There, he meets Summer Finn, whom he designates as being his one, true love.

Summer, however, is a more complex beast than Tom is initially lead to believe. Their tumultuous relationship causes Tom's behavior, job, and views on life to go completely haywire.

What's truly remarkable about this film is not the outrageous laughs it receives, but the utter, brutal honesty that it offers. The characters in the film are real people, and they behave, and feel just like real people. And despite the idiosyncratic humor, the tone of the film is generally very realistic, a sharp contrast to the cheesy, routine studio pictures of this nature.

One of the most noteworthy and talked about aspects of this film is its peculiar structure. It goes back and forth during the 500 days of their relationship. Seemingly random, it actually helps the audience see Tom's viewpoint, and to be by his side throughout the film.

Portraying Tom is Joseph Gordon-Levitt, who has become a sort of indie king. Tom's a bit of an everyman, which is not the easiest thing to pull off. We get to see all of the colors of the rainbow with his character, from his happy post-coital dance to his drunken despair. Levitt plays it beautifully, never missing a beat.

Deschanel, however, might have the toughest part to portray. Summer could easily be a one-dimensional bitch, simply created to drive the story. However, there are many different shades to her character. Her individuality, blunt honesty, and unorthodox sense of humor. Anyone could play the perfect dream girl. Deschanel does one better: she plays an actual girl.

"500 Days" is, for my money, the be-all end-all look at twentysomething love. A valentine to the maturity that comes out of broken relationships.

When gold loses its luster.

Award shows intend to honor popular, successful films and bring attention to artier, more difficult to market pieces of work. Unfortunately, this is a lose-lose situation, as one seems like pointing out the obvious, and other seems to choose something that isn't well-known. The 2010 Golden Globes, hosted by Ricky Gervais, failed to select any risky nominees, and instead went the easy, and predictable choices.

One of the biggest examples of this was James Cameron winning Best Director for "Avatar." Now, "Avatar" is a wonderful film, truly. A total and veritable game-changer. But game-changer or not, Cameron didn't earn it as much, I think. He hadn't made a picture for twelve years, and when he does, we throw the awards at him, instead of honoring someone like Tarantino, my pick, who had made three movies since he was nominated, four if you are under the "Kill Bill Vol 1&2 are separate movies" party.

An another obvious choice was Christoph Waltz' Best Supporting Actor win for "Inglourious Basterds." However, this was clearly the best choice. Waltz gave easily one of the most memorable performances this past DECADE, let alone year. And none of his fellow nominees even came close to matching the acclaim he received. Hopefully, this will mean he is a shoe-in for the Oscar.

I also think it's time that Pixar not have a monopoly on the animated film category. I mean, seriously, they might has well have an award waiting for them each year. "Up" was one of my favorite films of the year, don't get me wrong. But in terms of the achievement in the animation world, it seems like "Coraline" or "Fantastic Mr. Fox" were more deserving. Their handmade, stop-motion approach is a wonderful, refreshing change from the constant dominance that CG has on the genre.

As a contrast to the state of obviousness mentioned above, a genuinely surprising win was Jason Reitman and Sheldon Turner's Screenplay win for "Up in the Air," considering Tarantino was nominated, but well earned, since the film featured the most realistic dialog in some time, along with "Basterds." Although one wonders how much of Turner's work is featured in the film, and if not much, why he might not deserve the win. Regardless, a great choice.

Although some good choices were made here and there during the Globes, it's safe to say that they lost a bit of their luster this year.
AJP.

Favorite films of '09

While I'm not one for being a conformist, there are certain traditons amongst bloggers, film critics, or film geeks in general. One of those is the "Best of '09" lists, which I'm sure, by now, you're all sick of seeing. But allow me to pipe in with my two cents.

AUTHOR'S NOTE: There is still a few films I have yet to see that possibly will make an appearance on this list once I do see them, so consider this blog a work-in-progress. The films I have yet to see are:
"The Hurt Locker."
"Where the Wild Things Are.."
"Fantastic Mr. Fox"
"Moon."
"Me and Orson Welles."
"The Box."
"Taking Woodstock."
"Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus."

And now, without further ado, my favorite films of the year...

1. Up in the Air
2. Up
3. Inglourious Basterds
4. Funny People
5. (500) Days of Summer
6. Avatar
7. Star Trek
8. Coraline
9. District 9
10. Jennifer's Body
11. Precious

Honorable Mentions :
The Hangover
Orphan
Pirate Radio
Sherlock Holmes

Winter begins, and finally, the good movies are starting to come out.

Generally speaking, the winter season is a treasure trove of great films. Unlike the summer season, which mainly consists of brainless popcorn flicks, winter provides a more intellectual affair, although some blockbuster films squeeze in during the holidays. For any film geek, this is the time to get out and go to the theaters.

I have seen three films this winter season so far: Lee Daniels' gripping drama, "Precious"; James Cameron's return to the big screen, "Avatar"; And Guy Ritchie's adrenaline-filled take on a legendary character, "Sherlock Holmes."

"Precious" may stand out as being the most depressing film of the bunch, no doubt due to comedian Mo'Nique's viciously sublime performance as the abusive mother of protagonist Precious Jones. It's hard to even remember her comedic work when watching the film, so capable she is doing serious, dramatic work. With gorgeously gritty cinematography, Daniels beautifully helms Precious' struggle to take control of her life, and sever ties with her destructive family. "Precious" is not only an achievement for an independent film, but for a film, in general.

3D has come back from its dormant state in recent years, and is now nearly included in every animated film that comes out. However, I sincerely doubt they use it as effectively as Cameron uses it in "Avatar." After years of hype, Cameron has come out from his own dormant state to create a bold, and powerful epic that completely re-writes the rules of modern filmmaking. From the first moment, Cameron utilizes 3d as it should be used: as a storytelling device. Not a cheap, last-minute addition. He also uses the story as a commentary on human behavior; how we react to new races, new lands. However, Cameron doesn't force-feed us the message. You can go into the film and simply enjoy the tremendous visuals. And that makes the mark of a great film, where you can enjoy it on many different levels.

There are hundreds of interpretations of the character, Sherlock Holmes, that are featured in novels, films, and television. Some stay close to the original stories by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, others stray very far. It seems that Guy Ritchie's film, starring Robert Downey Jr as the famous detective, would fall in between. While featuring a much more psychical Holmes and Watson than we are used to, the intellect and spirit of the characters remain, as well as their difficult but enduring relationship. Nearly every aspect of the mythos is covered, including a brief appearance by Holme's archnemesis, Moriarty (cue sequel!). Despite whatever beefs you have have with Ritchie's interpretation, it is hard not to simply enjoy the film, especially considering the great acting talent on display here. There's the forementioned Downey Jr, Jude Law as Watson, Mark Strong as Lord Blackwood, Kelly Reilly as Mary Morstan, Eddie Marsan as Inspector Lestrade, and Rachel McAdams as Irene Adler.

All in all, the winter season has started out pretty well. Let's hope it continues to be a fun ride.

AJP.

The Saints Are Coming...But Maybe They Should Go Back

A recent development in the film industry is the power that DVD sales have. For instance, if a film had a lackluster theater box office, but has a strong DVD presence, you can bet on a sequel to be in the works.

One example of this, what is now considered a cult classic, is "The Boondock Saints," directed by Troy Duffy. Despite having an extremely limited release (it was only shown on five screens), it developed a tremendous following on DVD, due, in part, to an exclusive deal with Blockbuster Video, and would wind up making $50 million on the format. Considering Duffy's belligerent behavior during the making of the film (documented in the great film "Overnight, a must-see), it's surprising that the film would, eventually, be felt as a success. However, it did seem that Duffy's career in Hollywood was dead, due to the notoriety that "Overnight" gave him.

It seems like Duffy isn't done tellin' the story of the Saints just yet. But perhaps, that's not as great as it sounds.

"Boondock Saints II: All Saints Day" is the follow-up to Duffy's debut, and features numerous actors from the first film, including Sean Patrick Flanery, Norman Reedus, and Billy Connolly. It features the boys coming back from Ireland to settle the score with a crime lord who has ties with the Saints' past.

Their return to cinema, however, is marked by a constantly silly, and awkward eight-grade sense of humor, featured in an amateurish and insipid script.

What made the first one work was that although it had a tongue-in-cheek tone, the actors played their roles with sincerity, they believed every word they're saying, especially Flannery, and Reedus. None of that is featured in this film. The Saints constantly crack dick jokes, and try to emulate action hero stars.

And, the new additions to the cast do very little to help, most of all Julie Benz, who plays Eunice Bloom, an FBI agent sent to investigate the Saints reappearance. Basically, the character is a proxy for Willem Dafoe's Paul Smecker in the first installment, but Bloom isn't nearly as interesting or entertaining to watch. She is given a southern accent, which is hardly authentic, and sounds more like a broad caricature, something you'd see in a cartoon. In one scene, where she's explaining her analysis of a shoot-out, she imagines herself in the shoot-out, wearing a cowgirl outfit, and constantly whipping her gun. The scene is so awkwardly done, you are completely taken out of the moment, and wondering what the hell was Duffy thinking.

SPOILER - Smecker does, however, re-appear in the end, despite reports stating the contrary. His appearance gives the film a much-needed boost of fun, and we are given a taste of what could've been if Dafoe had been more of a featured player.

Besides Dafoe, there is some noteworthy acting work. Mainly, Peter Fonda's performance as The Roman, a mysterious, former colleague of Ill Duce. It was the one of the only times in the film where I truly was encapsulated by an actor's performance. Judd Nelson's role is brief, but entertaining as well.

If you're a fan of the first, it's definitely worth a watch. But don't bet on the Saints capturing lighting in a bottle again.

AJP.

Bloody Rock N Roll!

Probably one of the most important decades in music, and arguably of the best, is the sixties. Its impact was so great that we can still see the ripples in music today. Not to say other decades aren't important, but if one would to only mention one decade, it would have to be the sixties.

And this is the setting for Richard Curtis' film, Pirate Radio, or known in its home, the UK, as The Boat that Rocked. It tells the story of a group of djs who embark on a ship to play rock and pop songs for the United Kingdom, who is depraved of this great music.

The film is told mainly through the viewpoint of Carl, a young man sent to the ship by his mother due to his troublesome behavior. While no doubt an odd choice on his mother's part, Carl does go through a series of life-changing events, all in the name of rock and roll.

This is Curtis' second film, after Love Actually. He worked for years as a screenwriter, scribing such films as Notting Hill, and Four Weddings and a Funeral. He also practically invented the British romantic comedy single-handily. However, for a writer turned director, the film is quite visually interesting. The sheer contrast of the wild, and loose Radio Rock ship and the cold, sterile government buildings is a subtle, but effective choice.

In those buildings, we generally see Kenneth Brangah, delivering a delicious performance as a government official determined to end Radio Rock's reign. He is joined by Jack Davenport, and the two make a great team, comedically.

The rest of the cast is sharp too. Bill Nighy, Nick Frost, Rhys Ifans - the best of the best of British acting talent is on display. Phillip Seymour Hoffman is also featured, as the lone American DJ. Despite being top-billed, he is hardly the main character. However, his presence is highly necessary and notable. As he did in Almost Famous, he just LOOKS like a man who loves rock and roll. And not because he can score chicks off of it, but because he loves the artform.

The film is actually inspired by a series of real pirate radio ships in the sixties. Foolish bastards, trying to take our rock and roll from us. They'll never learn.

AJP.

Kevin Smith is Changing and Why I'm Okay with It.

The relationship with an artist and a fan can be a strangely tumultuous one, at times. As fans, it's amazing how we react to our heroes' careers. It can range from utter disgust to sheer delight. It's an amusing relationship when you look at it from a distance, but when you're involved, it's very serious stuff.

Filmmakers are no exception.

We expect our filmmakers to entertain us with original content, yet when they make an audacious effort to broaden their horizons, we turn their backs on them. This hidden philosophy is evident in not only film geeks, but critics as well. Look at Martin Scorsese. Although he has directed wonderful films not related to crime, like The Aviator, but the films he is most known doing are his crime epics. When David Fincher showed his ability to stretch in "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button", fans of his darker work were outraged.

When it comes to Kevin Smith, I don't think anyone imagined him taking any 180 degree turns with his career. From the looks of it, it sounds like he didn't either. However, after "Zack and Miri Make a Porno" was released, he signed on to direct a script entitled "A Couple of Dicks", the first film he directed yet did not write. He stated that he is no longer interested in telling stories of the angry, young man, as Smith is 39, happily married, and has a successful career.

Smith is planning on working on a hockey period film entitled "Hit Somebody", based on the song of the same name by Warren Zevon and Mitch Albom. Unlike the rest of his films, it's mainly a drama, dealing with a hockey player who loves the game but is only used as someone hits the other player.

Also on Smith's plate is a political horror film named "Red State", with a villain being heavily inspired by Westboro Bapist Church minister Fred Phelps.

Clearly, Kevin Smith is taking a very different direction with his career. Am I mad? Not a single bit.

Josh Tyler at cinemablend.com criticized Smith's new direction, lamenting that his new films will not be the personal films he is known for, and referred to "Dicks" as a standard buddy-cop film.

Although it will be tough for "Dicks" to be a personal film, due to the movie being written by someone else, the title alone shows to me that this is not a typical buddy-cop film. "Somebody" sounds like one of the more personal pieces of work he has done in a while.

According to Smith, "Somebody" is a story about someone who has the dream, but not the talent. And this is what he related to most about the song, and instigated his desire to make the movie. If that doesn't sound personal, I'm not sure what it is. It may be not based on his experiences working in a conveince store, or his insecurity with his girlfriend, but it still counts as a personal film. He has a personal drive to tell this story.

I always loved Kevin Smith's work. I enjoyed his characters, dialogue, and observations about society and pop culture. But this new direction only excites me.

Even though I loved "ZAMMAP", it's clearly a film that Smith can do in his sleep. It's what he's known for. Now he's challenging himself and not resting on his laurels. He's taking risks with his work. And if these films work, which is very likely, who knows what other genres he will tackle next?

I am excited not only for the filmmaker in Smith, but for the man himself.

AJP.

Thoughts on "(500) Days of Summer" and "Jennifer's Body"

I know I said I was going to do a series of blogs relating to the works of Kevin Smith next, but I think I'll work on those later, because I want to re-watch the films, and I haven't done that yet.

I will, however, talk about my feelings on two pictures that I've recently seen: Marc Webb's "(500) Days of Summer" and Karyn Kusama's "Jennifer's Body." The former I saw yesterday, and the latter I saw a few weeks ago on Kelly's birthday, but I have forgotten to write about it.

As most film goers, when it comes to a certain subject matter, I would begin to expect what's to come, and not feel really invested in the story as a result. This is what can be referred to as autopilot storytelling.

"Summer" definitely does NOT follow into that stigma. In fact, not only does it play with conventions, it spins them around silly. It's amazing that a film so laugh out loud funny, can be so damn tender real. That takes real talent; Not blowing up major buildings, or putting a billion fucks in your movie. It's balancing that right tone so you could enjoy a film with multiple levels, ideas.

Some have already placed the "romantic comedy" term unto "Summer", and while, sure, it's an easy and inevitable stereotype, and it brings the funny in spades, it does not bring to justice how inventive, and ingenious the film is. It does not show you how heartbreakingly painful this film can and should be for you. If you ever even remotely LIKED someone, you will relate to this film. If you don't, then I guess you suffer from many emotional problems or were against the film initially.

Now "Jennifer's Body" is a different story. While fun, exciting, scary, and witty, it's hardly a surprise-fest. Not to say it's unoriginal, but clearly screenwriter Diablo Cody knows there's certain beats in a horror film, which if weren't available, would make it a lesser experience. But she does bring her charm, and sharply realized characters, which makes it much more interesting.

She created an excellent antagonist who is terrifying yet a developed character at the same time. And Kusama picked the perfect person to portray that character, Megan Fox. She has gotten mainly negative comments about her acting skills, but I thought she was tremendously good, and capable of headlining a film.

It's easy to kick this film down like the majority of critics, but I really enjoyed this film. It's a horror/comedy in the traditon of An American Werewolf in London, Evil Dead II, or Fright Night. I'll happily excuse myself from the critics, and park myself in the J-Bod fan club.

AJP.

Is remaking a film that big of a deal?

When discussing any topic, there is eventually a cliche that will come up during the conversation. It's not necessarily the intent of the speaker to utilize a cliche, but it happens anyways. The cliche can be anything from a certain saying to a stigma that is often associated with the topic.

Cinema is no exception, to say the least. There's many cliches that are considered truisms for film buffs. Like considering Michael Bay a hack, Megan Fox is a hot piece of eye candy, and sequels and remakes are bad, always.

We'll avoid the first two, and focus on the last statement; specifically, remakes. In this current state of film, remakes are regarded as inevitable disasters. Whenever a remake is announced, it is usually hailed as a bad idea, and the filmmakers are questioned what on earth were they thinking.

When I initially became a film geek, I too joined in on the remake backlash. Over the years, however, I've resigned and became more objective about the matter. And I feel that the negativity surrounding remakes is unwarranted, for a number of reasons. Not that anyone who hates remakes is wrong, because an opinion can not be wrong. This is simply just my view on things.

First of all, I think it's weird to criticize a film when it's in the development stage. If you've seen trailers, clips, or etc, then it's understandable not to be interested, but when it's just an idea, it's hard to really judge it fairly, I feel.

You're also not inclined to see every remake that comes out of the woodwork, unless you're a film critic. You have the option of not seeing it. And clearly, if you know it's bad, you don't want to see it, so why do you want to see it anyway?

And it's not like "Hollywood", if you will, has lost its originality. Because since its beginning, "Hollywood" has been making films based on plays, books, short stories, etc. Many of the classic films, films that made a good amount of filmmakers join the business, are adaptations of other people's work. To Kill A Mockingbird, Wizard of Oz, Gone With The Wind all fall in that group. How is making a film based on a book more original than remaking a movie?

In one of the recent episodes of SModcast, the podcast hosted by filmmaker Kevin Smith and his producer, Scott Mosier, Mosier brought up a good point. I'm paraphrasing what he said, but he said something to the effect that people forget that these are movies we're talking about here. These are things that are meant to entertain us. And I feel that's an interesting point. People get so bent out of shape because they're remaking certain movies, but it's all meant to entertain us.

And just because a film is being remade, doesn't mean that the original film is automatically superseded by the new version. The original will still be there, as it was before. What's the harm in tackling the material again?

That's all I have to say for now. Again, I'm not meaning to criticize anyone's feelings on remakes. I'm just offering my views.

Later, all.

What's going on

For this blog, I'm going for less of an essay approach, although I will resume that later. I'm going to just ramble on what's been happening.

Saturday, Kelly and I chilled for the majority of the day. We went to McD's, and then went to her house to watch "I Love You, Man", and an episode of "The Mighty Boosh."

I enjoyed I Love You, Man quite a bit. I thought it was a very funny flick, with the leads, Paul Rudd and Jason Segel, stealing every scene. I felt that the director John Hamburg was trying to emulate Judd Apatow in a lot of ways; in particular, the editing of the improv jokes. It's clear that Rudd and Segel riffed a lot, and although it's funny stuff, it just went on longer than I'd like.

The Mighty Boosh is brilliant, in my opinion. It's insane, yet incredibly smart and observant. I just watched another episode today online, at adultswim.com. Check it out; I feel like an idiot that I hadn't watch it before. Thank you, Kelly, for introducing it to me.

Sunday, I went to Septemberfest in Schuamburg with my cousin and a few of our mutual friends. It was a fun trip. I went on the most rides, three, which is ironic, since I had intended to ride the least amount. I was very dizzy by the end.

I think I will write a blog relating to my feelings on the constant "re-make" backlash, and launch into a look at the films of certain directors, starting with Kevin Smith. It won't be a critical look at them, as I love all of them. Instead, it will be look at each film's themes, characters, and other things that I find interesting. I think Quentin Tarantino and Christopher Nolan will be after that. Who else should I consider? I would appreciate some suggestions.

That's all for now. Later.

My love for "Clerks."

I first became aware of Kevin Smith during the sixth grade. His fifth film, Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back, came out on DVD, and I decided to rent it after hearing a friend talk about it. I would not recommend a Kevin Smith newbie J&SBSB, as it is reference-heavy. In fact, the whole story is predicated on events that happened in Chasing Amy. Regardless, I popped the movie in and began to watch. Right away, I was taken aback by the raw language. Being a pretty naive eleven-year old, I was unaware of the filthy things that came out of the characters' mouths. Once that shock value faded away, however, I was left with a belly full of laughs. After watching it, I got curious about the other films by Kevin Smith.

The first one I peeped after J&SBSB was Mallrats, Smith's sophomore film. Like J&SBSB, it mixed Smith's wonderful observational dialogue with wacky psychial gags. It quickly was endeared by me, and I even attempted to write a script that was heavily influenced by 'Rats.

The second one I saw was Clerks. Unlike 'Rats, it did not quickly endear to me. Which makes sense a little, seeing as 'Rats was a more accessible studio comedy. I wasn't sure why I didn't like as much; it certainly wasn't the jokes. I laughed at all the classic bits, like "37?!" or the "Star Wars" conversation. But something about it just didn't click for me at that point.

I would watch the rest of Smith's canon, and respond to it instantly. But Clerks was an oddball for a while. I would watch it repeatedly through junior high and then high school as well. I would understand more of the humor, but I wasn't dialed in that much.

Looking back, the thing that irked me was that I found the characters' situation implausible at the time. Dante seems aware of his lousy state of life, yet does nothing about it. Why doesn't he do something? Why can't he just go for the right girl, instead of going for the obvious wrong choice? What's wrong with him?

Then I grew up. I became closer to Dante's age. I became Dante to a certain extent. I was the guy who makes jokes about his lack of progress in life, and would do nothing about it. I would fall for the wrong women, and not learn from it.

It was then that the film endeared itself to me. Whilst very much a comedy, it's a haunting parable about the awkward stage of your life from when you have to make the best out of your situation and decide what your future'll be. It became a cautionary tale; A raw representation of a generation. Even more so after being complimented with the excellent sequel, Clerks II.

While it didn't start out as so, it became not only one of my favorite Kevin Smith films, but one of my favorite films to this day. If you haven't seen it, I would recommend doing so as soon as you can.

Films I need to see in 2010

For this blog, I will be discussing the films I'm looking forward to next year. I thought about doing it numerically, but felt that it was better to throw them out randomly. So here we go:

Inception

Release Date: July 16, 2010

Director/Screenwriter: Christopher Nolan

Cast: Leonardo DiCaprio, Ken Watanabe, Marion Cotillard, Ellen Page, Joseph-Gordon Levitt

Why I want to see this: Nolan is one of my favorite filmmakers. Even excluding his Batman films, I love Following, Memento, The Prestige. He is one of the bravest filmmakers today, in terms of his approach to filmmaking, and his storytelling sensibilities. Plus, the cast he has built is fantastic. If I didn't know Nolan was involved, I would probably want to see it anyway just based on the cast. There hasn't been any details relating to the plot, but I'm not worried.


A Couple of Dicks

Release Date: February 26, 2010

Director: Kevin Smith

Cast: Bruce Willis, Tracy Morgan, Adam Brody, Kevin Pollak, Jason Lee

Why I want to see this: Anyone who knows me is aware that I'm a big fan of Kevin Smith. But this is Kevin Smith doing something different. He's directing a script that he did not write, working with a major studio, and directing Bruce Willis. Those three things get me more excited than anything else. Unfortunately, the great title will probably be changed, but a title does not make a great movie. The execution does, and Smith is more than capable in that regard.

Iron Man 2

Release Date: May 7, 2010

Director: Jon Favreau

Cast: Robert Downey Jr., Gwyneth Paltrow, Don Cheadle, Mickey Rourke, Scarlett Johannson, Samuel L. Jackson

Why I do want see this: I was never a fan of the character in the comic books, but when I saw the first Iron Man a year ago, I was utterly captivated by RDJ's idiosyncratic performance, and the great storytelling. Considering basically the same cast and crew are involved, I'm so in for seconds. Plus, the additions of Cheadle, Johannson, and Rourke sound like great fits to the Iron Man universe.

Paul

Release Date: TBA 2010

Director: Greg Mottola

Cast: Simon Pegg, Nick Frost, Seth Rogen, Kristen Wiig, Bill Hader

Why I want to see this: I'm a huge Pegg/Frost follower, from Spaced to Hot Fuzz. And while Edgar Wright won't be directing, I'm more than content with Mottola, the helmer of Superbad and Adventureland. Add in an excellent comedy cast, and you have the ingredients for a great film.


Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World

Director: Edgar Wright

Cast: Michael Cera, Mary Elizabeth Winstead, Chris Evans, Kieren Culkin, Alison Pill, Ellen Wong

Why I want to see this: Edgar Wright first came to my attention when his first film, Shaun of the Dead, was mentioned by Kevin Smith in a posting on his web board. I quickly rented it, and utterly floored by the exciting direction and hilarious script. His second film, Hot Fuzz, was an even more entertaining film, and he took some serious steps forward with his filmmaking skills. His latest film is his first non-original work, being based on a series of graphic novels by Bryan O'Lee Malley. I have never read the graphic novels, but I'm excited regardless. Wright has picked an interesting cast as well, which makes me doubly excited.


Toy Story 3

Release Date: June 18, 2010

Director: Lee Unkrich

Cast: Tom Hanks, Tim Allen, John Ratzenberger, Don Rickles, Wallace Shawn, Michael Keaton

Why I want to see this: Pixar's canon of work is beyond impressive. Even excluding the previous Toy Story films, you have Monsters Inc., Finding Nemo, The Incredibles, Wall-E, Ratatouille, and Up. I can't recall a film studio that has so many winners as Pixar. Lee Unkrich has been working up the ranks of the Pixar staff for years, co-directing Toy Story 2 and Finding Nemo. This film is his first solo directorial effort, and I couldn't imagine a better person to take over the reins from John Lasseter. The same, great cast is returning, with some new additions such as Michael Keaton and Ned Beatty.


The Green Hornet

Release Date: July 9, 2010

Director: Michel Gondry

Cast: Seth Rogen, Jay Chou, Cameron Diaz, Nicolas Cage

Why I want to see this: I first became aware of the project when Kevin Smith was attached to write and direct. When he dropped out, Seth Rogen became attached to star and write the screenplay with Evan Goldberg. I thought he was an interesting choice for a superhero, and a good choice for writing the screenplay, due to his great work as a writer. Stephen Chow became involved as a director and co-star, which got me pumped up based on my love for "Kung Fu Hustle." Unfortuantely, he dropped out, and I was a little worried on who will take up the mantle, especially since Chow seemed like a great choice. There came in Gondry, who directed Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind and is one of my favorite filmmakers of all time. While he hasn't directed a proper action film, Gondry has a distinct visual style that would be a nice mix with action film grammar.


And that's the films I need to see in 2010.