AndytheSaint - The Patron Saint of Bloggers

Goodbye to Livejournal

Wed, 27 Aug 2008 21:55:18 GMT

Yes, LJ friends, the time has come for me to bid adieu to this place. Unlike most people leaving Livejournal, it has nothing to do with some kind of protest about Livejournal's oppressive stance against slash fiction or whatever. I have nothing against the site, it's simply of little use for me anymore.

I first started blogging with LJ in 2004, and in that time found it to be a fun hobby that allowed me to express opinions, keep my writing skills in practice, and share thoughts with other bloggers. Over the years, the make-up of LJ has changed dramatically, as the things it is designed to do -- be a home to blogs and serve as a online social networking tool -- are better done elsewhere. LJ as an online destination has largely been replaced by Facebook, and I think that's fine. Those who used to just come here to see what friends are up to and post short snippets of their personal lives are better served by Facebook.

For those that blog, LJ was a nice interface with "friends" pages and communities, but for me, most of those benefits have fallen off significantly. Instead, I'd like my blogging to be read, and perhaps get noticed, and Livejournal just isn't the place for that. There has been a number of blogs and bloggers to draw attention in the main stream media these days, and they all share one thing in common: none of them have Livejournals. Now, I'm not saying I'm going to be the next stuffwhitepeoplelike or anything, but I would like to give myself a decent shot at being read by more than just the few people goodly enough to friend me.

With that in mind, I have started up a new blog entitled "Critically Speaking", that you can check out here: http://andythesaint.wordpress.com/ This is where I will be doing my blogging from here on out, so if you've enjoyed reading my stuff over the years, I encourage you to check it out, and maybe even RSS me (oh, and if you're not already RSSing, you should be. Google Reader has made my internet experience roughly 200% better). In terms of new content, I've recently posted a review on Son of Rambow and a list of 18 Great Songs from Commercials. And just so you don't think this will be a one way street, I'll be RSSing the LJs of people I read who are still updating, and anyone who comments over on Critically Speaking that they're still reading me (you can comment with your livejournal account).

Wordpress has been great so far. I set the blog up on the 14th, importing blog posts from here over there (which is really easy, it even posts them with their original dates). In that two weeks, I've gotten 467 views, including a high of 90 on last Sunday (yep, I get actual stats for my blog, which was a big selling feature over LJ). It's nice to know I'm getting some attention, particularly since I just started advertising my presence. As for what this future blog will cover, expect more of the same as you would here, although I'm considering doing fewer reviews and more original list-type features (as my two most popular groups of posts so far are my Top 25 Episodes of Buffy the Vampire Slayer and my Top 25 characters from The Wire).

So goodbye Livejournal; it's been fun, but it's time for a change.

Movie Review: Tropic Thunder (2008)

Wed, 13 Aug 2008 04:43:31 GMT

Tropic Thunder (2008)

Starring: Ben Stiller, Jack Black, Robert Downey Jr., Nick Nolte, Jay Baruchel, Brandon T. Jackson, Steve Coogan, Danny McBride, Bill Hader, Brandon Soo Hoo, Matthew McConaughey, Tom Cruise

Directed By: Ben Stiller

Tropic Thunder features four things that tend to turn me off of comedies: it's expensive, high concept, heavily reliant on inside Hollywood humour, and it heavily features Ben Stiller. Any of those four elements could be enough to turn me against a comedy, but all four? There probably wasn't much chance that I'd be into this one.

So why see it? Robert Downey Jr's turn as an acclaimed Australian actor who undergoes cosmetic surgery to turn him into a black man to star in the film-within-the-film intrigued me (as Downey Jr has been on fire of late), and I hoped the presence of assorted Judd Apatow-players like Jay Baruchel, Danny McBride, and Bill Hader might help overcome any Stiller-induced shortcomings (I'm about 50/50 on Jack Black in terms of enjoying his films, so his presence is a wash). But mostly, I went because a friend had a free pass and my wife was working that night, so it seemed like something to do to kill an evening.

I suppose by that very limited expectation for entertainment, Tropic Thunder wasn't a complete failure. But for the most part, my misgivings going into the film were confirmed by the film itself. The expensive thing isn't a snobbish response to blockbuster movies, but rather is because with comedies, laughter can't be bought. Other than talent expenses, humour is a cheap commodity, so what tends to happen with big budget comedies is that the focus that should go into finding the humour goes elsewhere (in the case of this film, it's a lot of explosions and location costs, along with the three stars I'm guessing) and the total cost of the film seems to have an inverse relationship on the amount of laughs to be had (a great example of this would be last year's flop Evan Almighty). At an estimated $70 million budget, Tropic Thunder isn't egregiously expensive, but you can definitely see the money on screen where I'd prefer to see humour (by comparison, Pineapple Express, another action-comedy, had an estimated budget of $25 million).

As for high concept, I find comedies that rely on high concepts often lose the jokes in the attempt to tell thin stories that can't sustain through full movies. Tropic Thunder definitely fits that description. The movie follows a big Hollywood production on location as it attempts to film a prestige adaptation of a Vietnam War book. The production is way overbudget due to the difficulties brought on by primadonna stars like Stiller's action hero Tugg Speedman, Downey Jr's method acting Kirk Lazarus, and Black's drug-addicted comedian Jeff Portnoy. When director Damien Cockburn (Steve Coogan) tries to bring the production back under budget by stranding his actors out in the jungle in an attempt to film the action guerrilla-style, hilarity ensues when they run into real guerrilla fighters, who confuse the actors with soldiers while the actors confuse them as part of the movie.

Which brings me to my biggest problem with the movie, the movie-within-the-movie thing that rarely works. Hollywood loves making movies about itself, even though it has rarely been proved that many people outside of Hollywood gives a damn. It doesn't help that the satire rarely rises above the obvious "movie stars are pampered children" or "actors take themselves too seriously" tropes. There isn't much here that hasn't already been done by Entourage, The TV Set, or any of the other Hollywood satires other than the addition of Ben Stiller's annoying exaggerated energy and Robert Downey Jr in blackface.

Downey Jr's commitment to the role that is designed to poke fun at Method actors who take their roles too seriously is impressive. The problem is that the character is basically one long joke, repeated throughout the movie ad nauseum (one notable exception is a conversation between his Lazerus and Stiller's Speedman that dissects the award process, which also was a notable example of original Hollywood satire). Basically the joke is the same as it appears in the trailer: polished Aussie actor plays a jive-talking black man, while his fellow actors (especially actual African-American Brandon T. Jackson as Alpa Chino) remark on how crazy he is to remain in character throughout their ordeal, rinse, repeat.

If I thought it was at all intentional, I'd think the most impressive piece of satire would be the cast's meta way of playing disinterested actors by coming across as disinterested themselves. While Downey Jr puts a lot of work into his character, Stiller is basically doing a slightly-smarter Derek Zoolander warmed over, and Jack Black mostly looks like he's waiting for the check to clear. Oddly, this means that in a film that heavily promotes its three main stars, a lot of the heavy-lifting plotwise falls to Jay Baruchel, who is a highlight of the film.

The absolute highlight, however, is neither Downey Jr or Baruchel, but rather the unadvertised cameo by Tom Cruise. His contribution is uproariously hilarious, as the studio head financing the film-within-the-film. Full credit goes to Cruise, who has spent the last few years looking like the most humourless guy in Hollywood and delivers a role that basically succeeds simply for how stupid he allows himself to look. It's a part that isn't quite funny by itself, but instead is funny because of who is doing it. Replace Cruise with an actual comedian, and it could easily be annoying quickly. But because it's him, the laughter comes in a "oh my god, I can't believe Tom Cruise is doing this" kind of way.

There were a few other laughs to be had in the film, but there were also stretches where I was completely uninterested in the movie, checking my watch to see how much was left. The last thing the world needs is another Hollywood satire, so I expect to see another one follow in Tropic Thunder's footsteps in another year at the least.

If you're a fan of Stiller's previous directorial feature, Zoolander, then I suspect you'll be into this one as well. But be forewarned: once you get past the audacity of Robert Downey Jr as a black man, or Ben Stiller not knowing that his character is no longer in a movie, you'll have to wait awhile for new jokes to surface.

2/5

Related:
King Kong (2005)
TV Set, The (2007)
Zoolander (2001)

Movie Review: Zoolander (2001) [re-posted review]

Mon, 11 Aug 2008 22:42:36 GMT

Zoolander (2001)

Starring: Ben Stiller, Owen Wilson, Will Ferrell, Christine Taylor, Milla Jovovich, Jerry Stiller, David Duchovny, Jon Voight

Directed by: Ben Stiller

First off, I should state that I'm not really a fan of Ben Stiller's moron films. I've enjoyed a couple for what they were, but even those tended to get old and annoying for me. Like many former sketch comedians, Stiller usually creates one-joke characters that are funny and clever at first, but wear out their welcome by the end.

I know that looking for character depth in the mindless comedies such as Zoolander is missing the point, but it's this lack of depth that has kept me from seeing and truly enjoying most of the films by the usual cast of characters found in this and similar movies (Stiller, Owen Wilson, Will Ferrell, Vince Vaughn). They seem like the kind of movies that will make you laugh if you can check your brain at the door, and I prefer humour that requires me to use my brain (or at the very least, not ignore it).

Which isn't to say Zoolander is a completely mindless film, because it's not. It's a bitingly satirical look at the modeling industry, and has some fairly clever things to say about that world. Derek Zoolander is a pretty funny character, as is Wilson's Hansel and Ferrell's Mugatu. The problem is that the characters and the satire aren't surrounded by a very good plot or movie. It's easy to tell that Stiller's (who co-wrote and directed the film) creative energy was put into the jokes of the film, using the plot as a simple means to introduce cameo appearances and open up more opportunities for jokes

Which is standard operating procedure for such films. The question then becomes whether or not the jokes work, and for the most part they do. But, for me, they work more as a "that was kinda clever", or a quick laugh, rather than an all-out funny laugh-fest. And, the jokes got a little old near the end. Luckily, the film is pretty short, so they don't get too old. The brisk pace of the film makes it a fun enough ride.

Which is about all I can say for Zoolander, it's a fun enough film with some clever satirical looks at the world of fashion. It's no comedic goldmine; it's no classic. But, it was a pleasant enough diversion that I'll probably never watch again.

3/5

My Record Collection: N-Z

Wed, 06 Aug 2008 04:25:43 GMT

Record Collection A-M

The National - Alligator (2005)

The National - Boxer (2007)

The New Pornographers - Challengers (2007)

Nirvana - Nevermind (1991)

Pixies - Doolittle (1989)

The Postal Service - Give Up (2002)

Pretty Girls Make Graves - The New Romance (2003)

Radiohead - OK Computer (1997)

Ramones - Rocket to Russia (1977)

Rilo Kiley - More Adventurous (2004)

The Shins - Oh, Inverted World (2001)

The Shins - Chutes Too Narrow (2003)

The Shins - Wincing the Night Away (2007)

Sleater-Kinney - The Woods (2005)

Elliott Smith - Elliott Smith (1994)

Elliott Smith - Either/Or (1997)

Elliott Smith - Figure 8 (2000)

Elliott Smith - New Moon (2007)

Patti Smith - Horses (1975)

The Smiths - The Smiths (1984)

The Smiths - The Queen is Dead (1986)

The Smiths - Rank (1988)

Soundtrack - 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)

Bruce Springsteen - Nebraska (1982)

Stars - Set Yourself on Fire (2004)

Stars - In Our Bedroom After the War (2007)

The Stone Roses - The Stone Roses (1989)

Tegan and Sara - This Business of Art (2000)

Tegan and Sara - If It Was You (2002)

Tegan and Sara - So Jealous (2004)

Tegan and Sara - The Con (2007)

Television - Marquee Moon (1977)

The Velvet Underground - The Velvet Underground & Nico (1967)

The Velvet Underground - The Velvet Underground (1969)

Wolf Parade - Apologies to the Queen Mary (2005)

Neil Young - Tonight's the Night (1975)

My Record Collection: A-M

Wed, 06 Aug 2008 04:14:27 GMT

That's right, RECORD collection, AKA vinyl, AKA those big old black round things your parents listened to music, AKA the hipster music accessory for the new millennium. I started to collect vinyl a few years back, for no good reason other than to do it. Sure, aficionados will tell you that music sounds better on vinyl, and talk about audio waves and digital loss or whatever, but I can't really say that's true given that my record player isn't exactly hi-fi.

Instead, I collect records because I like them. I like owning things, but the digital revolution has made that less and less necessary. I download music all the time, so this isn't some luddite reactionary thing. But in an era when owning music means having something on your hard drive, I guess going back to a clunky, classic format is a way of separating myself from the herd. Any idiot with a decent internet connection can avail themselves of almost any album (and I usually do), so I guess listening to records is my way of showing that I'm more of a fan of music than them. Or maybe I just think it's cool.

I'm posting my collection here for the usual stupid reasons: to show off my collection (even though I suspect no one cares), to have a digital copy of my collection should something happen (you know, like theft or fire), so I can remember what I have when I'm away from my house (possibly on my way to buy more records on a lunch break), and for the off chance anyone reading this is thinking of buying me a record, they can consult this list to avoid duplication (look for a link to this post on the sidebar of my blog). And, you know, the whole point of being an obsessive collector is to obsess. So feel free to peruse, critique, discuss, blahblahblah.

Arcade Fire - Funeral (2004)

Arcade Fire - Cold Wind (7" single) (2005)

Arcade Fire - Neon Bible (2007)

Band of Horses - Everything All the Time (2006)

The Beach Boys - Pet Sounds (1966)

The Beatles - Rubber Soul (1965)

The Beatles - Revolver (1966)

The Beatles - Magical Mystery Tour (1967)

The Beatles - Abbey Road (1969)

Belle and Sebastian - If You're Feeling Sinister (1996)

Belle and Sebastian - The Life Pursuit (2006)

Bloc Party - Silent Alarm (2005)

Broken Social Scene - You Forgot It In People (2002)

Jeff Buckley - Grace (1994)

Neko Case - Fox Confessor Brings the Flood (2006)

Johnny Cash - At Folsom Prison (1968)

Leonard Cohen - Songs of Leonard Cohen (1967)

Coldplay - Parachutes (2000)

Coldplay - A Rush of Blood to the Head (2002)

Coldplay - X&Y (2005)

Elvis Costello - This Year's Model (1978)

Death Cab for Cutie - Transatlanticism (2003)

The Decemberists - Castaways and Cutouts (2002)

The Decemberists - Picaresque (2005)

The Decemberists - The Crane Wife (2006)

Bob Dylan - Highway 61 Revisited (1965)

Bob Dylan - Blood on the Tracks (1975)

Feist - The Reminder (2007)

Marvin Gaye - What's Going On (1971)

Interpol - Antics (2004)

Joy Division - Unknown Pleasures (1979)

Joy Division - Closer (1980)

Joy Division - Love Will Tear Us Apart (7" single) (1980)

Joni Mitchell - Blue (1971)

Record Collection N-Z

Movie Review: Joy Division (2007)

Tue, 05 Aug 2008 02:04:58 GMT

Joy Division (2007)

Starring: Bernard Sumner, Peter Hook, Stephen Morris, Tony Wilson, Peter Saville, Annik Honoré, Ian Curtis [archival footage]

Directed by: Grant Gee

Grant Gee's documentary Joy Division, based on the legendary post-punk rockers of the same name, made the festival circuit last year at the same time as Anton Corbijn's dramatic account Control. While Control received most of the attention and received theatrical distribution, most assumed that Gee's film would be relegated to special feature treatment for the DVD release of Control. After all, it was surprising enough that one movie was made about the highly-influential, yet not-exactly-famous band, much less two.

Surprisingly, Gee's documentary got its own release on DVD through the Miriam Collection, released concurrently in North America with the Control DVD. After watching it, I'm pleased with this decision, as Gee's film deserves more attention than that of a special feature that even I might have taken my time to getting around to watching. I'm a big fan of Joy Division's music, and enjoyed Corbijn's film. But it did have a couple of flaws that Gee's film handles better, namely establishing the band's place in rock history and focusing on the whole band, rather than just the story of lead singer Ian Curtis.

While Corbjin's film is mostly based on the book Touching from a Distance by Curtis' widow Deborah, Gee's documentary heavily features surviving Joy Division members Bernard Sumner, Peter Hook, and Stephen Morris (who would continue making music following Ian Curtis' suicide as the band New Order), along with contributions from the legendary Tony Wilson, and Curtis' former mistress Annik Honoré. Deborah's book is referenced with passages used as onscreen transitions, but this movie isn't her story, it's Joy Division's. Which isn't to say one is better than the other, just different, with both films playing their part in fleshing out the story of the band.

I'd say Joy Division serves as the better introduction to the band for those unfamiliar, while Control plays better to those already invested in the band and the story of Ian Curtis. The interviews trace the band's ascent from humble Mancunians inspired by a Sex Pistols show at the Manchester Lesser Free Trade Hall to form their own punk band, even if they didn't know how to play music, to rising stars on the Northern England scene, only to have their progress halted by Curtis' sudden suicide on the night before they were to depart on an American tour. Despite the pall that hangs over the band's legacy due to Curtis' death, the band still has some light stories to tell about their days as young rock stars, while not brushing aside the hard questions surrounding the despair in Ian's lyrics and how they can now be seen as a cry for help that they all missed.

Like the band's music, Joy Division the film is at times fascinating, electric, and haunting. Since the band never achieved a large amount of fame while active, having just started out in 1977 and finished with Curtis' death in 1980 before the release of their second album Closer, their story isn't your typical rock n roll star tale. The film handles their blue collar roots and struggling nature without making them seem ordinary. The lads were still just starting out and struggling, but their output was truly special, so it's important for the film to be evocative without betraying the reality of their humble surroundings, and I think Gee succeeds in this. It helps that much of the film is backed by the band's original tracks, which is enough to get my blood pumping, be it over conversations about the political world of Manchester in the late 70s, or the techniques of legendary producer Martin Hannett in crafting Unknown Pleasures.

Some of these stories have circulated around a few times by now, be it in Deborah Curtis' book, or in Michael Winterbottom's excellent film about Tony Wilson 24 Hour Party People, but it's worth hearing them again, this time out of the horses' mouths. Much of the mystique of the band rightly surrounds Ian Curtis, as his otherworldly lyrics and presence are a big part of what made Joy Division work (and why I'm a big fan of Joy Division, but only a casual fan of New Order), but it's easy to forget that there were three other men responsible for their two landmark albums. So it's nice to hear their perspective, both on what was going in their lives at the time and their remembrances of Curtis.

Joy Division provides this opportunity, along with reminding everyone of the genius that burned bright, a genius that continues to inform modern rock music today. As with Control, Touching from a Distance, or the legacy of music left behind, Joy Division has no answers as to why that genius shone for too brief a period, but serves as an excellent example as to why the question still persists 28 years later.

4/5

Related Reviews:
Control (2007)
The Smiths - The Queen Is Dead - A Classic Album Under Review (2008)
Top Five Songs from the 80s

List: My Favourite Album for Every Year I've Been Alive

Wed, 30 Jul 2008 16:29:40 GMT

This is a list exercise that has made the blog rounds of late. I discovered it via Steve Hyden of the AV Club Blog, who in turn picked it up from Idolator. The premise is simple: list your favourite album for every year you've been alive.

There's a couple different ways to go about this, with the most obvious being choosing what your favourite album from a given year is now, but a different way would be to try and recollect what your favourite album was then (at least for years where you were old enough to have an opinion). I'm choosing the favourite album now way to go, since I think it's more interesting posting opinions I can defend now, as opposed to ones where I can just say "what do you want from me; I was a kid". That said, in years where I didn't have a strong favourite, or needed a tiebreaker, I chose albums that defined the year for me at the time.

So here's the list, with some thoughts about how it all shaped up to follow:

1977: Television - Marquee Moon
1978: Ramones - Road to Ruin
1979: The Clash - London Calling
1980: Joy Division - Closer
1981: Joan Jett & the Blackhearts - Bad Reputation
1982: Violent Femmes - Violent Femmes
1983: The Cure - Japanese Whispers
1984: The Smiths - The Smiths
1985: The Smiths - Meat is Murder
1986: The Smiths - The Queen is Dead
1987: The Smiths - Strangeways, Here We Come
1988: Pixies - Surfer Rosa
1989: Pixies - Doolittle
1990: Public Enemy - Fear of a Black Planet
1991: Nirvana - Nevermind
1992: Neil Young - Harvest Moon
1993: Wu-Tang Clan - Enter the Wu-Tang (36 Chambers)
1994: Nas - Illmatic
1995: Radiohead - The Bends
1996: Belle & Sebastian - If You're Feeling Sinister
1997: Radiohead - OK Computer
1998: Belle & Sebastian - The Boy with the Arab Strap
1999: The Flaming Lips - Soft Bulletin
2000: Aimee Mann - Bachelor No. 2
2001: Death Cab for Cutie - The Photo Album
2002: Tegan and Sara - If It Was You
2003: Kathleen Edwards - Failer
2004: Arcade Fire - Funeral
2005: The Decemberists - Picaresque
2006: The Decemberists - The Crane Wife
2007: The National - Boxer
2008: Flight of the Conchords - Flight of the Conchords

My process for putting the list together was as follows: first, I sorted my iTunes player by year in reverse, then looked at each year from 1977 on. I'd cross-reference these dates with Wikipedia's lists of albums released per year (like this one for 1977), to make sure my albums weren't mistagged by year (some were). If a year had an obvious winner, then I wrote it down and moved on. If it had a few different contenders, I wrote them all down and listened to them to make the hard choice (ties are for sissies). The most difficult were for years where no particular favourite emerged. That's when I'd reconsult the Wikipedia lists to see if there was an album from that time period that I'd previously enjoyed (or had a few songs on it that I enjoyed), but didn't have in iTunes. I then downloaded those contenders and picked a winner. Oh, and only actual albums were eligible, no compilations (otherwise 1988 would've been Joy Division's Substance, and it wouldn't have been close).

Sure, that might sound like too much work for a silly meme, but the whole fun of a list like this is using it to reconnect with your music collection. Keep in mind, this is a favourite list, not a best of list, so I felt no pressure to listen to albums I didn't know in order to make my decision (after all, if I wasn't already familiar with the album, then it couldn't exactly be a favourite now could it?).

The toughest years to find favourites that I could be enthusiastic about were the early 80s. My least favourite album on the list would have to be Bad Reputation from 1981. Worse, its presence is a bit of a cheat, since the album is just a re-issue of Joan Jett's independently-released self-titled 1980 album. But, its only competition in my collection is The Cure's Faith, which is a bit too dreary for me, and the Ramone's poorly received Pleasant Dreams album. So Bad Reputation it is, which I enjoy only half-unironically, and mostly because Freaks and Geeks used it as a theme song. Let this serve as a reminder that I need to check out Elvis Costello & the Attractions' Trust and Echo & the Bunnymen's Heaven Up Here.

1982 didn't get any easier, with The Cure's gloomy Pornography being my only selection. I was gonna go ahead and go with Michael Jackson's Thriller, which was undeniably my favourite album at the time, until I downloaded it and listened to it for the first time in years. Don't get me wrong, "Billie Jean" still rules, and "Human Nature" and "Beat It" still have their appeal, but after listening to the whole album once, I can promise that I won't be doing it again anytime soon. "The Girl is Mine" is one of the more dreadful pop songs of all-time, and the other ballads are no pleasures either. Even "Thriller", nostalgic fun though it may be, doesn't have a lot of replay value and is basically the most famous novelty song of all-time. I was prepared to go the other way and choose Prince's 1999 until I listened to Violent Femmes and decided after one listen that I had a winner (I was previously familiar with several songs off the album, just not the entire album itself).

About 1984-1987: yeah, I'm not completely pleased with The Smith's sweep, but what can you do? I was tempted to go with Echo & the Bunnymen's Ocean Rain for 1984 over The Smiths to get in a bit more variety, but it would've been a lie. Since this is basically a series of 30 top one lists, variety shouldn't be the goal. Strangeways, Here We Come is my least favourite of the four Smiths albums, but as luck would have it, there really wasn't much else competition for 1987. Since I'm not a U2 fan (who released The Joshua Tree that year), the only real competition to prevent The Smith's sweep was The Cure's Kiss Me Kiss Me Kiss Me (if you're wondering, my undoubted favourite album during the time period was Guns N Roses' Appetite for Destruction).

The early 90s is when I resorted mostly to the tiebreaker of "what was my favourite then", which is why you see three hip-hop albums there (with a fourth, A Tribe Called Quest's The Low End Theory just barely losing out to Nirvana's Nevermind). That said, all three are on my iPod right now for occasional listens, unlike most of my hip-hop collection, which is either sitting on my top shelf or was sold en masse to a pawn shop (I had hundreds of hip-hop CDs from the 90s that I lugged around through 3 or 4 moves before admitting that I stopped listening to most of them).

My most difficult years in terms of multiple strong contenders were 1979 and 1989. 1979 featured a battle royale between Gang of Four's Entertainment!, Joy Division's Unknown Pleasures, and The Clash's London Calling. I can't even say for sure whether or not my decision to go with London Calling was influenced by the fact that I knew Joy Division would be represented the next year with Closer. 1989 featured the Pixie's Doolittle vs The Cure's Disintegration (my favourite Cure album) vs The Stone Roses's self-titled debut. It's hard to go wrong with Doolittle, but I can't say that this wouldn't change in another month or so.

As the list moved into the current century, it got a little easier for me since I've been making year end best of lists for the past few years that I could consult. These lists weren't always still an accurate representation of my current favourites for the year, but at least they gave me a direction to pursue (and in the case of 2005, helped decide the dead heat between The Decemberists' Picaresque and The National's Alligator). 2008 was probably the hardest, simply because I haven't been listening to enough new music this year. I have plenty of 2008 albums, I just haven't put many into heavy rotation. Then I picked up the Flight of the Conchords album after watching season one, and that settled it for now (though I fully expect that decision to change by the end of the year).

And there you have it, a lifetime of music. I'm pretty pleased at how the list shaped up, and had a lot of fun doing it (even though I'm convinced I could do a better job with the ten years prior to my birth than those following it). What would your list look like?

Related:
Top 10 Albums of 2007
Top 10 Albums of 2006
Top 20 Albums of 2005
Top 10 Albums of 2004
Top Five Songs of the Half-Decade
Top Five Songs from the 90s
Top Five Songs from the 80s
Top Five Songs from the 70s

Movie Review: The Dark Knight (2008)

Sun, 27 Jul 2008 19:31:10 GMT

The Dark Knight (2008)

Starring: Christian Bale, Heath Ledger, Aaron Eckhart, Maggie Gyllenhaal, Gary Oldman, Michael Caine, Morgan Freeman, Eric Roberts

Directed By: Christopher Nolan

I saw this over opening weekend but have been putting off the review until now. It's tough, because this is the sort of movie I imagine readers might actually look forward to reading my opinion on, as much as anyone cares what my opinion on movies are (I have no delusions that you all have desperately checking your RSS feeds awaiting this or anything). And I have plenty to say about the film, but still I hesitate.

And the reason is simple: I have nothing at all critical to say about this movie. My response to it is so visceral, so emotional, that I fear that putting it into words will leave me sounding like little more than a simpering fanboy. So I'll just have to go forward with that and trust that I've established enough film critique cred that you'll understand that the unbridled enthusiasm that is to follow is the result of superior filmmaking, and not my inability to be critical.

And you know what? I think I'm okay with this. Because more than any other type of movie, the big budget summer blockbuster should appeal on a visceral, emotional level. When we walk out of these $200 million dollar extravaganzas, we should be awestruck to the point of speechlessness. This is the experience we're looking for, and I'm thrilled to say that The Dark Knight achieved this with me, especially since few summer blockbusters ever do.

My expectations for this film were about as high as they've ever been, and I'm pleased to say that they were surpassed. This is not only the best Batman movie ever (surpassing director Christopher Nolan's earlier film Batman Begins), it is also the best movie based on a comic ever, and a stunning example of the best blockbuster entertainment has to offer.

Art and commerce have always been at odds in Hollywood, but of late, the two sides had seemed further apart than usual. The movies that made the most money had no ambitions toward art or intelligence, while the most critically acclaimed films have no traction at the box office. I've long argued that it needn't be this way, that we should be able to expect intelligence and excitement from our films, and with its record box office and near-universal praise, The Dark Knight has proved me right. To be sure, the film is more blockbuster than arthouse, but its epic drama and level of excellence make it as easy to compare to films like The Godfather and The Departed as it is with superhero fare like Spider-Man or Iron Man.

The Dark Knight's commitment to quality extends to all aspects of the production, from Nolan's assured direction and densely-plotted screenplay that he co-wrote with his brother Jonathan, the breathtaking cinematography by Wally Pfister, the haunting and epic score by James Newton Howard and Hans Zimmer, the exciting stunts, the big explosions, and the uniformly excellent cast. With a budget of nearly $200 million, you'd like to expect that a production could could excel on so many levels, but most often they don't, possibly spending all that dough on effects or star power instead of spreading the wealth and attention to all levels of production. The Dark Knight certainly didn't skimp on effects, star power, or set design, but Nolan's obsessive attention to detail spread throughout the production to the degree that there are no weak links.

Any discussion of the excellence of the cast must start with the performance by the late Heath Ledger as The Joker. I'm pleased to say that as with everything Dark Knight, the hype matches the reality. Ledger is phenomenal in the role, completely disappearing into the psychotic clown with each line delivery, twitch, and sloping shuffle. The best thing I can say about Ledger's Joker is that it's the first adaptation of the character outside of the comics that was legitimately terrifying. Jack Nicholson's Joker was dynamic, Mark Hamill's is fun, but Ledger's was as horrifying as it is captivating, with Ledger being able to capture The Joker's dynamism without chewing on every piece of scenery, bringing nuance to the mysterious villain missing from previous incarnations.

As strong as Ledger's work is, so too is the rest of the cast in what is essentially an ensemble action-drama. Christian Bale is again strong as both Bruce Wayne and Batman, holding his own with Ledger in their scenes together. Aaron Eckhart's turn as Harvey Dent probably deserves more praise than it's been getting, bringing the most pathos to the film. Maggie Gyllenhaal, Gary Oldman, Michael Caine, and Morgan Freeman all contribute to their usual high standards to fill out the supporting cast, with Oldman's Jim Gordon once again a highlight.

There's a lot of characters in the movie, with Bale, Ledger, and Eckhart basically serving as co-leads in terms of screen time (with Oldman not far behind). Traditionally, this has been a problem with superhero sequels, which strain under the weight of so many storylines and characters. Nolan succeeds in integrating all the characters with a densely plotted story that not only finds roles for each character, but rather makes each essential for the thematic and narrative structure of the film. Some might say that he should've saved Dent's arc for another film, but I personally loved how he used the character as the consequence of Batman's battle with The Joker. Both The Joker and Dent are made better and more interesting with the other's presence, so I applaud Nolan's decision to go for broke rather than hold out for the sequel.

Because The Dark Knight isn't just a story about Batman vs The Joker, or the rise of Harvey Dent. Instead, it's the continuing story about Batman's attempt to rescue Gotham City from crime, and the dire consequences of his campaign. More than any film before it, The Dark Knight grounds us into the reality of the city. This isn't a gothic nightmare like Tim Burton's incarnations, or the day-glo world of Joel Schumacher, or even the dark deco stylings of The Animated Series. Instead, this is a recognizable, 21st century American city (a redressed Chicago), which makes it easier to relate to the citizens of Gotham and what it would be like to live in a city under siege by a terrorist like The Joker. This is one of the few superhero movies I can think of to put us into the world of the civilians that deal with the costumed battles in their mist, and the effect was jarring. Gotham's citizens aren't just victims to be rescued, but instead stake-holders in the action, which helps put the audience in the same position.

Which is why I think it's the best comic book movie I've ever seen. It raises the stakes not by making the effects bigger and louder, or by making the characters flashier, but rather by grounding the series. It's an exciting way to stage a superhero film, albeit one that is almost relentlessly bleak. There are certainly exciting sequences to get the viewer's blood pumping throughout the film, but the more common reaction to Nolan's brand of fantastical realism is stunned silence. In between the terror of The Joker, the heroism of Batman, and the pathos of Dent lies some sophisticated mediations on the nature of good and evil and the acceptable lengths one can take in the pursuit of justice.

When Batman Begins was released three years ago, I was similarly enthusiastic about its success, but was even more excited about the heights its sequel could reach with the origins out of the way. With The Dark Knight, Christopher Nolan and company surpassed those expectations and possibly redefined the upper limits of the genre. The difference this time out is while I'm definitely excited for a sequel, I have no idea how they'll possibly manage to top themselves again.

5/5

Related:
Batman (1989)
Batman Begins (2005)
Batman: "Year One" (1987)

Concert Review: Aimee Mann at the Calgary Folk Music Festival (07-24-08)

Sat, 26 Jul 2008 19:45:57 GMT

Before I get into this review, I'll admit straight out that I'm not an unbiased reviewer. Aimee Mann is one of my favourite artists, owing both to the fact that her melancholy songs are right up my alley (even though I'm a pretty happy guy, I'm drawn to sad music) and the fact that she's always been the first act on my iPod, so when I'm feeling indecisive about what to listen to, I simply press play, "How Am I Different?" starts from Bachelor No. 2, and I'm good.

She's probably been near the top of the list (that I'm surprised I haven't actually written down) of artists I wanted to see live, so I was pretty excited to learn that she was coming to play the Folkfest, and even more excited to learn that I got to go for free on behalf of Blogcritics Magazine. Yay for the internets!

With all that said, festivals are never the best way to experience a musician, particularly for the first time. At best, it can offer a sample of what they're like live. The acoustics aren't as good as indoors, bands only get to play partial sets as they have to share the stage with other acts, and the audience isn't all there to hear every act. I find Folkfest is particularly bad for the final problem. The acoustics are actually pretty good there, so the bands sound great. But the audience is largely made up of people who are there to be at Folkfest more than they are there for particular acts. The granola types buy four-day passes to take in the atmosphere, discover some music, and hang out. Which is a great thing for music in general, but kinda sucky when you're like me and go to hear specific acts.

Because audience plays a big part in the success of a concert. It's why we pay to hear live music in the company of others. A cheering, rapt audience not only fuels the performers, but also becomes a self-sustaining entity that feeds itself. The best concerts I've been to had audiences that were completely into the music without being aggressive assholes. We clap along, sing along, cheer and hang off every song. The worst concerts I've been to either featured stupid kids wanting to mosh to indie rock (largely indifferent to the actual music), or passive audiences unfamiliar with the acts I'm there to see.

And this is how it is at Folkfest, especially in an instance like this, where Aimee Mann wasn't the evening's headliner (that honour went to Canadian rocker Sam Roberts, who followed Mann). What makes it worse than a typical festival audience is that the people who are indifferent at worst, passive at best, get the best seats. They get there when the doors open, and set up their tarps and chairs in the area reserved for seating. The more passionate and invested fans are pushed off the standing room section at the sides. I understand that the festival as a whole probably works better this way, and it's those people who come all weekend year-after-year that make the festival a success (and thus the sort of festival that will bring an artist like Aimee Mann to Calgary), but from the perspective of a guy who came to see Mann (and the earlier act The Weakerthans, another favourite band of mine), it's always a bit disappointing when dealing with a largely lifeless audience that I have to look past to see the stage.

Luckily, the disappointment was largely relegated to factors such as those, that have nothing to do with the performance of Mann and her band. And while it can be frustrating to watch people sit on their hands while one of your favourite performers is on stage, at least they didn't actually impede my ability to hear the songs or see the stage.

As I said earlier, for an outside venue, the acoustics are pretty good. Which is particularly important for artist like Aimee Mann, who doesn't have a stage show to speak of. It's just her playing her acoustic guitar (and bongos for about 45 seconds), backed by professional musicians on guitar, drums, and two sets of keyboards/piano. If you're the sort of person that needs more flash with your live performances, than I suspect an Aimee Mann show isn't for you (nor do I suspect that her music would particularly be your thing). But if you're the kind of person who appreciates live music for the music, then you'll be pleased to know that Mann and her band sound every bit as good live as she does recorded.

The set consisted of 14 songs, leaning heavily on her new @#%&*! Smilers album. It's a solid album that I've been enjoying since its release, but I must admit that I was a bit disappointed when I didn't get to hear her perform two of my favourites from her older albums ("Deathly" or "One"), or anything from her terribly underrated The Forgotten Arm LP (possibly because she designed that album as a concept album and thus doesn't feel the songs from it mesh well with the new material). As is often the case with new material (@#%&*! Smilers hasn't even been out for two months yet), the audience simply wasn't as familiar with her new songs as her older songs (that is for those in the audience that were familiar with her songs at all, and I'm not sure the group that yelled out "Voices Carry" count), and they did get a bit more into it when she dove into "Save Me" from the Magnolia soundtrack (easily one of her most famous tracks, having earned her an Oscar nomination).

But the new material is strong, with "31 Today" and "Borrowing Time" coming off particularly well live as the two most uptempo numbers of the evening, and when a band goes on tour to support their new album, it's hard to complain about them playing songs off of it. Plus, it's not like Mann is an aging star on a reunion tour, whose only relevance is older hits, driving fans to the washrooms en masse with the ol' "now here's something from our new album". She's stayed relevant since going truly independent in 1999 with her own record label (an experience she documents in her song "Calling It Quits", which I'm pleased to say she did perform). But if you're hoping to hear a concert heavy on tracks from Bachelor No. 2 (still her best album) or Lost in Space, you'll be a little disappointed in this tour (although since this was a festival set, I'm sure it differs from her usual setlist, so I wouldn't be surprised if she sneaks in more older numbers usual. On Live at St. Anne's Warehouse, "Deathly" was part of the encore, so I guess I can blame the fact that I didn't get to hear that on whoever decided Sam Roberts got to perform last... which was probably the right call given the audience).

After warming up a bit with the first couple songs ("Stranger into Starman" and "Looking for Nothing" for those of you scoring at home), Mann hit her vocal stride with new single "Freeway" and didn't look back. The best thing one can say about festival limitations is that they separate the wheat from the chaff. In a setting where it's more difficult to embellish sound or hide behind stage effects (particularly in a low-fi festival like Folkfest), without a loud audience to boost the proceedings, only the truly talented can thrive. And that's what Aimee Mann and her gorgeous voice did. It's a thin line between quiet indifference and rapt silence, and as the show progressed, I think the audience moved toward the latter as she progressed through her set.

Which is good, because if a folk fest crowd couldn't come around to the beautiful vocal stylings and bittersweet lyricism of Aimee Mann, then there's no hope for them. And while the circumstances around her performance weren't ideal, she still managed to meet my expectations, meaning that she's now moved from my hypothetical "artists I must want to see in concert" list, and unto my new hypothetical "artists I will always see in concert when given the opportunity" list. Here's hoping she enjoyed her Calgary experience enough to give me that opportunity.

Setlist:

Stranger into Starman
Looking for Nothing
Freeway
Phoenix
The Great Beyond
Save Me
Wise Up
Calling it Quits
You're with Stupid Now
Little Tornado
31 Today
Borrowing Time
Today's the Day
How Am I Different

Related Reviews:
Neil Young: Heart of Gold (2006)
Top Five Songs from the 90s
Top 20 Albums of 2005

Movie Review: Batman: Mask of the Phantasm (1993) [re-posted review]

Sat, 19 Jul 2008 04:14:12 GMT

Batman: Mask of the Phantasm (1993)

Starring: Kevin Conroy, Dana Delany, Hart Bochner, Stacy Keach, Abe Vigoda, Efrem Zimbalist Jr, Bob Hastings, Robert Costanzo, Mark Hamill

Directed By: Boyd Kirkland

The film maintains the "dark deco" direction and style of TAS under the direction of Eric Radomski and Bruce W. Timm and the writing of Alan Burnett and Paul Dini (all of whom worked on TAS), and features the same voices talents as the show, including Kevin Conroy as Batman/Bruce Wayne, Efrem Zimbalist Jr as Alfred, Bob Hastings as Commissioner Gordon, Robert Constanzo as Detective Harvey Bullock, and Mark Hamill as The Joker. Basically, the movie takes all the best elements of the series, and puts it together as a longer episode. Except that if it were an episode, it never would have made it past the censors. Also, it'd be the best episode in the history of the show.

As a theatrically-released movie with a 76 minute running time, Mask of the Phantasm had license to do things the Saturday afternoon cartoon show could not do. It's a darker, more mature look at Batman than the series could be, receiving a PG rating. It's no Sin City or Heavy Metal, but is more intense than usual, showing murder, blood, and allusions to sex that could never be shown on the show. Which is not to say that it's an adult film, because it's not. It's still an animated movie about a super-hero, and is still primarily for kids (albeit, older kids). It just means that Mask of the Phantasm is closer to the comic book than the series is allowed to be.

In terms of story, Mask of the Phantasm is a mystery movie, as a new vigilante, who bears similarities to Batman, comes to Gotham and begins executing mob bosses. Batman must figure out who this new vigilante is to end the Phantasm's rampage, while Batman himself is being accused of the crimes. Meanwhile, a former love is back in Gotham (voiced by Dana Delany), drudging up painful memories for Bruce Wayne of the one who got away. While dealing with the Phantasm, his long-lost love, and Gotham Police, Batman also has to deal with The Joker, who is somehow involved in everything.

The movie is an excellent combination of action and suspense, and until the release of Batman Begins, was easily the best Batman film ever (but it now must place second). Strangely, since it is a cartoon, this film has the most convincing and realistic love story in Batman movie history (although, to be fair, there's no real competition in that area, as all the other love stories in Batman movies have been rushed and unconvincing). Comic book fans will geek out over the Year One like flashbacks featuring a non-costumed young Bruce Wayne attempting to fight crime, and the appearance of the Phantasm, who, with a cape, spectre-like mask, and scythe, bears a strong resemblance to Year Two's murderous vigilante The Reaper, only less gay looking.

Personally, I absolutely loved this movie. However, it's not a movie for everyone. If you're not already a fan of Batman or Batman: The Animated Series, then I don't think this movie would have much of interest for you. But if you are a fan of the series or the character, then I highly recommend you check this film out.

4.5/5

Related:
Batman: "Year Two - Fear the Reaper" (1987, 1991)
Batman: The Animated Series - Volume One
Batman: The Animated Series - Volume Two

Movie Review: Batman (1989) [re-posted review]

Thu, 17 Jul 2008 22:41:22 GMT

Batman (1989)

Starring: Michael Keaton, Jack Nicholson, Kim Bassinger, Robert Wuhl, Pat Hingle, Billy Dee Williams, Michael Gough, Jack Palance

Directed By: Tim Burton

My goal while re-watching this version was to try and get past the ways it fouls up the Batman story, and just judge it as a movie. So, okay, the Joker was a small-time criminal who killed Batman's parents. Bruce Wayne isn't Gotham's most famous citizen, to the point where an investigative journalist from Gotham doesn't know much about him, whatever. Commissioner Gordon is hapless, Harvey Dent is black, and Bruce Wayne is a boob. I'll just have to let it all go.

Unfortunately, what I didn't expect is that the movie is kinda boring. I don't mind characterisation in comic book movies, in fact, I'm a big proponent of it. However, this movie goes a little long on the Bruce Wayne/Vicky Vale stuff, the Vale/Knox stuff, the Jack Napier/Grissom stuff, and it's all a little dull. Maybe it wouldn't be so dull if it wasn't so lame. But it is lame, and thus, I grew quite sleepy while watching it.

Luckily, once Jack Napier becomes the Joker and disposes of the ultra-hammy Grissom (Jack Palance, trying to out-ham Jack Nicholson's Napier), the movie picks up and becomes entertaining. While it's not an ideal Joker, Nicholson's performance in the film is dynamic, and earned him a Golden Globes nomination. He does a good job with the psychotic clown aspect of the Joker, trying to be funny one moment, and homicidal in the next. My favourite scene is when he's atop the float giving out money, dancing to the tunes of Prince. Joker truly is the energy in the film.

Which is good, because Michael Keaton's Bruce Wayne generally manages to suck the life out of every scene he's in. I'm not even sure if it's Keaton's fault, or that Tim Burton has little use for non-quirky characters. Luckily, as Batman he looks cool, and imposing, and has fun toys. Sadly, Batman is often little more than set piece that swoops in, uses his weapons, strikes a pose (mostly because he can barely move in his batsuit), then is off. It's akin to a comic book drawn by an artist that is only good at splash pages and pin-ups. It all feels really cool, but offers little substance.

Which, is pretty much how I'd describe the entire film in a nutshell. It feels really cool, but offers little substance. At the time, Burton's style was so new and exciting, that it was enough. Then he continued to do the same thing in every movie since, which takes the shine off of what he did in 1989.

2.5/5

Movie Review: Hellboy (2004) [re-posted review]

Wed, 09 Jul 2008 22:18:12 GMT

Hellboy (2004)

Starring: Ron Perlman, John Hurt, Selma Blair, Rupert Evans, Karel Roden, Jeffrey Tambor, Doug Jones, David Hyde Pierce

Directed By: Guillermo del Toro

I've never read any Hellboy, so I know nothing about the character as he was portrayed in the Dark Horse Comics that the movie is based on. The extent of my Hellboy knowledge going into this movie is that the character was created, written, and drawn by Mike Mignola. So I can't judge whether or not it was a good or loyal adaptation of the character, and thus will be judging it solely whether or not it works as a sci-fi action-adventure flick. The good news is that I'll be less likely to forgive crap just because it pushes my fanboy buttons.

More good news is that I didn't need any fanboy button-pushing to enjoy this movie. It's a high energy, special effects heavy, big action, comic book movie. I'm not usually won over by special effects heavy movies, because I feel they use them as a crutch to cover up the fact that they don't have much to say as a movie. But, when done right, special effects can enhance a movie, providing the audience with a visceral, visual experience that is unlike most of what they'll see in movies. Hellboy is one such a movie, a vibrant and unique experience that's as exciting as it is fun.

Thankfully, one area they avoided using special effects is with the Hellboy character itself, instead choosing to outfit Ron Perlman with makeup and costume to inhabit the big red guy. This works fantastically, as Hellboy manages to feel real in the film, despite his other-worldly appearance. He interacts with his environments, be they gloomy subways, the Bureau of Paranormal Research and Defense, or a snowy Russian cemetery. Perlman does an excellent job filling Hellboy out, creating a character with enough gruff charisma to carry the film throughout. It's tough not to like the big guy, who fills the film with both humour and pathos, which is feat I don't believe CGI is ready to accomplish (if it ever will).

The film feels like a blend of Indiana Jones, Men In Black, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, and Ghostbusters, while managing to stake out some original material for itself. It's a truly fun adventure film that's easy to like due to the nature of the character. But, the film isn't without its flaws. The villains of the piece are fairly second rate, the dramatic portions of the film, particularly the love angle with Selma Blair's pyrokinetic character Liz Sherman, is merely adequate, and some of the subplots go unaddressed. But, what you should be looking for in such a movie is excitement and fun, and Hellboy provides both in excess.

3.5/5

Movie Review: WALL-E (2008)

Tue, 08 Jul 2008 19:43:44 GMT

WALL-E (2008)

Starring: Ben Burtt, Elissa Knight, Fred Willard, Jeff Garlin, Sigourney Weaver, John Ratzenberger, Kathy Najimy

Directed by: Andrew Stanton

Some might think I'm too harsh on blockbuster genre films, that I shouldn't hold them to an artistic standard and instead enjoy the mindless fun they offer. That these movies, be they shoot em up action films or silly animated family fare, aren't designed to be thought about, so I should cut them some slack when its obvious that little thought went into their design.

Unsurprisingly, I don't ascribe to this line of thinking, and the reason is simple. It's not that I can't enjoy exciting action movies, or sweet family fare, it's that I believe that neither need to sacrifice quality in order to achieve their objectives. And when we decide to accept the substandard simply because it touches upon some of the thrills of the genre, we do a disservice to those films that work to ensure that entertainment and quality can indeed coexist peacefully.

That the most ambitious and fully realized film of the year is an animated family feature is particularly impressive, since the one genre you'd think would have a built-in excuse for dumbing itself down is one aimed at children. But while their competitors continued to find new ways to make celebrity-voice filled anthropomorphic animal cartoons, Pixar decided to make WALL-E, perhaps their most ambitious effort to date, and succeeded in making one of the finest films in both their history and the history of the genre.

WALL-E is a masterpiece from beginning to end, keeping me enraptured from the short that preceded it (the hilarious, Chuck Jones-inspired Presto, which technically doesn't factor into how good WALL-E is, but is a part of the total package one gets when going to see it) to the brilliant final credits sequence that tracks the progress on Earth with a brief overview of the history of art. The big hook with Pixar's latest film is their decision to make long stretches of the film largely dialogue-free. It's a decision indicative of a company unafraid to take risks, and pretty much the complete opposite of what their competitors are doing (not only do they refuse to market their films based on ill-suited celebrity voices, they decided to not even give the film's stars any dialogue for celebrities to voice).

Without the crutch of dialogue, director Andrew Stanton and his team of animators have to infuse their main character with personality through his actions and body language, borrowing from silent comedy masters like Buster Keaton, Charlie Chaplin, and Wile E Coyote. The result is magical, with the eccentric WALL-E quickly becoming one of Pixar's most lovable creations, ranking right up there with the baby turtles from Finding Nemo or Boo from Monsters, Inc in terms of adorableness.

WALL-E is the last remaining Waste Allocation Load Lifter - Earth-Class unit left behind on Earth 700 years previous to clean up the planet after humankind's wasteful ways left it uninhabitable. He continues to stack junk into cubes as per his programming, but also spends his time collecting interesting items left behind while learning about human interactions through the old musical Hello Dolly. It was an absolute delight being introduced to WALL-E and his world, experiencing the post-apocalyptic world through his enthusiastic eyes. It's a credit to the animators that we experience WALL-E's thoughts and motivations not only without dialogue, but also without exaggerating the expressions a robot should be able to produce.

It all comes down to a careful dedication to storytelling, which is Pixar's hallmark even more than phenomenal computer animation. At this point, it goes without saying that WALL-E looks fantastic, as the studio has already proved it has the tools to create whatever it wants visually. The standout innovation this time in terms of animation was how it played with the cinematography of its shots, contrasting the dusty haze of Earth with the antiseptic polish of the Axiom spaceship WALL-E eventually finds himself in. I'll admit that I found the Earth scenes more compelling visually, as the garbage-strewn world the animators created was a more unique environment than was the cruise-ship orientated Axiom, but all the animation was fantastic, as per usual.

But these days, even the most crassly commercial animated endeavours boast impressive animation, but none can match Pixar's storytelling chops. The movie had my largely-adult late show screening audibly laughing, gasping, and crying throughout the film (well, at appropriate intervals... they weren't crying at the good stuff or anything). I was in wide-eyed awe throughout, and loved every second of it.

So I'll keep demanding more from my movies, so I never fail to appreciate it when they deliver. It might not be easy to make truly special movies, but movies like WALL-E prove it possible, even while their competitors prove it unnecessary from a moneymaking standpoint. Thankfully, Pixar also continues to prove that they can keep pushing artistic boundaries, and the money will take care of itself.

5/5

Related Reviews:
Finding Nemo (2003)
Monsters, Inc. (2001)
Ratatouille (2007)

Movie Review: Darfur Now (2007)

Tue, 08 Jul 2008 01:17:03 GMT

Darfur Now (2007)

Starring: Don Cheadle, Adam Sterling, Luis Moreno-Ocampo, Hejewa Adam, Sheikh Ahmed Mohamad Abakar, Pablo Recalde, George Clooney

Directed by: Ted Braun

I've always thought the toughest reviews to write are for movies that are merely okay: I'm not enthusiastic enough to praise them, but there isn't anything grievously wrong enough with them to pan them. It turns out, there's an even more difficult review to write: for well-intentioned documentaries on important subjects that are merely okay.

It's tough to critique the film without sounding like you're critiquing the film's subject, which is ill-advised when you're dealing with a documentary on the subject of the ongoing genocide in Darfur, and what people are doing to rally against it. Darfur Now is about as well-intentioned a documentary as you're going to see, detailing the stories of six people working to resolve the conflict. Their stories are mixture of harrowing and inspirational, ranging from the activism of UCLA student Adam Sterling and actor Don Cheadle, the UN work of World Food Program leader Pablo Recalde and International Criminal Court Prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo, and the first-person accounts of Darfurians Hejewa Adam and Sheikh Ahmed Mohamad Abakar, each of whom have been personally affected by the Janjaweed attacks that the United States government has defined as genocide.

It's an important story that needs all the attention that it can get, and watching the film, you get the impression that everyone involved with the project are in it for the right reasons. Unfortunately, that passion and those good intentions are not enough to create a compelling documentary. Which brings me to the other difficult part in reviewing an average-quality documentary: critique it for being dull, and it sounds like you miss the entire point of a film whose main goals are to inform rather than to entertain (which is why I use euphemisms like "compelling").

It's true, a documentary about the ongoing genocide in Darfur need not be entertaining, but it does need to connect with viewers. Darfur Now does manage to connect at times, particularly with the stories of Abakar and Adam, which give the movie its emotional core, but too often it keeps us at an arms reach. Much of the film is composed of interviews with the subjects (a notable exception being when Cheadle filmed his and friend George Clooney's trips to China and Egypt to discuss Darfur with government officials with a camcorder), giving the 98 minute film a visual repetitiveness that does not serve it well.

The film clearly strives for an inspirational tone, and as a result, doesn't quite manage to bring the horror of its subject home. It's good to not completely dwell on the horrors, and instead show some of the positive actions people are taking to combat those horrors. It gives viewers a sense that the situation is not hopeless, hopefully spurring them into action. But the film's decision to err on the side of caution when it comes to any hint of sensationalism leads to a film that at times feels oddly antiseptic given its harrowing subject matter.

But the film isn't without its merits. These are good stories, even if they aren't presented as well as they could be. I think it would be ideal viewing for a high school social studies course, as it doesn't shy away from the reality of the situation, but doesn't graphically portray it either. It would be a great way to introduce the subject to students, allowing teachers to structure lectures around the film and maybe have group projects where students come up with their own ways to help the cause. The film's crusader tone would work well in such a setting. The low SRP of $4.99 caused by the packaging's use of recycled post-consumer materials also wouldn't hurt a high school's ability to purchase a copy.

But for the rest of us, particularly those who watch a lot of documentaries, there just isn't enough to Darfur Now to recommend, unless you're looking for a brief overview on the subject. It's an important subject, one certainly worthy of a documentary, but those looking for greater depth on the subject in a more engaging fashion will have to look elsewhere.

2.5/5

Related Reviews:
Blood Diamond (2006)
Hotel Rwanda (2004)
Sometimes in April (2005)

Movie Review: A Bug's Life (1998) [re-posted review]

Sun, 06 Jul 2008 19:43:44 GMT

A Bug's Life (1998)

Starring: Dave Foley, Kevin Spacey, Julia Louis-Dreyfus, Hayden Panettiere, Phyllis Diller, Richard Kind, David Hyde Pierce

Directed by: John Lasseter and Andrew Stanton

First off, let's get the technical details out of the way. Like all Pixar films, A Bug's Life looks fantastic. The animation is bold and bright, giving its anthropomorphic bugs the usual 3D rendering process that Pixar first showed the world with its first picture, Toy Story. Also, the film does a fairly convincing job with fire in the film, a tricky element to capture with animation.

The voice actors all do a great job fleshing out their characters, and do so without upstaging their characters. Unlike other recent animated films, where the animators chose to tailor the animated figure to the actor, the actor tailor their performances to the animated figure. Kevin Spacey as the villainous Hopper is a particular standout, along with David Hyde Pierce's comedic performance as Slim.

The story itself is engaging, following the protagonist ant, Flik (Dave Foley), in his attempt to redeem himself in the eyes of the colony by finding other insects to help him ward off the grasshopper gang that torments them. In this attempt, he stumbles across a group of fun and lovable circus bugs (a collection including a male ladybug, a preying mantis, a black widow spider, a gypsy moth, a walking stick-bug, a caterpillar, a dung beetle, and a couple pillbugs), who come back to the colony with him in a misunderstanding. Eventually, everyone teams up to save the day. Flik's journey to "the city" where he finds these bugs is the funniest part of the movie, and a perfect example of how an animated film can use sight gags for great comedic effect, without having them dominate the entire narrative structure.

My favourite parts of the movie are when the bugs acted like bugs (mosquitoes flying into bug zappers, ants losing it when separated from the colony, flies having 24 hours to live). These parts are quite clever and contribute to some of the genuine laughs of the film. However, while a fun movie, and a great family movie, this movie doesn't quite capture the high levels of quality of other Pixar works like Finding Nemo or The Incredibles. Of all of Pixar's films, this one is probably the most kid-centric and has the least to offer for adults. Which, is to be expected since it's about bugs. Kids love bugs. Because kids are weird.

Which makes it a perfect film for kids, but merely a pleasant film for the rest of us. I enjoyed it, but didn't love it.

3.5/5

Movie Review: Finding Nemo (2003) [re-posted review]

Sun, 06 Jul 2008 19:38:39 GMT

Finding Nemo (2003)

Starring: Albert Brooks, Ellen DeGeneres, Alexander Gould, Willem Dafoe, Brad Garrett, Allison Janney, Geoffrey Rush

Directed by: Andrew Stanton and Lee Unkrich

I'll start with the obvious: the outstanding Pixar animation that manages not only to maintain the high standards the studio set with earlier works, but to surpass them as well. Finding Nemo is quite simply the greatest achievement visually in Pixar history. Water is the hardest element for animators to capture, so naturally, they chose a movie that spends about 90% of its time underwater. And does it magnificently. The utter beauty of the candy-coloured universe portrayed deserves all the praise I can think to give it, making it one of those movies you put in the DVD player to show off your TV. I imagine it also makes the movie really fun to watch while high.

However, what Pixar knows and it seems most other big-time animation studios of late don't, is that it is all well and good to create a visually stunning world, but it don't mean squat without a story (by all reports, this is the major flaw of recent films like Robots or the Nemo-ripoff Shark Tale). Animation has reached the level artistically that the audience expects the art to be good (unless the film has a sloppier style as an artistic choice), so making a beautifully-looking picture isn't enough. Animators really have to start with an idea for a story, not just a bunch of sight-gags that compare their animated universe to ours (I'm talking to you Shark Tale, Robots, and even Shrek).

Pixar, which already beats the other studios on visuals, knows this better than most. Finding Nemo starts off with a opener that rivals Bambi for its portrayal of the harsh realities of nature, and then sets about telling the story of the journey of a clown fish trying to reunite with his only son, all the while on a journey of coming to grips with the events of the opening scene. Along the way, we are treated to kinetic action scenes, humour, and eye-popping visuals.

My favourite character in the movie is Dory, the Regal Blue Tang fish voiced by Ellen DeGeneres. She is the sidekick to the father clownfish, Marlin, voiced by Albert Brooks, who gives him all the neurotic nervousness one would expect from an Albert Brooks-voiced clownfish. Dory is a rare sidekick in today's animated movies in that she is sweet, naive, and unintentional funny, a marked difference from the standard wise-cracking sidekick that has been in practically every animated film since Robin Williams' Genie from Aladdin (all the way to Robin William's Fender in Robots). The unintentional humour comes from her lack of short-term memory, or as I like to call it, her fish brain. What a wonderful touch, since fish have something like 6 seconds of memory.

Other standouts are the Willem Dafoe-voiced butterfly fish named Gill, the Allison Janney-voiced starfish named Peach, Barry Humphries (Dame Edna) as Bruce the shark, and Brad Garrett as Bloat the blowfish. I think the film is a classic that is infinitely re-watchable (okay, maybe not infinitely, I'm sure it, as with everything, will grow tiresome upon a child's inevitable 1000th viewing), one that won't fade into obscurity due to a billion pop culture references (I'm talking to you Aladdin and Shrek 2).

5/5

Movie Re-Review: Spider-Man 3 (2007)

Tue, 01 Jul 2008 21:53:21 GMT

Spider-Man 3 (2007)

Starring: Tobey Maguire, Kirsten Dunst, James Franco, Thomas Haden Church, Topher Grace, Bryce Dallas Howard, James Cromwell, Rosemary Harris, J.K. Simmons

Directed by: Sam Raimi

Welcome to the newest edition of "Andy makes amends for a bad review". After reassessing Fantastic Four last week, I decided that it was time for me to reassess another glaring mistake on my reviewing resume: the time I gave Spider-Man 3 3.5 stars. In my defence, one of the reasons I went that high on the movie was because it was at least as good as Fantastic Four, so since I biffed that review, the mistake carried forward. (The lesson here is for me to ignore the outliers in my reviews, lest I go back and fix every mistake in my index).

The thing of it is, subtract the score at the end, and the overall positive tone of the review, and I wasn't that far off. I identified the problems of the film; yet for some reason, couldn't drop the hammer on it. Part of this is a lesson in expectations. Sometimes when you get too excited for a movie, your expectations are impossible to be met. But sometimes the opposite happens: you get so excited for something that you refuse to accept when it fails to meet your expectations. You wanted to like it so much that you just do. I'm guessing this is what happened to Matrix or Star Wars fans who refuse to accept the terminal shittiness of their respective sequels or prequels. And I'm guessing it's what happened to me.

Because pretty much since the moment I typed the last period on that review, my estimation of this movie has been dropping. The bad parts became more pronounced in my memory, while the good parts faded away.

And yes, there were good parts, even if you're too busy remembering Peter Parker dancing, or Kirsten Dunst singing, or the complete waste of the Venom character to realize it. In fact, I'd argue that the first 90 minutes of the 139 minute movie were pretty good, and had the film continued down that path, it would have been a successful venture. The opening battle between Tobey Maguire's Peter Parker and James Franco's Harry Osborn compares favourably to big moments from the earlier two films, with both characters flying through the New York skyline in a fight that shows the three-dimensional nature of Spider-Man fights. Even better, it shows how while it might be cool to Spider-Man, it still sucks to be Peter Parker, who must balance his need to survive the attack with his need to not lose the engagement ring his Aunt May just gave him, all the while trying to defeat a friend without hurting him too badly.

Equally impressive is the introduction of The Sandman (Thomas Haden Church), which allowed the film to produce some truly spectacular special effects and another set of memorable fights with Spider-Man. I even enjoyed the new black costume (even if the introduction of the alien symbiote was rushed and sloppy), along with the themes of what happens when the great power that makes Peter Parker act so responsibly becomes too much power that corrupts.

If you were to stop the movie here, after Spidey has taken down Sandman for the first time, and dealt with Harry at his house, and take a break for a bit (as I did when rewatching it to go to sleep), you'd probably still be in high spirits and have good expectations for the movie going forward. Sadly, this is where the movie falls apart, rather spectacularly, rendering all that came before it forgotten and replaced with the horrifying image of Disco Pete.

Having Peter Parker Saturday Night Fever his way up the street and perform a dance number in a club as a means to show off his dark side was one of the worst calculations in a previously successful franchise since Jar Jar Binks. There's a tight balance in super hero movies, where you want to capture the fun and adventure of the subject matter, but still need to treat the material seriously. Because if you don't, everything about the project will then seem stupid, because, well, these stories aren't exactly above reproach. Costumed men do battle after being bitten by radioactive spiders, or falling into scientific experiments. It's easy for these things to feel ridiculous, so it's paramount that the filmmakers avoid doing things that make them feel overtly ridiculous.

It's fine to have jokes in a super hero movie, but you can't make a joke of the movie itself, and that's what Sam Raimi does here. The sequence is a joke, Peter Parker is a joke, and the rest of the movie feels like a joke. It never recovers from this moment, as the rest of the movie crashes together in the big rush to squeeze in one more villain into a final act that should have dedicated to wrapping up the stories it had already effectively introduced.

Which brings us to the movie's biggest flaw. Sure, the dance sequence stands out, but the film could have recovered from it. But the fatal flaw of the film comes when Raimi's effective movie about the resolution of Peter Parker's trilogy-wide rivalry with Harry Osbourne and the challenge of the Sandman is forced to also become a movie about Venom. This goes beyond the fact that cramming a movie with this many big characters is never a good idea, and more about the simple fact that Sam Raimi was never interested in making a movie about Venom, and it shows.

I originally thought that Raimi should have just bitten the bullet and made the movie everyone wanted to see: Spider-Man vs Venom, one of the few modern villains to capture the public's imagination. But rewatching it, I realize the opposite to be true: Raimi should have been allowed to make the movie he wanted to make, leaving Venom for a fourth (most likely Raimi-free) edition. The new director (and possibly new cast) would have benefited from having such a popular character to start out with, and Raimi would've had a solid trilogy in his belt. Because here's the thing, minus the Venom-included fourth act, Raimi largely succeeded in created a good Sandman-focused movie.

Sure, there were problems in the first hour and a half, but most of them could have been fixed by the simply having more time to develop plot points, instead of cramming them in. The movie would have always been over two hours long, so if Raimi and company were freed from having to cram in one more villain into that time, we could had better explanations for the black costume, a better use of Gwen Stacy (Bryce Dallas Howard), a more plausible interlude for Harry than convenient memory-loss, and a more naturalistic descent into darkness for Peter than a nightclub sequence.

Some people think this movie went astray by turning Peter Parker emo, but I disagree. The goal was to make us see how far Peter was sliding due to the influence of the alien symbiote costume. The problem is that modern audiences wouldn't see a more aggressive Spider-Man as a bad thing, having grown accustomed to cheering for darker heroes like Batman and Wolverine. Instead, they needed to turn Peter Parker into a douchebag, and what easier shorthand for that in the year 2007 is there than emo bangs? They didn't make him emo to make him cool, the did it to make us hate him, so mission accomplished! Hell, they should've gone further with it, then his downward spiral wouldn't have had to end in the clichéd accidental striking of Mary Jane. Instead, MJ could've just forced him to look down at his girl jeans during a douchebag intervention, which would've been enough to drive Peter to the bell tower in an attempt to tear the symbiote off.

Knowing that Raimi had little interest in the Venom character, it's easy to see the fourth act of Spider-Man 3 as a silent protest against the character's inclusion. Exposition fills in all the cracks to bring the action together (be it from newscasters, reporters, or Bernard the Butler), the action is lazily thrown together, highlighted by a bemused performance by Franco on his snowboard glider, and the final resolution not only destroys Venom as a potential foil, but also devalues the Spider-Man origin story. It's an unmitigated mess from a guy who delivered two superior films with much of the same cast, which leads me to believe that he simply didn't care, and possibly decided to just hand over the film's climax to the studio and their notes.

And I see that now. There is good in this movie, but much of it is undone by its flaws. As much as Sam Raimi deserves the benefit of the doubt for what he previously accomplished, he still deserves significant demerits for what he turned out with this effort. Sure he could have made a better movie if permitted to do things his way, but he still should have made a better movie than the one he produced.

2/5

Related Reviews:
Spider-Man (2002)
Spider-Man 2 (2004)
Spider-Man 3 (2007) [original review]
Comic Book Review: Spider-Man and the Black Cat: The Evil That Men Do (2002-05)

Movie Review: Wanted (2008)

Sun, 29 Jun 2008 20:44:57 GMT

Wanted (2008)

Starring: James McAvoy, Morgan Freeman, Angelina Jolie, Terence Stamp, Thomas Kretschmann, Common, David O'Hara, Chris Pratt

Directed by: Timur Bekmambetov

Here's the deal: a local paper (The Calgary Herald) had this ad months (possibly a year) ago asking readers if they'd like a chance to review movies for the paper. I emailed them about it, nothing happened, and I forgot about it. Then last week, I get a phone call asking me if I'd be interested in a free screening of Wanted in order to write a review for them, which was fairly exciting. I didn't have huge hopes that this review would be a big deal or anything, but it's kind of like when you buy a scratch ticket and briefly daydream about how this could be your chance to strike it big. It's just a second or two, but it's nice to indulge.

Then I picked up the package they left for me, and any enthusiasm I had for the project ended. They didn't really want me to write a review, but rather they had a list of statements they wanted me to complete about the movie, making it more of a survey than a review I'd want to write. Hell, I wouldn't even want to read a review with this structure, so I thought it all a bit lame. But, hey, free movie for me and Kim, for a movie I was mildly interested in, but unsure of. So this way I didn't have to spend my own money on it to satisfy my own curiosity.

Originally, I figured I'd do what the Herald asked of me, then write up a review more to my standards. But now that I've done the work, I don't have that much ambition to expend more effort into this movie. So I'll post here what I wrote for them (not all of which made it into the paper), then expound upon those thoughts a bit more at the end. If you're curious, you can see what the Herald published online (which is the same as what they published in the paper edition) here: http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/fridaymovies/story.html?id=42da24e4-730c-47e9-abd2-b9e706e8f83f&k=81739

Favourite Scene:
When Morgan Freeman, dignified narrator of March of the Penguins, uttered the world's most perfect curse word.

Best Line:
The aforementioned Morgan Freeman quote, which propriety will not allow me to repeat here.

I Couldn't Believe:
Professional artists – be they director Timur Bekmambetov, actors, or writers – were actually involved in the creation of this project. But, hey, as HL Mencken once said, "No one ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public", so watch them all make a big pile of money over this horrendous film.

I Thought About Heading for the Exit When:
The film confirmed my early suspicions about its level of intelligence about five minutes in, when James McAvoy's caricature of boss starts to berate him with a stapler. Then and there, I knew this movie would be as bad as I feared. Little did I know it would get worse.

I Laughed Hardest When:
James McAvoy tried to act like a tough guy. McAvoy has proven himself to be a good actor in the past, but was poorly cast here, and not helped at all by the complete ridiculousness that surrounded him.

The Real Star of This Show Is:
Stunt Coordinator Nick Gillard, whose work is the only reason why anyone will be excited about this movie, as the stunts are the only thing it has going for it. Well, maybe he and whoever did Angelina Jolie's wardrobe and makeup.

I Liked This Better When:
It was called The Matrix. Think about it: office drone's life is thrown for a loop when a mysterious woman and mystical black man recruit him, telling him the world he knows is a lie and train him to fight as a messianic saviour figure. Whoa, indeed.

This Movie Needed Less:
Of just about everything. There are many, many problems with this terrible, terrible movie, but the biggest among them is how ridiculously over-the-top the whole thing is. Because everything is bigger than life, there's nothing to attach to as a viewer. Nothing has consequences, and thus nothing is truly exciting. An action movie like this needn't strive for realism, but it needs to establish some degree of boundaries so that pushing those boundaries seems impressive. By trying to make everything in the movie impressive, they succeeded in making nothing impressive.

The Worst Element of the Movie Was:
James McAvoy's first person narration. Narration has become a crutch for many movies and television shows these days, and rarely is it done effectively. In this movie, it only serves to emphasize the film's terrible scripting and McAvoy's expressionless attempt at an American accent.

If you like mindless action, then this will probably be your thing, as you can't possibly get more action into a movie, and I hope that movies can't get any more mindless. Unfortunately, the movie tries to play it both ways, setting everything up as ridiculously over-the-top, yet plays it as serious action fare. As farce, this may have had some redeeming qualities; but as is, it is completely devoid of any. If you require even a sliver of intelligence from your blockbuster entertainment, stay far, far away from Wanted.

I have more to say about the movie and how its fetish for gun violence is both symbolic of our morally-bankrupt culture and dreadfully boring in its repetitiveness, but I'm just going to leave it at this. Basically, most of the feelings I have for this movie are the same ones I had when I wrote my Transformers review, so to avoid repeating myself, I'll just direct you to it and invite you to replace the Transformers-specific info with stuff about curving bullets and Looms of Fate. And for those of you not interested in reading that review, I'll just pull out this one quote that feels painfully appropriate: "when the public continues to lower its expectations, then you can bet those who make movies will be listening, and will continue to lower the bar to meet those expectations".

And while I'm at it, I'll go ahead and give Wanted the same score I gave Transformers:

0/5

Related Reviews:
Lucky Number Slevin (2006)
Mr. & Mrs. Smith (2005)
Transformers (2007)

Movie Review: The Incredible Hulk (2008)

Mon, 23 Jun 2008 04:04:31 GMT

The Incredible Hulk (2008)

Starring: Edward Norton, Liv Tyler, Tim Roth, Tim Blake Nelson, Ty Burrell, William Hurt

Directed by: Louis Leterrier

Not a sequel, and not quite a remake, The Incredible Hulk serves as a reboot of the franchise after 2003's Hulk film by director Ang Lee was seen as a disappointment. Marvel Studio's took back the property from Universal Studios (who distributed this film but didn't finance it), hoping to pair it with Iron Man as cornerstones in their burgeoning studio. To do so, they needed to re-establish the property as different from the one presented five years ago, replacing the Oedipal issues of Ang Lee's vision with a more action-packed adventure that fans expected from ol' Green Genes.

I'm actually in the minority who believes Ang Lee's Hulk is a good movie, which surprisingly took a movie about a mindless behemoth and made it thought-provoking and unique. So I wasn't looking for a replacement for that film or an improvement, although I can understand why one exists from a business standpoint. After seeing The Incredible Hulk, I'm willing to concede that while 2003's Hulk is more ambitious, more interesting, and a better movie, 2008's The Incredible Hulk is the better Hulk movie.

This is the movie that fans were looking for five years ago, eschewing all the psychoanalytical mumbo-jumbo for some straight up Hulk smashing. The movie is so conscious to avoid associations with Lee's film that scenes with Dr. Samson (Ty Burrell) having brief conversations about psychology with Bruce Banner (Edward Norton) that appeared in advertising didn't make the final cut (which had the effect of keeping me from realising that the film had introduced the character of Doc Savage for possible sequels until I got home and read the character's name again). Director Louis Leterrier (who previously directed Transporter 2) keeps his hands on the throttle throughout the film, getting the origin story portion that usually burdens all superhero movies out of the way while the opening credits roll, then plunging us into the ongoing struggles of Bruce Banner trying to live with being The Hulk while on the run in Brazil.

The scenes in Brazil are quite effective, giving the film a unique setting that I can't recall ever seeing on film before. The flimsy shacks built on a hill added to the dramatic tension of the early, Hulk-less scenes, as you fear that when the monster is eventually unleashed, this whole community could be easily torn down. This brings us into Banner's struggle to keep the Hulk at bay, even if most fans are impatiently waiting for the film's real star to appear.

Unlike 2003's Hulk, the audience doesn't have to wait long. And once we're treated to the first scene of Hulk action, Leterrier never makes us wait that long for the next helping. Thankfully, the film is cast with enough talent and given enough heft that its roller coaster thrills aren't undercut by being surrounded by stupidity. The Incredible Hulk may not be terribly profound, but you needn't check your brain at the door to enjoy it either. While the Hulkless scenes aren't near as compelling as those when the monster is attacked by soldiers led by General Thaddeus "Thunderbolt" Ross (William Hurt) and Emil Blonsky (Tim Roth), or goes toe-to-toe with The Abomination, they function well enough to let us grow attached to Banner and his relationship with Betty Ross (Liv Tyler).

More time could have been spent developing these characters (depending on what rumours you believe, Norton has distanced himself from the film due to a dispute over the final cut), but I think it was the right decision to keep this movie moving, which serves the dual purpose of never making the audience wait too long for the next action scene and keeps the pacing of a chase movie (which is one of the film's many nods to the Hulk TV series). Banner is a man on the run, not just from the army but also from the monster within, and the pacing helps reinforce this idea even if the film doesn't have a whole lot of time to dedicate to it.

As far as effects go, they get the job done. The CGI Hulk is convincing enough, and about as good as we're going to get at this point (possibly the best we'll ever get, what with the uncanny valley and all). The problem is that he doesn't look anything like Norton, unlike 2003's CGI Hulk, which bore a pretty good resemblance to Eric Bana. However, the biggest success of the CGI Hulk comes with his battle with the CGI Abomination. A lot of films that climax with CGI creature battles end up feeling removed, but in The Incredible Hulk, the action feels more immediate and visceral. It feels like real pain and fury is being inflicted on both characters, leaving me flinching at times from the impact on screen.

So there you have it, a Hulk movie that delivers everything one would expect from a Hulk movie. The only real complaint I have is that it ONLY delivers that which you'd expect from a Hulk movie, and nothing more. Louis Leterrier and Marvel Studios have delivered a film to meet expectations, but don't do much to exceed them, resulting in a summer blockbuster that hits the right notes while exhibiting no ambition to strike a new chord.

3.5/5

Related:
Hulk (2003)
Iron Man (2008)
Ultimate Avengers (2006)

The Spirit posters

Sat, 21 Jun 2008 20:21:02 GMT

This is pretty cool. Head on over to Yahoo here (http://movies.yahoo.com/feature/thespirit_flash.html) to see teaser posters for Frank Miller's new movie The Spirit. Make sure your speakers are on, then hover over the poster with your mouse to hear them speak.

Yep, talking posters. The future is here. (Also, kind of hard to believe that it's taken this long for this to happen on the internet).

Movie Reviews: Austin Powers Re-posted Reviews

Sat, 21 Jun 2008 04:44:29 GMT

Austin Powers: International Man of Mystery (1997)

Starring: Mike Myers, Elizabeth Hurley, Mimi Rogers, Robert Wagner, Michael York, Mindy Sterling, Seth Green, Will Ferrell

Directed By: Jay Roach

I'm not sure how, but somehow I managed to miss the Austin Powers craze of the late 90's. I never went to see the flick, and then when it became a pop culture phenomenon, I didn't really feel like seeing it. Hell, since it was around everywhere and everyone thought they had an Austin Powers impersonation, I felt like I'd already seen it by extension. A few years ago, I managed to catch it on a bus trip, but I must've fallen asleep or was too busy talking because a lot of the movie felt unfamiliar. So this is a review from someone watching it in full for the first time a few days ago.

Which is a bit unfair to the film, since it was such a huge part of pop culture when it came out, there's no way to view it unbiasedly now. To use the horribly tired phrase, this movie is so 1997. Like the title hero (and his nemesis), it's practically frozen in time itself, and watching it brings you back to the horrible time when everyone was saying "shagadelic, baby", or "do I make you horny, baby". *shudder*

So, jokes that may have made me laugh were I to have seen it when it first came out make me roll my eyes now. I've seen so many clips of this flick that the jokes are already old. But, the thing is, I'm not sure if they would've been that great anyway. Mike Myers' style is to push a joke two or three (or four or five) beats past it being funny, in the hope that the pushing of the joke itself will be funny. It's a knowing wink to the audience that has made him a very successful man, but got old with me around the time of Wayne's World.

In fact, pretty much all of Austin Powers' schtick got old for me very quickly. Like many films from Saturday Night Live, clever comedic premises (like the James Bond of the swinging-sixties parody) that would or have worked great in five minute segments fail to connect for a feature length film. The jokes are pretty obvious and juvenile, piss and fart jokes that I've never really enjoyed (well, not since making fart noises with my hands stopped being the height of comedic genius). The parody of the film is clever, but the jokes fall flat.

Well, I should say that most of the jokes fall flat. While Austin Powers himself does little for me, I do find Myers' other character in the film, Dr. Evil, to be quite funny most of the time. Dr. Evil saved the movie for me, I loved his out-dated plans for world conquest, I loved his interactions with his son Scott (Seth Green), and loved the scene where he and Scott go to group therapy. That all made me laugh, even though I knew of most of the scenes.

But, he wasn't funny enough for me to give the flick a passing grade. Again, who knows, if I had caught the movie back when it meant something, I may have thought more of it. But, that speaks to the staying power of the film, which is to say that there isn't much. Now I have to decide if I wanna watch the sequel that I also borrowed.

2/5

Austin Powers: The Spy Who Shagged Me (1999)

Starring: Mike Myers, Heather Graham, Michael York, Robert Wagner, Rob Lowe, Seth Green

Directed By: Jay Roach

Having just seen the original film in full recently, and finding myself unimpressed, I didn't have high hopes going into watching the sequel. In fact, if I had not borrowed the two films simultaneously, I wouldn't have even bothered to watch the sequel. The thing is, I only watched the first one (which I had already half-seen before) so I could get to the second one, because Heather Graham is hot.

I should have quit while I was ahead. Actually, since I gave International Man of Mystery a failing grade, I was already behind, and was farther ahead when I had lived a mostly Austin Powers-free life before watching either film. The second film in the franchise adds the characters of Mini-Me (Verne Troyer) and Fat Bastard (Mike Myers, giving him a triple role for the film, along with playing Powers and Dr. Evil), and absolutely nothing else. Everything else in the film is a complete re-hash of the first film, with the same jokes with the same set-ups and the same punchlines. Dr. Evil still has problems understanding what era he is in, this time he's in his own past thinking things are like the future he was last in (or present... whatever). Scott Evil (Seth Green) still hates his dad and points out the flaws in the film's set ups. Austin seduces obvious agents of Dr. Evil with his stupid come-ons. Heather Graham is a hot agent that teams with Austin, just as Elizabeth Hurley did in the first. The additions of Mini-Me and Fat Bastard don't really add anything to the film, as each are obvious, one-joke punchlines pushed about ten jokes too far.

Basically, the entire exercise is retarded, and not in a good way. How retarded is it? So retarded, that it can only be described as thus: I don't know if I've ever seen such a phoned-in effort of re-hashed jokes & tired excuses for comedy. The # of unfunny piss & fart jokes in this flick is beyond annoying. I couldn't even laugh @ Dr. Evil anymore, as his shushing of Scott & gratuitous music video scene w/ Mini-Me each went about 5 minutes past being funny. The % of the funny parts compared 2 useless parts of this movie is somewhere around 5, maybe, & that's being generous. The jokes are about as cheap as the movie looks, which makes it surprising that the film had a 33 million $ budget. Where did they spend all those $? After you - the money spent on the fat suit & the useless Madonna song on the soundtrack, what else in this crappy flick cost money? The big *s? I don't think so, since Mike Myers is the biggest * in the movie. Heather Graham couldn't have cost much. On the + side, she does look great. On the - side, she still can't act. The saddest part? This unfunny copy of a fairly unfunny movie had made over 205 million $. To which, I can only ask: movie-going public, where is your head @?

Basically, the whole thing is an absolute train wreck of a movie that only reminded me of how stupid the original film was in the first place. And, no, I will not be watching Goldmember.

0.5/5

Related Reviews:
Casino Royale (2006)
Shrek (2001)
Shrek the Third (2007)

Hey, no fair!

Wed, 18 Jun 2008 21:00:35 GMT

The internets stole my idea! I wrote my re-review of Fantastic Four over the weekend, posting it to Blogcritics magazine on Monday: http://blogcritics.org/archives/2008/06/16/162336.php

Then today (when I posted it here an hour ago), I click on an article on Cracked, 6 Great Action Heroes (Who Should Be Convicted of Murder), and what comes up? The muthafuckin Fantastic Four and all the ways in that movie that they put human lives at jeopardy through their gross incompetence.

Cracked: "Literally every single problem in this entire movie can be traced directly to the Fantastic Four's general incompetence. Don't believe us? Just take the scene when the Thing, in a bold act of heroism, saves a man from being hit by a car by causing a massive car accident that almost certainly killed the driver, and killed him in a way that his widow will never be able to adequately explain."

Me: "All the crashes, mayhem, and millions of dollars in property damages happens because The Thing decides to hang out on the Brooklyn Bridge, and scares a guy into traffic. Vehicles start crashing, bridge supports start snapping, and firefighters are put into mortal danger due to the panic created by the hero, meaning that the Fantastic Four's big heroic introduction is basically them cleaning up their own mess."

Now, I'm not claiming any shenanigans on their part. For all I know, this piece was written a week ago too, and I'm pretty confident that the author never, ever saw my post. Just a really weird coincidence that I wanted to point out, mostly so none of you think I ripped the idea off of them.

DVD Review: Fantastic Four Extended Edition (2005)

Wed, 18 Jun 2008 19:22:35 GMT

Fantastic Four (Extended Edition) (2005)

Starring: Ioan Gruffudd, Jessica Alba, Chris Evans, Michael Chiklis, Julian McMahon, Kerry Washington

Directed by: Tim Story

I reviewed the theatrical release of this film three years ago, giving it a surprisingly positive review. Since its release, its been derided as one of the string of bad superhero comic book adaptations that began with its release, and continued until this year's release of Iron Man broke the trend. What drove me to give this movie 3.5 stars all those years ago, I can't really say, but it does provide a good example of how you can never remove the externals involved in the moviegoing experience from one's perception of the movie itself. Cause I'm guessing a lot of it had to do with me being in a good mood when I saw it, or some other reason besides the film Tim Story and company presented.

When writing that review, I did state that there was a possibility that subsequent viewings could reveal that the movie wasn't that good; in fact, the praise I gave it was muted at best. So it turns out that my review wasn't completely wrong, since it took exactly one more viewing for me to see the truth that most everyone saw with their initial viewing: this is a bad movie.

To be fair, my second viewing wasn't of the theatrical release, so it's not a exact comparison. The Extended Edition adds 20 more minutes of footage to the film, pushing it to a 125 minute affair. While I don't remember the theatrical cut enough to identify all the new scenes (and while it exists on the DVD, I have no desire to revisit it), I don't think making this movie longer does it any favours. I suspect it's like many DVDs that add in footage to coax more money out of consumers, in that it doesn't really add or subtract much from the movie, but the mere fact that it takes up more time to watch gave me more time to realise how bad everything is (whereas the leaner edition might've blown by fast enough that its suckiness had less time to stick).

The biggest difference between the two versions is the added attention given to the relationship between Ben Grimm (Michael Chiklis) and Alicia Masters (Kerry Washington). But, given that those scenes are as poorly written as the rest of the movie, they were probably wise to leave them out of the theatrical cut even if they flesh out a key element of FF lore. The problem is that the movie is too lightweight and ridiculous to be taken seriously on any level. I get that Story and company were trying for a lighter, more family-friendly movie in comparison to the darker superhero movies that were coming out at the time. It's a fine choice, as the Fantastic Four is a family story. But family friendly need not mean inconsequential.

The best example I can give of the sloppy writing in the film is the simple fact in the course of two hours, the team never exhibits any true acts of heroism. After the requisite origin story and in between soap opera bickering amongst the characters and silly diversions in the everyday uses of their powers, there are two big setpieces that feature the characters working as a team of superheroes. The first is the big scene at the Brooklyn bridge, which basically boils down to Marvel's premier superhero team against... traffic (they graduate from this major threat in the sequel to take on a ferris wheel). Okay, it was their first time trotting out their powers, so one could forgive the fact that they're just fighting a mundane obstacle... if it wasn't for the fact that the whole thing is basically their fault.

All the crashes, mayhem, and millions of dollars in property damages happens because The Thing decides to hang out on the Brooklyn Bridge, and scares a guy into traffic. Vehicles start crashing, bridge supports start snapping, and firefighters are put into mortal danger due to the panic created by the hero, meaning that the Fantastic Four's big heroic introduction is basically them cleaning up their own mess.

The final battle, which eventually spills out into the streets of New York, isn't the result of the FF's heroic decision to save the innocent, but rather is simply the passive result of them being attacked by their nemesis Dr Doom (Julian McMahon), who wouldn't even exist were it not for Reed Richard's (Ioan Gruffudd) miscalculation that created the Fantastic Four. Doom wasn't attacking the city, or expanding his power, or even robbing a bank. He was going after our "heroes" in a personal vendetta that put innocent lives at stake. Worse, the FF weren't fighting the bad guy to prevail over evil, they were fighting to save their own skin. Basically, the movie gives them two moments to be heroes, none of which would have even been necessary if these heroes never existed. That's some crappy storytelling, and shows how little thought was given on how to move these characters from setpiece to setpiece.

But the film does manage to do a few things well, making it a bad movie, but not necessarily a terrible one. While it devotes too much time to the bickering between the Four, the relationships between them echo the series pretty well, particularly between Ben Grimm and Johnny Storm (Chris Evans). In fact, Chiklis and Evans are easily the two best elements of the film, with Chiklis injecting some pathos as the monstrous Thing and Evans providing genuine fun as the hotheaded Human Torch. I also like the charisma of Julian McMahon as the antagonist of the film, even though it wasn't a very good interpretation of Dr Doom (which is more the fault of the writers than it is McMahon's). Finally, while the climactic battle was demonstrably flawed, it was still fun to see the team combine their powers in creative ways.

I'm guessing those factors were enough to combine with a nice summer matinée viewing with my wife three years ago to trick me into thinking Fantastic Four was a decent movie, but not enough to trick me into thinking the same with a late night solitary DVD viewing three years later. So consider this review my retraction, and yet another example of how reviews can only ever hope to capture a specific moment in time, and as with all opinions, are subject to change.

2/5

Bonus DVD Review: Interestingly, while the film itself is a stunning mediocrity that probably insults fans of the comic more than it excites them, the Extended Edition DVD is still a worthy edition to the shelves of big Fantastic Four fans. As long as they don't watch the first disc with both cuts of the film (theatrical and extended).

Instead, the value for fans comes from the special features disc. Again, you probably want to skip the featurettes on the movie, including a long and detailed feature titled Heroes are Born: The Making of Fantastic Four, since it's a long and detailed look at a bad movie. However, there are two, one-hour long documentaries on the comics themselves that are well put together, and just the sort of thing fans of the comics should love. The first is titled The World's Greatest Comic Magazine, which provides an overview of the title from its inception in 1961 through to the then-current incarnations of The Fantastic Four, Ultimate Fantastic Four and Marvel Knights 4. The doc features interviews from FF luminaries such as Stan Lee, John Romita, George Pérez, Walt Simonson, and Joe Sinnott. The second documentary is titled Jack Kirby: Storyteller, which is a loving homage to the man most responsible for the success of the Fantastic Four. These docs are perfect for fans, meaning that even if you hate the movie for what it did to your favourite family of superheroes, the DVD is oddly a great way to celebrate them.

Related:
Daredevil (2003)
Fantastic Four (2005) [original review]
Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer (2007)

Music DVD Review: The Smiths - The Queen Is Dead - A Classic Album Under Review (2008)

Mon, 16 Jun 2008 17:49:52 GMT

The Smiths - The Queen Is Dead - A Classic Album Under Review (2008)

Starring: Stephen Street, Craig Gannon, Johnny Rogan, Len Browne, Steven Logan, Brett Anderson, Gavin Hopps, Douglas Noble, Grant Showbiz, Tony Wilson, Morrissey [archival footage], Johnny Marr [archival footage], Thomas Arnold [narrator]

Newly released by Chrome Dreams, a small entertainment company specializing in unauthorized biographies on musical artists, be it in DVD, book, or CD form, The Smiths - The Queen Is Dead - A Classic Album Under Review is a documentary look at indie rock pioneer's classic 1986 album. The Smiths are easily one of my favourite bands, and The Queen is Dead is my favourite album by them. I'm also the kind of guy who reads music biographies, buys both CDs and vinyl, and, you know, writes reviews on the internet as a hobby. So you'd figure that this would be right up my alley.

That's what I thought when the opportunity to check it out presented itself. Sadly, there are different levels to fandom, even at the upper reaches. I'm a big fan of The Smiths, criticism, and documentaries, and even I don't fall into the target audience for a project such as this. Instead, this is for obsessives only. Obsessives are the type of fans who learn the language of their favourite fictional alien race, memorize the most obscure stats of their favourite teams, or spend all their time looking for deleted Smiths singles and original, not rereleased - underlined - Frank Zappa albums.

The natural inclination is to belittle such obsessives, as some of them do make it pretty easy. But the truth is, the only thing that separates me from them is my wider range of interests. I don't have the patience to watch a dry, 115 minute documentary about The Queen is Dead whose closest interview subject to the album is the producer of the album (Stephen Street) mostly because I spread my obsessiveness to a number of different amusements, instead of specializing in one field. But obsessives seem to be who Chrome Dreams cater to, without much to offer a mere fan such as myself. Seriously, look again at my introductory paragraph at the part where I say that they make unauthorized biographical CDs on artists. Yes, CDs. So if you're the kind of person who doesn't think that a wee bit ridiculous, then this DVD might be your thing.

For the rest of us, it's simply too dry, too long, and too inessential to bother with. As I just mentioned, the closest subject matter expert they could get was producer Stephen Street, who does succeed in revealing some interesting tidbits on what went into the making of the album, but more from a technical standpoint. He's the kind of interviewee that would best supplement this sort of thing, instead of being the main attraction (to the degree that an additional special feature is dedicated to portions of his interview that didn't make the nearly two-hour documentary). After that, the next big get is Craig Gannon, the guitarist the band brought in during the two week period when bassist Andy Rourke was fired (to prove my mere fan status, I was completely unaware of this chapter of the band's history).

So there aren't a lot of insights to be had here in terms of artistic process, other than a few archival interviews of Morrissey and Johnny Marr, or some secondhand accounts from Street and Gannon. Which isn't to say that a solid doc couldn't be made without the input of the notoriously prickly Moz, but it would require more engaging interview subjects than does this one, and most importantly, it needs more visual flair.

The sort of dry, informational approach that can work in a medium like books, where a reader generally approaches in multiple sittings, doesn't work in the visual medium of film, which is usually consumed in one sitting. The Smiths - The Queen Is Dead - A Classic Album Under Review is as visually repetitive a documentary you'll see outside of a classroom, strictly relying on static talking heads and archival footage from concerts and music videos. It's telling that no director is credited with putting the film together, as there is no visual style to it at all. It is merely the workmanlike effort of an editor and whoever conducted the interviews, and it shows.

That said, it may have been enough, were the documentary not so interminably long. Two hours is probably too much time given the subject matter, but it is definitely too much given the paucity of insider knowledge and visual distinctiveness. Chop this thing down to an hour, and put it out as a TV series on classic albums, and I'd probably still tune in every week even with the above problems. But as it is, I can't recommend it to anyone who isn't obsessed with the subject matter, and even then, there might not be enough info here that an obsessive doesn't already know.

2/5

Related:
Drive Well, Sleep Carefully - On the Road with Death Cab for Cutie (2005)
Morrissey - The Ringleader of the Tormentors (2006)
Top 5 Songs by The Smiths

Movie Review: Hulk (2003) [re-posted review]

Sat, 14 Jun 2008 01:49:39 GMT

Hulk (2003)

Starring: Eric Bana, Jennifer Connelly, Sam Elliott, Josh Lucas, Nick Nolte

Directed By: Ang Lee

I think this movie has gotten an unfair rap. I actually don't know why so many people think it's no good. I find it surprisingly good, better than I expected it to be. I've barely read any Hulk comic books, so I wasn't all that excited about the character. Since I'm not that versed in Hulk-lore, I can't really say how accurate the movie is to the spirit of the book, so if it is an insult to Hulk comic fans, then I can respect that as a reason for not liking it. I do know that they tweaked the origin, but that was a necessity-- the original origin was okay for back in the day, but still really stupid. Others complained that they messed with the Absorbing Man's origin, or Zzax's origin, but they didn't. The big bad is neither villain. Rather, his abilities are an homage to those classic Hulk villains, and he's a unique villain made for the movie.

The other oft-cited complaint for the movie is that the CGI is bad. Maybe I'm just really unobservant, but I thought it was really good. Especially in the desert scenes. I think the main reason why people don't like it is that they didn't appreciate what Ang Lee was trying to do. Hulk is a more cerebral super hero movie, one that takes its time early in the movie to earn the excitement later on. I think a lot of people wanted a mindless "Hulk smash" popcorn movie, and were turned off by the fact that the Hulk doesn't show up in full until 42 minutes in. It was promoted as a big time summer flick, and had a lot of merchandising tie-ins that didn't fit at all with the tone of the movie, so people can be excused for incorrect assumptions. If you weren't actually interested in the movie, and just wanted some fun, then I don't doubt that the movie would be pretty boring for you.

I was going to see the movie anyway, since the previous Marvel offerings all provided me with entertainment (and all did until The Punisher, which led me to skip Elektra altogether), but the tone of the film with its psychological focus actually drew me in. It managed to make the Hulk interesting to me. Plus, I thought the split screen camera effects are really interesting and added some fun to what would otherwise boring establishing shots. Also, Jennifer Connelly is way hot in it.

Not that the film is without its flaws. Some of the dialogue, especially early on when getting through the origin, is pretty ham-handed. Although, since it was the origin, and they mixed in the split screens, the cheesy dialogue felt like it was out of a golden age comic, so it was somewhat forgivable. The biggest problem I have with the movie is the climactic battle. It's too dark (literally, the lighting not the mood) to properly follow what the hell is going on. In fact, I'm still not entirely sure that I understand what happened.

But, I still think it is one of the better comics to film adaptations, which succeeded in making a character interesting to me that previously never was. This is a case of a filmmaker failing to give his audience what they wanted, but not a case of a filmmaker failing to deliver a strong movie. In fact, I think Lee's mistake was giving them a better, more interesting film than what they deserved.

4/5