Go. Team. Venture.

The BALLAD OF G.I. JOE, sadly not coming to a theater near you.

This. Is. Awesome.

The Ballad of G.I. Joe from Olivia Wilde

Thanks to Ian for sharing, and yes, I know the video is too big for the walls of my blog. I am feeling too lazy to resize anything this afternoon.

Whom mortals call the moon.

Harlan Ellison will be angry as hell if/when he learns that so many critics have used the term "sci-fi" in lieu of "hard science fiction" to describe Duncan Jones' Moon. This film is far more intelligent than the usual drivel shoveled down the throats of moviegoers each summer, relying on a thought-provoking scenario and interesting characters rather than overblown special effects to make the sell (this is not to imply that Moon looks cheap; quite the contrary, as it looks incredible considering its minuscule five million dollar budget).

Sam Rockwell gives a commanding performance as Sam Bell, carrying the film almost entirely by himself as he nears the end of a three-year assignment harvesting energy on the dark side of Earth's moon. His only companion is the robotic Gerty (voiced by Kevin Spacey), programmed to monitor Sam and help cope with his isolation. The HAL comparisons are inevitable and most likely intentional, as viewers are forced to ask time and again whether or not Gerty can be trusted to act in Sam's best interests.

Duncan Jones' directorial debut is impressive, building interest in his future ventures as he begins what will hopefully be a fruitful career as an intelligent filmmaker. Composer Clint Mansell provides the newest in a long string of hauntingly wonderful scores (having scored all of Darren Aronofsky's films), capturing the isolation and psychological trauma Sam experiences as events unfold. This film is not candy but rather the main course of an exquisite meal, and well worth the time of viewers who like to think about what they are experiencing. This is why Moon merits a strong 4.5 out of 5.

Sam Raimi threatens to DRAG ME TO HELL!

Thank you for being so awesome Mr. Raimi, because Drag Me To Hell is the most fun I have had watching a horror film in a long, long time. Never change, man. Never change.

Short synopsis: Christine Brown is trying to move into management at the bank where she works as a loan officer. Faced with stiff competition, she feels forced to betray her nature and prove herself capable of making hard decisions by turning down an old and sick gypsy woman's plea for help with her overdue mortgage. The moral of this story? Do not piss off old gypsies, or else your soul will become forfeit in three days.

If you are a Raimi fan from back in the Evil Dead days like me, you will love this film. No one working in cinema today has the same ability to marry horror and comedy quite like him, and this movie is a welcome return to the genre. Don't get me wrong, I love Raimi's take on Spider-Man (well, the first two anyway), but it has been way too long and he is way too damned good to have stayed away from horror as long as he has. Hail to the king, baby.

Drag Me To Hell lets viewers know right out of the gate that it will not be taking any prisoners, and although it has the wonderfully campy feel of the horror films of my youth, it is actually smarter than some critics are giving it credit for. Sure, the movie may be a good old-fashioned Eighties-style romp, but the characters do have arcs and difficult decisions must be made. That being said, all of Raimi's stylistic trademarks are used to full effect, not only bringing a smile to my face but also managing to be surprisingly disturbing at times. I would expect no less from the master.

Alison Lohman does a good job portraying Christine, making you understand and empathize with (to a point) the insecurities that landed her in this situation. Justin "Hi, I'm a Mac" Long plays her disturbing awesome boyfriend, and will make anyone pray that their significant other would be as supportive under such duress (supernatural or otherwise). Lorna Raver is downright chilling at times as the old gypsy Sylvia Ganush, obviously getting to have a lot more fun than pretty much everyone else in the movie, and the rest of the supporting cast is tight as well, facilitating events nicely.

Is Drag Me To Hell Sam Raimi's best horror film? Of course not. Personally, I love The Gift (maybe his most underrated film), and only time will tell if this film can approach the Evil Dead Trilogy in cult status. It is however a significant and entertaining return to the genre where Raimi made his name, and serves as a delightful reminder as to why I harbored such a passion for horror films in my youth. Considering the amount of applause the film received during the credits, I am giving Drag Me To Hell a solid 4.75 out of 5.

"I dare you to do better." Phil's STAR TREK review!

I feel that I should start by admitting that I am not a "Trekker" or "Trekkie" or whatever the die-hard fans of Star Trek are called nowadays. I was always more of a Star Wars kid. I have always been an admirer though, and after learning how much that I know about Star Trek after only a few minutes of conversation many would disagree with my fandom self-assessment. I will say that I became seriously burned out on all things Star Trek about a decade ago, cringing at the mere mention of yet another lackluster film or series.

Point being: I am fan enough to know the score but not enough to take it as personal as say, the mishandling of a galaxy far, far away.

Enter J.J. Abrams and the great re-imagining. My first response upon learning about the planned reboot was a resounding "meh". This indifference remained until I saw the third trailer, when Captain Pike says the following to a young and aimless James Tiberius Kirk: Your father was the captain of a starship for twelve minutes. He saved eight hundred lives. Including yours. I dare you to do better. Enlist in Starfleet.

That was all it took to heighten my interest, giving me the feeling that there was more to this reinvention of the treasured mythos than I had first surmised.

So finally we get to the film itself, which I have now seen twice, once on Thursday night, and again on Saturday afternoon. Knowing the film to be a reworking of the Star Trek universe from nearly the ground up and my general distaste for reinventions, how did the new film do? Did the USS Enterprise simply cruise by on impulse power, or rather take off at full warp speed?

To put it mildly, the new Star Trek knocked me on my ass! I did not expect to walk out of the theater so enamored with this film, and it only got better upon a second viewing. Be warned though: if you have a problem with the thought of a sleek new Star Trek this may not be for you. The entire universe has undergone serious renovations, from the pretty new cast to the high-action space battles. This is NOT your mother's Star Trek, and Abrams even accentuates this point with the symbolic destruction of a classic Corvette early in the film.

I normally would not do a synopsis of something so well known and beloved, but I feel this needs to be addressed before I go on. I have read several reviews complaining about the time paradox within the film, and I feel it is necessary to point out that the events in this film take place in a divergent time line. In short: the Star Trek universe we all know and love and grew up watching is not affected by the events of this film at all; it still exists, untouched, completely independent of the time line of the new film (this is all but bluntly stated at one point in the new film, by the way). This story takes place in what amounts to a new and different universe, meaning none of the sacred cows are so sacred here, giving Abrams and company carte blanche to do pretty much whatever they want with these characters.

That being said, here is your short synopsis: you know the worlds, you know the history, and you know the people. Their lives and destinies are changed by a temporal event, and these familiar yet different characters are drawn together to once again go where no one has gone before for the first time. 'Nuff said.

I feel that I have already said too much about the story, which I usually try and avoid. I love a good alternate reality yarn if done well, and the writers did a phenomenal job. The story felt like destiny sensed that something was amiss in the universe and then commenced to attempt repairs, creating a tension that Star Trek frankly has not enjoyed for a long time. There is a lot at stake in this film, and although the characters we know and cherish are all present, we are not quite sure what is going to happen to them.

The new film is very modern and exciting, which I found to be surprisingly refreshing. Although I appreciate Star Trek creator Gene Roddenberry's dream as much as anyone, the dream had lost a great deal of its sheen over the previous decade and was ready for an overhaul. The prior two films are abysmal, and the last series suffered from low ratings before cancellation. The Star Trek universe desperately needed new blood and a shot in the arm, which Abrams and company were not only willing to give but also delivered wonderfully.

One thing I always liked about the starships in Star Trek is that they felt, well, like ships. They still do, and the marriage of naval warfare and Star Wars caliber space battles was thrilling to watch on the silver screen. Again, it constantly felt like a great deal was at stake, from the first scene to the last. I could go on and on about the look of the new film, but it boils down to you will either buy in and like it or you won't. I loved it personally, and could not take my eyes from the screen.

What is more important however, is the casting. The crew of the USS Enterprise are modern icons, and even I have to admit to being concerned about who could fill such gargantuan shoes. Stepping into the roles of the holy trinity of Kirk, Spock, and Dr. McCoy would be troubling enough, but even the supporting roles of Uhura, Sulu, Scotty, and Chekov are extremely important, as what always makes Star Trek so engaging is that it takes this exact combination of personalities to make the Enterprise fly so smoothly.

Christopher Pine was a much better Kirk than I expected, exhibiting the intelligence, charm, and self-assuredness that made Kirk so famous. Zachary Quinto was the logical choice to portray the younger Mr. Spock, still warring internally with his half-Vulcan, half-human heritage. Both actors channeled just enough of their predecessors to be familiar, yet were brave enough to make the roles their own. Next up is Karl Urban's fantastic portrayal of Dr. Leonard "Bones" McCoy, who acts as the balance between Spock's logic and Kirk's impulsive nature, completing the triumvirate. Urban probably comes the closest to channeling his predecessor, but in this case it is wholeheartedly welcome.

The rest of the main crew is quite good as well. Zoe Saldaña plays Uhura as both strong and assertive, Anton Yelchin is entertaining as the young but brilliant Chekov, and John Cho did a fine job as the ever-versatile Sulu. Simon Pegg all but steals the show as Mr. Scott, nailing all that was lovable about the character and literally bubbling with energy. A nod also must go to Bruce Greenwood's performance as Captain Pike, who saw something in the impetuous young Kirk and challenged him to be more than the sum of his circumstances.

There is one last bit of casting that intrigued me, and as it involves a spoiler I will hide it to prevent ruining anything. Just in case you are new to the mighty interweb, use your mouse to highlight the hidden area: I felt trepidatious about Leonard Nimoy’s reprisal of his role as the elder Spock, and was pleased to see how important he was to the new storyline and his potential role in the divergent time line. I also find it fascinating that the younger Spock can go to the elder Spock for guidance if he so chooses. Ready? Moving on then.

Finally, the villain, Captain Nero (played by Eric Bana). I can see this being a point of controversy between film goers, as Nero is not as grand an antagonist as Khan (arguably the greatest of all Star Trek villains) but rather simmers like a space age Captain Ahab with his single-minded intensity. Nero is not a great villain, nor is he meant to be; he is a simple miner, thrown into a terrible situation, and in his pain decides to make those he holds responsible suffer with him. This may not be epic in scale, but it is genuine, making me empathize with Nero greatly.

I am fighting the urge to talk about some of the more emotional and intense scenes, so I had better wrap this up (feel free to ask me about them after you've seen the film, and I promise to talk your ear off). This film turned out to be an extremely pleasant surprise for me, reawakening my love of the material and oddly taking a little of the sting out of not only its crappy past few predecessors but also some of my disillusionment with the prequels of another certain space saga (although technically this film is not a prequel; divergent time line, y'know). You owe it to yourself to see this one in the theater; it's a helluva ride. I am giving the new Star Trek and enthusiastic 4.75 out of 5.

This is a holiday weekend, right?

WHERE THE WILD THINGS ARE trailer!

Head over to Apple Movie Trailers to have a look at the Spike Jonze adaptation of Maurice Sendak's wonderful Where the Wild Things Are.

I cannot express to you how badly I need this film to rock, 'cuz I just choked up a little watching this fantastic trailer. The rest of the world had Dr. Seuss, I had Sendak. 'Nuff said.

Who watches the WATCHMEN? Yours truly.

Hurm.

It turns out writing a reasonable review of the film adaptation of Watchmen is maybe as arduous a task as making the movie itself. Like so many others my age, I love this comic like no other, and have read it annually (at least) ever since its release back in 1986-87. I sit in awe of the book's brilliance with every encounter, worshiping at the alter of its creators, and I can say with unabashed affection that this comic book played a defining role in my early development as both a young adult and a reader of literature.

How the everlovin' hell can a film be made from what many to consider to be the perfect comic? Should anyone even try? Co-creator and writer of Watchmen Alan Moore looked down and whispered "No." He has repeatedly stated over the years that Watchmen was meant to showcase what could be done in no other medium than comics, and refuses to have anything to do with the film. He does not fault artist and co-creator Dave Gibbons for his participation (Moore signed away any income from the film to Gibbons), and even though he said that an earlier version of David Hayter's screenplay was as close as anyone would come to capturing the comic, he stands by his belief that reading the graphic novel on a Saturday afternoon should be more than adequate for anyone.

I say all of this to illustrate how much difficulty I expect to have penning this review, as I am afraid that I may be too involved emotionally to judge the film on its own merits. I have seen the film twice now, trying to sort through my impressions, and felt less divided upon walking out of the theater for a second time. So, biases and all, here we go. Rambling is inevitable.

For those of you that have not read the graphic novel, here is the most brief synopsis I can manage: Watchmen is set in a 1985 where superheroes are real and their presence has visibly altered the timeline over the forty-plus years prior; the only truly superpowered being is American, and his existence caused the US to win the Vietnam War which allowed for Nixon to remain in office. Nuclear holocaust seems inevitable as tensions between the Soviet Union and US approach critical mass. Costumed adventurers have been outlawed for nearly a decade; most retired, some went public and capitalized on their personas, some began working for the government, and one chose to continue his crusade outside the law. The latter's investigation of the murder of one of the masked community's own is the first step down a path that will either save or doom mankind as the heroes are forced to confront who and what they are.

I admit to leaving the theater feeling a little overwhelmed after the first viewing. I found the violence to be often excessive and over-stylized, something that bothered me a great deal in director Zack Snyder's last film, 300. Cutting away at the correct moment in film is comparable to using the gutters between panels to imply action in comics, and it is almost always best to let the reader/viewer do the work in their own head with something so graphic. Interestingly, the violence did not bother me during the second viewing, most likely because I was prepared for it.

As for the film as a whole, my feelings were torrential at best as I initially walked out of the theater. There are so many things for a fan of the book to both love and hate about this film, and I found myself both excited and agitated afterward. There is no question as to the dedication and attention to detail paid by the filmmakers; there are small elements in the scenery and background that even the most discerning eye is going to overlook time and time again, and I was thrilled when I noticed little things that I had missed during my first viewing. Some scenes are almost perfectly borrowed from the comic, almost to a fault. Other scenes were perfect to a point, and then seemingly needless changes from the source material would jar me from the experience. See what I mean about how difficult this is for me to review?

So, a second viewing was a necessity. I was able to relax and enjoy the absolutely gorgeous opening credits, and upon exhaling found it possible to let the film be exactly what it is: a movie. Gone were the years that I spent venerating the graphic novel, and the internal film lover was finally capable of appreciating what was up on the silver screen. And now, nearly eight hundred words later, I can finally get down to the business of reviewing this gorram film.

A film like Watchmen is doomed to not live up to the hype; nothing short of the Second Coming of the Flying Spaghetti Monster could. It is not going to be a perfect translation, and nor should we expect it to be. Film and comics are different mediums with different needs, and trying to perfectly adapt one to the other would be a comedy of errors of magnificent proportion. Some of the areas where the film falls short are due to this, creating the dichotomous feelings that will torment fans of the graphic novel as well as the confusion and/or detachment those unfamiliar with the source material might experience. I have spoken with both fans of the comic and newbies, and emotions are mixed; some fans loved it, some hated it. Some newbies were completely along for the ride, and others not so much. I started out somewhat unsure about the experience, and walked out after my second viewing feeling pretty good about it.

Most of the changes were made in an effort to create an internal continuity completely independent of the graphic novel, and although I took strong issue with a couple of points, the filmmakers were successful in creating a realized world for the story to take place (again, I say this with history under my belt). The ending did not bother me as much as expected once this was taken into account. Do I prefer the ending in the graphic novel? Most definitely. Is this ending serviceable to the world Snyder and company created? Generally yes, although it is not perfect and the flow feels somehow off during the last ten minutes or so (maybe a third viewing in IMAX will help me discern how so).

The look of the film is gorgeous, a veritable feast to the eyes. The style and colors of the graphic novel have been captured wonderfully, and seem to work well on the screen. I am extremely forgiving to the varying special effects, as they facilitated the needs of the story rather than drove the story (something that angers me about most effects-laden films). And yes, Dr. Manhattan's unavoidable blue penis is all over this movie.

The song choices did not bother me in the least; several people have complained about the music, but I lived through the Eighties and remember hearing all of these songs quite frequently. It may be time to retire Leonard Cohen's Hallelujah however, as it is becoming kind of trite to use it in films. Now to be a total hypocrite, I love the use of Bob Dylan's The Times They Are a-Changin' during the opening credits, as well as Pruit Igoe by Philip Glass during Dr. Manhattan's segment. The score also has a definite Eighties feel, complete with heavy synthesizers (à la Blade Runner).

Some of the performances were fantastic; Jackie Earle Haley did not portray Rorschach so much as become him, and had his moral absolutism not been believable the film would have fallen apart. Jeffrey Dean Morgan had the difficult task of filling the boots of the nihilistic Comedian, and did so quite well. The Comedian is that guy that you do not want to like but do anyway, and Morgan pulls it off nicely. Billy Crudup did the motion capture for the 3D animation and was the voice of the nigh-omnipotent Dr. Manhattan, and did a good job subtly insinuating how painful it was for Manhattan to be losing his humanity as he ascended.

The two performances that seem to have taken the most heat are Matthew Goode's performance as the brilliant and eccentric Ozymandias and Malin Akerman's portrayal of the second generation Silk Spectre. Playing the part of someone who can relate only to Alexander the Great is extremely difficult under the best of circumstances, and although not as vibrant as some of the other performances, Goode was stronger in this role than I expected (and much to my surprise, his costume did not bother me). I do wish there would have been a little more Robert Redford to his look and performance, however. And I think I realize why people have problem with Akerman's acting ability: her face does not emote very visibly. This did not bother me as much as it seems to have most others, and although her performance pales in comparison to the stronger ones, she was passable in a role that Diane Lane would have absolutely owned ten years ago.

Finally we get to Dan, the second Nite Owl, portrayed ever so excellently by Patrick Wilson. The role of Nite Owl is maybe the most thankless of both the comic and the film; Dan is our conduit into this world, the only character "normal" enough to serve as our everyman in reaction to the extreme personalities surrounding him. Dan has his issues, regretting his retirement and wrestling with the fact that he thrived off of the fetish involved in wearing the tights, and Wilson captured the emotional struggles of this rich character admirably, becoming the unsung heart of the film.

Did I love Watchmen? No, but it is growing on me, and I most definitely want to see it again (in IMAX, if possible). There are moments during which the film was pure magic to me, and had I felt that sense of wonder the whole time this film would have garnered a higher rating. My friend Matthew commented that if the movie does nothing more than bring new readers to the graphic novel it has served its purpose in being made; I have spoken with several people who are doing exactly that after seeing the film, a fact that pleases me greatly. There is a reason Watchmen made Time Magazine's list of Top 100 English-language novels from 1923 to 2005: it is that damned good. I think about how comic books inspired me to explore mythology, history, and literature, paving the way for the devoted reader and student that I am today, and all I can think is how can I fault someone for attempting to do the impossible? So kudos, Zack Snyder. Better to have tried and have fallen just short of perfection than having not tried at all. I'm giving Watchmen a strong and pleasantly surprising 3.75 out of 5.

For another take on Watchmen, head over to The Knight Shift after you've seen the film to see how my buddy Chris felt about it. He may just be a bigger fan of the graphic novel than yours truly, and has some interesting things to say about the film.

UPDATE (3/22): My friend Shimmering Jemmy over at The Shallow Brigade also posted a very interesting review of the film (as well as some excellent insights into the graphic novel) that you should definitely check out.

Nothing is true, but that which is simple.

After spending nearly a dozen hours on a large landscape for class last weekend, I am far happier with this simple ten-minute sketch I painted last Wednesday. So it goes.

Movie reviews that I never got around to writing.

Oh, poor neglected blog. Remember the good times we used to share? You got me through some tough spots, and this is how I repay you! For shame!

I have seen several films over the past couple of months, both in the theater and in my film class. I had every intention of writing reviews for each of them, but have been staying pretty busy this semester with school, work, illness, and zombie car. The folder on my desktop titled "pics for film reviews" torments me whenever I turn on the computer, so I have decided to exorcise the demon and post some quick thoughts in lieu of the thoughtful and entertaining reviews that I had planned on writing. Sigh.

So, moving on. I believe that I will knock out my film class first, and then move backward with those seen in the theater.


Ladri di biciclette (Bicycle Thieves) - This is one of the great films of its day, existing both as a portrait of Post-World War II Italy and a timeless study of the human condition. The film stands up well against the test of time (I recommend seeing the Criterion edition, as it has much better translations for the subtitles), and asks moral questions just as relevant today as sixty years ago. Truly a masterpiece. 4 out of 5.

Psycho - Alfred Hitchcock. Robert Bloch. The introduction of the MacGuffin. The first toilet ever shown in American cinema. Need I say more? 4.25 out of 5.

Sunset Boulevard - Billy Wilder was a genius, and you need look no further than this film to understand that fact. Of course, if you did stop you'd miss out in classics like Double Indemnity, Sabrina, and The Apartment... 4.5 out of 5.

Modern Times - This may not be Chaplin's best film, but it is quite enjoyable. I literally laughed out loud when the silent star finally made the transition and spoke his first words onscreen, making a strong statement about talkie films. 3.75 out of 5.

Singin' in the Rain - What can I say that hasn't been said a thousand times already? This is one of the best musicals you'll ever have the pleasure of seeing! 5 out of 5.


Ho-kay, on to the silver screen experience (although we do have a pretty impressive screening room on campus). I saw the most recent of these about three weeks ago, and the last one I saw a couple of days after New Years. Yup, I am that far behind. Again, sorry for my brevity.


Coraline (in 3D stop-motion) - I have to say that this is a truly unique film experience. This movie is just stunning to behold, and 100% worth the price of admission for the visuals alone. Don't worry, the 3D is not distracting in the least; it is almost incidental that it is there in most cases, merely adding to the gorgeous visuals. Bruno Coulais created an equally impressive score in compliment; it will stay with you long after leaving the theater. The only thing keeping this from a perfect score is the addition of one element to the story and the lessening of one of my favorite aspects of the book. These are merely quibbles however; you absolutely must see this wonderful film in the theater. 4.25 out of 5.


Slumdog Millionaire - Danny Boyle consistently impresses and delights me with his choice of films. He seems to jump all over the board, almost never disappointing. I love it when people ask, "What else did he direct?" followed by the almost immediate response of "I love that movie!" Slumdog Millionaire deserves to sit close to the top of a list of excellent films by an excellent director. The soundtrack is fantastic, moving the narrative at a strong pace, and Dev Patel (of the excellent BBC show Skins) gives a commanding performance. Even though I have yet to see all of the Oscar nominees, I am pleased that the film won Best Picture. 5 out of 5.


The Wrestler - Darren Aronofsky is one of my favorite directors, and once again he has knocked it out of the park. Mickey Rourke deserves all of the accolades that he has received for this performance, as it is a beautiful marriage of strength and weakness. I will most likely come back and write a more in depth review of this film once it comes out of DVD, as I had a lot to say about it when it was fresh on my mind. It is still in theaters though, so check it out. 4.75 out of 5.


Labyrinth - Ah, good ol' Labyrinth. Loved this movie in my youth, still love it now. If you have not seen it you should; it's a piece of cake! I played the soundtrack for about a week after seeing this again, revisiting days gone by, and was pleased as to how well both the movie and the music hold up to the test of time. Sigh. I miss Jim Henson... 4 out of 5.


The Curious Case of Benjamin Button - Although differing in many ways from its namesake by F. Scott Fitzgerald, this is a decent film. I found it to be an emotionally draining experience, as the film was both uplifting and depressing at the same time. Such is life though, and the ride is worth the journey. I will say that this film does have some serious flaws (for example, I did not care much for the framing story and found it somewhat distracting), and I admit to liking it much better walking out of the theater than I do today. Still, it is entertaining and merits seeing. 3.75 out of 5.


All-righty then, there you have it. I still want to see some of the Oscar films, but have a feeling that my next review will be for The Watchmen, which comes out next week. I am both charged and anxious about its release, as my love of comics and film are destined to clash.