Fantastic Mr. Fox review

This is what I've been looking for this year. Generally this is what I look for every year actually. Kids films that aren't dumbed down and take easy roads to get to simple and easy conclusions. At the same the ones that don't do that (i.e. 99% of Pixar films) I still try to find something more spirited in them. I've learned that with Pixar and some other animated films that it's as much about the director and writers as it is with any film. For example Brad Bird's two Pixar creations "The Incredibles" and "Ratatouille" have almost exactly what I look for in those sort of movies. Their smart and funny and don't fall prey to idiotic topical jokes. The same is to be said of "Fantastic Mr. Fox" which more than lives up to it's name.

Director Wes Anderson very much put himself into this animated tale that uses little to no CGI and is done in good ole' stop motion animation. Meaning this 93 minute film took a few years to complete just half of it. For it's meat it gives you the story of Mr. Fox (George Clooney) and his family and friends (the other animals in the forest). Mr. Fox is a retired chicken thief who against the advice of his badger lawyer (Bill Murray) buys a tree just on the outskirts of three mean and ugly farmers, Boggis, Bunce and Bean. Mr. Fox decided however to come out of retirement for one last score with his new superintendent Kylie (Wally Wolodarsky). After his score keeps getting bigger and bigger and his wife (Meryl Streep) finds out and grills him for it, the three villains team up to hunt down and kill him and all the other creatures without mercy.

There you have it. There's a kids film with meat... real meat. It's spiced up with just how interesting and funny all these characters are. Ash (Jason Swartzman) is Mr. Fox's son (I'd say he's about 13 years old) who desperately wants to be thought of as an athlete, something that gets difficult after the arrival of Kristopherson (Eric Anderson). Kristopherson is his cousin and in many ways is what Ash wants to be. Thus he treats him like crap most of the time. What's funniest about Ash is just how he's portrayed and how accurate it really is real children. He complains, tries to find excuses out of things and most importantly acts and speaks without thinking of the repercussions. He also spits a lot which I found funny because growing up ALL guys spit like crazy around that age. As for Clooney as Mr. Fox... well who better really? The man has some of the best comedic timing and droll mannerism that's slink through to his character perfectly. It's no wonder why he's as acclaimed an actor as he is, just like Streep and just like Williem Dafoe who plays a security guard rat for Bean. Then there's the trillion other characters that all have their brief moments to shine and make you at the bare minimum smile.

Anderson co-wrote the screenplay with Noah Baumbach (as usual cohort in Anderson's pictures) and it's very much their way of storytelling. In fact the only thing I didn't see that's a staple of Wes Anderson's films is a slow motion walk by sequence. Would've been interesting though... it really would've been. So now I come to the biggest question which is what is it's cultural significance. I ask this because in a lot of good kids films they're here one minute and gone the next leaving a pile of merchandise in it's wake and nothing else. Then there are the few upper crust kids films like Spike Jonze's "Where the Wild Things Are",which is what I'll be comparing this with. My review stands from October still stand for how I feel about that film. I honestly feel no better or worse about the film and it still is good, but emotionally empty. "Fantastic Mr. Fox" is in a sense what I wanted with 'WTWTA'. It has emotion and humor and intelligence. 'Wild Things...' was packed with split ideas and thus split emotions that were meaningful yet lacked real meaning sometimes as a child would be emotional and not always have a solid reason. That worked against it for me and while loved the ending piece it still left me empy. "Fantastic Mr. Fox" on the flip side has it's emotional quality, but it doesn't wear it on it's sleeve. These tiny characters tell stories about love, responsibility, family, growing up and it's done so in Anderson's classic view of people and interactions that's only slightly more hyper than it really is. These things allow kids to see it and grow with it so that they get the jokes they used love are still there, but then they find other things funny as well and see the meanings. To a certain extent I feel like 'Wild Things...' tried to have a lot of meaning and it fell flat or perhaps it was the dreaded spinning plate issue and Jonze couldn't keep them all going by the end.

Either way it's a good film, but I found "Fantastic Mr. Fox" to be great. It's great looking, feeling and flowing. It's funny and intelligent and funny in it's own intelligence and sometimes purposeful lack of intelligence ("I'm getting a high frequency radio signal through a can!" one character says during the big final rescue mission). The sad thing is that as great as this is, I just don't feel that it's going to hit it's audience this winter. I think "Fantastic Mr. Fox" may have to settle for DVD and hopeful cult status among hipsters to keep it floating. That last part actually makes me saddest than any of it.

"Fantastic Mr. Fox" **** out of ****

The Twilight Saga: New Moon review

I'm gonna aim at this nice. Really nice. Nicer than I feel I ought to be. "New Moon" is indeed NOT as bad as "Twilight", but it still sucks, it's still loaded with issues and it's got some leaps and bounds before becoming a good or even mediocre franchise. When I review "Twilight" last winter I spoke about how great the screening was because it was so funny. Jokes were flying left and right and it ranks up with screenings for "10,000 BC" and "Dragon Wars" as the top three best screenings of the worst movies I've been to. Sadly "New Moon" was watched by myself in a car outside of a Days Inn where I mooched off their free wifi. I'm also doing it while writing this review. I'm slick like that.

Anyways with "New Moon" we get what's on those terrible trailers and then some. Robert Pattinson's Edward Cullen is as pale as ever and his acting is still as stiff as Heff's trouser snake after poppin' a few viagra pills. Kristen Stewart's Bella Swan is equally wooden, but most of the laughs honestly came from here in my opinion. Her three month long depression and nightmares where she would screech like a dying hog in her bed till her father Charlie (who's role is now that of a generally Anthony Hopkins supporting type role, where he walks in gives advice and a pat on the back, exits the room, collects his check and is off for the hills) comes in to comfort her. He's a saint in my book.

Early on Edward and his family leave (you find out the real reason later)and he informs Bella that he's not coming back and leaves her with the words 'just don't do anything reckless'. Therefore the first thing she does after 'breaking' out of her depression is hope on to the back of a motorcycle with a greasy stranger. The movie attempts to provide a reasoning for it, but let's face it that was pretty damn stupid. Re-enter the newly muscle clad Jacob played by Taylor "Sharkboy" Lautner. Okay I'll say it, I like this dude. I think he could have a future. Then again it could by because he's one of the few main characters that knows that the word emote is an acting term and not just a long word for emo. Jacob generally likes and cares about Bella and their scenes together aren't bad. In fact they're kind of good, but we all know that it ends in heartbreak and all that Stephine Myers made bullshit.

We get better CGI, but still bad CGI. I think they need to design a better looking werewolf or something that this point and the Zack Snyder-ed fight sequences come off as like ripped off Zack Snyder-ed fight sequences. Which they are. This brings me to Dakata Fanning, Michael Sheen and the Volturi. The whole roman catholic... operatic thing... it never really impresses me anymore, That was part of my issue with "Angels & Demons". The whole look of it is fantastic, but it's all over done or shot the wrong ways most of the time so it loses it's flair to me. However I will say that both Fanning and Sheen are terrific. I was skeptical about Fanning, not because of her acting (because she can act the shit outta anything at this point), but of the look she has which manages to make her look younger. It still occurs, but it works out here. As for Sheen well... he's Michael goddamned Sheen! He can play anything to perfection. In fact the man is posed to at some point win an Oscar. It ain't gonna be for this, but his brooding and seriousness plays well.

So that's as kind as I'm going to get with this film, okay? Now... here's where I stand. I get why this stuff is popular, but it sucks. Thsi franchise stands for just how crappy a re-imagining of a mythical creature can get and just how far you can exploit it. Director Chris Weitz who also directed 'About a Boy', 'American Pie', 'American Dreamz' and 'The Golden Compass' is still someone who doesn't inspire directorial confidence or storytelling confidence. The dialogue is worldly better than in the first film, but it's a work in progress (I hope). However by biggest beef still lay with the complete lack of chemistry between Pattinson and Stewart and how unconvincing their love story is. The few scenes with Jacob were more inspired, loving and interesting that any of this or the last films dealing solely with Bella and Edward. Bella (big shock) makes dumb decisions with men and the female, have two men fighting over me fantasty lives on with no concept of logic.

Furthermore why this movie is two hours and ten minutes is beyond me. There were a ton sequences and scenes that weren't there to build anything except a runtime. Thus making for a really boring experience outside of the interesting end of the first act and mildly interesting beginning of the third. Then again there is still plenty to laugh out. The end is a big one actually. Pattinson's cold glint and ultra-long pause make the final line even funnier and more soap opera-ish then it should be. But then again most of his lines are delivered in that same fashion. So I'll leave on this, Jacob and Alice (who I'm sorry I didn't mention earlier) are good. This movie is one those that displays the works and look of the supporting characters more than the leads. "New Moon" as a whole is blockbuster of a film that fans will carry on their backs till the next film (which is next year probably) and then they'll carry that one. The only thing I wish was that the press would openly mock a movie (like this) that's actually bad. However they won't because it's made a ton of movie so it must be good. Had it not though I wonder would they all be so eager to suck on the "Twilight" tit. I guess we'll never know.

"The Twilight Saga: New Moon" * 1/2 out of ****

World Humanities Expo 2009... North America

Before I pump out whatever reviews I've got coming along I wanted to share with you an interesting experience myself a several others had yesterday. This week instead of attending our World Religions class, we get to go to the World Humanities Expo. Basically it's several projects done my students in humanity courses on display as well as lectures and movies about things in the world. Exciting. On Monday ( we have this class three times a week) we endured the hour long tale of the head of the humanities department's trip to Mexico that he takes every other year.


This might have been a mildly entertaining story except for his lack of any interest while talking about this junk and his various photographs displaying... well what we know is in Mexico. Nothing more, nothing less. Think of him as the professor... excuse me... doctor that we've all met. Wednesday however brought possibly the best day we've ever had in that class. The schedule we were handed had our alloted time slot as "Open Mic". This is a term that should always be met with caution and those attending such a thing should fear for worse than whatever they think the worst is. And indeed we got some shit.

The following is going to be a transcript mixture of things written and said during the four performances we bared witness to. I will however add in the necessary information so the comments make more sense in context.

Writers: Devon, Erin, Ben and Guy

*The young man with a guitar from my theater class is on stage singing Incubus, followed by Hootie and the Blowfish. Judging from his backwards "TAPOUT" hat, a Nickelback song isn't too far behind. I can't imagine anything good coming from this. More information forthcoming.

*Our professor has just given us the introduction explaining what's about to happen. Basically we're hearing music that's uniquely American based. Apparently rap is uniquely American. Another class as also entered. One of their students resembles the Wolfman (Lon Chaney Jr. not Benicio Del Toro). We are informed that at some point we will be listening to Christian rapper (I assume this is the connection with religion so we feel like we 'learned' something today)

*The two rappers who open the show approach the stage. They are short, fat and rather frumpy looking black guys. They're led by a skinny balding white man with circular glasses and light brown hair. I joke that perhaps he's their manager or producer, but is in fact a North American studies teacher. Ben and I also joke about how he discovered to two guys.

Ben- See by doing this, he can get away with not feeling bad about not giving a homeless black man a dollar.

Devon- (impersonating teacher) Yes you boys'll do.

Ben- (impersonating teacher) Your pants are significantly baggie enough so you must be rappers!

Devon- (impersonating teacher) Yes I believe you people call this... 'hood-fabulous' right?


*They take the stage and introduce themselves (I have no idea what their names are) and prep their first song called "The Eye" (not based on the Asian or Alba horror movie).

Devon- This is SO American. I hope they play 'Fuck her Gently' by the greatest American band, Tenacious D.

Erin- This certainly is Christian Rap at it's finest. (the song was implying sex. Something I'm sure neither of these boys know anything more about then what their right and left hands have taught them.)

Devon- That man (N.A. teacher) is thinking 'This is the best Negro song I've heard since Swing Low!"

Erin- This is the best day I've ever had in this class.

Devon- AMEN.

Erin- I love how annoyed some of these people are. If they aren't laughing, their looking like they want to get the hell out of here.

*The duo were slated to play 5 songs... and they did. This was probably around song 2.

Devon- Now I know what this has to do with religion! By the end of this song you'll pray for ARMAGEDDON!

Erin- Look @ the Wolf Man. (He seemed to be annoyed and itchy. Perhaps more research is needed into his... existence to understand.)

Guy- This is literally the best/worst thing I've seen all month. I love it. And teach left the room.

Devon- Right now we need a Kanye interruption...

Erin- You're black. You could get away with doing it.

Devon- I think the jewish guy (guy in our class... possibly only half jewish) needs it more than I do.

*Song 3 begins. Their explanations before each song are terrible and the sad applause after each one is done more so that we can all get our ears back to hearing a harmonic tone, instead of their crappy singing. The third song also sounds like a poor Kayne West slow-mix. Very poor.

Devon- I think they just referenced 'Jizz in my Pants'.

*The other class walks out of the performance. Teacher included.

Devon- Anybody got any throwing rocks? I'm surprised they're still going.

Ben- White liberal guilt makes some people do the most bizarre shit ever. (refering as to why the hell did this man think these boys could rap, sing, perform, speak publicly or even dress.)

Devon- THAT'S A BINGO!

*I forgot someone.There was a man standing in the auditorium handing out flyers. He was older, somewhat Mickey Rourke like (before he got 'cleaned' up) and was wearing a black leather vest over a white shirt. We joked that this was what happened to Han Solo after years of adventuring and drinking.

Devon- I wanna hear Han Solo rap.

*Song 4 begins. Almost finished with them. The crowd is silent and either bored to death or tearing up holding back laughter.

Devon & Guy- WORST BANDS EVER: 5. Good Charlotte & Kid Rock 4. ICP 3. Nickelback 2. Creed 1. These two rapping ass clowns.

Erin- Their raps are the shit.

Devon- Their raps are shit.

Erin- Right, Might, Night (mocking the rhyme scheme they used in the song)

*The final song is about to start. One of the two boys explains that he was just told about the song the night before, so he'll be reading it off a paper. We're not worried, we figure it might only be an improvement. Also the story about the song titled 'Vanilla Rain' is based on a character created by a girl they know. The character is a stripper. Also we figure the name is an easy rip from better songs with similar titles (i.e. Purple Rain, November Rain, Chocolate Rain...)

Devon- If these songs aren't funny, then I don't know comedy.

Erin- Crazy theater girl likes this! She's bobbing her head.

Devon- I haven't felt this patriotic since Bush got re-elected.

Devon- Nothing says North American culture like a candy coated stripper song...

*Finally they're done. However the next performers aren't ready yet, so the North American studies teacher grabs a guitar and states 'I know a buddist song!'. We're about to get worldly.

Devon- He's about to get jiggy with it. Please God let him sing in Chinese!

*Ben notices something about a girl in our class who has a reputation for attempting to subtly debunk religions she's not a member of. I.E. anything that's not buddism. She's large, pale, cartoonishly nerdy and makes asinine comments frequently.

Ben- That girl over there, that always asks the insane questions, I couldn't remember what/who she reminds me of. I realized it's the "feels good man" frog from message boards.

*He is correct.

Devon- (nearing the end of the song) I hope he plays FREE BIRD for an encore.

*Now we're in for a real treat. Two older men with guitars take the stage and tell of us a story about America's history with railroads and trains. Ben muses about the death of thousands of Chinese laborers during that time. The folk-like song begins.

Devon- BREAKING NEW 2 rapping ass clowns over taken by 2 ass clowns singing 'Old McDonald'.

*They finish up their boring goddamn song and we're left with but one rapper. The real Christian rapper. He resembles Lil' Jon. However there is a sound issue that needs fixing. The teacher goes to work on it. Ben looks over and states 'ah... the white mans burden'. I find the timing of it ridiculously funny and my gum falls out of my mouth while laughing. He takes the stage.

*Funny enough he's not bad, but because of the music being so loud you couldn't understand a word he said. However his rapping skills could one day help him out.

And that's that! Hopefully Erin can post the videos she took of the first act online soon and I'll update this post. This was a direct transcript from a book passed around between the four of us during the show. We can only imagine what tomorrow, the final day of the Expo will bring.

The Fourth Kind review

"The Fourth Kind" is probably the best made for Fox TV movie since the 90's. Oh wait they stopped making those didn't they. Well then I guess it'll have to settle for the best Sy-fy channel movie to date instead. And no that's not really that good of a thing. "The Fourth Kind" is a great example of having all the elements needed for a scary and interesting mystery thriller involving alien abduction, but doesn't use most of them the right way and some of them used too much. Also it's an example of marketing a film in the mystery genre and how people decide what to see based on knowing whats going to happen. This went up against Richard Kelly's "The Box", which hasn't faired well box office wise. Many say it's because the trailer seemed to point to one simple aspect, which is how these movies get promoted nowadays. It turns out people don't really want surprises in films anymore, just more or less whatever they expect and know going into it. "The Fourth Kind" marketed is a great example of showing it's best and only tricks before the show so that people don't have to be worried about wondering what might happen next. What terrible thing that would be.

Like "Paranormal Activity", the film shows 'real' footage and claim the movie is based on true events (it's not by the way). So it's inter cut throughout with pieces of the 'real' footage and scenes from the reenactment which stars Milla Jovovich as the lead Dr. Abigal Tyler. This is her first non-gun toting flick after a long string of them... most were quite sucky, but she's fun to watch so she often gets a pass. Jovovich isn't really a bad actress either (see "Dummy" for proof) and here she almost is able to pull off the character, but some of the emoting doesn't feel quite right. The same can be said with the person playing the real Abigal Tyler (which according to the films credits IS Abigal Tyler). Her frail size and pale skin tone makes her quite believable as do many of the stock footage scenes. However at times her slow speech and uneven emotions get old and a bit boring and so does the movie.

The real problem is that it's made with a lot of style that it destroys most possibilities of it being scary and just feels like a really rushed episode of "24" with aliens. They place in interesting clues and notions that would include extraterrestrial abductions and things of that nature early on for the build up, but mess it all up by getting the wrong vibe and atmosphere and in a movie like this those things are absolutely critical. I cite "The Mothman Prophecies". I still like it despite it's flaws and slow points, but that's because it has a build, makes small connections that lead to bigger ones and it's tone is always foreboding. There's not one scene of bizarre actions or stories being told in that film that doesn't have a moodiness to it. All this said "The Fourth Kind" has two great scenes. And I mean great as in they would've been perfection had they not used them on the trailer.

Both scenes of bliss are of the 'real' footage and involve the channeling of an entity from within the human body. The sad part is that both scenes are displayed on the trailer and had I not expected it I imagine that those scenes would've been really jaw dropping. The blurred image is great, but what is being said is much better and creepier. In fact you say that within "The Fourth Kind" is a better movie trying to break free that adds up and feels complete and scary. One that picks one of the two types of film that it is to go with instead of sitting on the fence. I'm not saying it's as bad as something like "White Noise" (which suffered several of the same problems and more), but it's a sure fire disappointment to people who like UFO or abduction stories (like myself).

Finally I just have to stress that this could've been something. It's a picture chalked full of potential scares, mystery and intrigue that wastes 90% of it on extended shots of peoples reactions to something that's maybe, but usually isn't impressive. I think writer-director Olataunde Osunsanmi (who also stars in the film as himself in interviews with Dr. Tyler) may have the right idea story wise (I stress the word may), but definitely does not have the right idea directorial wise. Next time someone attempts to make a movie on this particular subject they show very much look into what makes these stories and mysteries interesting and frightening before letting cameras roll.

"The Fourth Kind" ** out of ****

2012 review

Witness the biggest, craziest and possibly most entertaining disaster picture ever made. Co-writer-director Roland Emmerich the creator of such mega destruction blockbusters as "Independence Day", "Godzilla" and "The Day After Tomorrow" has for my money hit the nail on the head by forgoing most seriousness for melodrama and over the top scenes of massive Earth annihilation. In fact I'd say this is his best picture since his Revolutionary war, Mel Gibson film "The Patriot" and his best paced movie to date. Further more his addition of stronger actors like John Cusack, Thandie Newton, Danny Glover, Oliver Platt, Chiwetel Ejiofor and Woody Harrelson kind of add to the ridiculous, cartoony sci-fi fun of it all.

But let me stress a couple of very important things. First off this movie is in no way a reflection of what will happen in 2012, just an entertaining piece of a huge maybe, if anything that would happen hype machine. Second is that Emmerich has now cemented himself as the Sam Raimi of the disaster film genre. Where before he would go as bug nuts as he wanted and attempted to make a serious picture with serious tones, here he just cuts loose and has fun. Sure there are sub-plots there to put on those old heartstrings and make you care about humanity (as he does have a lot of humanity in his pictures unlike Michael Bay), but the main set of characters make you like or simply enjoy them because they are who they are. Like John Cusack! He's snarky and fun to watch on screen in general so throwing him in a scene out running an erupting volcano is perfection! Chiwetel Ejiofor is still one of my favorite actors to watch because no matter what he's in he will act the SHIT out of it, just because he can. So why not pair him up with Thandie Newton and give him to 'emotional' speeches about peoples right to fight for their survival?

So with all that said, yes the script and dialogue is often hokey. Mainly in the first half of the film. When we reach the second half which is when things really change into (in my opinion) a much more original and entertaining concept, you've got lots of ethos, but it works. The budget for this mega picture is idea mega at $250 million... let that settle a second. However every cent is seen on screen. This ain't no cheap looking flick like "Spider-Man 3". And there are some scenes in here that really question whether it was CGI or practical effects or a mix of both. And this is especially important after Emmerich's last picture "10,000 BC" which is definitely the worst in his filmography on just about every level, including some very poor CGI. In "2012" though he more than makes up for it and provides sequence after sequence of glowing chaos that we're allowed to savor.

As I watched "2012" I also realized how much better of an overall action sci-fi picture is was than "Transformers 2". Mainly because this wasn't taking itself to deadly serious and mixing it with some pretty lackluster jokes. And I'm saying this after 'enjoying' that film. But all negative thoughts aside "2012" is about as great of an adventure picture of this size can get without being great. Had it's script been better I'd say it would've been great. In any case see it on the biggest screen, with the loudest sound system you can. See it and laugh and be marveled by immense, German engineered disaster and fun.

"2012" *** 1/2 out of ****

The BOOMS that started it all...

I'm pretty sure it was "Independence Day". Yeah I'm about 100% certain it was now. I actually really enjoy thinking back to how I got so consumed with movies and all that goes into making them. Plenty of people see comedies, nowadays it's twenty-something dramadies with with folk music and young stars that get them into it all. That's great for them and usually it sets their watermark for cinematic criticism pretty high. However I wasn't that kid. I was kid whose family watched 'Star Trek' on television. I got to watch things like 'The Outer Limits' and 'Tremors' growing up and theatrically the experience of Spielberg's "Jurassic Park" was a mile stone. However it was "2012" director Roland Emmerich's 1996 blockbuster that I feel did it in for me.

All the hook of science fiction was there after that. Aliens, space adventure, destruction on a massive scale... everything I as a kid could look for in a movie was there. Of course I've gotten older and thus my film watching needs have shifted and grown and lessen over time, but there's some things you don't lose. I'm a product of genre films and spectacle film making. I say this more to explain my feelings towards certain movies and certain types of viewers. I feel more now than ever that there's a level of alienation in the film loving world for those who other feel 'aren't on the same level' as them. I should know because sometimes I feel that. I don't necessarily refer to it in that way, but there are titles given to those folks. It's wrong and I've tried hard to stop doing it so much. I think everyone should simply go to see stuff, but try to know what they're getting into and thus if it's up their alley.

In any case this blog is in preparation for Emmerich's new doomsday flick "2012", out this Friday (possible review up Sunday give or take). I was really pondering the whole notion of big movies and small movies and how a lot of people (mainly pesky hipster types) who like to claim that A: that's not art and B: anyone can do CGI. I really put thought into those statements. The whole concept of art is generally a vague thing. I could sling shit on a canvas and get it in a small gallery showing if I called it 'art'. I'm not wrong, but it's not like there is soul or a propose for it. It's simply shit... slung unto a canvas that I'm justifying with a term. Personally I consider all (even shitty films) to be art in one form or another. Many are made for entertainment purposes and some are made for much more than that. Nothing is wrong with either as long as they get their purpose done properly and successfully.

The notion that anyone can do CGI on a computer I find to be wrong. If it were easy then just anyone could make an epic sized disaster picture or "The Lord of the Rings" style film and it'd be just like all the others. If it were so easy then how come "The Day the Earth Stood Still" was such a rancid piece of crap? Because in truth... it ain't easy. If you took the time to watch a DVD extra or two you'd realize that effects are by and large hard to do, whether practical or digital. Traditionally I enjoy the mix of the two and the better Emmerich pictures do that. In fact to be honest most quite enjoyable adventure picture mix the two instead of going all one over the other. Beyond that it's just generally hard to shoot all these things and then edit it right and hope it plays well.

So tonight I'm going to bask in the destructive glory of epic, over sized, disaster pictures. Sure they might be light on character study, they may abide by a set of rules and conventions, but they're fun. They're fun, escapist films that are hard to make, easy to market (even the bad ones) and don't always take themselves seriously (perhaps why Emmerich is quite good at them. A little satire mixed with chaos isn't a bad thing).

More promoting for Jason Reitman's Up in the Air

As the holiday Oscar buzz season carries on, I'm getting more and more excited for Jason Reitman's new film "Up in the Air" with George Clooney. Even with the onslaught of positive reviews, still something was making feel that... 'hey, it's just another dramedy about life'. And perhaps it is, but then again so was Reitman's previous two films and both were not good, but great films. In anycase apple.com/trailers has an extended trailer that includes some scenes as well as two quite humorous clips. In addition to that if you have a twitter (which everyday I find a new reason to be happy with mine) then I suggest following Reitman as his tweets are insightful, not just into the film but into who he really is. And extension of that would be to follow 'Shaun of the Dead' and 'Hot Fuzz' director Edger Wright. The two banter back and fourth on an almost daily basis and it is extremely funny.

A little note about reviews this week... if things work out then I may have quite a number of reviews posted which would include Roland Emmerich's "2012" (sorry, but I refuse to miss massive CGI armageddon from Emmerich. I was raised on it after all), George Clooney other picture "The Men Who Stare At Goats", Milla Jovovich and "The Fourth Kind" and maybe just maybe Jim Carrey's "A Christmas Carol". But we'll see.

World's Greatest Dad review

I urge you (more than likely next month when it hits DVD) to see the first funny Robin Williams comedy since "The Birdcage". And I say that having actually combed through his imdb profile and discovering that he hasn't made one movie I've found funny since then... seriously. His dramatic work on the other hand is actually quite impressive and the only draw back is that those films aren't quite the financial success. So now we movie to "World's Greatest Dad" perhaps the best dark comedy he's ever done and it is quite dark. Williams plays Lance Clayton, a teacher who aspires to be on author and has tried several times to get published.

Lance is also a single father and his son Kyle (played by Daryl Sabara of "Spy Kids") is for lack of a better term an asshole. He's mean, sexist, obsessed with masturbation and is highly disrespectful to his father. Much as this may seem like it's going to be a run-of-the-hill bad son, good dad movie... it takes one hell of a left turn about twenty minutes in. I would like to say what happens... but spoiling it would ruin the moment I feel. In any case the aftermath is what defines the rest of the picture. It's a bit of parody about people after tragedy and how they tend to act like they care more. The movie gets it all down to the nugget and is almost completely great, although there's something a little left empty in me with the ending. It fits, but not all the way.

"World's Greatest Dad" is written and directed by Bobcat Goldhwait, who you might remember as a stand up comedian and actor who has for the past few years directed tons of episodes of "Reno 911!" and "Chappelle's Show". This is perhaps the best thing he's done with his career and if he can keep making films this funny and intelligent then he's going to come back in a big way. Williams' performance is one that really plays into his wittier brand of humor, but also uses his dramatic chops which creates a great blend. Further more dark comedies are harder to come by now-a-days, not unlike pure mystery films. Here is a prime example of good story telling and comedy that most people are going to overlook because it's a small release film. But I'm saying watching it. Theatrically it's just about gone, but it'll be on DVD the first week of December. Pick it up. And for an added bonus pick up Terry Zwigoff's "Art School Confidential". One of the few stand out dark comedies of the 2000's that people missed out on.

"World's Greatest Dad" *** 1/2 out of ****

The Box review

Since 2001 writer-director Richard Kelly has been a on-off topic in the film world. His debut film "Donnie Darko" has become a major cult classic of the 2000's. I've never quite understood why people love it so much, but there's something there they like. His follow up "Southland Tales" was a major two and half hour failure that hit a few theaters and then landed onto DVD with little notice. So this brings me to "The Box", his first studio film (his others were independent) and this is for me at least his best looking and functioning film. Based on the short story "Button, Button" by acclaimed writer Richard Matheson (author of "I Am Legend"), it tells the story of Norma and Arthur Lewis (Cameron Diaz and James Marsden) as a happy family with their son, but who are coming upon some hard times financially. Enter Oscar nominated actor Frank Langella ("Frost/Nixon") as Arlington Steward, a mysterious man with a massive facial disfigurement who wants to help the couple out.

The trailer gets that piece of the massive puzzle right, but that's about all it does properly. I really hate how mysteries get promoted these days... actually I generally hate the rap they get these days too. I suppose that's why do few actually get made. After the decision to press the button has ended yes several crazy things happen. However not in some lame-brained kinetic action climate as displayed on ads, but as steady unraveling of clues to the big picture. The trailer also has a lie in it, but I won't tell you what it is. "The Box" generally feels like a period movie in it's movements and tones which for this genre is something helpful. The film is set in 1976 and it flows like a mystery of that time, but with Kelly's love of David Lynch and Alan J. Pakula working within it. Also the film is beautifully shot in digital and works almost as well as "Zodiac" did look wise.

Another fantastic element is the perfect score done by the band The Arcade Fire (who's having a great year with this and having their song massively used to promote "Where the Wild Things Are"), that has the touch of Bernard Herrmann all over it. Performance wise Marsden and Langella were terrific as usual, but Diaz wasn't particularly bad herself. Sometimes the southern accent did flow in and out, but when it mattered she really got the job done. Kelly adapted the short story and made sure to use it as more of a bench mark for the rest of the story which spans into various bizarre and somewhat unknown reaches. This is NOT a conventional thriller about a couple being stalked. Just as "Knowing" was not a simple case of trying to stop the future disasters.

I connect both films because of a common thread. That thread is that both can easily be disliked or discarded because they're unconventional, somewhat challenging and utilize old school science fiction (not SCI-FI, there is a difference) . "Knowing" become a rough topic for me because I met virtually no one who liked it. I didn't argue about it, but I did notice that it was mainly people who just didn't seem to get/like the whole "Twilight Zone"-y vibe it had and also those who just didn't get the whole science fiction part. "The Box" is somewhat like that... but less "Twilight Zone" and more Kelly's own brand of old school science fiction and paranoid thriller elements; which are pretty damn cool to me.

The film manages to also answer... in it's own way the major questions while not hand delivering it to your door; something I've noticed more and more that people really like. There's no easy one word answer that sums it all up because there's so much in it. You can't try to fully understand Arlington Stewerd's actions without understanding why is here for example. I keep harping on this and I guess it'll be my final thought and summing up for this review; people don't really... dig into mystery stuff anymore and that sucks. If it can't pop out right in the trailer or seem totally bizarre then no one gives a shit and they look past it. Further more open mindedness when it comes to movies is also in a large degree spiraling into the shittier. The concept of a film that doesn't fly by the straight lines of it's genre isn't new and why people act as if it's a revelation is beyond me. I'm not asking people to like films like this, but simply to not dismiss them. As for "The Box" it's a terrific ride that's definitely worth seeing if you're not opposed to something out of the norm. And I'm glad I finally found a Richard Kelly film that I honest to God fully enjoyed.

"The Box" **** out of ****

You're not paranoid if it's really happening

This morning I chose to awaken and watch "The Parallax View" with Warren Betty. Watching it reminded me of my heyday of enjoying all that is conspiracy theories and intrigue into the mysterious of the world around us. That and I'm trying to get in the right mind set for a play I'm trying my damnedest to write. I decided to go back and look at some of the things that interested me about that type of stuff and see what has held up over time. Let me also stress that it's not like I ever stopped being interested in those things, but simply that my attention started to get redirected to other interests over time.

When I started reading up on Wikipedia, something of a drug for me; I decided to jump in and read about one of my favorite conspiracy films as well as one of my very favorite films in general, Oliver Stone's "JFK". The main part I went over was the critical reaction part. It's something I've briefly read about and actually watched a documentary on which was part of the 2-disc version of the film. I find it very interesting that people jumped to destroy the film based upon a first draft of the script, based upon even the concept of there being facts included with what they viewed as pure fiction. That so many reputable news groups wanted to squash the film months before release just because they seemingly wanted to. That's the funny thing is that there's never a particular reason in which CBS, Time magazine or any other group really wanted to bash it except because they could.

After "JFK" came out it was met with equally mixed reactions some calling it "an insult to intelligence" and others like Roger Ebert (my personal favorite critic) calling it the best film of 1991 and later making it #10 on his list of the ten best films of the 1990's. Since that time of it's release it's met with much more favorable feelings, but still for some just the name tends to flair up with whole idea that people want to exploit a death and sensationalize it for profit. There lays the funny thing about America; it's never exploitation if everybody tends to believe it, but if there's a question mark and someone's willing to ask about it then it's exploitation. Further more I've come to learn that those who specifically do not believe A: that something other than what we're told happened that day and/or B: that conspiracies exist within our and other governments are usually people who hold the government and politicians in a very high regard. They tend to think the world of them. They place tacky political signs in their front lawn during election season and love the our concept of voting equals power.

I personally am cynical of all that jazz so there's my biases. Sure voting equals a degree of power, but to me there's always holes. Shaded areas in which we never know about and to many just plain don't exist. First off why do we hold these people in such high regard? Because they're smarter than us? That can't be the reason because time and time again we see that politicians are far from being smarter than many general Americans. Maybe they're simply more informed on the world. Or maybe it's because they're on TV... every night. Maybe because they throw millions of dollars into shitty ad's so that you'll never truly be able to escape knowing who they are. Further more it's actually considered somewhat disgraceful to not look up to them or think that they're here to make a difference. Why would I ever think a simple group of people in suits, that ride around in jumbo jets and limos want to change the world? What cause is there for it other than their own personal gain.

Perhaps that last bit is too harsh. Maybe they do want to change the world. Maybe they think that they know what so many others don't and they can help us. Also if you're wondering what party I associate myself with it's a lost cause. I find that the democrats want too much and pay attention to things that often don't need too much attention paid to. They're giving, but wasteful and we flip the bill. I can't stand republicans because they arrive with a Holier than thou attitude and a we know better than you one to follow that up. They lie as much if not slightly more than the left and hey guess what... begin more things that we flip the bill for. So how about those independent groups? I still feel it doesn't matter. The political machine in America has been running this way for a very long time and it's not going to stop. The country isn't going to turn socialist or communist or anything like that and if you think it will then yes you are an idiot.

You're an idiot because you seem to think that such a drastic change would go unnoticed or will be brought on my socialized health care and all that. We've seem to let the whole Big Brother thing go on for as long as it-- oh wait. No I'm sorry I must apologize. You see by someone believing or even accepting the idea of Big Brother watching us, they might be considered a bit of a 'crackpot'. And yet the term is used on the news day after day, but we refuse to accept or even toy with the notion that our government does things, illegal and horrible things A: without our knowledge B: with their own interests in mind and C: with our money. Then again maybe I'm just crazy.

Saw VI review

This time around I'm going attempt no jokes about the pain characters have inflicted upon themselves to the pain of watching this movie or it's predecessors. No because at this point that feeling is quite well known. This time around I'm just going to flat out say how I feel about "Saw VI" and I feel that it is slightly better then I expected while still being a giant hunk of shit. I find that rather impressive. From the trailers to the lackluster poster campaign this year I kept thinking that this was it, this was the crappiest one of them all (which I'm not yet denying). However I was wrong to think that it would look as cheap as it did in the trailers. While the overall production design isn't too impressive, the look and feel in "Saw VI" looks as if some money did go into it and showed up on screen. I'm not sure how much these films cost to make (I'm aware it's not very expensive though), but it looks like an effort to put forth. Now let's stop the pussy-footing around and get to the real business.

The reason this film flat out sucks is primarily the same reason most of them suck. Because it tries to provide the illusion of an intelligent horror/crime thriller by presenting the thought that throughout everyone of the movies there were clues leading us to the next film, when in fact all it is, is giving characters open ended reasons for doing things and then filling in the blanks in the sequel to provide the facade of plot depth. "Saw VI" is on par with the crappiness of "Saw IV" so yeah it's definitely one of the worst in the series in my eyes and that's because it's so damn boring. This is the sixth film and we know the structure and as it turns out theres enough meat heads out there that are willing to pay money to see the same junk over and over again. Because let's not kid ourselves these movies are all the same with the sole difference being who's in it and how are they going to die.

The traps in this film are as lame as they looks on the advertisements sans maybe two which weren't too bad. The Hoffman as Jigsaw plot working as a "Dexter" type killer cop scenario is still really dumb and finally has some headway although by the end it's not enough to close the file and hopefully end this junk. There are countless flashbacks that seem to last twenty minutes apiece and just for kicks let's discuss the social commentary within the film. Now this part actually shows a degree of intelligence. The main 'victim' here is a health insurance company head who has a formula which let's him decide who should and shouldn't be covered. During one of the flashbacks Tobin Bell's character John Kramer (or Jigsaw) is attempting to convince him to cover his experimental surgery. Things go south and thus you want the scumbag to get his. Very topical for a "Saw" movie to rip into a figure head from the newspaper. Unfortunately it excuses nothing.

This 85 minute shit pile is simply the same 86 minute shit pile from last year just with more flies circling it. For those of you who like wussy horror and I do consider this wussy horror since it can only rely on mediocre gore for scares then this will probably make you as happy as the other "Saw" films did. It's made for it's existing fan basis that thinks this is fun and everybody else simply has to endure it. For me "Saw" isn't campy enough for me to overlook how crappy it all is and how little sense it makes. Jason might be able to pull that off, but I suspect Jigsaw will never be able to do that. It might involve the creators attempting to be different instead of regurgitating the same pretentious film year after year with the goal of making stupid things appear smart and maybe scary.

"Saw VI" * out of ****