Salt review

Apparently the ending of the summer is shaping up to kick the beginnings ass. "Salt" literally came out of left field for me. I wasn't feeling the trailers or posters or "Who is Salt?" tagline. I liked that Jolie was showing off her age a tad bit and looking somewhat less pristine than usual, but there wasn't anything there that got me exciting to see it.

But damned if I don't love a good surprise here and there and "Salt" was it. Not only does it work as an action film, but also as a more than competent thriller and chase film that recycles things we've seen before and yet displays them and uses them in a fresh and very, very exciting way. Off the bat I'm not telling you who Salt is. But I will say that shock of all shocks that tagline IS important to the plot of the movie. It's an awesome early story turn that brought me into that 'where's this headed' zone. Damn... I remember when tons of action movies had those fun moments where you just weren't at all sure what was to come next... good times.

"Salt" is written by Kurt Wimmer ('Equilibrium' and 'Ultraviolet', I think I finally forgive him for that second title), who is pretty good at using all the old tricks, but making them fun again. Salt is on the run and is a highly training enemy the CIA must track down and grab. Been there and done that, but damned if he and director Philip Noyce don't attempt to drum up some interesting tension, have fun with the characters and then go into full ass kicking mode. Noyce, who is a highly skilled action filmmaker on the level of Mann and Zwick, never gets the credit he deserves. To this day I absolutely love "Clear and Present Danger", "The Quiet American", "Patriot Games" and "Rabbit Proof Fence" and that is where "Salt" fits in. It's a smarter than usual, espionage action, thriller. It's shot fantastically by Robert Elswit (all of Paul Thomas Anderson's film) and edited by the glorious Stuart Baird and John Gilroy. Both are men who KNOW this world back and forth. Shit... why the fuck wasn't I jazzed for this movie again?!

Now we come to Jolie. As an actress she's got her ups and downs. I'll say with her action based roles it's definitely been more downs. Her work in "Wanted" was pretty good, but nothing mind blowing (pun intended), but then there's the dreadful "Tomb Raider" pictures as well as "Gone in 60 Seconds" and probably a few others that escape me. Here she finally hits that mark for me that makes me fully buy her action hero status. Very little CGI, mostly hard hitting practical action work and stunts that look fantastic and are never too over the top as to remove you from what going on. I like the fact that Jolie is willing to get dirty in the film. She willing to be beaten to a pulp, tortured, shot and so on and not look like a super model or superhero the entire time. There's even a nice little homage to the world of "Mission Impossible" that is pretty ridiculous on some levels, but she sells it. Honestly I'd like other performers looking to dive into action to look at this as a training tool. How you can sell some rather insane things and make them work for an audience. Might have sorta helped "Prince of Persia". Well... maybe not that one.

I do think Sony's chosen release for "Salt" is unfortunate. While it's a prime film for the summer, still I think it could've been a monster success if released during a dead heap of the spring or fall. Much like what studios did with "Taken" or "The Transporter" films. I feel like right now it's just caught in the massive coat tails of "Inception" and will only get lost in the shuffle of other big ticket action pieces coming in August. "Salt" is absolutely one of the most generally entertaining and fun films I've seen all summer; trumping "The A-Team" and even "Predators". Have you seen "Inception"? Are you looking for something lighter that you can kick back and watch some good ole' fashioned ass stomping, but with some cognitive thought and a story? "Salt" is by far your best bet.

Joan Rivers: A Piece of Work review

The mark of a truly good documentary is when it can take someone or something you dislike or simply don't care about and actually make you care. After watching "Exit Through the Gift Shop" which is brimming with topics that highly interest me and thus made me love the film and it's subject matter more while viewing it in somewhat of a different light, I then went for "Joan Rivers: A Piece of Work". A documentary chronicling a year in the life of the groundbreaking comedienne/ talk show host/ red carpet interviewer/ plastic surgeon's blooper reel highlight. The result was an entertaining, witty, funny and seemingly truthful look at show business and a dimming star trying to regain her clout.

I grew up long after Rivers had 'peaked' in the entertainment world and thus have always seen her as that frightful looking, loud mouthed woman that talks about fashion while making rough attempts at humor. I was well aware that she had been a stand up comic, but I never really cared to see any of her shtick. However with this film not only did it make you understand where she came from and her importance, but also somewhat sympathize with a comic that in her heart of hearts always wanted to be more. Someone who wanted to be a serious actress. In addition to that it also showed that despite everything she is (to my surprise) funny and witty both on stage and off. Seriously... did not see that coming.

I do find comedians to be interesting people. Stand ups are especially interesting as they really must take a grand leap of faith to get up under those lights and attempt to make people laugh anyway possible. Seeing her life of doing fourth rate venues, attempting to get a new play off the ground and trying to get any work possible is a fascinating look into that two headed monster called show business. Much of Rivers' insights into it all are equally fascinating and most of all seemingly earnest. After all she's been doing this since the late sixties, is still around and living like a queen so she must be doing something right. At the same time we get a look at someone who is pretty damaged. A lot of the film steers slightly away from her various plastic surgeries, only touching on it near the beginning. From what I could gather it all seemingly came from her desire to be loved and how she never felt beautiful. Fairly classic tale of the whole thing I guess so perhaps no further discussion is necessary. Instead it talks about her quick rise to stardom, her falling out with Johnny Carson, NBC and FOX and the death of her husband and what followed. And despite it all... here she still is.

So how is it that Rivers, who is now more of a joke than anything has lasted this long? Because she's a work horse. She's constantly looking for new gigs anywhere possible to return to the spotlight and reinvent herself. In this day and age it isn't impossible obviously. Look at the huge Betty White following that's come around. Do I buy into it? No, but who cares cause everybody else does. Chuck Norris was even a fucking... thing for a while and why?! He can't act, 90% of his movies are shit even on the it's so bad it's good level and he's a fairly boring guy. But hey... if someone like Carlos fucking Mencia can be something of note then I firmly believe that Rivers can arise again as well. Through what though I don't know.

The one flaw that holds the whole film back from greatness is simply run time. It's all really damn interesting and entertaining, but it never seems to have a particular finale in mind until it's splashed upon you. It's inter cut with pieces of Rivers' stand up acts which are sometimes too over the top, but a lot of times far wittier and funnier than A LOT of the shit we hear from Dane Cook or other crap comedians around now. I almost feel like docs like this for other comedians who've lost their way could be a helpful tool for the public to see them in a different, more candid light as well as for them to exorcise some of their inner demons and get them out in front of them (Murphy and Myers, I'm looking at you). Despite all my highly mixed emotions going into the film, I'm very glad I did see it.

Exit Through the Gift Shop review

Question: have you heard of this film "Exit Through the Gift Shop"? If the answer is no then I'm not at all surprised and I'd highly advise you to head to youtube or imdb or whatever and take a look at the trailer and the reactions it's been getting from viewers. If you the answer to the question is yes, but you haven't seen it, then I'd advise you to find a fucking way to see it and pronto.

"Exit Through the Gift Shop" is a documentary directed by Banksy, a well known UK street artist that has widely expanded his particular brand of artistic, politic satire across the globe. And while the film is made by him its main focus is actually on a somewhat cartoonish and never dull frenchmen named Thierry Guetta. Thierry for several years has lived with a camcorder stuck to his hand. Everywhere he went, everything he did... was recorded. It wasn't until he met a street artist named Space Invader (made popular for replicating 8-bit characters on streets using discarded rubix cube pieces) that all his filming began to have a direction. From then on Thierry was hooked to the world of street art and through Invader was able to meet dozens upon dozens of other creative and mesmerizing artists.

However the question must be asked... why was he filming them? What was the purpose of it all; the end result? No one knew. Thierry didn't even know. But that didn't keep him from filming everything in sight. Eventually all Thierry's filming of artists came to a head when he wanted to meet the infamous Banksy, who is still a man of mystery. But by luck of the draw they did meet and became friends after a few quite rough, but rewarding events. Most of what they show and discuss is pretty hairy stuff and actually makes from some intense, tension filled sequences to the picture. Other encounters are quite humorous and light hearted, but help to really see a little bit more what these artists are really like.

I refuse to spoil much else about the whole film because it's best seen than heard about. I will say that by the end of the film your opinion on Thierry may change and you will question how sane or flat out insane of a man he really is. But not everything hinges solely on the very fucking interesting story of this man. It's also the best account of the world of street artists. Really in the 2000's it's been hard to identify what the counter-culture is. It's been pin pointed easily anywhere from the 50's thru the 90's... but now the lines have become quite blurred. Some might suggest that hipsters are the current counter-culture, but I highly disagree. My thought is the world 'culture' means more than shopping at thrift stores, smoking cloves and drinking cheap ass beer while sportin' an 'I'm-better-than-you' attitude. They're simply a more fashionable slacker. So I would identify the new wave of graffiti artists as that counter-culture. Guerrilla art that often is satirical of world happenings, the media and other hot button topics or concepts. Plus a lot of it looks cool.

"Exit Through the Gift Shop" has a little bit of everything I love seeing at the movies. Not just in documentaries, but films in general. The characters, the humanity, the realistic humor, the tension, the stories and the experience of seeing something new and creative. As it stands right now this may be my favorite film of 2010; it has all the energy and creativity of any big brand film out right now. I urge you all to see this film.

Cyrus review

Modern Hollywood is in love with making awkward romance comedies. "Cyrus", written and directed by the Duplass brothers is among the better ones to come around a while. The reason is because it's a performance piece above all and John C. Reilly, Jonah Hill and Marisa Tomei kill in these roles. Reilly plays John, a divorced kind of down on his luck guy who goes to a party after being convinced by his ex-wife (Catherine Keener, yet another great actress in the picture). While there he makes an ass of himself, gets more drunk and more depressed before meeting Molly (Tomei). They end up really connecting and falling hard for one another. Slowly though John starts noticing weird things about Molly's actions. Eventually he meets the reason, Cyrus.

Jonah Hill is known for being strictly the fat, funny kid ala' about a dozen movies. Here he actually managed to be funny, sympathetic, creepy and dramatic. It's perhaps a performance that deserves some heavy thought for awards season for it's subtly and success. Cyrus is simply put a weird kid/guy. He's in his early twenties and his relationship with his mother is much closer to that of roommates than to mother and child; which wouldn't be weird as shit unless it didn't involve things like using the toilet while she's in the shower singing. But one thing is known about Cyrus pretty quickly and that's he wants John out of Molly and his life. The why is pretty easy to figure out all things considered, but there's much more self-revelatory things surrounding it.

The Duplass brothers work has always left me a bit off center. "My Puffy Chair" aka the movie myspace sold, was a cute and funny little picture, but I never came close to loving it. They followed it up with "Baghead", a qusi-comedy, thriller about people with bags of their head. The problem was that it was neither funny nor suspenseful just annoying and stupid; which is a shame because I loved the trailer and the idea (to a certain extent). So "Cyrus" is by far their best and most satisfying work to date. It's not a straight comedy or drama, but the very definition of the dramedy genre. They pulled together these great talents and used them very wisely and made it feel much more realistic than atypical rom-com shamaltz. We often forget that John C. Reilly IS NOT a comedian. Despite starring in several big name comedies in the last ten years, he's a hardcore dramatic actor that's simply put, very fucking versatile. I'll always love his work with Paul Thomas Anderson and Martin Scorsese; hell he's one of my favorite characters in "Gangs of New York". With "Cyrus" it was like getting a little bit of the new and old Reilly in one package.

Tomei is an actress that honestly took me a while to really get a read on. When I saw Darren Aronofsky's "The Wrestler" though... wow. I mean yeah the hooker/stripper with a heart has been done several times and will be done several more, but damn it all if she doesn't work it like it's a fresh concept. She's very likable and seems to have a great wit and sense of timing. On the physical side she's also an actress that's very easy on the eyes, but not phony looking. She looks like everyday people and for me that's always a bit more attractive than the people who look like they get pampered day in and day out.

When it's all said and done "Cyrus" is the kind of funny, sweet and (mostly) realistic piece of been wanting to see again. It's not 100% perfect and it's damn sure not something everybody is going to love or like, but for me it's that kick in the ass that rom-coms have needed for a while.

Inception review

Christopher Nolan's "Inception" is a fully realized science fiction opus, in which Nolan goes to great lengths to completely convince us of this science of dream invasion and what not. To date I can fully say this is Nolan's most complex film and also most wonderfully misleading as far as what we're really dealing with. I think it's great to see that in addition to providing trailers that just give us nothing but money shots, he's also gave us a film that's got an action sense about it however isn't quite what I'd call an action movie because after a while it's no longer driven by action, but the emotion of the characters.

You probably know the players and what they do by now. You know DiCaprio's Cobb is a dream thief and he's given a chance to 'make it back home' with one last job of inception. Inception is the planting of an idea in someones mind; as opposed to extraction which is them going in and stealing an idea (what they primarily do since inception is said to be near impossible). Cobb's team is great and if ever there was an exciting group of young actors to come together on screen for something like this, you couldn't do better. Joesph Gordon-Levitt is Arthur (pointman), Ellen Page is Ariadne (the architect), Tom Hardy is Eames (the forger), Dileep Rao is Yusuf (the chemist) and Ken Wantanbe is Saito (the tourist). Their job is to planet an idea in the mind of Robert Fischer Jr. (Cillian Murphy) that would destroy his father's empire. This will involve many complicated devices to work including dreaming within dreams and so on and so forth. All matters that are made more sensible and interesting by Nolan in the film than little ole' me could ever make them seem.

The dream worlds are created a way that's fresh for film. They are fully moving cities, snow capped mountains with bases, cliff side retreats and so on. Sure there are a many elements of the fantastic that occur, but it's nothing like the fully fantasy dream worlds we're used to. There are rules and concepts that haven't been explored or visualized the way they are here. Furthermore there's a heavy emphasis on physical action (aka what things look like when ACTUALLY blow up and not just CGI blow up). There's a difference and it's always something more visually striking and dynamic about the right thing. Much like when they flipped the semi truck in "The Dark Knight". You can pick up on a few influences of Nolan including 'On Her Majesty's Service' and 'Blade Runner' to some extent as well as a few noir and heist movie elements. But all in all this is a very original piece of work.

But it's not all derived from Nolan's script or directing. Like I said a HUGE part of the film deals with emotion and just who these characters are. Cobb is a troubled man and getting into dream cons with him has it's ups and it's downs. The downs being his wife Mal (Marion Cottillard), who appears to sabotage missions if Cobb tends to know too much about the lay out of a location or even sometimes when Cobb is losing control of his own thoughts. Their story is perhaps the most important of any in the film and something that's been left quiet when discussing it. There's a reason and I'm not going to spoil that. In fact I'm not really going to spoil much more of the film because it's one of those rare occasions when the film has manged to advertise itself this much, but still provide a theatrical experience that you are unknown to until you're there watching it.

In the 142 minutes of "Inception" I found myself engrossed in the action, engrossed in the story and engrossed and invested in these characters. I'm not attempting to boast hype or spin any wheels, but it's quite something when a movie (especially in the summer) can really do all the things that have been done here. Hans Zimmer's score plays slightly counter to traditional summer action scores and has a much more dramatic and emotionally driven feel. I really love that Zimmer is experimenting more now that he did in the 80's and 90's; creating a different sound for these types of films that fits like a glove. Wally Pfister continues to shoot beautifully and is well on his way to becoming one of those cinematographers that's a go to guy for great imagery (like Robert Richardson, Robert Elswit, Roger Deakins etc). And finally the performances in the film run like clock work. Not one performer misses a beat and not one is unconvincing of who they pretend or proclaim to be. The entire final act becomes less about action and race against time, but about these people and what happened to them. I can honestly say the finale kinda killed him in that respect and I loved it. It's a feeling almost completely reserved for the good ole' end of the year Oscar movies that get their jollies by depressing the fuck outta you and then sending you home.

"Inception" probably won't convert non-fans of Nolan, but anytime something like this can get into that mass audience range and actually be successful, I'll take it. The hope is that other filmmakers will learn from what Nolan's been doing in the blockbuster range and perhaps others will go down that road. Start creating genre films for the summer season that have more to them then the usual bang-bang. It's definitely the best thing I've seen all summer and among the best of the year, although is WAY too soon to see how it stacks up among others I liked. What I'm trying to say is you should probably see it. If you're tired of enduring the same junky summer films we've been getting, the bland animated films or the lackluster action pictures... then here you go. Don't wait... just go and experience it for yourself and see how it grabs you.

Despicable Me review

If Pixar and "Toy Story 3" told of what is all right in the world of animated films, then "Despicable Me" tells heavily of what's wrong. Yes, much like my unpopular opinion of this springs big hit "How to Train Your Dragon", I just don't get the greatness that's supposed to be found in "Despicable Me". I get the references and the point of the story... but I don't see what's supposed to be so great about it all. Perhaps if the movie went as far as to give us something that was... oh say... original feeling, then maybe I'd be on board.

Basically the film is as the trailer dictated. Gru (voiced by Steve Carrell) is a super villain who has been out matched by Vector (voiced by Jason Segel). This starts a rivalry between the two that ultimately leads to Gru adopting three young girls so that they can sneak into Vector's fortress and steal a shrink ray which will allow him to commit the crime of the century; which is stealing the moon. And as mildly complex at that might sound, it's really not. In fact it's so incredibly simple minded that at one point I forgot it entirely and felt the film was designed for the sole purpose of making an over the top villain have to take care of kids. In my mind that's about as awesome as action heroes taking care of kids ('The Spy Next Door', 'Race to Witch Mountain', 'The Pacifier', 'Kindergarten Cop' etc).

Now much like in 'How to Train Your Dragon', our lead (in this case Carrell) offers up a voice that after about forty minutes or so will have officially gotten on your last nerve. Basically Gru is something of a Russian or German or general Europe type and Carrell's voice acting chops wavers throughout. Sometimes it's meshes together alright and sometimes it's like he's speaking normally, but very slowly. Regardless of that it's still an annoying ass accent. Segel's isn't much better as his tries his hardest to sound dastardly. All the while his character Vector simply does mildly smirk inspiring things like dispatching attack sharks on Gru by dragging his butt across a computer board. Splendid.

I can say however that I don't think this is quite as horrible as I expected. Honestly I've been dreading this movie all summer. None of the trailers interested me in the slightest and after a while of hearing the snazzy one line the world loves ('it's so fluffy, I gonna die!') about fifty thousand times I was pretty dead set against it. But it's not totally bad, just really lame. In fact while watching it myself and my friends noted the similarities to the animated adventure, comedy "Hoodwinked"; both through substance and animation style. Oh and they're both super lame. One thing I remember about "Hoodwinked" specifically was that it was ugly as far as CGI animation goes. Obviously it was made much cheaper than most, but the characters looked oddly shaped and almost so cartoonish that it was a turn off. The lighting was always really wonky in which it would range from awkwardly lit in the house to this blue night which made it's characters look slightly crappier. With "Despicable Me" it all seemed like it was one tier up. The designs were better, the lighting was better, the storytelling was... about the same and the character movements were just as stiff as before. I should say that I don't know if it's the same team, but there are many connections that could be made. Some of the jokes are fairly clever due to the timing of the actors and sometimes of the images like in the case of the sight gags. But it's never anything to write home about.

Yes... that's the phrase I want to use. It's nothing to write home about. The world is that of Roger Moore- James Bond movies and not in the cool way like 'The Incredibles'. It's a world of general cartoonishness, but with less interested writers. They never go full 'Shrek' sequel and just start pumping out pop culture references for laughs, but it'll play tricks like it. It'll somewhat be touching and somewhat be clever, but none of these things ever hit their marks. It's simply a safe and easy going animated feature that brings nothing new to the table. I maintain what I said about animated films in the spring, in that so many of them play by the same rules. I'd love to see some more animated films that attempted something more creative or more clever. I have hope for projects like Gore Verbinski's "Rango" (in glorious 2D) which he explained awesomely and I'm interested to see what Zack Snyder's "The Legend of the Guardians" will be like. I feel like there's a push to just give out the most generalist animated pictures and maybe if a couple of more experimental or stronger written ones come along and spice the field up, that it could create a change in the flow of things and maybe we'll end up seeing some more impressive animation features coming out way.

Valhalla Rising review

"Valhalla Rising" is not a battle movie. It's not really an action or adventure movie either. It's a strong mediation about violence, the unknown, spirituality and humanity. While at times co-writer and director Nicolas Winding Refn tends to perhaps get a bit pretentious with certain elements, still he has crafted an impressive and daring experimental picture.



Mads Mikkelsen ( best known in the states for 'Casino Royale' and 'Clash of the Titans') plays One eye, the mute slave. His origins are unknown and even more mysterious is the way he possibly conducts conversations through other people. As a slave he is caged most of the time and fed by a young boy and when that's not happening he's placed into fights with other slaves. He always wins. In the few pieces of dialogue we hear that many men think that he is from hell. I can't say if he is or isn't, but there is much going on in his mind that we see throughout the chapters of the film that would at the least explain that he's slightly more or less human. Eventually he escapes and meets up with a group of Christians that plan to go to the Holy Land and 'take it back'. They offer One Eye as well as the boy a chance to come along with them. This essentially places them on a foggy descent into madness and hell.

I have to stress that 'Valhalla Rising' is far from something for everyone. There's not much dialogue, the violence isn't stylized but instead is just straight gruesome and it's not a paint by numbers film. For these reasons the film is also outstanding and will hopefully catch on with viewers looking for something different. The biggest star is the overall atmosphere of mystery and dread that's soaked over the characters and their journey. The scenery (which is completely Scotland) is mystifying and dangerous, helping to really deliver the kind of backdrop this story needs. The music is a percussion based blend of electronics and mild symphony. It's at times hypnotic, other times haunting and maddening; PERFECT for the story. And as we all know, I do love me some complete technical movie packages.

The longest piece of the film is probably the fog shrouded boat ride. They're blind and lacking wind for days on end while out of food and water. Some of the men believe it's a curse brought on by the two new members; some even saying that One Eye was leading them into hell. The sequence plays like a stage play with all the claustrophobic pieces fully intact and bold, unsettling imagery. Once they reach land it's discovered that they haven't landed in Jerusalem, but instead somewhere in North America. Again all the scenery is astonishing in it's mysterious beauty and horrors; add to that the over tension and the acts taken out by some of these men and you've got a recipe for a really interesting finale to a film like this.

It pleases me so much to see something like this that is more of a Werner Herzog or Terrence Malik piece than a Zack Snyder piece. Nothing against him or those kind of films, but during these summer months it's been hard finding stand out films like this that work on all these levels. Honestly this is a tough film to write about though simply because it's ideas might be subjective to the viewer thus my reaction and feelings could be far different from yours. Regardless of that though is the fact that it does make the viewer think and that's always a good thing. "Valhalla Rising" should start making little theatrical rounds starting on July 23rd and then possibly expanding it's release after that. Hopefully I'll have to chance to to see it theatrically and see how the experience differs from seeing it at home, but as it stands this is one of the best films I've seen all year and definitely an art picture to check out.

Predators review

I find it incredibly odd how FOX in only a year and half has turned around from releasing 90 minute, half-assed, wussed up movies; to putting out some flicks that are actually closer to the gleefully over the top and fun films they became popular for. Despite my feelings on final act of "The A-Team" it was still one of the few summer films I had fun watching. Now they've managed to not just make another extremely fun film, but also the best "Predator" sequel/re-issue to date.

The best choice FOX could've have made was placing it in the hands of Robert Rodriguez and allowing him to produce it and lead the film under his Troublemaker Studios banner (which he's attempting to heavily expand so they can greenlight films). Rodriguez's interesting plucked up director Nimrod Antal ('Armored', 'Vacancy' and 'Kontroll') who opted to go less CGI and more practical action and effects. The end result in a fantastic throwback hunt picture instead of an all out action film or a half-assed attempt at a science fiction film. Oscar winner Adrian Brody leads up the cast which includes other less conventional performers Alice Braga, Topher Grace, Walton Goggins and Mahershalalhahaz Ali; as well as the likes of Machete himself Danny Trejo and Morpheus, Laurence Fishburne. Rather than deal with action throughout, we're given lots of time with the characters as they figure out where they are and what's going on.

As much as I dig Brody, I did tire of him figuring it all out first. Yes, he's probably the ultimate badass of the group, but still I might have liked it more had they gone with letting the discovery happen more so as they trekked through the jungle. When it came to the action sequences, they are spread quite apart. One thing I tend to forget about the first film is how there's only really heavy action in the beginning and the end; thus with this film there is partial action sprinkled about, but the real stuff doesn't come until the final act. But it's pretty worth it. They also work to add a bit more to the predator lore with the addition of a sort of alien, hunting dog creature that can gore you or at the least snuff out where you are in the woods.

As far as the 'Predator' film legacy goes, this is a tad under the first, but far above all the others. The crew really seemed to be fans of these characters and of the first movie so it appears that the proper mindset has returned to the alien badasses... thus no more running silhouettes with the predator and human running to fight together and save the day (thanks Paul W.orthless S.hit Anderson) . The entire vibe is that of the original movie. Photography wise, score wise (which by the way at the beginning the credits is a little number fans of the original might remember) and pace wise. Out of a summer of pretty rotten films with not even a sliver of fun or excitement, FINALLY we have something to kick back and really be entertained.

The Last Airbender review

With "The Last Airbender" M. Night Shyamalan has indeed made his worst film. This is coming from someone who actually does find "The Happening" entertaining on that 50's-60's cheap horror film way. All this said I don't buy this as the worst film of the summer. At the very least I can say TLA is nice to look at and James Newton Howard's score is as good as most of his for M. Night's films. The cinematography is dry, but in a refreshing way for the genre and hell I'll even give Shyamalan some credit for NOT falling into the pits of the genre as far as shots are concerned. There's a lot of issue with what's there (I'll get into that in a second), but after 'The Lord of the Rings' and 'Harry Potter' almost all fantasy films are shot in the same fashion ('The Golden Compass', 'The Chronicles of Narnia', 'Stardust' etc) and that's been killing me while watching them. At least when Night wasn't in extreme fucking close ups for no reason, he could lay down some interesting looking images here and there that wasn't all middle-earthy.

Ok, so why is this such a clusterfuck? First off what Shyamalan screws up is a potentially interesting beginning to what could be his trilogy. Since the money numbers are in, it's in that weird stage where a sequel might or might not happen considering it's budget was ... $280 million dollars and it's at $70 million right now. By the way if any of that money was accidentally sent to your house by mistake please contact someone at Paramount Pictures cause it damn sure was not used on this movie. With that kind of cash this film should've been about two and half hours long. In fact with this source material it would dictate a two and a half hour long movie. Instead we get 103 minutes that speeds along jumping where necessary and using action derivative language the whole time. It also plays the whole we'll talk about, but not show action through the means of weak appearing and disappearing narrations via Nicola Peltz's character Katara, whose voice could make an angel's anus bleed for weeks. The few fights scenes are over in a blink mostly and kind of awkwardly composed. The first one involving some earthbenders defending themselves against firebenders starts to seem impressive before ending about a minute in and doing little more than making a dirt wall and throwing some small rocks. As a mild fan of the series I can also say that is does change many aspects of the first season. Somethings are understandable and aren't that important at this state, while others might need to be addressed... like oh say... figuring out how to say the words 'Avatar' not 'Ovatar' and 'Aang' not 'Ung'.

That brings me to the acting of our three leads. Noah Ringer plays the young Aang who awakes and begins this pretty lackluster adventure. Ringer isn't an actor (and it shows). Shyamalan found him through tapes sent into Paramount looking for kids who could be these characters. He's apparently a martial artist and I'll say that's probably true as his moves and form seem quite on par with that. His acting is... well it ain't good, but compared with the other two characters he might as well be Daniel Day-Lewis. Jackson Rathbone ('Twilight's Jasper aka Willy Wonka) plays Sokka, Katara's older brother. Almost everything thing he says is cringe worthy. Part of it is due to some of the junk Shyamalan has written for him, but even when it's general stuff he performs like he's never acted before. Equally Peltz seems to have the most bizarre fucking reactions to everything. When things are at peace she looks like she's about to faint from frustration, when things are burning around her she's smiling and pleased. So either she's a mental case or she's an action junkie that gets her jollys from drowning people in mid air. I'm more incline to believe the prior though.

On the villain side we have 'Slumdog Millionaire' star Dev Patel as Prince Zuko, who was banished and disgraced by his father played by Cliff Curtis. Zuko can only return to his place in the empire by catching the avatar. Patel is one of the few here that actually works for me. Had the film been the length it should've I could maybe even see him getting a nice monologue to really pump up his villainy as well as the duality of his feelings towards Aang. Shaun Toub plays Zuko's Uncle Iroh who ain't so bad and tries to get Zuko to think that being an outcast isn't a bad thing. But ole' lonely Zuko just can't stop pissing and moaning about how he wants back in and blah, blah, blah. At some point Iroh should've told him to go bitch about it in his diary. Then there's Commander Zhao played by 'The Daily Show' star Aasif Mandvi. Not the role for him. I agree with the rest of the world by saying here's a role for a strong, meaty and actually frightening actor. This is the real bad guy to everybody in the story and Mandvi doesn't cut it.

And after going through all this I still can't say this is this big awful piece of work. It sucks, it sucks on several levels, but I've seen worse. I question HIGHLY how critics actually liked "Macgruber" or how "Grown Ups" gets a critical pass. Honestly the whole bad press over this film got me thinking a few days ago about another director and his out of his element film. David Lynch's "Dune" had a very similar fate as this. Interestingly enough it has now achieved a cult status, but go back and read reviews from 1984 and it was pretty much called the worst film of the year and it was only January when it came out. "Dune" isn't good, but it's not utter shit. "The Last Airbender" isn't good, but it's not utter shit. Perhaps I find it difficult to fully destroy the idea of any film with an interesting concept, but I don't think it's a total wash.

I think with this film Shyamalan got scared while writing and scaled back to such a bogus level as to leave next to nothing for viewers to get wrapped up in. It reminds me of FOX's box office train of 90 minute, PG-13 films that were all cut to ribbons and by the time people saw them, they didn't make any sense, but they made money. If ever he were allowed to make a sequel to this (which I highly doubt) or to do another effects heavy film I offer up these thoughts... 1: if you subscribe to making an action film, don't puss out and NOT make one. 2: films can be and often should be longer than an hour and a half. 3: Fucking pay attention during casting sessions! And furthermore fire the fuck out of Peltz and Rathbone or send them on a weekend with Tom Hardy, Daniel Day-Lewis and Viola Davis. If they don't know how to act after hanging with them, then there's no hope for their careers. 4: Hire a writing buddy or someone to check what you're writing and make sure it doesn't involve people repeating the same lines over and over and over again. 5: I hear there are deleted scenes... GOOD. For the DVD Michael Mann the fuck outta your movie and throw it all in! Got different takes of some of the acting? PERFECT, put that in too. Any thing you can do to fix this is a good call.

So really that's all I have to say on the matter of "The Last Airbender". Admittedly even with a misstep with "Lady in the Water", I found it an interesting one. Honestly I like the guy because he does have a style that's all his own and isn't interested in compromising it in this day and age where a lot of movies look the identical. At the same time maybe it's time he really analyzes that style and figures that there is a way to still utilize it, but in a better way that's more in tune with what people want to watch in general and what people want to watch from him. Regardless of what people say I think he's still got some good stories in him, but God help him if he can't tell them better than this.

The Twilight Saga: Eclipse review

Today I heard a great analogy and it pertains to these films. "I could say that getting punched in the face the third time was the best time, but I'm still getting punched in the face." And thus my feelings on 'Eclipse'. Well... let me alter that slightly; I won't use the word 'best', but I'd say it's the most watchable of the films.

With the right people I can and have sat through all three of these mindless, boring drones people go gaga over, but at least here with this one my butt stayed awake the whole time. Probably has something to do with the slightly shorter running time. But alas everything in 'Eclipse' is pretty much the same as it was in 'New Moon' and the first laughably bad film. Bella (Kristen Stewart) is still in love with count paleness Edward (Robert 'foot face' Pattinson) and the runner-up for any 'Teen Wolf' look-a-like contest Jacob (Taylor 'the sun is in my eyes' Lautner). I'd say in this film her cock teasing gets a bit more heated because she's simply achin' for it. Part of me would find her whole plight interesting and funny if not for how intensely serious they all are about everything.

Sadly though it's not so simple. You see now Victoria (now played by Bryce Dallas Howard with about five lines) is raising an army of newly turned vampires to come after Bella and get her vengeance for what Edward did to her boyfriend James in the first film. The army is lead by Riley (Xavier Samuel) whose back story yields some intrigue, but apparently not enough to explore more of or at least remove us from having to listen to our three main characters groan on and on and on and on about how much they love Bella, hate _______ (enter Edward or Jacob) and want her all to themselves and blah, blah, blah.

Look... is there going to come a point where it's shown that any of these people can act? With two more films to go are they going to continue to kiss awkwardly, snarl during scenes of embrace and take a thousand fucking pausing in a conversation?! God bless the world cause finally Kristen Stewart cracks a damn smile, but good ole' foot face Pattinson... nahh... he'll have to go with a smirk; launched over at the shirtless Jacob who was warming his woman on the snow covered mountain. At said point it could be summarized that Bella pants were officially 'creamy' with delight. But more interesting is those looks between the rival lovers... I mean why couldn't they just get there Brokeback on and be done with the whole thing. Sort it out old school Greek style with dicks not fists. Oh well... perhaps my 'orgies solve everything' ideas are too dated.

Also involving said mountain scene was the following morning in which all three characters are FAR from correctly dressed to be outside on a giant, fucking, snowy ass mountain! Jacob's still shirtless for Gods sake! Then again that part was probably on a sound stage as the entire area looking fantastically unrealistic compared to the other wooded and mountainous areas in the film. And hey why make those poor actors pretend they're freezing on a snow capped mountain if it's really just a sound stage? That's just silly. During that massive logical temperature mystery is the big fight, which I'd equate to the meeting and following beating dished out between rival schools on a yearly high stakes football game that gets out of control. The one plus I found during the sequence was that it gave me sweet silence from those jabbering idiots we have to listen to 95% of the movie.

The fight itself isn't that exciting. Basically I just learned that in their universe vampires are made of crystal, so snap one open if you want to get to their sparkly center. The wolf transformations have grown on me, which is to say that instead of it being laughable most times its more like just another lame element in a big lame movie. Seriously fans... how do you find this romantic or interesting? I'm so tired of hearing these character talk about how important and special Bella is because frankly... she's not. She's a boring shell of a character designed for lost readers (and in this case viewers) to place themselves in. Basically it's for people who want to be loved by two people and string them along till they're finished and ready to be with just one. That's the fantasy this shit has created.

The only few things about 'Eclipse' that works is it's score by Oscar winning composer Howard Shore ('The Lord of the Rings' as well as pretty much all David Cronenberg movies) and a couple of the Cullen family member's flashbacks. Jasper's I find funnier then anything as he out of the blue develops a southern accent and then we're shown him as a confederate soldier during the Civil War. Rosealie's is better as it's basically a 1930's rape story with vampires, but it's shot and played out well. Had the movie been about their past then it may have been worth sitting through. Sadly it's just the same boring money making song and dance that get ill-informed kids all a flutter, feeding them lies about romance and the mythology of monsters. FACT OF THE DAY: Vampires NOT filled with crystal.