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 ****