Musings on TNMT the Original Series

Does anyone remember their childhood? Mine was full of great saturday and early weekday mornings tuning in to watch some cool cartoons. Anyone else remember James Bond Jr.? Well on an impulse, I went ahead and rediscovered one of these old cartoon favorites, otherwise known as Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. After having reviewed the first two seasons, I can say that the show is still surprisingly good. For one thing, the show maintains a great sense of continuity in each episode and the writers make use of each new small change to the best of their ability. Unfortunately the turtles themselves are more annoying than cool now at my age and Shredder comes off as whiney. Bebop and Rocksteady are morons that never pose a threat, but besides all of this there is a genius behind the episodes. Not only does the show have the turtles eating pizza and kicking ninja butt, it also contains a bunch of lessons on taking care of the environment and makes constant reference to previous pop culture. Out of the two seasons I saw direct correlations in the series to Frankenstein and other old horror films. In fact, I didn't remember this, but apparently the turtles love watching old horror movies as well and chowin down on a great pie. The show is different from the recent series and the comics which have a darker and more dangerous feel in that it is very bright and lighthearted. The best part of the series is rediscovering Kranggs relationship with Shredder and how he completely humiliates him. Since the show was heavily censored due to it being for kids and all, the bad guys are always either robots or mutants, which since they aren't human made it okay to make the fights more violent. It's also enjoyable to figure out the environmental take of the series which constantly re-enforces the idea that technology itself is neither good nor bad, it depends on how you use it. This is best exemplified in the evil of Shredder/krangg. They constantly build evil machines to try and takeover people or kill things and fail. Whereas other technology is put to better use such as Donatello's various and myriad inventions. The best episode of the first two episodes that details this struggle is the episode about REX-1 the robocop knockoff where entire robocop type terminators are made by shredder and the one good cop model takes them on as best as it can. The constant references to geeky pop culture is made not only in passing dialogue, but also in various art designs that I find really surprising because I never recognized any of these things as a kid but looking back on it I am given a new depth to explore with the series. I truly believe that this series is one of the few true great cartoon series since it means and conveys different things to different generations of people. Therefore people, please comment back and discuss the series and things you noticed. Your child hood memories and even some of your favorite quotes. So far here are two of my favorite quotes;
"Being a 7 foot tall robot means never having to say your sorry."-REX-1
"A Micro-rocket. Brilliant!" - Dregg

Also, hit me up with your favorite characters from the series and why. Here's mine.
5. Baxtor-yea he sucked as a human but he invented mowsers and then became an awesome Fly mutant which significantly increased his shooting aim. Too bad he was kicked out of the universe forever by the end of the second season.
4. Krangg - hell yea a giant talking brain with a warble of one of the three stooges. Who also happens to own a technological palace the size of three football stadiums and who resides in his technologically advanced metallic body that can mutate matter and stuff.
3.Bebop - it's true that Bebop and Rocksteady are terrible thugs who always foul up, but Bebop carries grenades and a giant bone necklace around his neck. Plus he has those great purple 80's glasses/visors. Also, he is a better fighter than Rocksteady, he is harder than Rocksteady in the old-school videogame and in the episode where they attack the turtles in the sewers, Bebop is the only one who gets a couple of good knocks on the turtles.
2. Splinter-I'm sorry, but what's not cool about this guy? He can "sense" things in the future and distance related. He is a former ninja master. He's a giant mutant rat who has four easy to train and fairly straight forward turtle ninjas to do hi bidding. His only drawback is that sometimes, his "enigmnatic sayings" are either not very enigmatic or really don't make a damn lick of sense because they are restating themselves. But oh well, he is a rat and he has to have one flaw.
1. April O'Neal - I never realized it, but I guess I owe my appreciation of the female body to the always yellow clad April. She's a struggling reporter who fights with turtles and protects them from a hateful public. Yea, okay, Spiderman knock off, why care? JUST LOOK AT HER CHEST! Wow! I had forgotten how much I enjoyed watching the show as a child. Also, she does the whole Catwoman thing in one of her episodes as well. She was my original archetype for the hot woman and for that there will always be a place in my dvd library for her.

If you want to know why Shredder isn't included, its because in the cartoon series he is really whiney and completely not dangerous. In the old movies, heck yea! He ruled with his sharp suited self. Easy shave and all. Anyhow, I look forward to reading your thoughts and favorites. peace!

Wannabe

The Oscars

Well, I was quite surprised. Normally the Oscars are hosted by someone attempting to be funny by telling a bunch of really bad jokes and things and generally mucking it up. Ellen Degeneres did an excellent job though of moving the show along and not being annoying. In fact, she was surprisingly pc about everything and her good slightly quirky nature made this years show a lot of fun to watch. PLus they had some really cool performances and alternatative fringe groups such as a sound effects choir. This year's show was great to watch. Degeneres added that required effect of class back to the Academy Awards which helped make it the prestigious award it is, good job Ellen! As for the awards itself, well, there were a few shockers but nothing that wasn't too hard to figure out. So here we go.

One of the biggest surprises was Pan's Labryinth which won 3 awards for best cinematography, art direction, and makeup but lost in the category of best foreign film to the recently released powerhouse, The Lives of Others. I'm not saying that this was a bad choice, just odd considering how much praise and how many awards Labryinth garnered. In the sound department these awards were used to comfort those who lost out on the bigger race of movie picture. Best Sound Editing = Letters From Iwo Jima which was certainly deserved; Best Sound Mixing = Dreamgirls; Best Score = Babel; and Best Song = the song from An Inconvenient Truth? Honestly, this was probably the most insulting since I don't remember being impressed with that movie and its music whereas I'm positive the same cannot be said for Dreamgirls. Also, An Inconvenient Truth won best documentary which is really overkill, yes its good education material but Jesus Camp that I reviewed earlier might be a better documentary in terms of helping us to try to see each other or understand our neighbors. Another surprise of the night was the loss of Eddie Murphy for best supporting actor to Alan Arkin who honestly doesn't deserve it. He was good, just not around long enough. So yes, Eddie has been robbed of his one chance for Oscar gold, now go put on a fat suit and sell out for more money.

Then of course there were those that were supposedly guarenteed wins that became guaranteed. Jennifer Hudson of Dreamgirls for Best Supporting Actress, Forest Whitaker for Best Actor, Helen Mirren for Best Actress, oh yea and Marty finally got it. Martin Scorcese got his Best Directing and Best Motion Picture all in one night. He was the favored one, but there was a lot of speculation leading up to it that he could have lost yet again. Now Scorcese fans, you can relax, the man has his one required Oscar. The Departed also won for Best Film Editing, which is surprising since Babel was the favorite on that category and I don't really remember the editing being particularly amazing, although looking back at the well-crafted story it was, maybe it was worth nominating but I still think Babel was better in that category. And then of course the real shocker, Happy Feet beat Cars for Best Animated Feature! John (Lasseter)! Say it ain't so John!

Other awards included the best costume design by Marie Antoinette, a rather same old but with a rock glam flair. Then William Monahan for his screenplay The Departed for best Adapted Screenplay. Also Michael Arndt for best original screenplay on Little Miss Sunshine, which completely didn't deserve to be at the Oscars this year. I am so bitter about that damn movie. Best Visual Effects (aka movie that sold out story for cgi) Pirates of the Caribbean: The Further Adventures of Johnny Depp. And then the shorts which I will have to pick up later, The Danish Poet for Best Animated Short; West Bank Story, which looked hilarious from the clip they showed, for Best Live Action Short; and The Blood of Yingzhou District for Best Documentary Short.

My surprise consists of how little awards favorites such as Dreamgirls, Babel, and The Queen raked in. Letters From Iwo Jima, despite being good has been on life support ever since the crippling Flags of Our Fathers came out. Besides The Departed had earned the most money of all the nominees and everyone knew it was time for Marty to get something. But the lack of awards for the other three is very surprising since they were so heavily nominated. The other huge surprise is how well Little Miss Sunshine did at the awards, besides being only a mediocre movie and its own genre as a dark comedy and the usual dislike of comedies at the Oscars. At least they recognized a lot of what made Pan's Labryinth great if nothing else. Maybe next year will be a better year for Bill Condon, Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu, John Lasseter, Stephen Frears, and Guillermo Del Toro, except now I don't feel as bad for del Toro.

Wannabe

P.S. The whole thing about Letters From Iwo Jima and being on life support is the fact that Clint Eastwood angered a lot of people by overhyping Flags of Our Fathers which failed miserably in box office and critical praise. After that he released Letters From Iwo Jima which not many people were inclined to want to watch and potentially like another war movie of his having just seen his last one.

Letters From Iwo Jima

'Letters should be sent to every soldier'

When I first started this blog, one of the original reviews was for the widely hyped and yet disappointing Clint Eastwood flick Flags of Our Fathers concerned with the American side of World War II and in particular the bloody battle on the small island known as Iwo Jima. It was known at the time that he had filmed a second movie as a companion piece to that film and Letters from Iwo Jima is it. Except for one difference, it's damn good.

The first film came out and flopped. It fell under its own anti-war anti-media spin self and died in a heap somewhere holding a small miniature flag that is usually reserved for drinks at a martini bar. Letters, instead of going for a very flashy experience, is much better written, better acted, and about ten times as interesting in what it portrays and in what it has to say concerning war. Eastwood is known for discussing what it means to be a hero and this film explores the acts of a hero in much more depth in a manner that is well done. At moments it seems preachy, but it is well executed. When this movie was released in a rush after the flop of Flags of Our Fathers, I was skeptical. When it got nominated for an Oscar, I was pissed because I have honestly never seen a film of Eastwood's that I felt was deserving of the amount of accolades it received. Now, I have to agree. It earned that nomination for Best Picture.

Letters From Iwo Jima was plotted out by Paul Haggis and his apprentice Iris Yamashita with Yamashita actually writing the screenplay. At one point this would have been gleefully welcomed, but after seeing two bleh movies Haggis has worked on, this became the scariest point. The good news is that Yamashita scripts a better structure and screenplay for Clint this time out than Haggis did for Flags. The movie is all in subtitles and does not demote itself to dubbing thankfully. The film is nowhere as flashy as Flags which had a lot of flashbacks and scenes that seemed out of order and jumbled requiring the audience to put the pieces together but often times being unable to do so. Letters still uses flashbacks, except it provides a better context for them such as when a soldier is reading a letter and it drifts back to his memories. Or when they are writing a leter or talking to someone about it. These contexts are essential and provide necessary information about the characters that humanize the japanese side of the war. The other great thing about the script is it goes out of its way to make itself understood by a more modern audience. Japan at the time had a fanatical alliance with the Emperor of Japan hence the popularity of kamikaze bombers and the like. The film's main character is a Japanese baker who is recently married, sent off, and told to die for his country. A man who doesn't really care about the Emperor while surrounded by those that follow blindly. Although there is some anti-government rebellion inherent in this, Yamashita and Eastwood don't emphasize it nearly as much as Flags did and it pays off. Yamashita redirects the story to focus not on questioning government, but more to how to behave ones self in the middle of a hellish battle. All the characters have to balance their senses of honor, skepticism, and humanity in the terrible battle for Iwo Jima. The best way to characterize this idea is the one presented by the Japanese blind captain, "Do what is right because it is the right thing to do." Yamashita balances each character well and by focusing on only a couple of characters and by giving the main one an epic journey over the small island of Iwo Jima, the audience becomes familiar with all of the aspects of that war, including the gruesome scenes of mass suicide by grenade. It is a beautiful and well-made script with great character arcs for actors to enjoy, which they certainly do.

When it comes to acting, the only person in the film most western audiences might recognize is Ken Watanabe whose previous credits include The Last Samurai, Memoirs of a Geisha, and Batman Begins. Watanabe plays the new general in charge of defending the island Iwo Jima from oncoming American forces, but his troops don't trust him because he supposedly went to America and might be a friend of America. Watanabe has always seemed a fairly wooden actor to me with a great smile. I'm sure he'll make a great grandad one day, but he has never grabbed and held my attention. He performs his job well and his character comes to life, but it still seems...distant somehow. He'd make a great wise man character as terrible as that is of me to say. Thankfully, he is not the only main actor in this film. In fact, he is the second most with the first being Kazunari Ninomiya as Saigo. Where the hell has this kid been? He's amazing! Every suggestion for each battle and every line he delivers is great. He goes from being the clutzy screwup soldier that everyone knows will die to a true war hero. Ninomiya's performance is not only eye-catching but it grabs the heart of the audience and forces you to care and empathize with the Japanese and their plight of their own draft. Other actors that fill out the parts include Ryo Kase as Shimizu, Tsuyoshi Ihara as Baron Nishi, and Shido Nakamura as Lieutenant Ito. All of these last three performances are done splendidly, especially Nakamura's character. His character and his journey was a very pleasant surprise that didn't end the way I thought it would and is a great credit to Nakamura and Yamashita and Eastwood. I don't know why, but Eastwood is able to bring out much better acting from these Japanese actors than from English speaking ones.

Now for directing. Well, Clint is up to his old tricks. By graying the living hell out of Iwo Jima the movie becomes about as close as you can get to black and white without actually being black and white, but then gets mixed with flashbacks to better days and events in color that offset the dreary and depressing conditions of the moment. This is all well and good and is not orginal in any way since it was done before on Flags and before that on Saving Private Ryan and Schindler's List. The real interesting moment of the film is the rocks. Yes, the rocks. Supposedly Eastwood came up with the idea for both films and what they would be after visiting Iwo Jima and seeing the kind of hellish conditions the Japanese lived in to fight their enemeies. We are talking about self dug interlocking caverns that could collapse at any second and where dysentery and other fun diseases ran rampant. All of these things are shown in the movie, even the grenade suicide scenes. The lack of daylight once the Americans attack and the feeling of being cramped into a small space from which to stand your ground and fight is accented beautifully and really gets into the mindset of the spectator. Also, I was really impressed with the fighting sequences. I mean, I know its Eastwood and Spielberg, so I shouldn't be too surprised, but there are some really well done and well timed explosion sequences from plane gunfire that brought that scenario to life more than I have ever seen. Maybe it has just been a while. Also, this time out for whatever reason, Eastwood's directing style works significantly better than his last attempt with the actors. The real problem comes in how the film is presented. The film is shown in subtitles giving it an art house feel. The problem is that the subtitles are all white which in a film that is close to black and white, a lot of the subtitles get lost in the cinematagraphy and there are literally whole phrases which I could not read. I know some people don't like subtitles, but this is the first time I have seen a film where I hated the subtitles themselves in how they are presented! The other big problem is sometimes the cinematagraphy is too simple. When a couple of character come out of a cave into a bigger cave, the camera is occassionally only showing the wall behind them which is so simple it becomes slightly boring despite the amazing performances and great action sequences. Now this is only in a couple of shots mind you, but it is still noticeable and will keep this film from garnering any cinematagraphy awards.

Conclusion:
Now for the subtitle I created earlier. I feel this movie might be the most important movie for American soldiers to see. We as a country ask a lot of the soldiers at war, especially considering the conditions. The truth is, that we enjoy criticizing and critiquing their behavior so much that we don't ever think to offer an alternative. Instead of being merely a film concerned with critiquing soldiers and their sometimes inhumane actions, it gives an alternative for soldiers to lead by example. When on a battlefield, no matter how much you hate the other side, when someone gives up or is shot, you try to help them and capture them. The difference between the portrayal of Americans by Japan and what they really are is done quite well. Why is this necessary? Because in a war like in Iraq there needs to be a humanizing of both sides for the people to understand why to act humanely. If we just assume that all Muslims are evil and not to be tolerated, then they will assume the same about Christians. The war in Iraq is not supposed to be a holy war, it is a govermental war in which as soldiers they are expected to put aside their differences of religion and prejudices and act professional. With the fun of Abu Ghraib being one of our sad public misdemeanors, there are many other small injustices going on in Iraq. Now while the Iraqis no longer have a government and we are merely fighting rebels and Al Qaeda operatives, they are still human no matter how much dehumanizing we attribute. Perhaps if we make ourselves seem more human in Iraq and Afghanistan and treat them as a people better and more fairly, then we can call ourselves honorable after this entire torid affair is done. It is sad that I am sure almost none of America and few soldiers will ever see this film simply because it does humanize the enemy and has traces of anti-government propaganda idealism, plus it has a very low box office draw. So if you get the chance, go see this remarkable film with its interesting characters and take a good look at the other side. You'll be surprised to see yourself there.

4.3 out of 5

Wannabe

Serenity

'Serenity Now!'

If you don't know Joss Whedon, I can at least guarantee you've probably heard of his work. Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Angel, and you might have even heard of a little show a while back called Firefly. Well, in 2005, Whedon released his first blockbuster type film based off of his small television show Firefly called Serenity. When it came out the movie was critically lauded as an excellent action film, one of the best of that year supposedly. So, to say I have been looking forward to this film is no joke. And here is how it breaks down. First the history.

For those of you that don't know, Firefly was a space opera, in other words an epic space show that combined a lot elements of classic westerns into itself. The show was well-recieved critically, but overlooked by most audiences. It was canceled after 1 season due to the network not being able to understand or see how to market the show. Fans of the show, like Buffy and Angel before it, are intense and whole sites of fan-fiction exists. There is even a site dedicated to writing fan scripts to create the next few seasons called stillflying.net. It turns out that Joss was a big fan of the show too and somehow got Universal to bank on the idea of a Firefly movie. Before the movie came out to the delight of browncoats(fans) everywhere, Whedon released a small miniseries of comics that helped to prepare audiences for the differences between the series and the film called Those Left Behind. Then the film came out with all of the original cast intact and good word of mouth and critical praise, but the box office was not as good as to be expected, preventing Joss from being able to follow up on doing the sequels he had hoped for. The last possibility is really seeing how well the show does on DVD. But my question is, is it worth it? As someone who has read the miniseries and seen all of the episodes with director's commentary and then seen the movie, I will be approaching this review from the point of view of a fan and I will try and talk about what it would be like to not be familiar with the history of the series.

Honestly, my answer for if the film is worth it is pretty close to no. It's a decent action film for sure and a lot of the acting is well done, but Whedon makes many mistakes, especially in how he tries to take something that is a cult hit and expand that feel to a mainstream audience. It simply doesn't work right and in the process he makes a less decent film than I feel the series deserves. From the fans point of view, the film's focus on action leads to some great scenes for Summer Glau, Nathan Fillion, and the villain; but this detracts from what made the television show so great and what made the show so endearing. Joss talks about the fact that when making a film you have to bow to the God Momentum and make everything bigger and more action-oriented. Well...in doing so he sacrifices relationships and character moments. I understand that an action film, especially now a days, has to be really fast and furious but every great film has slow moments. I think that if Joss had stuck to his guns and added in some more character relationship moments and slowed things down a little at times, he could have created a truly memorable movie. As it is, I would be surprised if someone not familiar with the show knew that Kaylee and Simon liked each ther before the huge showdown scene near the end. The investment in the characters by non-fans of the series is so minimal that it forces Joss to kill off two of the main characters from the show, when he only needed to kill one of them if he had included more relationship scenes. As much as I hated to see Wash go, I agree with Whedon in the commentary that Wash had to die to make it believable that the others could die too. But Shepherd Book had no reason to die. I'm sure there was idea of making the bad guy look badder, which works a little when you think about how badass the shepherd was at fighting in the television series, but honestly I think Whedon killed him off because he never knew how to write him. Even during the television series Book never sounded like a holy man. He always came across as someone playing at being a holy man to hide from his militant past or something like that. Its an interesting back-story, one that is never explained and makes me even more agitated that he killed him, but there are moments in the television show where you see Book truly doubting and wondering about his path showing that he does care about being a holy man. The problem is that you never see him doing anything holy besides reading a book and occasionally trying to tell someone something and having them spit it back at them. I think Joss wasn't sure of how to write the character because he has stated before that he desn't believe in God or anything and this fact would keep him from being able to understand and sympathize with a character who is compassionate about God. The one transitional thing he did well was to cut out a lot of the cheese. Whedon is an admitted fan of cheesey one-liners and things as evident from the show. On the small screen, these well done cheese lines are funny and not too annoying. In a film dealing with such dark and interesting material, it detracts and really takes the audience out of the experience, which creates some problems since the main leader, played by Nathan Fillian was concieved as a Han Solo'ish type whom of course made good use of the one-liners in the Star Wars films. Since the cheese is natural to the show and necessary, Joss does a good job by including it only scantily in the movie and instead letting the movie follow the more serious path to mimic the darkness of the plot. It's also nice in the end when Simon and Kaylee finally get to make out like mad. Whedon, who also scripted the movie, performs perhaps the biggest and most unforgivable flaw though in the script.

I have to say, this factor right here would be what would turn me off the most as a fan and as a non-fan. The story essentially involves three people. Now, if you have seen the show then you know that the cast is much bigger than that and that they are all in the film, which is exactly the problem. The other characters tend to serve as merely background spectators and events to the three main storyplots. The main storyplot revolves around River and Simon Tam and their relationship and the fact that they are being hunted down so that River can be recaptured/killed. Which makes little to no sense because in the series it was always they were after her to re-capture and bring back for more experiments. Anyhow, it focuses on illuminating more of their story and on what the experiments did to River. The other main point is in showing captain Mal's slow ascent from the dark drudgery to which he had descended back to being a hero for what is right. All the other characters serve to merely make the action scenes cooler. Some aren't even able to do that. Honestly, Adam Baldwin's character would never have followed Mal out past the Reavers and on a suicide mission. He would have tried to kill everyone and take over first because he might be dumb but all he wants is to live, kill things, be funny, and get paid. It took a lot for him to do the right thing in one episode called Jaynestown. But in the movie, he puts up a little verbal tiff and its over. Wash and Zoe's love is briefly touched upon just like all of the other romances and we rarely hear from either of them. I hold that Gina Torres is possibly the only woman who has looked truly deadly in a fight scene. Kaylee is the mechanic who runs around fixing things. And then there is Inara. Inara and Mal's relationship is such a strong point of the television series that its a shame it gets almost no mention in this film. In fact, the film feels like it brings everyone back together simply to have them together, which is not worth ever doing in a film. Inara has one story point that could have been easily rewritten to not include her and their are moments where you catch a glimpse of her in the film and wonder what she is still doing there. She is essentially useless in the story and is the only character whom we don't see injured in the final showdown for whatever reason. She is essentially a ghost who just randomly appears at times creating no discernable care for her character. Instead of fulfilling the role of the Leiah to Solo role as she starts off to do in her introduction into the movie, Joss just kind of drops her character and she never becomes anything more than that girl Mal visited and saved. Nothing about her interesting past and history as a companion is ever shown or revealed and there is one deleted scene on the DVD that I am sad Joss decided to cut since it would have made Inara much more interesting and fleshed out.

Conclusion:
The television series is great, the stories are always interesting, but Joss's decision to make the movie more action oriented and to cut out a lot of the relationship scenes creates two-dimensional characters and drowns out a lot of the magic of the original television series. Also, by creating a storyline focusing on only three of the main characters, the rest of the cast becomes potential fodder and leads to him killing off two great characters instead of one if he had designed it more so that each character was NECESSARY to the plot. A lot of the things in the series that gave Firefly and the cast its charm was the universe and backgrounds of the characters and how they all overlapped, most of which is lost in the movie in favor of action scenes. The good news is that despite these problems of the script, their are some truly well done artistic directorial choices involving camerawork and lighting on Whedon's part. Also, he transfers just enough to of the fun of the series in the cheese factor over to make the crew recognizable as the same Firefly crew and to imbue the film with funny moments. I'm sad that the film so far hasn't made enough money to make sequels but I don't know if I want sequels if Whedon isn't going to make all of the cast necessary. If you get the chance, buy the television series and then if you decide you like it more than that, consider buying the film. I want more of the idea and cast and Whedon banter, but the television show is much better.

2.75 out of 5

Wannabe

Monster House

'The Monster is the bed'

The year 2006 saw several high profile cg-animated films. This is not unusual since the number of releases of animated films has grown significantly since when I was a kid going to see Little Mermaid by Disney. Now there are the Fox films, the Disney films, the Disney-Pixar films, and the Zemeckis films, all of which are animated in the "cool" new style of computer graphics(CG). Out of these different production branches, Zemeckis films are perhaps the newest addition with only two titles to its name so far, Monster House and the previous Tom Hanks CG film, The Polar Express. Out of these two Robert Zemeckis has only directed the Polar Express and merely produced Monster House which was directed by first-timer Gil Kenan. And while most CG films of this nature are thought to be kids films, this one borders a bit close on the edge.

Essentially what has been created by director Gil Kenan and writers Dan Harmon and Rob Schrab is a horror tale for children on Halloween. I know that as a kid I had the option of watching silly non-scary movies such as Witches, which I admit is rather dark, or feasting my eyes on the gory spectacle of Jason, which at the age of 7-9 is not exactly a good thing. There simply isn't a film for Halloween for children of that age that kids could be afraid of because they are still too kiddie. Now maybe this is just my male I'm-not-afraid-of-anything bravado, but still, it's slim pickings on Halloween night and the kiddie stuff has to jostle for it's place next to adult horror classics like Psycho and Halloween. Monster House is one of those rare movies that is able to retain it's horror edge and still be able to be consumed by children letting it join the ranks of The Nightmare Before Christmas, except without all of the songs and creepy children. Perhaps my favorite reason for liking the film is how it is presented. It's portrayed in an old-fashioned way that I haven't seen in a while where a neighborhood is still closely knit and where friends live down the street and hang out at a moments call. It's essentially a suburban epic like Goonies or The Sandlot type setting of suburbia with one house being as old and creepy as its one inhabitant, Mr. Nebbercracker. As a movie with young boys at its heart, it deals with all sorts of fun topics about growing up and facing the world around you and what does it mean to be a grown up. The main character and his friend are both nerds, they both fight over the snotty private school girl, and the main character's voice is cracking. It is essentially a tale of coming into one's own self and surviving the scariness of early puberty wrapped into a tale of a giant eating monster house! BRILLIANT!?!?! I can't decide. Either way, the movie Monster House takes advantage of the fears of children at this age by providing truly scary moments including a section where the main character thinks he killed someone because of a heart attack. The director sticks to his guns to make a film that while not so terrifying to an adult, could easily scare a kid and the movie ends in a manner like most children movies except it is more like The Sandlot in its ending where the audience will have felt relieved by the coming-of-age tale being completed in a satisfactory manner and having dealt with some dark material.

With all of that good stuff being said, there are some very real drawbacks to the film. Now of course most of the film is aimed at children so it is usually portrayed in an amusing and light manner, when not dealing with the house or Nebbercracker. Yet, the police come off as either paranoid crazy people or as lazy and unwilling to help the kids. Plus, they get eaten due to their stupidity and we come to realize as one character says, that we cannot trust the government. Still a bit too young for such cynicism, even for me. In fact, if anything, this movie enforces the idea to little children that they are alone and can't depend on anyone else except people their own age and usually same geekiness because no one will believe and willingly take a chance on them. As a kid these films are great. Us against them! But looking back now as an adult, I am not sure of how great these films can be since they can easily support rebellion which is not always the path to enlightenment. Plus, this movie is scary, even as an adult I can connect to some of the opening scenes of fear at the monster house coming awake. Plus, the house turns out to be the soul of a previous giantess, portrayed as slightly simple and dumb, but one who has been mistreated so badly that she now will eat anyone who comes on her lawn. So of course in the end she is destroyed with dynamite by Nebbercracker who is so thankful to be rid of her. Very rarely is the audience allowed to connect with or feel sympathy for the poor misguided giantess and her unhappy rampage. It feels at some points like deformity is a curse, one which can only end in the deformed haunting a house and eating people. Not a good lesson for kids. But on the whole it is rather entertaining.

As for voice acting well, eh. The main children characters are all unrecognizable so I guess that is a good thing. Maggie Gyllenhaal gives a great performance as the rock-n-roll babysitter and even makes the character slightly human in her worry and desire to still be "cool". Steve Buscemi does his usual crazy scary voice over for Nebbercracker. Although perhaps one of the funniest and underused performances comes from Fred Willard and Catherine O'Hara who play the main character's parents. They are only seen in the beginning and end, but GOD are they funny. Besides that, it doesn't really stand out which helps because it places all of the emphasis on the story and what is happening, which when a good portion is spent watching and waiting on a house to come to life, is necessary to build suspense. So I guess it was a job well done, just nothing that stands out as mind blowing.

Conclusion:
Monster House is an enjoyable movie at any age, but especially for children hitting puberty. It also fills in that age gap with an appropriate horror film. However, some of the script's material could come across as rebellious lessons and slightly prejudiced against certain types of people which is not so cool for kids. I'd say watch it with them with supervision, or let them watch en masse. Instead of the classic slow-mo NOOOOOOO! that I remember as a kid, I bet future kids will think of the name Nebbercracker and shutter. On the whole, a good movie and possibly a generational classic.

3.5 out of 5

Wannabe

Music & Lyrics

'Loving the joy of Music'

Romance films, or sometimes known as "chick flicks", have always carried a hearty following and thus many Hollywood films have repreatedly stabbed at the genre hoping to gain that niche audience that is just big enough to make a real hit stick. Sleepless in Seattle, Casablanca, and even Gone with the Wind to a certain extent fall in this category. What you don't hear about are the films hat didn't quite make it into the great category such as How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days, You've Got Mail, and other generic formulaic peices of trash, especially the yearly made teen-angst romance films. The problem is that Hollywood forgot that by stabbing repeatedly, they might kill it by missing the sweet spot. And if you can't already tell, I have long thought the genre dead.

The most recent attempt at this genre pairs Drew Barrymore with British hunk-man Hugh Grant. Together they are directed by writer/director Marc Lawrence whose only other movie to his name is the lackluster Two Weeks Notice. Not a very auspicious or even arousing beginning for me personally. Now with that said, let me make this clear, this is one of the best chick flicks that I have seen in a very long time...What? Yes, I wrote it and I mean it. Mostly because the film uses the generic formula of the chick flick as a medium to convey the real meaning of the film, that of 80's pop. Although the story is fairly generic in its plot twists, yes Barrymoore sleeps with Grant no real surpise, it all centers around an aging 80's pop star played by Hugh Grant and his one last chance at being able to carry on his career and life of I'm-no-longer-a-star events. However, everything this movie lacks in fresh twists and new artistic takes on romance, it makes up for in its incredibly witty dialogue, smart acting, great chemistry, and emergence into the world of music. In fact, the main message is a thinly veiled one dealing with music and where all of the great entertainment acts have gone. I must give kudos to Marc Lawrence for addressing a problem that has been plaguing music of late in a manner that is entertaining and light-hearted. The plague that I speak of is the modern day fixation with exploiting sex in music in a frantic attempt to top the charts. Just look at today's pop stars with their blatant lyrics and sexual music videos from Britney Spears and Christina Aguilera to Justin Timberlake. Are they fun? Sure, but are they family songs? Do they really connect to people? NO. At least not the average Joe. Now Lawrence doesn't suggest that the 80's were a pinnacle of brilliance, as can be seen in the hilarious fake video "Pop Went My Heart." What he suggests in the film, is that the urge to make everything exotic and sexy and to basically exploit EVERYTHING takes away any artistic merit and turns songs that could be potentially great into merely rebellious drivel that a true great artist such as Bob Dillon would be ashamed of. This is perfectly brought out by the foil character of Cora Cormon played by Haley Bennett to Hugh Grant's character. In fact, it would seem her ridiculously mysterious persona and absurd reality is drawn lovingly from Madonna and her Kaballah mysticism. In the end, Lawrence reminds us why we as an audience enjoyed the 80's with its moody emotional songs and catchy tunes that somehow connected and why even though they weren't the high-brow art of some artists, they were much better than the brand of pop shoved down our throats today. As an unabashed enjoyer of nostalgic 80's music with its bad hair-do's and keyboard synthesizers, I agree with Lawrence entirely. I don't think that modern pop should disappear since beautiful women in skimpy outfits dancing is always fun, but I do think there is more room for more quality music.

Now the actors. Hugh Grant and Drew Barrymoore in my book are both pretty close to has-beens. Obviously they have both done their fair share of romance movies and some may even be enjoyable. but for the most part, they have both seemed very wooden and one-sided in whatever role they took. The only other acceptable Barrymoore romance I can think of is The Wedding Singer, a movie that once again centers around the old music styles...maybe she should look for more of that. The truth is that no matter how much I dislike their acting styles, in this movie they just fit perfectly. Hugh Grant has perfected the Simon Cowell cynicism and one-liners and has somehow found room to add emotions and acting ability. Together it makes for one of Grant's better acting roles. Barrymoore throws a high-strung energy into her character that brings the plant girl to life and makes their relationship completely possible. Grant becomes the washed up song star and really pulls the character through by learning how to sing to the point where he records all of his own songs for the movie. In an interview he stated that he felt he learned how to sing and dance passably, but I have to say that he did better than that. He sounds like any pop star could sound from the 80's. Well done sir. Also, it is great to watch the story of Barrymoore's character unfold and see Barrymoore go from being shy, timid, clumsy plant lady to pretty good lyricist in a matter of days. I also like the feeling of urgency Lawrence put in the script by constantly referring to the days and how many are left to complete songs, it really brought to life the hectic energy and life of the characters. The other stand out actor is Haley Bennett as Cora Corman. She plays her part so oblivious to reality except her own with a huge business sense for a little girl that is very kind of Lawrence to remind us later on that she is still human with a soft spot for romance. But she is still creepy as hell and in a world where pop stars seem to keep getting weirder and weirder, she's not too far-fetched. I mean hey, even funnyman Brad Garrett from Everybody Loves Raymond fame joins the cast for some fun lines and some good bits.

Conclusion:
Although the plot offers no new artistic or interesting takes on love that couldn't be guessed from the title and the actors, the movie is surprisingly fresh and packed with great dialogue and one-liners. The acting comes off brilliantly and the chenistry created between the characters is wonderful to watch. Not only that, but Marc Lawrence does a great job of assembling new pop type music and including it in the movie, some of which he wrote himself. Lastly, the ability for the film to comment on the music business and to reveal all of the flaws for both the modern day and the recent past reveals plenty of reasons why the 80's music is now considered nostalgic. It's the fact that America is missing the days of fun and music that connects. After all, nothing makes you happier quicker than a good song. For people who feel that modern music has been missing something or those that either love Hugh Grant or Drew Barrymoore or love romance films, go see this film. If you truly believe today's pop is ingenious and much better than the past, then please see this film and realize you are wrong or stay away and don't bother us people who want to remember better days while watching an honest and earnest film.

3.6 out of 5

Wannabe

The Departed

'Nothing has Departed from Scorcese'

When reading this review, know that I have never been a huge Scorcese fan. Scorcese's films have always been artistically and visually interesting, but the story or the characters have always been so despicable that I could never truly connect. I have always respected him as an artist, but if forced to choose between his earlier work or an early Paul Hogan film, well...Dundee was a childhood hero. So know that when I say that the recent film The Departed is a film that will probably be one of the top three films of this decade, I am positively sure of this. I have not seen a more perfect blend of artistic directorial talent, acting, plot, and cinematography in a long long time. On one hand, I would love for Scorcese to join the ranks of Kubrick by never winning an Academy award, but I'm afraid he's screwed. I can safely reveal that there is no way in this universe that Scorcese will not win the best director category this year at the Oscars. My only concern is that Little Miss Sunshine SAG award when it was completely inferior to the cast of this film.

First of all, the directing. Scorcese pulls out all stops on this American remake. Scorcese has always been good at highlighting gangster films, but usually Italian. In this film he tackles the Irish mob in Boston, which works perfectly. Scorcese ties the story in to the location of Boston and the whole Irish and Catholic scene so profoundly that Boston will now be forever remembered for this movie and not just for the Celtics basketball team. Howard Shore only makes the bond deeper with his incredible use of Irish jigs and drinking punk songs to tie in the action and location at all times. Scorcese uses excellent editing skills in accord with solid direction to keep the twists fresh and riveting. He also uses the editing to create a compare and contrast between Frank Costello's two "sons" played by Leonardo DiCaprio and Matt Damon. The lighting is beautiful and Scorcese keeps the violence pumping and fierce without a ton of brutality. Even though there is more death in this film, the violence on screen is less brutal than the few hardcore bits found in Pan's Labryinth, a feat which is laudable and an achievement for Scorcese. The most interesting directorial pieces are the parts where he uses a circular matte in the frame to focus all of the attention on to a certain character to show how small and inconsequential either the character is or how they feel, such as feeling trapped. The opening is also well done with the old-footage of Boston's neighborhoods and Nicholson's voice over. I recommend that Michael Ballhaus (the cinematographer) and Scorcese work together forever. Especially on anything with a gritty urban feel.

In a rare turn, I would like to applaud the casting director for the film. The cast could not have been more perfect. DiCaprio has earned the right to be perhaps the best working actor in Hollywood in this film. Matt Damon flexes his muscle. Nicholson pumps his evil crazy vilain routine to the extreme. Hell, even Mark Wahlberg whom typically comes across as cold and indifferent in a lot of his films puts in an amazing performance. Martin Sheen and Vera Farmiga and Alec Baldwin round out the cast to create a perfect collaborative feel. None of the main actors steals too much time. Each character has his own motives, each and every one of them and they are all brought across vividly by the energy in herent in the language of roughneck Irish Boston. The range in accents among the actors varies wildly but the best are held down by DiCaprio and Wahlberg. The only actor who doesn't seem to fit in is Anthony Anderson, mostly due to his previously overwhelming association to comedies. Yet, he is passable for such a small part and doesn't detract from the film. I have heard talk of a possible sequel to the film and if that's true then they need Scorcese, Ballhaus, Ellen Lewis (casting director), William Monahan (screenwriter), Howard Shore (composer), and whatever surviving characters actors they decide to use.

Conclusion:
I refuse to talk about Monahan's script since I don't want to reveal any potential plot details. The jist is that the plot is amazingly transformed and molded to Boston perfectly. The Irish dialogue and the look into each character's lives and issues is perfect. Everyone is risking so much that everybody and detail matters. The directing and acting and cinematography make this film a nice shot of cocaine to film junkies. This film will surely be one of the next great films and should be one of the strongest from this decade. It's too bad that Scorcese is so old that it is unknown how many more films he has left in him. Just let him finish the two supposed sequels to this film God. If nothing else, rejoice knowing that Scorcese should definately win that long overdue Oscar come Friday.

4.9 out of 5

Wannabe

The Invincible Iron Man

'Part 2 of an Animated Weekend'

Iron Man is the third movie in a four movie deal so far with Lionsgate and Marvel Enterprises. The other two being the animated films, The Ultimate Avengers: The Movie and The Ultimate Avengers 2: Rise of the Panther. Both of the previous films were decent films that didn't create any groundbreaking material, but were small and well done films that felt very tight storywise and brought out a little old school nostalgia by creating a similar feel as the JLA or G.I.Joe cartoon depending on the scene. Iron Man was to be the first of these films to focus on a singular character instead of a team. And after having now seen the film, I can admit that they get somethings correct about the famous hero and they get many things about making a cartoon film wrong.

The film is of course based on the Marvel comic franchise of the same name and the story is based around the struggle between Iron Man and The Mandarin. Actually, The Mandarin never completely makes it back to our world, but his presence and archaic essence is felt. I'm afraid I will have to compare this film to Hellboy. Both films contain a typical anti-hero. Both use eastern styled folklore to create a story. Plus, both have ridiculously huge fight scenes. The problem is that Hellboy executes better in all three categories. I have felt that Iron Man's focus on folklore for the film is entirely against the basis of the Iron Man character. Iron Man aka Tony Stark is the boozing brilliant engineer/heir to the multimillion Stark enterprises. In other words, he's essentially a Marvel version of Batman. His need to create Iron Man has always stemmed from a realistic need in his world. To turn around and give a very grounded character a mythological character negates the gravity of the story and makes it feel very flimsy and silly. As for the folklore itself, while Hellboy seems to pay homage to the stories of Japan, Iron Man seems to stereotype and typify the Chinese culture as a dangerous place full of radicals and crazy haunted dictators with elementals that looks for his rings. It's actually quite insulting to watch. One slightly sane character does not make up for the hordes of Jade terrorists. My biggest gripe with the story, though, actually is the most obvious and annoying. The story is chock full of terrible shove-a-stick-through-my-clavicle dialogue. TERRIBLE!! Granted, the plot is a typical bleh cartoon plot with typical twists and endings, bad enough but not terrible. What makes it unbearable is how cliche everything becomes when accented by the dialogue. Although, putting aside this major issue, the script gets a couple of things correct. It does an excellent job of developing the relationship between Stark and Rhodes. It also does a great job of portraying the offensive nature of Stark as a human being. It even gets the introduction of the Iron Man suit in the film pretty well done. Yet, these few graces do not make up for the lack of ability to establish relationships and to bring the story to life. The cinematagraphy is uninteresting and typical. Hopefully these same issues and this same director will not be around for the next film, Doctor Strange.

As for the voice acting, Marc Worden does a decent job bringing Tony Stark to life. However, there are times where the actor falls prone to the Episode III Vader syndrome...yes, that's right, NOOOOOOOOOO!!!!! I realize that voice acting is hard to do, but this plus the problem of creating believable relationships makes me think someone else might have been a better choice. In fact, the only voice actor who puts in a quality job is Rodney Saulsberry as Rhodey. Everyone else just feels so-so and sometimes lackluster. Especially the angry Chinese character. The only real challenging sections of the film were the moments of carnage and gun shots.

Conclusion:
I applaud Marvel's past efforts to try and appeal to all demographics in these animated movies, but more thought and time should go into the creation of the films. I would also appreciate a film that tries to show an interesting story that is viablely well created. The only well-done aspect of this film, was the sound and how it affects the scenes. Make sure the voice actors can do a good job and lastly, try to appeal to the world without being generic. That is the greatest fault of this film while adding the ability to be insulting to cultures. Skip it and wait for Doctor Strange. Or The Amazing Screw On Head, another dvd by creator Mike Mignola that looks sufficiently funny and actually the trailer outshone this whole movie. Instead of applauding this film, I'm just disappointed.

1.85 out of 5

Wannabe

Political Strife Rambling

I truly have trouble with Republicans. Well, staunch conservative republicans anyway. Mostly because of the growing # of evangelical republicans. Growing up in a heavy democratic household it's probably expected, but I actually didn't care about contemporary politics until I was well into high school, at which point I would have voted for George Bush if I could. He seemed much more relatable than the frosty monotone nature of Al Gore. Plus, I felt at the time that a good political leader should be a good person at all times. I didn't grasp the understanding of a president can be good in certain arenas or good in the house but bad in senate, etc. So when Clinton cheated on Hillary, I felt that he had disgraced our country to the whole world and that we would now be the brunt of all the jokes. And we were, but not because he cheated on his wife, but because of how strongly we reacted. Lets face these facts people, Clinton was impeached and threatened with being kicked out of office for lying to the public about whether or not he had sex with Monica Lewinski. At the time, I was all for it, but looking back now, I don't see how they relate. His cheating and consequently lying to the public is very human and completely understandable in that it is his and Hillary's personal issues. It is not the public's issues. But we make it our issue just to have something to do. So gossip mags can sell and people will tune in to news stations again. Then we get offended because we feel that we shouldn't lie if we were put in the same spot. It really makes no sense. I have to admit that I don't know if Kerry would have been an acceptable reality instead of Bush, but I do know that I am tired and fed up with all of the things occurring in Washington. I never support war since mankind has figured out that it is impossible to really quell a guerilla war without massive firearms, deaths, and many years. Historically, once a country is captured and rebelling, it is a bad idea to remove the empirial country from power resulting in immediate chaos. We'd like to claim that by at least touching these other countries and influencing them in such a manner that it gives them suport to be raised up to a more stable and higher democratic power later. Like India and England, which I admit is not my strong point. Is the rise of India as a national power due to its early influence of England? Or because of the population burgeoning which eventually produced Gandhi and other great national India leaders? I don't know. People like to have very clear and defined things they can point to and say cause and effect. When the truth is that there are usually thousands of causes that produce 1 effect and that the rest aren't seen. Or even better, the cause that they think made the effect is really a front. This is why we use science to try and figure out to the best that we can outside of our conflicting and containing morals how the world works that God gave us. People want to believe that science is evil and don't understand it either because they can't or don't want to try, when the truth could be that by researching science people are discovering God and reveling in his beauty. Nothing is more amazing to me than knowing that everything out there has a function, that millions on billions of things work together to make every day as glorious as the next. I'm not saying that everyone should grab a microscope and set about to work. I'm not even saying you have to believe in science, or God. I just find it ridiculous that people cannot tolerate each other. I struggle with the fact that for a long time I thought all atheists were going to hell, but some of the best people in my life were atheists. Staunch atheists. Since that point in time, I haven't quite cleared up this problem in my own mind, but I've come to the realization that I don't have to. The only thing God wanted from us was to get along and treat each other well. The idea of being the capitol on the hill and a shining light to the world, that requires tolerance and love for all human beings and not persecution and oppression. Homosexuals choose I lifetsyle I don't agree with personally and maybe biologically our body pieces aren't meant to fit that way, but that doesn't mean we have to hate those who are different or even try to force them into bowing to Jesus or Allah or whomever. They are people who have chosen their own path and we should offer them a different one, but if they are not receptive or looking for a different path, then don't force it on them. Be a good person to all those around you and not just the ones like you. Love your enemy. all that. Yes people need things to overcome, but if we set ourselves to overcoming each other then some will win and many will lose. I say this now because as a kid I remember thinking how great the world is and how much I enjoy living in it. As a married adult, the best I can feel is happily complacent and only with my wife. I no loger love the world or the majority of those who live in it because I feel they have the inability to love me and others around me. I am trying to overcome my sadness of these facts, but groups, especially online, who use their time and day to create political hate groups, creating new bad-mouthed stereotypes like conservative and liberal, really accomplish nothing. America is on the verge of war I feel and it is on the verge of war with itself. I fervently wish that we as Americans can stop the bickering and loyalty to an individual party and come together to discuss our problems and possible solutions. This can never be achieved with everyone pointing fingers and disregarding information that is of no use to them, even if it refutes their claims. In my dream, America is whole, happy, and a shining light to the world because it has come together to discuss the issues before it decided to pick candidates for elections. It makes me sad to no end to know that it is now and will always be a dream.

Wannabe

Hellboy: Sword of Storms

'Part 1 of an Animated weekend'

Hellboy is everywhere. That is my official mantra now. The comic book series by Mike Mignola became popular a while back due, in my mind, mostly to Mignola's amazing sense of art. Each page is beautifully drawn and created in a style I could only hope to dream in with jagged edges and long drawn out caricatures that never seem to make sense realistically, but which meld together to form a mood using a minimalist style of color. I came a little late to the game, but I have read one of the Hellboy books at least and I have to admit that Mignola is also very talented at writing scripts. In fact, he has convinced me to like Hellboy. The concept of Hellboy previously had never appealed to me. A giant red apocalyptic demon that clobbers things and looks slightly like a monkey becomes good and works with a team of paranormal investigators to fight evil. Honestly, looking back over what I wrote, I don't know why it didn't appeal to me, but the concept just seemed too cheesy. Which is how it should be since Mignola meant it to be a throwback to the pop art and characters of Universal's monster days. Guillermo Del Toro has often compared Hellboy to a modern day monster worthy of Universal's golden monster halls. In fact, Del Toro loved the character so much that he directed the first Hellboy movie with Ron Perlman, Doug Jones, and Selma Blair in the main roles. He will be returning to this role once again soon since his next project now that Pan's Labryinth is complete, is to direct the sequel to Hellboy. How does all of this tie together? Well, apparently when making the first film, Del Toro really pushed to get the series made into an animated series. He pushed so hard that they are making several animated films, the first of which is the subject of this review.

What's important to remember is that Mignola has made sure that each incarnation of Hellboy stands on its own visually and continuity wise. Stories might be interchanged between mediums, as one segment of Sword of Storms animates a popular short story from the comics of Hellboy in Japan fighting body-less flying vampiric heads. Even though this idea irks me because I want just one continuity, the change of styles in each of the incarnations is so complete that each incarnation of Hellboy is beautiful and uniquely different enough to feel that they warrant their own universe. At first in this film, it is slightly sad to be watching the movie only to realize that it is not done in Mignola's signature art style. But this small sadness is soon rectified by the quirky Ben 10 art style and the amazing detail put into tyhe coloring and shading. Visually, the animation falls between new age cell-shading and japanime and old fashioned caricatures. It's beautiful. Thankfully, the animation is in the hands of the veteran animator Tad Stones who is better remembered for Darkwing Duck and the two sequels to Aladdin. The character designs for this new universe, now to be known as the Animated Hellboy universe, were made by relative newcomer lovingly referred to as Cheeks. Tad Stones has expressed a lot of interest in doing multiple movies of Hellboy, the next one being Blood and Iron, and I have to agree. I hope they are able to keep up a continuing series of these DVDs. Not only are they shown on Cartoon Network, but the DVD contains loads of valuable extras about the creation of the animation and story behind the film.

Now as for the story itself. It involves Japanese folklore, a favorite of mine, and it does a pretty good job with it. The folklore and the traveling samurai idea of Hellboy in ancient mystical Japan is very eye-catching. The wandering samurai tales presented in the film are done beautifully and are fun to watch. The real flaw in the story comes from watching Hellboy's sidekicks without him around. Abe Sapien and Liz together just can't seem to carry a scene. Also, the writer tends to fall back on Liz's ability to just burn the hell out of everything. Sapien is an interesting character but his ability is eh and he is really quite weak. Their stories are too comical and pathetic in comparison to Hellboy's classic nonchalant beat the crap out of everything plan. My only other complaint is that the script couldn't decide whether it was for grown-ups or not. It's true that Hellboy doesn't curse a lot and rip out throats or anything. He's not Lobo. But, the content and themes and styles of the comic book and both incarnations are so dark that it needs to be written more for adults and it should leave out more of the "knowing looks" actions and little cutesy moments that are in a lot of traditional children programming. If any American production has the possibility of becoming the first animated movie to be taken seriously, this is it, and I feel that Stones and Weinstein don't enforce that enough. At times, Matt Wayne's script feels very adult action oriented and then at other times it drifts back to children land. In other words, the tone is wishy-washy, an understandable mistake for a first film, that hopefully will be fixed by the second film.

As for voice acting, all of the original actors from the film reprise their roles and it proves in this film more than ever that Ron Perlman is Hellboy. He just is, that simple. The one liners are perfectly delivered and every one does a marvelous job. The real problem is that Selma Blair doesn't have a very distinguishable voice. She could have been any voiceover actor and I wouldn't have known. Doug Jones however is great as Abe Sapien and I was glad to hear more of that character since it was such a smallish role in the Del Toro film. The voice acting brings the characters to life, although the sections that I mentioned as being cutesy and annoying, is reflected in the actor's speech that they also realize how silly those scenes are. It makes me unable to bear waiting to see Hellboy 2.

Conclusion:
The story is great, the animation is great, and the voice acting is wonderful. Now if only they could make Abe Sapien and Liz's tales either more interesting or of more importance. Also, they need to decide what tone to take with the animated version and its targeted demographic. Despite these flaws, Sword of Storms is a welcome and wonderful creation and addition to the collection of Hellboy universes.

4.2 out of 5

Wannabe

Some Like It Hot

CLASSIC ALERT! CLASSIC ALERT! CLASSIC ALERT! CLASSIC ALERT! CLASSIC ALERT! CLASSIC ALERT!

Before beginning to go into a review of this film, I think it only fair to clarify my point of view on older movies. Classics are usually great films that are so powerful they could start an entire genre or catapult at least one person to glory. Many are critically acclaimed and "deserve" to be studied and discussed over. Others are simply great examples of quality film-making. Either way, I cannot discuss the effect most classics had on audiences because I was simply not around for a lot of them. Instead, I must evaluate the film based on its own merit and how it relates to modern society. One other thing to know about me is that when approaching the artistic debate of modern or contemporary vs classical or traditional...I tend to fall more in the modern category. Lastly, if you ever see the CLASSIC ALERT! warning, then you had better believe it is a classic. Now then, Let's begin.

Some Like It Hot is a comedy released in 1959 starring the famous Marilyn Monroe, Tony Curtis, and Jack Lemmon. All of whom are now deceased. It was directed by the great and critically lauded and studied director/writer, Billy Wilder. The same man who created the Spirit of St. Louis, Sunset Boulevard, and Double Indemnity among countless others. Critics have loved this film unrelentingly over the years, although I always seem to get it confused with Cat on a Hot Tin Roof. Now that I've seen it, I can give you a better idea as to why these critics always have it among their must-own lists. It's just damn good.

Okay, so plotwise, by today's standards, it's not a hard story to figure out. Two struggling musicians in Prohibition America see a murder by the local gang boss of Chicago and need to escape quick. To get away, they decide to dress up like females and join an all girl band on its way to the beach for three weeks. Thus hilarity ensues with all sorts of fun sexual gags and farcical elements. Back in the day, a film was merely a vehicle for a director or actor, so the script was taken much less seriously. You want a western? Go put a bunch of people on horses in the desert and create a conflict. It was that easy. Despite the modern day apparent simplicity of the script's plot, the script does an amazing job of making everything feel fresh and new. I am willing to bet that when this film was released, that this old plot idea was brand new and novel. It shows in the actor's portrayals and in the fun scenes and writing. Nowadays, most actors and writers of these sorts of films probably don't give it their all because they know they are simply copycatting something older, which really takes away from the enjoyment. But this film is so well staged and written that there are plenty of jokes and laughs to be had that in a more modern movie would come across as cliche and half-assed. That's an impressive feat for an almost fifty year old movie. The gags feel crisp, the jokes are laughable, and the characters and arcs are all in the story. Simple, but effective is a very good strategy for a film.

As for the directing, from the little that I know of Mr. Wilder, he was a very effective editor. He has been known to say that he never understood all of the directors who would spend so much time cutting and editing. Studios liked to work with him because he already knew in his head what he wanted before he shot a scene so that it cost few retakes and he could edit it quickly for distribution and thereby cut down on a lot of the costs that other directors incurred. That, and he always loved to include a seductress type character in his films. As for Some Like It Hot, the film almost never slows down and the editing is done effectively enough to get the story across. Sure it's not flashy tricky editing like in a horror film or something, but it works and even I have to allow some leeway for older films. With all of that being said, Wilder constructs some fun giant scenes like the orgy scene on the train and the gangster party in the hotel that only a true great director could have done and kept the film under budget. Definately worthy of the praise.

Since the film is older and the editing much more primitive, a lot of the charm of the movie falls on the brunt of the actors and their ability to hold the audiences interest. Sometimes, this can be bad since I can't remember the last time that I saw a black and white film on TV and didn't feel the need to instantly find something more interesting. However, the truth is that if you stick with the characters, it does slow things down somewhat, but it also gives a better payoff by creating a greater connection to the characters. The same happens in this film. To start with, Marilyn Monroe, the seductress of this film plays the now stereotypical blonde bombshell. She's not too bright, likes to party and drink, wants to find love, and is willing to date jerks. Yep, she's a shoe in. The problem is, as seductive as she is, something about her hair never looks real. She seems plastered over in makeup and hairspray, which makes sense, but it detracts from her beauty especially in an age used to seeing Britneys and Aguileras around any newstand. Perhaps the most shocking thing is her waist! There are several less than flattering side shots of Monroe, and she is not fat, instead she is a healthy naturally good looking weight. Something Hollywood actresses need to aspire to. Scarlett Johannson could have divided in two and fit inside her and lets not even discuss the Olsen twins or Kate Moss. It was very refreshing to see a sexy beautiful healthy lady playing that same role. Maybe there is something to this whole role model thing.

While Monroe can play the romantic ditz well, she has the problem of the old acting style. In today's world, we are so used to nuance and assuming things based on looks that is seems corny to watch an older film where the acting style was more showy because they didn't have an established history to build on like we curently do. This acting style problem comes back to bite each of the main actors in the cast, except one. In this case, it hurts Marilyn's ditz act by coming across a lot of times as simply, I'm dumb and pretty, want me? Other than that, she is excellent and quite good at being clumsy too. Truth be told, I watched the film because someone told me that you could see her nipple at one point. I missed it, so if someone finds out, there is a comment section. The other two actors play the buddy roles as two musicians. Out of the two musicians, I liked Jack Lemmon least. Yea, I know, that's pretty harsh. But honestly, his laugh he created for his character is ridiculously ANNOYING. Plus he does it ALL THE TIME!! Other than that though, he just doesn't seem as well fleshed out as a character. Several times he comes up with great ideas or suggestions to help them out, but they never do them unless Tony Curtis later suggests them. In fact, throughout the film, Lemmon keeps asking Curtis why he follows him and why he listens to him. Before you are even halfway through the movie, you will also be wondering why the hell he stays and helps Curtis' character. Curtis plays the saxophone gambling lout who has a relationship going on with whomever he needs to, He never listens to Lemmon and he always thinks the best thing to do is gamble the money away they have until they are literally freezing because the had to sell their own jackets. It makes no sense why Lemon follows Curtis, even if they are friends. The only time where something similar to answer arrives is when Curtis looms up from the tub and looks like he is about to belt Lemmon. The reasoning then is, Curtis is a mean guy who rules with an iron fist and Lemmon is the jokester willing to put with it in the name of friendship. The other problem with Lemmon's character is how quickly he seems to change on everything. In the beginning, Curtis is the lout. But once they get on the train, Lemmon is making sexual suggestions right and left that almost turn him into a scary predator in a modern setting. Despite the inconsistencies in his character, Lemmon does develop a great rapport with Curtis and his energy and enthusiasm give the film a life. Although no one can beat Tony Curtis in this film. His acting and skill is simply head and shoulders above the rest. His character is always believable despite any inconsistencies and he can always hit the right note for a good laugh. He never comes across as grating and his romance with Monroe is well done that he becomes a very likable character in the end. If nothing else, watch this film to see the Mrs. Doubtfire skills of the 50's.

Conclusion:
Minimal sets, I think I saw the same one twice at one point, well used and well edited in the film prove Billy Wilder's excellence. Also, the simple story does its job by providing some great lines and laughs while keeping the pace going. The actor's carry their brunt admicably, especially Tony Curtis. And it features two men in drag, which does not look too good on Lemmon! Despite the film's flaws, it holds up remarkably well in modern times and is still surprisingly fun to watch and enjoy. Also, a great film for women's rights activists of yore. A classic indeed.

4.1 out of 5

Wannabe

The Illusionist

'An illusion of a great film'

First of all, yes. I still love Edward Norton, so be prepared for some Norton loving. Secondly, the subtitle might be misleading because I didn't hate this film at all. Lastly, Jessica Biel is still very hot indeed.

The Illusionist is a film that follows a love story between Edward Norton and Jessica Biel and how Norton seeks revenge upon her killer, the Prince of Wales, whom is planning to overthrow his father. Set as a period piece, the costumes and the architecture are well suited to the film. The real problem comes in the cinematagrophy. A lot of the film goes for the old footage look of the variable lighting on the film. This effect is achieved, usually very obviously, with CG effects and a sepia filter. The film tries so hard to recapture this effect that it can be very jolting and create the Verfremsdungeffekt of Brechtian lore. The only problem is that it isn't meant to because there is nothing to learn here. The film has no great meaning. No necessary truths that haven't been told before and it doesn't try to appear that way. Instead, it wants to entertain the audience with a great story and interesting characters. One of the greatest assets of the film is the script, as is the greatest flaw. The script keeps the pacing moving and provides a generic enough background in a manner that is amusing enough to be a good popcorn flick. The twists keep you guessing and even at the end, when the last twist is pulled you are so involved in the world of magic and who-dunit that you can't help but be amazed. With that said, when the last twist occurs, if you think about it, you can easily dislike the main characters. Everything they have done, all they have accomplished is suddenly rubbish and they are terrible people. I don't want to reveal the ending, but let us just say that despite the Prince of Wales being an absolute lout and murderous drunk, royal family murder was common back then and the fate he received was not deserved. Also, a bad idea was the late throw in of the line about democracy and its pitfalls before the Prince of Wales end. Now, however, I am interested in seeing The Prestige for a different view on this approach.

As for the actors, I need not praise Norton. It is well known by all that I love him and think he is a great actor. Sadly, this film doesn't seem to be his strongest work. Much of the film has him being too stoic. The relationship between he and Jessica Biel is believable in fits. Plus, his accent seems slightly off somehow. But, the biggest saving grace, is how well he sells the magic tricks and his disrespectful comraderie with Paul Giamatti's character. These two actors light up the screen and every glance is understood. It is known well before Giamatti ever admits it that he likes Norton's character. The film is worth watching just to see these two do their thing and it makes sense for Neil Burger to focus primarily on them. Giamatti does a great turn as a corrupt police chief who still has some morals. Even Giamatti's scenes with Rufus Sewell's prince vibrate with energy and a nervous passion. Speaking of which, Rufus Sewell, a man known for his villains, has done it again. It is not his most impressive villain, but it is a royal rogue well worth having. It is so easy to hate his character, that it makes the last twist permissible by most audiences probably. However, I would love to see one courageous film maker cast Sewell as a heroic lead and give him the chance to prove his acting chops as a leading man as I suspect he might have in him. Biel, who has professed a desire to do the film simply to do a period film and to go against her natural typecast, is the least likable part of the film. She is beautiful and it completely makes sense why Norton would fall in love with her, but she doesn't seem to make a lot of choices on the screen that don't come across as the, I'm-rich-and-female-without-a-way-to-defend-myself-so-protect-me-and-run-away-with-me variety. One side, I feel that the script just didn't allow her to do anything better with her limited screen time and the plot. However, knowing also that she had trouble holding up her end of the deal in making her affair with Norton believable (he had his problems too!) make me doubt if it was the script. Either way, her part seems mostly forgettable and could have been played by other actresses of the pretty type. Not a good thing. I like her, so I fervently hope her next role makes more of an impact on me than this one did. I might even say I liked her work in Blade: Trinity better.

Conclusion:
Featuring a great cast and plot based off of a short story by Steven Millhauser, The Illusionist is certainly worth a rent. Giamatti turns in another great performance. Norton flexes his acting chops decently well in something a little new for him and Rufus Sewell does what he does best. Biel's lackluster performance is generic so hat it isn't really bad, but not good either. The cinematography may drive you crazy but the films tricks are well done and it does capture a very Victorian turn of the century feel. I especially loved the touch of the ancient Eastern magic that influences Norton's character. For a sophomoric film effort, the first being Interview with the Assasin, Neil Burger creates a great entertaining film that is mindless but feels thought provoking all at the same time. Maybe that is the greatest illusion of all. Or maybe it is the fact that this is a period crime-thriller parading as a chick flick. Either way, it is very enjoyable. But the thought that the last twist negates the love of the characters that I had and feels slightly thrown in to stun audiences and only for that reason, make me slightly annoyed.

3.45 out of 5

Wannabe

Jesus Camp

'Camp will never be the same again'

A review of a documentary has been a long time coming. About 1 month actually, except back then it was supposed to be for An Inconvenient Truth which I saw and I will bump here by saying it's a pretty good film and deserves the recognition it got. But, it doesn't touch this film. If Al Gore wanted you to care about environmental concerns and the green house effect, possibly by voting, the documentary Jesus Camp will guarantee as a side effect that you will want to vote. I have never seen a more dividing film than Jesus Camp.

The film explores the power and ideals of radical Christian evangelicals and especially their effect on kids. One kid can be seen sporting the tastefully bad mullet of yore while contemplating on how he was saved at the age of 5. The effect of the manipulation of children by evangelicals is scary beyond comprehension and might make this the best horror film of the year. The kids and the adults all are very candid about their goals and experiences and desires. At one point, the directors have a one on one with the now-disgraced-but-then-high-lobbyist Ted Haggert. In the film, kids can be seen crying, having convulsions, speaking in tongues, protesting abortion in Washington (an interesting feat for 7-9 year olds), proselytizing, and having frank conversations about their theological views, most of which sound like vows from parrots. Never before has the scarring effect of a minority been explored on children. The future of America is not only the focus for the film, it is also the focus of the evangelists who place special emphasis on "teaching" their children their ways of the world. Perhaps the best question raised is what makes someone a suitable parent? When children choose to proselytize at an early age to a female because she was painting her nails, it could be cute. But when that same girl later tries to convert several lounging black men only to hear that they are Christian already and then spewing the rascist thought that they must be Muslim, that is when my blood boils. I could spend this entire review yelling and ranting about radical evangelicals and what I consider to be their ridiculous notions of the world, but instead I will focus now on the craft instead of the inflammatory content of the film.

The directors supposedly tried to capture the evangelicals as they actually are. This is a hard claim to dispute because the evangelical adults in the film, when looking back over the same footage that the audience has just seen and been repulsed by, nods and smiles with approval and discuss how the liberals of America will shake in their boots because they will recognize the faith and love of God in these kids. Or some other skewed remark. Never do they seem to be unhappy with the directors footage of convulsing children or streaming tears in prayer. After all, it's all for the Lord right? The truth is, that the film does have a slant against the evangelicals besides the content of the film. Between scenes of following the evangelicals, the directors have spliced in footage of a "liberal" radio host who is following all of the same action and having conversations with his listeners against the evangelicals. In only one of these scenes does he have a conversation with someone who could be labeled sympathetic to the evangelical cause. Also, the choice of the footage can be seen as meant to divide. Instead of following a bunch of tolerable evangelicals to get a better understanding of them, they chose a bunch that causes revulsion. Despite all of this, I feel that the directors have created a film that not only shows radical rightwing evangelicals in their own light, but it could be enjoyed by other rightwing evangelicals for getting the story straight. Notice though, I think moderate and even some conservative evangelicals will be maddened by this film. But someone like the main characters in the movie, will join right in and nod at the more disturbing moments. So please...watch your neighbor when you see it...it's a great way to get to know those around you.

Conclusion:
If I had any complaints, I would say that the film is so dividing that it could easily cause hate for evangelicals. Although I have never had much love for that group, I do recognize that in a country so divided by war, religion, race, and politics we need now more than ever to be able to cohere into a country, which means tolerating each other. On the upside, the film shows the political power of the evangelicals so well that it has convinced me to register and vote just to cancel out at least 1 vote of an evangelical. Eh, who knows? Maybe we can join together politically to take back the crazy Christian government thanks to the film. All I know, is that more people should see this film and see how they feel. How they feel about right of parents to home school, to raise children based on beliefs instead of accepted facts. How they feel about children who have no childhood and spend their lives trying to save others in their own snubbish manner. Doesn't the mullet boy learn great sermon skills? Isn't he talented? Yes, he does and could make a great orator one day. Maybe even...a politician. I realize that I harp on the evangelicals and their power in government. But, this film will make you question not only those few things, but how we interact with evangelicals and whether or not we can still apathetically tolerate a hostile and powerful section of America. I cannot stress enough to you to see this movie and make up your own mind. Now that it is out on DVD, you have little to no excuse. Me, I got Nader's back.
4.8 out of 5

Wannabe

Little Miss Sunshine

'The Little Train that Shouldn't'

Early last year, in a little place known as Colorado at a small festival called Sundance, a bunch of unheard of films were shown featuring the work of undeveloped talent in what is normally considered an elitist FU to corporate Hollywood by exploring experimental structures and forms in film. Corporate Hollywood felt bad for ignoring the small little guys all the time, so it decided to save money this year on expensive big-budget films and instead help out the little guy. Many of these little guys sold their wares to the now nice Hollywood. In fact, this had been the case for years. From these transactions, a new star was born in 2006, Little Miss Sunshine. The movie built up a lot of buzz for being the film that sold for the most at the festival and for featuring such a great cast including Steve Carell, Greg Kinnear, Alan Arkin, and Toni Collette. After it was put into wide release, the film garnered all sorts of critical praise for its dark comedic style and its acting and story. This praise was not unfounded as it was also a very good commercial success, proving to be one of the breakthough movies of the season. Now, after it has already been released on DVD, it is being nominated for various awards, including an Oscar and just won the SAG award for best ensemble. It is obvious, that if nothing else, the director duo of Jonathan Dayton & Valerie Faris is here to stay. They have made it over the mountain of indistinguishability to the land of Counterpayne, or Neverland, or California.

They shouldn't.

Having now seen the aforementioned film, I can sing praise for the two for creating a cheap Hollywood film. When I write cheap, I mean literally. The film is much cheaper than a normal Hollywood production. The diss comes in the fact that it is a Hollywood film. The story is simply another look at a common theme among Hollywood films, especially nowadays with television. A dysfunctional family struggles to survive each other. They decide to take a road trip to place their daughter in a beauty contest in California. Terrible events occur and tension mounts into a giant laughable catharsis with the dysfunctional family bonding together and giving a sendup to the well-to-do and rich snobby debutantes of California (and the world!). For a film with such hype and praise, the film disappointed me sadly. The independent feel of the movie doesn't exist, well it does, but it is overruled by the obvious metaphors and symbols and attempts at making a commercial film. The end, while funny, is the only laugh out loud section of the film while the rest is just chuckles and even then, the end works because of the absolute brilliantness of Abigail Breslin and her commitment to her character. Of course, the end event is still a bit overused...yes I know...gripe gripe gripe.

Anyway, when it comes to writing, needless to say, I feel the movie is a decent rehash of other Hollywood films and ideas that have come before it and doesn't offer much. As for directing, I am slightly better off. The film is directed by an unseen hand and at no point does it feel forced. This is an extremely difficult task given the bizarre story and highly unusual for an independent film. The only possible obvious indicator of the directing is the role of Fate in the film. At time, certain events occur and you wonder if it was the directors getting bored and wanting something to spice it up, although I think that is more of the writer's mistake. Despite the nice surety of hand displayed by the duo, the characters don't seem to gel as tightly as necessary to make me believe that they truly care about each other. The closest it ever gets is when Toni Collette breaks down in the hospital. This is also an actor gripe I have for the film. The fact that the two best actors in the film are Alan Arkin and Abigail Breslin, the youngest and oldest respectively, it should give a better idea as to why most of the film simply isn't as interesting. Not only are experimental ideas discouraged in the film, but the directors can barely make a passable family relationship in a Hollywood style. I realize its a new directorial effort, and its not a bad start, but it is not worthy of all the attention.

Next, of course are the actors. As already stated, the two best actors are the youngest and oldest, both of whom have been nominated for an Oscar in their respective categories. While it's nice to see Alan Arkin being nominated, he doesn't deserve it. Well, yes he does a pretty good job as the raunchy mean-spirited but loving drug addict grandfather, but honestly he isn't on screen long enough to deserve the award. This is more a gripe with the Academy whom have a penchant for nominating and at times awarding Oscars to actors who have hardly any time on screen. Judy Dench in Shakespeare in Love pops into mind. Abigail, on the other hand, completely deserves the nod she received. I have not seen such daring childhood acting in a long time. The last scene of the film shows what this little girl can do. She can make a stripping routine seem like a fun respectable performance dance. Maybe its just the fact that she is ridiculously cute. She is! Either way, she does a great job. Then there is Steve Carell. Carell is the new funny man of Hollywood and the fact that he did this film after 40-Year Old Virgin speaks volumes of his character. Carell has proven that he knows how to play a part on the fine line of subtleness and absurdity, and he does so once again. The difference is that this character is so real, that it is hard to laugh. This is actually a good thing as it is refreshing seeing him do something different. It also helps to bring the family and its troubles back to earth. I sensed the possibility of a family the most from him. Unfortunately, it could be argued that he played his character slightly too laid back since many of his jokes come across as mere chuckles instead of the full on laughs as expected by many. Then there is Paul Dano and Toni Collette. Dano does a decent job with the mute character he is given. The real problem is that he seems to hate his family a bit too much so that I can't buy it when later he decides to come back and join them when pleaded to by Abigail's character. He is also kind of unlikable in how smug and mean he is with his retarded notions of Nietzche. Collette is well, for the most part, unreadable. She is the mother, yet she works best in the film for crying or yelling at Greg Kinnear. Other than that, she seems too beat down to be an effective parent of any sort and therefore floats in the background for most of the film. As for Greg Kinnear, he is fairly disappointing for most of the film, playing the typical "I'm an annoying screw-up dad" for most of the film. He only becomes interesting once he recognizes his mistakes and vows to fix them by riding away in the middle of the night to make his stand at holding the crumbling family together. Yet, he gives up too soon and an entire scene of confrontation is wasted. His discovery of character and his decision to become something more pops up again later, but he never seems to truly recover from his "famous lecturerer" ideals until he the last huge scene, and at that point you're laughing to hard to care. It's a typical role for him played with a few twists and it doesn't come out feeling earned. All in all, the cast does okay but as mentioned earlier, fail to gel together to create the sense of family that is 100% necessary for a film of this nature.

Conclusion:
The film has decent direction, some truly amusing momemnts, and one hilarious ending. But the failure of the story to be anything besides run-of-the-mill and film to be daring turns the film into a cheap Hollywood film. The inability of the cast to gel together as an effective family, while partially the point, makes the love and relationships between characters seem tenuous at best. It's a good film, but not Sundance praise worthy, nor worth the amount of money it has garnered off that praise and it's casts acting credits, and especially not worth an Oscar much less a SAG award. I bet that if you watch the movie without having heard any of the ridiculous hype, you will come away with a much better impression than I did. My hope though, is that this year's Sundance produces a more interesting take and film. Oh, and good luck to the duo at topping this film's success with their next.
2.4 out of 5

Wannabe