Director: Chris Carter (The X-Files)
Writer: Chris Carter, Frank Spotnitz
Producers: Chris Carter, Frank Spotnitz
Starring: David Duchovny, Gillian Anderson, Amanda Peet, Billy Connolly, Xzibit, Callum Keith Rennie
MPAA Rating: PG-13
Running time: 105 min

For me, “The X-Files” will for ever be linked with one of the most traumatic days of my life. I was 15, home on a Friday night. Mom was working and dad was in the yard and at 8:30PM, my sister and I started to pack up the evening activities. We changed into our PJ’s, poured ourselves a glass of milk and wrapped ourselves in a blanket in preparation for the final hour before bed time. The minute long set-up came on and then Mark Snow’s much hummed theme music kicked in. “The X-Files” was about to begin. It was at that moment, partway through the theme, that we smelled smoke. That was the night our house burned to a cinder and when asked about it years later, I can clearly recall the circumstances of our escape.

I always imagined that at some point in my life I’d come to associate the show with that tragic event in my life but it never happened. If anything, over the years we, my sister and I, have become even more fanatical about the show that provided us with hours of midnight chats and nightmares. While the show was on the air, we collected everything from comic books (to this day sealed and protected in limited edition numbered plastic wrap) to trading cards (the entire first season including the specialty cards). It’s fair to say that I’m a big fan of the show. Yet, when the production headed South in season six, I started to lose interest. The move, in combination with the release of the film in 1998, marked a difference in the series and almost immediately, the tone of the show seemed to change. It was darker, the characters a little more pessimistic and overall, less interesting. I stuck around for a few more seasons until Fox left the show at which point, I completely lost interest. I caught it here and there when nothing else was on TV but gone were the days of ritualistic weekly viewing.

I tried some of Chris Carter’s other projects; “Millennium” was excellent while it lasted and “Harsh Realm” seemed to have potential before it was canceled but nothing nothing seemed to stick any more. Carter, who had once seemed a bright beacon in TV land, seemed to be fading and when “The X-Files” finally went off the air in 2002, Carter seemed to go into seclusion. Over the years there was occasional talk of another film but those rumours never seemed to go anywhere. So when David Duchovny started to talk about the potential for another movie, no one paid much attention. It wasn’t until the film was finally announced that fans started to believe something could come together. So here we are, a little over a year since the initial announcement of the film and The X-Files: I Want to Believe has brought back the once unstoppable team of David Duchovny, Gillian Anderson and Chris Carter. The fans have been anxiously awaiting the return but was it worth the wait? In one word: yes.

A number of the reviews I’ve skimmed over have made reference to the fact that Carter and co-writer Frank Spotnitz’s story is surprisingly devoid of aliens. From the beginning, Carter had been adamant that this story would not be part of the mythology of the show. By creating a stand alone story, there was potential to bring in the casual viewer as well as long time fans of the show and the film is successful in doing that. Taking place years after the show, the film features Mulder and Scully in their new environments. The two no longer work for the FBI but a missing person’s case which appears to have a supernatural connection forces a desperate Bureau agent to seek out Mulder for his expertise in the field and in turn, Mulder drags Scully into the action.

It’s been years since I’ve seen Chris Carter directed episode of the show, and even as long since I’ve seen the first film, but I don’t recall either being quite this well put together. Though the story comes across as an extended episode of the show, the characters have changed and matured, as has the director. Not only do Duchovny and Anderson show their years of experience playing these characters, they also bring their considerable talents from outside the series into the fold but it’s the lived in, natural ease of the characters and the situation that really sells the film. Carter takes the better acting and elevates it to cinematic proportions with his direction and the end result feels like a a visit with an old friend; it’s like catching up with someone you haven’t seen in years yet it seems like you saw them only yesterday. The story may be a simple and common within “The X-Files” world but it works as an introduction for new fans and a re-introduction to long unseen friends. But Carter and Spotnitz haven’t overlooked their fan base and peppered throughout are tidbits of goodness for longtime fans. From the moment when we find out just what Mulder and Scully’s relationship is to odd moments of comedy that are reminiscent of some of the show’s lighter episodes, it’s all here for us to revel in.

The film is not groundbreaking and heck, the story itself is nothing more than a glorified episode but the entire package works and it’s difficult to overlook the magic. Some may argue that it’s been too long and that no one cares about these character any more. Some will write this off as a cheap attempt to revive a dead franchise but watching the movie, it’s clear that “The X-Files” is still ripe for revisiting. The characters are richer now than they were during the show’s initial run and everyone involved with the production seems to have stepped things up a notch and while it may not be as grand as some where expecting, The X-Files: I Want to Believe is solid entertainment for both fans and non-fans alike.

Carter revolutionized television once and I don’t expect it to happen again but I am hopeful that this film marks his return into the entertainment business. He’s been sorely missed and I look forward to anything else he’s willing to offer. Hopefully, it’ll include my favourite duo.

Links:
IMDb profile
Official Site
Flixster Profile for The X-Files: I Want to Believe

Director: Jon Knautz
Writer: John Ainslie
Producers: Neil Bregman, Trevor Matthews, Patrick White
Starring: Trevor Matthews, Robert Englund, Rachel Skarsten, James A. Woods, Daniel Kash, Stefanie Drummond
MPAA Rating: R
Running time: 85 min

It’s been a while since we’ve seen a horror comedy that captures the goodness of campy 80’s films as well as Slither and although Jack Brooks: Monster Slayer doesn’t quite reach the level goodness provided by James Gunn’s gem, it certainly comes pretty close.

A midnight screening classic in the making, Jon Knautz’s film is a winning marriage of schlocky horror and comedy. It’s the story of Jack Brooks, a plumber with a short fuse who has been suffering from emotional rages since the grizzly death of his parents at a tender age. He’s making the best of it, or at least trying to, but sometimes, people just push a little too far, leading to incidents where the pushers usually end up badly hurt. When Brooks is confronted with a monster attack at a night class (he’s trying to better himself), he makes the decision to fight back rather than run away and the result is a glorious 20-minute murderous rage of a finale full of zombie-like monsters, gushing geysers of bodily fluids and a monster who looks like a cross between Jabba the Hutt and paper mache.

Shot on location in Toronto on what is likely a stringent Canadian budget, Monster Slayer surpasses its low budget limitations and gleefully hugs its campy-ness. Had the filmmakers tried to make this with a serious tone, the film would have failed miserably but as an entry into the low-budget horror-comedy genre, it works. For the most part, other than the Professor Crowley monster, the practical effects and man-in-suit solutions work with the film’s tone to the point that even the strange looking Crowley monster seems to fit nicely. Though you have to stretch a little to get over some of the less eye popping effects, the main reason the film’s success is it’s lead.

It’s no surprise that the film is being compared to Evil Dead 2. Not only does director Jon Knautz show some of the trademarks of a great director in the making, Trevor Matthews could well be hailed as a sort of second coming of Bruce Campbell. With the same striking good looks, cocky onscreen attitude and ability to make you like him even when he’s being a dick, Matthews is fun to watch and to boot, he shows traces of more than just good comedic timing.

Though necessary, I found the first part of the film a little slow. The story itself was interesting enough but the dialog was forced in places, as were the constant trips to the shrink which were obviously written and included for comedic effect. Once things start to go wrong, the movie picks up steam and the closing is good enough that one can overlook the film’s stumbles.

This isn’t an instant classic but it’s certainly bound to be a cult favourite, one that is loads of fun when seen with an audience. A great distraction for a Friday night and a solid piece of semi-mainstream Canadian entertainment, Jack Brooks: Monster Slayer may not appeal to everyone but it will definitely be a hit with fans of the horror-comedy genre.

Links:
IMDb profile
Official Site
Flixster Profile for Jack Brooks: Monster Slayer

Director: José Padilha (Bus 174)
Writer: José Padilha, Bráulio Mantovani
Producers: José Padilha, Marcos Prado
Starring: Wagner Moura, Caio Junqueira, André Ramiro
MPAA Rating: R
Running time: 115 min

Perhaps it’s to the first world’s fascination with the underbelly of society that has sparked a far more mainstream, open arms approach to films depicting the difficult lives of individuals essentially living in war zones. While documentaries bring us the realities of what’s really going on feature films, regardless of how realistic, seem to have much more widespread and mass appeal. But it’s not fair to account the successes of some of these films solely to the pallets of the masses because in truth, the films themselves are amazing works. Perhaps the most notable of the bunch is 2002’s City of God which, aside from being a critical and commercial success, also seemed to mark a shift in focus of international film from Europe and Asia to South America not to mention that it ushered in a new era of Brazilian filmmaking.

Whereas City of God focused on the hardships of life within the slums of Brazil, director José Padilha has chosen to look at the trials faced by the men working on the other side of the law and the result is the deservedly award winning Elite Squad. The story takes place in 1997, months before the arrival of the Pope. Nascimento, a Captain in a special police force named “BOPE”, is at the end of his rope and ready for a career change but he wants to ensure that he is replaced by a capable man, an individual that can uphold the law and lead his squadron effectively. Amidst the corrupt cops of the city’s police force, and through a believable series of events, he meets two straight cutting rookie cops who might make good replacements. The rest of the film follows the two men’s struggles through boot camp and the eventual conclusion of the film will leave you gasping for more.

I have yet to take in Bus 174 which has been unanimously praised and recommended, so it is difficult to say whether the style of Elite Squad is an expansion from his first film or something new for the director but however you cut it, it’s truly amazing. Padilha has taken Meirelles’s in-the-moment, hand-held approach and blown it sky high. From the opening sequence you’re drawn into the action and the film doesn’t let go until the end credits roll. There are scenes of extended chases through the slums and though the camera is in constant movement, it never confuses; we always know who we’re following and what’s going on. It’s like watching Greengrass at work – it’s that good.

The film is shot by Lula Carvalho, the man also responsible for the look of City of God, which may help explain the similar feel of the city but that’s essentially where the similarities end. The surroundings of Elite Squad seem even dirtier and grimier than those of its predecessors which suggests that while the criminals are scummy, dirty police officers are the goo at the bottom of the barrel.

The visuals which so brilliantly capture emotion and ideas are taken directly from the story. The film blends the intricate story and crisscrossing lives of its characters, managing to fully develop the lead characters and some of the supporting cast to the point that one never questions their actions. There is no second guessing whether the character would actually do that; every decision, action and reaction are within the scope of the characters making the entire story that much more realistic and while the plot and dialog itself is excellent, much of the film’s success can also be traced to the strong performances. Easily the best of the bunch is Wagner Moura as Captain Nascimento. From the moment you see him it’s clear that he is the man in charge; a gruff, no non-sense type of guy, but as the film introduces some of his personal struggles and demons, one starts to take note of the small details of Moura’s outstanding performance.

There is much more to praise of Padilha’s film: the excellent sound design (I can still hear the apparently un-muffled gun shots), the other great performances, the excellent use of voice over and the unfolding of the story itself which, though conventional, felt like something new. Bottom line is that Elite Squad surpassed any expectations I had going in. Once I manage to get over the gut punch and my mind un-winds, I look forward to visiting the film again.

Links:
IMDb profile
Official Site
Flixster Profile for Elite Squad

Director: Phyllida Lloyd
Writer: Catherine Johnson
Producers: Judy Craymer, Gary Goetzman
Starring: Meryl Streep, Pierce Brosnan, Colin Firth, Stellan Skarsgård, Christine Baranski, Julie Walters, Amanda Seyfried, Dominic Cooper
MPAA Rating: PG-13
Running time: 108 min

I was on a mission for entertainment. I had planned on doing the good thing and seeing Gonzo: The Life and Times of Hunter S. Thompson but it started a bit late. I know now that I really just wanted an excuse to see it. After the skitzo dance and song filled review and an email from a girl friend praising it, I took myself to the local theater and amidst the repeat viewing fans of The Dark Knight (our review), of which there were many, I purchased my ticket to Mamma Mia!. I started to imagine myself in an empty/nearly empty cinema. The joy! I can sing along!

I was following a young couple into the theater (drats!), far enough behind to spot them coming in the door and standing at the tier of seats and looking on. A flash: this only happens when the theater is full; it’s the planning stage before attack. Just how full is this place? I turned the corner and took a look for myself. Thirty minutes before the scheduled movie start and the screening room was nearly full. And these didn’t look like cast offs from The Dark Knight either. Groups of women (young and old), couples (young and old), and a few lone males (I know) – all separated by empty seats. Counter programming at work.

I strategically chose a seat near the back, away from prying eyes and keen ears. I didn’t want anyone to notice if I started to dance in my seat and quietly mouth words to ABBA classics. The lights go down, the music kicks in and almost immediately you’re sucked in. Shot on location in Greece, I give first time director Phyllida Lloyd credit for making use of the gorgeous locale. From the opening shot, you know this isn’t going to be the musical and that has both positive and negative connotations. On the one hand, we’ll get to enjoy the gorgeous scenery but on the negative, unless these actors are secret singing sensations or (god forbid) dubbed over, the music is going to be a teensy bit painful. What I hadn’t counted on was the sheer power of ABBA’s music taking over and bypassing any faults, trust me - there are many, in the singing voices.

The story is clearly a very loose framework to string together a whole load of ABBA tunes. It’s as though someone sat around with “ABBA Gold” and plugged in the wholes between songs with cheesy dialog. The result is a film with very little talking; the majority of the story is told though the lyrics of the music and it works much better than I could have anticipated.

I won’t pretend to know what these actors where thinking when they signed contracts but I have to assume that they did it for fun – especially since they all knew their vocal limitations going in. Amanda Seyfried is easily the best of the bunch. The young “Big Love” star belts the tunes like she was born to be in musicals and though she’s no young Julie Andrews, her voice suits the material just fine. One gets the sense that at this point in her career, Meryl Streep is simply looking to have a good time with her roles and if it happens to be singing at the top of her lungs, so be it. She looks fantastic and though her singing voice isn’t the best, she’s not shy to make use of it. Christine Baranski and Julie Walters are hysterical as Streep’s best friends but the real icing on the cake here are the men. Stellan Skarsgård, Colin Firth and Pierce Brosnan are astonishingly bad. We’re talking so bad it’s crossed the line into good again. When Brosnan begins to sing, and he does a lot of solo singing here, it’s enough to break glass. Oh yes, it’s bad but don’t kid yourself, the other two are no better. Yet somehow, among the breaking yelps, I started to feel a little pull at the heart strings. Here are three men, each one a worse singer than the next, and they’re singing like their lives might end tomorrow. Ohhhhh. How hopelessly romantic! A small thank you to whoever had the good sense to spare our eardrums. The boys didn’t have too much time to sing on their own instead, they were often joined by a chorus obviously made up of people with some vocal talent.

I could go on but there’s no point. Technically speaking, there’s very little of Mamma Mia!, aside from the gorgeous cinematography, worth praising but the experience is infectious. The music and charm overtake any of the film’s shortcomings. I doubt anyone who had no interest in the film to begin with could be persuaded to see it but for those that are even mildly curious, it’s well worth the trip. I’m still trying to get over the fact that they turned my Mr. Darcy into a gay man (gasp!) but I simply had too much fun to write this off as a pass. In fact, I had such a good time that I’ve already made plans to take my mom to see it next week.

If you’re on the fence, just buy you’re ticket and go. Be sure to stick around at the end of the credits for one of the most gloriously entertaining two minutes of film, I’m talking priceless, and if at all possible, find the local theater encouraging a sing along.

Links:
IMDb profile
Official Site
Flixster Profile for Mamma Mia!

Director: Christopher Nolan (Memento, The Prestige, Batman Begins)
Writers: Christopher Nolan, Jonathan Nolan, David S. Goyer
Producers: Christopher Nolan, Charles Roven, Emma Thomas
Starring: Christian Bale, Heath Ledger, Aaron Eckhart, Michael Caine, Maggie Gyllenhaal, Gary Oldman, Morgan Freeman
MPAA Rating: PG-13
Running time: 152 min

Synopsis:

Batman continues to act as a force of vigilante justice in Gotham City, but his presence causes a number of copy-cat ‘crime-fighters’ to complicate the situation. District Attorney Harvey Dent steps up to clean up the criminal element using more due-process means, while the Joker comes to town to burn the place down. Mayhem and pondered morality ensue.

Jonathan:

Let me just put it out there: this is the best superhero film ever made.

With a running time of a hefty two and a half hours, director Christopher Nolan and his mega-ensemble of talented actors exceeded all of my high expectations. Christian Bale, Heath Ledger, Aaron Eckhart, Michael Caine, Maggie Gyllenhaal, Morgan Freeman, Gary Oldman - the cast could seemingly be a snapshot of a “best of” lineup, and each performer nails their respective role, all creating effectively well-rounded characters that one can relate to. And I was very pleased to see Oldman get some major screen time as Jim Gordon. Props Nolan. You know what not to waste.

Of course, one actor outshines the rest. We all know who I’m referring too, as the hype surrounding the actor’s last complete role has been enormous. And as expected (and as has been repeated over and over again), it’s not just hype. Heath Ledger really is that good, creating an iconic and memorable villain worthy to stand by the likes of Anton Chigurh and Darth Vader alike. The delivery of his lines, the attention to The Joker’s quirks, his sardonic laugh - you know that Best Supporting Actor nomination everybody is talking about? It’s his.

The Dark Knight is a complex, sometimes brutal tale of morality, of hope, of choices, of men’s limits - and it really does play out less like what we’ve come to know of superhero movies and more like a serious crime-drama, perhaps a spiritual successor to Heat (a movie Nolan cited as a big influence). Each scene, from the opening bank heist to the climatic finale is tightly woven to create this impressive tour de force of summer blockbuster brilliance. It’s all aided by the beautiful cinematography, the fantastic score by Hans Zimmer and James Newton, the well-done but not over-used CGI, and the fantastic action sequences and character interaction.

Like all movies, there are flaws (and with each viewing, it’s possible more may become apparent), but for me, I had so much fun that they were easy to overlook. This did everything a summer action blockbuster should do and far, far more. There will be plenty of those that roll their eyes, those that just can’t bring themselves to eat this exquisitely delicious meal that Nolan has cooked up for us, and that’s just fine (if not expected), but as my first five-star review of the year, this has raised the bar for not only superhero movies, but summer blockbusters in general. Take some notes on Nolan, Michael Bay - action, style, and substance are more than possible to combine.

Marina:

It was expected that The Dark Knight was going to break box office records. The film’s promotion machine seems to have been going full swing since Comic-Con ‘07 and the collective excitement of fans was starting to rub off on people who had only heard of Batman in passing. As reviews for the film started coming in, I began to worry. Did Christopher Nolan’s really new creation be this good or was I being ramped up for disappointment? I was hoping for the best but as I expected and somewhat feared, Noland’s film didn’t blow my mind. Actually, it didn’t even make my top 5 list of films seen so far this year. A reaction to the hype? In part yes. My reaction is partly elevated by the hype for the film but the truth is that The Dark Knight isn’t perfect.

It’s unfair to lop Nolan’s achievement as simply a comic book movie. Though some directors have attempted, and failed, to elevate superheroes from the pages of comic books and brought them into the real world (see Iron Man (our review)), Nolan has successfully created a film that is far above and beyond its predecessors. This is much more than a comic book film; it has taken a character from a comic (a character which has the odd tendency to dress up as a bat and fight crime) and made him human and believable in a reality akin to our own. The Gotham City created by Nolan is a crime ridden city reminiscent of many a real locale and the themes of love, violence, evil and morality aren’t limited to a comic book scope, they’re human and they are handled as human emotions from individuals that feel like real people. Nolan deserves all of the credit he is given – it is a massive and exceptional achievement. Where things go wrong is with the story itself.

Conceived by Nolan and comic book writer David S. Goyer, the film starts off well enough but approximately 90 minutes in, the entire thing goes south. The audience starts to get shifty and there’s an elevated level of chatter as the film seems to come to a natural conclusion. Except that it’s not over. There are still 60 minutes left but what’s left to fill them with? This is where The Dark Knight goes from being exceptional to being good. The last hour of the film feels tacked on as an unnecessary after thought and the characters that fill it seem rushed and a little wasted. I would have preferred to see them get their own film and more time to develop and grow.

At the 90 minute mark, I also realized that a few things that had not bothered me until that point started to wear me down. Christian Bale’s raspy Batman voice, Aaron Eckhart’s knight in shinning armor shtick, The Joker’s lip smacking. The excellent performances from the cast started to wear thin as the innovation they brought to their characters waded through an unnecessary story and the more I watched, the more annoyed I became. The downhill trot didn’t only affect my reaction to the actors but also to Nolan’s choices. The action sequences started to feel overly long and gimmicky and I started to drown in sensory overload, something that didn’t even happen with Speed Racer (our review). I felt tired and drained and when the credits started to roll, I had to force myself to get up. Nolan didn’t just wear me down; he tired me out and depressed me; I felt the weight of not having enjoyed this as much as everyone else seemed to.

I enjoyed watching the first part of The Dark Knight but by the time the encore started, I was ready to call it quits. Nolan’s film is far from bad but it does suffer from trying to cram too much into one picture. What the film does put on display is Nolan’s even further elevated flare for visuals and characterization. I look forward to seeing what he brings to the table in his next non-comic book film. I have a feeling we’re in for a great treat.

Kurt:

The Dark Knight just might put the nail in the coffin of Tim Burton’s German expressionism molded films as the chief cinematic image of Batman. And, boy, oh boy have we gone a long way from the neon-lit, side-kick heavy Schumacher entries (the latter of which is certainly bane of the fanboys existence, the mere mention is akin of bringing up Adolf Hitler in any kind of internet conversation). While Christopher Nolan’s first entry into the new millennium incarnation of everyone’s favourite vigilante (well outside the Charles Bronson fan-club), aimed to ground the comic sensibility in a veneer of ‘realism’ to mixed success, his follow up brings that style and tone a step in a more interesting direction. One that can only be described as Fincher-esque.

While New York Times critic Manohla Dargis pointed out similarities between the actions of the Joker and the Zodiac killer (a heady cocktail of media-induced celebrity and media-induced fear as portrayed in the best film of 2007), I think the look and feel of The Dark Knight can be viewed through the prism of David Fincher’s entire career and how that career has influenced American movies in general. Take the Jokers elaborate schemes, which aim at driving the anarchy and nihilism factor of Gotham City to the breaking point. Now look at John Doe in Seven. If there was a box with Rachel Dawes head in it, I would not be too surprised. It is rather ludicrous at times, particularly how he get gets along with his ‘co-workers,’ that the Joker’s schemes seem to run like clockwork. For a bit of a nutter, his schemes have a built in awareness of where people are going to be, even in something as random as a chase or even incarceration. As in Finchers most over the top film, The Game. And the ‘laugh while the world burns’ and prisoners dilemma type games theory writ large on an urban canvas comes across like a wet dream from the Tyler Durden’s imagination. The old Batman comic saw of ‘Freak like Me’ also echoes the relationship of Fight Club’s narrator and his inner anarchist. The ‘green happy face’ of Project Mayhem may just as well be a Joker calling card. And what the hey, the temporary ‘bat cave’ which ends up being a super-surveillance network might as well be a form of Panic Room as the city is on fire. In fact, a party guest asks at one point during the Jokers big entrance into the Gotham elite asks Bruce Wayne if he’s got a panic room handy. Maybe a stretch, maybe not. The make your own island in the sea of chaos before the winds blow you down sentiment belongs in the Fincher ouvre well enough.

The Dark Knight is playing right alongside another unusual comic book sequel, Hellboy II: The Golden Army. At one point Hellboy director Guillermo del Toro was going to direct Seven, but turned it down because in his own words, “it was a very cynical view of the world. I loved it, I wanted to see it, but I’m a romantic, fat bastard and I don’t subscribe to that view.” Well, some of the moral quandaries thrown at the Bat Man and the citizens of Gotham have no clean solution. In that post 9/11 sort of way, heroes may have to burn half the place down to stop the terrorists, compromise their own ideals and likely cause just as many ripple-effect problems as the problem they are trying to eliminate. This is the ugliness of The Dark Knight, which makes it oh-so-different than cotton candy like Ironman. This is not to say that Christopher Nolan is simply stealing or copying from David Fincher. But rather the nihilistic Nolan of Memento and The Prestige is out in full force in this one, where it was curiously muted under the ‘realism-laced’ reinvention of Batman Begins, here it is unfettered as Batman gliding over Gotham wings out but nevertheless still dominated by the vastness of the city below. Gotham is the crucible for a bombastic morality play going on for every single one of those necessary 152 minutes, and Batman is dwarfed by the inferno.

Now imagine a triple bill of No Country For Old Men, Zodiac and The Dark Knight. Who says going to the multiplex is a wasteland of sugary emptiness? These are fascinating motion pictures that all evaluate violence from the American psychic journey of competent go-getter to the worn out and broken sighs of the best intentions leading to greater failure. It makes me love American cinema like I love those 1970s ‘movie brat’ pictures from Friedkin, Scorsese and Coppola. Throw in Michael Haneke’s remake of Funny Games (either version) for the angry European reaction to all of this. And what interesting timing for the Funny Games US DVD to act as a primer for on-screen mayhem of The Dark Knight and what it means for families to bring their children to such casual and brutal murder. The Dawes/Dent dilemma as well as the two ferries in the narrows are pretty brutal stuff for little Johnny and Sally.

Further cinematic linkage would be Jack Nicholson in Rob Reiner’s A Few Good Men, snarling out the catchphrase, “You can’t handle the truth!” A previous ‘joker’ himself, Nicholson’s statement (along with the more expository explanation (”Son, we live in a world that has walls and those walls need to be guarded by men with guns. Who’s gonna do it? You? You, Lieutenant Weinberg? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago and curse the Marines; you have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know: that Santiago’s death, while tragic, probably saved lives and that my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives. You don’t want the truth because deep down in places you don’t talk about at parties you want me on that wall, you need me on that wall. We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use then as the backbone of a life trying to defend something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said “thank you,” and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest that you pick up a weapon and stand a post. Either way, I don’t give a damn what you think you are entitled to. “) is a thing that The Dark Knight chews on and chews on until its audience is sore from the punishment. I don’t think the film takes one side or another, its murky un-message is kinda the point. But it has no hesitation indicating that often enough the truth is better burned out of existence. We (the people) can’t handle it, it will confuse us and distract from a higher purpose. Of course, in a way, because we (the audience) have gods eye while watching this film, we get to know nonetheless. Is it more palatable to shout ‘you can’t handle it’ if you are in fact the keeper of the knowledge? There are a couple controversial executive decisions made in the film which should be fun to digest on further viewings.

Ditto on the similarities of Anton Chigurh’s coin tossing vs. Harvey ‘two-face’ Dent’s. While I think Anton’s is more of a demonstration to his victim and Anton is going to do what he feels like doing, justified by the coin or not, I actually think Dent’s insane ‘random-trumps-all’ tossing is scarier, and dovetails nicely in with The Jokers gamemanship. It is fair criticism that both Dent and Chigurh are pretty comic-book in their portrayal on screen while The Joker seems to transcend to fun comic-ness of Nicholson’s portrayal into something much darker, a bogey man for our times. One that only exists this perfectly in the white noise miasma of the media subconscious: the school shooters, falling World Trade Centers and Hurricane Katrinas. Oh they are real, but just not quite this ideal as the balls-to-the-wall spitting Ledger (who further adds some meta with his own celebrity suicide).

Oh, did I forget to actually review The Dark Knight? Well, that is because there are so many interesting ideas, and layers of Gothams players (much of the spectrum is represented here, a boon to the lengthy and deserved run time) that you forget that you are watching a comic book blockbuster. In that regard, Christopher Nolan fails somewhat with herky-jerky editing that often goes nowhere interesting, particularly any notion of fight choreography or clear geography. Not a big deal, I was too busy thinking to care if my eyes were distracted by the usual comic-book fireworks (although the bat-bike was pretty slick). Christian Bale remained about as serviceable as usual in the lead role that here, pleasantly, is one of many characters, rather than the focus. Nice to see Aaron Eckhart channel some of his smarm/charm back from his “In the Company of Men” days (I think it his hilarious that this lawyer is the ‘White Knight of Gotham’, did nobody watch Neil LaBute’s directorial debut?). And Maggie Gyllenhaal, Michael Caine, Gary Oldman and Morgan Freeman are all great and get goodly amounts of screen time, which is nice to round out the picture, and give these fine players (well the latter three) something more to do than the first go around.

Pop The Dark Knight up in the company and class of Ang Lee’s Hulk. A thinking fellows comic book film. One that lives up to the “Dark” in its title and demonstrates with cynical glee that ugliness is a way of life and that a light at the end of the tunnel is unlikely; but that doesn’t mean we should stop groping for a solution. Yes, David Fincher has got to like this one.

Andrew:

“Some men just want to watch the world burn.” Mr. Caine speaks some of the truer and more poignant words reflecting exactly our world today. To destroy these men, the good guy might have to do some burning of his own. One of several layers of the sweet smelling blossom of an onion that is The Dark Knight.

To all those fans and critics out there awarding pictures such as Hellboy 2 with a prestigious five stars, what are you going to do now when you see how a superhero movie can really be made? - one with depth, drama, humor, action (and then some) and supreme acting? Are you going to give it five and a half out of five? Take notes; Christopher Nolan shows exactly what can be put into a film to make it truly worthy of your “perfect” scores.

Having thoroughly enjoyed The Dark Knight, I personally wouldn’t put it quite at the level of Oscar worthy. I can be convinced that Ledger should be nominated, but best picture? Let’s not jump the proverbial gun.

The funny thing is, I don’t really have any complaints* about The Dark Knight. There are no eye rolling moments, the sick humor is pinpoint precision, the drama is believable and engrossing, the directing style and cinematography is top-notch, the acting is of the highest caliber (even beyond Ledger’s magnetic performance), that crescendo-ing score is chair-arm gripping(!) and it certainly didn’t feel like 2 1/2 hours. Still, it just doesn’t hit that perfect note for me. I’m unable to put a finger on it exactly, but I think a huge part of it is the usual problem of high expectations. When I read review after review claiming it’s the best picture of the year (probably even by Academy standards) it’s difficult to keep expectations to a minimum; despite my general distaste of these types of summer blockbusters.

But if all superhero films follow in the footsteps of Mr. Nolan and The Dark Knight, I’ll be more inclined to visit more of them that are sure to come next summer.

* = actually, if you’re going to have William Fichtner in your movie, please have William Fichtner in your movie (same goes for Cillian Murphy)! Other small nit-picks to follow in an upcoming Cinecast I’m sure.

Dave:

The arrival of The Dark Knight to movie screens the world over brings to an end months of discussion, speculation, and high expectations. With Batman Begins in 2005, director Christopher Nolan breathed new life into a franchise most pundits had written off as dead, and in so doing set the bar high for all sequels that were sure to follow. So, naturally, when a follow-up film was first announced, the buzz started circulating within seconds. Through the entire process of bringing The Dark Knight to life, people sat up and took notice, and the finished product, whether a success or failure, was destined to be one people would talk about.

Then, this past January, all discussions were ratcheted up to an even higher gear. Heath Ledger, the fine young actor who Nolan had cast to play Batman’s arch-enemy, The Joker, in The Dark Knight, was found dead in his hotel room. He had completed principal photography for his part as the clown prince of mayhem, meaning The Dark Knight, along with all the natural hype, was now also to be known as the film carrying Heath Ledger’s final (complete) on-screen performance. Suddenly, an already high-profile film got much, much higher.

And now, finally, The Dark Knight is out there; the tickets are selling, and the critics are speaking. What are they saying? Well, quite a lot, actually. Some have appointed The Dark Knight as not only the best Superhero film ever made, but also a possible Academy nominee for Best Picture. As for Ledger, he’s already been tapped by many for this year’s Best Supporting Actor class, which would mark his second and, tragically, last chance to win an Academy Award.

Is The Dark Knight really that good? Yes…absolutely. Was Ledger really that good? Again, the answer is absolutely. Does Ledger deserve an Academy Award nomination? Certainly…and yet, I can’t shake this feeling that, were he still alive, Ledger’s incredible performance in this film would most likely have been overlooked once nominations were announced. Films slated to be blockbusters right out of the gate rarely receive Academy recognition beyond a technical level. There are exceptions, of course (a recent one being Johnny Depp’s nomination for Best Actor in the first Pirates of the Caribbean film), but such exceptions are few and far between.

And to overlook Ledger’s contributions to The Dark Knight, under any circumstances, would be a damn shame.

Heath Ledger has reinvented the role, indeed the entire character of The Joker. In past incantations, The Joker was exactly what you’d expect a guy with white make-up on his face to be: a clown (a dangerous clown, surely, but a clown nonetheless). In The Dark Knight, The Joker may be a prankster, be he is certainly no clown. A prodigy of chaos, this Joker is nonetheless three steps ahead of his adversaries at every turn. He knows what’s going to transpire before the police do, before the D.A. does, even before Batman himself does. He wreaks havoc, and believes in nothing but total anarchy, yet possesses the intelligence to calculate every progression from point A to point Z, usually quite flawlessly.

I know what you’re thinking; that the screenwriters had more to do with the above than Ledger. True to a point, but it would be a mistake to underestimate the late actor’s contribution to the part. What struck me about Ledger’s Joker was that, despite the built-in flamboyance of the character, his overall performance seemed…restrained. Now, I’m not suggesting for a moment that this Joker is anything but wildly insane, but when compared to what I expected from The Joker, from what I went in expecting from Ledger’s performance, I was genuinely surprised. Here was a character whose very nature had always demanded an over-the-top interpretation, yet Ledger not only shied away from such a performance; he made every other Joker (including Jack Nicholson’s in the first Batman film) seem pathetically circus-like by comparison. Whether addressing a gathering of mob bosses in a warehouse or socialites at Bruce Wayne’s luxury suite, Ledger’s Joker makes us smile as we squirm, laugh as we cringe. He is unhinged enough that we never know what to expect from him, yet never so much so that he is not in complete control at all times. The Dark Knight marks the first time that I was ever truly afraid of The Joker, and Heath Ledger must be given most of the credit for that.

Alas, it’s unavoidable that, should Ledger receive a nomination for his performance in The Dark Knight, there will be some who’ll call it a ‘mercy nomination’, that Ledger received such accolades simply because of his tragic death.

That would be an even greater shame. The Dark Knight is a tremendous film, and Heath Ledger is the glue that holds it all together.

Consensus:

Average score:

What did YOU think of The Dark Knight?

Relevant Links:
IMDb profile
Official Site
Flixster Profile for The Dark Knight

Director: David Gordon Green (All the Real Girls, Snow Angels)
Writers: Evan Goldberg, Judd Apatow, Seth Rogen
Producers: Judd Apatow, Shauna Robertson
Starring: Seth Rogen, James Franco, Gary Cole, Amber Heard, Rosie Perez
MPAA Rating: R
Running time: 111 min

When you think of director David Gordon Green, you’ll have one of two reactions: 1) who? or 2) arty, drama film. Stoner-comedy is not the genre that springs to mind. But for all intents and purposes, that’s exactly what Pineapple Express is. An easy, three-word review would be: it was funny.

Rogen is Dale Denton. A late twenties, slob of a guy who works his day job as a process server only to make enough money to hang out with his high school aged girlfriend and buy pot from his dealer, Saul (Franco). When Dale accidentally witnesses a murder by a notorious crime boss and a lady cop who are in cahoots, he panics and flees the scene as unintentionally loudly as possible. With the criminals following the clues to Dale’s identity and his whereabouts, Dale goes to the one guy who might be able to keep him safe: stoner Saul. The two hit the road in an attempt to find out what the bad guys know or don’t know and figure a way out of their predicament. Along the way, they find that they have more than just a business partnership. Maybe they’re best friends too.

The highlight here, as can be gathered from the trailer, is most certainly Franco. Straying from his usually safe (and fairly cheesy) fare, he shows us a new level of talent - comedic talent. He steals just about every scene he’s in and the movie is laugh-out-loud just by his mere presence. At times, his face alone is worthy of a chuckle. Meanwhile, Rogen plays Rogen. It works in a “good buddy who’s going nowhere” kind of way. He has some moments, but mostly he’s just there for Franco to play off of.

There’s nothing overly deep or insightful here, just fairly good-natured comedy moments. I would best describe it as Half-Baked for a new generation. It’s got Apatow’s fingerprints all over it, so the Superbad element is here as well. While funny, it’s not layered or quite as smart as something like The Big Lebowski, but the sheer volume of laughs might be of equal number.

Two major complaints: if you’re going to have Gary Cole in your movie, he needs to be given more screen time and some better dialogue. Unlike The Brady Bunch Movie or Office Space, Cole is completely wasted. His character could’ve been played by nearly anyone and the on-screen presence power would’ve been the same. It’s a real shame he wasn’t capitalized upon.

Second, the film heads into the action genre territory and it gets a bit played out and seems to drag on and on. Since these sequences are not particularly funny (aside from the car chase) and not particularly as “action-y” or big budget as a true action movie, they never work well for long periods of time. The final 20 minutes or so may have you checking your wristwatch more than once. It’s very obvious that the guys were having so much fun making the picture, that they just didn’t know when (or want) to say when.

A picture most certainly worth a trip to the theater, but I can’t imagine it having much of a re-watch value. Even Franco’s one-liners might be a bit stale a second trip through. Prepare to laugh quite a bit though; especially if you’ve been, or known, a stoner. The persona of said stoner might be a bit over-stated, but that’s what makes us laugh. “How could they find us?” “Heat seeking missiles, Bloodhounds, barracudas, foxes, satellite telemetry…” just the sort of deep thinking, metaphysical musings that arouse a stoner’s senses; and also your funny bone.

Links:
IMDb profile
Official Site
Flixster Profile for Pineapple Express

Director: Nina Davenport (Parallel Lines)
Writers: Nina Davenport
Producers: Nina Davenport, David Schisgall
Starring: Muthana Mohmed, Liev Schreiber, Peter Saraf
MPAA Rating: PG-13
Running time: 106 min

While channel surfing one night, actor/director Liev Schreiber came across an MTV special (oxymoron, I know) about life in Iraq. Part of the segment profiled a young Iraqi man that was discussing about how his dream was to become a film maker one day, but in Baghdad, this is obviously very difficult if not impossible with the current (then 2004) unstable climate over there. His film school had been used by Saddam Hussein to house soldiers and was therefore targeted by the allied military and destroyed. Schreiber got it in his craw to snatch the kid (Muthana Mohmed) out of the area and bring him to Prague to help with the motion picture he was about to direct, Everything is Illuminated; starring Elijah Wood.

When he arrived, film maker Nina Davenport began filming this “experiment” to see what would come of it. Within just a couple of days, she realized she had something really special going and decided to keep filming and make a documentary on the entire experience. Both her and Muthana got a lot more than they bargained for over the course of the next few months. What started as a noble charity, became a bogged down mess of sticky relationships, lies and manipulation.

Muthana is one of the more interesting and complex characters of any that I’ve seen thus far on the year. Because of his background and beliefs, gelling with others on set was simple culture shock at best, nearly coming to blows at worst. When he first arrives in the airport and is greeted by Liev and producers, it is all smiles and hugs and big thank you’s. But once on set, Muthana learns the real life of starting at the bottom when it comes to film making. While big shoots are taking place, he is learning how to make coffee and mix nuts just how the director and producer like them. Being under the impression he was going to be helping direct the film, this leaves a bad taste in his mouth and his frustration grows each day.

Working with a largely Jewish crew and studio front (hence fairly liberal), the crew is shocked, appalled and in disbelief when Muthana praises the war in Iraq and claims to “love George Bush.” Politics can be a sticky thing amongst friends and co-workers and the subject of the Iraq war and GW bring that stickiness to new heights and it shows immediately. The crew must learn to accept this fact and move on with other things.

Things get even stickier when finally Muthana is given a real job. His task is to create a gag reel for use at the wrap party. Instead of working on the project, he decides to go to a party and when asked about how much work he got done, the words awkward and embarrassing don’t really quantify the tension in the room. Here is where the chemistry (if there ever was any) between Muthana and his crew mates starts to turn really sour.

With his visa soon expiring, Muthana must figure out a way to stay in country and finish the shoot. he’s also been given an opportunity to work on the film adaptation of the video-game Doom starring “The Rock.” To secure the legal right to stay in the country, he’s forced to ask those that he knows for help. While disgusted that he hasn’t started working on this sooner, they reluctantly agree to help him out. Getting to work on Doom is a huge step-up and working with “The Rock” ends up being more than just a job; it becomes a charity opportunity.

Muthana seems like a generally likable person with big dreams and large amounts of charisma. But he doesn’t seem to want to work to make those dreams come true and his pride prevents him from asking for help and being straight with others when he needs it. Instead, he “pussy-foots” his way around dilemmas in hopes that others will feel sorry for him and help him out on their own; a very “fly-by-the-seat-of-his-pants” kind of guy. He claims to be strong, smart and independent, but with every step of the way through this experience, he seems more and more like a whiny child.

As the film continues, director (of the documentary) and camerawoman, Nina Davenport, begins to become more and more involved with Muthana’s struggle. Instead of remaining impartial and just filming, as the documentary wears on she begins to increasingly ask more questions of Muthana and assert her own opinion more and more. Eventually, she too is taken advantage of by the young film student and it leads to more than one melt-down in which Muthana threatens legal action, holds some of her film for ransom and even grabs her and the camera in an attempt to get her away from him. It’s really quite the crescendo of near madness.

From country to country, Muthana continues his travels and his exploits with no money and increasingly shorter visa limits, feeding off anyone who will agree to help him. After a year in a London film school, he plans to go to New York City and continue his studies. But with no money, no friends or family in New York, it seems impossible. Admissions love his application and physical “look” and want him immediately. “I don’t give a shit about money,” Muthana says at one point. “I don’t need anyone. I don’t give a shit.” Meanwhile he’s walking around London with five pounds in his pocket planning on somehow surviving in The Big Apple.

A fascinating experiment that goes awry pretty quickly, Operation Filmmaker is the story of a young man with dreams and hopes, but no work ethic or sense of responsibility that escalates beyond what anyone thought possible when the venture started. It’s hard to fault Muthana for this as his country is completely war torn and he and his family receive death threats (or so he claims) if he returns to Iraq after working on an American film by a Jewish company. People naturally feel guilty about this and want to help, despite Muthana’s seemingly unwillingness to help himself. Politics in the film are not openly debated, but they are there as an alarming but fascinating backdrop and a reference point for the months that Muthana Mohmed is taken under the wing of Hollywood. Definitely a documentary worthy of your time.

Links:
IMDb profile
Official Site

Portuguese Title: Ano em Que Meus Pais Saíram de Férias, O
Director: Cao Hamburger
Screenwriters: Claudio Galperin, Braulio Mantovani, Anna Muylaert, Cao Hamburger
Producer: Jeff Most
Starring: Michel Joelsas, Germano Haiut, Caio Blat, Daniela Piepszyk, Liliana Castro
MPAA Rating: PG for thematic material, mild language, brief suggestive content, some violence and smoking.
Running time: 110 min

A select few movies are able to tell a beautiful sad story in such a way that they truly touch the viewers heart. The Year my Parents Went on Vacation is one such movie. Cao Hamburger delivers a heartwarming coming of age tale with a social study of a multicultural society that is in a state of flux.

The film tells the story of Mauro (Michel Joelsas), a 12 year old boy who is left by his parents on his grandfather’s door step in 1970 Brazil with the instructions to tell everyone that they have simply gone on vacation. Mauro and the audience are not directly told that they are leaving him because they are political activists and all that Mauro is able to learn is that they will return in time for the World Cup. His parents leave and he heads up to meet his grandfather. Mauro soon discovers that his grandfather has passed away and he is now alone. Mauro is taken in by the neighbor of his grandfather, Shlomo (Germano Haiut) and the other Jewish tenants of the building. Mauro slowly comes to terms with his new life but he is convinced that his parents will return so he is not willing to fully integrate himself into the new community.

What makes The Year my Parents Went on Vacation a truly compelling movie is that Mauro is a very well developed character. He is not just a rambunctious young boy who gets into trouble by himself but is in fact a child who is placed in a situation that he is just not able to understand. He does not realize that his parents me be gone from his life forever nor does he understand why they have left him. The confusion and the emotions of young Mauro play out before the viewers in a truly thoughtful way.

While this is all happening to Mauro we are given a glimpse into Brazil 1970. This is a time of turmoil for Brazil when leftist activists were being persecuted by the militaristic government. The summer of 1970 is also a time when all of Brazil came together as their soccer team won the World Cup. The contrasting aspects of Brazil provide an extremely intriguing backdrop to the story of Mauro. The only fault with the movie that some may find is that it does not feel the need to explain what is truly going on. We are only given glimpses into the political turmoil when Mauro himself witnesses. Like Mauro we do not truly understand everything and truthfully we are not meant to. For all the growing and maturing that Mauro does he is just unable to understand why everything is happening. In the end we are left with a feeling that Mauro is going to look back upon this time with a sense of wonder. If he truly understood what was happening this would not be the case.

The Year my Parents Went on Vacation was nominated for Best Foreign Language film at this past year’s Oscars. It is a shame that this movie did not win as it deserves any recognition that it can garner and is a worthy addition to film fan’s DVD libraries.

Links:
IMDb profile
Official Site

Director: Guillermo del Toro (Mimic, Hellboy I, Blade II, Pan’s Labyrinth)
Screenplay: Guillermo del Toro
Based on a Comic Book by: Mike Mignola
Producers: Lawrence Gordon, Lloyd Levin, Mike Richardson, Joe Roth
Starring: Ron Perlman, Selma Blair, Doug Jones, John Alexander, James Dodd, Seth MacFarlane (voice)
MPAA Rating: PG-13
Running time: 110 min

Guillermo Del Toro has always been somewhat of a delight around here. So we walk into Hellboy II: The Golden Army with much excitement and anticipation. Nearly the entire Row Three crew weighed in on this one. And you might just be surprised who the single nay-sayer is.

Synopsis: (IMDb) The mythical world starts a rebellion against humanity in order to rule the Earth, so as Hellboy and his team returns they must save the world from the rebellious creatures. Now, as the creatures who inhabit the spiritual realm gear-up for an all out attack on the human plane, the only one capable of saving the Earth is a tough talking hell-spawn rejected by both worlds.

Read all of our reviews below…

Kurt:

“Protecting our world from things that go bump in the night” is a line used to describe Hellboy and the Bureau of Paranormal Research & Defense (PBRD) that keep the occult and cthulu at bay for the world to simply cease to remember. Guillermo del Toro knows a thing or two about envisioning real horror (usually of the Catholic flavoured kind) up on screen, particularly in his Spanish language films, but also in the underrated bugs-in-the-sewers film Mimic. It is curious then that the Hellboy franchise (thus far at two entries, although I expect a few more to come along) favours more of a fantasy bent. Hellboy II is not particularly scary or tense, but rather like J. R. R. Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings (or Steve Barron’s Merlin), woven through with camaraderie and a melancholy for something the world is losing piece by piece. The reading in the middle of the film of Lord Tennyson’s poem, In Memorium coupled with the auctioning away of Pagan artifacts at a Soothbys-esque auction and a few of the choices Big Red is forced to make (or witness) cements this concept harder than Hellboys rock-fist. This is a curious amalgamation for the goofy smart aleck-ness of Ron Perlman’s (the actor is spot on as always) take on Hellboy and his relationship with the ‘Men In Black‘ for which he grudgingly co-exists. The humour, twin love stories, large action beats and domestic matters are blended like free-form jazz (highlights are a duel between Hellboy and Prince Nuada (Blade II’s Luke Goss all simmering intensity). Considering the time and money spent on the film, it is rare to have this fast-and-loose vibe going for it: I was not complaining too much (see below). And Del Toro does not aim to make film scary (like the superior Pan’s Labyrinth) but he amps the wonder-factor of the film by the sheer volume of interesting denizens of the underworld. His troll market under the Brooklyn Bridge is the 21st century equivalent of George Lucas’s space-port ‘hive of scum an villainy’ and bless him for realizing it in such a tactile manner on screen, a brilliant blending of CGI and make-up effects. But back to the point at hand. The mourning of the loss of wonder, inevitably subsumed by modernity, science (and perhaps even Christianity, just as it drove out the druids and other pagan oddities as it took over the western world) and forgotten or sneered at by the human urban denizens (well that is until thousands of freaky spider-like insects start eating them alive) by the very filmmaker that is best at putting the on screen we have today is more than a bit unsettling. If the modern blockbuster slowly is eroding its audience of any sense of wonder than the BPRD equivalent looking out for us is likely Guillermo Del Toro, Brad Bird, Julie Taymour and Tarsem Singh whist Steven Spielberg (a combination of John Hurt and Jeffrey Tambor’s father figures).

One wonders if the big red-headed Mexican director would have been the more correct choice for doing Lord of the Rings (as much as I love Peter Jackson’s trilogy, I am willing to bet that Del Toro’s would have been better, somehow) rather than his upcoming gig of the less serious and grand The Hobbit. That of course is a whole different conversation.

Hellboy II mildly suffers from similar uninspired plotting as the first one. The story serves to get the actors from on set-piece to the next, with character stuff plugging the gaps. You do not want to think about the logic of the FBI or the story too much, it’ll make your head hurt. But Del Toro has always functioned best with what is up on screen visually and emotional themes. Hellboy II more than makes up for its familiar and weak plotting with solid action set-pieces (the wire-fu choreography is up to spec with contemporary Chinese wuxia films), goofy charm and enough visual chops to keep the magic lantern running for damn near perpetuity. The visual delights are legion, from the CGI-puppetry of the prologue (see also the Danish film Strings), to the above mentioned troll market, to the magnificent realization of a forest god (shades of Hiyao Miyazaki’s Mononke Hime finale) to the titular Golden Army which are a menacing marvel of complicated clockwork.

“See You Next Wednesday”

John:

It is quite possible to create magic when crafting a movie and Guillermo del Toro has proven in the past that he is a master when it comes to imaginative characters and settings. Pan’s Labyrinth is the quintessential fairy tale that had me mesmerized completely. Hellboy II: The Golden Army wants to do this also but it also strives to be mainstream and this is where the movie fails. Do not get me wrong, Hellboy II is a better than average blockbuster and del Toro is able to create a sense of wonder in many of the movie’s moments but it also falls back on an uninspired plot with characters that are either under developed or that just make strange decisions and cheesy humour.

Right off the bat I knew that I was going to be somewhat disappointed in HBII. I stayed away from re-watching just so I could go in without too high of expectations. Perhaps I was wrong to do so. If I had re-watched the original I would have lowered them actually. I was still coming off a high from Pan’s Labyrinth even though it has been a year and half. When the movie opens we get the history of the Golden Army in the form of John Hurt telling a bedtime story to Hellboy. The way the story is recreated using wooden art figures is truly beautiful to watch and the opening really pumped me up for the rest of the movie. Unfortunately we are taken to the Bureau of Paranormal Research & Defense right after and we are presented with several sight gags while Hellboy and Tom Manning discuss the need for Hellboy to be hidden. The ongoing gags only take away from the discussion between the two characters and really should have been cut out.

A second problem that HBII suffers from is the way some of the characters act. A fair amount of the movie is made up of angst over being different from the normal people and not being accepted. In the battle when Prince Nuada releases the Elemental God against HB he stands high over Hellboy questioning him about the fact that no one accepts him and that in order to save those who hate him he has to destroy a one of a kind being. The character of Nuada at this point fell apart for me. If Nuada was truly worried about preserving this one of a kind being he should not have summoned it up into a battle. Even with this complaint though, the battle between Hellboy and the Elemental has one of the most dramatic and gorgeous conclusions of any battle in film.

Also introduced in HBII is the character of Johann Strauss. Strauss is the antithesis of the Hellboy in that he believes in the chain of command. A great effort is made to show just how he is the opposite and the character is quite interesting which makes it all the more frustrating when he makes acts as he does near the end of the HBII. More time should have been given to Strauss in order to justify his characters shift.

Overall, Hellboy II: The Golden Army is a stunning movie that highlights del Toro’s wonderful imagination but it really is hurt by its need to fit into the standard blockbuster formula. With the financial success that HBII, it is pretty much a guaranteed thing that there will be a Hellboy III in our future as the story pretty much calls for it. I am looking forward to it but I believe it will suffer the same flaw. Del Toro needs more freedom for his creativity than what summer blockbusters will allow.

Jonathan:

First things first - is Guillermo del Toro the most imaginative living filmmaker on the planet? A darker, more twisted Jim Henson perhaps? As I saw each new creature that undoubtedly came straight from the depths of his sketchbook and his visionary mind (as all the previews enjoyed putting it), I couldn’t help but wonder this. I cannot even begin to fathom how one’s mind could think up such things, which really just kept me in awe.

With that said, Hellboy II: The Goldern Army is just plain awesome. It ups the ante from the first one quite a bit. The action scenes are more complex, the effects better, the monsters bigger, and the consequences more dire. While I can’t say that it’s a much better movie than the first one - a movie I’m very fond of - it is one that is surely on the same level.

Ron Perlman is a man I’ve always been fond of (I’m a huge devotee of The City of Lost Children) and just as with the first movie, he creates one of the most interesting, likable superheros out there. He’s both badass and a huge child and the film balances both sides of him perfectly. Honestly… move over Spider-Man, back off Wolverine, hey, even you get out of my way Tony Stark (forgive me RDJ), but I’ll take more Hellboy goodness (with Ron Perlman under the makeup, of course) any day.

It’s not without flaws. It’s a little sillier than the first. Some of the reasoning behind some of the actions the characters make is questionable. Hell, sometimes it even feels as if del Toro is just showing off how creative and cool he is (which I didn’t mind one bit, let me add). Really though, in the end, I can look behind it all and see a fun, refreshing, unique tale of misfit superheros with one fantasticly badass hero. At the risk of sounding like every other critics gushing over this, the movie has magic.

I’m going to leave it at that. I’m running on two hours of sleep and when I’m tired I tend to gush.Just experience this one yourself and keep an open mind. Here’s to del Toro doing one more and being one of the few filmmakers that can create trilogy with all three great films.

Marina:

During a summer that has outnumbered the rest in sheer number of superheroes, it is hard to imagine anything could beat the critical darling that was Iron Man (our review). Sure it was fun, well reviewed with a charismatic lead but it lacked something Guillermo del Toro’s superhero has in spades: heart.

Though around these parts only generally considered mediocre, I thoroughly loved Hellboy. Seeing it again last week in “preparation”, I came to appreciate it even more for all its gloriously small moments that, at the hands of many a director, would have been seen as cheesy - namely the love story that surrounds the entire movie and is the cause of many a dramatic moment. With a bigger budget and more fervent expectation, I had expected that for his second turn at the superhero, del Toro would take the easy route and simply turn up the ampage and give us more of the same with a few extra fight sequences thrown in to keep the studio types happy. Thankfully, del Toro isn’t one to do anything half-assed and the outcome called Hellboy II: The Golden Army is nothing short of spectacular.

Yes, it’s bigger: the action sequences are larger and longer, the special effects are dazzling and the costumes are gorgeous but above all, the story is both more intimate and grander. This time around del Toro is even more concerned with the personal lives of the characters which he wonderfully marries into the main tension of the film and the result is an epic romance with Hellboy and crew stuck in the middle trying to keep both sides happy to save humanity. Fairly typical superhero stuff but what comes completely unexpected from del Toro is the amount of comedy throughout the film. If the character of Hellboy was as well known and loved as Spiderman, I could see this film compared to Spiderman 3 and particularly the much maligned Peter Parker dance scene – here we have a dance scene that runs for over an hour and I loved every single second of it.

At the moment, Hellboy II: The Golden Army is happily sitting at the top of my summer of superheroes and I doubt it will be kicked off, even by The Dark Knight. I expect to thoroughly enjoy Nolan’s vision, but I expect I won’t have nearly as much fun as I had watching this.

Andrew:

Minus 50 huge points right off the bat for no David Hyde Pierce. The second Abe Sapian spoke, Hellboy II was already in the minus category. I was let down immediately and it’s tough to get me back. And neat-o golden army wasn’t enough to get me back.

Having watched Hellboy I the night before as a refresher course, I can say pretty assuredly that this newest one does not exceed the first. Instead of dark and wicked, Del Toro decided to go for funny and silly. The humor was completely lost on me and didn’t work at all. It pissed me off even more when the audience is laughing hysterically at Hellboy and “Fishstick’s” ‘drunk and singing’ routine. My friend and I looked at each other and just shrugged. Perhaps if I was 12 years old. Was it absolutely necessary to show Bride of Frankenstein playing on the television? It reminded me of the ridiculousness of Hancock’s character carrying around his ticket stubs for Frankenstein.

The one thing going for Hellboy II is the usual cool characters Del Toro comes up with. Along with plenty of CGI, there is plenty of room yet in his book for puppets and make-up. All of the side characters were particularly interesting looking. The main villain turns out not to be quite as bad-ass as he first appears, but he does have some really great martial arts moves and his sword play is rad - even though I had to keep reminding myself that it is not Tom Cruise (Lestat) from Interview with the Vampire:

Basically I was pretty bored throughout most of the picture. Bored enough that I don’t feel particularly compelled to write a review that isn’t boring as well. A few of Ron Perlman’s one-liners worked for me and the side characters all looked neat. Otherwise, no. I’m pretty sure I’ve seen giant robots smashing each other somewhere before in the past 12 months. I wish I could remember where…

Consensus:

Average score:

What did YOU think of Hellboy II? Start the discussion in the comment section below.

Relevant Links:
IMDb profile
Official Site
Flixster Profile for Hellboy II

Director: Werner Herzog
Producer: Henry Kaiser
MPAA Rating: G
Running time: 99 min

By all accounts, director Werner Herzog was invited to Antarctica to shoot a documentary but imagine for a moment a pitch meeting with Herzog at one end of a long boardroom table and a row of men in black suits at the other. In his distinctive German accented English he says “For my next movie, I want to go to the end of the world. I want to go to Antarctica.” The suits think about it for a moment and then a light bulb goes on in one executive’s head and you can almost read his thoughts by the expression on his face: Eccentric film maker + gorgeous locale + weird “locals” = awesomeness.

Nature documentaries are not typically my cup of tea. I am as fascinated as a 10 year old by the way ant colonies work or how anything survives in the middle of the desert but typically these types of, often made for TV or IMAX, specials leave me wanting for more. I’m curious about humanity’s role in all of this. Are we simply here to eventually destroy the planet? Will the impending doom scientists keep talking about ever be so close to home that we will, as a race, make a change? Then there is the question of exploration. For millennia humanity has explored this earth but with nearly every surface of the planet already charted, what is left to explore? With all of our concern with what’s “out there”, we seem to have overlooked the fact that part of this world, a world deep under water and soil, remains uncharted. While I am fascinated by the great mystery of what we don’t know, Herzog is attracted to the people who search for the answers to those mysteries.

Herzog’s trip to Antarctica is not simply an exploration of the environment. As suggested by the title Encounters at the End of the World, Herzog’s film is largely about the people he encounters at this corner of the planet where daylight shines for 24 hours for five months out of the ear. There are no theaters, no malls and no “cars” at McMurdo Base. In a continent renowned for its pristine beauty and desolation, the largest collection of humans has carved out a little existence. It is amazing that the one place humans commune is also the ugliest; what does this say about humanity? This place you can only travel to for a limited part of the year is home to all types of folks, mostly odd ones with a passion for travel and discovery. In some instances, one gets the sense that this is where people come to get away from the rest of humanity. It would be interesting to see a census of those at McMurdo – I bet it would prove to be the best educated population on the planet.

Herzog peppers some of these people’s stories throughout the film, stories of who they are and what drew them to the so called “end of the world” but as interesting, and often long winded, as they are, Herzog feels the need to get out and head into more remote locations, away from even the minute bustle of McMurdo and it is at these places, even further removed from humanity, that we see the true beauty of Antarctica. Herzog and long time cinematographer Peter Zeitlinger capture the immense beauty of this desolate corner of the planet but we are quickly reminded that it is not so empty. Among the tonnage of ice and water there are millions, if not billions, of creatures eking out an existence. It is also at these places that we are treated to some of the most amazing footage I have ever seen and set to Gregorian Chants, there is a sense that these are the cathedrals of the world and that nature is both the architect and the creator.

Encounters at the End of the World is part nature film and part human study. While some, myself included, will find the stories of the wanderers interesting, others might find them irksome and slow moving. What is difficult, if not impossible to dispute, is that Herzog also captures the majesty and magnificence of the environment and it is something to behold, preferably on the big screen.

Herzog is an interesting guide; one I would follow almost anywhere. My suggestion for the next voyage: a trip to the magnificent desolation of the moon. I can only imagine what his inquisitive nature would lead him to discover there.

Links:
IMDb profile
Official Site
Flixster Profile for Encounters at the End of the World

Director: Thomas Mignone
Writer: Thomas Mignone
Producer: Jeff Most
Starring: Brittany Snow, Josh Janowicz, Shanna Collins, Paul Ben-Victor, Eddie Jemison, Candice Accola, Chloe Domont
MPAA Rating: NR
Running time: 102 min

My first thought at seeing the trailer for On the Doll was that it seemed to be borrowing a page from David Slade’s brilliant Hard Candy and to an extent, Thomas Mignone does follow the same broad theme of sexual abuse and sexual predators. The films share something else as well: a unique visual style though wile Slade’s is clean and bright, Mignone’s is dark and dirty.

The film tells the unrelated stories of a number of individuals, all of whom appear to be little more than teens, somehow involved in the sex trade. Chantal is an escort, working to make money to support her boyfriend’s dream of recording an album. Melody and Courtney are high school students lured by a teacher into an on-line porn site while Balery, a call girl and dancer, employs Jaron to help her exact revenge on a cheap customer. Individually, the ideas for these stories are all interesting but they suffer from a number of problems ranging from poor acting to painful dialog.

One of the film’s major drawbacks is the script. Written by Mignone himself, the film tries hard to tell important stories but it only manages to touch the surface, providing interesting ideas that are never fully developed. The dialog itself is juvenile and awkward and though this can be seen as somewhat realistic and an argument can be made that that is how kids in those situations might really talk, I didn’t buy into it. To make matters worse, a number of the back stories and situations feel forced, as if they were written to make a point rather than tell a story, and as a result, the characters are flat.

The acting too leaves a lot to be desired. Brittany Snow, the biggest name on the cast listing, is only appealing when she angrily beats on her victim in a scene which is brutal out of context but surprisingly un-emotional when seen as part of the film. Shanna Collins provides an interesting dynamic between professional door-to-door call girl and woman blinded by love but perhaps the most interesting, engaging and best played storyline is that of the school girls portrayed by Candice Accola and Chloe Domont. Lost girls caught between innocence and sexual awakening, they are drawn into the twisted world of the sex trade by a man who showers them with the wrong kind of attention. Their fall feels real and urgent and their story, though its time is limited, is the most well developed and complete and as a result, the best of the script.

The story itself is not completely successful but one of the things that was apparent in the trailer and which stands out throughout the film is the visuals. Mignoe’s style is an interesting mix of saturated colours and unusual visuals. There is a feeling of the impending downfall which is wonderfully communicated through the set design, colour and framing of the scenes. Mignoe has a talent for capturing the ugliness in beauty, something which lends itself well to the story he is telling here. There are also a number of beautiful visuals but unfortunately, they feel grafted onto the story rather than a natural part of the narrative and the opening scene of a dead bird is a perfect example. Oddly beautiful on its own, it adds little to the story and the return to it throughout the film is completely unnecessary.

Thomas Mignone is known for telling interesting stories with his music videos and though On the Doll is a good first attempt at a full length feature, it doesn’t completely work. There are too many stories, almost as if he could not decide which one to tell and the film would have been more successful if he had chosen one (my vote is with the school friends) and expanded on it. The film also feels like a greatest hits package, almost as if Mignone is trying to squeeze in all of his tricks rather than save a few for his second feature.

Although overall disappointing, the film does suggest that Mignone is a talented director with a unique and appealing style. I’m curious to see what he digs up for his second feature though I hope he seriously considers directing someone else’s script.

Links:
IMDb profile
Official Site
Flixster Profile for On the Doll

My first real experience with true Summer Blockbuster hype that I can really remember was Independence Day (or ID4 as some of the promotional materials touted it as). I was 20 years old and walked into the flashy new theater at the Mall of America (which is now a completely crap theater) around 4:30 in the afternoon, only to find out that ID4 was sold out for every screening until 10:50 that evening. “Holy shit” I thought. I’ve never seen this before. I convinced my girlfriend at the time to hang out at the mall all day until our screening at 10:50 that night. Reluctantly she agreed. And I’m so glad she did. It was the most memorable and maybe the best theater experience I’ve ever had in my life. And probably why I saw the movie in the theater at least 5 times back in late ‘96.

Now, does ID4 have some holes and get a little cheesy here and there? Most certainly. Is some of the dialogue a little corny? Yeah. But the rest of the film is so enjoyable and successful and cool and fun and exciting that these very minor problems are so easy to overlook. Instead of the typical review, I’ll assume everyone’s seen the movie and present a list of reasons why I love ID4 so much (currently at #53 on my list of favorite movies of all time) and why I had such a great experience.

• The opening shot is a great. Sure it’s reminiscent of the opening shot of Star Wars, but that may be exactly why I like it. The ship looks awesome and instead of open space, we see the shadow of this monstrosity slowly devour the moon. A landscape that is recognizable and close to home - as opposed to open space or Tatooine. Doom impending. The theater seats rumble. Great opening shot. “For all mankind.”

• “…just a little anxious to get up there and whoop E.T.’s ass sir.” Will Smith. This was a big step in Will Smith’s career. This is the movie that solidified him as a summer hero for years to come (including this year, 2008). Funny, charming, courageous, skillful, cool and badass. Between Maverick or Capt. Hiller as my wingman, I’ll take Hiller any day of the week (though to be fair, I like Goose better than Harry Connick Jr). Punching the alien in the face was funny and unexpected. I remember the theater being fairly quiet right after it happened save for one probably 5 year-old kid who burst out laughing. The theater got quite a kick out of that.

• Bill Pullman. At the time, I only really knew him from While You Were Sleeping. When people mention great on-screen Presidents, Pullman is usually the first or second that springs to mind.
• The Speech:
  
  
• Jeff Fucking Goldblum. Love love LOVE him here. Every line spoken is Goldblum on Goldblum. I need to say no more on that.
• The attack. We all sat dumbfounded as the country literally goes up in flames. The anticipation of what was going to happen when that clock reached zero was exciting and the narrow escape by Air Force One was nail biting. Explosions, the gay guy’s simple resignation that his life is over, “oh crap,” and the flames sweeping through the city streets. Which leads me to…
• Probably my favorite scene of the entire movie. Boomer the dog leaping from car to car with a huge smile on his face and that big tongue lazily lolling out of his mouth as he leaps into the service corridor (in slow motion I might add) narrowly escaping the giant fireball. The most implausibe thing ever? So what!? The crowd on that Friday night went berzerk with applause. It was great. Still is.