The Good Heart: Have A Drink On Me

One is an cranky old bartender. He has no friends, no family, and having suffered his umpteenth heart attack (after angrily losing patience with a relaxation tape) realizes he has no time. The other is a gentle young homeless man that has given up on life and attempts suicide. They meet while sharing a hospital room. What do you think the possibility of this odd couple rubbing off on each other is?

We have seen numerous films like The Good Heart before. This movie plays out like a combination of Barfly minus the boozy romance, Scent of a Woman minus the moral dilemma, Gran Torino minus the gang violence. The list goes on and on. In fact, given the overly schmaltzy ending it might even be safe to call this the first ever R rated Hallmark movie. I know I have already made it sound like this is a film to avoid, yet surprisingly the good manages to outweigh the bad.

Brian Cox is perfectly cast as Jacques. An obscenity spewing grump with a mission to educate Lucas (Paul Dano) on the finer points of bar tending. Only serve the half dozen 'regulars', walk-ins are to be insulted (e.g. if they ask for a bloody mary serve them vodka and ketchup), never make friends or trust anyone, and a bar is a private club for men... No girls allowed. When Lucas makes the mistake of serving April (Isild Le Besco) he is told by Jacques that champagne is "not meant for wetting pussies, it is to be used in the celebration of sporting events only."

After a while the characteristics of the two naturally begin to mesh. The soft kid begins to toughen up, and the grinch's heart begins to grow. Jacques realizes he might have made a mistake turning Lucas into a monster. The story's predictability is not the problem considering the excellent performances actually make you care. The film's biggest misstep is it's occasional lack of explanation. Lucas and April get married. Why? How did Jacque become such a gruff person in the first place? I don't think the film should have been necessarily longer, just more explanatory.

I liked that the tone of this film is fairly well balanced. There is a great deal of humor to be found in Cox's raw and seething delivery. I also felt a good deal of warmth and sympathy for Dano's fish out of water character. With a pair of different leads I might have hated this film. An overly cliche and unrealistic twist in the finale certainly doesn't help things. This tavern might not be Cheers (It might be more comparable to Paddy's Pub), the owner may be an asshole, but it is still worth pulling up a stool for. Just don't ask for one for the road. B

Shlocking Similarity

Here is an article about the upcoming Grindhouse spin-off projects I wrote last week. Here is a article I read today on Entertainment Weekly's website. I guess brilliant minds really do think alike (that's right, I said it). I wonder if EW is hiring?

Two Movies That DON'T SUCK

I actually have a Sunday evening off, and am trying to find a movie to watch that doesn't involve comic books, special effects, or dragons. I'm finding it difficult. Anymore these days, I want a movie with some edge to it, and that can mean one of three things: (1) It's made by an old pro who knows what they're doing, and hasn't been influenced predominately by music videos, video games, or directors who were influenced by either; (2) It's a ballsy, intelligent project that somehow slipped through the studio process without being pasteurized, or; (3) It's a rough and tumble, independent effort, however imperfect, from low budget or foreign filmmakers.

I have two films to recommend, both of which have been in release for several months now, and both of them dealing, surprisingly enough, with journalism, family histories, politics, and islands. Here are probably two of the more compelling, exciting, and intelligent films out there, and both are as suspenseful and entertaining as your garden variety comic book film. They don't have blood and guts and explosions and gunshots, but they do have sex, profanity, investigation sequences, chase sequences, murderers on the loose, and INTRIGUE - a word Twilight fans have probably never heard of.

One is by a seasoned pro whose life is more interesting than any of his films will ever be, and the other is by a Scandinavian director who probably has directed some music videos, but hasn't let it affect him. The first stars Ewan McGregor and Pierce Brosnan, and was written and directed by Roman Polanski. The second stars Noomi Rapace and Michael Nygvist, and was directed by Niels Arden Oplev. I'm talking about The Ghost Writer and The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo.

The Ghost Writer follows McGregor's character, who is not given a name as far as I can remember. He is a mediocre journalist who has caught on as a ghost writer of celebrity and political biographies, and as the film opens, he has been hired to take over the autobiography of Brosnan's character, Adam Lang, after the previous biographer washed up dead ashore the New England island Brosnan lives on. The death was labeled a suicide, but as the film progresses, McGregor begins to suspect otherwise. Brosnan's character is essentially a Tony Blair clone, a former British Prime Minister suspected of approving of the kidnapping and torture of terrorist suspects. (The film is not shy of its opinions of the Blair/Bush administrations.)

As the film progresses, McGregor extracts information from not only Brosnan, but his wife, Ruth Lang (played with an air of menace and buried sensuality by Olivia Williams), and from the others in the house, and, later, the locals on the island as he begins to investigate the death of the prior biographer. While this is going on, an all out media blitz is occurring that all but confines Brosnan to his house as his handlers and confidants attempt to spin the situation to his favor.

The Ghost Writer is a master's class in suspense from all angles. There is the suspense of investigation, the mystery of not only who Brosnan is, but who his wife is, what really happened while he was Prime Minister, what happened to the first biographer, and what is going to happen to McGregor if he keeps poking his nose around the island. All of the characters have buried secrets, and they all coming pouring out at the end. It is intelligent, patient, well-paced, and its characters are thoroughly believable. It's a pleasure to watch Polanski when he hits a home run.

The second film, The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo, is a graphically sexual, thoroughly involving mesh of cyber crime-solving and old-fashioned library research. It begins as two stories that eventually link up. The first involves a famous journalist, Mikael Blomkvist (played by Michael Nygvist), who has been blacklisted for destroying the career of a financial power player, and is awaiting sentencing for libel. Blomkvist is hired by Henrik Vagner, an elderly man from the wealthy old money Vagner clan, to investigate the disappearance of a young girl from the family's island 40 years ago. The other story involves the cyber-hacker Lisbeth Salander, who is one of those goth girls with jet black hair, skinny jeans, and tattoos and piercings all over the place, who says as little as possible, and is harboring a past as dark as her clothes. Salander is the hacker responsible for digging up the information needed to blacklist Blomkvist.

Blomkvist moves into a rundown shack on the Vagner island where he is given access to a wealth of family history, including photo albums, diaries, and financial records, and as he digs deeper and deeper into the case, he uncovers Nazism, molestation, serial killers, and all that jazz, and simultaneously, Salander (who has full access to everything on Blomkvist's laptop) becomes intrigued by the case so much so that she contacts Blomkvist, outs herself, and joins him in his investigation.

The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo is essentially an extended Scooby-Doo episode when you get right down to it, with our detectives stationed right in the middle of enemy territory, and at first I thought the mystery was rather simple, but it grows in complexity in its last half hour until it becomes a rather complicated, character-driven psychological thriller with one of those endings that makes you cheer because characters who have had so much wrong done to them finally come out ahead in the end, and have done so using intelligence and cunning.

It's a foreign film with subtitles, and it's two and a half hours long, and the American remake has already been announced (with David Fincher attached in whatever fashion), so a lot of people will probably just wait for the remake, but I'm telling you right here right now, there's no way the American version will be better, because we have here an unrated murder/mystery that has a lot of sexual material in it American audiences have not seen on the big screen this side of pornography, and for Salander to be as effective a protagonist as she is, that stuff needs to be in there. You just haven't seen a character like Lisbeth Salander before, and that is reason enough to seek out The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo.

Chiming in on Kick-Ass

Just saw Kick-Ass.  I'm not so sure I should opine since Allen and Aaron have already done most of the heavy lifting on this one.  But I feel that I can add something to this discussion.

When I evaluate a movie, I ask myself three questions: (1) Were you bored? (2) Was it original? and (3) Is it internally consistent?  As for (1) I say, no, I was not bored.  Whether we're talking about brainless action or depressing period drama (ergh), if we're not engaged in the characters or the story, all the fancy special effects or amazing acting in the world is not going to save the film.  Watchability trumps everything else.  This was really two movies, Kick-Ass and Hit-Girl.  Kick-Ass was about an ineffectual, stupid teenage loser.  It was corny and boring, and Aaron Johnson's performance was high-school play caliber.  Hit-Girl was a tragic tale of a child who becomes numb and single-minded as a result of a lifetime instruction in vengeance and violence.  It was engaging and effective, and Chloe Moretz injected the role with personality it might not have had with another child actor.

As for (2) I say, no, it was not original. Does the film fill a niche in the continuum of film art, or is it merely recapitulation, regurgitation, adaptation or pastiche?  The plot elements of Kick-Ass were more thoroughly and expertly explored by both Watchmen and Spiderman.  The rest was fodder from any teenage comedy (pick one).  Hit-Girl was one part The Professional and one part Kill Bill.  Nothing new story-wise, but perhaps executed in a more startling manner than usual (Moretz's eleven year old Hit-Girl is infamously foul mouthed and gratuitously violent).  I wasn't offended, and frankly, I don't know what the big deal is.  It wasn't torture porn, so it doesn't bother me.

As for (3) I say, no, it was not internally consistent.  But to explain why would be spoilerish.  Let's just say that Kick-Ass, the titular character, is a feckless dope, and after watching him bumble his way through the movie, I don't believe he could operate a toaster without electrocuting himself.  'Nuff said, as Stan Lee would say.  [By "internally consistent", I don't mean that it needs to make perfect sense to us, but it does need to make sense in the universe that the film creates. Let the debate begin on this one . . . ]

So, to sum up, Kick-Ass really only scores on (1), and only then about half-way.  But like I said, (1) is the most important, and I'd be lying if I said the good half wasn't entertaining.  I'll settle for it. 

A Nightmare on Elm Street - Won't Put You Entirely To Sleep

For a "reimagining" (i.e. a remake), A Nightmare on Elm Street is a lot better than The Hitcher or Friday the 13th or The Texas Chainsaw Massacre or Halloween or The Amityville Horror or The Hills Have Eyes or Shocker (er, wait, they haven't remade that one yet ...). It's not half bad, which means it's half good, and for a horror remake of late, that's an accomplishment.

It has been slickly photographed, designed and directed, and the actors bring all they can to the material, and for a Michael Bay production it's relatively restrained. The director, Samuel Bayer, creates a moody, fog-tinged atmosphere right from the get-go, and keeps the viewer on their toes for 105 minutes. I was never sure from scene to scene what was a dream and what was reality, and that's how it should be in a Nightmare movie.

The opening scene is the best scene in the film. It takes place in one of those fictitious diners I've written into a few of my own horror scripts, where the booths and the tables looks straight out of the '50's, and the lights are dimmed so low, you wouldn't be able to tell if you're holding a knife or a fork. It's pouring rain, and the lights keep flickering, and all the kids in the booths drinking coffee look like they haven't slept in three days. In this case, it's literally the truth for the kid we're introduced to, and before he knows it, he's walking through the diner's kitchen looking for his girlfriend, and there are pigs heads on the counter, and a pot is on fire, and everything is so surreal, you know he's fallen asleep. Then Freddy comes out of nowhere, and in reality it looks like the kid is slitting his own throat, and blood sprays all over, and his girlfriend is screaming, and we're off to a good start.

For anyone who has seen any of the eight Freddy Krueger movies, you know what happens next. A bunch of teens come into the picture and start to suspect their dreams are the same, and the same man is trying to kill them in their sleep. Their parents don't believe them, the police think they're on drugs, and meanwhile, it's been three days, then four days, then a week since they've slept, and they're tired and strung out on speed, and Freddy's waiting.

The twist here is that the kids start to play detective and look into who Freddy Krueger really is, and what they discover is kind of interesting, although hardly useful to them, since Freddy keeps on coming anyway. As in the first film, Krueger was a child molester whom the Elm Street parents burned alive in an act of vigilante justice. In what can be deemed the "reimagining" portion of this film, Krueger was suspected of molesting the very kids he is now killing, and our main character, Nancy, suspects he may have been innocent. Like I said, what does it matter, considering he's still killing them. (The movie never gets around to explaining why he waited until now to start killing them.)

Anyway, you get what you paid for, and in this case, at least there's the detective angle to keep the kids busy, otherwise it would be just another interminable mess like the other horror remakes listed above, in which the "reimaginers" (My term for the hack writers assigned to churn out such dreck.) unleashed nothing so much as 90 minutes of crass, mindless cruelty and torture with no redeeming value.

There is redeeming value in horror films. You get to be on the edge of your seat, and you get to laugh when the filmmakers scare you. A Nightmare on Elm Street allows you that, whereas the other films didn't. It is a much needed improvement in this shitty "reimagining" phase horror films are going through.

The Losers: Action Candy

Just saw the midnight show of The Losers.  It's about a rag-tag group of former black-ops trying to avenge a military double-cross that led to the fiery destruction of a helicopter chock full of Bolivian children by hunting the mysterious and coldblooded Max (Jason Patric), a rogue CIA mastermind who's trafficking in high tech sonic weapons ("snukes" for the green terrorist, because they don't leave any pollution behind after exploding). It's based on a graphic novel (which I haven't read).  It's a very lean, stylish, brainless, faced-paced action movie.  If you've seen the trailer, you know what you're getting.  It wasn't a waste of my valuable time.

Other notes:

1. This movie sports the best coed hand-to-hand combat I've seen since Mr. and Mrs. Smith, care of Jeffrey Dean Morgan (Watchmen) and the suddenly ubiquitous Zoe Saldana (Star Trek, Avatar, everyplace else).  They really have a knock-down, drag-out tussle that will probably trigger a whole bunch of dinky Na'vi-inspired half-chubs.  Saldana is the new action chick of the moment.

2.  The movie also sports the best use of Journey's "Don't Stop Believing" I've seen in a long time, care of comic relief Chris Evans (that's right, Glee, I'm going to pretend you don't exist).  Evans is a character actor who knows his place.  Some might think of him as the Human Torch, but to me, he'll always just be Jake from Not Another Teen Movie.

3. Jason Patric is playing one of those sardonically calm and self-amusing villains who want to kill everyone for fun (see, e.g., John Travolta in Broken Arrow/Face-Off).  This movie is worth seeing if you, like me, enjoyed his work in Neil LaBute's Your Friends and Neighbors.

4. This movie is worth a rental, but if you want to see some mindless 'splosions and shooting at the theater, you could do worse (Kick-Ass, for example, which I haven't seen, but is not getting any love here.)

LOST Takeaways: The Last Recruit

OK, I know you're kind of disappointed with "The Last Recruit" because, in contrast to last week's smackdown, not a lot happened.  It was a set-up episode.  Sometimes the show just needs to shuffle the deck for plot's sake -- to get certain characters together or move them from A to B. This one got Jack alone with Smokey, and handed everyone else to Widmore.  We'll see how that arrangement works out (my guess: not well).  But despite the lack of flashy magic or mind-bending twists, this episode actually contained a lot of interesting and plot-advancing details: 

1. Another episode, another mystery supposedly solved.  Last week it was the whispers, now it's the mystery of Jack's dead dad, who has been appearing sporadically around the island for some time.  Jack asks, Smokey tells him flat out, "yeah, that was me."  I don't really like the way the writers are answering these questions, with characters just asking and answering so plainly.  It's anticlimactic.  Is the final episode going to be Jack saying "Hey, Jacob, so, like, you're god and the island is the garden of eden, right?" and  Jacob's gonna be like, "uh-huh."?  That would suck.

1a. I've written a little something recently on the topic of Christian Shepherd (perhaps prophetically, given the revelation this week), and I'm still not buying that he's Smokey.  First of all, Smokey says it was him on the third day of the island who led Jack to the fresh water, not that it has always been him.  Second, Claire asks Jack if Smokey told Jack that he was masquerading as their dad. She didn't elaborate on whether she had been told that or whether it was the truth.  I know, it's tenuous evidence, but I'm still clinging to my skepticism.

1b.  Follow-up Question: If we're supposed to believe that Smokey can only take the form of the dead, who was TALL GHOST WALT, the apparition who saved John Locke and told him to kill Naomi at the end of season three?  

2. I don't think Sayid killed Desmond, do you?

2a. Desmond has really assumed the mantle of the uber-manipulator since Ben's character makeover.  He smoothly persuades Sayid not to shoot him with a little "what would Nadia think of all this, brothah?" logic, and then he totally acts all creepy in the Elevator with Claire in Sidewaysworld and still manages to get her to do what he wants her to do.

3. I thought Ilana was gone for good, but she just had to turn out to be a partner at Jacob's Sideways law firm (on the 15th floor, of course).   Jacob is totally gonna be the Denny Crane of the Sidewaysworld.

4.  Speaking of which, Sidewaysworld is really starting to come together (Des-Claire, Jack-Claire, Sawyer-Sayid, Kate-Sawyer, Ben-Locke, Jack-Locke).  In fact, this was the first week since the first episode that hasn't been character-centric.  Will it be this way moving forward?

4a. Everyone's interacting now, but no one else seems to be having Desmond and Hurley-style "wake ups" to the other reality -- unless that's what was happening when Sun was being wheeled into the hospital next to banged-up John Locke.  She seemed really terrified of him.

5. Jack was telling Sawyer that they should stay on the island because it's the opposite of what Smokey wants.  Sawyer wouldn't have any of it, even though he clearly doesn't trust Smokey either.  I think's Jack's logic is right: Either you trust Smokey or you don't.  Sawyer's head is not in the game.

5a. The decision to let Claire come on the boat is going to bite Kate in the ass.  Claire is going to end up killing someone we like, to be sure.

6.  Awwwwwwwww.  Sun and Jin finally got together.  Sweet, but I thought Sun was going to get fried trying to cross the sonic fence to reach Jin's embrace.  I should have known even the heartless Lost writers wouldn't do that to us. That would have been too awesome[ly tragic].

7.  The writers had to get rid of all those pesky Other extras, so Widmore's rocket attack blew up everybody except Smokey and Jack, just like how those fiery arrows killed off all the Castaway extras in Season Five.  I guess we've seen the last of Cindy the Stewardess (I wish we could have seen her flashback! P.S. whatever happened to the Other children?).

8. Is there anyone we want to see in Sideways world we haven't seen yet?  Juliet, Richard, Mr. Friendly, Ana Lucia, Walt, Shannon, Lapidus, Anthony Cooper, Eko, Goodwin, Abbadon, Danielle (we know she's there, because Alex is!), Naomi, Horace and Vincent have yet to appear. Radzinsky recently appeared on Modern Family, which might be part of Sidewaysworld, since Julie Bowen (Jack's ex-wife) is there, too.

8a.  Personally, I would like to see Eko appear again, for old time's sake.  I think if the actor hadn't gotten sick of playing the part, Eko would still be as important as anyone.

Incidentally, and as a final note, I just finished reading Philip K. Dick's The Divine Invasion, which is filled with LOST-style mythology, including characters interacting with each other in parallel universes, demigods playing games and making wagers with each other, and attempts to keep a jailed evil entity from reaching the rest of the universe and obliterating it. If this isn't the definitive text of Season Six, I'll eat my plastic Kate Austen action figure.

Fun With Faux Trailers

Does anyone else find it as odd or funny as me that a movie apparently regarded a total under-performer at the box office in 2007 would have a slew of spin off projects on the horizon? Not that I am complaining mind you. This flop just so happened to be my pick for the best film of that year. I am talking of course about the exploitation, double feature, splatterfest, known as Grindhouse. Here is a list of a few the fictitious trailers that are on their way to becoming a reality.

• Machete: It was just announced recently that this long to be rumored direct to DVD project will be receiving a theatrical Labor Day weekend opening. Apparentally everyone from the original trailer will be in the film in addition to Jessica Alba, Steven Seagal, and Robert DeNiro. Here is the proof that it is never a good idea to "fuck with the wrong Mexican." It will live forever in my mind as the first promise of how insane, fun, and creative Grindhouse was going to be.

• Hobo With A Shotgun: When Grindhouse was being promoted a contest was held for amateur filmmakers to create and submit their own fake trailer. The best one of the bunch had their trailer placed on a few selected prints of Grindhouse. This was the winner. It was also recently announced that a feature film is in the works with Rutger Hauer in the lead. If the final product turns out to be as inspired as the fake trailer, then I hope this bum manages to find a home.

• While the project seems stuck in limbo I really hope that Eli Roth's Trailer Trash will someday soon get made. When I first heard about it I pictured a kind of updated version of The Kentucky Fried Movie. That could still be an interesting blast provided it switches gears every two minutes.

Video Pick of the Week: As uncommon as it is to recommend such a horrible film I feel that in a weird way it is a perfect pick considering this past weekends new releases. Death at a Funeral was also a remake from director Neil Labute that many deemed unnecessary, and this film also contains a off the wall performance from madman/genius Nicholas Cage currently staring in Kick Ass. This film is the now infamous, guilty pleasure, "what were they thinking?" version of The Wicker Man.

I saw the original version of this film years ago, and I remembered it as a hypnotic and creepy little thriller with a dynamite and unflinching ending. Most of the bases are faithfully hit in the remake. A little girl goes missing on an island of pagans, and a cop sets out to find her with a determination that continues to grow the more confusing the case gets.

Labute's version of the film takes scenes and pushes the performances way past the point of absurdity to create something so bad that it actually becomes humorous. I dare you not to laugh as Cage hijacks a bicycle at gunpoint, or punches women in the face while wearing a bear suit. This movie is so overdone it made me want to grab everyone involved and continuously scream in their face "How'd it get BURNED!?"

Since I am feeling pretty generous and it fits with the topic of fake trailers, here is the alternate and fictitious version of the preview redone as the comedy it seems to have inadvertently turned itself into. Enjoy!

Link of Note: Television Directors are Directors, Too.

Slate's Joanna Weiss investigates the craft that is television directing. An excerpt, of particular interest to LOST fans:

Pilots establish the look and feel of a series, but early episodes continue that work, and there, too, directors can have a major influence. [Jack] Bender didn't direct the Lost pilot—that was J.J. Abrams—but he helmed the second episode, "Walkabout," and set some ground rules that have largely endured. Handheld cameras shouldn't be used unless they serve a real dramatic purpose. ("I said, 'OK, let's not become the handheld show,'" Bender says.) Blues and greens, the main colors on the island, should largely be kept out of the flashback scenes. During the filming of "Walkabout," Bender also made subtle changes to the script in order to heighten the drama. One scene, set on the beach amid the ruins of a crashed airplane, called for a knife to fly through the air and land in the trunk of a tree. Bender decided to send the knife into a seat cushion lodged in the sand, while a character sat in the adjacent seat.

Why Kick-Ass Sucks

I saw Kick-Ass last night, and to be fair up front, I went in knowing I probably wouldn't like it for a couple of reasons: (1) I haven't liked any of Matthew Vaughn's films as either a producer or director, (2) I am weary of comedies that have graphic violence, (3) I don't find it funny anymore when children use profanity, (4) I have never found it funny when children commit murder.

I didn't like Kick-Ass at all, and it will be a distant memory by this time next week. I laughed maybe three times, and I was bored by the action, and terminally bored by the Kill Bill references. If I could sum it up in two words: Ho hum.

Nicolas Cage was hardly present, and didn't get to shout any lines for no reason at all, and certainly had no catch phrases to match last year's Bad Lieutenant ("Til the break of dawn!!!").

Chloe Moretz and Aaron Johnson are good actors, and could have done something memorable if they had any material to work with. Moretz comes closest to crafting a solid character, but it's one note. She even stays one note after her father bites the big one. Vaughn and his writers should know by now that superheroes without any feelings are boring. Even Batman, with is growling dog voice, admits his weaknesses. If Hit Girl had done that, the film would have been more accessible, instead of being a one hundred percent glossy sheen of hip dialogue and wall to wall action.

The violence is deplorable, but beyond that, it's boring. I couldn't get into any of the action sequences because the characters didn't mean anything to me. If Vaughn had taken his time to develop Kick-Ass the way the first Spiderman movie developed Peter Parker and his discovery of his powers, then maybe I would have cared, but Kick-Ass gets in two fights, and all of a sudden he's a sensation. There isn't even the prerequisite montage of Kick-Ass beating people up, preventing a purse snatching, and helping an old lady cross the street. Vaughn could have had a lot of fun with this material. He could have had Kick-Ass signing autographs at a comic book shop, or Tweeting as he beat up drug dealers, but instead they have him pretending to be gay so he can get close to the hot girl at school (Snore!).

The bad guys are run of the mill mobsters. That's all Vaughn could think of? Really? And how old is the joke where the mobster talks to his son while a man is getting killed loudly in the next room? I haven't heard that one before.

If I see one more sequence where a superhero or action hero jumps off the wall and does cartwheels and back flips while simultaneously shooting people with a Tarantino-esque (or Matrix-esque - take your pick) soundtrack playing over it, I'm going to probably do absolutely nothing but sulk and wish I was a sell-out who could get a movie like that off the ground so I could cash in my paycheck and live off the fat of the land. Kick-Ass has all sorts of sequences like this, each more boring than the last. I swear they even play the theme from a Sergio Leone film. Now, haven't you seen all this before?

The climax has Kick-Ass blowing a man out a window with a bazooka, then flying across the sky on a jet pack. He might as well have been walking down a dirt road in a Hallmark film, that's how exciting the whole package was to me.

Kick-Ass: Kids Slay the Darndest Things

This is going to be a tough one. On one hand Matthew Vaughn's Kick-Ass is everything I wanted it to be. It is dark, sadistic, excessively violent, and it has style to burn. On the other hand it is only ever really fun in patches. That is not to say that there aren't a few gleefully nasty little surprises here and there.

Much has already been said about newcomer Chloe Mortez's role as Hit Girl, and since it appears to be the hot topic of the film I guess it's as good a place as any to start. Yes, she plays an assassin who swears like a sailor and slaughters without mercy. Did I mention that she is only eleven years old? The big question has been: Is it morally wrong to subject a child to such profane and brutal situations? There is a scene where a bullet proof vest wearing Mortez is intentionally shot by her father Big Daddy (Nicholas Cage) just to get the fear out of her system. This scene somehow manages to play simultaneously for both shocks and laughs and I found it to be successful on both counts. I couldn't help but realize that an identical scene was used in the gangster epic Gomorrah, except in that film the scene was brutally serious. And how much violence involving children was there in City of God? A ton if memory serves correct. Yet those films were hailed as masterpieces. Apparently to numerous critics violence performed by or inflicted upon children is fine just so long as it is done with a depressingly realistic angle, but a fictitious and humorous one is completely out of bounds. The best example of my personal moral conflict was stirred in the final fight between Hit Girl and lead villain Frank D'Amico (Mark Strong). This little girl is viciously beaten as if she were an adult. I respect the fact that the confrontation is anything but one sided, but at the same time was shocked and mildly disgusted that the filmmakers had been permitted to take it that far.

The plot of this film asks the question why do super heroes only exist in comic books, why not in real life? High school loser Dave Lizewski (Aaron Johnson) decides to buy a wet suit and hits the streets looking for trouble as Kick Ass. His first encounter with crime is so miscalculated it suggests that this movie could have ended before the halfway mark. After a bit more successful second round Kick Ass becomes a internet sensation. This catches the attention of a father/daughter team of professional vigilantes (Hit Girl and Big Daddy), who have a revenge story as twisted as their relationship. Also worth mentioning is Christopher Mintz-Plasse who plays D'Amico's son. He desperately wants his father's approval and thinks he can get it by infiltrating the group of superheroes as a character named Red Mist. Once he gets their trust he aims to set a trap for them.

Kick-Ass is a film that was made specifically with the fanboys in mind. It seems fueled by comic books, sexual fantasies, and first person shooter video games. If you are a regular at comic-con I can pretty much guarantee you will walk out ready to call it one of the greatest films ever. It is easy to see how this is going to polarize most people. Funny thing is I neither loved it nor hated it. I have decided to recommend it not because I approve of putting in children in violent situations, but just because this movie was gutsy enough to step up to the challenge and then follow through with it. How boring would movies get in general if a few of them never broke the rules from time to time? B

The Definitive WTF Episode of LOST

[SPOILERS AHEAD for fans who have not seen the most recent episode, "Everybody Loves Hurley"]

This was the most &*^$#$%$'ed up episode of LOST I've ever seen. BLAM! Right off the bat, Ilana gets blowed up! (BTW, pretty stupid allowing the one person in the group who could kill herself handle that dynamite, right?) BLAM! Hurley blows up the Black Rock, on Ghost Michael's instructions, and then starts faking Jacob conversations, splitting the group up!  BLAM!  Mentally-ill Sideways Libby remembers island world!  BLAM!  Desmond is order #42 at Mr. Cluck's Chicken! BLAMMETY-BLAM!  Sideways Hurley gets all his memories back from a kiss! BLAM!  Smokey chucks a totally chilled-out Desmond down a well (not killing him, it appears from the promo)!  BLAMMO!  Sideways Desmond runs down wheelchair-bound Sideways Locke, after being mistaken for a child molester by Sideways Ben!  What?!? DOUBLE-SECRET-SUPER-BLAMMO!

I'm loving it.  This is how you do it, guys!  I was totally worried that Lindelof and Cuse were just going to continue to cram good-evil cliche garbage down our throats, and then end the show with a whimper, but NO!  I mean, when Pierre Chang/Marvin Candle/Mark Wickmund/Edgar Halowax speaking at Hurley's Appreciation Dinner is the low point in mind-fuckery, this episode takes the cake.  When we finally get a half-assed explanation for one of the mysteries of the series that has been around since the pilot (the whispers!) and we don't care that it is totally anti-climactic and kinda dumb, that's saying something!  

Seriously guys, can we just end the series on this note?  I don't think it can get any better than this.

LOST THOUGHTS: Why Christian Shephard May Not Be Smokey

The conventional wisdom seems to be that apparitions of Christian Shephard (Jack's dead father) are actually Smokey, who we know can take the form of the dead (e.g., John Locke, Eko's brother Yemi), and that everything he instructs people to do (as Christian) is part of his long con to trick the castaways into doing things that help him with his endgame (ostensibly, leaving the island).

I don't buy this completely, for a couple reasons:

1. In the Lost mobisode, "So it Begins" (which is canon, despite the fact it did not appear on the show), The Christian Apparition appears to Vincent (the dog) and tells him to go wake up his son, because he has "work to do."  Now, why would Smokey feel the need to lie to a dog, with no one else watching?  I suppose one could argue that Smokey has all the memories of the dead he occupies, but I don't think that would necessarily lead to Smokey referring to Jack as his son.  Later, he refers to "his son" again when he bids farewell to Locke in the frozen wheel chamber: "Say hello to my son!"

2. In Season Four's "Beginning of the End", Hurley happens upon Jacob's cabin and looks inside.  He sees The Christian Apparition sitting in a rocking chair, and then is startled by an eye that looms in front of him.  Assuming this wasn't a hallucination, there were two separate beings in the cabin, or one being that could appear as two separate beings.  We've never seen Smokey pull a trick like this before.  He's either black smoke or one person, never two people.

3. In Season Four's finale, The Christian Apparition appears to Michael on the freighter.  In the episode, Michael has been attempting to keep the freighter bomb from detonating by spraying the circuitry with liquid nitrogen.  The Christian Apparition appears to Michael, and tells him that he "can go now," and then the bomb explodes, apparently killing Michael.  If Smokey can't leave the island (per Season Six revelations), then how does he manage to appear on the Freighter?

4. In Season Five's "This Place is Death", The Christian Apparition appears to John Locke in the frozen wheel chamber (after the castaways had been time-skipping for awhile) and gives him instructions to turn the wheel and find Eloise Hawking (ex-other, Widmore's ex-paramour, Daniel Faraday's mother, Desmond's "course corrections" officer).  As we find out in "LaFleur", this is some time in the past when the giant statue is still intact.  Since we know now that the statue was destroyed by the Black Rock, which arrived in 1867, Locke must have turned the wheel sometime before then.  Yet, The Christian Apparition refers to events that are happening in present day - How Ben turned the wheel, his past conversations with Locke in the Cabin, that Eloise is in Los Angeles.  Furthermore, he knows the exact time to appear to John to give him these instructions.   If Christian is Smokey, then Smokey has to be either omniscient across all time, or an avid time traveler himself.  The Smokey we have gotten to know so far in Season Six does not appear to be omniscient (his group gets ambushed by Widmore's team while he is away, for one), and has not revealed knowing anything about the future to anyone.  In some ways, he seems confused by some events (the Widmore ambush and kidnapping of Jin; the little blond boy with blood on his hands, AKA Lil' Jacob).

5. When Smokey (as Locke) happens upon Jin and Scary Claire, Jin calls him Locke.  Scary Claire says, "that's not John, silly, that's my friend."   Later, she says she's had contact with her dad and her friend.  Yes, she's crazy, but she knows Smokey can appear as Locke, so one would think she'd be able to put two-and-two together and realize that Smokey could also be masquerading as her dad.  Especially if they never appeared in the same place at the same time, like Michael Jackson and Diana Ross.  But she doesn't, and that suggests that maybe she's seen them together.

None of these, on their own, proves that Christian is not Smokey, but when taken together, they produce at least a presumption that Christian is not Smokey (or at least that Smokey has not been every apparition of Christian).

I still think Lost is going to be explained by events orchestrated by Eloise Hawking and Christian Shepherd.  They are the two that seem to know the most about what's going on.
 

Date Night: Don't Make Reservations

Premise: Phil and Claire Foster are a normal worked to death married couple that decide a trip out to the city for dinner at a posh and expensive new restaurant might spice up their bland routine. After being told getting a table will be next to impossible they decide to take place of the Triplehorns, a party of two that decided not to show. From there the film turns into a case of mistaken identity as the innocent Fosters are mistaken by crooked cops and the mob as people trying to blackmail the District Attorney. The rest is a crazy night on the town in which the Fosters must work together to save their marriage and their lives.

The Good: Carell and Fey... duh. I loved the pairing of these comedic forces. Seeing NBC's Michael Scott and Liz Lemon as a team is just too good an opportunity to pass up. The real trick is that they actually play a pretty convincing couple. They bicker and tease one another, but you also occasionally feel the warmth and chemistry between them. That and they naturally generate a good amount of laughs. Their idea of exotic dancing creates a sexually explicit version of the robot (Hilarious).

The Bad: The rest of the movie. The entire film has this throwaway plot that does little more than have our heroes run around in circles. It was right around the fourth time someone knocks on Mark Wahlberg's door I had just about given up. There are numerous cameos that unfortunately bring little or nothing to the table. And how many good movies can exist that are all about everyone trying to get their hands on a flash drive? It came off to me as not much more than a tired cliche.

Recommendation: It really says something when a film that runs only 88 minutes feels like the longest movie of the year. It also really says something that the pure talent of Steve and Tina is so strong that they single-handedly almost make this rom-com worth seeing... almost. C+

Link of Note: Pixel Madness

Enjoy this short film showing what happens when pixels go bad:

Vikings Are Striking. Pass On 'Clash'

Last week I learned that our theatre would not be playing Clash of the Titans in 3D. Instead they decided to continue playing How to Train Your Dragon. I thought: "What a stupid move." There is no way this little kiddy movie could be better than a blockbuster sword and sorcery remake. Not only is HtTYD far superior, but I must say that my theatre made the right choice.

How to Train Your Dragon: I expected this to be nothing more than a lazy little throwaway animated project with some cheap slapped on visual effects. To me, Dreamworks animation has always paled in comparison to that of Pixar. It never looks as good and the stories are not nearly as thoughtful or complex. I do happen to love Antz, Kung Fu Panda and the original Shrek, but their last few (Shark Tale, Madagascar, Bee Movie, and Monsters vs. Aliens) I either disliked or ignored. It would figure that after a week of gorgeous weather that it would be a miserable, rainy afternoon on my one day off. With nothing better to do and after reading a suprisingly overwhelming amount of critical praise for this film, I decided to check it out. I'm glad I did. This film might have single-handedly restored my faith in this kind of animation.

How to Train Your Dragon tells the tale of Hiccup (Jay Baruchel). He is something of an outcast and a nuisance amongst his fellow clan of vikings. He is scrawny, tries too hard to fit in, and is no good at doing what his people do best: slaying dragons. He is however quite the inventor and manages to catch a species of dragon unseen by anyone in his tribe. After discovering he is unable to kill the beast he attempts to domesticate it, and slowly discovers that their enemy is not so much evil as they are just misunderstood.

In a lesser movie there would have been an instant trust bond between the hero and the creature. I really admired that HtTYD decides not to rush that angle. There is a good portion where the two need time to warm up to one another the way a lion tamer would work with a jungle cat straight out of the wild. I noticed that once domesticated these animals most closely resemble cats. They purr, chase light, devour fish, roll around in the grass, and love getting their necks scratched.

I also really admired the thunderdome-like training sessions and the opening action sequence (great touch having Astrid, the warrior woman of Hiccup's dreams, douse a small fire only to have the entire background explode into flames as she slowly and seductively walks toward the camera.) The flying sequences are marvelous, and the fact that our heroes don't quite walk away from their ordeal completely unscathed was refreshing. The moral of the story is the tried and true "Be Yourself", and while a little predictable is still a good message for kids.

How to Train Your Dragon is a cute and entertaining film that was a little darker and looked much sharper than what I was expecting. B+

Clash of the Titans: I have been a fan of the original Clash and several other Ray Harryhausen films ever since I was a kid. There is just a certain charm that these movies carry with their unconvincing yet unique from of stop motion animation. I'm glad to see that a film like Fantastic Mr. Fox has in a way carried on this legacy. The remake, while faithful in some respects, came off to me as not much more than a rushed off the assembly line project with expensive yet unconvincing and uninspired special effects.

This version still spins the story of Gods and men and the disagreements between the two. The Gods led by Zeus (Liam Neeson) and enforced by his brother Hades (Ralph Fiennes) have grown tired of mankind's defiance towards them and as punishment have decided to unleash a mammoth beast called the Kracken in ten days time to destroy everything. This is where we are introduced to the half God/half man Perseus (Sam Worthington). After his adopted human family is killed by the Gods, Perseus goes on a quest to stop the divine side of his family.

I liked the idea of Perseus not wanting any help from the Gods on his mission. He has decided if he is going to topple heaven that he is determined to do it as a man. The only problem is once in a pinch the character neglects his initial feelings and decides to accept help from above. To me, that is cheating. I also really liked Mads Mikkelsen as Draco. He is the steely cool backup that gives Perseus a few tips on how to fight gigantic scorpions and the evil Medusa. He makes a much more interesting hero than Worthington.

Clash of the Titans is not a terrible film, but it is simple and uninspired. The story is either a dead match up of the original or too lazy to follow through on it's alternate paths. The only people who might end up enjoying this film are people who have never seen the original, or are unnaturally addicted to crappy run-of-the-mill fare like The Mummy Returns or Van Helsing. I'm guessing director Stephen Summers passed on this project, but Louis Leterrier was still determined to make him proud. C

It might be easier for me to accept this whole 3D craze because I for one think that if it is used the right way it can be quite effective. That and I don't have to pay to see it. I would probably boycott it as well if it ever affected my wallet. How to Train Your Dragon benefits from the use of 3D, if you don't mind spending the extra cash. I saw Clash of the Titans in 2D, but have not heard a single good thing about the 3D version from the people who have. I would recommend skipping it in either dimension.

Link of Note: Time Travel Timelines

Information is Beautiful posted this amalgamation of time travel timelines from various television and movie sources:

The lack of LOST references is a little disappointing, but it's impressive nonetheless.

Stardust Memories

Last night marked the opening season of the Auburn Garrett Drive-In Theatre, and you had better believe I was in attendance. Whenever anyone makes reference to a Drive-In it is usually in regards to them being relics of the past, but this has never been the case for me. In fact, there are three still in operation within a forty five mile radius of my home. For the past thirteen years seeing summer movies at a Drive-In has been a tradition for me, my friends, and family. Here are a few of my more memorable moments with cinema under the stars:

• My very first Drive-In experience was with the craptastic double feature of Speed 2: Cruise Control and Volcano. I'm amazed I ever went back.

• My father grew up watching old Godzilla films at the Drive-In when he was a kid so he insisted on seeing Roland Emmerich's remake at one. Once the film was over we decided not to add insult to injury by not staying for Billy Crystal's My Giant.

• There is something so cool about seeing retro intermission advertisements for items ranging from concessions to Pic mosquito coils.

• The most bizarre double feature I attended was David Fincher's unforgettable The Game with the instantly forgettable Wishmaster, but the weirdest combo ever has got to be Air Bud paired up with Rounders.

• Listening to a film through the speaker stands might not be as efficient as a DTS theatre sound system, but it is all part of the charm. Plus for being about fifty years old they still work surprisingly well. If you are still unsatisfied you can always use you car radio.

• While the quality of the films in general is debatable, the two most Drive-In appropriate films I saw at a Drive-In were Jeepers Creepers and Eight Legged Freaks. I would have killed to see Tremors or Grindhouse at a Drive-In.

• I have even been to a few triple features or dusk-till-dawn showings. This was how I ended up seeing the remake of Willard, which was actually much better than I expected.

• Yes, weather can become a factor. In the dozens of visits I recall it being a nuisance only twice. X2: X-Men United was a total rain out mid-show, and The Village was unwatchable due to heavy fog.

With digital projectors and 3D films on the rise it seems that this already endangered species of film presentation is moving a step closer to extinction, and that is truly a shame. Here is a link to the website Drive-ins.com it contains a search engine that will inform you of all open drive ins closest to your zip code. I encourage everyone to visit a drive-in even if it is only once. Any true film lover or novice will tell you that it is an experience that is not soon forgotten.

Link of Note: Eight More Long Takes

Blogger Jim Emerson selects eight great "unassuming" long takes, which are perhaps not as noticeable or dramatic as the ones that were highlighted in our earlier "Link of Note," The Best Long Takes of All Time (e.g., Touch of Evil, Goodfellas).