Drama, 129

Let me begin by saying that both my wife and my mother loved this film.  They laughed and they cried.  They said things like “I just love that Sandra Bullock in everything” and “Tom Hanks is so talented”.  Me?  I thought it was very, very long.  Really – I swear – it was like seven hours long.  That’s not to say it was at all bad – just long.  And a little dull.

The story revolves around Oskar.  An eccentric boy who lost his father in the attacks of 9/11 and desperately needs them to make sense of his loss.  after finding a key presumably hidden by his father he embarks on a mission to find the lock that fits the key.

Thomas Horn is excellent as Oskar and obviously both Bullock and Hanks are as well (I have to agree with the ladies: they’re both great, “All About Steve” [IMDB] notwithstanding).  One issue is that most of the actual acting is done in the extensive, pervasive and unrelenting narration (plus many of the conversations are essentially one-sided and seem like narration).

As I watched this – and I did enjoy it well enough overall - I couldn’t help but think that it was just unable to really make the story work as a film.  I kept thinking “this must be a really good book.”  Maybe if I read it I’ll like the movie more.

Family, 103

Who doesn’t love “The Muppets”?  Big, dumb, jerk-faced idiots – that’s who!  Jason Segel loved the muppets so much that he spent the better part of the last 10 years writing this movie.  More than that he made it about my muppets (and maybe yours too): The Muppet Show muppets.

While everybody loves all the muppets there’s something even more deeply special about The Muppet Show.  While the number of “Sesame Street” clones number in the hundreds and the fantastic Creature Shop has been marginalized by CGI The Muppet Show remains a paradoxical classic: a completely irony-free prime-time puppet show.

The show set a standard for the accessible-but-bizarre humor that became a trademark for the brand and was brought to the big screen in the universally acclaimed classic “The Muppet Movie” [IMDB].  While the muppets have had their ups-and-down since they never really reached the same heights somehow.  Until now.

Segel’s script exalts in a simple charm that some people claim is “out of fashion” but most people know will never be.  There’s no false lip-service to modern sensibilities, musical styles or pop-culture.  When references are made they’re always appropriate and never patronizing.  There’s a love of the characters here that shines through remarkably.

It’s abundantly clear that people fought for this.  Fought to keep it pure, fun and to keep marketing from destroying it.  I’ve tried to understand the position of some of the original muppet performers who felt the movie was disrespectful to the spirit of the muppets but I can’t understand it.  This is a movie worthy of the muppets and I can think of no higher praise.

Sci-Fi/Comedy, 109

Today is the 12th annual Towel Day, a celebration of all things Douglas Adams.  In celebration (and since the kids happen to be home from school) we decided to grab our towels and cuddle up on the couch and watch this.

“The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy” is one of the most beloved classics in geek literature.  It’s also one of the most adapted having appeared originally as a radio telecast then later adapted to books, television, stage and games.  Those that have only read the books may scoff at the film but true fans know that this story has always molded itself to the medium.

For those willing to accept that there’s almost no chance for a film version to mirror the source material exactly there’s a tremendous amount of fun here.  While some of the sequences are completely original to the movie (but very “Adams-esque”) most are lovingly pulled directly from the books.  The animated sequences of The Guide are wonderfully quirky and there can be no better narrator than Stephen Fry.

Mos Def and Martin Freeman are excellent and capture the spirits of Ford and Arther very well.  Sam Rockwell is appropriately wild as Zaphod (and is likely the character most changed in this version).  Zooey Deschanel is always a pleasure but let’s be honest: Adams was never really good at creating good female roles giving her little to work with.  Casting Alan Rickman as the voice of Marvin the Paranoid Android was absolutely inspired however.

The movie makes amazing use of practical effects.  The Vogons, especially, were amazingly realized and show that Jim Henson’s Creature Shop never lost their touch against the onslaught of CGI.  The general design of the film is vastly different from the books or any other interpretation but wonderfully realized.  Everything is bulbous, spherical and warm.  “Deep Thought”, a giant-bronze-head lolling lazily on spindly arms, was particularly effective.

Jaded fans can make arguments can be made about any of a million aspects of this but true fans should just sit back and enjoy it.  It was especially satisfying to watch with my family cuddled up with our towels.  I can’t recommend this enough if you have the option.

Rated E for Everyone, Reviewed on PS3, 

The debate as to whether video games can be “art” is worth no more time than any of the multitude of similar debates that raged in the past.  Popular music, movies, comics, animation - essentially all new mediums – have been accused initially of lacking some quality that raises them to the level of “art”.  The debate is worthless because the answer is always the same: yes, they can be art but most often aren’t.

(The fascination for me on this topic is that film critics often incite this ridiculous conversation.  People who can see plainly that “The Seven Samurai” [IMDB] is art and “Mega Piranha” [IMDB] is not but are wholly unable to see that parallel in other fields.  Baffling.)

ThatGameCompany produces fantastic pieces of art.   Only the most myopic, unreasonable, dead-donkey-stubborn people would argue against that statement.  Some might consider them the lone exception to the rule, others just the most obvious example of a universal truth about gaming as a medium but honest people must admit that calling their work “art” is appropriate.

“Journey” creates something of a benchmark for the company as this is the most traditional game they’ve produced to date.  Their earlier releases – PSN exclusives “Flow” and “Flower“ and the PC-only student project “Cloud” – are all sublime, brilliant games.  However, they were all also highly experimental and minimalistic and generated some vocal criticism amongst certain minority segments of gamers.  Even those that fawned over the games had to admit that the critics calling them “interactive screen savers” or “trumped-up tech demos” had at least some merit while rightfully responding that those critics were clearly missing the point.

Where “Flow” had no story to speak of “Flower” featured an emotionally draining narrative thread rather than a true story.  ”Journey” shares this with “Flower” but also provides much more cohesive progression and a somewhat optional, but impressive, back-story told through the use of animated hieroglyphs.  With the exception of the title screens “Journey” is wordless and nearly every point of the story is open to rather vast interpretation.  Most of the developers energy was spent creating the specific moods for each segment of the journey and the actual story is somewhat secondary to that.

You must reach the mountain in the distance, across a vast desert.  That’s your only goal.  While much was made of the desert sequences in “Uncharted 3″ [My Review] they seem sterile and primitive compared to the flowing, shifting sand of “Journey”.  Your cloth avatar can slide down dune-faces or leap into a roll causing a rippling wake of sand.  The environment is utterly beautiful and meaningfully desolate as you pass fields of what can only be grave markers.  Later, as you gain the ability to fly (with a freedom of movement reminiscent of, but subtly different from, “Flower”) it provides an excellent change of pace before the emotionally grueling end-game.

As you progress, many traditional video-game tropes will be visited and almost all will seem new and exciting.  There are segments where you must work forward against gusting wind and others where you must stay out of the searching lights.  There are exhilarating moments sliding down slopes, tense games of hide-and-seek with monolithic guardians, and haunting excursions into ancient, crumbling ruins.  Overall the challenge of the game is minimal – even novice players should be able to complete their journeys handily – but this is a not a game to be played for the challenge.

Adding to the experience is the possible addition of an anonymous (only after the journey is complete are the other players revealed) companion with whom you can communicate only via a few chirps and whistles and your dance-like body motion.  Companions can assist each other somewhat by recharging their flight capabilities, but not to the point of actually altering the difficulty.  As the game progresses and you become weaker, it’s surprising how emotionally reliant you become on these mute fellowships.  Like “Uncharted 3″ but, again, even more effectively, there are moments where you will feel the exhaustion of your character on a deep, primitive level and having somebody else to share those moments changes the dynamics dramatically.

The game is admittedly short - a complete journey takes two, not more than three, hours.  You can play multiple times, of course, looking for the hidden tableau and to work towards the trophies, but even the most dedicated player should be able to see and do everything within 5-to-7 hours.  While I found the experience well-worth the $15 asking price, I can understand those that may balk when much more expansive games are available for the same price or lower.

I have less trouble understanding those that chafe at the lack of traditional game elements.  Those that find the game “dull” or too “simplistic”.  HUDs, levels, skills, ammo, health and countless other game mechanics are all in place to simulate the development, growth and direction that “Journey” provides so completely and at such a profound level with none of them.  Isaac Asimov once said (I’m paraphrasing) that he was only interested in arguing with reasonable people and followed that a useful definition of “reasonable people” was anybody that read his books.  Something similar is at work here: people who can’t appreciate “Journey” may not be worth talking to.

Action Adventure, 143

Was there really any chance this would be a bad film?  All of the prequel films (with the arguable exception of “The Incredible Hulk” [IMDB] which I personally felt was an unneeded remake) were top-notch.  The studio enlisted geek God Joss Whedon to write and direct.  The marketing machine has been running non-stop for months.  Of course the best laid plans always have a chance to explode in one’s face but this was as much of a lock as I’ve ever seen.

Whedon was a risk that paid off gloriously.  Some directors find their genius in their constraints; producing excellent work only when forced (most often by budget) to compromise.  When given the keys to the kingdom there’s always a chance for complete implosion (a criticism, by the way, often and somewhat unjustly, levied at Ang Lee’s 2003 “Hulk” [IMDB]).  Whedon, however, clearly is not one of those and rises handily to the challenge.

With the exception of Edward Norton all of the original actors reprise their roles.  As somebody that never really understood the appeal of Norton’s Bruce Banner I saw this as a huge plus.  Mark Ruffalo, a veteran of many excellent, often independent films, crafts the most believable Bruce Banner to date.  He brings a wry-but-smoldering sadness coupled wonderfully with a disheveled Absent-Minded-Professer demeanor that perfectly captures the character.  As I’ve said before casting Robert Downy Jr as spoiled billionaire Tony Stark is a master-stroke; it’s the role he was made to play. Tom Hiddleston’s Loki never quite struck the right chords for me, but the movie is more about how the characters face their problems, not what those problems are.

While it’s unlikely that the audience will be wholly unfamiliar with these heroes the film does a good job of making brief but meaningful introductions.  Some characters, like Natalie Portman’s Jane Foster, are absent but noted and certain dangling plot points (like how Thor gets to Earth after the events of his film) are given perfunctory but logical explanations.  The actual plot, an alien invasion threatening Earth, is razor-thin but effective as a backdrop for the more meaningful interactions.

The core story details the relationships and the challenges that these powerful, self-reliant personalities have when forced to work as a cohesive team.  The interpersonal conflicts provide needed insight into how these vastly different characters come to respect one another.  While these exchanges are uniformly excellent they do threaten to become a bit formulaic as characters are seemingly paired off, say their piece and then swap partners like a dialog square dance.  Being a DCU [Wikipedia] kind of guy I can’t speak with any specifics to the portrayals as compared to the comics but I’m assured that only the most pedantic of fans could summon up any real complaints.

The action in the finale is every bit as over-the-top as any fan could want even if the actual aliens being fought are rather cookie-cutter (which is fine because they truly are nothing more than cannon fodder).  The pacing during the final sequences is excellent.  The more conventional characters – Captain America, Black Widow and Hawkeye – are choreographed with a speed and finesse that counterpoint the brash physical brutality of the Hulk while the explosive light-shows of Iron Man and Thor punctuate the entire proceedings.  Sure, the Hulk might have been played just a tiny bit too much as a clown but you’ll still laugh out loud every single time. The short after-credit sequence, while wordless, is one of the most effective pieces of film you’ll see this year.

This movie is the culmination of a risky experiment by Marvel Studios to bring a complex, interconnected web of characters to the screen over many years.  Amazingly they were able to deliver with almost no perceptible missteps (I only wish Time-Warner and DC could do the same).  There is no possible way not to consider it a massive success, creatively as well as financially, and I fully expect it to stand as one of the best films of the year when all is said and done.

Sci-fi, 114

A friend of mine suggested this one and I have no idea how I missed it.  Apparently it was in theaters and everything!  Good actors and a significant budget carry it a long way.  Some interesting ideas carry it further but a few unfortunate missteps keep it from real greatness.

The story revolves around Kainan (Jim Caviezel), a soldier unwittingly transporting the last of the Moorwen, huge luminescent predators responsible for (perhaps justifiably) destroying his colony and family.  When the stowaway attacks and causes his ship to crash onto a backwater planet and sink beneath a lake he finds himself in 8th century Norway with little gear and no allies.  After some misunderstandings and significant bloodshed he convinces the local feuding clans, led by John Hurt and Ron Perlman to work together and hunt the creature.

I’ve recently read the entire run of the excellent, but sadly cancelled, Northlanders and am completely sold on the dramatic potential of the ancient Norsemen.  Where many movies portray them as loud, primitive barbarians this script treats them with a refreshingly sincere respect.  Ron Perlman is always a joy when allowed to let loose and scream and my only complaint is that he didn’t get nearly enough screen time.  The action is broad and expansive and well-choreographed even if Caviezel never really seems to be truly comfortable with it.   There’s also the expected romantic side-plot that proceeds by-the-numbers but is kept from stalling the momentum.

I’ve often lamented the dull sameness of many hollywood creature effects lately and while the Morwen deserves some criticism on this score it’s still nicely effective.  Leathery-skin, skeletal features, drooling fangs are all standard fare but there’s an excellent musculature at work – like a cross between an ape and a panther – that makes for some truly gorgeous animations.  The quality of the movement is highlit by the impressive bio-luminescence effects and a highly dramatic reveal.

There are a few brain-breaking items that will smack you around if you let them.  Humans transplanted to Earth from elsewhere is a peeve of mine.  In the climax we have our heroes climb down the village well and emerge in a cave system rivaling Grand Central Station.  You’ll be forced to wonder why anybody would salvage some random bits of metal instead of, say, a big-ass gun.  The ending hinges on a silly-but-harmless sequence involving a rescue beacon that can’t be explained properly without spoiling it but you’ll know it when you see it.

Regardless this is still exactly the kind of movie that I absolutely love.  Likable characters, bombastic action and lovingly drawn effects all overcome clichéd tropes and questionable circumstances.  It is flawed (maybe even deeply flawed) but if you cork the part of yourself that demand that every aspect of a story make sense you’ll have a hell of a lot of fun.

The Empire Strikes Back on IMDB

Return of the Jedi on IMDB

There are few bonding experiences more important to geek dads than sharing the original trilogy with their children.  As this is the first Star Wars Day in several years that falls on a non-School Day (and the men-folk happen to be alone all evening) we’re making a full day of it: friends, all three films, popcorn and pizza.

Since we’re still waiting for George Lucas to pull his head out of his ass (or suffocate up there and let somebody else run things) and release the theatrical versions on Blu-Ray we’re watching the DVD versions.  I’m not quite as rabid as some about the special editions but they do deserve at least a measure of the derision they get.

Between the movies we’ll be watching Troops and Hardware Wars, two of the best fan parodies ever created.  You can find these - and hundreds of others – at the excellent Star Wars Fan Films page.  For a rare treat don’t miss Star Wars Uncut: Director’s Cut:

Casey Pugh organized thousands of fans to re-film every second of “A New Hope” in 15-second snippets.  The result is an amazing melenge of live-action, animation and puppetry of every conceivable quality level.  It’s one of the most original experiments ever attempted and all the more impressive that he saw the task through to completion.  A stunning achievement and a must-see for any fan.

However you spend today (even if you spend it watching the even-numbered Trek films purely out of spite) I hope that you’re able to spend it happily with people you love.

Family, 126

It’s sometimes hard to review universally acclaimed films.  There’s a temptation to run counter to the pack and find flaw (anything everybody likes can’t really be good can it?)  Sometimes you just have to admit it though: the pack has its moments.  This is something special.

Firstly (and perhaps least importantly) it’s a deeply beautiful film.  Scorsese is known for making beautiful films (and for finding beauty in ugly places) but he completely outdoes himself here.  The world is wonderfully layered and scales wonderfully throughout.  The miniature mechanisms of the automaton are mirrored in the enormous gears and pinions of the clock-tower.   The open-spaces of the station floor are balanced by the claustrophobic steam tunnels.  The attention to detail is lavish.

Secondly the intertwined stories being told (and there are several) are entrancing.  Troubled orphans don’t have to work incredibly hard to gain audience support but this one is especially endearing.  Asa Butterfield is a young actor to watch and Chloë Grace Moretz has done more great work before she turned 15 than most actors will do in their entire lives.

What really underscores the film though are the wonderful secondary characters populating the world.  Scorsese has no trouble attracting great talent to his projects and there are truly no small roles here.  The background characters are brought richly, and often wordlessly, to life and given stories just as engaging as the main thread.  The pacing is brilliantly effective as it weaves between the multiple narratives.

Finally all of this is wrapped lovingly around the (romanticized) true story of Georges Méliès’, one of the great pioneers of film.  While not entirely accurate nothing has better captured the spirit of his work and his driving desire to inspire wonder.  Méliès’ obsession with the crafting of fantasy led him to design the precursors of nearly all modern special effects and his films, most now over a 100 years old, still resonate remarkably well.  Ben Kingsley could not have been more well cast.

If Hugo did nothing more than create a meaningful tribute to Méliès’ it would be special.  But it does so much more than that and does it all exceedingly well.  It succeeds on every level it attempts: as a family film, as a tribute to Méliès’, as a period piece and as a simple tour de force for Scorsese.  Yes indeed, sometimes the pack can be right.

Tarzan of the Apes

Few stories have been adapted so often and so badly as Edgar Rice Burroughs classic  story of an infant raised by apes.  While the original story, first published in 1912, may seem dated to modern audiences there’s a good reason that Tarzan remains one of the most well-known characters in all of fiction.

In a very real way Tarzan represents the genesis of the modern super-hero.  A regular man overcoming a tremendous hardship that leaves him with “skills and abilities far beyond those of normal men”.  Coupled with the titles and holdings obtained after he returned to England Tarzan was Bruce Wayne long before Batman.

Adaptations have been generally awful.  Early hollywood introduced us to an Adonis man-child with ”Me Tarzan, you Jane”.  Later works were better but suffered from various failings.  1981′s “Tarzan the Ape Man” [IMDB] is best known for Bo Derek’s breasts and Disney’s 1999 effort “Tarzan” [IMDB] was somewhat promising but vastly overly simplified.  Perhaps the best modern adaptation is 1984′s “Greystoke: The Legend of Tarzan” [IMDB] but it suffered from a cloying presentation, budget issues and some laughable effects.

A Tarzan adaptation needs to capture his intelligence as well as his power and Jane’s strength as well as her beauty.  Even poor Clayton should be treated with the respect he’s never received.  The apes need to be portrayed with depth and finesse.  I would welcome (and expect) updates to the racial and sexual attitudes present in the original book but little else need be altered.  Counting both film and TV there have been well over a hundred adaptations of Tarzan: it’s long past time for a good one.

A Wizard of Earthsea

Ursula Le Guin’s  fantasy classic is a hard sell to hollywood.  Although the story is short it features long stretches of introspection and no real battle or romance.  There are few characters and no real roles (in the first book at least) for women.  Also (although many people like to forget this) all the main characters are black.

The terrifyingly bad Sci-fi Channel adaption, The Legend of Earthsea [IMDB], epitomizes the worst possible way to adapt a beloved work.  Screen writers (who must be assumed to be working via committee) rape the books for names and interesting words and make up what amounts to essentially their own story.  Because, as should be apparent, some idiot working for scale can, of course, create a better story than an author that’s sold millions of books over decades.

This adaptation changed ages and locations to force a ham-fisted romance.  It altered fundamental facts for no apparent reason.  It added a ridiculous subplot involving conquest to mix in more action.  It offended fans of the books on every possible, conceivable level.  Seriously, the way they could have possibly fucked this up more is if they had included a little-green space genie named “The Great Gazoo.”

“Earthsea” deserves some tenderness and respect after all this time.  Any good adaptation will be quiet, subtle and without spectacle – more drama than adventure.  While I fear that hollywood will never risk such a thing it could be something truly special.

Watership Down

Richard Adam’s classic tale of adventure and brotherhood is somewhat of a cheat because it has already had an excellent adaptation in the 1978 Martin Rosen animated feature “Watership Down” [IMDB].  While quality of this adaptation is indisputable it did suffer from budget issues.  The animation is high-quality but low-framerate and lacks depth.  The shortish length of the film eliminates many beloved moments and characters and forces a faster pace than feels comfortable.  Unfortunately Western audiences, even after 30 years, still automatically equate “animation” with “children”.

Yes, the story is about bunnies.  But instead of a fable telling a human story with animal faces this is, at its heart, a rabbit’s story.  It humanizes the rabbits only to the extent needed to make us understand their story.  It’s a dramatic telling of a grand adventure every bit as epic as “Lord of the Rings”.  Challenge, hardship, community, friendship, oppression - all themes explored in-depth.

What Watership down deserves is a 3-hour epic live-action feature using the latest technology.  This is a story which may be a hard-sell to modern audiences but has universal appeal like few others.  I feel confident that if given the opportunity this story, which has consistently proved itself for 40 years, will easily be able to prove itself again.

I’m sure there are others, many others, that could be mentioned but those are my top-three.  Of course there’s no indication that Hollywood will do anything more than continue to pump out hackneyed remakes of films that don’t need remaking and transitioning third-rate sitcoms to the theater.  Still, somebody slipped up and gave Peter Jackson what he needed at least once - we can only hope that such mistakes will continue.

My wife and daughter are away overnight so my son and I decided to have a long-delayed Trilogy day.  Which was his decision (Star Wars, The Matrix or Lord of the Rings) and he decided on Lord of the Rings (the extended editions, of course).  We started late which means we won’t finish until after 3am, but there’s no school tomorrow and there’s always time for bonding, right?

It’s difficult, if not impossible, to dispute that this is one of the great masterpieces of film-making.  Purists may nit-pick over Jackson’s committment to the source but reasonable people realize that it represents the truest adaptation of Tolkien’s beloved epic we’re ever likely to see.  The care and love that went into the production drips from every frame.  The extended edition adds a tremendous amount of material for true fans and, despite of glut of others, is maybe the only truly worth while extended edition ever done.

Nothing is perfect.  I believe that Ralph Bakshi’s sadly underfunded and often overlooked “The Lord of the Rings” [IMDB] did capture the essence of certain key scenes better.  Jackson may also be guilty of overshadowing some of the performances with unneeded special effects.  While I don’t agree I can see the point of those that feel the extended ending of the third film is more self-indulgent than effective.

Any complaint that can be levied against it is dwarfed by compliments that must be given.  The scope of adventure and the depth of emotion have never been – and may never be – matched again.