Skyfall - Review

One of the downsides of seeing as many movies as I often do is that it's taken some of the previous excitement I originally felt when going to see a new movie. Since I started this blog, I have often made it a point to see all the major releases but also found myself going out of my way to not-so-local theaters to see anything that I thought might be good, worthy, relevant, or important. As a result, going to the theater (while still an enjoyable experience, don't get me wrong) has become more "routine-like" most of the time. While there are some movies that do manage to get me hyped, it's becoming less-and-less frequent. Fortunately, if there's one series that always manages to bring back some of that previous movie-going excitement that I continually yearn for... it's James Bond. I'll just come out and say this, I have been a HUGE fan of this series ever since I was a kid! I love them all... or at least most of them, but even the few stinkers that occasionally come around haven't managed to decrease my absolute adoration for 007. Every time a new entry makes it's way into theaters, that giddy feeling of excitement and hype returns, and suddenly I'm as happy as a kid in a candy shop. This film, in particular, especially peaked my interest for two different reasons. First off, it's been over four years since 2008's Quantum of Solace and quite frankly that's a long time to go between 007 flicks. Secondly, Skyfall, the 23rd official Bond film and third to star Daniel Craig as the legendary spy, was directed by Sam Mendes, the Oscar winning filmmaker behind movies like Road To Perdition and American Beauty (which won for Best Picture in 2000). Does Skyfall live up, not only to it's hype, but also the legacy of this long-running series?

Skyfall opens with 007 in pursuit of a hard drive containing the secret identities of numerous MI6 agents. In the chase, Bond films himself on top of a moving train, fighting a henchman for the said drive, all while a fellow agent watches via a sniper rifle. Despite not having a clear shot, MI6 head M (once again played by Judi Dench) knowing full well that Bond could easily be killed, orders that the sniper take a shot at the henchmen. When the shot is taken, Bond is mistakenly hit. He falls from the train into the river below, and is declared Killed in Action despite actually surviving his fall. After months of staying off the radar, 007 returns to London after hearing of an attack on MI6 headquarters. M puts 007 back out in the field, informing him that the cyber terrorist that attacked MI6 may be a former agent with a vendetta against M and the British government. With his loyalty to M severely tested, the reluctant 007 nevertheless continues his search for the terrorist in the hopes of stopping him before he strikes again.

As much as I love this series, I have to admit that I have had some minor doubts about the direction the Daniel Craig films have been going. Don't get me wrong, I've actually liked the previous two flicks. Casino Royale was, by all accounts, pretty damn awesome while Quantum of Solace was flawed by still quite enjoyable. It also has nothing to do with Daniel Craig, whom is arguably the most memorable actor to play the character since Sean Connery (who still holds the title for best Bond) brought him to life in 1962. What concerned me was that there was this ever-present notion that the series would soon start giving way to diminishing returns and worse yet, that it was starting to lose focus of what's made the movies so awesome. I don't just mean the lack of gadgets, Q, Moneypenny, memorable henchmen, and campy villains (though they're definitely part of it), but rather that the realism-based direction the series was heading was ultimately turning the series into a line of generic run-of-the-mill action flicks while robbing the series out of the traits that made Bond... well, Bond. With all that said, I am happy to report that Skyfall has rediscovered that same degree of fun from classic 007 while still adding some of the more dramatic themes and character beats that made Casino Royale so effective. Hell, many have actually said that Skyfall might actually be the best film in the whole pantheon of 007. Personally... I'm not going to make that statement quite yet. I'll need to see it another time or two to properly rank it. Though if you are wondering, Goldfinger, The Spy Who Loved Me, and Goldeneye are my three personal faves. Nevertheless, Skyfall is a huge return to form, one of the better offerings of the series, and my personal favorite out of Craig's three films.

One thing I actually do applaud the Daniel Craig 007 films for doing is attempting to give Bond a dynamic character arc. While Bond has always been a fun character (and totally badass mind you), most movies in this series haven't exactly been strong in the way of theme and character development, though there have been exceptions (Goldfinger and On Her Majesty's Secret Service immediately come to mind). While the main plot for Skyfall doesn't immediately connect with it's predecessors in the same way that Quantum of Solace tied into Casino Royale, it nonetheless picks up on previous plot-points and themes, namely the mother/son-ish relationship between 007 and M. Bond questions his loyalty to M, as well as MI6, after M put him in harm's way and ordered him to make some sketchy decisions. His concerns are only exacerbated when he takes on the film's villain, Silva, a former agent-turned cyber terrorist with a (not entirely unjustified) vendetta against M. This particular story-arch ultimately drives the plot and culminates in a profoundly dramatic and suspenseful manner. I won't spoil exactly what happens, but I will say that it's hard not to be moved by how it all comes together. I will say that, aside for a handful of slow-ish scenes, the film moves at a good pace and rarely lets up. Add in some neat twists, solid exchanges between heroes and villains, interesting themes of modern vs old fashion tactics, and some legitimate character development, and you've got one of Bond's most memorable scripts.

Now we come to the cast, the area where Skyfall truly knocks it out of the park. This is Daniel Craig's third outing as 007, and while he's already had two strong performances under his belt, this time he really delivers. With a script that gives him the opportunity to truly explore the brooding and unstable psyche of Bond, Craig really puts his all into the role, giving way to his most memorable performance as the legendary spy. Judi Dench, who has become a pro at playing M after seven movies, once again delivers in the role. This particular film, however, gives her what is easily her meatiest role in a Bond film, resulting in some truly moving acting by Dench. The standout performer, however, has to be Javier Bardem as the villainous Silva. I am all but sure that Bardem will also go down as one of 007's most memorable foes. Taking inspiration from classic Bond enemies, Hannibal Lecter, and Heath Ledger's Joker, Bardem gives a memorably creepy, suspenseful, and moving performance as a man driven to villainy after suffering at the hands of MI6. There's been some early buzz about a possible Oscar nomination for Bardem (who previously won for No Country For Old Men), and unless the Academy is turned off by the fact that this is a 007 film, it's a definite possibility that he might be included on the ballot. As for the rest of the supporting cast, everyone is pretty solid. Ralph Fiennes has a small part as MI6 personnel Gareth Edwards yet still sells his role commendably. Q once again returns to the series (FINALLY!), only this time as a much younger character played by Ben Whishaw who is less of a gadget supplier and more of MI6's technological and security liason. I was originally a bit uncertain of this re-imagined portrayal of Q, but Whishaw sells the role, bringing all the classic Q traits, adding a bit of humor, and as an important figure in the plot. While Skyfall breaks slightly from tradition in that the Bond girl has considerable less screentime and impact on the plot, Naomie Harris nonetheless sells her role as Eve, who has a number of memorable scenes. All in all, Skyfall has a killer cast that never fails to impress.

With all that said, there's one more area on which a Bond film absolutely must deliver. That is, of course, the action. Sam Mendes has built a reputation in the industry primarily as a director of artsy dramas and character pieces. Prior to Skyfall, he had no action films in his filmography (that I know of anyways). Yet despite all that, he steps into Bond's world like an old pro, bringing some of the series' most exciting and flat-out amazing action sequences in recent memory. The opening scene in particular is arguably the best pre-title action sequence in the series, with an incredible chase and fight sequence. The finale is the other stand-out scene, with some white-knuckle suspense and one exciting payoff after another. The only thing that could have made them better would be if 007 had a few more gadgets to put to use this time around. With Q back in the series, I was hoping to see a little more on that front, and while he had a couple, there was nothing particular memorable. It's a minor gripe I admit, and I suppose they didn't want the tech to overshadow the main plot at hand. Maybe in the next film. Nitpicks aside, this is one hell of an action film, with one kick ass chase, fight, or shootout after another. If all you're expecting out of Skyfall is some well directed action, I can all but guarantee you will leave satisfied.

So that's Skyfall... and yeah it pretty much rocks! With the exception of a few minor nitpicks here and there, I can't think of too many things to complain about here. It's classic Bond action with a great cast and engaging script. Whether you're a Bond fan or not, this is a must see movie! Do not miss this one!

My Score: 4.5 out of 5!

Star Wars... By Disney

Well... I have to admit that Wednesday's bit of news took me (and I think everyone else) by surprise. In a 4 billion dollar deal, Lucasfilm was purchased by none other than the Walt Disney Corporation and in doing so, announced the development of yet ANOTHER Star Wars trilogy (Episode VII is due in 2015). In retrospect, it probably should not have come as such a shock, considering how Hollywood still continues to milk the hell out of every remotely nostalgic movie, series, property they can get their hands onto though various remakes, reboots, and re- whatever.

Still, I think there was a sense that Star Wars, being considered something like the Holy trilogy of movies (well, at least the original three anyways), was untouchable for this kind of thing. Oh sure, there were rumors floating around years ago that George Lucas actually did have a basic story idea for Episodes 7-9, but he made it clearly over and over that the series was strictly a 6 part series and he had no intention of continuing his saga. That, however, isn't the most surprising part. See, what I think caught me off guard was the announcement that Lucas had sold his studio to Disney, effectively giving them creative control of not only the movies, but pretty much any Star Wars (and any Lucasfilm property like Indiana Jones) related product. Up until now, Lucas has guarded his beloved franchise like it was one of his own children and has constantly balked at the requests and demands of 20th Century Fox (the series' previous distributor) for anything Star Wars related, including, among other things, his refusal to release the original, non-special edition, trilogy on Blu Ray. For a filmmaker who built a reputation on refusing to let his properties fall into the hands of major studios/corporations, this is something I would have never seen coming. I guess that goes to show that, in this industry, nothing is sacred.

With all that said, what does this exactly mean for the Star Wars series, filmmaking in general, and it's future. Is it a good thing? Is this a terrible thing? Has Lucas succumbed to the dark side or has he actually returned to the light? Let's weigh out the pros and cons shall we?

The Light Side of the Force

- Disney

If we're going to look at the main reason Disney bought Lucasfilm, I think it's safe to assume that it was all about the money. The primary reason Disney bought Marvel four years ago was that they wanted to expand their market with a more boy-aimed property merchandise to correspond to their girl-centered Disney Princess brand, and I assume that Disney purchased Lucasfilm for, more or less, the same reasons. While everyone, myself included, was afraid that Disney would screw up Marvel's name and characters, so far they've done okay. The first Marvel Studios film financed by Disney was The Avengers... and it kicked ass! With Star Wars, I would think they would treat the series, and it's legions of fans, with the respect and attention it deserves. While Disney is by no means above milking the hell out of it's beloved franchises and characters for a couple quick bucks (as evidence by the barrage of straight to video Disney sequels), their track record of showing respect for their high profile blockbusters and franchises is pretty good. Not to mention that this is a company that's constantly been at the forefront of pioneering animation, memorable storytelling, and responsible for putting Pixar on the map... so there's always that. Will they give Star Wars the proper attention and care? Probably... hopefully... but like I said, no property is sacred so anything is possible.

- Limited involvement from Lucas

What's ultimately got me interested about this whole deal is that this might actually give Star Wars the shot in the arm that it needs. While I actually have an enormous respect for Lucas (I'll get into more of that later), I have to admit that without him managing everything, this might lead to good things. The prequel trilogy, while huge blockbusters, obviously didn't strike as much of a chord with audiences as the previous three films. Some audiences liked them, many hated them, others are in the middle, and practically none have preferred the prequels over the original Personally, I think Episodes 1-3 are entertaining if still very flawed. As many have stated, the prequels (particularly 1 and 2) are visually dynamic and interestingly conceived films complete with some great action, memorable visuals, and compelling mythology held back by problematic screenwriting, horrendous dialogue, and flat performances. I'm not going to write about exactly what went wrong with them here, namely since it's actually a bit tricky to pinpoint how they turned out the way they did, though I'll give some of my thoughts regarding the subject later on. Ultimately, for one reason or another, Lucas' direction and writing seems to have done more harm than good. I hate to say that since, like I said, I have such a respect for the guy, but there's no denying that minimizing his involvement in any future films might be for the better. Even when looking at the original trilogy, while A New Hope is by all means excellent, one might wonder if Empire and Jedi would have turned out as well as they did if Lucas spent his time in the director's chair for those. He came up with the basic story and probably had more than a little creative input in the production, but ultimately left most of the key decisions in the hands of directions Irvin Kershner and Richard Marquand. So for any future flicks, this might be a good way to go.

- Han Shoots First Again

With Disney calling the shots at Lucasfilm, I can't help but wonder what that might mean for the previous films. Lucas has constantly denied fans requests for a DVD/Blu Ray release of an unaltered non-special edition Star Wars trilogy. Disney, on the other hand, has a reputation for being a money-grubbing company that would do just about anything for a profit. Normally, that's a bad thing, but if there's one company that would quickly bow down to the demands of audiences (if there's a profit to be made), it's Disney. So for all the fans who have clamored to see a Blu Ray with Han shooting first, Sebastian Shaw as Anakin's ghost, or a version of Jedi without Vader shouting "NOOOOO!" when killing Emperor Palpatine might finally get their wish.

The Dark Side of the Force

- Disney
Yeah I know that I just spent the last section talking about how Disney owning Lucasfilm might be a good thing, but I do have to admit that, like the force, there's a dark side to this deal as well. Lucas has, more or less, lived up to his reputation as a filmmaker who stays true to his vision and refused to sell out to those higher up. Yes, I admit that Star Wars is basically the definition a pop culture/merchandise phenomenon, and it certainly has made Lucas more money than most people can only dream of seeing. Regardless, Lucas has always taken control of his creations, stood by them, and often refused to let anyone else run them. While I don't necessarily agree with the changes he made to the original trilogy, his refusal to release the non-special edition trilogy on blu-ray, and some of the directorial decisions he made in the prequels, the fact that he's stood by his work, apologized to no one, and taken control of nearly everything is something that I can respect. By selling his properties to Disney... that's pretty much the very definition of a corporate sellout. Listen, I'm not anti-corporation or big business or anything like that, but to see a once-dedicated anti-sellout visionary like Lucas just hand off his possessions to the most corporate of corporations is kind of a bummer. Still, I guess Lucas did it for the right reasons. He wasn't just out to make money (he has plenty of it) as he's going to be donating most of the 4 billion dollars to charity. On top of that, Lucas is just done, he's been working with these properties for nearly 40 years and he's had enough and probably just felt that it was time to hand them off. So yeah, while the sell is not the end of the world, it's still a bit of a bummer... but it's one I can still mostly get behind.

- It's over... let it rest.

While this deal might just be crazy enough to work, one can't help but think of the bad that might come out of this. Someone asked me today if it would even be possible to make another good Star Wars movie. My answer, of course it's possible. You can make a good movie out of anything, and if the expanded Star Wars universe has taught us anything, it's that there are still plenty of good stories to be told. Ultimately, there's no way in telling what the film will be like until we see a trailer, a clip, or at the very least a plot synopsis. There's just that notion that up until now, the series was officially labeled as finished, done, completed... ie no more. I think most fans were just fine with that, myself included. Nobody asked for anymore movies and even those involved at Lucasfilm were seemingly content with that. So, my question is... why? The obvious answer is money, but surely there's cash to be made in the various Star Wars merchandise, toys, comics, novels, video games, cartoons... or maybe those long rumored live action TV shows that have been in development for years, eh Disney, *hint hint, nudge nudge, wink wink*. There's just this nagging voice in my head that keeps saying that by making more films, they're just beating a dead horse. Shouldn't we lay this series to rest and let it be??? Yeah, probably, but that's clearly not happening.

- Lack of creativity and whatnot...

I already mentioned the oft-mentioned criticism concerning Hollywood and filmmaking today, that the industry has run out of ideas and that they're resorting to cranking out all the reboots, remakes, sequels, prequels, and spin-offs they can get their hands out in order to score some box office cash from the residual goodwill of the series' fans. While there are plenty of remakes and sequels that have surprisingly turned out to be quite good, I admit that it's more than a bit annoying to see so many movies remade and repackaged for modern audiences who don't like old movies (which is unbelievably sad). With Star Wars though, it's not just annoying, it actually saddens me a bit. For starters, Star Wars itself is pretty much the prime example of un-originality done right. The movies heavily borrow influence from sources like B-movie serials (namely Flash Gordon), Kurosawa Samurai flicks, spaghetti westerns, and epic fantasy... yet when combined they form something truly original and creative. If more films were to follow this formula as opposed to simply repackaging old sources, I doubt Hollywood would be in such a rut.

You see, the original Star Wars, in addition to being one of the best, is one of the most important films of all time. When it was released in 1977, Hollywood was in the midst of a creative renaissance and was giving unheard of amounts of creative freedom to untested up-and-coming directors, Lucas included, to make bizarre and incredibly ambitious personal auteur projects. Star Wars was such a strange project that even most of Lucas' film-school buddies (including Steven Spielberg Brian De Palma, and Francis Ford Coppola) didn't get it. When the film was finally released, not only did it push the boundaries of special effects, storytelling, and scope, but it fundamentally changed the business of how movies were made. Star Wars, along with Jaws released 2 years earlier, were such immense box office hits that they created the notion of the summer blockbuster, and it's formula is still going strong today. Even more than that, was ultimately what led to the production of the film.

I mentioned earlier that I'm not exactly sure what led to the prequels becoming so lackluster compared to it's predecessors but I know exactly what made the first Star Wars so successful... effort and vision! When George Lucas pitched Star Wars to 20th Century Fox, the project was so out there and ambitious, that it barely got green-lit by the studio. Production was a disaster, as filming was being plagued by bad weather, malfunctioning props, unsuitable special effects, and a cast who had lost faith in the project. Lucas, being committed to his vision poured his heart and soul into the project, determined to finish the movie and still deliver a quality flick. Through hell and high water, the movie was finished, and turned out to be a bigger success than anyone, especially Lucas, could have predicted. As an aspiring filmmaker myself, this is something I can appreciate and admire. The story of an ambitious young filmmaker, tackling a radical idea, doing what he loves, pushing the boundaries of a medium, and coming out successful after going through hell to get there is inspiring. Say what you will about George Lucas, but what he did to get his movie into theaters is something all nerds need to appreciate. Sure, the Star Wars prequels and Indiana Jones 4 didn't quite live up to the standards set by their predecessors, but what Lucas did to achieve his dreams and see his vision to the end is inspirational. This is what's missing in films today folks... George Lucas-like vision and dedication. In an industry plagued by remakes, reboots, sequels, and whatnot, we need another visionary like George Lucas to get us out of this rut. I'm talking about one who has a unique outlook on film, someone who adores the medium, where's it's been, and knows how to move it in the direction of where it's future can lead. While I'm sure those who end up directing the new Star Wars film will be perfectly serviceable filmmakers (and hopefully a fan of the series), I find it hard to believe that another Star Wars sequel will do anything to move this medium forward or deliver anything truly creative and/or different like the originals did (though anything is possible). We need studios green-lighting fresh and interesting ideas as opposed to reboots. More than that, we need the visionary filmmakers to sign onto them and make them a reality... only then will we be out of this originality rut.

Finishing Up
Okay, so despite all the pros and cons of what this deal means, how do I feel overall? Honestly, consider me cautiously optimistic. All my gripes and complains about selling out and unoriginal thinking are there, but I can't silence that stupid little nerd that lives in my brain constantly shouting "YAY!!! THREE MORE STAR WARS MOVIES!!!" So yeah, despite my concerns... I'm excited. There's a lot of potential with Disney calling the shots, and with the right team maybe, JUST MAYBE, we'll have three great films to look forward to. So Disney and whoever else will be working on the new films, all I can say is "May The Force Be With You."

Paranormal Activity 4 - Review

Well... it's October, and that means another entry in the popular Paranormal Activity horror series has made it's way to theaters. As a self proclaimed movie geek and horror buff, I have to admit that I feel a tiny bit ashamed that I've liked this series as much as I have. I know the franchise has been fairly popular and that the movies have all been big hits, but there's no escaping that this is a franchise based on a ridiculously gimmicky premise (but let's face it, most found footage movies are) that never lent itself to sequels or an expanding universe. With that said, there was something about this series that kept me coming back. Namely, while none of the films have risen above their inherent gimmick per se, the first three movies at least managed to create some legitimate suspense, shocks, and jump scares resulting in fun and enjoyable horror flicks well-suited for the Halloween season. Does the fourth entry live up to it's predecessors? Let's find out...

***Here's my little disclaimer, while I won't spoil any important plot details for this movie, I will discuss the endings of the previous three films. Don't say I didn't warn you.***

Paranormal Activity 4 takes place approximately five years after the epilogue of the second entry (can you believe that this is the first, honest-to-God, sequel to a PA movie). This film focuses primarily on the Nelson family, namely the 14-year-daughter of the household, Alex Nelson (Kathryn Newton), and her goofy, though good-natured, boyfriend Ben (Matt Shively). The Nelsons live next door to none-other than Katie Featherston who, when we last saw her, was left possessed by a vicious demon that forced her to kidnap her then-infant nephew to presumably fulfill a decades old pact made by her grandmother (a member of a witch coven). When Katie is inexplicably rushed off to a hospital, the Nelsons take in her six-year-old son, Robbie, a socially awkward boy with odd and often creepy idiosyncrasies. While Robbie makes quick friends with Alex's six-year-old brother Wyatt, strange and unsettling seemingly paranormal disturbances begin to occur. Alex, unnerved by what's happening, rigs the families' computers to record any unusual activity. What she discovers may end up being more than she can handle, as the disturbances continue to escalate.

Before I get into my thoughts on this particular film, I'll quickly run down what I thought of it's predecessors. The first film, I really enjoyed. While it was held back somewhat by a low budget and less-than-spectacular acting, it nevertheless scored thanks to it's great suspense, memorable shocks, interesting twists, and surprisingly effective special effects. Part 2 improved on some fronts, namely that the bigger budget allowed for some more dynamic scares plus an improvement on the acting front. On the downside, in revealing more of the story, it left less to the imagination and removed some of the previous flick's suspense and mystery. Part 3 had many of the same problems of the second all while falling victim to an increasingly more predictable formula. Not to mention, it answered few of the unanswered questions from it's predecessor and had a frustratingly abrupt ending. That said, it still managed to deliver on the requisite scares, namely in the better-than-expected finale... so it met the bare minimum of what I wanted to see. Part 4 on the other hand... that's another story. It's really nothing short of a miracle that such a thin premise had been able to remain effective for three movies, so for one to finally fall short of expectations shouldn't be that much of a surprise. Unfortunately, this is a series for which I think most don't exactly have "high expectations," so when it's unable to live up to such low standards, that's pretty disappointing.

One of my biggest gripes about the third entry was that, despite the lingering questions left unanswered after Part 2, it basically sidestepped it's cliffhangers and instead left many of it's questions to be answered in the following sequels. I was actually looking forward to this film for this reason, as I was genuinely curious to see how events would unfold. Unfortunately, it appears that the producers are planning to milk a few more sequels out of the franchise. Few, if any, of the previous films' plot points are addressed, and instead Paranormal Activity 4 answers it's predecessor's lingering answers with... more questions. I get that these films are popular, and the low budget makes them usually safe bets for the studio, as the profit margins on the ticket sales have fared pretty well so far. That said, given the increasing diminishing returns these sequels keep producing, I can't help but think that by the time they do eventually pull the plug on the franchise, they will have alienated their fanbase to a point that everyone will have just stopped caring. Hopefully that won't happen, but I'm not counting on it.

I remember stating in my review of Part 3 that the filmmakers were going to need to think of a really creative way to keep this series interesting if it was going to stay fresh. Unfortunately this film is, as predicted, weighed down by the increasingly duller and more predictable formula. By now, it's all become routine. The series has always had the typical flaws of most found footage movies, namely the questionable logic of it's characters, cheap look, and hit-and-miss decisions on camera movement. In the past, I was generally willing to overlook most of those problems so long as the movie delivered the expected scares and jumps. In this film, that's the main problem, it's just not that scary. For every decent jump or jolt, there's about ten failed attempts, plus numerous set ups for some potentially awesome payoffs that end in the most anti-climactic way possible. The filmmakers did try to change up the formula a bit by adding a creepy kid subplot a la The Omen, but that just did more harm than good. It's a routine formula that doesn't add much suspense and only leads to a fairly predictable plot twist that, as expected, simply raises more questions than it answers. If the studio wants to keep this series going, they're really going to have to deliver with the next sequel (wait, doesn't this sound familiar).

So... was there anything I liked in this movie? I'm having a hard time thinking of anything "good" about the flick but rather simply thinking of things about it that are simply okay. The cast, namely Kathryn Newton and Matt Shively, were clearly giving the film their best shot and manage to bring forth some passable performances, just nothing particularly special. As for the special effects... they're not bad either, but nothing that we haven't seen already. In fact, I'm having a hard time thinking of any particularly memorable effects sequences from the film. It's odd thinking that the original film (with a mere budget of 15,000 compared to Part 4's budget of 5,000,000) was more memorable on the effects front. I suppose there were a few decent scares, as I mentioned earlier, including one particularly suspenseful scene that I won't spoil but will say that it takes place close to the end. If there had been more of that, this would have been a much more effective movie. It's too bad, lots of potentially decent setup ruined by mediocre execution.

So that's Paranormal Activity 4... and it kind of sucks. If you were a fan of the series, this will probably be a huge disappointment. If you weren't a fan of the series, this won't change anything. For those looking for a decent scary flick to see this Halloween, don't see this one. Instead, check out the movie Sinister, which came out a few weeks ago. Though I haven't written a full review yet, Sinister is a much better made film with more effective scares, performances, and direction. In other words, basically what this film should have been. Let's hope when Paranormal Activity 5 comes out (it's unavoidable) that the filmmakers will try to breathe some new life into this series.

My Score: 2 out of 5!

Dredd - Review

The cult classic comic series, Judge Dredd, has been running since 1977, but aside from devoted comic nerds and fans of the series, the character has rarely gotten any wide recognition or attention. I'm just as guilty as anyone, though I've always been aware of the series' existence, I admit that I've never actually read a full Judge Dredd comic, though I've always appreciated it from afar. The stories themselves have interesting ideas, containing biting satire for topics including police overreach, brutality, and corruption in a crime ridden society, and asks questions like when does law enforcement overstep it's bounds or then again in such a crime ridden environment, the only way to maintain some kind of order is by operating a near-totalitarian regime. These are all thought provoking questions that could definitely make for an interesting movie. Hollywood tried once back in 1995, in the Sylvester Stallone vehicle titled Judge Dredd. The results were... not so good. While by no means the worst of Stallone's filmography, it was nonetheless a disappointing adaptation plagued by a disjointed narrative, subpar acting, and lame jokes (that's what happens when you make your film's comic relief Rob Schneider). It's 17 years later and filmmakers are at it again with a reboot simply titled Dredd. Does this make up for the sins of Stallone's missed opportunity or is is it another dreadful attempt?

Dredd takes place in a post-apocalyptic future (in an undisclosed year) in the crime ridden metropolitan Mega City One on America's east coast. The only force of order lies within the Hall of Justice whose police force, known as judges, serve as both judge, jury, and executioners with the ability to carry out on-the-spot sentences. The most well-known of the judges is none other than Judge Dredd (Karl Urban) known for his ruthless and brutal form of law enforcement and dedication to protecting what's left of society. On a routine day, he is assigned to train and evaluate Cassandra Anderson (Olivia Thirlby), a rookie judge with powerful psychic abilities. While investigating a homicide at a gang-controlled skyscraper slum, the drug lords running the building seal them (and it's thousands of residents) inside with orders to eliminate the judges. Facing unspeakable odds and vicious criminals, Dredd and Anderson put their knowledge and skills to the test in order to take down the building's criminal element.

I'll be first to admit that I didn't have very high expectations for this film, in fact I was pretty convinced that it was going to suck. With comic adaptations still riding high, I figured that this would just be a film to make a quick buck at the box office regardless of it's quality. To my surprise, however, the film is actually pretty damn awesome. It's by no means a perfect flick nor is it one of the better offerings of the genre, but it hits most of the right notes and delivers pretty much exactly where needed. It's a brutal, bloody, over-the-top, sci-fi/action flick with a fun cast, some great thrills, and even a few beats of decent satire. It had a team of filmmakers and actors who clearly respected the material and made an honest effort to create a quality film, and it shows. Like I said, I've never read Judge Dredd comics, so I can't speak for how accurately the flick follows them, but from what I've heard from comic purists, most of the film is quite faithful, so take that as you will. I will say this much, one of the main complaints about the original film was that Dredd spent most of the movie without his trademark helmet (in the comics, he never removes it), but here, Urban spends 99% of the film wearing his headgear, so that's got to count for something.

Karl Urban has made quite a name for himself as one of the more prolific character actors working today. With supporting roles in high quality genre films like Lord of the Rings, Star Trek, and Bourne Surpemacy, the guy was ideal choice for the role of Dredd. Hell, even in some of his roles in lesser films like Doom or Priest, he's still managed to hold his own. Dredd himself was heavily influenced by many of Clint Eastwood's earlier roles, and it shows in Urban's performance. Seeing as how Dredd never removes his helmet, there are some times he makes some odd and kind of goofy looking facial expressions, but for the most part I dug the hell out of this portrayal of Dredd. Urban is a badass, and he brings those traits to the character, holding his own in the action scenes and giving the character a good sense of toughness and fun. He's tough as nails but also gives the character a bit of humor here and there too, so for that I give immense props.

The rest of the cast did a solid job as well. Olivia Thirlby's performance as the psychic-rookie-judge Anderson was surprisingly solid, but more than that is actually something I really liked about the character. One of my constant complaints in these kinds of movies is that whenever the main character has a female sidekick and/or rookie accomplice, they often end up captured at some point requiring the main character to come to their rescue. This is an outdated stereotype bordering sexist that has really overstayed it's welcome, but Dredd manages to sidestep this issue. Anderson is a rookie judge who does make a mistake here and there, but she always holds her own in her fights and overcomes each of her obstacles using her own skills and intelligence, for once not requiring her male counterpart to come to her aid. In other words, she's a complete badass of a character that's just as tough and cunning as Dredd. You also have Lena Headey as the villainous mob boss nicknamed Ma-Ma. She looked like she was having fun with the role as a relentless diabolical monster of a character. She has some pretty memorable scenes and overall makes for a good villain for this kind of a film. I don't have too many complaints about the cast, for the most part, everyone was quite good.

The selling point for this kind of film, however, has got to be the action. If that's all your expecting from Dredd, I can pretty much guarantee that you will leave satisfied. As I mentioned above, the film is bloody and gory as hell, capturing (from what I've been told anyways) the themes and style of it's comic counterpart.  The film opens with a great chase scene, and following that is a barrage of awesome shootouts, fights, and killer stunts. The cinematography does a good job framing all of the erratic action without devolving into ADD shaky cam territory. Plus the movie was partially filmed in 3D, and to it's credit, has some pretty cool looking 3D shots. One of the film's subplots involved a drug trade involving a substance called Slo-Mo that slows down the user's perception of time. This was used to create some neat slow motion 3D scenes that, while eventually overstaying their welcome, are pretty cool to watch, for a while at least. I don't know if I would recommend the few extra dollars for a 3D show, but if you're a fan of the technology, you'll probably enjoy it. Overall, this was one thrilling film that delivered on all the brutal and bloody action I could have wanted.

Despite all the film's strengths, the story is kind of a mixed bag. It's by no means terrible, the pacing is good, the characters are adequate, and it has some interesting ideas. Unfortunately it also contains some plot holes, inconsistencies, and subpar execution of it's attempted satire. It seemed like the film was trying to ask the question of whether such a brutal form of law enforcement might have been doing more harm that good, or possibly whether the judges are any better than the criminals they take down. This concept, in it of itself, is interesting enough but unfortunately it's not explored very well. There are a couple of scenes in the beginning where Judge Andersen begins to have doubts about carrying out executions, but soon afterwards those qualms just seem to mostly go away. In the end, it seemed like the film was simply saying that in a chaotic world, the only remedy is an equally chaotic form of law enforcement... and without any other conflicting viewpoints or ideas, that's kind of a letdown. It seemed like it was trying to work on the same level as Robocop, another sci-fi action flick with similar themes, only Robocop featured a near perfect balance between the bloody action and poignant satire (seriously though, Robocop is still one of the best sci-fi movies ever made). That said, mediocre satire aside, the story at least serves as an adequate means to deliver on some great fast-paced action and enjoyably quirky characters. I suppose that has to count for something.

All in all, Dredd is a very fun, if somewhat flawed, action film that deserves to be seen. It's by no means perfect, but if you're looking for a fun action film with brutal violence and good visuals, this should do the trick. Check it out.

My Score: 3.5 out of 5!

Cosmopolis - Review

This movie is... going to be a real challenge to review. Cosmopolis is one of those films that takes a while to sink in after watching, mainly in the sense that I had to try and decipher whether I just watched a profound stroke of genius or a pretentious colossal misfire. After the screening, people would ask me whether I liked it or not, and my response was typically, "I don't know." This was just one of those films that was so weird and bizarre that it forced me to come to terms with what I had just watched. It's been a little over a week now and I feel like I've sat on the film enough to give a proper review. That said, I can't help but feel like this might be one of those films that if I see again, my opinion will probably significantly change (for better or worse). Nonetheless, here are my thoughts on Cosmopolis.

The film stars Robert Pattinson as Eric Packer, a 28-year-old self made billionaire travelling through the busy streets of Manhattan in his stretch limo en route to the barbershop. Along the way, he is visited by an array of colorful characters, who interact with him on a variety of topics ranging from economics, philosophy, death, life, sex, and the list goes on. As he travels, everything about Packer's world and outlook is challenged. How will the day end and how will he react to his discoveries?

I should probably get this out of the way, the movie stars Robert Pattinson, and as you may or may not know... I really can't stand the guy. It's not that I have a vendetta against him per se, it's just that every time I've seen him on screen, the guy has made absolutely no impression whatsoever. It's not just Twilight I'm talking about either, even in other films like Goblet of Fire or Water For Elephants, he has just come off as bland and dull. That said, I think one of the main problems is that in most of his roles, he's generally played dull, dead-serious, straight-man kind of characters (even in the genre films he's been in like Twilight or Harry Potter, the guy's characters have always been dull as dishwasher). You got to wonder if that might change if he was given the chance to star in a more eccentric role, like Jeff Goldblum in The Fly, Christopher Walken in The Dead Zone, or James Woods in Videodrome. Hey, wait a minute! All of those films are directed by David Cronenberg, just like this film here! Yeah, this actually might work! To Pattinson's credit, he actually does an admirable job in the role (I'm as surprised as anyone). While I'm not convinced that he's a "good" actor, his emotionless and borderline-psychopathic kind of traits work to his advantage here, allowing him to thrive in a role that could only come from the mind of an equally messed up nut like David Cronenberg. Maybe Pattinson has found his niche, and once his residual good luck from his Twilight fame runs out, the guy might actually have a career after all. I don't want to overpraise the guy, he's by no means great in this, but this is the only film in which I've seen him that didn't make me want to gouge my eyes out. That's got to count for something.

Ultimately, what made me want to see this flick was the director, David Cronenberg. He admittedly doesn't have a perfect track record, but what ultimately gets me to keep coming back is Cronenberg's unique and bizarre filmmaking style. Even in the films of his that I didn't enjoy, I at least could find something about them that was engaging and different. His style usually consists of sociopolitical or philosophical themes illustrated through bizarre imagery and grindhouse style violence. While this one is by no means as grotesque as some of his previous outings (it's actually pretty tame compared to films like Videodrome or The Fly), it still has that Cronenberg-esque feel. Everything from the surreal production design, creative camera angles, eccentric characters, off-beat dialogue, and bizarre story screams Cronenberg, and I mean that mostly in a good way. The man's direction serves the movie well, and considering the films's flaws (which I will get into next), in the hands of a lesser director, the film would have probably ended up being a huge disaster. While Cosmopolis is by no means Cronenberg's best movie, it nonetheless showcases many of his strengths.

As mentioned, there is a lot in this movie that doesn't work... and I mean REALLY doesn't work. The film's script boasts a promising premise complete with interesting themes and ideas. The dialogue, particularly the interactions between Packer and his many "visitors" is, for the most part, quite well written. Unfortunately, the movie's pacing is quite abysmal. The film doesn't have a traditional three-act structure, but that, in it of itself, isn't really a problem. Many excellent or classic films, like 2001, The Seventh Seal, or Pulp Fiction have broken away from the status-quo of story structure, but those films had their own distinct storytelling structure that followed a certain sense of rythym (as unconventional as they were). Cosmopolis, in some ways, feels just like a string of random events and scenes, held together by just the most basic thread of a plot. There's little sense of development or rhythm, and by the time the movie ended, I was left wondering what the hell just happened or if anything was really accomplished. It can be serious chore to sit through too, as most of the film is basically just long, sometimes dull, philosophical discussions. While many of the interactions are intriguing, they eventually overstay their welcome, and make you wondering when the damn thing will just end. For those that aren't a fan of slow paced narratives, this one will be a challenge to sit through.

That's about all I have to say regarding Cosmopolis. The ideas are interesting, Pattinson is surprisingly engaging, and Cronenberg's directorial skills are in full effect. If you can handle the slow pacing, odd structure, and overly talky scenes, this one might be worth checking out. Be forewarned though, this movie is definitely not for everyone. If you can't stand overly talky movies with cryptic dialogue and a snail's pace, Cosmopolis probably isn't for you. Take that as you will.

My Score: 3 out of 5!

Robot & Frank - Review

Fall is here, so that can mean one thing (well, it actually can mean many things, but given the context of this blog, it has one particular significance), done are the summer's line of high profile blockbusters and in is the line of studio's prestige pieces vying for awards... in other words, it's Oscar season. Actually, I'm not quite sure how the Academy will respond to this one. I can see this one possibly fetching a Best Actor or less likely a Best Screenplay nomination, though I doubt that it has the prestige necessary to get any more, and the chances of it actually winning one seem slim. We'll just have to wait until 2013 when they announce the nominations. But Oscar politics aside, let's talk about the film at hand. Robot & Frank is an interesting sci-fi drama that can best be described as Up crossed with Short Circuit, a story of an ageing jewel thief and his robot companion. How does it fair out... let's look shall we?

The movie opens in an undisclosed time presumably in the not-too-distant future with the aging Frank (played brilliantly by Frank Langella), living alone in his filthy and unkempt house. Years ago, Frank was a master jewel thief, whose life of crime eventually led to him serving time in prison, which in itself lead to a failed marriage and strained relationships between him and his two now grown up children (James Marsden and Liv Tyler). Frank is now on his own, struggling to come to grips with his increasing age and his slowly deteriorating mental health. In fact, his only real companion (and closest thing he has to a friend) is a local librarian named Jennifer (Susan Sarandon). Realizing his father's failing health, Frank's son Hunter presents Frank with an assistance robot programmed to provide him with therapeutic care, housekeeping, and a fixed daily routine. Frank initially wants nothing to do with his new robotic companion, but he eventually starts to warm up to it when he realizes that he can use it to assist him in a new set of heists. He teaches his robot the tricks of his trade, and suddenly Frank is robbing houses again with his technological companion.

The basic plot to Robot & Frank doesn't exactly stray away from a typical formula for the average indie drama/buddy comedy. That said, it does manage to deliver a very well-told version of the familiar narrative, making it into an emotional introspective on aging in addition to being an interesting drama about the depressing results of living a life of crime. With so many movies glamorizing jewel thieves or other Danny Ocean like criminals, Robot & Frank ultimately shows that leading a criminal life leaves you alone, depressed, and bitter. The film doesn't force you to sympathize or even like Frank right away, but it nonetheless portrays him as a person with numerous problems but deep down has a soul. His interactions with his robot (voiced by Peter Sarsgaard) are quite entertaining. The two have some enjoyable comedic bantering but also share a few dramatic moments as well. Fortunately, the movie never comes off as too cute or overly melodramatic either, bur rather hits a near-perfect stride of drama and humor that ensures neither trait overstays it's welcome. Add some great characters, a few stand-out scenes, and some poignant subtext, and it's overall a good story.

The performances are all around quite good, but the stand out, to no surprise, has to be Langella. He really sells the role, downplaying any excessive "cutesy" moments while avoiding any over-the-top melodrama. He carries out both the dramatic scenes along with the moments of humor with his natural presence and dramatic range. It's hard to say right now, but I wouldn't be surprised at all to see Langella score an Oscar nomination for this role. Susan Sarandon's role as Frank flirt and librarian is fairly small, but she sells it quite well. James Marsden brings a believable sense of frustration, obligation, and concern as Frank's son Hunter, who grows increasingly angry dealing with his father's antics. He comes to his aid anyways because he's his Dad and he has to love him. Liv Tyler does another serviceable job as the daughter, Madison, and that's all I really have to say about her. Peter Sarsgaard's monotone line deliveries as the robot were spot on. It takes a talented voice actor to take an inherently emotionless character and manage to give him some kind of a soul. It's all around a well-acted film with Langella stealing the show. No complaints there.

The movie has a very down-to-earth and interesting look as well. One of the complaints I often hear about future-set sci-fi movies is that they often overplay the futuristic elements. Take Back To The Future Part II for example (even though I do like the movie), the scenes set in 2015 predicted that we would be riding in flying cars, dehydrating and re-hydrating the food we eat, and that we would be watching holographic movies (well, considering the resurgence of 3D movies, that one's almost true). Many movies have nobly tried and failed to predict our future technological developments, and sometimes that can make the movie look quite silly. While only time will tell how close Robot & Frank fared out in this department, it seemed to me that the filmmakers did their homework and creating a fairly believable and down to earth vision of the future. This particular future includes evolved versions of the smart phone, home phones replaced by a Skype-like program, and print media being replaced by digital content. Even Frank's robot bares a striking resemblance to Honda's technological marvel, ASIMO. If robot technology ever takes off in any major way, I would imagine most robots would probably have spawned, in some way, shape, or form from ASIMO. Overall, this version of the future seemed like a thought-out and believable depiction. Like I said, we'll have to wait to see how well it will eventually hold up, but for now, I can buy it.

Unfortunately, there are a couple of things to critique here. As I mentioned, this plot is hardly anything groundbreaking, and even though I enjoyed the overall story, it wasn't hard to predict how it would end. There was even a twist in the third act that I won't spoil, but I have feeling most watching will probably figure out. There is also a strange subplot about Liv Tyler's character Madison, being vehemently anti-robot and makes it clear that she objects to her father having a robot aid. It's never explained exactly why, other than that she's something of a humanitarian (she starts out in the film doing some kind of philanthropic work in Turkmenistan). Maybe there's something I missed, but it seemed like an odd subplot, that not only gets resolved somewhat abruptly, but felt like was supposed to have some dynamic subtext but instead felt more tacked on and pointless. None of these were anything major, but worth noting.

Overall, Robot & Frank was a very enjoyable film. It didn't blow me away nor did it do anything that hasn't been seen before, but it's still a very well-acted movie with a predictable though still enjoyable story. It's hard to say whether this one will score any Oscar nominations, but the possibility is definitely there. If it's playing at a theater near you, give it a watch.

My Score: 4 out of 5!

Paranorman - Review

It's September now, so I guess that means the summer movie season is officially over. For me personally, it didn't feel like much of a season. Since July, I've busy moving from BC to Washington, so unfortunately I didn't get to see nearly as many films as I had originally wanted. I did manage to get most of the major releases, but there were plenty that I'm kicking myself for missing. So now, I'm playing catch-up with those that are still in theaters before I move onto the Oscar season lineup. Out of all the films I did manage to catch this summer, I have to admit that there weren't too many surprises or unexpected gems. With the exception of the out-of-nowhere hit Cabin In The Woods, most films managed to, more or less, delivered on what I expected. Films like The Avengers or The Dark Knight Rises were predictably good, Amazing Spider-Man and MIB 3 were predictably average, and others like Total Recall and Rock of Ages were, to no surprise, lame and uninspired. To my delight, however, I did manage to catch this little gem of a feature called Paranorman, a stop motion animated flick about a young boy who can communicate with the dead and is called to stop a zombie apocalypse. The few previews I had seen made the movie look promising, but I wasn't expected to like it as much as I did. Here's my full review.

As I mentioned, Paranorman centers around the young Norman Babcock, a young horror movie enthusiast with the ability to see and interact with spirits of the deceased. He lives in the Salem-inspired town of Blithe Hallow, Massachusetts, a centuries old community supposedly plagued by a decades-old witch's curse. None of the town residents, schoolmates, or even Norman's family believes in his ability, and as a result is labeled as a freak. The only person who does believe Norman is his eccentric and similarly outcast classmate, Neil. Despite this, Norman wishes for no friends, and prefers to be left alone (with the exception of the ghosts he frequently comes across). Norman, who has more or less come to grips with his gift/curse, faces an all new challenge when his recently deceased Uncle warns him that the aforementioned witch's curse placed upon the town centuries ago that will cause the dead to rise again. The reluctant Norman, aided by a team consisting of his new friend Neil, his preppy sister Courtney, Neil's dim-witted jock of a brother Mitch, and the school bully Alvin, races the clock to put an end to the curse before it's too late.

It's easy to see why Paranorman is good, but it's kind of tricky to identify what exactly makes it great... and make no mistake, this movie is indeed great. You've got a movie with stellar stop motion animation, a likable and well suited lead character, and a very creative script that finds a near perfect balance of inspiration and originality in addition to providing suitable jokes and themes for both kids and adults. Ultimately, what separates Paranorman from the barrage of other animated comedies is the script. While I can't go as far to call if "perfect," as it does have a couple of things to nitpick, it basically hit all the right notes and managed to do something that most family films simply fail to pull off. It's a concept with a likeable and well-developed main character, an ensemble of colorful supporting characters, a few decent twists, and some well-meaning themes and messages. In a move unusual for a kids film, Paranorman takes many of it's queues from classic horror films, with many homages and tributes that most horror buffs (like myself) will appreciate. Even better, the film throws in some themes of anti-bullying, conformism, and social culture to give it a bit more weight. It doesn't quite reach the near perfect blend of fun and pathos in most of the scripts Pixar typically brings to the table (though I'd say it's definitely got the leg up on Pixar's last two outings), but it nonetheless hits most of the right notes and delivers the goods.

It seems like the main selling point for this particular flick was the stop motion animation mixed with small details of cgi courtesy of Laika animators. This is the same team that gave us the 2009 film Coraline (another stop-motion flick which also had dark-ish themes). I have to say that I have a strong admiration for this kind of stop motion filmmaking. While computer generated animation is impressive and typically well-done, I can't shake this feeling like it's become almost a cliche unto itself. While I have great respect for the thousands of hard working cgi animators (and I really mean no offense to the work you guys do), there's just so many of them that it's becoming harder and harder to be impressed by the barrage of animated flicks to be released every year. With stop-motion, it's hard not to admire the hours and hours of dedicated work that comes with it, and the end results are usually pretty impressive. Paranorman is primarily stop-motion, complete with excellent character and creature designs, plus some beautifully realized production models of a town that brilliantly parodies Salem in Massachusetts. While most of the film was stop motion (or at least it looked like it was), it also included some small touches of cgi. This mainly comes through in the especially exciting finale, which blends it's creative stop motion along with some trippy and visually dynamic computer generated imagery to end the film on a particularly exciting note. If nice looking animation is all you're looking for, then Paranorman is all but guaranteed to satisfy.

On the not-so-positive side, there are a couple of things I can get into, but nothing that ruins the film. The supporting characters are all diverse and often funny, but their personalities aren't exactly dynamic or original. You have the preppy teenage girl, the dim-witted jock, the fat kid, and the school bully... they're fun don't get me wrong, but they all come from a done-to-death formula that lacked original thinking. Not to mention, some of the jokes fell a bit flat, but when you have a movie primarily aimed at children, that's not really a surprise. Overall, it finds a solid balance between it's kid-aimed jokes and the more adult humor. I know some parents have voiced some concerns over some of the potentially scarier content for their kids. While I'm not going to say what age I think is appropriate (it really depends on your kid and how they perceive what they watch), but I'll say this one definitely seemed aimed toward a slightly older child audience. It's not even really because the film is "scary" per se (the zombie scenes in particular are played more for laughs than anything), but it includes some themes and motifs that are a bit darker and heavier than what you typically see in your average family film. I would say most kids 10 and up could probably handle the movie, any younger than that... I'll let you make that call.

Overall, Paranorman is this summer's surprisingly great film. It's probably on the tail end of it's theater run now, so if it's still playing in a cinema near you, definitely go check this one out. If you missed it, it'll make for a great watch when the Blu-Ray comes out. Either way, see it!

My Score: 4.5 out of 5!