Fresh off of the Academy Awards, I thought I would go in the opposite direction for a little bit and review one of the worst movies I have seen in a long time, the 1986 George Lucas travesty Howard the Duck.
Rating:
Join us on Sunday, 7pm Central, as MJV hosts a liveblog of the 2010 Academy Awards!
This will be a lengthy article. Since the Oscars air on Sunday night, it’s about time I get my list of the year’s best films up on here, as well as look over many of the current nominees contending this weekend. I’ll start with my favorite films of 2009.
1. District 9 (Director: Neill Blomkamp)
(4 Nominations: Picture, Adapted Screenplay, Editing, Visual Effects)
A few years ago, production was set to begin on the $135 million ‘Halo’ movie based on the popular video game to be produced by Peter Jackson. He wanted his younger protege Neill Blomkamp to direct, but Fox Studios got cold feet and bailed on the project in the middle of pre-production. Bouncing back quickly, Blomkamp returned to an old short-film he directed and decided to make a feature-length movie out of his original concept under a modest budget of $30 million. How ‘Halo’ may have turned out, we will never know, but I bet Fox execs are still shaking their heads after the man’s enormous success. ‘District 9′ is a flat-out masterpiece in every regard, surpassing even high expectations amongst the great hype surrounding it. The movie is socially conscience with something to say, generating strong and interesting conflict in its approach to the age-old alien invasion film. The movie also looks incredible (modest budget or not), is unbelievably intense and has hardcore action in it to boot. All the right elements combine to make the best, most ambitious and engrossing movie of the year. It’s a thrill to see this get a Best Picture nomination.
2. Avatar (Director: James Cameron)
(9 Nominations: Picture, Director, Editing, Cinematography, Art Direction, Visual Effects, Sound, Sound Editing, Original Score)
You want a game-changing, eye-popping thrill-ride ala ‘Star Wars,’ ‘Terminator 2′ and ‘Jurassic Park’? Here it is. James Cameron returns to cinema with the most technically-impressive film to this day. As an immersing 3D package, ‘Avatar’ is a terrifically engaging and beautiful film. The story is very familiar, but the themes are universal and ongoing. This is a film about sheer spectacle, and it achieves everything it sets out to do. Will it plays as well at home? I don’t know. But on the big screen in 3D, it is one of the greatest movie-going experiences of all time, and what the cinema was made for.
3. 500 Days of Summer (Director: Marc Webb)
This movie really caught me off-guard. Marc Webb has directed one of the best films of 2009 by far, a very interpersonal and understanding ‘romance’ without a hint of mundane cliche to bog it down. Joseph Gordon-Levitt is one of the best young actors out there, and Zooey Deschanel compliments him every step of the way. I didn’t quite know which direction this movie was going, but it was funny, effective, and truthful. This is the date movie of the year, and the past few years.
4. Up in the Air (Director: Jason Reitman)
(6 Nominations: Picture, Actor (Clooney), Director, Supporting Actress (Vera Farmiga),
Supporting Actress (Anna Kendrick), Adapted Screenplay)
Jason Reitman is officially a brilliant filmmaker. After “Thank You For Smoking” and “Juno,” he delivers the year’s most timely film, and it couldn’t be more thought-provoking, darkly funny, challenging and heartbreaking. George Clooney has one of his best roles to date–able to evoke both disdain and sympathy within a brisk 2 hours. “Up in the Air” is a brilliant, airy, intelligent, and tragic film well worth seeing.
5. Moon (Director: Duncan Jones)
“Moon” represents brilliant science-fiction, plain and simple. This is a complex, slow-moving character drama built entirely on countless themes ranging from the nature of man to morality. Sam Rockwell’s performance matches the quality of the script. “Moon” really is one of the best, most original, and though-provoking pieces of cinema to come out in 2009–and what a year it has been for sci-fi.
6. Inglourious Basterds (Director: Quentin Tarantino)
(8 Nominations: Picture, Director, Supporting Actor (Cristoph Waltz), Original Screenplay,
Editing, Cinematography, Sound, Sound Editing)
Tarantino’s latest is a heck of a ride for his fans, probably his best work since ‘Pulp Fiction.’ The cast is universally excellent for the exception of the Eli Roth bits. Watch out for Christoph Waltz as the central villain–his menacing, slithering performance is guaranteed to get him instant recognition and Oscar glory. As a whole, ‘Basterds’ is a bit hit-and-miss, but mostly an awesome, violent, bloody, hilarious, history-rewriting event of a movie that should not be missed.
7. Star Trek (Director: J.J. Abrhams)
(4 Nominations: Makeup, Visual Effects, Sound, Sound Editing)
“Star Trek” is one definite crowd-pleaser. It’s smothered with action, humor, strong actors, and has been gifted with a fun, if sometimes complicated, storyline. Somehow the filmmakers have managed to take what the franchise used to be, keep all the familiar elements and make them refreshing–and ultimately pretty darn cool. This Enterprise trip works best when the actors really carry their weight, and they’re usually spot-on in making “Trek” accessible, funny, crisp, and thrilling.
8. The Hurt Locker (Director: Kathryn Bigelow)
(9 Nominations: Picture, Director, Actor (Jeremy Renner), Original Screenplay, Editing,
Cinematography, Sound, Sound Editing, Original Score)
Kathryn Bigelow directs one of the most upfront and honest war films of the past decade. There’s thrilling suspense and some raw emotion within this machine, but there’s nothing robotic or showy about it– look at the flakiness and self-importance that hindered “Stop Loss.” This is an action-thriller-drama that gets it right, without ever waving its arms your face, shying away from overacting and most of the usual syrup. Simple, straightforward, and real–”The Hurt Locker” is very good.
9. Up (Directors: Bob Peterson and Pete Docter)
(5 Nominations: Picture, Original Screenplay, Animated Feature, Sound Editing, Original
Score)
Pixar’s “Up” is truly delightful, a gorgeous-looking film with a lot of heart and tenderness. I didn’t find it to be as amiable, sharp or quietly intelligent as last year’s “Wall-E”, but I did enjoy its gargantuan scale of adventure, and its lead character Carl. With “Up,” Pixar again proves they are light-years ahead of the game with a bold story, memorable characters, and truckloads of imagination. The film also contains the year’s best and most heartbreaking scene: a montage of Carl and his wife’s relationship. No other film this year has more heart than “Up.”
10. The Informant! (Director: Steven Soderbergh)
Steven Soderbergh hasn’t made a movie this good in quite awhile, probably not since his first outing with the ‘Ocean’ crew almost nine years ago (yeah, I was a big fan). This film is a superbly entertaining comedic drama highlighting an excellent performance from Matt Damon, which is quite sad because this is one of his best performances by far, and the Academy instead gave him a nomination for his forgettable role in “Invictus.” With all its wit and twisty plot, “The Informant!” has that casual, fun flow of “Catch Me if You Can” and should not be missed.
Honorable Mention:
The Road (Director: John Hillcoat)
Based on the famous Cormac McCarthy (No Country for Old Men) novel, this is a tremendously dark film–do not dismiss it as slow and uneventful. ‘The Road’ is an experience of a movie–a hauntingly beautiful one that depicts the end of the world not through movie studio executive eyes, but through a realistic, heartbreaking, and horrific approach. This is an intense movie featuring two excellent performances from Viggo Mortensen and Kodi Smit-McPhee, both of whom capture an authentic desperation and emotional resonance with their characters. Of all the post-apocalyptic flicks out there recently, this is the one that will be remembered.
Some other Academy Award Nominees to brush up on:
Precious: Based on the Novel ‘Push’ by Sapphire (B+)
(6 Nominations: Picture, Director (Lee Daniels), Actress (Gabourey Sidibe), Supporting Actress (Mo’Nique), Adapted Screenplay, Editing)
“Precious” is one of the hardest movies to sit through. There is a very small light at the end of this vast dark tunnel, and taken as a sincere film featuring all-too-real performances from its cast, the movie works as a message for anyone suffering under the hand of abuse. Director Lee Daniels has made a hard-hitting film that only sporadically becomes distracted by music video numbers taking place in Precious’ world, scenes that pull us out of the drama. Otherwise, this is an effective film.
A Serious Man (B+) (2 Nominations: Picture, Original Screenplay)
“A Serious Man” is another solid flick for the Coen Brothers. In fact, the movie is at times quite brilliant, darkly and sneakily funny, but other times extremely odd. I guess that’s their trademark. Michael Stuhlbarg is extraordinary here and handles the material well, taking on a role likely suited to Ben Stiller in a more mainstream film. The Coen’s are too smart for that kind of commonplace shenanigan, and they elevate “A Serious Man” to a seriously funny, somewhat whacked movie.
The Blind Side (B) (2 Nominations: Picture, Actress: Sandra Bullock)
Sandra Bullock commands your attention while newcomer Quinton Aaron grabs your heart in this sappy inspirational movie about family, hope, motherhood and football. You know exactly where this melodrama is heading, but you want to go along anyway. The Capra-esque vibe is infectious, and these two actors are an unstoppable force even in such manufactured studio formula (even though it is based on a real-life story).
An Education (B)
(3 Nominations: Picture, Actress (Carey Mulligan), Adapted Screenplay)
“An Education” is a light drama that goes exactly where you know it will go. Carey Mulligan, well deserving of her Oscar nomination, scores huge with her role, and everything else is adequate. The movies depicts its era well, but “An Education” doesn’t feel like a Best Picture nominee. It’s another coming-of-age tale, and it’s fine and all, but it’s not as great as it has been hailed outside of Mulligan’s performance.
Nine (B+)
(4 Nominations: Supporting Actress (Penelope Cruz), Art Direction, Costume Design, Original Song)
Rob Marshall’s ‘Nine’ adaptation is a whirlwind of energy, excitement, and beauty. Critics may have turned their back on it, and it may have become the biggest flop of 2009, but that’s too bad because, while uneven, the movie is enormously entertaining featuring an endless line of talented performances. Without the odd Kate Hudson number, “Nine” is otherwise a fantastic kick-back and enjoy musical–far better than the recent “Mamma Mia!’ and ‘Fame,’ and one of the most gorgeous movies of ‘09.
The Messenger (B)
(2 Nominations: Supporting Actor (Woody Harrelson), Original Screenplay)
The entire cast shines in yet another anti-war film this year that actually works. Following in the footsteps of ‘The Hurt Locker,’ “The Messenger” is a heartbreaking war film that tells the other side of the coin–the men informing the families of their fellow fallen soldiers. While sometimes a bit melodramatic, “The Messenger” is more often than not a touching and authentic film from beginning to end. I’m happy to see Woody Harrelson score an Oscar nomination for his work here.
Invictus (B)
(2 Nominations: Actor (Morgan Freeman), Supporting Actor: Matt Damon)
Clint Eastwood makes great movies, and ‘Invictus’ happens to be a good movie aspiring for greatness. There’s something very Hallmark about this Nelson Mandela/Rugby film. It’s meant to inspire and get people off their feet, but I felt as though much of the importance at heart went skimmed over. Morgan Freeman is great here–but it’s to no surprise, and Matt Damon is fine, but hasn’t much to do. In the end, I was left admiring a project I had little investment in.
Crazy Heart (B-)
(3 Nominations: Actor (Jeff Bridges), Supporting Actress (Maggie Gyllenhaal), Original Song)
Jeff Bridges turns in a praise-worthy performance in a run-of-the-mill Oscar bait movie if ever there was one. This is this year’s ‘The Wrestler,’ but ‘Crazy Heart’ isn’t as impacting. The relationships and plot developments are by-the-numbers. It’s a satisfactory movie with all the trappings of alcohol abuse and relational dysfunction with a country music backdrop. The film will be remembered solely as the vehicle for which the Academy paid Jeff Bridges his due, and nothing more.
Julie & Julia (B-) (Nomination: Best Actress–Meryl Streep)
I’m not the intended audience for “Julie and Julia,” so to my surprise it was satisfactory. Other viewers may find it dull or rich or entertaining–it’s a lot of everything. Perhaps that’s because it’s a very light film, very warm and airy. Meryl Streep is excellent in it, and Amy Adams is likable. Would I watch it again? No, it didn’t interest me much, but the movie is well-made.
Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince (B+) (1 Nomination: Cinematography)
The movies continue to impress. ‘The Half Blood Prince’ is less action, more explanation–but man is this a thick, layered and increasingly intense story. Lord Voldemort, despite his absence in this one, is the center of all the chaos and looming darkness. I enjoyed more humor being salted over this film (the dating, relationships, etc.), but also so much development in the plot this time, even if it has to end abruptly to pave way for the last two-part movie. This is a triumphant chapter.
Sherlock Holmes (C+) (2 Nominations: Art Direction, Original Score)
Robert Downey, Jr. has recently jump-started his career again, and so it’s a pleasure to see him swashbuckling his way through this fast and often funny adventure film. My problem with the film: Guy Ritchie. He takes a lot of directorial nods from his “Rock N Rolla” and “Snatch” to deliver a confusing, almost uninteresting narrative. With that said, the action and comedy deliver for the most part, and for that reason “Holmes” will be a fun time for most, you will just wonder what’s going on.
Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (C+) (1 Nomination: Sound)
Yes, even those morphing bots (a huge box-office success before ‘Avatar’ made it shrink in comparison) in a movie everyone seems to have went to see but hated with a passion, get a little Oscar love this year. I can’t hate on the film as much as many simply because most of us fanboys are forgetting that the first film was an undeniably fun, goofy thrill-ride. “Transformers 2″ starts off pretty well. It’s well-paced, humorous (for the exception of those racist bots), the action is solid, the effects are great, and it kept me involved. I totally thought critics had lost their minds at first. Then somehow the characters zap into Egypt and things fall apart. The plot takes a major dive and the final battle becomes too long and not engaging like the first film.
Oscar Predictions:
If there’s one thing that we know about this Sunday night, is that the awards should be spread around quite a bit. Otherwise, the year appears to be pretty predictible with perhaps the only real surprise being the showdown between ex-married couple Kathryn Bigelow and James Cameron. It’s likely that the two will trade off Best Picture and Best Director, but which way will they swing? Technically, Cameron is a director like none other. The whole world he created in Avatar existed in his mind, and he waited fourteen years to get the technology caught to bring his vision to life. On the other hand, Bigelow stayed low-key and brought arguably the grittiest action film of the year to the screen, totally defying the playing field in a man’s world of bullets and explosions. Her war film “The Hurt Locker” makes Michael Bay look like a pansy in comparison. Well, Cameron has earned his Oscar for ‘Titanic’, and ‘Hurt Locker’ only grossed a measly $12 million, which would make it the lowest grossing film to win an Oscar by a wide margin. “Avatar” is the biggest movie of all time. I’ll give Bigelow her award for Best Director, and give audience favorite “Avatar” the win for Best Picture.
Best Original Screenplay: Inglourious Basterds
Best Adapted Screenplay: Up in the Air
Best Supporting Actor: Christoph Waltz, Inglourious Basterds
Best Supporting Actress: Mo’Nique, Precious
Best Actor: Jeff Bridges, Crazy Heart
Best Actress: Sandra Bullock, The Blind Side
Best Director: Kathryn Bigelow, The Hurt Locker
Best Picture: Avatar
It’s rare that audiences get treated to good horror movies. Luckily, a filmmaker or two comes around to deliver one. Off the top of my head only a few flicks of the last year even come to mind. “Drag Me to Hell” was a return to form for Sam Raimi fans, and while it’s arguably a straight-up comedy, “Zombieland” was a solid dose of fun. “The Crazies” hits screens as a remake of a George A. Romero film from 1973 that most (including me) haven’t seen. So taken on its own terms, this 2010 film works adequately at what it’s setting out to do.
The film opens during a little league baseball game. A rigid old man, formerly the town drunk, walks onto the field with a rifle in hand. Timothy Olyphant, the bland star of “Live Free or Die Hard” and “Hitman,” and the bright spot of “A Perfect Getaway” and “The Girl Next Door,” plays small-town officer David Dutton. He confronts the man only to find himself staring down the barrel of the gun before having to make a split-second decision. He discharges his sidearm and takes the old man’s life. From here on out, the town becomes stricken with multiple obscure cases involving individuals going mad and attempting/committing murder. Dutton and his trusted deputy soon discover something has gone terribly wrong with the town’s water supply, turning its inhabitants into vicious killers before becoming zombie-like monsters. Eventually the whole area becomes quarantined by the U.S. army, and Dutton must fight to protect his wife and unborn child.
Of the many recent zombie films, “The Crazies” fits right in. I know many horror buffs claim that this isn’t exactly a “zombie” film because the infected people have some form of human consciousness–but come on, they get an infection, start attacking people, and turn into the perfect visual aid of a zombie. So if I continue to refer to them as such you’ll just have to deal with it. While I wouldn’t say this movie ranks quite as high as “28 Weeks Later” or the 2004 “Dawn of the Dead,” it’s a close call. Director Breck Eisner (of the forgettable 2005 “Sahara’) knows how to instill some raging intensity in a scene. Granted, most of the sequences here have a certain familiarity and standardization to them especially within the genre, but he isn’t simply selling truckloads of gore. Sure, there is some of that, but he never forgets that the horror rests not ultimately with the zombies, but with human versus human confrontation. The most interesting aspect of “The Crazies” is the fact that there is some form of humanity left in these monsters. They have thoughts and memories, but with a damaged mind–driven to murder. M. Night Shyamalan should have waited and taken notes from this film when developing the atrocious “The Happening.” “The Crazies” also features a few memorable scenes, making it more than disposable horror, and ones concerning ‘the living dead.’ The tone of the movie never falters, and it also never loses sight of moral questions and dilemmas, providing the right commentary to give reason for the movie. It’s still not a spectacular movie, or the horror film to reinvent the genre, but with solid performances across the board, excellent cinematography and unnerving tension the whole way through, “The Crazies” makes a standard zombie affair quite entertaining.
Grade: B-
-MJV & the Movies
I saw War Games years ago when I was about six or seven years old, and my perception the world pretty much extended to the end of the hallway at Pershing Elementary School. I knew about the Russians, but did not understand the Cold War. I knew about “duck and cover” drills, but we never had them at my school. I also knew about video games, but out little Mac 512K-E was mostly limited to snake and shufflepuck. So when, as a kid, I watched 16-year-old computer David Lightman (Matthew Broderick, in his pre-Ferris days) play a computer game of tic-tac-toe to save the world from nuclear annihilation…I was really confused.
I recently figured it was high time to give John Badham’s suspenseful cold war film another shot. And while the film doesn’t have the same social impact it once might have, it does remain an interesting look at a rather singular time in our history when the threat of nuclear war was not only real but, in the minds of many people, imminent. Lightman is a lovable slacker who smarts off to his teachers at school and spends his evenings and weekends at video arcades and hacking into computer systems with his monochromatic PC at home. And while this character could have been played by just about any teenage actor, it’s Matthew Broderick’s wide-eyed innocent charm that really sell the role. He’s on relatively good terms with his parents, he has an entirely innocent friendship with his classmate Jennifer (Ally Sheedy), and his hacking is mostly good-natured fun. He’s not out to ruin anyone’s day, it’s just that school bores him because he’s too smart for the system–and he knows it.
David Lightman: saving the world, getting the girl, and making it home in time for dinner.
When Lightman sees an ad for a new computer game, he tries to hack in to the company’s systems so he can play their game before it’s released to the public. Soon enough he comes across a computer system with a list of games like “Chess,” “Tic Tac Toe,” and “Global Thermonuclear War.” Thinking he has found a repository of top-secret computer games, he and Jennifer decide to try out the last game, pretend they are the Russians, and launch a volley of missiles at the United Stated. All good fun, right? Well, it would be except for one little detail: Lightman didn’t know it, but he had really found his way into a top-secret NORAD computer mainframe and had just flipped the switch on World War III.
Pretty soon all heck breaks loose. Baby Matthew Broderick is busted by the government and taken to the NORAD underground Top Secret Lair where military dudes with Texas accents and cigars the size of drain pipes are blathering about doomsday, barking out DEFCON status updates, and glowering at Lightman very sternly while telling him in no uncertain terms to stay put. Sure enough he breaks the heck out of there, gets his friend-girl to buy him a plane ticket home, and the two of them track down Dr. Stephen Falken, the creator of the WOPR military computer that is about to blow up the world, because he is the only one who can stop the madness. In the end, the fate of all civilization comes down to a gigantic game of Tic-Tac-Toe and the hope that if a machine can learn how futile nuclear war is, maybe we humans can too. Aww.
Don't laugh, folks. This used to be cutting-edge computer graphics.
Things are perhaps more than a tad predictable in War Games, but it’s a suspenseful movie with just enough coming-of-age moments for Lightman to keep us cheering for him. It’s a classic geek story with a likable, nerdy hero who gets the girl in the end, and despite some over-the-top performances here and there (not to mention the very idea of putting nuclear launch capabilities solely in the hands of a computer…*ahem* I’m looking at you, James Cameron), War Games is an enjoyable film whose message still holds up today, even if our cultural zeitgeist is more focused on terrorism than nuclear war. And it might not be long until the two become one and the same, so perhaps the message is in fact just as relevant now as it ever was…
Rating:
A few years ago USA Network launched a “Characters Welcome” campaign designed to give viewers an idea of, presumably, the kind of material they could expect to find on their station. The gist of the campaign was that on USA Network one could find shows with interesting, unique, funny, compelling, or provocative characters rather than shows that contained too much style without any human substance. And while I don’t know if the network was successful in re-creating their image with that campaign, I do know that Psych, which appeared on the scene around the same time as the “Characters” network reinvention, certainly has personality to spare.
Set in Santa Barbara, California, Psych follows Shawn Spencer (James Roday), a drifter of sorts who has never been able to hold down a job, a girlfriend, or even a reliable vehicle. From an early age his by-the-book policeman father Henry (Corbin Bernsen) taught him to be cognizant of his surroundings, taking in all the details of his surroundings and noting even the smallest details that might seem insignificant to most other people. The goal was self-reliance, but the result was a son with a near-terminal case of ADHD who has a hard time taking anything seriously. Now in his late 20’s, he gets money by calling in the police tip hotline when he notices subtle clues on newsreel footage that help lead to the arrest of local small-time crooks and other such riffraff. Meanwhile his childhood friend Gus (Dulé Hill) is an über-responsible pharmaceutical salesman and despite the different paths the two have taken in life, they are still friends and pal around together.
Juliet O'Hara, police detective and Spencer's love interest.
In the first episode Spencer is at the police station collecting his tip reward when he uses his powers of observation to “read the minds” of a crook and a few policemen. Picking up on clues like debris on clothing, unconscious hand gestures, body markings, and even discarded trash, he is able to infer key bits of information about the personalities of people around him. The twist, though, is that Spencer convinces people that he has psychic abilities. After using his fake abilities to solve a murder in the pilot episode, along with some help from straight-laced Gus, the two of them set up a private detective agency that they work from throughout the rest of the season.
USA Network prides itself on unique and interesting characters, and Psych has that down in spades. Each person in the show has more personality than all the one-dimensional people and aliens in Avatar combined. Roday is dripping with high-school-dude charm, and he is instantly likable from the get-go. His fake psychic antics, while often ridiculous, are plenty amusing–especially when he is channeling Jim Carrey and Steve Martin with outlandish physical movements and contortions as he pretends to receive messages from the spirit world. Gus, playing the classic role of the straight man, is the perfect foil for Spencer, often telling him how ridiculous their plans are, how impossible a given case would be to solve, and how the two of them will no doubt get into a world of trouble for embarking on whatever hair-brained idea they come up with next. And yet he inevitably goes along with the plan nonetheless. It’s the classic buddy cop formula that has worked for decades (Riggs and Murtaugh, Tango and Cash, Burnett and Lowery, even Carter and Lee), and Spencer and Gus are entertaining enough to carry the show even when the plot gets pretty ridiculous.
Each episode follows a similar formula: They typically begin with Spencer as a kid in the mid-80’s learning, often through his own mistakes, a life lesson (look for creative solutions, don’t give up, don’t gamble, don’t cheat, etc.) from his harsh but loving father. Then we join Spencer and Gus at their office in the present day. Soon enough they stumble across a mystery by way of a newscast, reading the paper, walking by a crime scene, or just by having a client drop in looking for a psychic to help them find a missing loved one or solve a problem they can’t take to the police. Spencer and Gus go investigate, inevitably run across stuffy Detective Lasseter (Timothy Omundson) and his partner, the perky but ambitious detective Jules O’Hara (Maggie Lawson) and police chief Karen Vick (Kirsten Nelson) who are often trying to solve the very same case. In almost every episode Lasseter is stubbornly barking up the wrong tree, while plucky Spencer notices a handful of clues such as a lock of hair, footprints, broken glass, a misplaced business card, and the like, overlooked by the detectives but key to the investigation. Spencer then uses these clues to piece together the solution to the crime, while waving his hands about and flailing around to pretend he is getting his information from sources in the hereafter.
Detective Lassiter can't stand Spencer but comes to appreciate his usefulness.
It’s a reliable formula, and for the most part it works: This ain’t Law and Order, folks. But for the first few episodes I was exceedingly frustrated with the show. The police detectives are so inept, the cases so far-fetched, and the “fake psychic” element so overblown that the entire show just seemed stupid. But the ridiculousness of it all is kind of the point. Psych doesn’t take itself too seriously, and neither should the viewers. In fact, by the end of the season I appreciated its lighthearted take on the TV detective show genre–almost as if were an antidote to the endless heavy-handed detective shows out there. It’s just lighthearted entertainment, and eschews the dark murder investigation and blood-n-guts shock factors of other shows in favor of silly antics and old-fashioned whodunit crime solving.
In fact, the worst complaint I can level against the show is that at times it’s just too ridiculous. In “9 Lives” Spencer claims to get information from a cat, “Cloudy…Chance of Murder” has him joking around in a courtroom murder trial and eventually becoming a legal consultant, and in “Poker? I Barely Know Her” he pretends to communicate with poker chips. Scenarios like this take things just a little too over the top and dangerously close to frustrating, as if creator Steve Franks is insulting the intelligence of his viewers. But this is escapist entertainment, and as someone who enjoyed Ace Ventura, I don’t think I can complain about Psych being a bit too outlandish. It’s good clean entertainment, so long as you check your brain at the door. But then, that’s kind of the point.
Rating:
When I was a kid I used to watch Batman: The Animated Series after school while rolling up newspapers for my daily delivery route. I wouldn’t say I was a hardcore fan of the show, but I did appreciate its mature subject matter and often heavyhanded treatment of moral and ethical issues. Animated, yes, but far from a simple cartoon: it was an animated show that explored justice, morality, the dual nature of humanity and our need to create masks to hide our true nature. Along with Batman were shows like Gargoyles and X-Men that treated their audiences with a greater level of respect, and assumed a greater level of maturity, than typical after school animated entertainment. Sadly, I never got in to those two the same way I did with Batman. In fact, as deep as the Batman mythology goes, one could argue that the X-Men mythos is far richer and replete with many more metaphors and messages that are as relevant to our society now as they ever were. And it is this rich source material that director Bryan Singer, the mastermind behind the outstanding Usual Suspects and Apt Pupil, draws on for his big-screen adaptation of X-Men. For the most part, Singer succeeds in crafting a tight and engaging story that, despite the laundry list of characters and conflicts, manages to be not only entertaining but smart and full of delicious subtexts and metaphors for modern social conflicts. Even though the special effects sometimes get out of hand, and the movie sometimes takes itself a bit too seriously for its own good, X-Men is an enjoyable film for those who like their buckets of popcorn large and buttery as well as those who prefer to spend evenings philosophizing at coffee shops.
Cyclops, the X-Men frat dude, about to unleash some optical fury up in this grill.
Because I spent my afternoons while growing up watching the Caped Crusader instead of legions of mutants, I know virtually nothing about the history and mythology of the X-Men. I have never read an X-Men comic book, only rarely seen episodes of the animated series, and am for all intents and purposes an X-Men newbie. A movie like this is almost sure to get the fanboys out to the theatres (though beware the backlash lest the movie fail to live up to impossible expectations!), but to please (appease?) them and also appeal to people like me is a tricky proposition.
The story wisely focuses largely on Wolverine, one of the more complex characters in the X-Men universe, and to a smaller degree Rogue, a young girl with the (often unfortunate) ability to take powers from other people or mutants simply through physical contact. Wolverine’s mutant ability to heal himself, combined with his ability to extend metal claws from his knuckles, is a far cry from Storm’s ability to alter the weather, Mystique’s talent for shape-shifting, or Cyclops’ powerful laser eyesight, and it is this ability that allows casual viewers like myself to connect with the main character on a personal level. The same goes for Rogue: we see her accidentally send a young man into a coma when the two of them share their first kiss, and this helps us not only understand the depth of her character but connect with her on an emotional level as well. She runs away to Canada after this incident, meets up with Wolverine in a seedy bar, and begins to form a friendship that serves to define their characters throughout the rest of the movie.
The relationship between Xavier and Magneto is wonderfully deep and complex--a far cry from Good Guy vs. Bad Guy.
Ultimately this is why Bryan Singer’s X-Men succeeds where it could have just as easily failed: Singer focuses first and foremost on the characters, using special effects and big-budget action setpieces when necessary to the story as opposed to the other way around. And perhaps the most interesting of all is the relationship between bad guy Magneto (Ian McKellan) and good guy and X-Men savior Professor Xavier (Patrick Steward, fantastic as usual). Singer eschews the traditional insane-megalomaniac-bent-on-world-domination caricature in favor of a Magneto who, because of his childhood experiences in Nazi concentration camps, sees only the worst of what humans are capable of doing–especially to those who, like mutants, are different. When Senator Kelly (Bruce Davidson) introduces a bill effectively forcing all mutants to declare themselves, and their powers, to the authorities, Magneto puts in place his plan that will essentially turn all the world leaders into mutants. Xavier, with his team of mutant good guys, must put a stop to this dastardly deed before it’s too late and the human/mutant conflict escalates into a war.
It’s a premise that can only exist in a comic book movie, to be sure, but in the capable hands of Singer the movie never devolves into comixploitation or cartooney violence just for the sake of it. In fact, the story actually focuses too much on the characters–there are so many humans, good mutants, and bad (or just misguided) mutants to keep track of that the movie gets a little too convoluted for its own good. Between love-triangle jealousy, character backstories, political wrangling, treachery and deceit, and Ray Park’s stuntman acrobatics, it’s a heck of a lot to process in just two hours. And the climactic battle on the Statue of Liberty is actually a bit of a letdown–it would have been great to see an all-out brawl between Magneto and some of the X-Men, rather than having most of them sit around, helplessly locked up until Cyclops accidentally saves the day. The script is also a bit too heavy for its own good, with some of the cheesiest dialog this side of Episode 2. After all, this is a comic book movie, not Shawshank Redemption, so maybe Singer could have eased up on the seriousness level a few times.
Rating:
Let me get this out of the way right off the bat: Second Skin is outstanding. It is a documentary that does what it should: document. There’s very little in the way of agenda or self-aggrandizing. There’s no narrator, no artificial plot or conflict created by the director, and some loose ends are purposely left hanging and questions left unanswered. What we have, then, is a thoroughly compelling, entirely engrossing exploration of online games and the people who play them. Director Juan Carlos Pineiro-Escoriaza follows several individuals from a variety of walks of life who all happen to play some form of online role-playing game such as EverQuest or World of Warcraft. Through the course of the film we see how these online games affect the lives of the individuals–for better or for worse–and also hear thoughts and insights about online games from game developers and other industry insiders. And while online gaming might seen like a strange subject for a documentary, it’s the way in which these games affect the subjects of the film that transforms the film from a mere curiosity to a must-see for anyone who either plays online games or know someone who plays them. And there’s a lot more than you might think.
The individuals that Pineiro-Escoriaza uses as the subject of his documentary are fairly normal people: they have jobs, significant others, and social lives. But the one thread they all share is their love of online gaming. And I don’t mean love, like one might say “I love cookies.” These people game (yes, it is a verb) for six, eight, even twelve or more hours a day. Online gaming has, in many cases, supplanted reality as the preferred method of social interaction for these individuals–and in some cases for very good reasons. As is pointed out through interviews with the gamers as well as developers and academics, online games and their social communities can be a place where looks, cultural background, talent, and past failures are entirely erased. In essence, the first time anyone logs on to World of Warcraft or any one of the hundreds of online games available, he or she is free to create a dopplegänger that can literally be anyone he or she wants it to be. In a world where people are so often judged by looks, clothes, social status, and myriad other factors that belie the true character of the individual, online games offer a refuge in which people are free to live out alternate lives free of the prejudices and trappings of reality. And within the massive constructs offered by these worlds, people are free to pursue goals, gain new skills, meet friends, even join secret societies and elite clubs like The Syndicate. A compelling alternate-reality existence indeed.
Kevin Keel, an online gamer who found what he hopes is true love through EverQuest II.
Careful to not gloss over the complications of living this type of life, Pineiro-Escoriaza shows the good and bad sides of how this passion (some would call addiction) affects the subjects of his film. Andy Belford is a man who moves to Indiana to live with three other men he met online, and the four of them form a friendship that is deep and fulfilling both in real life and online. Kevin Keel moves from Texas to Florida to be with Heather Cowan, a woman he met on EverQuest. And Andrew Monkelban, an individual severely crippled by cerebral palsy, is able to life a fulfilling virtual life within the confines of his computer screen, meeting people, forming relationships, and enjoying simple activities like walking in a park that are beyond his reach in reality. Liz Wooley, a woman whose son committed suicide after becoming so engrossed in World of Warcraft that he lost touch with reality and took his own life, is now committed to helping gamers with their online addictions and even provides a safe house and a 12-step program. But with all the positive ways in which online games affect the individuals of the documentary, there are plenty of downsides too. Keel and Cowan have incredible difficulty relating to each at times, and are forced to deal with the many struggles inherent in merging lives in the real world. Belford and his friends drift apart after marriages and children begin to take over, and encounter an entirely new set of difficulties when they try to balance their love of (addiction to?) online games with newfound responsibilities in real life. And Dan Bustard, a healthy and prosperous man in real life, becomes so entrenched in playing World of Warcraft that he loses his friends, job, girlfriend, and even thinks of taking his own life.
Faced with the birth of twins, Andy Belford is forced to balance real-world responsibilities and maintaining a Level 70 WoW character.
Interspersed throughout the stories told in Second Skin are a number of interviews with couples who have found each other online, brief investigations into the shady practice of Gold Farming, history lessons on online gaming, as well as the aforementioned interviews and comments from actual game developers (though, curiously, none of the individuals behind WoW, EverQuest, or any of the other online games which are the subject of the film). In fact, more than most documentaries I have seen, Second Skin succeeds because it accomplishes the goal of the medium: it documents. And while there is always more to the story than what is shown onscreen, it doesn’t really push one particular viewpoint over another. Is online gaming good or healthy for people? How much online gaming is too much? Is is normal for people to take sick days off work just to play a World of Warcraft expansion pack? Such questions are raised but not answered, and instead left for the viewers to decide. And while the film does leave some loose ends, it does offer as much conclusion as possible on some of the storylines. But beyond the basic interviewing and reporting, Second Skin is a thoroughly engrossing and often entertaining look at a subset of a subset of our culture that is actually a lot bigger than most people realize.
Perhaps most interesting of all, though, is Bustard, who eventually kicks his gaming habit not through the help of Wooley and her program, but through sheer will and determination. In the end he regains his health, trims his waistline, and decides that even a solitary walk around town on a snowy evening is far better and more satisfying than any excursion in an online gaming.
Rating:
Loading ...
