Movie Review: Joyeux Noël

Rarely do I come across a film about a subject so far from my general taste that touches me so deeply. For those unaware, the film Joyeux Noël, which translates literally to Merry Christmas, a fact I did not realize at first but is quite obvious in retrospect, is about the Christmas Armistice of 1914. During World War I on a few locations on the front, the two sides refused to fight each other on Christmas eve and instead fraternized. They shared food, sang Christmas carols, played soccer, and did not fight. This beautiful image lasted past Christmas, and these new compatriots refused to fight each other after Christmas, and the military leadership had to separate the groups and send them to other places in order to remove this peaceful disposition from them. I love the Christmas armistice. It is proof that humanity, when given the choice, will choose love over hate. That's beautiful to me. Now, for the actual movie.

Joyeux Noël, the Christmas movie that made an atheist cry. Seems like a good enough review at that, doesn't it? Don't worry, there's more. The film is very well acted, though it is not an American film, so the odds of you knowing the actors are very low. If you're interested, check the imdb page. A few of the actors stood out as particularly good. Benno Fürmann as tenor opera singer turned soldier Nikolaus Sprink plays the protagonist, more or less. The cast is somewhat large, but the most focus goes to Sprink, and to a lesser extent to his wife, also a singer, Anna Sörensen who is portrayed by Diane Krüger. Both actors had their singing voices dubbed in by other actors, and it is a little noticeable, but not completely distracting. Sprink is played with this restrained emotional power that he seems to emanate in every scene. The times when he tries to be overtly emotional, and isn't backed up by Krüger's intensity, he fails, and comes across as forced.

The supporting cast, whether they be French, or Scottish, or even German, are stellar. I have no complaints towards any of them. The French cast is the best, followed by the Scottish and the German, but even the lesser performances are still excellent. There is one French soldier who always carries an alarm clock with him, and he's the most endearing of all of the supporting cast.

The cinematography is good, but not noticeable. I tried to keep my eye out for anything particularly good, but I didn't. The cinematography is good. It isn't great. It isn't awful. It's just there. Nothing about the cinematography is particularly good or memorable, but nothing comes out as good or bad. It's just...there.

The music throughout is excellent, though I wonder why very little of it was sub-titled. The songs were mostly Christmas related, but I didn't know all of the tunes, or all of the lyrics, even in English. I would have appreciated sub-titles for the songs, and I think it is a missed opportunity. Perhaps sub-titles would have detracted from the overall feel and it was an artistic choice, but it irritated me to not be able to understand what was being said, or rather, sang. The only other time I took issues with the rest of the sub-titles, was when I couldn't read them through my tears.

This movie makes a powerful message about war, but unfortunately it is the same belabored point that every war movie makes. I don't take issue with the message, I just find it unsettling how many movies employ the theme of peace through brotherhood, and how completely this message is ignored by the world. The message perceived from the war scenes comes through loud and clear. The only section where the message feels tacked on is the religious commentary made after the armistice employed through the character of a cartoonishly evil religious man. Maybe it's just my modern sensibilities, but I don't understand how anyone, even in wartime, can reconcile a lust for war and sheer hatred for your enemy with the teachings of Jesus Christ, even when reading the bible selectively.

The film ends right after the armistice troops have been re-deployed to different areas, and everything after the last bit of peace and civility drags on into the credits. But this is in no way a bad film. It has a few issues, but overall its still a great Christmas film, and a rather good movie overall. Though perhaps a bit too heart-breaking and sad for repeat viewings. Four stars, out of five.

**** out of *****

Movie Review: Martyrs

I'd tell you this is the story of a girl, abused at a young age, having one real friend in the world, and how they together face adulthood, because a cursory glance over the imdb page for this film made me think that. However, it is entirely untrue. Any shred of integrity or artistic merit you think this film has? Yeah, throw that right out.

This film has hardly any redeeming qualities. To an extent, the first two acts of the film are as I expected, but only in a rather limited scope. The third act, which is where audiences and the movie really lose it, is what makes me hate this film. In short, what this film fails to do in 40 minutes, V for Vendetta did successfully in 20. The first two acts make it seem like the story is going somewhere, but it's not. To call this a horror film is inaccurate. Yes, its horrifying, but only about as horrifying as the Hostel films. A lot of gore, a very small amount of substance, and a crudely forced theme of grander vision and ethical ramifications which is utterly false.

This film offends me, and not because of the gore or violence, just because of the story. I can't really say too much without spoiling, so I'll have to keep this a bit vague.

There are these people who have sophisticated and expensive facilities where they torture people into enlightenment, but they are atheists, but they also believe in an afterlife and want to learn it from these people they slowly kill. Got it? Yeah, me neither. This whole premise leaves me with a lot of questions. For example, why not just go to places where people are already dying, since they allude to the suffering of people in third world nations in the film. Wouldn't that be cheaper and much less complicated? Where are they getting all of this money anyway? Is this group somehow tax exempt because of its beliefs? Its only been around 100 years or less as far as I can tell. Member supported I guess. And what about Buddhism? This martyrdom you describe seems eerily similar to Buddhist enlightenment. Did no one think, maybe go and try Buddhism, instead of starting to kidnap young women? Finally, if you believe that there is an afterlife and any human can reach it, why are you so pro-atheism? Isn't that just a tad contradictory? Is this some sort of conceptual abstract quantum physics energy collective of human spirits? What's the deal?

That's only the beginning of my concerns with this film, but going into the more tangible measurements, lets start with the acting. It's ok. Not horrible, not great. No one stands out. The protagonist(s) do alright, though they are dreadfully boring. The real protagonist of the 2nd and 3rd acts performs well, but she is also playing a meek character who does not stand up for herself. I know it's impossible to put yourself in the situation of another 100%, but I really feel most people would have performed differently. There were dozens of ways to alter your standing and rectify your situation, and she almost never speaks. Silent protagonists generally don't work in films, at least of this quality of script, and it doesn't work here. Furthermore, she breaks every horror film cliche rule. Turn the lights on, make sure the body is dead, and so on. No, wait, I have 1 more question.

Was the actress not wearing a bra an intentional cheap ploy for sex appeal, or did she just not wear one? It is a French film, after all.

The effects, when examined, are pretty good. Though not always. For example: a shotgun does not jettison your victim back 10 feet. Shotguns do not work that way. Some of the gore is pretty convincing, at least until the end when the realm of plausibility is exited with the velocity of a jet-pack. There were some real continuity issues with that as well. The blood is flowing down the neck in one scene, and in the next the neck is perfectly clean? Shoddy editing there, friends. The lighting is only noticeable when they borrow the shaky on and off normally employed by carnival haunted houses, except there it usually works.

Ignoring all of this, the number 1 problem is how dull the film was. I had to force myself to sit through it. At least some of the other films I've reviewed were so bad they were entertaining. This was just bad. But they used....good quality film? I don't know why I'm even ranking it this high, maybe for the alright effects. I've seen worse films, but not many. Two stars.

** out of *****

Movie Review: TRON Legacy

It has taken nearly 30 years for this 1982 Disney classic among geeks to get a properly made and budgeted sequel, and hype for this film has been palpable since the first teaser trailer leaked in the form of a cellphone video quite a while ago. The geeks of the world have been concerned, tearing our hair out with worry and jumping up and down with anticipation. A few trailers, a few 30 second clips on youtube, a couple short interviews, all of these watched and re-watched ad-nauseum. I've been following this film since I first became aware of it and I am a huge fan of the original, and to put it simply, this film did not disappoint.
A few people asked me if they needed to see the original film before seeing this very delayed sequel, and the answer is a delayed no, but seeing the original pushes this film from good to great, and from slightly emotional to touching and, in my case, tear jerking. There are a number of references to the original film, as well as a few references to other classic sci-fi geek classics of the 80's. In short, this is not a movie made specifically for the fans, but a film made to create them. I saw the film with a few friends, some who had seen the original and some who had not. The post-movie discussion showed similar ratings of 9's and 10's from both sides, and vows from the uninitiated to watch the original as soon as possible.
I am not going to go into the plot here in the interest of keeping spoilers out for people who have not yet seen the film, but I will make a few judgement calls. Firstly, the acting. Garrett Hedlund's performance as Sam Flynn is impeccable. He is both a new and interesting character, as well as very much his father's son. The somewhat shoe-horned in character development for him in the first act is only barely noticeable. His performance is so spot on that the audience simply doesn't care, and by the beginning of the 2nd act is entirely forgotten as forced in lieu of empathy for the character and genuine concern for his fate. The female lead Quorra, portrayed nearly as well by Olivia Wilde, who I hope will go on to bigger and better dramatic things now that she's been in her big budget blockbuster and performed admirably. Olivia Wilde was able to pull off a sexy, and to be honest, breathtakingly beautiful woman, but not to play her as the shoved in Bond girl equivalent of the grid. She is a real character, and we care about her as much as our protagonist. Everything about these two was well done.
As for my judgment on Jeff Bridges and Bruce Boxleitner, both of whom reprised their integral roles in the TRON universe, as well as the new villain portrayed by a digitally de-aged Bridges, CLU, there is nothing more for me to say beyond amazing.
I actually have essentially no complaints. I loved everything about this film. I got every single reference to the original film, I understood the plot, I loved the action, I was perceptually overwhelmed with the strength of the IMAX score, despite having already heard Daft Punk's entire soundtrack a week earlier. The music, as good as it is, takes a backseat to some of the action scenes, which are so well done, so grand in scale, so effective in execution, that I think this film is what every digitally created action film henceforth should try to emulate. No overuse of shaky cam, no overuse of slow-motion (though there is some), no needless violence, just what had to be there.
Crisp, beautiful, compelling, digital love. 4.5 out of 5 stars

****.5 out of *****

Movie Review: Pink Flamingos

A classic, as it were, and perhaps the oldest film I have reviewed. The brainchild of quasi-notable celebrity John Waters, who I first became aware of through The Simpsons episode "Homer's Phobia" which features him as the same named character John, who looks very similar to Waters and appears to be indistinct from his voice actor with the exception of his occupation. It is, in fact, the charisma of John Waters that was a strong motivator towards me watching this film, even more so than its, in my opinion undeserved, cult status.
I ended up watching the 1997 cut with the extended John Waters ending that featured commentary and some deleted scenes. I'm not entirely sure if this added anything special to my experience, but it is the version of the film I watched.
The acting is half decent, with the protagonist and her family the best performances in the film. The majority of the cast appears to have never acted before, and it shines clear throughout. Some of the scenes even feature people who are supposed to be upset, actually on the verge of laughter because of the underlying silliness of the whole film.
The plot boils down to a competition between the title character Devine and her family versus the husband and wife team of Raymond and Connie Marble. They both vie to be the filthiest people in the world. Though by today's standards, they are not very unusual at all. This, as well as the quality of the literal film used, severely date the picture. Perhaps in a world where we can all be immediately connected via webcam or cellphone, the idea of outlying outrageous people seems more far fetched. Nothing that happens in this film is as bad as, say, 2 girls 1 cup, or any of the other extreme and extremely unusual and obscene internet pornography most of us could find given more than 5 minutes and a few Google searches. The cult status seems to be based on how bad it is, but people genuinely love this film, the way most Rocky Horror fans genuinely love that film, myself included. I can look past glaring issues for the gold that shines through, but not this time.
So then...why didn't I like it? I've seen films with worse acting, worse writing, more outrageous disgusting acts, more violent acts....and I just thought the film was below average. Perhaps it is dated? Perhaps it is too crudely done for my taste? I personally don't think so. I believe that today's modern movie-goer has been exposed to so much outrageous content in their life that 1972's shocking film, is today's mere footnote in cinema history. There was not a single point in the film where I even gagged a little, or was even slightly put off by the blood, or the deaths. The most emotional rise I experienced was a few chuckles now and again. Truth be told, I was dreadfully bored. This is today's cinematic world. I just watched a grown man in drag eat freshly produced canine excrement and did not even bat an eye. When I got to the part everyone talks about, I was actually disappointed by its utter lack of shocking-ness. I suppose that's where we stand though. The soundtrack is memorable, the acting is so-so, the writing is confusing and manufactured, the film lived and thrived in the 70's, as a cult classic, and, for me at least, there it will remain. Two and one half stars, out of 5.

**.5 out of *****

De-sensitively yours, -B

Movie Review: FEED

This film, as the laughably sparse Wikipedia article will tell you, is about a police investigation of a sexual fetish known as feederism, a twist on classical domination/subservience with the angle of a healthy feeder and a morbidly obese to the point of being unable to move, eater. It is not a very good film, to be honest. I was quite disappointed. I went into this film after hearing from a companion about the impact this film's graphic imagery had on them.
After watching the film myself, I'd say that the content is somewhat shocking, but not in the class of say, The Human Centipede, or even one of the seemingly endless SAW films. There's a few very, very fat women in it, but it's nothing more than you'd see on any random BBW fetish site, or even an episode of Maury. All of the effects in the film are very well done and convincing, not just limited to the grotesque fatness, but also the violence and injuries, but that is where the realism in this film ends.
The story makes very little sense, especially when examined at closely. The internet security angle specifically is just claptrap. And the behavior of the protagonist and resident renegade cop looking to prove himself, Phillip Jackson (Patrick Thompson), goes way beyond the duties of a normal police officer. He breaks several international laws and treaties during this film, even going so far as to be possibly more guilty than the antagonist, portrayed by Alex O'Loughlin, who was brilliant, with the exception of his lines. The story makes a few desperate attempts at symbolism and deeper meaning, but it's all surrounded by wooden performances and painfully hackneyed dialog, especially between the Australian police who talk like they're in a parody of Dirty Harry.
The writer and director seem to know what they're doing and have clearly taken a class or two, but the execution was laughable. Some story elements if fleshed out could have been intriguing, but were not explored. The film is well shot but the content is not interesting. Furthermore, the director apparently has been taught about gel filters and contrast lighting, but he was never taught how to use it. Half of the film you are beaten over the head with either a orange/blue or a red/blue contrast. It works in theory, but the contrasts need to be there for a reason, not just because you were taught to do a little lighting. The soundtrack is poppy and fitting, but not memorable. And really, that's the final verdict on the film. It has a little gore, some fair acting, a mediocre plot, a predictable progression, and it's nothing really worth remembering. Two and one half stars, out of five.

**.5 out of *****

Today in another episode of movie scenes that apply to my life

Annie Hall, 1977

Alvy Singer's Therapist: How often do you sleep together?
Annie Hall's Therapist: Do you have sex often?
Alvy Singer: [lamenting] Hardly ever. Maybe three times a week.
Annie Hall: [annoyed] Constantly. I'd say three times a week.

Fuck everything about my life.

Movie Review: The Dungeon Masters

2008's D&D Docu-drama opened to little or no fanfare, and I only became aware of it this last month. I sit here typing this review in the second sweltering day of September, 2008, wondering how a gamer like myself missed this one. At last week's game, when I mentioned to my fellow players that I had discovered this film, they too, all avid players, had missed it. Somehow even in the society of gamers, this film flew completely under the radar.

The Dungeon Masters follows the lives of three dungeon masters, none of any celebrity, but if you're in the community, you know them. The cosplay drow, the conniving DM, and the aspiring author. The community has all of these in spades. They each have their own smaller stories that do not intertwine much, except for the backdrop of fantasy. They do not actually interact with each other, but the world they each live in does feel very interconnected, more so than the physical world. There is a sort of impossible whimsy attached to them. Truth be told, you could take almost any three people from the community and produce a similar film.

If there's one thing this film got spot on, it was the cinematography. The director of this film took 3 individuals, and without any special effects, transformed their landscapes into fantastical locales. The gravity of the situations and places they were in were filmed in an epic kind of realistic Lord of the Rings style, but utilized no exotic places at all.

There are some films that, when evaluated by a devoted fan base, are utterly beyond reproach. Do not speak ill of The Man With No Name trilogy to western buffs, do not challenge the themes of 2001: A Space Odyssey to sci-fi fans, and certainly don't talk smack about Debbie Does Dallas to pornography enthusiasts. As a GM, DM, and overall friend of the fantasy and role playing game universe, this film really hit me in a strong, emotional way that I can't use at all in a professional evaluation. I have a real problem evaluating this because I feel like I know these people. The odds are very good that through d6 degrees of separation, I do.

On a human emotional level, this film rolls a natural 20, that is to say, you will feel for these people, and care about their problems, in real life surely, if not within their games. Great direction, interesting concept, but with a long run time and forgettable score. If you're a fan, yes, absolutely, go out and rent this one. If you're not, well, this one may not be for you.

*** out of *****

Movie Review: A Serbian Film

I’ve tried to start writing the review for this film a few times now, and each time they have come out not fitting this film. The problem is that this is one of those films that is nearly impossible to describe while keeping an air of authority to one’s prose. In short, this is a thriller, I’d go as far as to call it a horror film, about a retired porn star who comes out of retirement for a paycheck big enough to provide for his family for a very long time. This is usually the spot where I’d link you to actors or director’s imdb page, but they are all such unknowns outside of Serbia (I’m assuming they have some degree of fame there) that linking you to the Wikipedia page of the film is all I can provide, so here it is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Serbian_Film. The acting is impeccable. That sentence is short but implies a great deal. This is one of the best acted films I have ever seen. The cinematography, while definitely influenced by Eastern European cinema, is still unique and incredibly well done. The soundtrack is catchy and instantly memorable. Despite being utterly off put by the film’s content, I’m still humming the tune they planted in my head a few hours later. The closest I can describe it as is a cliché porn music track played in hell. I’m writing about the special effects almost as an afterthought now because they were so convincing that it only occurred to me that they were effects when I started writing the review. This alone should say more than enough, but now I have to gush, because I was completely convinced. I watched this film on my computer, sitting in my own room, and I was still completely drawn in and buying every minute of it. I cannot emphasize enough how powerfully this film ensnared me. However, the real problem with this film, like other films such as Eyes Wide Shut or Hostel, the line between porn, exploitation, and art is a difficult one to tag down. The film certainly has a compelling story, a great story progression, excellent characters, fantastic directing, but at the same time, I feel compelled to label much of this film as too extreme to be compared to normal cinema. Some of the images in this film are going to haunt me for a long time, and I have respect for the creators and the actors and everyone involved in this project, but again, I am visibly upset by what I have viewed. If all else fails, I must go with the most important aspect of review: Did I like the film? The answer is a tentative yes, though I’m not entirely sure I would be prepared for another viewing, at least not for a while. Machete to my head though, I have to say I liked it, from an artistic perspective at least, though not from a human one.

Beautifully shot, hauntingly scored, incredibly well acted, and more disturbing than anything else I have ever seen, including pornography and that horrid human centipede thing. Three and one half stars. I recommend this one if you're looking for an artistic film about one man's personal struggle, but not unless you can easily laugh off a Lars Von Trier film.

***.5 out of *****

Movie Review: SPLICE

I've been looking forward to this film for over at least 1 year. It's hard to pin down when exactly, but I've been pumped up for a while. As a result, I faced much trepidation over whther this film would live up to my lofty expectations. For once, I was actually satisfied. This movie actually lived up to all of my expectations. Where to begin?

The poster is an obvious nod to the original Alien film from 1979. 30 years and a few terrible sequels later there is no modern standard to match the atmosphere and sheer discomfort caused by Ridley Scott's masterpiece.

Until now.

Splice opens with a disturbing yet comforting artful set of credits, firmly placing itself in the uncanny valley of movie monsters, and it dwells there the entire ride. We're introduced by two Mothra larvae called Fred and ginger, which are precursors to the real monster under the bed of this film, Dren portrayed masterfully by Delphine Chanéac. She is under makeup and a good degree of CGI, but the effects are understated and she brings an uncomfortable human element to the creature that makes it truly terrifying.

The camerawork is spot on the whole ride, no complaints. The sets are convincing, even the supporting cast is beyond reproach. David Hewlett plays the same annoying guy he was on Stargate Atlantis. But really, the two actors of consequence here are Adrian Brody as Clive and Sarah Polley as Elsa. Brody is good, he's always pretty good. Consistently acceptable in pretty much everything. His performance is not a tour de force, but I have no complaints. Polley on the other hand gave a wonderful performance as the scientist/mothering figure. I felt for her the whole time.

Now, for the real test of a horror film: Was it scary? In a word, yes. And the last time a film actually made me look at the screen sideways was Audition. The monster wasn't too gross, too computerized, too inhuman, too scary, it was just the perfect balance of everything a horror film needs to be.

Some of the plot points are a little hackneyed which takes this film from a perfect score, but it came damn close.

****.5 out of *****

Movie Review: Iron Man 2

I am wearing my several years old Iron Man shirt bought off of Superherostuff.com and I realized gleefully an hour into the film that my old shirt had become the new suit model, the circle arc reactor replaced with a triangular one. So, quite incidentally, I have worn a shirt far more relevant even than those sold currently a week after the movie's release. Sadly, this did not make my enjoyment of the film increase much. I was disappointed, to be honest.

The film gets off to a rather slow start and only feels like it gets going when Terrence Howard replacement Don Cheadle appears on the scene. He commands roughly as much attention as the actor he replaced, that is to say, not very much. As we saw in the first Iron Man, Downey Jr steals the camera as well as the attention. The only problem with that here is that in the first film, we were watching the redemption of Tony Stark. This time, his awkward bipolar attention deficit disorder has nothing to remedy it, and I found it incredibly hard to route for him. I was rooting for the un-named villain captured in a very weak cage by Mickey Rourke. I know his name is Whiplash, and that's a damn good name for a villain! Why was it left out? This bothered me.

Second annoyance was Justin Hammer. Now, I'm a fan of Sam Rockwell so I'm going to lay the blame on the writing here. Was he supposed to be annoying and stupid? Probably, but this was a bit much. His masterwork weapon being a dud would've been funny if the movie's main villain were not as much of a dud. The final action scenes were uninspired, with one notable exception: Scarlett Johansson. I was expecting to hate her, and I loved her. A Russian accent would have been nice but I can chalk that up to her being incognito, or some other espionage related reason. Her action scenes were well-done, brief but not too short, and filled with the perfect balance of martial arts and high tech gadgetry. This makes me wish for a Nick Fury and his Howling Commandos film, but I know that's not going to happen.

Third annoyance was the damn Captain America shield cameo. It was thrown in, it was not funny, and the adamantium/vibranium shield looked like it was made of aluminum can remnants. If they're trying to build excitement for the Cap film, this is not how to do it.

Now, the theme of Iron Man 2 is legacy, much like the theme of Iron Man 1 was redemption, and Iron Man 2 is a sequel, which would seem to make legacies implied anyways, but whatever, that's nitpicking. Iron Man 2 does give a legacy to Iron Man 1, but it isn't what it deserved. Sure, there are a few moments of downright badassery, but they were few and far between. While the first film was carried on Tony's shoulders, this film survives only on the strength of the supporting cast. Cheadle is boring but at least he's not Stark. Happy is wonderful. Pepper is easy to sympathize with and frankly, adorable. Nick Fury is Samuel L. Jackson, which is enough. Natasha Romanoff is more entertaining than anyone else in the film, and I'm not saying that for her appearance.

The jokes are few, and not that funny. The action is watchable, but not really at that level of cinema awesome that makes something timeless. The drama seems phoned in. It may be that I'm being a tad bit harsh towards that film, but the first film was really, really good! If this film is about legacy, it isn't very much of one for its predecessor.

*** out of *****

P.S. The after credits scene was more satisfying than the entire film. I'm looking forward to Thor.

Charitable Events I believe should exist

Occasionally, ideas come to me that I would like to talk about, but until the advent of the blog I did not have the forum to express them effectively. But now I can. This is one of those times. May I present to you, Charitable Events I believe should exist, but probably don't. I can't be bothered to actually research any of them.

The Arthritis walk

Home run contest to support Lou Gehrig's disease.

Spelling Bee for Dyslexia

Dodgeball benefit for Landmine survivors

Kickboxing for quadruple amputees

Hockey for the frostbitten

MADD Drinking contests

ASPCA Cockfighting

Pie Eating contest to support sufferers of Bulimia

Mountain Climbing towards a cure for Acrophobia

Biathlon for bipolar disorder

Cheerleading for low self-esteem

And finally

Horse Racing for the cure for beastiality.

Movie Review: Alice in Wonderland

I've just walked in fresh from viewing this film in that glorious Avatar 3D. One problem: Avatar, despite its many, many problems, was designed to make use of the 3D technology, and seeing it in anything other than its desired format detracts from the experience, like watching a cinema film on an ipod. Or watching Space Ghost in an IMAX theater. Alice in Wonderland suffers from the opposite problem. 3D is chic right now, and there are no less than 3 movies I'm aware of opening soon, touting their 3D as amazing and as if it were a reason to see the film. Alice in Wonderland did not need to be made in 3D. It's Alice in freaking Wonderland, it survives on the strength of its story. Or, it should have in this case.

That's not to say I disliked this film as much as I utterly despised Avatar, far from it. This film is mediocre to good, but it should have been much more. Its stars, Johnny Depp as the Mad Hatter and Mia Wasikowska as Alice, are both acceptable but nothing to write home about. Depp's performance was particularly underwhelming, an unwelcome surprise. His crazy portrayal of Jack Sparrow as seen in Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End was much more convincing and endearing. The audience is expected to immediately sympathize with the character, or perhaps to sympathize with Depp under all that make up, but he just comes off as run of the mill. And Wasikowska was just weak. She showed no strength in any way, and I was thoroughly disappointed.

The story itself is the original book, thrown into a blender with American Mcgee's Alice, turned into a milkshake with sprinklings of Disney nostalgia, then drank by Tim Burton and pissed out into a theater near you. The plucky and unique female protagonist runs away from her Victorian world of imposed marriage and corsets into a fantastical world where she can really make a difference and oh who cares anymore you're not watching the film for a gripping story. We all know it already. If you've caught the old movie on TV or read the summary on wikipedia of the book you're over prepared.

Now, "what's good?," you may ask. Well, a few things. Helena Bonham Carter is resplendent as usual, and her queen of hearts is precise and critical. Then again, I never have found a reason to speak ill of her in a film, even a film I hate. A welcome surprise is Crispin Glover as Stayne the knave of hearts. His animation made him move in an artificial kind of lanky way that was distracting and irritating, but I'm not completely sure it wasn't supposed to be. But Glover, as usual, was a welcome treat to the cast. As was Stephen Fry's Chesire Cat. Christopher Lee makes his required appearance (seeing as it is a Tim Burton movie and all) voicing the Jabberwocky. It doesn't not work, but that's as much as I'll give it. Alan Rickman's blue caterpillar is fitting, but not much else.

Danny Elfman's music was great for this film. I forget whether it was Alice in Wonderland, Beetlejuice, Edward Scissorhands, Sleepy Hollow, Planet of the Apes, Darkman, Batman, Batman Returns, Corpse Bride, or Charlie and the Chocolate Factory that I was watching. But...whichever it was, I'm sure it was dark and fitting, and unique.

This isn't really a bad movie. But what it is is a shallow re-imagining that simply didn't need to be made. Like Burton's Planet of the Apes, I left the theater feeling underwhelmed, and though not totally annoyed, feeling rather empty and vapid much like what had been projected on screen. I'm left looking for the point of it all. I didn't feel like I'd gone on a drug trip, I didn't feel like I'd just watched a shitty movie, I just felt nothing. I'd say you get what you pay for but the 3D tickets were $12.00 apiece, which equates to highway robbery in this case. Honestly I was left feeling more unsettled watching the 1903 version of the film then I was here. Save your money, skip this one.

P.S. The trailer for TRON: Legacy which preceded this film was amazing, if not worth the $12.00 or sitting through the film. But if you're a big enough fan, you'll do it anyways. I sat through Robots just for the Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith trailer a few years back. Shitty film, but the fanboy in me still says it was worth it.

The capacity to cry

Steven called me a little earlier today. Told me to go pick up my grandmother. She was on the floor crying. She didn't want my parents to know. Is she ashamed, or embarrassed, or scared? I'm not really sure which emotion motivated her to shun my parents' help, albeit temporarily, but regardless, I went upstairs to help.

She was on the floor in a kind of half sitting half lying down posture. I think it took all her strength to get that far upright. She was holding the phone. It was making that constant "beep beep" noise of a receiver too long off its cradle. I feel like I haven't heard that noise in ages, since cell phones lack it. She was crying, lightly. I took the phone from her hand and replaced it on the base. I lifted her up and placed her on the bed. She cried harder when I helped her. She said something, said a lot of things, and a lot I had to help her finish with. Words on the tip of her tongue. I could guess from context until she nodded in affirmation. I helped her pull her clothes on correctly, got her under a blanket, and held her in the bed. It sounds cliche, but that scene from the book we all had as kids. "Love You Forever" by Robert Munsch. The scene at the end.

One thing I could make out clearly. She said to me, through tears, "I just wanna die." Something is so heartbreaking about your first grandchild helping you dress and cradling you, that she cried harder. I understand that distress. I cannot fathom it in feeling, but I understand it.

Her bones are brittle and break often. Her muscles are weak. Her skin is too pliable. Nerve damage from an old surgery robbed her of some nerve connections, so her weakened state is brought to further levels of immobility. She's having trouble finding words and names. But despite everything that is failing or has already failed, her eyes are wise and witty and alive and delicate. And she can cry with the strength of anyone on earth. It is cruel that we can continue to cry, even after we cannot remember why were doing it anymore.

To Whom It May Concern

Today there was some...unpleasantness. I'm not going to talk about it in detail, because I have been wisely advised not to. However, I do feel the need to set certain things straight.

There was never a time in my life where I have been happy that Katie Keenan was unhappy. It's true that I ended it, and at the time I thought I had done the right thing, for both of us, and in time I came to regret the decision. Were you to ask anyone in my life how I was at the time, I wasn't exactly jubilant about the entire situation. In fact, I was cutting, I was crying constantly, and I was borderline suicidal. I came out of it, but months later I still loved her. I never stopped loving her, not for a second. I thought her only chance for happiness was to live without me, and I remained despondent over her...well, until she came back into my life. My closest friend, Darien, urged me to take the shot with her because every time I bitched about being lonely and he gave me some variant of the "plenty of fish in the sea" argument I'd respond with the assertion that I had my one catch, and to compare them to her, I'd reel in nothing but old boots. I know I did wrong. I don't forget for a second that I hurt her, and that I don't deserve her, but she has forgiven me, and we're together, and I don't think I've ever been happier in my life. She's wonderful, she's amazing, she's everything I could ever ask for. She makes life worth living. I haven't forgiven myself for being such a fool, but she has. Part of me still hates myself for ever dreaming to cause her pain. Part of me always will, probably. But she's forgiven me. My one treasure in life, my Lois Lane, my Gwen Stacy, my Black Canary, my Linda Park, my Carol Ferris, you name it. She's let me back into her life, and whether or not people hate me for loving her, or hate me for being with her, or hate me for just being alive, I'm never, ever, going to stop loving her for a second. I loved her when I met her, I loved her when I was a stupid child and proposed, I loved her when I ended it, I loved her as she hated me, I loved her when she let me speak to her again, I loved her when I met her again, almost a year later, for coffee. I love her now. I'm never, ever, going to stop loving her. There's nothing in this world that can stop me. So you can hate me, but it won't stop me loving her, not now, not ever.

Movie Review: AVATAR

There have been few films this year that reached the excitement level of James Cameron's latest creation, Avatar. With the possible exception of Paranormal Activity, nothing else has been so advertised and additionally so well reviewed. But as I am not among the metaphorical lemmings of film review, I will place this picture firmly in the refuse bin where it clearly belongs.

I don't know where to begin with this one. The characters seem to be the weakest of the weak, so I'll start there. Our protagonist is the instantly unlikeable Jake Sully, just barely portrayed by Sam Worthington, much like his wooden performance in Terminator Salvation. Despite his status as a paraplegic cheaply employed to invoke sympathy, he's impossible to root for as he chooses the clearly evil side, and switches so late in the movie that you no longer care. The entire human cast, with the notable exception of Sigourney Weaver who should not have to sink to this level for a paycheck, the entire human cast is cookie cutter and performed as so. Stephen Lang portrays the colonel, borrowing so heavily from R. Lee Ermey's repertoire that it was insulting. Despite my inner trekkie wanting to defend Saldana, the character just wasn't written well enough for her to give anything other than a painfully average performance. Every character reads like it was crafted based on George Lucas's dogeared copies of old Joseph Campbell books. No originality or individuality.

Now for the story. If you don't see the twist ending from the trailers, you need to return to class, because nappy time ended hours ago. No, I won't hold your hand. Get the hell out of here. Yes, Jake Sully changes sides. No, it doesn't make any difference to the story. There are some other little side characters like a bumbling sidekick and a strong female helicopter pilot but no one cares. Same crap. The movie is admittedly creative and innovative on paper, but on screen its boring and predictable. The story can't decide if its magic based or science based, and it firmly drops itself in a foggy middle ground where nothing, even the smallest details, is ever decided upon. The magic is biological. no, wait, it's spiritual. no, wait, it's geological. James Cameron, pick a side. If it's magic and science, that's fine too, just tell us that! On the list of crazy things that needed to be explained for me to be able to watch this film:

Floating Mountains? What?! Is it based on some inner magnetism,? Perhaps the celestial being Pandora (yes, the planets name is Pandora) is orbiting is magnetically charged against Pandora's core? Is it literally a mountain floating, like an iceberg? Is it merely top heavy and appears to float?

The alien's ponytails contained an inner cluster of nerves that could become attached to other creatures and plants and whatnot to create a form of telepathic link. Weak or not, this is clearly a direct path to the brain, like the brain-stem on humans. They used it to create a sort of symbiotic relationship with local animals, though what the animals get out of it, if anything, was unclear. And it's located...outside the body. On the back of the head. So...perhaps the most vulnerable point on your body is positioned on the back of your head, out of eyesight, and its protected not by bone, or skin, but a knot of hair. Why did we need guns to kill these things again? I'm fairly sure a team of 20 guys with hatchets could have decimated their entire population. Or 10 guys with chainsaws. Or 1 ninja.

Unobtanium. Not lying to you, that's the name of the "precious metal" the bad guys are mining for. What it does or who in the geological community allowed it to be named something so preposterous is unclear. It's apparently in the heaviest deposit under the native's sacred tree or some crap. No one cares, it's all just plot convenience placement without logic or reason. It could be related to the telepathy thing, but who knows? And so they have to expend massive amounts of explosives and men to destroy the tree, clear it out, and mine under it. You know, instead of just tunneling to it like sane people would. How do they expect to mine after they blow up the tree? They going to blow it up...more? Until the tree is exploded to somewhere else? It's a colossal tree! They better have a damn good clean up crew in that marine battalion, as well as a mining crew. I mean, I never saw any mining equipment, and only one bulldozer. At one point they said they were going to use daisy cutters to destroy the tree. I would have loved to see that, would've made the movie a lot longer since the tree was the size of numerous skyscrapers and daisy cutters were "designed to create an instant clearing in the jungles of Vietnam."

The overall message is the big one though. Avatar's underlying message is an anti-capitalist green endorsement to love your planet and protect it at all costs. The main bad guy is the living embodiment of corporate greed, and the military, which is basically the same thing. It appeared to be the marines, but seeing as most of the military men at the end appeared to be in their early 30's to late 40's, maybe there were mercenaries there too. Who knows? But the film cost somewhere between "$280–310 million to produce and $150 million for marketing." So, its entire message is rendered null and void by the creation of the movie itself.

James Cameron, go to hell.