Originally Reviewed – 9/13/2012

Before I take a look at my latest Review My Collection installment, let’s take a trip to early nineties. Disney was the toast of the animated world with a series of films I call “The Disney Four”. In order, the big D sent The Little Mermaid (1989), Beauty and the Beast (1991), the subject of this review and The Lion King (1994) to theaters and each film is regarded by many to be classics (with exception of Mermaid, but that’s a conversation for another day). Aladdin was the third film in The Disney Four and while it doesn’t reach the heights of the one that came before or after, it’s a solidly entertaining piece of animation that still holds up in modern day viewings.

Framed in the setting of Arabian sultans and princess, Aladdin is the story of a young street urchin, a persnickety princess and a wisecracking genie. Aladdin and his faithful primate Abu are having a grand old time in Agrabah. Ducking guards, stealing apples and singing showtunes, life is rough but free-wheeling for the pair of pals. On the other side of the palace wall sits Princess Jasmine, a privileged yet imprisoned aristocrat who bemoans her station in life, especially the parade of potential husbands who come a-courting. According to law, she has to marry a prince but none of them spark the flame of independence that’s smoldering inside her. Further complicating matters is the nefarious, pencil mustached advisor Jafar who looks to gain political advantage from Jasmine’s indecision. How you ask? An ordinary lamp containing the cartoon embodiment of Robin Williams.

From the outset, everything seems in place for an early nineties Disney movie. Toe tapping tunes? Check. An off center setting that leaves plenty of room for creative license? Check. A romance that supports the underlying theme of acceptance despite cultural and sociological differences? Double check. Aladdin is an easily likeable protagonist, his monkey buddy provides some physical comedy and the villain, alongside the voice of Gilbert Godfrey as his parrot sidekick Iago, is evil enough to give the feature some genuine tension. The pieces all work to provide a very enjoyable if inoffensive joyride through the Arabian nights.

The real star of the film is Robin Williams as the free wheeling Genie. While I’m not the biggest fan of the comedian, he’s a fine actor and lifts the film with some genuine laughs. Most of the characters in Aladdin can be kindly described as vanilla but Williams, with a nice combination of improv and good writing, gives the movie a jolt of energy. Unfortunately, Disney was still in that strange period where female protagonists were still stuck in the castle tower. This is prevalent here with Jasmine, a vapid and almost annoying character who whines her way through the feature. If it weren’t for the great music and the likeability of Aladdin balancing out the privileged princess, the twosome may have sunk the entire feature.

Luckily, this not the case. While not on the level of either Beauty and the Beast or the best film in the foursome, The Lion King, Aladdin satisfies its intended audience with great animation, exciting action and the requisite love story Disney fans crave. Mostly by the numbers in terms of storytelling and characters, the over the top Genie gives the feature a distinct flavor that stills holds up today. A fun filled adventure for all ages.

Score – 80%

Originally Reviewed – 9/2/2010

When the phrase “Oscar nominated actor” comes up, Russell Crowe isn’t the first name that springs to mind. But in a three year span from 1999 to 2001, the New Zealand born actor was the most decorated performer in Hollywood. The Insider gave him his first Oscar nomination for Best Actor, the new millennium saw him win the award for his starring role in Gladiator and one year later, he completed the nomination trifecta with his brilliant portrayal of mathematician John Nash in Ron Howard’s A Beautiful Mind. While many critics derided the film for its lack of historical accuracy, the fine acting, excellent script and heart-wrenching story makes it a success on nearly every level.

The film centers around the sorta-true life story of mathematician John Nash. The script follows Nash as he progresses from an eccentric Princeton graduate student searching for an original idea to his work with the government cracking codes. He’s got a girl, a gig and limitless potential. All seems well in the life of the genius until the world he believes to be true comes crashing down around him. If I seem hesitant to do a plot synopsis, there’s good reason for that. Much of the film’s tension lies in a mid movie reveal that turns the entire story on its head. Suffice to say, this is a film that must be watched twice if only to capture the little hints and nods to the second act twist. Much of the film’s success lies in its ability to surprise, a rarity in the usual staid biopic genre.

But the movie isn’t all shocking reveals and plot twists. The core of the experience lies in the very realistic love story between Nash and his wife Alicia (Jennifer Connelly). Taking home a well deserved Best Actress Oscar for the role, Connelly is brilliant as the romantic interest. Rather than hot passion, Connelly’s character serves as Nash’s support system through the tough times in his life. The film is a bit of a brain bender and the choice to soften the experience with a genuine love story is a smart and effective one.

Naturally, when doing a film of this nature the toughest task goes to the lead. The line between parody and impersonation is a fine tightrope. Teeter either way and the film falls apart. Russell Crowe avoids this by balancing the mannerisms of the real John Nash with some strong character work, allowing him to absolutely disappear in the role. The Oscar winning makeup certainly helps in creating the illusion but it would just be fancy latex without the great acting by Crowe. The rest of the cast perfectly complements the principals, including fine work by Paul Bettany as Nash’s friend Charles and the always reliable Ed Harris as Department of Defense agent William Parcher.

The main detraction most reviewers found with this movie in the large historical inaccuracies between the real life John Nash and the fictitious character. Remember all that talk about the realistic love story and his Fascism defeating code cracking? Fictitious. Biopics generally pride themselves in presenting their subjects in a realistic light, but A Beautiful Mind takes great liberties with the true story of John Nash. While purists may find these revisions almost offensive, I found the film conveyed the nature of his struggles in a visual and artful way, even if the specifics are largely manufactured. Think of it as sacrificing accuracy for the greater emotional good. If you want to learn about the real John Nash, rent the excellent PBS documentary A Beautiful Madness.

While many of the film’s elements were invented to enhance the drama, the drama itself is excellent and well worth a watch. The movie theater is where I go to get swept away and in that respect, A Beautiful Mind does just that. Combining a fantastic ensemble cast, some amazing effects and more surprises than one would expect from a “standard biopic”, Ron Howard’s portrait of a burdened genius stirs the soul with a powerful yet hopeful message of triumph in the face of adversity. Winner of four Academy awards including Best Picture, A Beautiful Mind may not be 100% accurate in its storytelling but it captures the spirit of an inspirational person better than any biopic could ever hope for.

Score – 90%

Originally Reviewed – 8/12/2012

As much as I love a silly Wes Anderson flick in the middle of summer blockbuster mayhem, eventually the Batman comes knocking.

This summer, there’s no escaping the Caped Crusader. After a successful first installment and its game changing sequel, Christopher Nolan’s Dark Knight trilogy has reached mass awareness, reminding me of that fateful Summer of the Bat from 23 years ago. Much like the original 1989 feature, even if you don’t know a thing about the Man in Black, you know about this film. Online, on TV and around the water cooler, anticipation and expectations have been sky high. Could the film possibly best the standard set by its predecessor? Probably not. The second act is always the most interesting part of any story and the new Batman franchise is no exception. But is it a good ending to the story? Absolutely. Not only is The Dark Knight Rises a near perfect finale to the greatest superhero series ever put to film, it’s an expertly made and thoroughly satisfying piece of pop cinema.

Where Begins told the origin story and The Dark Knight cemented Batman as an anti-hero, this film starts on a very different tone. Taking place eight years after film number two, things have never been better in Gotham City. Crime is at an all time low and while the rest of the city basks in their newfound safety, Bruce Wayne has nothing to do but be a Howard Hughes style recluse. Remember it’s been four real years since we’ve seen Bruce Wayne on the silver screen, so to see him as a hobbling hermit is a shocking reintroduction to the classic character. The opening Bane / plane dropping set piece is only the action prelude the producers and fanboys crave. The real beginning is Bruce Wayne with a cane and this sets the tone for a slow but very important opening third of the film.

In fact, the opening of Rises makes one thing very clear. This is NOT a Batman movie. Begins was Batman’s origin story, important in getting the Schumacher taste out of our mouths. The second was Batman doing Batman things against Batman villains. Joker was the driving force and to combat him, Batman had to be the Batman we all remember from countless movies and comics. The latest film is most certainly a Bruce Wayne movie. Nolan realizes that Batman is just the by-product of Bruce Wayne’s scarred psyche and instead of rehashing the previous movies, takes the dangerous route of resolving a character we’ve never seen fully resolved in any Batman media. This gives Christian Bale free reign to give his finest performance in the series. It was a risk but the slow build of the opening 45 minutes paves the way for an interesting and satisfying resolution of Bruce Wayne and by association, the Batman character.

Of course, this isn’t Masterpiece Theater we’re talking about. There are still plenty of eye popping set pieces that look glorious, especially in IMAX. Many of the good bits have been spoiled in the trailers, but it matters little when seen on the big screen. My only gripe with the action is that it has very little of the Batman flavor to it. Where The Dark Knight had aerial stunts and hand to hand ass whooping, the action in Rises is limited mostly to car chases and a giant airborne machine called “The Bat”. The action has a mechanical feel to it and while Batman does square off in the usual “two guys attack while the rest wait their turn” style, the result seems watered down. While it all makes thematic sense, the action seems less visceral than the previous films. Also troubling is Nolan’s uninspired vision and design of Gotham City. Let’s face it. Gotham is any big city in America and instead of the heightened visuals of the Burton features, Nolan’s Gotham is drab, boring and uninteresting.

But there’s more to Batman than cowls, gadgets and that tank he cruises around in. Batman has always been as good as the people around him and the supporting cast of Rises works in varying degrees. As I’ve said in previous reviews, Christopher Nolan is all about theme and the periphery characters in Rises all do a fine job in supporting that theme and moving the story along. The main villain is Bane (Tom Hardy), a mask wearing terror monger who threatens Gotham. While not on the level of The Joker, Bane is a perfectly suitable villain, even if you can’t understand half of what he’s saying. To further complicate Batman’s life is the mysterious jewel thief Selena Kyle (Anne Hathaway). Hathaway does a very nice job in the Cat Suit, despite her character having little development in the script. In fact, every outside character has little reason to be there except to the serve the story. From Joseph Gordon-Levitt’s “always there in the nick of time” do-gooder cop to Marion Cotillard’s environmental activist, the actors all do well in the roles given, but they never seems like real people. More like pawns moving the story to an incredibly satisfying conclusion, the supporting cast of Rises never gets more than lines to say, making the obligatory alliances and romantic collusions come off forced and unbelievable.

In thinking back on this film, I’m reminded of a conversation I had with my uncle. After seeing this movie, he put together a laundry list of things that didn’t work or make sense and e-mailed them to a big time Batman fan. His friend’s answer to each complaint? “It’s Batman.” To me, that’s a cop out, much like when defenders of the Star Wars prequels shrug and say, “It’s the work of The Force”. The answers to a films giant plot holes can’t be resolved by a mystical macguffin. It’s just the result of sloppy writing. But when I think back to my experience with The Dark Knight Rises, my complaints can be answered in a similar way: “Who cares.” Despite my nagging issues with the final stanza in the Nolan Batman series, the result is still an entertaining and fascinating finale to the greatest superhero series ever made. Even with the sugar coated ending, I left the theater smiling, fully satisfied with a well told, well acted story. It may not be the revelation The Dark Knight was, but Rises is a fantastic ending to an epic saga.

Score – 85%

Originally Reviewed – 8/1/2012

The evening I saw the latest film from director Wes Anderson was a chaotic one. New York is normally a swirling den of noise and nonsense but this particular day was madness. The subway to work was crowded, the bus home was worse and when 6:00 rolled around, my mind was spinning. My plan for that evening was to see a movie, get back in the groove of weekly viewings and reviews. The Dark Knight would have been an obvious choice but I couldn’t handle more noise, regardless of the good reviews and the thousands of people standing outside the AMC on 34th St. My solution? A quirky and quiet film made by the director of Rushmore, The Royal Tenenbaums and the Fantastic Mr. Fox. My decision to eschew the bombast of the blockbusters proved to be a good one. Not only is Wes Anderson’s Moonrise Kingdom one of the finest films the director has ever made, it’s one of the best movies of the year and should be a slam dunk addition to my Best of 2012 list come December.

The world of Moonrise Kingdom is set on the idyllic New England island of New Penzance. Here we meet the usual cast of quirky Wes Anderson characters: a local policeman (Bruce Willis), a troop of Khaki Scouts headed by the no nonsense Scout Master Ward (Edward Norton) and the Bishop family including lawyers Walt (Bill Murray), Laura (Frances McDormand) and their four children. Like many of Anderson’s early films, these characters are complex, interesting and charmingly off center. Anderson excels at creating surreal worlds that are familiar enough for audiences to relate to but just foreign enough to give them their own flavor. Moonrise Kingdom is the best example of this dichotomy since Rushmore and as a result, shines the brightest among the director most recent efforts.

The central drive of the story is one of love in the face of all odds, a common theme in a Wes Anderson picture. This time around it’s the awkward yet endearing joining of two young people, Suzy (Kara Hayward), the book obsessed eldest daughter of the Bishop family and Sam Shakusky (Jared Gilman), a runaway Khaki Scout. Together, they go on an adventure that ruffles the feathers of the entire town. The pair travels over trails, dances awkwardly and shares moments over their beach swept campsite. Anderson has an uncanny knack for making his underage stars more adult than the grownups, and Moonrise Kingdom does a wonderful job doing just that. One could make the argument that the further Anderson has strayed from having children at the center of his films, the worse they have become. Luckily for long time fans, Moonrise Kingdom has no such issue as the film’s stars do most of the heavy lifting and pull it off beautifully.

The film is also one of the best looking movies the director has ever produced. Each shot is meticulously framed and executed, all with Anderson’s signature slant. The cinematography reminds the audience of reading a picture book in the way they’re presented and further lends authenticity to the lighthearted yet emotionally involving story. The comedy is perfectly balanced with the drama, and everything is fine tuned to a near perfect shine. I didn’t even mind the strange cadence the cast spoke in. While sometimes it was hard to make out what exactly they were saying, it further enhanced the mood of the island being a familiar yet very different place.

If you’re like me, you get wrapped up in movies. The bad ones may itch like Grandma’s sweater but the good ones soften your heart like a warm Snuggie. Regardless of the feel, I’m the type of person that likes to get entwined in the story on screen. After watching Moonrise Kingdom, my walk home in the madhouse city seemed a little lighter and easier to bear. Wes Anderson’s latest film may be one of his more accessible features but that doesn’t mean it’s any less like curling up with a good fairytale next to a roaring bonfire. Featuring a great story, simple yet involving performances and a sense of joy I haven’t felt since last year’s Hugo, Moonrise Kingdom is a triumphant combination of style and cinema. Destined to rank as one of my favorite film of the year, Wes Anderson’s latest movie is a return to form that fans, causal and hardcore alike, cannot afford to miss out on.

Score – 100%

Originally Reviewed – 7/21/2012

When Batman Begins hit theaters, it was a revelation. Dark, gritty and visceral, the Caped Crusader had made a grand return to the silver screen and fans like me loved it. As soon as the credits rolled on the initial film in the Nolan trilogy, I wanted more. The only reservation I had was in the movie’s final frame, the one where the sequel’s villain was revealed. Joker. I remember thinking how could they possibly do another Joker. Jack Nicholson was Joker and even if they found a suitable replacement, how could Batman theatrically stand up to such a strong character. My fears, as everybody on the face of the planet knows by now, were unfounded. Not only did The Dark Knight exceed the original film in storytelling, action and grandeur, it’s one of the finest superhero movies ever made. In fact, in re-watching it for what seems like the 1000th time for this review, I hesitate to call it a superhero movie at all.

Much like the first movie in the new series, The Dark Knight revolves around a central theme. This time around, it’s idea of anarchy balancing order. Much like the ying and the yang, one cannot exist without the other. And what better way to illustrate that point? Have a maniacal clown (Heath Ledger) spin chaos in the streets of Gotham. Hot on his tail is the new district attorney, Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckhart), Lieutenant Jim Gordon (Gary Oldman) and the Man in Black himself (Christian Bale). Everything in the second film is bigger and more grandiose than it was in the original. The action is better paced, the role of Rachel Dawes was replaced by a better actress (Maggie Gyllenhaal) and there even more Lucius Fox (Morgan Freeman). And let’s be honest. More Morgan Freeman is always a good thing.

Bale once again cements himself as this generation’s Batman, even though his character has less of an impact than he did in Begins. Batman is still an easy character to root for but the story of TDK runs into the classic, “the villain is more interesting” trap. Heath Ledger’s Joker, a role he won a posthumous Academy Award for, is fascinating and terrifying. While many fans latched onto the Nicholson / Ledger debate, I remain Switzerland in my opinions. The two did very different interpretations of the character, making a side by side comparison near impossible. Nicholson’s Joker was more fun, Ledger’s was more controlled and interesting, thanks to a fantastic script by David S. Goyer. In the end, Ledger’s Joker stole nearly every scene he while it does come off a little over the top at points, it’s the Joker. He’s allowed to be a little unhinged.

The rest of the cast follows the exact same beats, thanks to the fine direction of Christopher Nolan. The film is visually spectacular, with more involving action sequences, clever nods to the first film and the further development of the Batman character. This time around, the hero doesn’t always triumph and like any good “second act” movie should do, sets a dank and almost depressing tone for the third installment. Nolan’s direction is much more focused this time around but the screenplay is so jam packed, the film feels much longer than its 152 minutes. Other minor issues include pacing problems in the third act and a Dawes / Wayne / Dent triangle that provide little tension but when my internal critic starts yammering, there’s another jaw dropping set piece to shut it up.

At this point in the review, I have little else to say that hasn’t already been said. The new film opened this weekend, critics are going nuts for it and releasing a Dark Knight critique may be like throwing a coconut into a pack of feeding animals. I doubt they’d have any interest. Much like the final image of Batman riding into the night, The Dark Knight is all about looking forward to the final feature, a film that would take 4 years to eventually reach us. It stands alone as one of the best superhero movies ever made, but the film’s real success is going to depend on how well the Jedi of the trilogy maintains that momentum. As is, The Dark Knight is a gripping, fun filled and chaotic ride that gives us more insight into the Man in Black than any other feature to date. Batman’s second modern day adventure is the archetype for modern superhero movies, giving the most cinematic comic character in existence the series he deserves. The third and final movie awaits and I doubt it will disappoint.

Score – 90%

Originally Reviewed – 7/9/2012

Ten years after the critical and commercial failure that was Batman and Robin, Warner Bros. handed over the shattered franchise to writer Davis S. Goyer (Blade) and relatively unknown English director Christopher Nolan. Known mostly for psychological thrillers like the impressive Memento and Insomnia, Nolan had critical cred but had never helmed a large production. Undaunted, Nolan sought to return the franchise to the darker, more personal tone of the original comic book vision. The result is a return to form for the Caped Crusader and while the film isn’t without fault and missteps, anything was going to be better than the Schumacher disaster. Seriously. Anything.

Doing what no film had successfully done before, Batman Begins is the true origin story of the Dark Knight. Starting with the death of his parents to his self imposed exile into the dregs of criminality, Bruce Wayne isn’t the smiling billionaire every other Batman film painted him to be. Wild, manic and out of control, Wayne finds direction in the tutelage of Ducard (Liam Neeson), a member of the League of Shadows. Here, Wayne hones his natural abilities and learns the ways of the ninja, a precursor to the crime fighting techniques inherent in the comic book Batman character. This sequence, which comprises of about 45 minutes of screen time, is interesting as an explanation of Batman’s skill set but doesn’t feel like a true Batman movie. As a result, the tone of the movie shifts in sometimes jarring ways as the movie transitions from the kung fu setup of the first third to familiar Gotham in the second.

Here is where we get a well rounded and more familiar Bruce Wayne. The setups of how he comes about his gear and gadgets are some of the best bits of the film, buoyed by the great work of Morgan Freeman as Wayne Enterprises scientist, Lucius Fox. Rather than the standard “super villain makes a mess” approach, Nolan’s Gotham is overrun by the mob, headed up by gangster Carmine Falcone (Tom Wilkinson). Of course, this wouldn’t be a Batman film without over the top villainy but here is where the film makes its biggest misstep. The bad guys include a mad psychologist who calls himself Scarecrow (Cillian Murphy) and the mysterious Ra’s al Ghul. Scarecrow has the potential to be an entertaining and interesting villain but his limited screen time weakens the potential of the character. Ra’s al Ghul has the opposite problem. Despite many minutes of developments and plot twists, the character doesn’t do much of anything other than shout orders and exposition. For the first time in the film history of Batman, the villains take a back seat to the Dark Knight and while the character of Batman is helped greatly by this shift, the clashes lose something in the change.

That said, everything in the film sticks to the main theme, something that Nolan has done well as a filmmaker, sometimes to a fault. Underlying idea of becoming your fear in order to conquer it is well established and makes for an interesting experience. Luckily for Joe Shmoe filmgoers, there’s some fine action as well, highlighted by a heart stopping chase sequence in which Batman pilots a high speed tank called the Tumbler through the streets and rooftops of Gotham City. The hand to hand combat, a staple of the Batman character, is visceral yet flawed due to some ill advised “shaky cam” that pushes the envelope so far, I felt the need for a dose of Dramamine to counteract the effects.

Anyone who hasn’t seen this film is wondering one thing. How did Christian Bale do as the title character. Simply put, Bale’s Batman ranks second only to Michael Keaton’s original interpretation. Before fans of the new series label me as an old “fuddy duddy”, let me explain. Keaton’s Batman was the perfect expression of the duality of Batman. Bumbling billionaire by day, ass kicking vigilante by night, Keaton expressed the two sides of the character almost perfectly. Bale’s Batman does a great job of being “on theme” with the movie, but I found his “Back in Gotham” Bruce Wayne to be too cool and over the top. In this most recent viewing, I realized exactly by Bruce overcompensated when he’s not in the cowl and cape, but it doesn’t make the experience that less jarring. I will say that Christian Bale is easily the most electrifying action Batman, using his full physique to intimidate thugs and battle baddies. And no, I’m not going to make fun of Bale’s “Batman voice.” Despite how many jokes have been made at his expense, it works given the context of his training and approach to dealing justice.

When you boil it down to the prime components, Batman Begins is a true return to form for DC’s flagship franchise. Batman has always been the most cinematic of all comic book characters and Nolan’s dark, gritty and realistic depiction works as both fan service and a modern cinema hero. The essence of Batman is the story of a man trying to live up to his father’s legacy while conquering his own fears and Christopher Nolan captures this nicely in his first stab at the classic character. Despite some pacing issues and a pair of lackluster villains, Batman Begins hits on both the action and drama fronts, setting the table nicely for a new series for a new generation. Schumacher’s stain on the Batman name was forgotten forever once this film came out in the summer of 2005. And you know the best thing about this movie? Without it, we wouldn’t have the sequel, 2008’s The Dark Knight. Worth every minute just for that.

Score – 80%

Originally Reviewed – 7/3/2012

Ever since Prometheus was released in North America on June 8th, there’s been a swarm of conflicting opinions. Some hail the movie as an intelligent return to true science fiction and others call it a twisting, turning mess that asks a ton of questions with very few answers. Some moviegoers have gone so far to say it’s as bad as the Phantom Menace and a disgrace to the Alien franchise it may or may not be rebooting. From my perspective, these people are expecting way too much from Ridley Scott’s return to the sci-fi genre. Prometheus is an exquisitely made film full of excitement and intrigue, despite some story pitfalls and mistakes that have left many a fanboy weeping in their Cheerios.

The tale revolves around two archeologists, Elizabeth Shaw (Noomi Rapace) and Charlie Holloway (Logan Marshall-Green) who discover repeated circle patterns in remote cave paintings. There’s only one galaxy in the known universe where the planets are arranged in the exact same fashion, so what do they do? Get the backing of a major corporation and take a team of scientists on a 2 year journey to the remote cluster of planets. While traveling in hibernation, the ship is run by David (Michael Fassbender), a humanoid robot thing that watches films, plays bicycle basketball and reads the sleeping crew’s dreams. At the end of the journey, the team wakes up to find themselves two years older and ready to embark on a unique expedition. Their goal? Nobody knows.

From the opening image of the film, Prometheus takes great pains to ask a number of questions. These quandaries revolve around the nature of creation, humanities place in the universe and the never ending search for truth. These themes are fascinating and bring you deeper into the mystery of the crew and the strange planet they find themselves on. As a couple of reviewers have said, Prometheus is a true science fiction film. Not sci-fi-fantasy-action or a dramadey set in space. This is sci-fi at its most genuine, a genre that’s always been about the search for answers beyond our world and abstractions of our basic reality. While the movie doesn’t end on the most satisfying note (more on that later), the ride it takes is one of fascinating intrigue.

Of course, some beautiful visuals help things along. Cinematographer Dariusz Wolski graces the screen with an alien world that looks natural and real. Everything in the film looks as though it was plucked from an alien archive. The technology all makes sense, the far off vistas are immaculate and the entire film is coated with a polish that’s hard to deride. Scott also uses the beautiful setting to create some genuine tension and fear for the well chosen cast. Michael Fassbender is the true star of the film, creating an unreliable character that is likable and terrifying in equal measure. Rapace is well suited to play the female scientist, despite her spending much of the film screaming and quivering, as should be expected in a Ridley Scott directed alien movie. The rest of the cast ranges from perfectly suitable (Marshall-Green as the other scientist) to downright horrendous (Charlize Theron in a role that had no reason to even exist). Idris Elba also deserves some special praise as the ship’s captain, the only one of the quickly assembled crew of side characters to ever develop beyond simple alien food.

But if you put your ear to the wind and listen closely, you’ll still hear the whisper of science fiction fans yelling in the distance. These gripes, while excessive, are not completely unfounded. Like I mentioned earlier, the movie takes great pains to ask hard questions while never once providing concrete answers. While the nature of the film makes this palatable, what doesn’t work is the ham-fisted ending that has many sci-fi geeks flooding message boards with immutable rage. The film takes great pains to develop real tension and pacing in its first ninety minutes. The scenery is realistic, the action is well done and everything seems to building towards something. Anything. All well and good until the film spirals out of control in the final half hour. What started as a carefully paced movie with moments of terror and suspense, rockets to its conclusion in a flash of explosions, head scratching reveals and obvious fan service. None of it is terrible, but it’s disappointing to have such good pacing ruined by what looks like a hacked up script. In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that the studio stepped in during script approval and demanded it be cut to a trim two hours. It’s either that or the screenwriter (Damon Lindelof of Lost fame) did what he does best: create spine tingling intrigue only to ruin it by simply making things up as he goes along.

Despite some questionable character choices, baffling turns and an ending that moves so fast it kicks up Road Runner dust, Prometheus is an impeccably crafted and thoroughly entertaining science fiction film. Filled with intense action, moments of terror and some clever winks to the Alien franchise faithful, Prometheus will satisfy viewers who go in with tempered expectations. While this isn’t the sci-fi messiah super fans were hoping it would be, it’s still a damn good film and one of the best times you can have in theaters thus far this season. And, let’s be fair. In a summer full of shoddy Adam Sandler comedies and vampire slaying presidents, being a well made film that delivers in nearly all the ways that really matter should be more than enough for the average moviegoer.

Score – 85%

Originally Reviewed – 6/27/2012

It seems like only yesterday when I was sitting back in my cozy apartment, penning a review of Armageddon, thinking back to every time the world went kablooie. When writing that piece, I felt compelled to look back on all the occasions the world bit the big one on the silver screen. Immediately, films like 2012, The Day After Tomorrow and even oldies like the Towering Inferno sprang to mind. Floods, disease, famine and chaos usually rule these harbingers of our ultimate end, often with loud CGI explosions and disposable human characters. So when I first saw the trailer for this quirky dark comedy about the end of days, I took notice. Maybe the writer of the adorable Nick and Norah’s Infinite Playlist had something new to say regarding the inevitability of our destruction. The truth of the matter is far less interesting than the trailer suggests, but despite all of the pitfalls and issues the movie brings to the table, it still pulls out a victory in the end.

The story revolves around Dodge (Steve Carrell), a fourty-something insurance salesman who putters around his everyday life in the midst of a worldwide tragedy. An asteroid is set to collide with the Earth in three weeks, signaling the end of the world as we know it. Where’s Bruce Willis and R.E.M. when you need them? After dealing emotionally with his impending end, Dodge, along with his neighbor Penny (Keira Knightley), embarks on a journey to reunite with the love of his life. One of the film’s main strengths is in the honesty and accuracy in which it paints the final inhabitants of Earth. Everyone reacts differently. Some people party the weeks away, some commit suicide and others prepare underground bunkers. The breadth of human reaction here is poignant and interesting, painted like small short stories in the midst of the main narrative.

Unfortunately for us, we spend fleeting moments with these people in favor of the film’s downtrodden protagonist. The film takes great pains to paint Dodge as a sympathetic everyman and while he’s earnest enough, he doesn’t do much. Despite this, Carrell does a respectable job in the lead role. Funny in spurts and strangely likable, Carrell carries the film when the script and direction fall flat. Knightley, in the role of the quirky Penny, starts off grating but grows into her character as the film progresses, culminating in a few touching moments in the movie’s third act. The only problem with the pairing is the pairing itself. As a romantic couple, Carrell and Knightley never quite click. They are likable enough and good for a few laughs, but they never fully connect.

In fact, most of the film doesn’t connect until that aforementioned third act. As Dodge and Penny roll towards their destination, they come across a wide variety of heavily scripted situations. These scenes, such as a wild time in a TGI Fridays style restaurant and a humorous run in with a by the book cops, all work on their own but never connect as a cohesive narrative. What makes matters worse is how obviously pointed the script is. Aside from a few surprises, I found myself mouthing lines before they were spoken and seeing the shocking bits minutes in advance. The result is a tightly structured film that still manages to bounce along its straight line plot.

Now you may be saying to yourself, “Wow. He really didn’t like this movie. What’s with the 70%?” Despite the lack of connection with the leads, the obvious nature of the screenplay and humor that works 50% of the time, I got hooked. By the time the final third of the film rolls through, I was inexplicitly invested in the characters and the strange turn of events the Dodge and Penny find themselves in. Sure, I was reciting the lines as they said them and yeah, the film ends in a predictable fashion, but I was touched. Somehow, someway, the film wormed its way into my craggy heart and found a home. That, in itself, is a remarkable feat. Enjoyable and engaging in spite of itself, Seeking a Friend for the End of the World may not be the best film I’ll see all year but thanks to the raw talents of Carrell and Knightley, the movie stands up as a emotionally strong and brutally honest dramadey. CGI and Bruce Willis are fine and all, but I ended up enjoying this quiet interpretation of the end of all things.

Score – 70%

Originally Reviewed – 5/4/2012

Ask yourself this question: Are you a member of the Barry Lyndon club?

Along with 1999’s Eyes Wide Shut, Barry Lyndon is considered by many fans as the black sheep in the director’s storied career. When the film was first released in 1975, Kubrick was the toast of artistic Hollywood. With films like the legendary 2001: A Space Odyssey, Dr. Strangelove and A Clockwork Orange under his belt, Kubrick was known to be an eccentric yet brilliant provocateur. Capable of bringing in the bucks along with rave reviews, Warner Bros gave the director free reign on his next project. With the limitless resources of a major studio, Kubrick took a different approach with his 10th feature film and created a period drama about a rascally Irishman’s rise in social status. Quiet, haunting and beautifully shot, Barry Lyndon may not have the bombast of Kubrick’s other work but it still maintains as an important and stunning work of film art.

Barry Lyndon tracks the life and times of Redmond Barry (Ryan O’Neal), a penniless trickster who lies, swindles and worms his way into the highest circles of 18th century aristocracy. Much ado has been made of the stunning cinematography of this movie, so rather than spend word space lauding it, let me just agree. The film looks visually stunning. Using a wide variety of custom made lenses and one of the best uses of natural light in the history of cinema, Kubrick’s film is a textbook example of visual storytelling. Every shot is beautiful, well framed and perfectly realized.

Good thing, too, as you’re going to be spending a chunk of time wandering Europe with Sir Lyndon. Clocking in at three hours, Barry Lyndon may look imposing but is paced perfectly. Fans often deride this movie for being slow, but I found it flowed better than 2001: A Space Odyssey. The pacing is helped by a meaty screenplay. Barry engages in duels, fights in the Seven Years War and battles the pressures of unexpected fortune. He’s a complicated guy who lives an interesting life, and that dramatic drive propels the film better than floating spaceships and the Blue Danube.

And before you start flaming me for the 2001 dig, allow me to say that Barry Lyndon is less than perfect. This is a period piece and has all the pitfalls and problems of the genre. For every beautiful landscape you get era specific dialogue. With every pristine costume you’re handed a dry performance. Ryan O’Neal and his band of English character actors all do fine work in their respective roles, but nothing ever stands out either. There are a few moments of artistic energy but there’s little connection, something that dulls the dramatic experience.

But when a film looks and feels this good, I can forgive the minor quibbles. Barry Lyndon is not only an achievement in classic cinematography, it’s a triumph of art over expectations. Kubrick was never one to be pigeonholed, and when the world demanded another controversial epic, he responded with quiet beauty. Sometimes the best response to the roar of the crowd is a sigh and in the making of Barry Lyndon, Kubrick not only cemented his reputation as a master filmmaker, he added the wrinkle of versatility. An underrated film by one of the best directors of the modern age.

Score – 90%

Originally Reviewed – 6/7/2012

When I think back on the original series of Batman films, they all mark a personal milestone. The original film was the first PG-13 movie I ever saw, Returns was the first of that rating I saw in theaters and Forever marked my first experience with a tone shift in a beloved franchise. Each film, different for better or for worse, added another wrinkle to my cinematic psyche. The fourth film in the series, Batman and Robin, was no exception.

The theater was packed with Batman enthusiasts the day myself, my 12 year old brother and my dad sat down to see Joel Schumacher’s second franchise movie. The film opened as expected, with the requisite Bat Butts, codpieces and cheesy one liners. Problem was, nothing looked like Batman. Everything seemed plastic, overly manufactured. As the movie went on, an eerie silence filled the theater. In my Batman Forever screening, the crowd whooped with the action and laughed at Jim Carrey’s antics. But in Batman and Robin, the crowd was quiet. 120 minutes later, the credits ran and the crowd filed out of the theater in the same stunned silence. No boos or tossed popcorn boxes. Just silence.

As we walked to the car, my dad and I were quiet. I’m not sure what was running through my mind that afternoon, but I imagine it was confusion. It was as if they played the wrong movie, replacing Batman with Circ De Solei on acid. My brother was the only one talking, trying to like the film. What followed was a moment of film education for the two of us, a moment that would be cemented in my brother’s mind for all time. My dad leaned over and said, “Bobby. You may be too young to realize this, but that was a really bad movie.”

After that screening, I never saw it again. Time passed, the franchise died and while the science of that colossal misstep fascinated me, I never dared to pop in that fateful failure. Every time I opened the Batman boxset to watch one of the other three movies, I avoided the fourth, averting my eyes from the sight of it. As time went on and my memories faded, I wondered if it was really as bad as I remember. Sure, I knew it was universally accepted as one of the worst films of all time, but I couldn’t remember why. A few days ago, I finally sat down to watch it for the first time in thirteen years to confirm what the world was telling me. Was Batman and Robin really as bad as its reputation said it is. The answer is a resounding yes. Batman and Robin is a confusing, trivial and shockingly dumb piece of cinema that defies logic and reasoning. How could a Batman movie be so damn boring.

The first answer to this question lies in the film’s threadbare story. In this go-round, Batman (George Clooney) and Robin (Chris O’Donnell) not only deal with super villains bent on world domination, they have to contend with working as a team. At first, one would think there might be some tension here. Batman has always worked alone, Robin is an impetuous youth and the potential clash of personalities could have made for an interesting subplot. Unfortunately, due to a horrific script, all we get is the Boy Wonder whining and Batman not caring. Even the side story of Alfred’s sickness runs thin because nobody seems to give a damn. Michael Gough as the perennial butler gives it his all but Clooney simply goes through the motions. Clooney is by far the worst Batman of the bunch, mostly because the script gives him nothing to work with outside of cornball one liners. More attention is paid to the size of Clooney’s codpiece than actual character development.

If one constant remains true in this original series, Batman always takes a back seat to the villians. The bad guys are designed to give the film its energy and here Batman and Robin fails in epic fashion. This time we have three baddies: a lovesick doctor who calls himself Mr. Freeze (Arnold Schwarzenegger), the insane botanist Poison Ivy (Uma Thurman) and the ultimate juice head, Bane (Robert Swenson). One could write a thesis on why these antagonists are terrible, but the dust jacket version is that nobody has a motivation beyond, “stuff happened to me, I’m now crazy, time to take over the world.” Uma Thurman plays her role way over the top but at least she’s not the pun slinging eye roller Arine is as Mr. Freeze. Arnold has exactly three lines that do not involve some sort of reference to low temperatures. This obsession over one liners completely destroys a backstory that could have been serviceable in hands of a different screenwriter. And then there’s Bane, one of the biggest crimes in a film full of felonies. Reduced to growling monster used solely for comic relief and yawn inducing action scenes, the once interesting comic character is reduced to the lowest common denominator.

And just when you thought things could get dumber, the action scenes in Batman and Robin make you pine for the days of Adam West going BAM, WHAP and WHAM. Batman Forever wasn’t a masterpiece by any stretch, but it least had competent ass kicking sequences. The action in Batman and Robin flatlines at every possible turn. From the opening ice hockey game with a diamond to a laughably slow paced motorcycle chase, the action sequences are disjointed and hard to follow. And since my mother told me if I have nothing nice to say, don’t say anything at all, the film features some nice exterior shots of Gotham City, including Arkham Asylum, the Gotham Observatory and one nice bridge shot which is promptly ruined by Mr. Freeze’s rolling pin cushion crashing into it. Oh, and Alicia Silverstone (the girl from the old Aerosmith videos) plays Alfred’s niece from London who eventually becomes Batgirl for no reason. And she doesn’t even try to have an English accent. Sigh. This film stinks.

After sitting and squirming through 120 minutes of Batman and Robin, I’ve come to a conclusion. The movie is indeed terrible to its core but I can’t blame anybody involved in making it. The flick is just a perfect storm of awful. Big budgets, big stars and big dollars all combined to create this cliché ridden monster with not one participant ever expecting it to break loose and start terrorizing the village. Director Joel Schumacher simply wanted to make a fun, over the top Batman film and while the movie fails in historic fashion, I can’t pick any one person to shoulder the blame. They were all there for the ride, a ride that ended in a catastrophic explosion that destroyed an entire franchise.

If I had to point a finger, it would be at Warner Brothers for taking a franchise that took a decade to bring to the screen and turn it into mindless product. The Bat Teat was milked dry by a money hungry studio and a group of people who simply wanted to make a goofy Batman movie got caught up in the midst of it. Weighed down by a horrendous script, actors who have nothing to do and action scenes so poorly staged they feel like Film 1 projects, Batman and Robin is a colossal failure despite the efforts of everybody involved. The best thing one can say about the movie is that it wiped the slate clean, clearing a path for a new vision a decade later. Enter Christopher Nolan. Thank God for that.

Score – 20%