Recent Watches: Argo (2012)

I have no prior experience with Ben Affleck the Filmmaker. When I think of the guy, I think of the star of esteemed classics like "Gigli," "Reindeer Games," "Daredevil," and "Good Will Hunting II: Hunting Season." Despite the critical acclaim "The Town" and "Gone Baby Gone" received, I went into "Argo" with few expectations.

I was vaguely familiar with the true story the film is based on, mostly through this Cracked article and the involvement of comic artist Jack Kirby. (Who has a cameo in the film, played by a well-cast Michael Parks.) The Iran Hostage Crisis is a bit of a historical blind spot for me, taking place before my birth during an overlooked presidency. The film sets up the historical context very quickly and succinctly, using Kirby-style storyboards and tense reenactments. Despite the entire plot revolving around six of the hostages, the movie’s not really about them. Instead, it’s about Tony Mendez, CIA agent who specializes in getting folks out of tricky situations. After shooting down all the other plans, Mendez cooks up a plot to sneak the six out with a fake movie production. And we’re off.

“Argo” isn’t quite a movie about movies, or even the magic or illusion of cinema. Instead, it’s a heist flick, about a ragtag group of heroes cooking up a wild scheme to sneak their loot out of its vault. Except in this case, the loot are six hostages and the vault is Iran in the middle of political revolution. The first half of the film revolves around setting up our master planners. Affleck plays Mendez, who is separated from his wife and beloved son, setting up the expected redemption arc. John Goodman does well as make-up legend John Chambers, who is deeply involved in the film’s plot and really was a CIA contact in real life. Alan Arkin is nominated for an Oscar for his supporting role as Lester Siegel, the Hollywood shyster who is largely responsible for the rest of the world believing “Argo” is a real film project. The nomination is kind of surprising. Arkin isn’t bad, he’s quite entertaining actually, but he doesn’t step outside of his grouchy, crusty older man wheelhouse.

The first half is largely the film’s most entertaining. Watching Arkin and Goodman bitch through crappy screenplays, looking for the perfect crappy screenplay, establishes the film as part of the long line of Hollywood dramas, looking at the cynicism and artifice behind the Dream Factory. My favorite scene is a thrown-together press conference, in which in-costume actors read from the script. It probably says a lot about me that I would probably rather watch the fake-movie this real one is about. (Also says a lot about me: I immediately recognized the cheap robot costume as Interrodroid 3000 from “The Middleman.”) Arkin is at his best when telling young entertainment journalist to fuck off and bitching about his ex-wife. While the scenes of scrambling politics in the CIA office are less entertaining, they do feature a highly-strung Bryan Cranston, which is always welcomed.

What really breaks up the early parts of the film are the scenes in Iran. None of the six are developed beyond basic ideas. We get quick bio readings of each near the beginning which is all that defines them throughout the entire film. There’s grumpy mustache guy, nervous dude, his wife, and some other people. We can’t even associate each character with an established actors as, besides from a barely recognizable Clea DuVall, there aren’t any known actors among the parts. The hostages are strictly plot devices. Later moments that show Iranian extremist breaking into the embassy lack tension.

Their plot device status is all the more apparent in the latter half of the film, when “Argo” becomes a full-blown thriller. After a tense walk through the crowded bazaar, the movie barrels towards its climax. Our hero has to get his half-dozen MacGuffins through the airport and out of Iran. Naturally, the plot shoves every inconvenience in the way. An overzealous military guard at the airport yells at the group, aggravating an all-ready nervous situation. When he goes to call the fake set-up Hollywood studio for confirmation of the supposed story, the producers are kept from answering the ringing phone by an intruding film shoot. Once they get on the plane, there are pursued by angry Iranian soldiers, just seconds away from catching up and ruining the entire plan. These are blatantly constructed thriller set-pieces. Despite the obvious seams showing and lack of investment in the characters, the sequences still work. The combination of pacing and acting makes the scenes intense. Affleck really should have gotten a Best Director nomination.

The subplot about Mendez, his estranged wife, and son are obvious appeals to emotion. None of it is convincing, especially since the kid is in two scenes and the wife even fewer. I stand by my opinion of the score, as its largely bland dramatic pounding and quivering strings. Unlike a lot of bloated Oscar-bait, “Argo” is well paced at a comparatively short two-hour runtime. Those Jack Kirby storyboards get a lot of screen time and provide two of the film’s most charming moments. “Argo” is hardly a masterpiece. It’s shockingly thin in some regards but undeniably effective in others. From the sounds of his previous two flicks, Affleck the Director sounds like a strong genre worksmith, which is nothing to be ashamed of. How a thriller like this gets award season buzz and others just as good, even stronger, are ignored, is a testament to the “seriousness” historical, politic content can lend a story. [7/10]

Recent Watches: Wrath of the Titans

“Wrath of the Titans” is a movie I had absolutely no intention of seeing. The first film wasn’t the biggest piece of shit I saw in the theaters that year but was far from the best. It couldn’t stumble up the minimum requirement of energy to top the guilty pleasure low standards set by the original. Even the monster-filled trailer wasn’t enough to fool me into seeing this one. However, it was enough to fool ever-present movie-watching pal and vidcast co-host JD, who will apparently see any movie if it deals with Greek mythology. I agreed to accompany him strictly because he was paying for tickets and buying me dinner afterwards. (This was even more necessary considering the theater we choose was only showing the movie in 3D.) Anyway, “Wrath of the Titans” is about as uninspired as you'd expect a sequel to a crappy remake to be.

In the year between the last film and this, Perseus has fathered a child, lost a wife, and grew a headful of willowy Harry Hamlin hair. The Greek Gods are even further in decline then last time. Serial assholes Hades and Ares screw over their brother and father Zeus in order to release an actual titan, Kronos, who is depicted here as a giant lava monster. The reasoning behind this is flawed and unimportant. The rising of a titan has caused monsters and shit to break out all over the place, forcing Perseus out of retirement for one more job. A wacky rag-tag group of heroes are assembled, monsters are fought, quests are embarked on, mystic items are retrieved. The same typical fantasy clichés that hack writers have been recycling since at least the 1960s are all trotted out.

The writing is incredibly lazy. The way our pre-assembled group of heroes march from one area to a next, fighting a different monster in each, really makes this feel like less of a movie and more of a series of boss battles. There is a blatant deus ex machina at the end there. A series of objects that really weren't all that important suddenly become the key to defeating the villain about halfway through, apropos of nothing. We never find out how our characters discover this information.

Ares is an awful villain. Edgar Ramirez plays him as a heavily-accented, whiny, snot-nosed brat mad at daddy. Just last year, "Immortals" show the real destructive capabilities of the Gods, what with Ares falling out of the sky and exploding everyone's head literally before they knew what was happening. In this movie, Ares and Perseus wrestle. Straight-up wrestle, with body slams and everything. If they had gone all the way with the Greco-Roman wrestling thing and had both actors be naked during their final fight… Well, that really wouldn’t have been much of an improvement, but at least it would have been unexpected. Its weak sauce is what I'm saying.

It’s not like “Immortals” was exactly a great movie either but it’s definitely shaping up to be the best of this current slate of “300”-spawned, Greek-mythology inspired special effects film. Tarsem has more visual ingenuity in his little finger then this douchebag Jonathan Liebesman has in his entire body. The direction is really bland and uninspired. The visual presentation is incredibly flat. There’s a lot of rich colors in the Mediterranean landscape but you’d never know by looking at this movie. In the last act, when a human/monster war breaks out, the movie finally falls into the grimy, shaky-cam aesthetic preferred by Liebesman’s mentor, Michael Bay. It’s the same visual palette the director previously used in his equally loud and boring last film, “Battle: Los Angles.”

The special effects are sporadic. Kronos looks cool, especially the way the lava he throws solidifies in mid-air. There's some decent 3-D moments, of shit rushing at our faces, like a horde of dead bodies or a sliding, shifting labyrinth. However, the Cyclops are portrayed by far more squishy CGI, slightly above what your PS3 can produce. The two headed, four-armed giants that appear near the end aren’t much better. There's a scene of a God jumping around that looks like they couldn't rush fast enough to CGI the wires out. A really shitty minotaur is lobbed into this thing too. It looks like Master Blaster from with a tree growing out of his head. Honestly, that's the best they could do? The minotaur in "Your Highness" was better then that. Overall, the whole maze sequence, while kind of neat on a conceptual level (though sort-of ripped off from "Hellboy") adds nothing to the movie except run time.

In the last twenty minutes, this goes from being incredibly boring to kind of hilarious. Zeus, who has spent most of the movie chained to a wall getting his energy drained, gets a boost from Hades. Sporting brand-new Armored Power-Ups, the two gods march across the battlefield, pimp-slapping monsters. In general, there’s so much talk in this movie about energy draining and swapping and power running low, that the screenplay really does seem to have been influenced more by video games or second-rate anime then actual film or mythology. (I suppose this will only get worst in time, as screenwriters who spend more time playing video games then watching movies or reading books enter Hollywood’s writing pool.) Perseus and the chick are forced together in a romance really clumsily. His relationship with his son is incredibly stilted. There's a moment near the end that I suspect was meant to be touching but comes off as awkwardly funny. ("Take the sword. Come on, take the sword. Jesus, take the fucking sword!")

Sam Worthington, surprisingly, is the least of this movie's problems. Liam Neeson, usually so shameless about appearing in schlock like this, actually does seem embarrassed. At about the time he's kamehameha-ing lightening around the battlefield with some really subpar special effects, if you looks closely at his eyes, you can actually see him thinking, "My God, what the hell am I doing with my life?" Or maybe it's "When is lunch?” Or “They better be paying me a lot for this." Ralph Finnes has no such moment of realization. His soul must have died years ago.

The chimera sequence near the beginning isn't bad. Bill Nighy has a pretty funny small supporting role as a de-godded Hephaestus. The movie has some sub-Russell Brand British comedian playing a comic relief character who is mostly awful but gets off one or two funny lines. The movie isn’t very long either, which helps a lot. They make fun of the robot owl from the original again too, because clearly this is such an improvement.

I actually fell a sleep for a few minutes about a half-an-hour in. That never happens to me and says less about my lack of sleep and more about the quality of the film. “Wrath of the Titans” is thundering and loud but utterly boring. It’s brainless but not due to a lack of brains on the production side, simply due to a lack of interest. It’s depressing too, when you realize millions of dollars were spent to make such subpar shit. Also depressing: The worldwide market seems to eat up this crap in high amounts. A third film isn’t out of the question, though the ending would probably make it difficult from a narrative perspective. (Not like that’ll stop them.)

Dinner was good, by the way. I had apple-glazed pork chops stuffed with homemade dressing. JD had meatloaf in gravy. He totally owes me now too. I think I’m going to force him to see “G.I. Joe: Retaliation” with me. That’s a sequel to an underperforming would-be blockbuster that will probably be just as bad as the first film. I am, in defiance of logic and reason, kind of looking forward to it though and JD couldn’t care less. Revenge truly is a fruitless path.

Recent Watches: 21/2/11

Welcome to a new feature where I talk about some of the movies I’ve seen recently. It’s a strictly non-stress feature. I’ll post them whenever I want and talk about whatever movie I want (as long as it’s still recent in my brain) for as long as I want. It’s primarily a feature strictly to keep this damn blog active.

It’s no secret that I’m a pretty big fan of the Muppets. I remember watching the original TV show in reruns on Nickelodeon in the early nineties. And while I loved the show as a kid, it has really been the movies that have kept my interest alive. The first film, with its fantastic Paul Williams songs, has always been a favorite of mine. After not having a new Muppet movie in theaters since the somewhat dubious “Muppets from Space,” Jim Henson’s fuzzy felt creations have returned to the big-screen… Somewhat successfully.

First off, the good stuff: “The Muppets” is pretty funny. While I’m not one-hundred percent happy with it, Jason Segal is clearly a fan of the characters and gets things more right then wrong. If nothing else, the dude is a fully committed comic actor and goes for broke several times throughout. The movie has a number of pretty funny sequences, including Jack Black getting his head shrunk to a barber shop quartet version of “Smells Like Teen Spirit” or how very easy it was to convince Rowf the Dog to join back up with the old group. That old comic stalwart of a bunch of smaller people climbing inside of a single suit and trying to be a whole person is marched out again, to some success. The film’s heart is in the right place, and despite Frank Oz’s objections and the lack of his signature voice, all of the Muppets players are more or less in character. Honestly, Piggy is the only character that kind of gets the short stick. (I was honestly really worried at first about the whole Gonzo being a plunger mogul thing but the movie deals with that pretty quickly.) The movie was definitely made by fans, as there’s a lot of references to classic Muppet lore and more then a few obscure characters put in appearances. (I honestly don’t think Uncle Deadly’s had this much screen time since the original series.) The line-up of celeb cameos, a mainstay of the film series, is pretty weak in this one, but there are a few happy surprises, including two “Community” cast members and a surprise appearance from a golden age film legend. (And my arch-enemy.) The movie also does the Vertigo shot with a felt puppet, which I thought was pretty impressive.

The best thing about the film is its music. Bret McKenzie of “Flight of the Conchords” fame wrote the music and it’s pretty fantastic. “Life’s a Happy Song” is a clever, funny, insanely catchy number that’s worthy to be a classic. The entire “Man or Muppet” sequence is a pretty hilarious parody of the overwrought plot-changing musical number in addition to being a successful take on that cliché. “The Rainbow Connection,” one of my all-time faves and, in my opinion, one of the best film songs of all time, gets a stirring rendition here as well. The film was directed by James Bobin, the same guy who did many episodes of the “Flight of the Conchords,” and more then a few of the musical numbers here are reminiscent of that show. “Me Party” in particular feels very much like something world's number-three folk-comedy duo would have busted out during season one. Chris Cooper is hilarious, probably the most entertaining actor in the film, and his villainous song is probably the comic high-light of the picture, especially since it takes a particularly hacky comedy concept and completely makes it work. I also like the way he says “Maniacal Laughter” instead of actually laughing.

And, now, the stuff I wasn’t so happy about. Despite the movie’s heart being so much in the right place, it… Kind of misses the point. The Muppets have always had a degree of fourth wall breaking humor to them. I mean, in the first movie, Kermit and Fozie do read the film’s actual script to advance the plot. But I feel the meta approach to the script was kind of unnecessary. All the talk about how the world has forgotten the Muppets is kind of forced, seeing as how it’s not like the characters have been entirely absent from the pop culture biosphere. If anything, thanks to the internet, appreciation for the Muppets seems to have actually risen in recent years. No reason is given for why the Muppets broke up in the first place. It seems like an unlikely plot development.

And, like I said, I mostly like Jason Segal and Walter. Walter is far from the irritating forced new addition to the canon I feared he might be. Though his big plot-saving move at the end of the story, otherwise known as the Deus Ex Muppet-ina, pretty much comes out of nowhere and has zero foreshadowing. However, you can’t escape the fact that the movie spends a lot of time focusing on these new additions when it could be dealing with Kermit or Fonzie… You know, the characters we actually care about and came to see. Gonzo, my personal favorite, doesn’t get much screen time at all. Other faves like Sam the Eagle or Statler and Waldorf aren’t given much to do. And, honestly, the whole thing about Animal undergoing anger management and not drumming chains up one of the funniest characters and prevents him from doing his main shtick. (Pepe the Prawn is thankfully given very limited screen time.) Amy Addams gives it her all but the love story subplot is a drag and was completely unneeded. I overall found the movie’s referencal tone to be a little much.

The non-original musical cues, which include “Back in Black,” Gary Numan’s “Cars,” and, ugh, Starship are completely uninspired. (Really, that was the only song they could find with the word “Build” in its title?) Original songs would have been a preferable option. The nadir of this nostalgia heavy take is probably the character of Eighties Robot, who is pretty much one long walking “Old things sure are old!” joke. Wait, scratch that, the inexplicable kung-fu fight scene is the nadir.

Segal and his director where obviously more influenced by the actual TV show then the movies. This becomes apparent in the third act when we finally get to the theater saving telethon. While none of the acts, like the chicken clucking rendition of “Fu…,” uh, “Forget You,” are bad, they do hinder the movie’s pacing. Overall, there’s a lot of talk here about keeping the dream alive and all that. But I think, if the movie really wanted to show that the ethics and messages behind Jim Henson’s critters were still relevant, maybe it should have just, you know, made a Muppet movie, instead of being really meta and clever about everything.

Having said all of that, I am glad the film has been relatively successful, both critically and financially, if for no other reason then it means more Muppet products in the future. There’s all ready been a new sitcom announced and that’s hopefully the first of many.

I’ve definitely ranted on way more about this then I intended too. I had expected this to be a multi-review entry but I don’t want it to run long. So, more reviews coming soon. Promise.

Series Report Card: Disney Animated Features (2011)

50. Winnie the Pooh
“Winnie the Pooh” is even more of a throw-back then Disney’s last few animated features. In a world of bright, chaotic CGI animation that often features adult humor, cartoonish violence, or attempts at serious themes, this film is quiet, playful, and unabashedly sweet. Compared to this year’s “Cars 2,” a movie featuring broad humor, a world spanning plot, and a disconcerting amount of serious spy violence, it’s like another world. The central conflict here involves a slapstick quest to capture an imaginary monster or attempts to replace a sad donkey’s missing tail. Our protagonist has no discernible character arc beyond his desire to eat lots and lots of honey. (Well, okay, Pooh does learn a little about friendship along the way, but, mostly… Honey.)

The movie carries on a visual motif from the original “Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh,” in that the whole movie takes place in a book. But it takes the interaction further. The characters often interact with the words around, bringing the very layout of the page into the plot. As in the older film, a narrator not only describes the scenarios, but often chats with the characters, goading them on when they don’t follow the story. (John Cleese steps in for the long-gone Sebastian Cabot.)

As with the last few animated features, “Winnie the Pooh” is a musical. The characters often sing-song little cheering ditties while, on the soundtrack, indie-movie-starlet and Manic-Pixie-Dream-Girl-for-life, Zooey Deschanel, sings sweet little acoustic melodies. During an extended day-dream sequence, Pooh imagines himself in a world full of honey, set to Zooey’s whimsical soundtrack. Deschanel also provides the ending credits music, a catchy number called “So Long,” that perfectly sums up the film’s themes of friendship and play.

The movie’s pace is incredibly laid-back, intentionally calling to mind a little boy playing with his toys on a lazy Sunday afternoon. As I said earlier, there’s not much here in way of story. The movie doesn’t even really follow the three-act structure, breaking the first rule in the screenwriter’s book. (Pretty daring for a kid’s flick.) For around the first half-hour, the movie focuses on a contest to replace Eeyore’s misplaced tail. Though the gang does their best to cook up creative replacement, nothing quite satisfies Eeyore and nobody gets the prize, a giant pot of honey. However, for the second half, the movie shifts focus. Christopher Robin disappears, leaves a note, which the goofy animals misinterpreted as a ransom letter from an imaginary monster called the “Backson.”

This leads to the film’s two highlight sequences. The first is a colorful musical number, done in the style of chalkboard illustrations, describing just what kind of monster a Backson is. (He puts holes in your socks.) A trap is set for the creature but, naturally, our heroes wind up in the trap instead and have to rely on little Piglet to get them out, leading to some of the biggest laughs in the film. Somewhere in the middle of this, Eeyore and Tigger have a boxing match, somebody dresses up as the monster and, well… You can probably see where this is going.

The film is barely over an hour long and its episodic nature extends past the main feature. The movie opens with a short called “The Ballad of Nessie.” It’s a sweet little fable designed to teach kids that it’s okay to cry and features the cutest, most charming rendition of the Loch Ness Monster that I’ve seen recently. Cute little Nessie would make a proud addition to any collection of Disney memorabilia. “The Ballad of Nessie” is a fantastic little short and almost outshines the main feature.

“Winnie the Pooh” isn’t out to redefine the medium, but, it is daring in its own quiet ways. It’s got no celebrity voices (unless Craig Ferguson counts. And he’d be the first to say he doesn’t.), instead filling its character’s mouths with veteran voice actors. (Including Jim Cummings, who has now voiced Pooh longer then Sterling Holloway ever did.) When every week brings around star-studded CGI talking animal movie, a short little cartoon about a boy, his bear, and the adventures they have, seems more out-of-place then ever. And, if the theater I saw the film in is any indication, it might be too calm for most modern kids. The parents laughed and smiled while the little ones squirmed.

It makes me sad to think there’s no room in today’s kids marketplace for the simple pleasures of “Winnie the Pooh.” The fact that Disney opened this opposite the biggest film of the summer, in the middle of a crowded blockbuster season, doesn’t make me think they had much confidence in it. If nothing else, “Winnie the Pooh” will find it’s home on video, where it will provide a serene escape for both parents and kids. [Grade: B]

Director Report Card: Lucky McKee (2011)

5. The Woman (2011)
As a huge fan of Lucky McKee and someone who generally enjoys the work of Jack Ketchum, I was eagerly anticipating their latest partnership. It’s a true collaboration too. McKee’s screenplay for “The Woman” and Ketchum’s novel were written at the same time and the two manuscripts influenced one another. Despite having not read the books “Off Season” and “Offspring,” nor seen the latter novel’s film adaptation, I considered myself familiar enough with both director and author to know what to expect.

But I sure didn’t expect this. “The Woman” is the most brutally horrifying film I’ve seen this year and maybe in years. It’s not an exploitation movie, but rather a movie about exploitation. McKee combines his feminist angle with Ketchum’s trademark brutality. Ketchum often writes about violent sociopaths barely concealing their psychopathy under a smile of civility. That concept is presented in a story about a dysfunctional family barely held together by fear and a tyrannical patriarch. McKee then injects the whole thing with his themes of how twisted masculinity has subjected, objectified, controlled, and abused women throughout the decades. The movie would almost play like a perverse satire if the horror wasn’t presented in uncompromising, sickeningly tense detail. The movie isn’t subtle, but sometimes subtly isn’t necessary.

McKee continues to suppress and refine his style as a director. As far as stylistic excesses go, the movie peaks in the opening minutes, in which it shows the ferocity of the titular Woman visually. Lucky refrains from the colorful flourishes of “May” and “The Woods,” instead recording most of the movie with a blunt, matter-of-factness. After that brief prologue, the movie settles in on its family.

Father Chris smiles and nods, seeming much too content and happy with his life, as if he’s working overtime to exude a sense of normality. He has a passive-aggressive, vaguely predatory tone with everyone in his life, from his neighbors to his secretary to, especially, his family. Wife Belle is obviously tightly-wound, a nervous wreck barely holding her self together. Teenage daughter Peggy is depressed, failing in school, dressing frumpily, and avoiding her social life. Son Brian shows affection for a girl in his class by sticking gum in her hairbrush. Even the otherwise normal youngest daughter Darlin seems blindly happy.

Obviously there is something very wrong with this family even before the father sees the untamed Woman in the woods. He is smitten with her immediately. (The movie illustrates this by playing a rock song over the first sighting, an admittedly heavy-handed moment. The movie generally leans on its soundtrack a bit too much.) By her nonchalant sexuality? Or by the opportunity to build his own girl from the ground-up, without any of society’s built-in attitudes? Dad captures the Woman, takes her back to his home, ties her up in his tool shed, and goes about his plan of “civilizing” the cannibalistic female. He involves his wife and children in this endeavor right from the beginning, having the kids treat this human being little better then a pet.

The Woman soon goes on to acerbate the all ready tense family situation. Her wildness seems to inject a dose of chaotic imbalance to the sterile family life. It’s not her anarchic, untamed femininity but her ability to read people with a glance, to know what they’re feeling and thinking. And why she rarely comes out and says it, just her unblinking glares are enough to pass judgment, to plant the seed of rebellion or guilt. Belle has an opportunity to stop the madness and Peggy’s kind, snooping teacher provides her with an out as well. But neither go for it, so tight is Daddy’s lease, even with the Woman casting confrontational stares from the tool shed.

The movie lays down its cards slowly, building upon the abuse inch-by-inch. Emotional blackmailing and strangulating oppression soon gives way to slaps and then much worse. In keeping with the Jack Ketchum brand, the real monster aren’t the cannibal cave people in the woods, but the smiling Stepford people in the suburbs, using their psychological powers to inflict much worse damage on their victims then a bloody wound. As the story builds, the intensity builds. A fever pitch is reached in the last fifteen minutes, when emotions come out, bounds are broken, and we realized just how much of a monster Chris Cleek really is. The climatic twist is shocking, disturbing, and completely unexpected. In another movie, it might pushes thing too far over the top, but by this point, the viewer is sucked in, dragged along uncontrollably by the movie’s unblinking eye. And then The Woman, locked away like so much boiling rage and fear and suppressed hate, is let loose. Like a lawnmower blade wielding hurricane, she expresses all those hindered emotions physically, viscerally, in a way the suppressed women of the family can not. The final act of the film is horrifying and captivating. You can not look away, no matter how much you’ll want too. And you’ll want too.

The cast is indeed impressive. Pollyanna McIntosh in the title role takes a penetrating glower and runs with it, doing a lot with a little. It’s not hard to imagine why the filmmakers would decide to build an entire movie around her or why the characters would be so obsessed with her. Sean Bridgers embodies the grinning madman of Chris Cleek a little too well. I can’t imagine being in a room with this guy, acting like this. You understand how evil he can be but also why he can be so completely in control of those around him. Angela Bettis puts her slender, fragile form and shaky delivery to good use as the constrained wife. She’s utterly kowtowed and completely reigned in, constantly afraid that anything will set off the monster(s?) in her home. (Until she finally snaps, which is cathartic, but goes about as well as you’d expect.)

If McIntosh isn’t the break-out star of the picture, it’s definitely Lauren Ashley Carter. With her big doe-eyes, cutie-pie lips, and general pixie cuteness, Carter certainly makes you want to protect her. She runs through the cycle of guilt and horror the character requires fantastically. Hopefully, she has a long, successful career before her.

Sadly, not every performance in the film is great. Zack Rand as the son is a little too flat. Perhaps intentionally. But his character is definitely the least defined of the family and, when the script calls on him to do big things later on, it’s the only time the movie feels engineered.

My reaction to “The Woman” was obviously very visceral. I was left disquieted and unnerved by the film. Clearly, I wasn’t the only one to have a strong reaction. But the movie isn’t a misogynistic shock machine like that one viewer believes. It’s a thoughtful treaty on gender relation, abuse, and control. When it’s shocks, it’s for a reason. In a Lucky McKee movie, an eye-gouge is never just an eye-gouge. Horror has always been the genre that sneaks social commentary in under pulp trappings. “The Woman” is a proud continuation of that tradition. It’s Lucky McKee’s best film since his debut, his most effective as a horror film, and an incredibly bold statement in an all-too-often routine genre. [Grade: A]

Scream 4

You know what I thought halfway through “Scream 4?” “Who directed this?” None of the “Scream” films really feel like Wes Craven movies. Especially when compared to a movie swimming in his trademarks like “My Soul to Take,” it becomes apparent how much the “Scream” franchise is Kevin Williamson’s baby.

If nothing else, “Scream 4” is consistent. The franchise hasn’t changed much. Ten years have passed but 1996 is still with us.

I have two major complaints with “Scream 4.” First off, for the most meta and self-referial of horror series, the movie barely acknowledges the changes in the horror genre over the last decade. There’s lots of idle talk of “reboots” and “remakes.” “Torture porn” gets one brief, blunt dismissal. But, generally speaking, within the universe of “Scream,” it seems like the horror landscape hasn’t changed. These days, slasher films are generally made by and for hardcore fans of the genre. Movies like “Hatchet” and “Behind the Mask” pay homage to eighties slashers and are made by genre-obsessed filmmakers for a niche crowd.

Slashers aren’t mainstream anymore. But, as the opening minutes of the film make obvious, self-referal post-modern slashers apparently never went out of style within the movies universe. “Stab” sequels keep getting churned out. Yes, the killers in this film are hooked up to the internet and the “rules” are similarly updated, but if you’re expecting Ghostface to start mimicking and asking questions about the “Saw” franchise or the J-horror movement, you’ll be disappointed.

In the last reel, it’s made obvious that the most modern aspect of the movie is the killer’s motivation, which are directly tied to reality television and young people’s desire to be famous for doing nothing. While it’s amusing and interesting when it comes, I was expecting “Scream 4” to be a bit more in-the-know. The other disappointment steams from a certain character surviving the entire film, despite being played flatly by a bored, over-the-hill actress and being easily the least interesting of the series’ central trio.

The best aspect of “Scream 4” is, surprisingly, its cast of young newcomers. It’s easy to forget that likable characters were actually one of the strong suits of the original. While there might not be any here as memorable as Randy, the cast is still strong. Hayden Panettiere, an actress I’ve never been impressed with, is easily the most charming and witty of the young girls here. Rory Culken, the most talented of all the Culken brothers, adds another strong performance to his quickly growing list. Erik Knudsen’s character uploads every single thing he does to the internet and is clearly the writer’s most boldfaced attempt to create a “modern” teen. It actually works though and doesn’t come off like a desperate attempt to stay hip. Knudsen’s amusing performance might be solely responsible for this. Emma Roberts, ostensibly the star of the show, doesn’t really get to shin until the end of the movie, where a vicious spitfire emerges from her boring teen starlet shell.

Among the older set, Allison Brie and Marley Shelton both get meaty supporting parts and ham it up accordingly. Courtney Cox does okay as an over-the-hill Gale while David Arquette isn’t given too much to do. As for Sydney… Neve Campbell was never much of an actress. She’s just as wooden as ever here. Sydney, despite being the franchise’s default protagonist, is still boring as hell.

The gore is supposedly amp up but I’d say it’s on the same level of the first movie, which is more violent then people remember. There’s plenty of decent throat slashing and stabbing. There’s really nothing to compete with garage door kill from the first movie, up until a dagger gets buried up to the handle in someone’s forehead. That was cool.

The intensity level isn’t very high but the parking garage sequence, barn house set-piece, and assorted moments in the last twenty minutes are uniformly entertaining. The fun sense of “who-dun-it” injects this entry with a lot of audience interaction. It honestly kept me guessing, trying to figure out who among the cast was the killer. (I still figured it out before the reveal.)

The movie continues after the obligatory “the killer reveals their motivation” scene with an extended hospital sequence. It’s extraneous and drags the end down. Honestly, if the movie had just stopped before that scene it would have taken the series in a daring, exciting new direction.

“Scream 4” is, honestly, the best of the series since the original. It certainly doesn’t reinvent the wheel, or even try to. Kevin Williamson doesn’t have any new tricks up his sleeve. But the movie is a fun, decent way to waste ninety minutes. As a relative non-fan of the franchise, I thought it was pretty good. To someone who is a fan, I suspect they will love it. [Grade: B]

Director Report Card: Wes Anderson (2009)

6. Fantastic Mr. Fox
In the months of production before any actual stills surfaced, I wonder how Wes Anderson was going to adapt his signature style to an animated children's film. Would “Fantastic Mr. Fox” represent a shift in style for the filmmaker? How would his trademark eccentricities stand up in G-rated form? Then a trailer premiered and it became apparent that Wes Anderson had made a children’s film without changing his style at all.

“Fantastic Mr. Fox” is a comedy about real-estate, partially anyway. It’s also a comedy about neurotic insecurities and accepting innate, unchanging attributes about one’s self. An important subplot revolves around a son’s jealousy over his talented nephew, that plays off in a far more petty fashion then a similar plot usually does in a kid’s movie. This movie is pretty much a typical Wes Anderson movie with furry animals instead, right down to the retro-soundtrack. He doesn’t even ditch the swearing, instead simply using the word “cuss” in place of all actual profanity. I suppose it shouldn’t surprise me Anderson would remain steadfast in his style.

I’m not sure what kind of kid this movie would appeal too. The comedy is mostly dependent on fast-paced, quirky dialogue and character interaction. The moments of big broad slapstick feel just as out of place as you’d expect. The plot features several convoluted schemes and most of the central irony will probably go over a typical kid’s head. (Though if your kid does get it, they’re probably pretty smart.) Taking the film on its own merits, I will say it ranks above “The Darjeeling Limited” but still comes in well below the rest of the director’s films.

The cast is uniformly excellent. George Clooney is pitch perfect in the title role, as is Meryl Streep as his wife. Jason Schwertzman plays a less confident version of Max from “Rushmore” as the son, Ash, in what is by far the film’s funniest moments. Wally Wolodarsky, seemingly Anderson’s real life sidekick, has a hilarious role as timid, easily fazed sidekick Possum. Anderson’s real brother Eric has another funny, understated role as the source of Ash’s petty scorn. Schwertzman and him play off each other nicely. Bill Murray shows up, of course, as Badger, in what is probably his liveliest role in years. William DaFoe shows up in a bizarre villainous turn as Rat.

The movie is beautiful to look at, bathed in warm autumn colors. The stop motion animation affords a unique feel, especially when swirling cotton is used in place of smoke, water, or fire. The movie, in many ways, feels like one of Eric Anderson’s illustrations brought to life in corduroy and tweed. The animation also allows for several clever camera angles, the beagle POV shots being my favorite. Beyond the sixties pop songs that naturally pepper the movie, the original score is quite good, especially the use of the “Boggis, Bunce, and Bean” limerick. The movie’s plot really flows nicely, and each inconvenience the story throws at the character is funnier then the last.

“Fantastic Mr. Fox” is standard Wes Anderson, which means, despite being typical, it’s charming, funny, breezy, and infectiously fun. Pretty good for a movie directed almost completely via e-mail. [Grade: B]

Director Report Card: David O. Russell (2010)

5. The Fighter

At this point in his career, David O. Russell seems to have alienated most industry people with his massive dickish behavior. His career was built on eccentric comedies so making “The Fighter,” a mainstream, true-to-life, Oscar-baiting film, was probably solely a business decision. (His next movie is a video game adaptation, so maybe it wasn’t…) I wasn’t anticipating the film, expecting a typical underdog story swiped from “Rocky.” Well, yeah, it is that, but it’s also the story of a normal guy’s relationship with his wildly dysfunctional white trash family.

Right from the beginning, Russell spices up the story with racing cameras and other tricks. There’s a lot of training montages, obviously, but there are all dynamic and a few actually got me kind of pumped. The actual boxing scenes show Russell’s talent for action. The two boxing matches near the end of the film are, in particular, extremely exciting and rousing. Russell even visually quotes “Raging Bull” without it coming off as obnoxious or obvious.

As is expected of an awards courting production such as this, the performance take center stage over everything. Mark Wahlberg, seemingly the only person who can stand Russell, is a real hit-and-miss performer. He sleepwalks through action hero roles but, when given comedy, he does better. He does a decent job, undergoes an impressive physical transformation, making Mickey a sympathetic sad sack. Christen Bale and Melissa Leo both won Oscars for their roles here. Is it warranted? Leo plays Mickey’s mother and manager, a manipulative, selfish, narrow-minded, bitter old evil shrew of a woman. She’s always surrounded by her posse of five daughters, all of which are just as trashy and stupid as she is. Leo certainly makes this despicable human being well-rounded but, as far as I’m concerned, she stole the Best Supporting Actress award from little Haliee Steinfeld.

What about Bale? He’s got the juiciest role in the movie, as the crack head has-been brother that is pretty much directly responsible for ruining Mickey’s life and career. Oh, it’s a good performance, don’t get me wrong, and Bale probably deserved the award for it. It comes off a bit like an inner city trash minstrel show but Bale, naturally, commits everything to it. But Bale has given better performance and, personally, nothing will ever top Patrick Bateman for me. Amy Adams did better then Melissa Leo, as Mickey’s supportive girlfriend. She’s had a rough life but still has the ability to see the good in people. Adams is really a strong dramatic actress who will probably be doomed to stupid leading roles in stupid rom-coms for the rest of her life, simply due to the nature of the industry.

The movie is watchable character study through the first hour, but also a somewhat depressing slug through miserable human lives. But, after Bale’s character winds up in jail and Mickey cuts his asshole family out of his life, actually gets his life together, and starts to find some success as a boxer, the movie actually becomes a legitimately inspiring true life story. The family drama ties in dramatically in the last act. “The Fighter” doesn’t completely escape the conventions of the genre but there are a number of reasons its worth watching. If this represents the next step in Russell’s career, I guess I’m okay with that. [Grade: B]

Rango (2011)

Rango (2011)
Directed by Gore Verbinski

At this point, I was just about ready to jump Good Ship Gore Verbinski. In his attempt to balance a personal visual style with a commercial viability, he’s only managed alienate me. Most days I think of him as a slightly more talented Bret Ratner. Well, “Rango” has changed my mind, at least a little bit.

For what’s ostensibly a kid’s movie, it’s surprisingly smart. It’s a little on the, what you’d call, “meta” side. Within the opening minutes, our titular lizard is talking about acting and story-telling. Soon, a metaphor-speaking mentor is introduced. (In an amusingly surreal way.) Before you know it, this movie is cracking jokes about Joepsh Campbell and the Hero’s Journey. A mariachi band of owls function as a Greek chorus, telling us what's going to happen before it does, though this somehow doesn't spoil things. Before the main story proper even gets going, we get a visual shout-out to Hunter S. Thompson. In a kid’s movie! Crazy, right? It’s clear early on that “Rango” isn’t going to throw some celeb voices and fart jokes onto funny talking animals and call it a day.

By the time our hero wanders into the town of Dirt, the movie is well on its way to feeling like a real spaghetti western. The visual style here is impressive. While most CGI features these day focus on color and brightness, “Rango” is instead characterized by grit and detail. Though obviously cartoons, the animal characters are still designed to look as realistic as possible. Often, the character designs lean more towards amusingly ugly then cartoony cute. There’s a sense of lived-in reality to the setting.

The quirkiness extends pass the character designs. Rango is a captivating protagonist. Fancying himself a dramatic actor, his true personality seems rather meek. However, as soon as he gets into the flow of a story, he fashions a bravado, building a fantastic mythology around himself. It’s soon obvious that he’s really a coward but, as these things go, the townfolks buy his story. Through coincidence and luck, Rango is soon the hero of Dirt. It’s not the most original story. (The movie even lampshades that fact several times.) But Johnny Depp vivid vocals and the movie’s high comic energy sell it.

The rest of the cast is equally strong. Isla Fisher’s Miss Beans is clearly set-up as the love interest early on and, while that does happen, the character is a head-strong, independent woman… Uh, lizard. Her physical quirk seems to be an example of indie-movie wackiness trickling down to mainstream Hollywood, but Beans is far from a Manic Pixie Dream Lizard.

Abigail Brelins doesn’t have much to do as Priscilla, the mole/rat/schoolgirl thing, but the character is a good example of ugly-cute. Ned Beatty and Ray Winstone provide appropriate weight to their villainous roles. Later, Bill Nighy, his voice almost unrecognizable, shows up as Rattlesnake Jake, a villainous old gunslinger with a Gatling gun rattler. (He even has a pencil mustache!) Nighy oozes sinister dread and aggressive anger. It's the best performance of the film and one of the better performances of Nighy's recent career.

After a very funny opening act-and-a-half, the movie gets focused on regaining the lost water. A big chase scene, which then evolves into a bat-filled aerial battle, follows. It’s honestly a little disappointing. The movie drags a bit during these sections. Naturally, it isn’t long before a conspiracy against the town is uncovered. Our hero’s true identity is revealed, the populace’s trust is betrayed, and he’s run out of town. The movie’s self-reflective streak is forgotten as our hero (metaphorically) dies, journeys into a metaphorical cave, and encounters his mentor, Clint Eastwood. (Technically Timothy Olyphant doing a very good impersonation of Man-with-No-Name era Eastwood. But you don’t realize that until the credits.) You know what happens next. Its story-telling 101. Our hero journeys back into town and saves the day. The bad guys are vanquished. The legends of the west are eulogized. All is well.

Which isn’t to say that none of this isn’t incredibly satisfying. “Rango” knows the formula and follows it, but not without adding a lot of endearing quirkiness, strong characters, and a gorgeous visual aesthetic. Powered by Hans Zimmer’s amazing straight-out-of-Sergio-Leone score, it’s a kid’s flick that’s probably too smart, too dark, and too violent for most kids. But who even cares about that. Enjoy this treat for the surprise it is. Maybe Verbinski should stick to animation. [Grade: B+]

Review: Piranha 3D (2010)

5. Piranha 3-D
I had low expectations for “Piranha 3D.” The trend was ongoing when it was greenlit, but the horror remake fad is now winding down. I’m already sick of the new 3D. I figured the awful trailer was final evidence that Aja had left behind his European style and was strictly functioning as a director for hire.

Sometimes, low expectations are good. “Piranha 3D” is a blast, a campy, over-the-top throwback to exploitation cheese of the eighties. Right from the beginning, it’s obvious this was made by fans. The movie opens with Richard Dreyfus playing a character named Matt who sings “Show Me the Way to Go Home.” This is the first of many good signs.

The movie has two selling points: Blood and breasts. It doesn’t skimp on either. This might be the goriest horror film I’ve ever seen in the theater. The vicious piranhas tear their victims to literal pieces. Flesh is chewed down to the bone, limbs are eaten off, and the water quickly becomes red with blood. The highlight of the film is when the piranha menace hits the Spring Break partiers. Literally hundreds of victims step out of the water, their skin gnawed away, while others are left below to become fish food. Boat related carnage actually provides the gore highlights. A girl has her face torn off by a propeller. Another is literally bisected by a whipping wire. Eli Roth, the Paris Hilton of horror directors, has his head crushed in what might be the most satisfying horror movie death in years.

And what about the T&A? The first shot of gorgeous, top heavy model Kelly Brook is of her wiggling backside. I’m not made of stone, people. Puerile as it might be, the movie has no shame in showing off its actresses assets and, I’ll admit, it added to my enjoyment. Miss Brook and porn star Riley Steele have a fully nude, underwater ballet. The movie stops for about five minutes just to ogle these women. It somehow doesn’t come off as exploitative, but rather goofy, fun, and genuinely erotic. (That the characters hold their breath for ten minutes might be a good indicator of the cheese factor at work here.) In the scene most indicative of the movie’s mentality, a topless parasailor, played by 34DD-cupped porn starlet Gianna Michaels, first thrust her jugs into the camera and then has her legs eaten off by killer fish. 3D tits, covered in blood. You can’t argue with that.

Most amazingly though, despite being a gore and boobs delivery system, this is the first time in a while were I actually cared wither the characters in a horror movie made it out alive or not. Steven R. McQueen plays Jake. He is clearly crushed on Kelli, played the capable and cute Jessica Szohr, but never comes off as too whiny. The romantic tension between the two proves to legitimately sweet. Moreover, at the end, Jake proves himself to be a capable and resourceful hero, and pulls off the kind of “Smart teen saves the day” style scheme that was a hallmark of 1950 creature features. Adam Scott is similarly smart and badass, especially when he jumps on a water ski and goes after the piranha with a shotgun. Elisabeth Shue provides us with a strong female authority figure, a rare sight in a horror movie, and it’s a great performance. She plays both a mother and a cop with equal strength. Christopher Lloyd has a great cameo as the resident fish expert. Ving Rhames kicks a lot of ass, especially when he picks up a boat propeller and faces the aquatic threat one-on-one. Jerry O’Connell gets maybe the meatiest role as the Joe Francis stand-in. O’Connell has made a career of playing obnoxious douchebag, so much that I’m not convinced it’s an act. His eventual, 3D prolonged, incredibly painful death gives the movie its most over-the-top, gruesomely funny moment.

Aja direction is not as fierce as in his previous film but this suits the movie’s wacky tone. He does, however, get one great moment when he copies the reserve dolly shot of “Jaws,” a moment that caused me to cheer it was so cool. The piranhas themselves are vicious little fuckers, and brilliantly brought to life. The movie mixes CGI and practical effects extremely well. And did I notice a reprise of Pino Donaggio’s beautiful score from the original film at one point? “Piranha 3D” sets out to be the guilty pleasure of the summer and, goddamn, does it ever succeed. There will probably be competitors later on, but for the moment, this is the best, most entertaining horror film of the year. [Grade: A-]

Director Report Card: Bryan Singer (2008)

7. Valkyrie

Out of all the potential projects Bryan Singer was connected to following “Superman Returns,” like a long planned remake of “Logan’s Run,” another small multi-character based thriller, and even a proposed Superman sequel, “Valkyrie,” otherwise known as the Tom Cruise Eye-Patch Movie, struck me as easily the least interesting. The casting of Cruise, a hugely expensive actor completely devoid of charisma, in the lead role didn’t help that perception. The production was rift with troubles, from German protests, snarky anti-Scientology protest, and a constantly shifting release date. None of this was really a good sign.

Having watched the movie now I’ll say this: Boring. The movie continues the proud Hollywood tradition of using stuffy old British guys as a default for every other European nationality out there. Apparently, nobody using any accents was an intentional move. Singer thought that would be distracting. What winds up being distracting is the fact that this is a movie about Nazi Germany without a single German person in it. 

The movie doesn’t properly confront the moral quagmire at the story’s center. Listen, here in America, there are few character types everyone can agree on hating. Nazis and child molesters are pretty much it. And while a plot to kill Hitler is all well and good, it’s hard to overlook that all the characters in the movie, the ones were supposedly cheering on, are Nazis! The movie just seems to naturally assume that the assassination plot was born out of moral outrage. It never occurs to anyone that it was done simply to make room for party advancements for certain higher-ups, a possibility that seems much more logical and realistic to me.

Beyond that, the movie just never comes alive as a thriller. The characters have zero investment in them and the shallow attempts to breath some sort of personal life into Cruise’s character, like any of the scene’s involving his family, come off as exactly what they are. The rest of the cast is even thinner. The movie manages to generate some light suspense during the bomb arming sequence. Some minor pathos is culled up in the final moments of the film but by then it’s far too late. Not even a stirring score can rescue “Valkyrie” from the pits of mediocrity. [Grade: C]

Director Report Card: Peter Jackson (2009)

11. The Lovely Bones

As a fan who prefers Jackson’s earlier work to his “Lord of the Rings”-era output, I was looking forward to “The Lovely Bones,” a return to his smaller roots. When the trailer hit, and it became apparent that this was a deliberate return to “Heavenly Creatures” territory, I became even more excited.

And then bad review after bad review hit. “The Lovely Bones” does not deserves the scorn that’s been tossed at it. It’s an inconsistent film, extremely uneven, filled with a number of fantastic sequences which are immediately bordered by frustrating ones.

The most awkward aspect is Susie Salmon’s narration from the afterlife. What we have here is a narrator existing in her own plotline, a voiceover with an inner-life, a protagonist that is divorced from the story proper for the majority of the runtime. Often, the detached sequences of heaven completely hijack the story’s pacing. Voiceover is overused and several moments, such as when Susie’s father lights a candle in his room, would have been exponentially improved with the talking excised. The day-glo, disco heaven is another problem. I can’t deny that the effects laden afterlife is something a thirteen year old girl from the seventies would’ve thought of, but it comes off as extremely goofy on-screen. Susan Sarandon’s character, the hard-drinking, chain-smoking grandmother, is a bad addition. Such a broad caricature breaks the tone in half and the montage after her arrival, of the character neglecting and screwing up housewife activity, belongs in another friggin’ movie. Sequences in the late second act, after her family grows and changes, feels extraneous. The movie is a little long and could’ve easily clipped twenty minutes. 

These flat moments are all the more frustrating when other parts of the movie are so damn good. The beginning and entire first act is uniformly strong, with the best use of montage in a flick that sometimes makes clumsy work of it. The moments leading up to the murder are skin-crawlingly intense and amazingly uncomfortable. When Susie looks down on her family as they finally move on with their lives, that’s kinda’ beautiful. The opening of the vault and, later on, the disposal of that vault, are both poetic and lyrical. Her father running out into the cornfield with the bat, powered by a raging guitar soundtrack, is another intense moment. When we learn of Mr. Harvey’s long list of victims, it’s disturbing. Finally, the best of the best, is the climatic moment of Susie’s sister breaking into Harvey’s house.

The cast is problematic. Saoirse Ronan is quite good. Her big bright blue eyes are full of whimsy but her eventual anger is under conveyed. Stanley Tucci is greasy great, child molester sleazy, easily the strongest performance in the flick. The character’s eventual fate is a completely unnecessary scene that feels very bitter and takes the picture out on a sour note. Mark Walberg just doesn’t bring the required intensity and seems much too young for the part. Rachel Weiz doesn’t get much to do but look pretty. Rose Mclver underplays it successfully.

“The Lovely Bones” is a disappointment in some ways. It’s occasionally brilliant but undone but a number of faulty narrative devices. When is Peter Jackson going to do a horror movie again? [Grade: B-]

Review: The Princess and the Frog

(I know I haven't updated in over a month. Been busy with finals, the holidays, and laziness. Expect more stuff after the turn of the year.)

48. The Princess and the Frog

I was pretty hyped for “The Princess and the Frog.” After many years of CGI mediocrity being inflicted on us, old-school animation nerds like me were really looking forward to this. And, all things considered, “The Princess and the Frog” delivers. First off, it really feels like a lost classic from Disney’s nineties golden period. The movie is gorgeous. Its color palette is so rich. The greens and blues have so much depth. The film has the painterly quality you associate with the best classic animation. You could get lost looking into any scenes. I don’t care what anybody says, but CGI has yet to deliver on the texture and weight that these scenes have. It’s wonderful to see traditional animation of this quality on the big screen for the first time in so long. I suppose it was a given that this would be visually beautiful, but it only matters so much if the movie drops the ball on every thing else.

First off, the most noticeable thing about the movie besides the visuals is the music. It’s been so long since there’s been a big-screen cartoon musical, it was actually a little off-putting at first. So much mileage is gotten out of the New Orleans setting. Jazz, gospel, and even zydeco are all local genres that are dipped into and gives the film an identity distinct from other Disney scores. Many of the musical numbers function in the same way as in the classics. “Down in New Orleans,” performed by natural choice Dr. John, establishes our location. “Almost There,” highlighted by beautiful art-deco style animation, sets up our lead character’s dreams and ambitions. (And what’s more important to a Disney Princess then her dreams and ambitions?) Both “When We’re Human” and “Gonna Take You There” are standard travel numbers. What would otherwise just be a scene of our characters getting from point A to B, is transformed into a big, character-developing song and dance. “Ma Belle Evangeline” is the “Kiss the Girl” of the twenty-first century, a colorful love ballad that is actually sung by someone other then our main couple, while that couple become even closer during the song. Both “Friends On the Other Side” and “Dig a Little Deeper” serve to introduce their respective characters.

The story follows the fairy tale archetype pretty closely. Our selfish prince learns to stop being such an asshole while also learning to love someone other then himself. There’s his put-upon manservant, who makes a deal with a devilish magician to get what he feels is coming to him. There’s wacky animal sidekicks, a jazz loving gator and a lovelorn Cajun firefly, both of whom get their wishes granted, but not in the expected ways. But there’s one important exception to this rule. Princess Tiana, instead of being a subservient victim like Snow White or Princess Aurora, or a rebelling teenage like Jasmine or Ariel, is a forward-thinking, hard-working young woman who has sacrificed and saved to make her dreams possible. She’s self-absorbed in a different way from Prince Naveen. Tiana is so focused on her objectives that she can’t share her love with anybody else. The movie even seems to go out of its way to contrast this Disney Princess for the modern century with the more typical princess concept, with the character of the Sugar Baron’s bratty daughter.

The voice cast is able and brings these characters to life. Keith David, maximum badass that he is, makes Dr. Facilier one of the most interesting Disney villains in a while. In that he is as much of a schemer as any other, but is actually in over his head and afraid of the shadowy specters that do his work. The way said shadow monsters are brought to life is quite striking and reminiscent of the visual style of “Nightmare Before Christmas.” (Just one of several possible references to other Disney works.) And while Ray the Firefly might lean a bit too much on the Cajun shtick, the character’s unrequited love is actually a touching aspect. Ray’s characters takes an unexpected turn at the end and, in a very gutsy move, the movie doesn’t wimp out. Not only is his arc resolved in a natural way, but an unexpectedly touching one as well.

Honestly, only one scene in the entire movie rings false. While the frog-hunting Bayou hicks are obviously a throw-back to the slapstick antics of fifties animation, the whole sequence is abrasive, too long, and frankly too stupid for a movie this good. The Mama Odie character also struck me as a little too broad.

Either way, “The Princess and the Frog” puts Disney Animation right back on top of the world as far as I’m concerned. It both subverts the classics and pays homage to them. It’s a truly a return to the classic style. [Grade: A-]

Review: Delightful Water Universe (2009)

So, it’s 2009, and what has Trent Harris been up to all this time? Well, some documentary shorts have been made, some books written. The last thing I saw with his name on it were a few video/music collages done for the “Hearing Voices” website. (A few of which are on the YouTube.) And then, seemingly out of nowhere, “Delightful Water Universe” crops up.

What to say of it? Well, first off, Harris fans (How many of us are out there?) will probably go ga-ga over it. What will everyone else think? Who cares! Right out of gate, the movie inundates us with his unique brand of weirdness. The movie claims to be based on true events that will take place in the future. From here, we are reintroduced to the director’s trademarks. Plenty of funny, quotable dialogue, most of it in the form of obtuse insults, are on display here. (The writer/director can’t take credit for the highly amusing real Dan Quyale quotes that are trotted out a few times.) Perhaps more important is the odd story which involves a number of things, such as a dark future where corporations own everything and Bigfoot controls our thoughts with a hat made of windshield wipers. A vast conspiracy threatens to unleash the Delightful Water Universe on the world, enslaving us all to prime-time television.
Or is it? Perhaps the whole thing is just the incoherent ramblings of a nut locked up in an asylum, besieged on all sides by paranoid beliefs and delusions, and an apparent Burning Man festival going on just outside his walls.

Off-beat obviously but the movie is not as immediately accessible as some of Harris’ previous work. The whole thing is set up as a novel, leading to a heavy use of voiceover narration. Initially, it’s slightly off-putting and takes some getting use to. Also, one of the running jokes here, is that a lot of the big action takes place off-screen. Some times things are just described to us, more often we are presented with blindly artful montages. The best sequence in the film is such a scene standing in place of a wild sex scene. Instead of the hot action, we see the characters doing odd dances all set to infectious electronic music. (Also apparently composed by Harris. What doesn’t that guy do?) Though certainly a response to the paltry budget, this ends up working very well. These are moments of pure art tossed into the middle of the movie that somehow not manages to sidetrack or derail the momentum of the story. The other montages composed of old stock footage are less successful though no less hypnotic. And the long bits of underwear clad hotties seem slightly out of the place, even if it makes sense. (The movie has an overall sense of sad horniness, which it actually ends up justifying before the conclusion.)

Bill Allred isn’t buyable as a lady’s man, a joke the movie is in on, but is an amusing, easy to hang out with lead. Stefene Russell resurfaces for the first time since “Plan 10 from Outer Space” and shows the same sort of easy charm she did in that film, even if her Elmer Fudd lisp growls old by the end. However, it’s Dan Morley that gives the best performance, captivating in his derangement as the captured author that is writing the story we’re watching.
As much as I’d like to proclaim it as, “Delightful Water Universe” isn’t a full-fledged obscure weird classics like “Rubin and Ed.” The movie doesn’t really have an ending and instead just sort of circles out of logic before finishing up. Neither of the stories present have a proper conclusion and I can’t help but wonder if funding ran out or something. But still, there’s an emotional completeness here. Even if some things are left up in the air, the characters arrive at a better place then they began. The DVD case proclaims “Delightful Water Universe” as about heroic misfits, for heroic misfits. Truthful, as always. Not perfect but too infectiously quirky not to embrace, it sits proud among the rest of Trent Harris’ filmography. I mean, hell, it’s got a random musical number. You can’t resist the charms, it’ll make you as happy as a clam. [Grade: A-]

Series Report Card: Star Trek (2009)

11. Star Trek

Go back a few of years. The duel failure of “Nemesis” and “Enterprise” has sunk “Star Trek,” with even the head of Paramount saying the franchise is dead. Over time, news trickles out concerning plans for a prequel. Right, because those always work out so well.

2007: Hotshot J.J. Abrams will be steering the new ship, retrofitting Trek’s old parts for today’s hip youth. Casting news, images, teaser trailers, release date changes, and more came steadily afterward, an uneasy cloud of uncertainty hanging over it all. Even after the kick-ass full trailer, I wasn’t sure it would be any good. Sitting in my theater seat, munching on my popcorn, I still wasn’t sure. Honestly, it wasn’t until about twenty minutes in I was convinced that this was going to rock. It gets off to a shaky start, what with the slightly unconvincing opening battle and Little Kirk rocking the Beastie Boys (Sabotaage, anyone?), and there are a smattering of problems: Abram’s over reliance on modern music video shaky-cam tactics and lens flares, uneven comic relief and Anton Yelchin’s jokey Chekov prime among them.

Ultimately, these squabbles are minor. The movie successfully revives the old girl. The universe is crafted with love for the past but risks are taken. In addition to the cool modern new look for everything, the story takes some big leaps and gleefully breaks established rules. While the phaser fights aren’t all great, the ship battles look more epic then ever before. The script is tight with the rescue of Pike and fate of the Federation providing a driving dramatic force. But, the characters have always been the heart of the matter and I’m happy to report the heart is healthy. The real revelation is Zachary Qunito as Spock. The amount of time and thought he put into the character is obvious. I love that you can see his conflict over his emotions in his face throughout. It is a phenomenal performance and, dare I say, better then the original.

A great thing about the script is how everyone gets equal screen time. Each crew member has a full arc and are important to the story. The rest of the cast easily cements themselves as the new versions of these classic characters. Chris Pine really had something to prove as Kirk. His bad boy persona straddles the line between likable rogue and cocky jackass but, ultimately, as the movie evolves, so does he. By the end, he has become a strong new interpretation of Captain Kirk. Pine thankfully doesn’t try to mimic Shatner’s mannerisms, but obviously has a grip on the role. Karl Urban perfectly channels DeForest Kelley, embodying the character of McCoy. Uhura was always a little underdeveloped, relegated to the girl’s part in a boy’s club. That’s fixed right away by the proactive script and Zoe Saldana’s solid portrayal. John Cho is as athletic and charming as Sulu ever was, even if his ninja flips are goofy. The one casting decision I was sold on from the beginning was Simon Pegg as Scotty. Sadly, he doesn’t show up until well into the second act but when he does, it’s awesome. While Eric Bana’s Nero isn’t a Khan level villain, he proves to be a strong adversary. I’m really glad Nimoy tagged along for this adventure. As much as I trust the new cast, it was great to have one of the veterans show up and pass the torch, insuring that while franchise has been taken in a new direction, it still respects the past.

The reason I really loved the movie is for the numerous cool nerd moments. Spock nerve pinches someone for the first time, Kirk’s continued skills with green-skinned babes, “Damn it Jim, I’m a doctor, not a…” The return of the brain slug, a Red Shirt getting fried, a subtle call out to those who disliked “Enterprise” (Poor Porthos!), the classic sound effects on the bridge… Honestly, I could go on and on. Abrams can deny it all he wants but this was obviously made by fans, for fans. Once again, “Star Trek” is flying high and boldly going. The world feels a little bit safer now. [Grade: A]