geekent's Buy Nothing Year

Viewed: In theatre

Release Date: January 18, 2008

writer: Drew Goddard

director: Matt Reeves



The Bourne Ultimatum was a huge hit in the theatres last year, one of the top ten grossing movies of the year, and unanimously agreed upon by critics to be one of the best action/thrillers in a long time (I haven't seen it yet, so I can't comment). But despite it's great rankings and returns, there was a bit of a hubbub about the movie's use of what's been colloquially called "the shaky cam" (also, "queasy cam"), or digital hand-held cameras that don't hold a stable picture and, along with quick-cut editing, are used by filmmakers to present an erratic or frantic sense of motion. It's the reverse of bullet-time or slo-mo as used in the Matrix or 300 and is done so to also blur out the imperfections in the choreography, to much annoyance of many. Because of it's popularity, the Bourne Ultimatum played to packed houses, but also because of it's shaky camerawork, many people left the movie early, with headaches and sometimes nausea. Sitting in close proximity to the big screen with your entire field of vision enveloped by the movie is often the best way to watch a film, but with shaky cam work, it's hard for many people's brain's to focus on the images or track movement with their eyes and the strain of doing so yields an unpleasant viewing experience, despite the quality of film.



The shaky cam first noticeably reared it's ugly head when The Blair Witch Project erupted on screen. The necessity of the camerawork for that film was obvious and often effective, but again, the shaky cam element of it was distracting to the point of ruining the film goer's experience, even causing theatres to post signs on their doors warning of the effects of watching the film. Now that the (cost effective) hand-held digital cameras are becoming favourites of directors, and not of just smaller films but big-budget franchises as well, it's becoming problematic for those of us whose brains can't process it (see Roger Ebert's website and David Bordwell for more commentary on the shaky cam).

Viewed: In theatre

Release Date: December 25, 2007

writer: Diablo Cody

director: Jason Reitman



I wasn't aware that there was backlash against Juno until today, but then there's a tendency in today's society for people to rebel against the praise if only to be the naysayer. With films like Juno, which are smaller budget and less likely to be received by a mass audience, reviewers and critics highlight them with glowingly positive reviews. Juno debuted at the Toronto International Film Fest and its praises were sung immediately, in the hope that a) it would get strong distribution and b) it would reach or intrigue a wider audience. When the film hit theatres last Christmas, the inevitable happened: rebellion. People hating the movie, if only because it's so universally loved.



My good friend Toast and I have been at bitter odds over cinema (and other pop culture) for the past few years. Whenever I love something, he invariably dislikes it (9 times out of 10). It's not really a case of spiting me, but instead he (for some reason) has added considerable weight to my opinion on such things, and when he finds his enjoyment lacking compared to mine and his expectations dashed, well, it seems to diminish much of the enjoyment he gets out of the film.



But here's the thing, when you see a film without hearing much about it, there's a sense of discovery, a sense of unveiling as you watch it unfold before you. So much enjoyment of entertainment comes from this that when someone injects their own enthusiasm, their own sense of appreciation into it, well, suddenly you no longer have so much to discover, and it more becomes a comparative experience. "So and so really liked this, but why, the effects aren't great and the dialogue is too punchy and I just can't get behind this soundtrack"). When you have someone else's voice in your head as you watch (that's a figurative voice which we attach even to writers/reviewers/critics whose faces we've never seen and voices never heard), it does impact how you receive a work of entertainment.

Viewed: In Theatre
Release Date: November 28, 2007
writer: Todd Haynes & Oren Moverman
director: Todd Haynes

I'm going to start by saying I'm not a Bob Dylan fan nor am I overly familiar with his musical repertoire (aside from the obvious "Mr. Tambourine Man"/"Blowing In The Wind"-like songs which are inescapable). Now you may say that since I'm not a Dylan fan I'm therefore not a music fan. Maybe you're right. Regardless.

I'm Not There is a film about Bob Dylan and his music, but it's not a biography. If anything, it's an anti-biography, wiping away any trace of the Walk The Line, La Bamba, Ray-style formula that musical bio-pics tend to fall into. Todd Haynes, a noted avant-garde director, has created a film that is unrestrained by convention, and as such is a marvel of intrigue, if somewhat indecipherable. Fans of Dylan -- the real die hards -- will likely be able to decode the enigma that Haynes projects, and the lay-fan will get it, but for someone like myself it's the beauty of an oil spill. It's a big, disastrous mess, but something still majestic about it that kept me watching well beyond the point of understanding the chaos.

Viewed: In theatre
Release Date: January 11, 2008
writer: Paul Thomas Anderson
director: Paul Thomas Anderson

Upon seeing the trailer for There Will Be Blood for the first time, a haunting, screeching score backing a few glimpses of the oil baron and the evangelical minister, I wasn't interested until the directorial credit for Paul Thomas Anderson appeared. With every PT Anderson film, initial impressions can be deceiving. Though he only has five films under his belt, with Boogie Nights the most notorious of them, after Dirk Diggler became almost a household name, he became one of the must-watch directors of the '90's. With every film he's done since, something audacious, something unique has emerged, sometimes worth ceremony, sometimes just as curiosity.

With Magnolia, a 3-hour meditation on mood through multiple interweaving and independent storylines. It was a cinematic experiment tying themes, colours and music into the core conceit, and it's worthy of as much of its praise as it is its derision. It was a disappointment at the box office, a failure with many fans and critics cited as boring and pretentious, but just as much it's garnered its defenders who are willing to give it the patience and investment it requires to fully be understood. For Anderson to then turn to low-brow huckster Adam Sandler for redemption was an unexpected move and Punch-Drunk Love was Anderson's interpretation of the "Sandler formula" of film, and he made an honest-to-god actor out of the comedian, even if the film wasn't nearly as smart or funny as it could have been.

But here, almost six years later, Anderson has more than fulfilled the promise that Boogie Nights' champions wanted out of his follow-up works. In fact, Anderson has moved away from the layered textures of Magnolia and Boogie Nights into something more straightforward, something more iconic, perhaps not quite Citizen Kane territory, but certainly analogous to it. Fond of the big film, this one doesn't shy away from epic, as it spans decades and over two and a half hours, but it surprisingly never yields to dull. Much of it can be attributed to Thomas' direction, the editing, the cinematography, but most of all, it's Daniel Day Lewis who carries almost every frame of this film in another Oscar nominated (and had he a nude fighting scene, a sure-fire winner for best actor) performance.

Viewed: In theatre
Release Date: March 28, 2008
writers: Michael Ian Black and Simon Pegg
director: David Schwimmer

Oh, the hipster's lament... do they go see a movie starring cerebral-geek favourite Simon Pegg and written by Stella's dryronic (dry and ironic) Michael Ian Black, or do they steer far clear of it because it's the inaugural directorial cinematic effort from still-too-popular-to-be-cool Friends star David Schwimmer. To that I say "quit trying so hard."

Run Fatboy Run is at once contrived and unexpected, a film whose plot is so utterly expected and yet it has so many moments that step it outside of its conventions. Key amongst those is Simon Pegg, taking his own pen to the script and tailoring it to a London setting, and, likely to hims own strength and his pals (co-star Dylan Moran, cameos from Extras' Stephen Merchant and Little Britain's David Walliams) who join him on the film.

Viewed: In theatre
Release Date: April 18, 2008
writer: Jason Segel
director: Nicholas Stoller

People keep calling this a Judd Apatow flick, just as they did with Superbad, even though his role is more in the bankrolling than directly creative. Apatow has become a brand more than a creator. His last film was actually Walk Hard, which he wrote as well as produced, but it's not considered an "Apatow" film, or at least not in the same stable as 40-Year-Old Virgin, Knocked Up, Superbad and this film. The Apatow brand began with his role as Executive Producer, writer and director on the television comedy-drama Freaks and Geeks, followed by creator credit on the sit-com Undeclared. Both of these shows were cancelled after their first season, but thanks to word-of-mouth and DVD sales, they became genuine cult programming. With the release and subsequent financial and critical blockbuster status of 40-Year-Old Virgin, not only did Apatow suddenly find himself a superstar creator but a man in desire, and in control.

Apatow worked on The Larry Sanders Show, The Ben Stiller Show and number of other projects where he befriended a lot of talented people. Via 40-Year-Old Virgin he turned Steve Carrell from a Daily Show correspondent into a superstar. On Freaks and Geeks and Undeclared he nurtured a stable of young actors, which included both Seth Rogen and Jason Segel, and most of which appear in some nominal way in the movies he produces. With Rogen and Segel, it would seem, he took them under his wing and helped them develop their talent not just as comedic actors but as writers as well. Rogen, with partner Evan Goldberg wrote Superbad and the forthcoming (Apatow-produced) Pineapple Express. When I heard that Jason Segel had written and was starring in an "Apatow movie" I was wary of whether he had the talent (either as a lead or as a writer to pull it off). The Apatow brand is a strong draw, and even though the trailers for Forgetting Sarah Marshall were cute, at best, I wasn't expecting much.

The Apatow appeal is a sense of naturalism, a sense that the characters on screen aren't characters but people who act and think and overthink like most people do. The characters in the Apatow stable of television shows and movies are as neurotic and irrational and prone to whims as most real people are. The situations they find themselves in are exaggerated slightly for comedic effect but for the most part they seem plausible, if not familiar. Most of what's considered the "Apatow stable" are variations on either the romantic comedy or teen comedies. In fact, these films could be the 20-something offspring of John Hugh's oeuvre of the 1980's and Woody Allen's cerebral rom-coms of the 1970's . Invariably these movies have become the new date movies, and Forgetting Sarah Marshall just about tops them all, in part because it was so unassuming.

Viewed: In theatre
Release Date: May 2, 2008
writer: Mark Fergus, Hawk Ostby, Art Marcum & Matt Holloway
director: Jon Favreau

Is Iron Man the greatest superhero movie ever?
No.
But it's also not far off.
What makes a great superhero movie? Well, it's one that can take decades worth of stories and character development as well as a plethora of supporting cast and villains come and gone and distill them all down to the bare essentials and then rebuild using the best bits but also allowing for the the necessity of appealing to a more modern and broader market, not to mention the limitations of live-action filmmaking. Comic book companies have been tearing down and rebuilding their characters on a fairly regular basis (as much as a couple times a decade) so it should be a cakewalk for cinema to do the same, but it rarely is.

The problem historically with most cinematic translations of superheroes from the comic page is the screenwriter doesn't know or appreciate the character or their history. They take icons and write them as they perceive them to be (or think they *should* be), and instead of taking that which a few hundred thousand comic fans like and passing it along to millions, they forge their own path, resulting in failures if not financially, then critically.

Iron Man doesn't fall into this trap. Though four writers are given credit on the screenplay, Paramount wisely brought in a brain trust of comic book writers and editors, each with some affiliation to the character, to read through the script and ensure it rings true to the character. While generally I'd be suspect of any movie with a script-by-committee, in the case of comic book films, it's the right way to do it, especially this way. And Iron Man succeeds, yes, because it is entertaining, but also because it stays true to the character and his history.

I was a HUGE X-Files junkie back in the '90's, but then I wasn't the only one. I was sitting around a diner table with some other friends from the comic shoppe in early '94 when Rob (the only one of us with satellite dish) started telling us about this great series on the upstart Fox network (which had yet to become part of the cable package in Thunder Bay) called the X-Files, about FBI agents, one of which is a conspiracy nut, the other a straight-laced, attractive science-geek, together investigating paranormal phenomenon. He told us about a bunch of things that happened on a few episodes involving monsters and UFOs and we were all rather entranced. Rob said the show was great, but that he had his doubts it'd last beyond the first season. Well, it did.

I managed to start watching the X-Files during the summer between its first and second seasons (either local cable picked up the Fox network or CTV picked up Canadian distribution rights to the show, I can't remember which), catching up on a handful of episodes. The second season hooked me right in... deep. I loved the one-off, monster-of-the-week episodes (flukeman!) and I loved the big over-arching conspiracy stuff, and rat-boy Krycek (is he good or bad or what). The third and forth seasons started exploring some of the more comedic sides of the characters and the situations with some brilliant episodes by Glen Morgan and James Wong (later would go on to create Space: Above and Beyond, and then mediocre movies like Final Destination and The One).

I bought episode guides every year, trading cards, dozens of comic books, novels, magazines, action figures and more. I did love me some X-Files something fierce.

By season five, though, the show began to wear a little thin, particularly in it's grand conspiracy arc which established the annoying precedent of asking three questions for every one it answered. It was clear in the 5th season that there really wasn't a masterplan for the big storyline. Also, Scully's constant dismissal of everything she'd seen up to that point was excessively annoying (I know the conceit was that he's the believer and she's the debunker, but after 100+ adventures she wasn't any closer to admitting there's strange phenomenon in their little world...sigh). Between the 5th and 6th season, Fight The Future, the X-Files film hit the theatre, and while it looked good all it did was raise a whole slew of questions without giving any answers or a sense of completion.

The film seemed to actually have a negative impact on the show, its character and the fanbase, and the 6th season (having shifted from Vancouver to LA so that star David Duchovney could be closer to actress wife Tea Leoni) started out weak, and only got worse (one good episode, "Drive" was overshadowed by the stank of a hillock of exceptionally bad ones, including one particularly horrendous episode guest starring Lily Tomlin). The show and its situations seemed to be repeating themselves, over and over again, and the Mulder and Scully dynamic (not to mention Skinner and the Cigarette Smoking Man) became unintentionally funny since it was so golddang repetitive. I stopped watching the show at the beginning of the 7th season, picking it up briefly in the 8th season to see Mulder leave and Dogget come in (a momentary breath of life added). The few moments throughout its remaining seasons that I would catch made me shudder in horror (that not being the show's intent I should clarify), and the confirmed X-Files fan was no more.

Yet I still had affection for the early seasons, and I purchased on DVD the first season (for about $120), later acquiring seasons 3 and 4 used (for about $65 each). I tried to watch them, and found I couldn't. I actively detested the show for it's lack of vision, for missing out on such a solid opportunity to be something great, instead piddling out over three (maybe four) unnecessary seasons. I'd like to think a lot of TV shows that have larger story arcs learned a lot from this failure (Lost certainly seems to have a destination, a light at the end of its tunnel, while shows like Battlestar Galactica and Heroes seemed to have focus but then completely collapsed under the weight of their own success recently).

Time has passed, though. It's been about four years (if not more) since I last watched an episode of the show, and you know, I think my nostalgia receptors are kicking in... I want to believe that there's something good about the X-Files still, and I think this new movie might prove it. The rumour is it has nothing to do with the show's convoluted mythology, instead taking more the monster-of-the-week approach, which is positive, plus I think it'll be nice to see Mulder and Scully again, like reconnecting with old friends and seeing what they've been up to. As long as it's not a film depending on the nuanced fanaticism of the ol' "X-Philes" collective, then it should prove a lot of fun. Fingers crossed.

(its been a while since we ["we"?] last had a Short Rounds [the mini-bar within which I place my more ... economical reviews] here at the geekent, but with all the craziness and laziness I've fallen behind and it's time to get back into the game or else abandon it altogether, n'est pas? With not further adios, let's we go:)
Raiders of the Lost Ark - re-review DVD
X2: X-Men United - re-review DVD
Carnal Knowledge - on TV
Manhattan - on TV
Melvin and Howard - on TV
The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian - In Theatre
Treed Murray - on TV
Superman/Doomsday - gift DVD
Hellboy Animated: Sword of Storms - borrowed DVD
Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull - in Theatre

Viewed: In theatre
Release Date: June 6, 2008
writer: Ethan Reiff & Cyrus Voris
director: Jonathan Aibel and Glenn Berger


Is "kid-flick", like "chick-flick", and actual genre of filmmaking or is it simply a measure by which we can simply identify the intended audience for the movie? I ask, because although Kung-Fu Panda is indeed a kid flick, it's more in its heart an American-bred, animated version of 70's kung-fu cinema, owing a tremendous debt to Jackie Chan and Sammo Hung. Should I judge it as an entrant into the annals of chopsocky entertainment or as the latest in the tremendously long line of CGI-animated children's movies?

How about both? Eh, why not...

Viewed: In theatre
Release Date: June 20, 2008
writer: Tom J. Astle and Matt Ember
director: Peter Segal


The Sunday prior to this film's theatrical release I spent about a half hour slouched on the couch, remote in hand, with my carpal-tunnel-inflamed thumb hovering over the "recall" button (you know, the one that takes you back to the previous channel you were on?). On AMC (acronym for "American Movie Classics", a station name which is only 2/3rds correct) was the year 2000 production The Adventures of Rocky and Bullwinkle, while simultaneously over on Showcase (a channel once known for it's artful and refined sense of international and independent movie selections) was the 2005 cinematic version of The Dukes of Hazzard. While my sense of good taste and comfort wouldn't let me watch either for any prolonged period of time, my sense of curiosity and fascination with the horrid had me flipping between the two films every two minutes or so.

I loved the original programs both films were based on when I was a kid, and the first thing a television-to-film adaptation will play upon is nostalgia. Of course it does, why wouldn't it. There's almost no other reason to be watching it, am I right? That is unless you're a bit of a masochist or genuinely intrigued by whatever the marketing department might have sold the film on (that wasn't nostalgia). Dukes, from what I saw, played out near exactly like an extended, big-budget version of the TV show (and the TV show was pretty horrendous). Rocky and Bullwinkle was a bizarre Roger-Rabbiting mash of animation and real world storytelling... about on the level of other such kiddie adaptations like Scoobie-Doo, Inspector Gadget and Underdog (I suppose, I like apparently everyone else on the continent, never saw the latter), which is to say not very good at all.

Viewed: In theatre
Release Date: June 27, 2008
writer: Andrew Stanton
director: Andrew Stanton

WALL-E is not a flawless film. There are gaps and/or leaps in logic that, if focussed upon, could hinder one's complete enjoyment of the film. Don't let it, because by and large, the latest Pixar film is an absolute wonder, a marvel of digital animation and a deceptively complex sci-fi fable. Sure, superficially WALL-E is a kid's movie, but it contains undercurrents that will resonate more with an adult audience. The marvelous thing about the film, though, is it's absolutely entertaining without putting any thought into it beyond the surface story, but if you do, if you look deeply at the various concepts and ideas that the creative team have strewn throughout, there's a commentary, perhaps a warning, about how human society is advancing (or in some respects, regressing).

The opening shot of WALL-E descends through smoggy clouds upon a metropolis filled with skyscrapers. The closer we get, we realize that not all of these buildings are what they seem, but rather hundred-storey tall piles of compacted garbage cubes, intricately and impossibly stacked like futuristic pyramids. As the camera descends amidst the surface of the city, it's utterly devoid of life (fauna or flora), and is virtually colourless, hues of steel grey, dirty umber, tarnished silver and red rust coating the landscape comprised mostly of garbage. The camera's passage through the city tells a story, as every billboard, every building is branded with the only colour in the city, a large logo sporting "BNL" or "Buy And Large". The billboards tell part of the story, noting that humanity need not worry about the garbage, just leave the earth on BNL's luxury space liners, and BNL's WALL-E units will take care of the trash in the meantime. It's obvious that whatever the plan was went awry some time ago, as those robots are now themselves garbage littering the cityscape. Eventually the camera settles on the only movement, a lone cube-shaped robot, the titular droid, and his pet cockroach. We watch as WALL-E performs his duty, collecting garbage, putting it into his belly and compressing it, spitting out a perfectly shaped cube which he stacks on a building.

For the first 10 minutes we bear witness to WALL-E's solitary life, as he performs his duty during the day, races home (the back end of a maintenance truck) to avoid dust storms at night, feeds his pet cockroach (BNL-branded Twinkie-like substances, not so improbably still good 700 years later), adds to his various collection of Zippo lighters and other curiosities, and watches with fascination a tape (channeled through an iPod, viewed through a magnifying glass) of Hello Dolly (marveling at the dance numbers and the romantic plot). WALL-E passes his days, until a massive spaceship descends upon the city, dropping off an egg-shaped, Apple-influence robot before departing again. Perhaps it's the new robot's sleek design or his own loneliness but the little droid falls hopelessly in love. Though the egg-shape seems to dismiss him, instead focussing on her directive, but WALL-E eventually befriends her, learning her name (EVE) and showing her his home, his favourite film and his collection. But when he shows her the small green plant he found, EVE returns back into directive mode and calls for pick-up.

Viewed: In theatre
Release Date: June 27, 2008
writer: Michael Brandt, Derek Haas
director: Timur Bekmambetov


The bulk of Hollywood's output from the past decade has been derived from source materials, whether they be novels, TV shows, remakes of (or sequels to) old movies, or comic books. Adapting or updating a story is always a tricky business, because what made the original work a success can't always be duplicated, sometimes it's a bit of right-place/right-time, and sometimes it's the medium in which the story is told. A TV show tells a story differently from a novel which tells a story differently from a comic book which tells a story differently from a movie. In most cases, fans of the source material will invariably like the source material more than the film, because, as necessitated by the medium (and the audience), changes have to be made. Successful translations tend to pare in on what made the original work, and distill that upon the screen. Unsuccessful versions tend to only superficially replicate the source without understanding the heart or message or characters.

In this case, Wanted is a unique beast. A comic book mini-series created by writer Mark Millar and artist J.G. Jones, it was a high-concept "villains win the day" set-up (a rejected pitch, originally intended as an alternate timeline story for DC Comics) (my review of the graphic novel). In the comic, the bad guys rule the world, but there's in-fighting, and the titular character, Wesley Gibson, must fulfill his destiny as the son of the greatest supervillain of all. The movie dispenses with the which very geeky needling of DC archetypes which comprised the bulk of Millar's story and instead turns into a story about a league of assassins, complete with it's own built-from-scratch intricate policies and curious history.

At some point over the past three years or so I've actually come to like James Lipton, the hyper-prepared, creepy, leprechaunish host of Inside The Actor's Studio. I enjoyed Will Ferrell's take on the man on Saturday Night Live years ago, and Bob Odenkirk's somewhat repulsive take on Mr. Show, but that was parody, somewhat mocking without any real sense of affection for the man and what he does. But, if you sit down and watch an episode of the show with Lipton interviewing someone whom you're actually interested in, it's evident the man (and his writing staff) have done their research and are absolutely fearless about asking any question. Much of the time I have to question "what business is it of yours" but if it invariably comes back to, "and how do you use that in your acting/directing/writing etc." there is actually some merit.

I think my initial beef with Lipton was his show's misnomer of a title, since he so often has people who are not actors on his stage. I also was genuinely annoyed by the B-level, C-level (and below) talent that he frequently has on the show, wondering exactly what perspective these TV movie actors really have to give, as well as the young stars who only have a few pictures under their belt. But as a whole there's an interesting examination of the form from all different angles to what he does, with the thoughts from the people in front of the camera, to the observations of the people behind it, to the people that watch it all from the outside as interviewers (Barbara Walters was on the last episode I saw).

I think I started cutting him some slack after Lipton's brilliant turn on Arrested Development as the New Warden, who kept trying to promote his screenplay, aptly titled "New Warden". It was a very self-aware performance, not to dissimilar from Liza Minelli's Lucille 2 on the show or Bill Shatner's ham-fistedness in every venture he's undertake in the past decade. There's something very enjoyable about an actor or personality who's so very aware of their presence and how an audience perceives them, and then know how to use all that to their advantage in performing. Lipton's certainly embracing his unique place in pop culture, and quite frankly, I quite like him for it. And this, well, this kills me:



Best use of "Booya" this decade.





more Hellboy shilling after the cut:

Viewed: In theatre
Release Date: June 13, 2008
writer: Zak Penn and Edward Norton (uncredited)
director: Louis Leterrier


Full disclosure: I loved (still do) Ang Lee's Hulk, and yes, I realize I'm in the minority, but it's a brilliant film technically (editing, directing and design), and I highly appreciate Lee's sense of comic book drama. The geeks go on about "Hulk dogs" as if there's something inherently wrong with that just because it wasn't in the comics. Lee's take on the Hulk isn't about the creature, but rather a story about fathers and their children, of Bruce Banner (Eric Bana) and his dad (Nick Nolte), and Betty Ross (Jennifer Connelly) and her father (Sam Elliott). The two stories crossed paths, in modern day and in flashbacks, and what unfolded was a mystery nobody was expecting and most still don't see. Far too many people expected a big-budget Hulk movie to be like the character, rather mindless... a summer blockbuster, just popcorn-chugging fun, full of the Green Goliath smashing his way out of any predicament. Instead, as my wife says, it turned out a snooze-fest of disinteresting human melodrama.

The new Incredible Hulk movie aims to deliver upon expectations that weren't met from the last film, swapping out any real sense of character progression for a number of CGI rendered demolition derbies, with equal motivation to distance itself from Lee's film (but without looking like it's keeping its distance) and to relaunch the character as part of the new cinematic "Marvel Universe".

Viewed: In theatre
Release Date: July 18, 2008
writers: Jonathan Nolan, Christopher Nolan and David Goyer
director: Christopher Nolan


Four days later and I'm still trying to process it. I've seen two big summer releases in the interim and they pale in the shadow, and my initial reaction was "that made Iron Man look like a cartoon". The Dark Knight is epic filmmaking, not just because of it's budget or it's 2-and-a-half hour run-tim but how it makes you feel. It's a tense thrill ride, indeed, but it tugs at your innards, makes you a little ill at times, it breaks your heart and makes you laugh and you begin to seep empathy the moment your pulse starts to calm down. It takes you everywhere any movie could possibly take you, defying simplistic categorization. It's not horror, or action, or adventure, or espionage, or police procedural, or drama, or love story, or tragedy, or simple superheroes, but all of them an more. Batman has always been a versatile character and his world has always been pliable, but it's never been use like this, so tangible, so ground-level, so affecting.

I haven't been to a new release movie that I've had to line up for in years... Spider-Man 2 I think was the last, about 4 years ago, and that was opening weekend. The Dark Knight is now in it's third week and it's still selling out shows and pulling line-ups, and getting into the IMAX version has become the hot ticket most evenings. What is it that's drawing the crowds? Is it the hype? Is the the freakshow curiosity surrounding Heath Ledger's (may he rest) final performance? Is it the glut of inescapable advertising? Yes. And Yes. And Yes. But, it's also a damn, damn good film that plays on so many levels that it will impress a vast assortment of people who look for different things from their cinema. For those that don't want to think and those that do equally, it will hit them hard with action, with drama, with intensity. There's marvelous performances here from Christian Bale, Aaron Eckhart and, yes, Heath Ledger that will impress virtually everyone (there's always a cynic in the crowd), and it virtually does have everything you could want out of a movie.

The plot spirals around itself like DNA, at times juggling four separate character threads (if not more), there's layers of players and levels of involvement. The film asks a lot, but gives a lot back in return. If you haven't seen it yet, chances are you will, and although knowledge wont spoil the experience, I'm hesitant about recounting details of the film, simply because it's not an easy chore.

Viewed: In theatre
Release Date: July 11, 2008
writers: Guillermo Del Toro (w/ Mike Mignola)
director: Guillermo Del Toro


I was about to profess my love for Hellboy in his various incarnations, but it would be a big fat lie. If I actually loved Hellboy as much as I claim I do, then why haven't I bought any Hellboy action figures, why haven't I purchased the Animated movies, why did I only buy the 2-disc special edition of the first live-action film and not the mega-4-disc one, and why haven't I bought a Hellboy comic in seven years?

To be honest I don't know. I think in my head about Hellboy and I have a strong reaction, I think he's awesome. But he's not a flawless character, and not everything that's based on him or has his name on it is going to be great. There was the Hellboy Jr. comics that really didn't impress me much and looking back at my reaction to the first film (and my review) I'm surprised at how underwhelmed I was by it then, considering how highly I think of it now. It's become one of those movies that I can pull off the shelf and sit back and enjoy the comforts of it. It's not perfect but it's a fun interpretation of the character (difference between then and now is I can understand the need for different iterations of stories and characters when presented different media).

My reaction to the announcement and lead up to Hellboy 2 was unbridled anticipation. My affection for the first film had obviously grown, and I was looking forward to more of Ron Perlman in the red bodysuit, makeup and shaved-down horns. The trailers promised something much for fantastical the second time around... more creatures, primarily, an obvious love of writer/director Guillermo Del Toro (all of his films have dealt with paranormal creatures in some respect or another). Not needing to introduce the character or deal with his origin story, I was hoping the sequel could steer back into the comic books' strengths, that of a paranormal high-adventure story, like a crossing of Indiana Jones and the X-Files. What was delivered was a junior level fantasy, a tweeners movie that's been marketed towards adults (what parent is going to take their 10 year old to a movie about a demon, even if it's as harmless as Harry Potter?).

Viewed: In theatre
Release Date: July 26, 2008
writers: Chris Carter and Frank Spotniz
director: Chris Carter


(I've already discussed my history with the X-Files in a previous post, so this is going to be less a personal history lesson an more about the movie)

To my, and I think many a recovered X-phile's surprise, this film is far from what we were expecting, and pleasantly so. Nearly a decade has passed since the end of the series and even longer since many watched the once glorious program diminish in its competence and relevance with each episode. The hope was that this movie would be what the creative team promised it to be: more of the monster-of-the-week style of storytelling rather than tackling the messy, go-nowhere serialized conspiracy story. In many minds, I'm sure, there was a thought that this could revitalize the franchise into an ongoing series of one-off movies. Instead, what Chris Carter and friends delivered was a stand-alone, character-driven mystery with only hints of paranormal elements, and ultimately the perfect send-off for Mulder and Scully and their adventures together.

If you've never watched the X-Files before, it doesn't matter. This film, with the exception of a few nods in the fans' direction, introduces Fox Mulder and Dana Scully independently of their many exploits from years passed. With fresh eyes you would see these characters for who they are now. Scully, a former FBI agent now devoted, caring doctor/surgeon at a Catholic hospital, dealing currently with a particularly tough case of a young boy, dying, with little hope for her to give him. Mulder is her former partner at the FBI, now her life partner, squalled away in their remote home, keeping tabs on paranormal happenings around the globe on-line, lining his den with newspaper clippings. Mulder is hiding out from the FBI, wanted for some reason barely explained (or important), but obviously left alone. Scully is approached at the hospital by the Bureau, requesting Mulder's help in a missing persons case, a case where their only lead has come from Father Joseph Crissman, a convicted pedophile living in a self policing community for sex offenders. Scully urges Mulder to assist, despite his protests, and later comes to regret metaphorically awakening the beast. Crissman has had visions which have led the FBI to limited results, and now, with time running out on their missing person, they want Mulder's help in interpreting Crissman's dubious abilities. And Mulder wants nothing more than to believe, and to be believed.

Viewed: In theatre
Release Date: August 6, 2008
writers: Seth Rogen and Evan Goldberg
director: David Gordon Green


Take Cheech and Chong's perpetual state of haziness, the odd-couple and on-the-run 80's clichés, and the Kevin Smith hetero-life-mate "bromantic" comedy, stuff them all in a bong and light that puppy up. Inhale deeply, hold, and you will find there's a name for that sensation... Pineapple Express.

The new comedy from the writing team of Superbad, producer Judd Apatow, and the director of art-house fair like George Washington and Undertow is certainly a bizarre amalgam of different sources, yet there's something natural about it all, like it should have been done long before now.

It's interesting the clash of not just cinematic genres, but filmmakers as well. Apatow, Rogen and company are known for their oft-low brow yet deeply insightful looks at the neurotic male mind, pushed in varying degrees, obviously, for comedic intent (like Woody Allen if he weren't so obsessed with the literati and upper class). Gordon Green is known for small-but-intense personal dramas. That a big, goofy action-comedy/drug culture movie would come out of the collaboration of the two was a bit of a surprise, when you'd figure it would turn out more like the Adam Sandler/Paul Thomas Anderson collision Punch Drunk Love (aka the Sandler movie for people who would never see a Sandler movie... and they wonder why it failed).

An article at Salon.com poses the question: are we suffering from "Blockbuster Fatigue"?

Jim Emerson contemplates.

I respond.

1) Movies aren't sold like they used to be, and aren't seen like they used to be. They're not even made like they used to be. There's an evolution to cinema: the product, the spectator, the physical building... they all change and adapt. There are trends that come, like the current superhero blockbuster fixation (and Indiana Jones is as much a superhero as Hancock and Batman and Hellboy and Hulk), which will last only so long before fatigue sets in and something else replaces it.

2) This is the first summer, though, where blockbuster season has actually given us a plethora of *digestible* films. If you look at most of the big releases each week, Ebert's given them 3-stars or better, and that I think is unprecedented. Now, superheroic feats can be brought to the screen with some semblance of tangible realism (and not just cartoonish CGI effects, but a greater mix of practical within the digital to create something that breathes rather than just looks cool), and with that you can tell stories with some semblance of realism. You can give superheroes to talented writers and directors and let them play in the comic book playground with less studio interference. That comes across on screen, making movies about characters rather than properties, something which the audience is going to engage more with and enjoy, and that even some of the cinematic literati will appreciate (although some of them just can't relax enough to enjoy a good, cathartic explosion). I enjoy small dramas and documentaries etc. often as much if not more than spectacle, but I do so love a good spectacle. With most blockbuster seasons, it's often just as easy to let a film pass by (can you even remember what the big films were last year? Two years ago?), but this year there are, for the spectacle lover, way too many good ones to pass up.

3) in comics each year for the past 22 years the major publishers Marvel and DC roll out a massive "crossover"... wherein all the various characters (Batman, Superman, Green Lantern, Wonder Woman etc) come together for some big to do, which then impacts on all their titles for, say a six month duration. They've taken to calling these "Event Comics" which are essentially the Summer blockbusters of the comic world, and for about two or three years now the term "event fatigue" has been bandied about comic book critics/watchdog land. I find it ironic that "blockbuster fatigue" is being coined in the summer where superheroes play the biggest part. Coincidence?

4) On the cycle of movies (also referring back to my first point), films are only meant to last for a few weeks now. All that basically matters in trumpeting a film-as-success is getting the #1 spot on opening weekend. If it holds for a second week, gravy (and if word-of-mouth carries it further, bonus). I imagine Pineapple Express might be somewhat of a failure since it couldn't dethrone the Dark Knight and then got overshadowed by Tropic Thunder this week. But all hope is not lost, for in 3 months time, the hype machine starts up all over again as the DVDs get released, and these days, it seems like that's where the real money is for the studios/distributors. The fact that posters languish around like an afterthought will play into sales pitch for the film's second release come "new release Tuesday".

5) Speaking of, (and something I've spoken to before) people have bought into cycles, which includes "new release Tuesday" for DVDs and music, new movie Fridays, and new comic book Wednesdays. The system has given us a schedule on when we can expect our new consumer goods and trained us to buy into these cycles. Once you get into the habit, it's hard to break (trust me, I've been trying). Plus, our consumerist nature makes us want more, and we're an easy mark, hence DVDs marketed not for the movie but deleted scenes and special features. "If you liked it in the theatres, you'll love it on DVD". How many films are worth watching twice? How many of us will watch a film twice (never mind commentary tracks and production featurettes)? And how many of us buy a DVD of a movie we've already seen only to have it languish on our shelves in their cellophane, undisturbed? I've got a few of those.

6) And finally, there won't be as many people suffering from blockbuster fatigue as one might think. People who write about movies for a living and the people who read their work are a subset of the masses, and I don't think the masses spend nearly as much time watching trailers or reading articles/reviews on-line as reviewers and cinephiles do. Most people don't care to think so much about movies. We're just special that way.

Addendum:
Just finished off blockbuster season this week with Tropic Thunder and a second viewing of The Dark Knight (triumphantly getting an IMAX viewing). Of the summer spectacles, these two handily top my list as favourites. In fact, I probably like TT more than Iron Man (the DVD for which hits September 30th, in basic and special edition). Now comes the awkward transition of switching gears from blockbuster mode to art-house and dramatic fair.

Actually, looking at the September releases, it looks like "blockbuster season" for people who don't like blockbusters: movies based off best-selling novels (Blindness, Choke); an Americanization of a foreign film (Bangkok Dangerous); films from popular creators (Alan Ball's Towelhead, Spike Lee's Miracle at St. Anna, Coen Bros. Burn After Reading); artsy acting favourites (DeNiro/Pachino in Righteous Kill, Viggo Mortensen and Ed Harris in Appaloosa, Ricky Gervais in Ghost Town ); chick flicks (tedious English period piece the Duchess, Dane Cook and Kate Hudson *shudder* in My Best Friend's Girl, Richard Gere and Diane Lane *double shudder* in Nights in Rodanthe), and escapist thriller fare (Sam Jackson in Lakeview Terrace, Shia LaBeouf in Eagle Eye).

I'm curious to see how Towelhead fares with critics, and Burn After Reading is a must see, while Miracle at St. Anna, Eagle Eye and Choke have me intrigued. Canadian favourite Don McKellar wrote the screenplay and co-stars in Blindness, but it was such a depressing novel that I'm not sure I want to see it acted out.

Clint Mansell's soundtrack (with the Kronos Quartet) for the Darren Aronofsky film Requiem For A Dream is a very potent, intense and frightening work, and also quite beautiful at times. It's achieved a cult status which may at this point surpass the film itself, most likely because of the track Lux Aeterna, which has been coopted by more movie trailers that I can recall... but that's why there's wikipedia. You've no doubt heard it, recently even, on the Telus advert currently showing before most films or shortly afterwards in this trailer:


Babylon A.D.

Yes, of course it sounds familiar. Remember the trailer to such small little films like 300, I Am Legend, or Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers?

Of course, reusing music isn't anything new, I think it's just the rather excessive use of Mansell's wonderful composition that surprises me.

Stranger though is the repurposing of the theme from fanboy favourite The Adventures of Brisco County Jr. (written by Randy Edelman) by NBC for their Olympics broadcast (apparently they've been using it for various sporting events as far back as their 1996 MLB All-Star Game coverage).

Viewed: In theatre
Release Date: August 13, 2008
writers: Ben Stiller, Justin Theroux, Etan Cohen
director: Ben Stiller



There was a trailer for a film called Disaster Movie which ran immediately prior to the screening of Tropic Thunder, which appears the latest in a long line of scattershot movie parodies (see "Superhero Movie", "Date Movie", "Epic Movie", "Scary Movie 1 - 3" etc). I can't actually say I've seen a single one of those films, and I doubt I ever will. My wife said it best after having the trailer unavoidably projected before us: "That killed some precious brain cells just witnessing it."

The problem with those movies (again, I haven't seen them, but it's obvious from their trailers), is they have no intelligence or thought put into the humour behind them. Every joke is easy to make: 1) have an actor recite a popular line from a recent movie, but in a goofy voice, punctuated by getting hit in the balls; 2) reenact a popular scene from a recent film, only people's pants fall down or get hit in the head while doing it; 3) take a tabloid-fodder celeb du jour (eg. Britney Spears or Miley Cyrus) and flog the dead horse that Leno and Letterman have long since moved on from until there's nothing left but grotesque entrails and pulpy meat. It's not even Mad Magazine level juvenile humour, but something well below that, pandering to the lowest common denominator at every turn. Every film they aim to ape is it's immediate superior, no matter their quality, and in trying to take the piss out of them, they only serve to highlight that fact. They get away with stealing quotes, music, scenes under the guise of "parody", and I guess it is, but it's the lowest form of comedy out there, bereft of any creativity, riding on the coattails of other peoples talents.

Mel Brooks, followed by Jim Abrahams and the Zucker Brothers were the first to really capture the spirit of parody without directly mocking the films they were emulating. Blazing Saddles, Airplane, Naked Gun, Young Frankenstein all take the formula of popular cinema of the times (westerns, disaster movies, hard-boiled cop dramas, horror) but inject actual story and character development in amidst clever wordplay and satirical content, moving well beyond the easy string-of-spoofing-sequences. It's a shame that Brooks and David Zucker would fall prey to the later produce much cheaper and more obvious parody fodder.

Tropic Thunder picks up the parody torch dropped long ago. Although it takes aim at Vietnam Movies (hardly topical anymore), it's just the backdrop for a much larger jab in the ribs of the Hollywood system, as well as developing a well rounded cast of comedic characters featuring actual gifted comedic and acting talent.

Viewed: In theatre
Release Date: August 1, 2008
director: James Marsh




In some respects Man on Wire is a caper film, like The Great Train Robbery, The Italian Job, or Oceans 11: you know they're going to succeed, so it's not the "if" but the "how" that suckers you in. The fact that this film is a documentary, being retold by the participants, mixing photos and reenacted (and treated to look era-"authentic") scenes beneath the voice-overs gives it an interesting edge which both helps and hinders it.

On August 7th, 1974, after years of dreaming and planning, French wire-walker, Philippe Petit strutted out onto a wire secured between the rooftops of the twin towers of the World Trade Centre. Hundreds of feet above the ground, barely visible from the ground, Petit performed for over 40 minutes, and became a celeb-du-jour. The film features a highly animated, excitable, aged Petit recounting the adventures that led him to walk the cable and stare death in the face. As well, his accomplices, including his best friend Jean-Louis Blondeau, his girlfriend Annie Allix, "the Australian", the Americans and others who helped him each revisit their adventures, some with near-equal fervor as Petit, others wistfully, and still others with regret.