I Saw This!! Ghost of a Chance of Waves

The Conjuring, 2013, James Wan -- download
Tidal Wave, 2009, Youn Jk -- download
Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs 2, Cody Cameron, Kris Pearson -- download

The whole idea of I Saw This! is to capture those movies I have let pass without review, with a good enough time gone by so anything but some primary details fade. I know you know this, but I am saying it again as it really applies to these three movies.

The Conjuring is a "period piece" horror movie set in the 70s where a family moves into a house haunted by a violent spirit and seeks out the assistance of a pair of paranormal investigators, known for either debunking or dealing with the nasty things. Think Sam & Dean from Supernatural but without all the CW trappings, and they are husband and wife.  These are the legit investigators with a basement full of the trophies of defeated demons, spirits and ghosts. The Perron family needs their help to keep their lovely fixer upper house.

James Wan, known for Saw, directed this. I didn't let that deter me as he also did one of my favourite horrors of late, Insidious. The trouble is that he brings back Patrick Wilson as investigator Ed Warren. You might end up mixing up the two characters in your head or maybe it was just me. Anywayz, its a great atmospheric movie, full of dark shadows, claps & bumps in the night and some fun, legitimate scares. And it looks good. Despite horror plots always blurring for me, as their tropes are repetitive, if the visual imagery sticks with me, the tones and colours and textures, the I know I enjoyed the movie.

P.S. Check out this great fan-art poster by myrmorko at DeviantArt. It actually struck me as a better image than most of the official posters.

Next we have something that I indulged in because of a dearth in disaster porn lately. As I explained on FB, no, disaster porn doesn't involve a young lady answering the door, during a tornado, in revealing negligee, but likens to my guilty pleasure in enjoying movies where natural disasters are causing great destruction. As I said, dearth. I can watch my copies of 2012 or Deep Impact again or I can try some from other countries. I now avoid the stupid SyFy / Asylum flicks. My enjoyment of bad for bad's sake has waned.

Unfortunately, this has all the trappings of the same genre -- low budget, terrible effects and is wrapped up in the incredible melodrama that is South Korea cinema. In many instances, such as Oldboy or in horror movies, this works. Here, it becomes grating. I didn't care about any of the unlikable characters and didn't feel anything for the resort town that was about to be swamped by a tsunami... excuse me, MegaTsunami.

The basic plot is that a geologist knows about an unstable area of the ocean and is convinced that a mega-tsunami will come in the next few years, wiping out the coast of South Korea. Everyone ignores him. Of course. Meanwhile a handful of annoying characters living in the coastal town cause drama for each other oblivious as to how their normal lives are about to end. When the bad CGI wave comes, they all have to forget their differences and help each other out. Some die, some live. Boo hoo.

The only part I enjoyed was thinking about the unlicensed (as far as I could tell) restaurant that Yeon-Hee ran on the waterfront. Imagine if you could set up some lawn chairs and a blue tarp tent and call it a restaurant. Catch the fish yourself, cook the fish yourself and hope people don't get poisoned by the lack of any hygiene regulations. Its a concept that I don't think would fly in Toronto, despite what the foodtruck fans tell you.

Finally we have Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs 2. I loved the first. And the idea of them spinning a sequel off the same plot as Jurassic Park 2 is brilliant. The characters from the first movie return to the island that has been changed by the food-life machine. Problem is that the base-plot (evil food scientist with ulterior motives) is boring. And the puns are no longer cute and giggle worthy, just run of the mill and in your face. The voice acting is still spectacular and the animation is great. That said, Steve still cracked me up, as well as Tim Lockwood's eyebrows.

And that's it. Actually less to say about it that a stupid CGI tidal wave movie.  Wow. Plot? Well, the return to the island, defeat evil food scientist pretty much covers it. Nothing else stuck with me.

3 Short Paragraphs: Larry Crowne

2011, Tom Hanks -- Netflix

Tom Hanks is an affable kind of guy, not the kind you would think of being a lead in a romantic comedy. And yes, I am ignoring the fact that he starred in two of the most popular romantic comedies of the 90s (Sleepless in Seattle, You've Got Mail). He's almost 60, kind of pudgy and still carries himself in the awkward kind of way that betrays his comedian roots. And yes, here he is opposite Julia Roberts in a meek-shall-inherit-the-earth role. I still have a thing for Julia because we share a fondness for a stack of buttered toast so I think Tom Hanks should be out of her league. That may be kind of the point of the movie.

I felt a compulsion to watch this movie as it struck a note with me, and not just to share some toast with Julia. As a middle aged guy who seems perpetually doing ... new jobs, I was drawn to a story where a guy working the same job for most of his adult life is laid off. Yep, that connects directly to my experience this summer past. Well, not the "in the same job for a long time" but the laid off part. But, if I want to be completely honest, that was the longest tenure I've had in one job, in my entire adult life. So, yes, that concept of "what now" is always in my brain. How will I handle this 5 years from now or ten? How does a guy almost 60 start over? That is what this movie is about, at least from one of its plot points.

You see, really, its more generally about how this job loss forces him into re-starting his life. He is a guy who has been doing the same thing for ages -- same job, same schlub life, no GF, no close friends. By losing his job at the local big box store, he goes back to college, meets a wide array of interesting people filled with life and he finds love in the last expected place -- from his teacher. Roberts, as the teacher, is going through her own change of life, in that she is finally realizing she can leave the dillweed of a husband and find charm & romance with someone else. The movie is charming, funny where it needs to be, touching as it should be and all around, a likeable easily smiled at movie directed by Tom Hanks. It's not Sleepless... but its a good little Netflix romp.

Double Oh...19: The World Is Not Enough

1999, Michael Apted

The World Is Not Enough Preamble:

Oh boy, here we go.  I was actually writing reviews of films when this one came out, but those archives are currently inaccessible since I let my personal domain lapse (only to be appropriated by a hospital bed company), so I can't pull some quotes of what I thought of this movie at the time.  My recollection though is that I adamantly hated it, getting less and less enthused with each passing minute.  I really like Robert Carlyle at the time, so I was excited to see him as villain, but I thought he was terrible, and while I could tolerate Denise Richards in Wild Things and laugh at her (as we were supposed to) in Starship Troopers, there's fewer greater miscastings in cinematic history than her as Dr. Christmas Jones.  She decimated the movie for me, such that I couldn't bring myself to watch it on for over a decade.  After a recent James Bonding episode, wherein Matt and Matt said, effectively, outside of Richards, it's not altogether terrible, I watched a few minutes on a recent televisual airing and true enough, the scenes with Sophie Marceau were actually really meaty and quite good... but i didn't stick around for more than a few minutes on it.  I'm both apprehensive and intrigued to rewatch at this point actually.

Villains:

Renard (Robert Carlyle) aka Victor Tsokas is an ex-KGB agent that took a bullet to the head that  remains lodged in his brain and is slowly moving inward, in the process it's damaging his nerve receptors numbing any pain and making him stronger.  Like the shrapnel in Iron Man's heart, eventually it will kill him.  Renard killed the MI6 agent who put a bullet in his head, the agent was following a cash-for-information exchange M's buddy, English tycoon Sir Robert King had arranged.  This draws Bond into the fray to retrieve King's cash from a Swiss banker in the cold open, but it goes terribly wrong.  After King is assassinated (at MI6 headquarters no less), M, Bond and company suspect King's daughter, Elektra, is next, since she was once kidnapped by Renard and held for ransom before escaping (her farther wouldn't pay).  We don't actually meet him until 48 minutes into the film, up until then he's just mentioned in conversation.

Robbie Coltraine returns as Valentin Zukovsky, now heavily invested in caviar production.  He's a little friendlier to Bond's investigation once it suits him to be, and ultimate is killed by Elektra, but not before he frees Bond from Elektra's trap.

Zukovsky has an aide, Bullion (Goldie) who works for him as well as Elektra.  He's dubbed a bodyguard, but he's ridiculously cowardly and borderline comic relief with his mouth full of gold and blond hair.

Gabor (John Seru) is Elektra's bodyguard, most notable for his mane of dreadlocks.  He's brawny but not a giant like Jaws or any of the German uber-monsters that have been quiet right-hand men in past Bond flicks.

Bond Girls:

The film opens with Bond sitting in a Swiss banker's office in Bilbao, Spain admiring the assets of his personal assistant, played by Maria_Grazia_Cucinotta, but never given a name on screen (credited as "Cigar Girl" but given the name Giulietta da Vinci in the script.  She's a trained assassin, killing the Swiss banker before he can reveal that Renard was responsible for the MI6 Agent's death.  I like her from moment one, because when the banker makes a very generous set up of "Would you like to check my figures?" Bond's leering reply of "I'm sure they're well-rounded" results in a tremendously executed eyeroll on her part.


She escapes from Bond thanks to covering fire, but emerges again in London just after Sir Robert King's explosive assassination.  She has an impressive boat chase with Bond and seems exceptionally capable as an assassin, only marginally outmatched by Bond's persistence.  She eventually blows her own balloon up rather than, you know, become another of Bond's conquests... that's how much she disliked that "well-rounded" comment.

Samantha Bond is back as Moneypenny but has less to do than even the last outing... a role of diminishing returns.  Meanwhile Judy Dench is Back as M, and her performance feels rushed here, never quite getting the gravitas that she managed in earlier films (and definitely not up to the Craig films).  The establishment of her friendship with Sir Robert King wasn't very well done, nor was her reaction to his killing.

There's Serena Scott Thomas as Dr. Molly Warmflash, one of the absolute worst Bond Girl names, as an MI6 physician who has to look 007 over (why do they keep sending female doctors and psychiatrists to examine him, unless they want him to seduce them into putting him back in the field?) and gives him a "clean bill of health" (noting particularly his stamina).

Sophie Marceau's Elektra King, I had hoped, would be the revelation here, but it's a wildly uneven performance.  Marceau never seems quite sure how to portray Elektra.  She was once a victim of a kidnapping, of abuse, but she appears to have come through it as a strong, confident, self assured woman.  Bond woos her, but it turns out she was ultimately manipulating him, eventually revealing herself as a bit of a sadist and a megalomaniacal  psychopath, hellbent on both revenge and commercial aspirations, which don't seem to jibe well.  Renard, her former captor is now her lover (though he can feel nothing physical in their lovemaking), altogether a fully unhealthy situation in which Elektra seems all too at ease.  Marceau takes what should be a complex character and slowly whittles her down into a petty nutbag.  With Elektra being the villain of the piece, it winds up pulling back Renard's role in the proceedings and diminishes his character quite a bit.  Next to Elektra's craziness, he never seems quite as dangerous.


Finally there's Doctor Christmas Jones as "portrayed" by Denise Richards.  There has never been, nor will there ever be, a less convincing nuclear physicist on screen.  There's barely a single word uttered from Richards' lips that doesn't come across as strained and you never get a sense that Richards understands, nevermind owns the words she saying.  Perhaps it's the midriff tank top and short shorts that undermines her performance or perhaps it's the dopey grin on her face at the most inopportune moments, but she always looks out of place.  You could more convincingly put a Golden Retriever in her place.  And yet, I disliked her performance less this time around, in direct contrast I disliked Marceau's performance more.

Title/Credits:

The theme sung by Garbage (written by the film's composer David Arnold with Don Black) isn't the most memorable of Bond themes but it's not that terrible either. It's too long by one stanza for sure and it has a bit of that late-'90s post-trip-hop drone to it that makes it kind of monotonous.  It feels as much like a Garbage song as a Bond theme, which I guess is a compliment to the fusion, but it's also the lesser of both.

The credits sequence, though, beyond the opening 10 seconds is dull.  A lot of oil-based imagery (dancing women in oily black catsuits and naked women being doused in an oil like product) and at least one unforgivably hacky transitional effect.  This fits very much at the bottom of the franchise's credit sequences.  One commenter on the below youtube video mentioned how this is supposed to be shot from the POV of Elektra King.  How incredible would that be if it were an arty montage of Elektra's harrowing kidnapping and escape?

Bond: 

 Brosnan is on autopilot at this point, which isn't necessarily a bad thing.  He knows who his version of Bond is, as do the writers (he's quick with a comment, he's quick to get angry, and he's quick to fall for the wrong girl.  He's always performing hurt, running through the story with a fractured collarbone, and going his own way, typically against orders.  That's the thing about the Brosnan years, he wasn't a bad Bond.  In theory he should be the perfect Bond.  Tragically, though, the movies he was in, particularly this and the next, were just out of control trying to be something other than -- or at the very least, more than -- Bond. 

Movie:

There was the potential from this cast (less Richards) to pull out a decent film, but so much of the primary cast doesn't seem to give a shit about what's getting to the screen, or perhaps it's the director unsure of what he wanted to put there.  There's no chemistry between any of the characters (no scene chemistry between Richards and Brosnan, or Densch and Carlyle, or Marceau and Carlyle..) and the character portrayals are either uneven or lacking in conviction,.  The overall plot is muddy (which is status quo for a Bond film, bu this is next level.  What is the real scheme, is it terrorism or economic destabilization or revenge?

Brosnan's doing his share, but here his presence seems almost sidecar to the Elektra King story, and being pulled down in every scene by Richard's awful mugging.  Unlike the Craig films, which are very character-focussed, and previous Bonds which keep the character familiar yet somewhat enigmatic for the audience, here Bond is kind of left exposed, duped by Elektra King, which is a terrible position to put Bond in (compare against Vesper's betrayal in Casino Royale to see it done far, far better without compromising the character's integrity).

Let's just be blunt, this is a terrible film.  It's thoroughly unenjoyable, and actively unlikeable.  It starts off middling, and gets progressively worse.  Every big sequence past the opening boat chase (and even then it's gloomy overcast London sky and lack of access to the London Eye/Millennium Dome left it bland looking) is mishandled.  The missile silo heist is overblown and ridiculous (not good ridiculous either), the caviar factory sequence is ugly and shot terribly like a set with all the logic of an MC Escher drawing, and the finale with Bond against Renard on a sinking submarine never feels like the conflict nor the stakes are real and it concludes with such a deus ex machina. 

I hate this movie.

Q-gadgets:

This introduces John Cleese as "R", Q's replacement.  It's a cute scene, but it (as well as Cleese) feel completely out of place.  Overall the Q sequences have increasingly felt out of place in the modern films. Q gadgets were initially disguised weapons or other limited functionality tools in everyday items, but that idea has become more nonsensical and self-parodying with each film (and each spy spoof thereafter).  They're fun but they don't have a place anymore (Skyfall handled it's beautifully).

Glasses that set off a small detonator in his gun
Bagpipe machine gun/flamethrower
Winter coat-that expands into safety bubbleX-Ray glasses, bond uses to perv out at a casino
Credit card lock pick
Rappelling watch

Classification [out of 01.0] - 00.2, I'm not sure if this is worse than Octopussy or not.  It feels like it's on the same level.

I Saw This!! Kids stuff

In this I Saw This!!:
TMNT
Honey, I Shrunk The Kids
Enchanted

---

TMNT - 2007, Kevin Munroe - blu-ray

The Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles blew up just at the tail end of my adolescence, when I was about 11 or 12 or so when peer pressure was starting to take hold and make me feel silly for watching cartoons, reading comics and playing with toys.  I didn't abandon these things that I quite loved, but if it was exceptionally juvenile, like, say, talking turtles who know martial ars, well it was too goofy for me to take up. 

I was a rather adamant anti-Ninja Turtle guy, the characters were cheesy and they very concept itself seemed like it was designed by a four-year-old.  Plus, Ninja Turtles had dethroned He-Man and superheroes and Star Wars as the boys' franchise-du-jour and that just rankled me.

Even still, I bloody know all about the Ninja Turtles.  As a geeky teen, even if you didn't like something you still had to know it.  By the late 1990's (and my 20's) I decided to give up on this quest of knowing all things geek, as with the burgeoning internet started to reveal all manner of geeky thing I had not time, nor money, nor access to.  I mossed out on the last Ninja Turtle movie, and the 2000' revival with the female turtle, Venus, and yes, this rather larger budgeted cgi animated feature meant for an audience that had grown up with the property.

It's set after the Turtles' defeat of Shredder and the gang has split.  Leonardo spends his time haunting a rainforest, Michaelangelo is a kids party rent-a-dude, Donatello is in tech support and Raphael spends his nights as a vigilante.  There's a lot of tension between the brothers and when Leo returns from his excursion, things only get worse.  Not a good time for them all to be fighting as a centuries-old prophecy is about to come true as an unstoppable army from the past, resurrected by an immortal, is about to invade New York.

Truth told it's a decent film, surprisingly mature without alienating a younger audience completely, but I still can't see fit to care all that much about it.  My daughter has become a huge Ninja Turtles fan somehow which explains how we came to watch it, and she quite enjoyed it, though certainly not as much as the current TV show  (which this movie is one iteration removed from).  The animation, for a feature, is on par with what's considered television animation today, so it's acceptable but not incredible.

Honey, I Shrunk The Kids - 1989, Joe Johnston - netflix

I was surprised to learn that this film came out in 1989.  I thought I was a bit younger (like 9, versus 13) but that doesn't make it any less a crucial film from my childhood.  Despite the unruly title and the looming Disney moniker, this is a flat-out great family movie.  Watching it with fresh eyes (I can't even guess how long it's been since I last saw it, 20 years or more) I was overjoyed by how much it holds up.  Stylistically it's a product of its time, but the adventure is absolutely timeless.  It's a unapologetic rehash of The Incredible Shrinking Man, but it's tribute to the sci-fi classic is what makes it so good.  The use of practical effects take the everyday world and make it alien terrain with countless dangers, recognizable but unfamiliar at the same time.  Blades of grass are like trees, a drop of water like a five-foot water balloon, an and the deadliest creature you could face (until a scorpion comes along)... it's like Avatar without all the bullshit.

The cast of kids here are amazing, playing into their archetypes of popular girl, thoughtful loner, bratty bully, and science geek, but naturally revealing a deeper side as their harrowing adventure across their backyard progresses, and ultimately respect, if not something more.  Meanwhile, the parents (Rick Moranis, Matt Frewer, Marcia Strassman, Kristine Sutherland) all have their own issues to deal with when their kids seeming disappear.  Moranis is the perfect grounding force for a movie like this... he's got an easy charm, a hint of mania always percolating underneath.  Frewer, meanwhile, does a hot head like no one else, but is able to layer it with something resembling humanity.

Director Joe Johnston does a phenomenal job of making the 1-inch-tall world and the normal-side world interact, and gaining appropriate measure of the difference between the two.  Sure the sets look like sets and the props look like props, but it's all charming rather than obvious.  Unless you really want to resist, it's easy to buy into the conceit and follow along for the ride.  I'm anxiously anticipating Edgar Wright's Ant-Man motion picture which, hopefully, will feature much of this kind of spirit of adventure and not get too bogged down in tying a world of heroes and villains into the Avengers/Marvel universe.

And I dare you not tear up just a little when poor Anty bites it.

Enchanted - 2007, Kevin Lima - netflix

Something about Enchanted racking up three nominations in the Best Song category at the 2008 Oscars really put a hate-on for me towards this film.  I don't know what it was, partly that I was pulling so strongly for Once's "Falling Slowly" to take the win, but also not only did I hate the film, but also Amy Adams for no discernible reason, and it took me years (basically until she turned up in the The Muppets) to finally warm up to her (thankfully I did, because she's literally in every movie made now).  Also, let's face it, it's a princess movie (a Disney princess movie no less!) starring Patrick Dempsey at the height of his "McDreamy" phase which was about as laughable and annoying a moniker ever created. 

Oh, that moment in the trailer where A-OK-as-a-prince James Marsden (Cyclops!) starts to sing "I've been dreaming..." and then gets plowed into by a blur of bicycles, I have to admit I laughed, but still, no further love.  I forgot about enchanted for the past 5 years, until my daughter started to get into princess stuff (she's still a Ninja Turtles freak, but the peer pressure to be into princess things as a girl is hard to escape), so I wanted to direct her to more respectable princess-y things.  Enchanted, which seemed to be somewhat of a arch presentation of the typical Disney Princess story would certainly be more palatable.  

I have to say, in all honestly, I loved Enchanted, and far more than my daughter actually did.

The film opens in an animated fairy tale land, "Andalasia", where our heroine, Giselle (Adams), lives in a glorified tree house with a myriad of forest creatures as friends and happy workers.  Life is good, but despite her furry friends, she dreams of romance.  Likewise, Prince Edward (Marsden), quite content to hunt giant ogres, still longs to have his heart filled.  As fate has it in Disney fables, the two meet, fall in love immediately, and are to be wed the very next day.  Queen Narissa (Susan Sarandon) will not tolerate her step-son's fanciful whim, mainly because she is only Queen until the Prince is married.  She disguises herself as a hag and pushes Giselle into a wishing well which acts as a portal between the animated world and the real one.  Giselle emerges in New York City where it's painfully obvious how out of place she is in her sweeping princess wedding gown, and how unlike this city is to her fantasy homeland...full of technology and noise and rudeness.

Despite his common sense, divorce attorney and all-round practical guy Robert (Dempsey) helps her out, even letting her crash at his apartment at his daughter's behest.  Robert's about to enter into a practical engagement with his girlfriend (played by Frozen's Idina Menzel, although strangely she doesn't sing), but naturally Giselle is going to win him over.  But Prince Edward hasn't given up on his bride-to-be and along with the Queen's toady, Nathaniel (Timothy Spell), and Giselle's chipmunk friend Pip, they enter the real world as well in search of.   Nathaniel takes every effort to keep Edward from finding Giselle despite Pip's every interference (being unable to talk in the real world is a definite hindrance to him), and, at the Queen's behest, even endeavors to poison the young woman.  Eventually the Queen herself must get involved, leading to a climactic showdown where it's Giselle that must save Robert, and not the other way around.

It's a film that delightfully explodes the "princess myth" with reality creeping in at every turn, threatening to beat the upbeat out of Giselle.  But as much as the film pops the bubble of fairy tale romance, it doesn't deny the wonder of fantasy and rewards proactivity and optimism, instead of succumbing to negativity and pessimism.  Though not nearly as successful as the 90's Disney heyday, Enchanted still marks itself as an integral turning point in positive princesses on screen.  The Disney princesses to follow (Rapunzel in Tangled, Anna and Elsa in Frozen, and, to an unfortunately lesser extent Merida in Brave) would all be stronger, more independent, more self-realized characters than those of the past, being the hero of their own stories and not be utterly reliant upon a male supporting character to rescue them.

The film's use of traditional animation in its opening sequence (when Disney has otherwise long abandoned the form) and then throughout in tandem with live action sequences is its strongest stylistic choice, which pays off from moment one (the change in aspect ratio a nice touch).  Even Pip, the chipmunk, transitions into the real world as an animated rodent (in the vein of the live action chipmunk or Smurfs movie) but his character serves as the best shorthand for how the two worlds differ.  Where I should detest this little uncanny valley rodent, I loved how he played out in the film, ever frustrated by this world.

If there's any negative aspect to the film, it's the surreality of Nathaniel adapting to the real world (able to don any manner of disguises such as hot dog vendor or pizzeria waiter) without any sort of self-awareness.  It's the one leap the film continually makes that just doesn't make sense within its own fantasy logic.  So much more could have been done with all of the characters adjusting to the real world...it's understandable how the shamelessly self-involved prince is kind of oblivious to it, but Nathaniel should really be at odds with his new surroundings.  It's not a minor quibble, it's a flaw of the film, but one I can look past to enjoy the plentiful better moments.

3 Short Paragraphs: The Last Days on Mars

2013, Ruairi Robinson -- download

** SPOILER ALERT Don't read the below if you want to experience any surprises from the movie **

I never commented on how much I like the design esthetic in Europa Report.  There is probably a whole line of thought of how the interior of real space ships and habitats should look and that in our current age, it is starting to become rather chicken and egg. Do the movies inspire NASA on how the interior of Mars lander would look or are industrial designers on movie sets still looking at the interiors of the space station for ideas on realism? Either way, there is something about that mix of clean white plastic, smudged with filth after months or years of use, and the novel ways of organizing interiors that appeals to me. Some day, probably soon, someone will probably depict the interior of a star ship in a fundamentally new and intriguing way and our viewing paradigm will shift. Until then, we are given rounded edges, vacuum sealed doors out of submarines and slow moving all-terrain vehicles... all white. This is the visual cue that tells us this is a scifi movie based in realism, not future tech.

The Last Days on Mars is about the last few days of the second team to land on Mars. We don't know what happened to the first team, but likely they just finished their 6 month term and went upstairs to the orbital ship. The problem is that this second expedition hasn't discovered anything startling, and since the first team did all the "first men on mars" work, these guys feel stressed and let down. Also, a little space batty. Tensions are high between the multi-national team and most of them are dicks to each other. So, nobody is surprised when the Russian lies about why he has to go outside one last time and they all freak out when he falls into a crack in the ground.

The crack in the ground has two things: proof of life on Mars and ... well, proof that this is a horror movie. You see, the bacteria they discover is the zombie plague. There is no way around it, this is a zombie movie, just one set in a wonderful looking space exploration movie. This follows all the tropes of a zombie movie to the cue: the dead come back to life and snarl & gargle while they try to bite you, if you get scratched or bitten you eventually die and change, and you have to bash them repeatedly in the head to stop them from moving. Talk about a sucky way to end your trip to Mars. Luckily, everybody dies off before the infection / bacteria / zombie horde can get back to the orbital ship and then... well, then it would actually become the answer all the other zombie movies were looking for --- where did the zombie plague come from?

Geek Cred: Rock Jocks & Knights of Badassdom

 Is it a good sign when a movie doesn't yet have any Rotten Tomatoes ratings and I saw it months ago? I guess "leaking" it on the internet was not such a good idea. I readily admit; the only reason I saw Rock Jocks (2012, Paul V. Seetachitt), a scifi comedy meant for geeks, was Felicia Day. Unfortunately, if you extract her, there is no reason to see this terrible terrible movie.

Seetachitt wants to be a new Kevin Smith, creating an irreverent indie movie full of slackers we are supposed to root for when the shit hits the fan. The particular shit is that they may lose their jobs to government cutbacks, a job of shooting asteroids out of the sky. Yes, an idea extracted from an 80s video game, and that the sort of witty point -- everything looks and feels like an out of date video game, as the whole system was designed 40 years ago. The staff actually are slacker gamers so when The Man comes along and wants to shut them down, its up to them to prove their mettle against the expected big rock that shows up.

The movie feels like a long webisode,  low budget and a handful of recognizable faces in supporting roles. You probably haven't heard of the stars, besides Felicia Day. There are a few gems of line, but not much at all to like. Maybe I have matured? Maybe I like some substance to my geek material? I think I just like some wit to my lines and in the absent of presentation, I want brilliance in the scripting, not just sub-par.

Now, if this was a well rounded review, I would come along and say, "Now, conversely, if you want a great geek movie with recognizable people, brilliant acting, a great plot and a Hollywood budget, I would watch Knights of Badassdom (2013, Joe Lynch) !!"  Unfortunately, I cannot say that either.  Harrumph.

I have been waiting for this movie all year(s). The trailers started coming out ... three (?!?!) years ago after debuting at Comic-Con and after the usual production delays, and some apparently nasty post production delays, the movie is coming out.  Soonish. One of the rumors around the delays, is that the movie was taken out of the director's hands and chopped to bits by producers and distributors. Honestly, I think it shows.

This is an exquisitely brilliant ultra-geeky plot. Joe, an ex-D&Der (Ryan Kwanten), now into black metal and car repair, is dumped by his GF. Eric, his best friend and roommate (Steve Zahn) never grew out of the gamer psyche (like many of us) and is a weekend LARPer. He and the third of their triad, Hung (Peter Dinklage), drag Joe off to a weekend of ultimate LARPing so Joe can experience Eric finally levelling his wizard character, and get over his GF. Eric has even brought along a new spell book, to add some authenticity to his spell casting. Said spell book is a real spell book and they summon a demon. As the friends fight it off, they are supported by Summer Glau and Danny Pudi.

Brilliant ultra-geeky plot, you ask? Straight-to-DVD plot more likely, right? Its brilliant in its simplicity, smacking back to the gamer geek's love of 80s horror movies. This is all cliches with sexy demons and lost in the woods characters and overly violent jocks who want to ruin the fun. But this is real LARPing depicted -- not some Hollywood mockery of it. Oh its, mocked, as LARPing is not for every gamer (i hate it, in fact) but its all done lovingly and with knowledge. Everyone in this movie plays true to their roles as pretend heroes having to become real heroes.

But, but but. There is a problem somewhere in this movie. Perhaps the wrong scenes were edited together, perhaps the script wasn't tightened enough and perhaps it was cut short of desperately needed connecting material but something fell flat, something felt missing. So many of the individual parts were great fun and made me smile, but it never came together. This was supposed to come across as a labour of love, done by and for geeks.  It felt almost like they wanted it watered down for the general audience. It ends up failing for both audiences.

The Wolverine

2013, James Mangold - DVD

It's interesting to note that this is the sixth feature in which Hugh Jackman plays Wolverine (having a cameo in X-Men: First Class) but that it's truly the character's first solo endeavor.  X-Men Origins: Wolverine was such a convoluted mess trying to cram in as many cameos and sideshows as possible that any sense of character or individuality was left absent from the production.  It truly seemed less a Wolverine spotlight than a new mutant showcase.  This feature quite squarely puts the focus on Logan, applying a sense of meaning to who he is, what he's been through, and how his abilities, particularly his regenerative ones, affect him.

The film opens in 1945, just outside Nagasaki as American planes loom in the distance.  The sirens raise and the soldiers begin to flee.  Captives are freed, all the while, in what looks to be a well with a steel lid chained to the top, eyes peer out from a slot missing a brick.  One soldier thinks twice and opens the well screaming at the man inside to leave.  The soldier joins his commanding officers where they perform seppuku rather than face whatever horror to come, but the soldier loses his nerve, and the man from the well shields him from the firestorm.  Once
 
In the present day Logan lives a secluded life in rural Canada (northern British Columbia perhaps?), following the events of X-Men: The Last Stand, he's taken a vow of non-violence.  He's haunted by the woman he loved, and killed, Jean Grey, and he can't seem to escape his own remorse and heartache.  Living a pained existence, alone, this does not seem like an unfamiliar situation for Logan.  But he's a man who will not be left alone, as the man he saved over 65 years ago is facing his deathbed, and has requested his presence in Japan.

There's a 1960's-style sense of wide-eyed adventure, of Japan feeling like completely foreign territory, much in the same way as James Bond's journey in You Only Live Twice.  Jackman plays it as foreign terrain and (unlike the comics) is oblivious to what is said about and around him, and yet he seems acutely aware of meaning through physical mannerisms and expressions.  It may be a different country and language but Logan knows how to read people.

Yashida, in the decades since he first met Logan, has grown staggeringly rich, one of Japan's most prominent businessmen.  He's spared no expense in extending his own life, and having sought out Logan, seeks to convince him that his regenerative mutant ability can be transferred.  Logan's dreams of Jean often end with a request of joining her in the afterlife, which he laments that he cannot... so Yashida's offer is intriguing, if only a little.  The old man passes that same night, with Logan as a guest in the household he's witness to all manner of ugly family matters, which only escalate later at the funeral.

Yashida's granddaughter Mariko is to be named the heir to his empire, much to his son, Shingen's contempt.  At the funeral Yakuza make an attempt on Mariko's life, unprepared for Logan, save for the fact that Yashida's nurse, the mutant Viper, was able to implant a device in Logan that slows and ultimately nullifies his mutant regenerative ability.  In fighting the Yakuza Logan takes bullets and a beating that continue to plague him.  It's naturally the crux of the tale, to see a near-invincible man suddenly deal with his own mortality.

It's a remarkably cracking three-quarters of a film, with great characterization, some honest intrigue, and a decidedly unique viewpoint for a superhero film.  However, partway through the last act (just after Logan gets taken out by a few dozen ninjas), the film gets bogged down in a conventional "boss battle" fight sequence, involving a giant robot suit of armor and that nurse Viper (a pointless character overall), where everyone apparently dies twice over.  It's a frustrating, tedious and nonsense fight that only exists because that's what happens in these things.  It's like the final act of Iron Man (and Iron Man 2, actually) which even more makes it feel less than unique.  The entire third act distances itself from the rest of the film, which is too bad, because there's an otherwise excellent film here.

The Wolverine is a drastic improvement over the twin abominations that were Origins and The Final Battle but it still could have been a much tighter, more satisfying film.  I do have to say though that the closing sequence -- finding Logan and the young pre-cog mutant Yukio boarding one of Yashida's jets, playing Ingrid Bergman to Mariko's Humphrey Bogart -- that I definitely wanted to see where the pair's adventures would take them.  Shame then that the mid-credits sequence, set 2-years-later find Logan alone, confronting Magneto and a resurrected Charles Xavier...not that that's not cool on its own other merits.

[David's take]

Robocop

2014, José Padilha - in theatre

The original Robocop -- a violent, R-rated sci-fi/crime/action feature -- came out when I was 11 years old.  I was certainly not old enough to see the movie in the theatre, but I was old enough to have the movie marketed towards me.  A steel warrior with a fancy gun and a cool voice?  What kid wouldn't be into that.  After the success of the first film, toys, cartoons, Marvel comics, a television series, and two lesser-than sequels (of equally diminishing returns) would follow, all with an eye on captivating children as much, if not moreso than adults.  I was the right demographic to be totally into all of this, and I was insomuch as I knew all about the story of Alex Murphy and I gave all of his differing adventures in different media a shot, but it was more that I felt I needed to, lesser so that I particularly liked any of it.

I've watched the original Robocop a handful of times over the past 25-ish years, even owning a copy of the trilogy on VHS at one point (I only ever watched those sequels one time each though) but it's not something that's ever endeared itself to me.  It's cold and nasty and ever so much a Paul Verhoeven film.  I know there are die-hard fans out there, but I'm not one of them, and even amidst all my many geek circles I don't think I've ever met one.  Still, they're out there.  When the reboot film was announced, and after the first trailer was released, they reared their heads and were quite vocal about everything, from design changes, to casting, to tone of the film.  The BoCos (as I just now thought of to call the character's fans) seemed rather adamant to hate this movie straight out.  I really couldn't have cared less, not until the wildly diverging reviews started popping up.  How could some reviewers be so positive while others were so negative?

I think it comes down to expectations.  Authentic Robocop fans would go into the picture with a preconceived notion of what should be in the film and what they should be getting out of the film... the original was a caustic satire of futuristic culture based on the trends of mid-1980's Reaganomics.  It's played out many elements in a campy or broadly theatrical manner, and its tone was more exploitative than sincere.  I think anyone else looking at a trailer or even just the idea of a Robocop reboot would be thinking its cheap brand exploitation, loaded with explosions and things meant to be "cool" (starting with the new sleek black look).  Being a product of the original's tainted demographic skewering, it's fairly easy to be cynical about it all.

In all cases, this new iteration defies expectations.  Like the original, it's a satire of today, set in the future, only unlike the old film, this isn't meant to be funny.  The lens we view this satire through is a Fox News-style opinion/interview show, the Novak Element, in which Sam Jackson's host character, Pat Novak, uses his influential position to not report and discuss news but attempt to influence the populace for reasons never quite clear (he quite clearly has an agenda, but as we only ever see him as host, we're not privy to what the agenda means to him).  The issue of the moment is that of robot drone soldiers, both bipedal, humanoid-shaped ones and larger, tank-like ones, deployed around the world in "peacekeeping" efforts by America, but a bill has passed keeping them off American soil.

Omnicorp, the company that manufactures the drones, estimates about 6 billion dollars of lost revenue by being unable to tap into their home market.  Looking for a means to skirt the bill, Omnicorp CEO Ray Sellars looks to humanize his robots by, literally, putting humans inside them.  Dr. Dennett Norton is Omnicorp's chief bioresponsive-prosthetics and is tasked with the job of actually designing, building and making the product a success.  The primary consideration is not functional, but promotional, how good does it look.  The inaugural candidate will have to be just right.  Enter Alex Murphy.

Murphy, as a police detective, went undercover with his partner to find the kingpin of the local drug manufacturing and distribution syndicate.  Things went south and Murphy's partner was almost killed.  Murphy suspected corruption within the Detroit police force and was narrowing in when targeted with a car bomb, nearly ending his life.  Dr. Norton convinced Murphy's wife to let him be part of their program, thus saving him, and Robocop was born.

The film progresses through Murphy's emotions as his humanity is slowly stripped away by the politics of Omnicorp's business.  Dr. Norton struggles with the reality of his own actions, under the sway of his boss, and the desire to reach his own goals, bucking against the emotional toll of manipulating another's entire being.

Director Padilha expertly juggles multiple character threads -- the Novak Element's political dancing, the drug lords and police corruption, Murphy's family, Omnicorp's business and ethics, Dr. Norton's personal crisis -- in a manner that plays out more like television's long-form large ensemble storytelling (in the vein of Game of Thrones or Mad Men and the like) less that a stand-alone cinematic production.  What results is a surprisingly rich story with a meaningful cast of characters that, equally surprisingly, doesn't get bogged down by action setpieces.  There are three prominent action sequences in the film and I'd be surprised if any of them lasted more than three minutes.  It's a welcome respite in a genre film, particularly one whose existence seems to be predicated on action.

If Robocop fails its intended audience, it's in this regard, providing far more drama than a conventional blockbuster would ever dream of.  It's curious, given the name recognition factor, that Robocop's release was buried in the middle of February (where typically troubled or lame duck productions are released for a hibernating audience) but in this regard it feels like a smaller film, and more successful for it.  In February, we're not expecting an authentic blockbuster, and Robocop is more interesting and cerebral than that, and that's something I never expected from this reboot.  With drones and murder-by-remote as well as the morality behind it being a hot topic of conversation, this film approaches that conversation in a very literal sense. 

 Much has been said about the redesign of Robocop, based solely upon the trailers, and that, amusingly enough, is addressed head on in the film, a minor plot point in fact.  So much of the advance griping from the BoCos in advance of film seem to have been predicted by the script and its director.  It doesn't necessarily mean the fanboys will like it, but there's an in-story logic to virtually everything that goes on.

I was impressed, highly impressed, with how this film made me feel.  A typical blockuster will generally just leave me with tingles of excitement, but I was quite invested in the journey here and what it meant to the characters involved, not just the main one but most of them.  Once it was over, I wasn't clamoring for a sequel but instead digesting what was already presented to me.  Design wise everything is modernized, but the story and the storytelling here is leaps and bounds beyond the original in maturity.  It obviously doesn't have the same camp flair, and for some it'll be worse off for it, but I do believe a better film has been made.

I Saw This!! More Mythical

Monsters University, 2013, Dan Scanlon -- download
The Mortal Instruments: City of Bones, 2013, Harald Zwart -- download
Odd Thomas, 2013, Stephen Sommers -- download

I just have to clean some out.

Monsters University was a disappointment, but only in that it was not as good as the first, typical of sequelitis. I love the first, being both a buddy movie, a work movie and an incredibly creative exposure of the monsters under the beds. Everything about it is brilliant, from chameleon villain Steve Buscemi to John Goodman playing off oddball (*rimshot*) Billy Crystal, as best pals and workmates. It added "kitty!!" to my lexicon.

The followup is by the numbers, well done but just too typical. You cannot fault it for anything in particular as it is a good use of the frat boy micro-genre (really, are there any other current examples?) to explore the pasts of favourite characters. But it doesn't do anything new with the old story that people my age are familiar with. I hate when animated movies are just done for the kids who will buy the franchise, but this seemed to be the purpose for this entry. Glad I didn't waste my money on it.

The Mortal Instruments: City of Bones, is the beginning of a series, thus the use of a colon. I think people believe that by adding in the colon between franchise titles, they are going to reclaim the throne left empty by Harry Potter. The Hobbit had to do it, purely because... well, you know why. Potter did it well because it was always Harry Potter and the... That just works. This one just seems wonky, as if they are trying to convince us of how great this new mystical creatures teen romance story is already great. It doesn't work for me.

The movie itself is not so bad. Surprisingly, I wasn't as annoyed by the goo-goo eyes being made between characters and was actually impressed they tossed a gay man into the love triangle. The world itself is interesting, more like the plot of a 90s RPG from the White Wolf Vampire series, but that is as far as it goes. Interesting. Nothing here is very startling, the plot very familiar the special effects as well as can be expected. I think the whole franchise would be better suited to TV than movies and I doubt we will see another.

P.S. It was about half-demons fighting half-angels and a destiny being revealed to a young girl.

Speaking of destinies, if you are going to add teenage angst to the mix of having a mystical destiny, then Odd Thomas is the way to go about it. This is an odd movie, excuse the pun, and also the introductory entry to a franchise of people fighting the supernatural. Strangely enough, Dean R Koontz wrote the novel, which I dug up before seeing the movie.

It leaves behind the beautiful people and cool cultural environs for a small story in small town California. Odd, yes that's his name, is a kid who can see mythical creatures he ends up naming bodachs, bogeyman like creatures that are invisible to all but him and are attracted to death. Odd also sees the occasional ghost, often murder victims or some, like Elvis, who hang around for the fun of it. Odd and his odd friends, including a sympathetic local sheriff, and his gorgeous Destined To Be Together Forever girlfriend, help him deal with the ghosts. Its a fun premise but it derails itself almost immediately, going from light and bouncy to dark and tragic. Destiny can be a bitch.

This movie was under the radar, having come into a few cinemas and probably not doing very well. OK, I have to revise that. It never did make it to the cinemas, until now. And it comes out in the dead zone to slide into second place for the weekend, behind The Lego Movie. Should I expect a sequel? It does such a good job at laying down the world and the character and handled the heartbreaking climax with such sincerity. This is one of the times where in both the book and the movie, I had my heart utterly wrenched from me knowing what was about to happen. That works for me in such stories. I hope it makes some slow burn money.

The Lego Movie

2014, Phil Lord and Christopher Miller

It's easy to be cynical about The Lego Movie, ostensibly a 100-minute commercial for a product that, at this stage, needs very little help in advancing sales.  Lego is a juggernaut in the toy market, some stores dedicating an entire aisle to its output, not to mention the fact that Lego stores have begun to pop up in shopping malls the world over.   There are a few competitors to Lego, but over the past few decades Lego has drilled it into kids minds to accept no substitute, to the point where getting a Kree-O set is a disappointment.  In the past decade Lego has taken great pains to expand its scope, particularly by licensing, taking on all sorts of established and popular brands like DC and Marvel Superheros, Harry Potter, Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles and more.  Beyond these obvious sorts of properties, Lego has also developed kits that replicate famous landmarks (one I saw recently, in a gargantuan box of just under 3000 pieces, was a recreation of the Sydney Opera House for roughly $350), which only confirms both at price point and subject matter that Lego has extended itself beyond just appealing to children, sustaining and promoting itself among adult collectors and builders as well.

However, with the proliferation of all these building kits, for the most part gone is the idea of free play.  Instead the richly detailed visual instructions have taken over.  Follow the rules rather than create your own. In may ways, Lego has become 3-D puzzles, where the only real challenge is finding the right piece in a pile, and following along.  Hidden in the Lego aisle, if available at all, are simple kits of just blocks, and encouragement to do your own thing.  The Lego Movie, which could have so easily just been a vehicle for selling new model kits and "gotta get em all" mini-figures, instead wisely acknowledges the reality of Lego's branding, the conflicting ideas of following the instructions versus doing your own thing.

The moment I heard that Phil Lord and Chris Miller were involved, I knew that The Lego Movie was going to be something more than crass commercialism.  Lord and Miller were responsible for the way off-beat, short-lived but cult-favourite cartoon series Clone High, and went on to make Cloudy With A Chance of Meatballs not only a surprise hit but one of the best comedy features (animated or otherwise) of the the past decade.  Their comedic sensibility is well honed, and they excel at the surprise gag, delivering laughs from the unexpected as well as toying with cliche and convention.  Even more, they are masters at building a running gag, one that continues to pay off the more it's used.  Even if the film wouldn't deliver on the story, I knew long before even the first trailer appeared that it would be a funny movie.

But there's something to The Lego Movie beyond product placement and gags, there's both a message (or two) and some sentimentality within, and further to that, some great world building, creating a "universe" that I actually wanted to see more of and spend more time in.  The central figure is Emmet, an nondescript construction minifigure who goes with the flow, follows instructions to the letter (err, image) and seems to have no desire for independence.  He lives in a city where it seems everyone is pretty much just like him, until a chance crossing with Wyldstyle draws him into a whole new reality, exposing the walls between dimensions and awakening him to the threat of Lord Business.  Lord Business has forced the different brands of Lego to remain separated, and those who seek to undermine this segregation will be punished.  Emmet and Wyldstyle meet up with the crazy and blind wizard Vitruvius, who unveils the prophecy that the wielder of the Piece of Resistance, (naturally Emmet) will be the one to stave off Lord Business' evil plan to destroy the universe through stagnation (by literally gluing pieces in place).

The band of rebels (joined by 80's Spaceman Benny, cyborg pirate Metal Beard, a cutesy hybrid unicorn/kitten Unikitty, and Batman... Wyldstyle's boyfriend) are all "master builders" and Emmet, being the "chosen one" of this piece, should be preternaturally gifted at building objects, but he constantly disappoints and questions his own validity.

There's heavy shades of the Matrix at play here, and I can't really tell if it's overtly intentional or if it's just retreading the same heroic prophecy-type story elements.  While it's definitely a tale we've seen before, it's not been seen quite this way, where the characters are constantly undermining seriousness of their journey by acknowledging the cliche of it without fully undercutting the intensity of their plight, it still means something to them.  Emmet's journey is one of finding self confidence and learning to think for himself, exploring creativity and problem solving.  As far as character journeys go in these types of films, it's a good one for kids (and most adults too).

The plot sticks firm to "stopping the bad guy's plan" until midway through the third act where it side steps into a stimulating meta story that explores the main theme even further.  There's more than an acknowledgement that Lego, for all it's increasing fanciness and complexity, is still just a toy, a building block system meant to stimulate children's creativity.  Lord Business represents an adult's sense of conformity and compartmentalization, and how oppressive that worldview can seem to children.

The animation in The Lego Movie is phenomenal.  There have been animated Lego features and television shows (Ninjago, Chima) but they're stripped down, feeling like animation.  The Lego Movie feels like the characters are living mini-figures inhabiting environments completely and plausibly built out of Lego.  The level of detail is dizzying, every brick seem accounted for, and it can take a while to visually adjust to the film's environment, but it very quickly defines itself as a unique place.  There's a kinship here to Wreck-It Ralph, where in that film it interconnects videogames into a shared universe.  Here, it's the many realms of Lego colliding, both sensibly and nonsensically, and is responsible for part of the film's charm.

The voice cast is stacked with great talent.  Burgeoning superstar Chris Pratt takes the lead as Emmet, who's close to an extension of his Parks and Recreation character, kind of dumb, but sweet and excitable.  Charlie Day is perfect for the ever keen-come-disappointed 80's spaceman who just wants to build a spaceship, dangit.  Morgan Freeman plays the delightfully daffy wizard Vitruvius, well against type, while Nick Offerman usually recognizable timbre completely disappears under Metal Beard's pirate speak.  Alison Brie is the perfect choice for the cutesy Unikitty who's bottling up her rage, and likewise Liam Neeson shuffles between the temperaments Good Cop and Bad Cop.  Will Ferrell revives Mugatu from Zoolander for his Lord Business, and Elizabeth Banks has a lot of heavy lifting in the love triangle between Emmet and Batman, as Emmet's master builder mentor, and sufferer of Vitruvius.  And one can't forget Will Arnett's Batman, smug, cocky, and a bit of a dink, with a shallow emotional side... Batman's demo tape is brutally funny.  And rounding out the heroes are Channing Tatum's Superman suffering the clingy-ness of Jonah Hill's Green Lantern, and the possible conflict of interest with Cobie Smulders as Wonder Woman.

This is a tremendously enjoyable film, super funny, visually exciting, with a variety of moving parts that make a richer whole than most children's entertainment.  Yes, it's a 100 minute sales pitch for plastic bricks, but it's also a rich little universe both that's at once big and small that's worth spending time in.

Double Oh...18: Tomorrow Never Dies

1997, Roger Spottiswoode

Tomorrow Never Dies Preamble:

For the longest time, this was my favourite Bond movie.  I'd say probably until the late '00's when I watched On Her Majesty's Secret Service for the first time did I hold this in my utmost regard of what a Bond film was or should be.  As we've established by now through 17 of these, I really didn't know shit about Bond until recently.  That said, I enter this film with affection and trepidation, I know that I loved it once, but it's been so long since I watched it I don't truly recall it, and my view of the Brosnan pictures was critically tainted by the subsequent two films, one which I outright hated, the other which I enjoyed by only the slimmest of margins.

The one thing I got out of Tomorrow Never Dies was Michelle Yeoh.  I'm struggling to remember if I had seen any of her wuxia films at this point (a friend held a screening of Wing Chun which would have been around the time of this film's release) and Crouching Tiger would be 3 years off still.  What I remember most is seeing a sit-down interview with some entertainment news program and absolutely melting at hearing her lilting voice, her almost, but not quite flawless English, her sense of humour and her great smile.  She was (and remains) one of my biggest celebrity crushes.

Villains:

Henry Gupta (Ricky Jay), is first seen in the opening sequence at a big terrorist swap meet.  He's purchasing a "GPS encoder", stolen from the US military, and it's later used to send a British Naval ship off-course and perilously close to Chinese waters.  This sets off a chain of events, aided by our bad guys, which threatens to spark a war.  Gupta acts as a master hacker and ace A/V guy.  He doesn't really have much to do with anything beyond being the techie help.  Honestly, I don't recall if he makes it out alive or not... he's thoroughly unmemorable, except that he's Ricky Jay.

Gupta is in the employ of Elliot Carver (Jonathan Pryce), a media baron whose newspapers are said to be capable of overthrowing governments.  Carver's goal is to launch a new 24 hour cable news network channel, and to be the king of all media.  He does this by "predicting the news" thus getting the scoop and seeming like the best news source in the world, I guess.  His predictions involve a lot of hired men sent out in the world to kill other people and cause strife.  He's a ruddy lunatic.  He spent probably hundreds of millions on building a stealth boat (buying materials off a Chinese General), and buying the GPS encoder, all so he could manipulate the British and Chinese in to a potential conflict that he could report on in the news.  Also, his ample donations to the General have allowed him to set up a bureau in Beijing and, should everything pan out, he'd get exclusive broadcast rights in the country for 100 years.  It's lunacy, and Pryce plays him completely unhinged.  Not only does he freely admit to anyone who'll listen that he doctors the news, but he revels in the fact that he gets away with it.  Carver meets his fate in the teeth of a really cool torpedo that's also part a boring drill (in a nice call back to earlier in the film)

Carver doesn't like to get his hands dirty, which is where Stamper (Gotz Otto) comes in.  He seems to be everywhere at once, and is the now-common giant, muscular, machine of a henchman.  He's the same style of uber-mensch that we've seen about a half dozen times, generally quiet, unnaturally strong, and unbelievably tough.  He runs the show on the stealth boat, and is the towering menacing figure meant to keep Carver's nemeses in line.  He dies when Bond traps his ankle underneath a rocket that's about to launch

It should also be mentioned that Stamper is the protege of Doctor Kaufman (Vincent Schiavelli), a master of chakra torture.  It's Kaufman who kills Carver's wife and is tasked with pinning the murder on Bond.  The scene between Kaufman and Bond is a drastic tonal shift when Bond discovers Paris dead in his bed, and he's in a state of mourning, anger, and a heightened awareness of being in a trap.  In walks Kaufman and he's over-the-top seething with malevolence.  He's got Bond under his thumb while the lackeys are in the parking garage trying to break into Bond's car without any success.  Just as he's about to do away with Bond, Stamper informs him of the troubles and that he may need to extract from Bond how to gain access to the car, and it's a delightfully silly exchange we're only privy to one side of.  It's unlike anything in any Bond film before or since, a bit of a comedy sketch in the middle of an action movie.  Anyway, Kaufman gets tazed by Bond's phone and Bond gets the upper hand forcing Kaufman to shoot himself in the head.  "Wait, I'm just a professional doing a job" he pleads.  "Me too," Bond replies as he shoots him.  Fantastic scene.

Bond Girls:

After the credits roll, and the stuff with the British warship and the Chinese Migs and Carver's stealth ship happens, Moneypenny (the returning Samantha Bond) is advised to call in 007 at once, where Bond advises her that he's "just brushing up on a little Danish".  The Danish in question is Professor Inga Bergstrom (Cecilie Thomsen) who for some reason takes issue with being called "little".  I'm inclined to think that Bond was supposed to learn Danish (and he did pick up some) but got a little distracted.  She superficial, but somehow showing Bond as a preternatural womanizer seems necessary.

Trying to figure out how Carver managed to report on the sunken British ship in his newspapers when press time was before even MI-6 heard about it, they zero in on Carver, and M tells Bond to focus in on carver's wife, Paris (Teri Hatcher), with whom he had a relationship in the past.   The exact words were "pump her for information".  Moneypenny in this scene in the back of a limo feeds Bond his airplane tickets and some information and a bit of a flirtatious exchange.  I like Samantha Bond's Moneypenny because she's not a doter.  If she would like to have something with Bond, it doesn't show, as she seems quite aware and accepting of who he is and what his nature is, no jealousy involved

 After slapping him, then exchanging flirtatious barbs, Paris shows up at Bond's suite and makes it clear she's not there to flirt, she wants to hash out the past in more ways than one (despite being a married woman).  "Did I get too close?" she asks.  Bond confirms before he drops her dress, but while Brosnan effectively conveys affection towards Paris, he seems less in love and more in lust.  It's interesting though to see sort of the Bond girl after being a Bond girl, and what kind of attachment these women hold onto.  That almost needs its own story.  Hatcher was at the height of her Lois Lane foxiness in this movie (not that she's not still quite attractive today), even being a few months pregnant at the time, very well hidden.  Of course, Carver finds out, not of her infidelity but of her lying about how she knew Bond, and he has her killed.  Harsh.  I recall upon first viewing that I was absolutely shocked to see Hatcher's Bond girl go out in the first act... thankfully there's Michelle Yeoh taking center stage.

Yeoh is Wai Lin, a Chinese secret agent also investigating carver.  We first meet her under cover as a Chinese journalist infiltrating Carver's launch party for his new network.  Here she's in serious glam wear, a sleek, form fitting silver dress, and catches many eyes, but she's also very charming and keenly observant.  We see her a second time when, the next morning, Bond is infiltrating Carver's office and happens across her as well, having just set off the alarm and looking for an escape route.  It's a charmingly playful scene as the both evade gunfire separately and have a mini-rivalry in their egress.  In this scene she has this cool bracelet which shoots out a tether which she uses to scale down the wall.  Their paths cross a third time when Bond investigates the sunken British ship off the coast of Thailand and they fight at first, until they realize who the other is.  They head to surface, are captured by Stamper and taken to Carver's new tower (which it seems he just got in the past 6 hours, considering it was said earlier he didn't have any bureaus in China) where they're handcuffed and make a very well orchestrated escape (I like the "I'm driving" argument as they steal a motorcycle).  They work as a team (though she does try to lose him at one point), and she reveals to him her arsenal hidden within the walls of a modest looking bike shop.  She's got toys as good, or better, than Bond, and she kicks ass better than any Bond girl in the past.   She's so awesome, it's a shame she's captured and left dangling, in need of rescue, and equally a shame that she never gets a really great martial arts fight in (the one in the bike shop isn't even close...).  They've created a few female doubles for Bond over the years, and I keep waiting for them to take one and make a Bond film out of them.  Wai Lin would be so awesome in her own Bond-styled feature.  Wai Lin and Bond don't have any real romantic involvement until the very end, where they wind up on the remains of Carver's destroyed stealth sub...and, well, we know by now that being on the water is Bond's biggest turn-on, and Wei Lin seems more than game.

Theme/Opening Credits:

I cannot tell you how much I disliked Sheryl Crow back in 1997.  "Everyday Is A Winding Road" was just one of many banes of my existence on pop radio in the year preceding it.  A precursor to Nu-Country, Crow was just not anything close to the indie music I was invested in at the time, nor the hip-hop I had grown up with.  But damn if this song I didn't love, and kind of hated myself for loving.  I recall wincing when she hits to sustained "day" notes, just seeming shy of her reach, and yet I like that she has to restrain herself knowing she can't hit it that high.  There's a pulsating element that alternates with it's epic sweep which feels modern, but with a 1930's New York big band chanteuse throwback.  It's fricking great.  The actual lyrics may not resonate or hook in the same way that some of the other Bond themes do, but the melody just envelops you.
The title sequence is appealing, a mash of technology and titillation (foreshadowing the copious amounts of nudity available on the internet, perhaps, unintentionally).   There's a lot of broken glass, and arms stockpiles, but it's the brief x-ray of the gun being loaded with bullets, and later of it firing,  ricocheting off multiple screens, creating a shower of broken glass.  Some of the elements seem a little odd, like the floating diamonds and the woman freefalling off the diamond into a planet, but for the most part it's really interesting, if inconsistent.

Bond:

Brosnan seemed ready for the role in Goldeneye so Tomorrow Never Dies is just more status quo.  Again, he's very physical, and at times harsh in his brutality.  While Bond's always been a very sexual character, I think Brosnan is really the first to really bring that out, perhaps only because he's the guy playing Bond in an era where there's a more liberal attitude towards sex on film.  As well he really brings the steam when he starts getting it going.  One gets the sense that Brosnan really, really liked playing all aspects of Bond, and wanted the best of all worlds (the fighter, the camp icon, the sex god, the sleuth, the spy, the wounded puppy, etc).  This I think is the peak payoff, but rewatches of the subsequent films will say for certain. 

Movie:

Tomorrow Never Dies is easily my favourite of the Brosnan Bond films, which I admit isn't the most audacious statement given that its only real competition is Goldeneye, but I feel it's the more enjoyable of the two with the least amount of demerits.  It feels bigger, more globe-spanning, with more at stake.  It's true, Carver is one of the worst villains in all of Bondome (and by worst, I mean utterly ridiculous in his motivations and non-sensical) though Price makes him very enjoyable to watch.  The idea that a media mogul would manipulate events around the world, spending a fortune to do so in order to capture a story first and to gain exclusive broadcast rights in China is preposterous in a series filled with idiotic motivations.  But despite that, the stakes are high.  They're high in the pre-credits sequence where Bond is trying to avert a nuclear detonation, and they remain high throughout.  Not only does World War III loom, but there's a 48 hour countdown to preventing it.  Talk about ratcheting up the tension...
I love the sequences at the start of the film in the MI-6 den, with all the monitors and technology.  It's a really cool set that is sorrily underused.  The only set that rivals it is Wai Lin's bike shop.
It is not a very dynamically directed film, I mean, Spottiswoode directed Turner and Hooch and Stop, Or My Mom Will Shoot for Q's sake.  But he turns out a very straightforward, very watchable product.  It could be better looking, sure, and the fights and action could be more eye-popping, but even so, they're all still entertaining.  It's like having a hamburger and wanting some garlic aioli on it but only having mustard, ketchup and relish available.  It'll more than do, it's just not spruced up.
Much of what I love about this film, honestly, are the Bond girls.  In a recent heated conversation about Bond, a friend noted that it almost doesn't matter who plays Bond, it's the people around him that really make a film.  Unlike the next film, I don't think there's a miscast role here.  We've got M, her Chief of Staff, Moneypenny Charles Robinson, and the return of Jack Wade, all on support, and the aforementioned villains and Bond Girls.  It really is the strength and charm of Michelle Yeoh that carries this film home for me, but it's also one of Teri Hatcher's most memorable works despite the brief screentime.  The worst thing about this film is probably that there's not a good poster for it.

Q-gadgets:

A little light on the gadgetry in this one, a cel-phone that doubles as a remote control for the new BMW that Bond's given, as well it has a stun gun and an electronic lockpick/safecrack device.
His watch also has a small plastic explosive which he can use as a remote detonator. 

Wai Lin's secret lair is full of gadgets, too bad we never meet the quartermaster who stocks it for her.

Classification [out of 01.0]: 00.8... it's not only one the best Brosnan but one of the better Bond films overall, and that's not just nostalgia talking.

3 Short Paragraphs: The Hunger Games: Catching Fire

2013, Francis Lawrence (I Am Legend, Constantine) -- download

I haven't read the remaining books in the series yet so I was rather pleased to see that this movie focused on her reaction to having survived the Hunger Games. Nightmares, PTSD and a general disillusionment with what she has become is her mindspace as the movie starts. Its not surprising, because no matter how well she pulled off the "two winners" trick in the first movie, the government is well aware she played them. The Hunger Games are supposed to be for their benefit, not the oppressed peoples of the districts. Despite the luxury heaped on the victors, the games are still intended as punishment on a populace that failed in a distant rebellion. I am glad the story picked up solidly in this mess.

Jennifer Lawrence is just brilliant as Katniss Everdeen. I won't argue with her legions of teenage fans about the faithfulness of the portrayal, but for me its how camera friendly Lawrence disappears into the character so we forget all her publicity, for only the character. Yes, there is the lean, toned body that contributes but its also the way she holds her face and the facade the character puts on when in front of her public. There is a weight to that role that she carries so well.

This is the filler book in the story, between the setup of the world and the characters, and the final book which deals (or so I expect) with the new rebellion. This is where a traumatized young girl realizes she wasn't as clever as she hoped and survival of the games wasn't enough. Now she is a figurehead in a growing upset around the districts, a role she again does not want to play. People are dying in her name. So, I was glad when she was tossed into a conspiracy later in the movie, where she is just one of many. Where she is not the only capable, clever victor. I just adored the angry, uncouth nature of Johanna Mason who obviously never has played the Capital game. I applauded Cinna's fashion rebellion that he had to know was going to cost him. It makes me wonder if Katniss will continue to play a supporting role or realize she has to take the reins of this action she inspired.

3 Short Paragraphs: I, Frankenstein

2014, Stuart Beattie (Tomorrow When the War Began) -- cinema

I can honestly say I was actively excited about this movie. It fits my type of genre flick so wonderfully, with a tortured mysterious possible anti-hero, more than one type of mythical antagonist and a dark & gritty setting. These types of movies are never good but I enjoy most of them, Underworld and Van Helsing being a pair of my favourites. And considering this one was written by the guy who also wrote Underworld I was expecting a schlocky movie full of great world building and exciting adventure.

What I got was... well, boring. Can I actually say a movie that was basically wall to wall action boring? Yes, because no matter how well done the fight scenes were done, after you have seen them three times you want something else. Think of the opening sequence of Blade and apply it to the entire movie. I cannot latch onto what exactly bored me but it feels like it was the lack of deep world building. It was like the next to last episode in a TV series season, with all the background dispensed for a drive to complete a story arc. Nobody was fleshed out, the bad and good guys were all cardboard and no real motivations -- good guy wants to kill all bad guys, bad guy wants to Be Bad Guy.

The trailer tells you all you need to know. Gargoyles / Angels are fighting Bad Guys / Demons and Adam / Frankenstein (finally, a good reason to call him Frankenstein, i.e. he is the Doctor's "son") is just stuck between the two factions. Fast forward, for no reason than to highlight that he is ageless and have the story set in current times, to the same pseudo-European city that Underworld is set in, where the Bad Guys are trying to recreate the Frankenstein process so they can give the endless hordes of Hell a nice supply of uncontested bodies to possess. So, the Gargoyles and the Demons fight. And fight. And fight. And Frank growls grouchily. And fights.