3+1 Short Paragraphs: The Signal

2014, William Eubank (Love) -- download

Kent mentioned, and I recently re-read, his fondness for independent scifi, or more precisely "low-budget, dramatic science fiction." The Signal does not subscribe completely to the dramatic, but the lower budget and independent nature of the movie shines through. Think of Monsters and its almost entire run of slow travel punctuated by conversation, while monsters dot the background. Here in this movie, we have young kids, Nic, Haley and Jonah travelling to California to drop her off at university. Nic is with Haley, but she is leaving him for school. Haley loves Nic but there is a weight between them, an injury Nic sustained that leaves him with crutches. And Jonah, the best friend, obsessed with tech and this hacker NOMAD, who keeps taunting them. The opening act follows this, in gentle close shots that introduce the characters.

And then gears shift. Abduction, imprisonment and confusion. The kids find themselves in an underground facility where containment-suited Laurence Fishburne interrogates Nic. He asks lots of questions while telling him little of what happened between then and now. There are aliens mentioned and contamination and paranoia. Its all so intense, so mysterious playing on familiar tropes but with a sense of playing outside the rules. Then there is a brief reveal behind the curtain, or more accurately (*SPOILER*), under the sheet --- Nic's legs have been replaced by mechanical prostheses. Nic, who has been letting his disability define him for so long is given something. But why? For what purpose? Make your guesses. You may or may not be right, more than likely only partially correct.

I loved this movie, buying into its use of familiar plot points and alien abduction milieu. Area 57, strange desert folk and technology that is disturbing and intriguing. But its not completely cliche and its not a monster movie, as so many of these devolve into. Oh, there is the conspiracy, the explanation behind it all. But it is not a quick run to the explanation. This was partly because of Fishburne, who has learned a few things about drawing out the nervous confusion in his run on Hannibal. He is just creepy and unsettling in this movie, making a later reveal completely believable.

In the end this reminded me of Chronicle. The ending is grand and revealing, but not completely satisfying. This is, of course, because sequels are in mind and it has to leave a wide open landscape of possibilities. Young people have been enhanced by alien technology and it brings into question how human they will remain. But really, does it? I don't believe we are defined, as a species, by our limitations but by how we use of our tools to surpass them.

P.S. Don't mix this up with the other alien technology movie called The Signal which was more horror movie, but had a great three perspective story technique.

P.S.S. Kent saw Love and now I will have to go back and watch, see how a slower, more dramatic piece compare for Eubank.

3 Short Paragraphs: Lawless

2012, John Hillcoat (The Proposition, The Road) -- Netflix

You can expect a couple of things from a screenplay by Nick Cave -- inexplicably badass characters and blood, lots of blood. Considering I got that all of two screenplays, I have to admit, its the tone of his song writing that influences the statement. Nick likes tough, legendary protagonists. In Lawless he gives us Forrest Bondurant, played by Tom Hardy. Ever clad in layers of (likely rarely washed) sweaters, Bondurant and his brothers are moonshiners in Prohibition period Virginia. Forrest has a reputation that he is unkillable, a rep he got in the war. They are hillbillies selling booze to hillbillies. But when the business expands, they catch the eyes of a local attorney, who wants a cut. Forrest refuses and a nemesis is introduced with Charlie Rakes, a sociopathic cop from the city, played by Guy Pearce.

This is Tom Hardy in his thick state. Hardy seems to flow between thin, stylish characters (think RocknRolla and Inception) and muscle covered thick brutes (Bronson, The Dark Knight Rises). I saw Bondurant as once the muscle bound brute, now aged and growing a layer of fat under the sweaters. He is settled in his life as a moonshiner, running the business and keeping his brothers' safety intact through his iron willed reputation, and his own personal belief in it. He shuffles about, mumbling through a beardy face thick with a mountain accent. But when violent action is called for, his eyes flash with awareness. He is the visible focus of the movie and the centre of the story.

These movies are always about plucky criminals going up against the more than despicable lawman. Yes, the Bondurant brothers are breaking the Prohibition Act but other than mild squabbles between them and their competition and more violent interactions with those that wish to take from the brothers, they are more local heroes than anything. And then there is the fool brother Jack (played by media fool Shia LaBeouf) who not only expands their business  but is responsible for  the tragic death of lame mechanical genius Cricket (Dane DeHaan, who is doing quite well for himself since Chronicle) and the broken heart of Bertha. Catalysts. Deaths. Retribution and eventually aging. The criminals become legends, high above the truth yet bound to it.

Retro One Episode: Get Smart, The Green Hornet, The Man From U.N.C.L.E,

Get Smart (1965-1970)
The Green Hornet (1966-1967)
The Man From U.N.C.L.E. (1964-1968)

I was a fan of Get Smart as a kid.  Even though the show aired 20 years before I eventually saw it, it still seemed fresh and funny to me.  The wobbly sets, retro style, and clunky technology were all part of the show's charm and atmosphere.  I'm fairly certain that I had watch some of the made-for-TV reunion  movies and the short-lived revival show, which probably made me quite the receptive seed for the repeats airing weekdays around dinner time (I'm thinking on YTV).  Not to mention being raised on Inspector Gadget, which is just Get Smart to even sillier extremes.

I've been quite keen to revisit Get Smart since I started doing the James Bond recaps, and learning that it was created by Buck Henry and Mel Brooks (which somehow I didn't know before) I was expecting some undiscovered comedy gold to match my youthful recollections.

It's unfortunate then that the pilot episode is a bit of a clunker.  Horrendously dated attributes like the opening narration, incredibly protracted comedy bits which seem to take forever to get to the joke (with the joke coming a mile off, but that's because these jokes have become staples, part of the comedy language and done much better), and, ouch, that laugh track.  Then there's the jokes at the expense of Little People (the C.H.A.O.S. boss is the ironically named "Mr. Big").  In its pilot, the show was almost trying to have a serious spy story with jokes surrounding it.  Maxwell Smart isn't a complete bumbling buffoon, but also isn't the agile super-spy that's earned his reputation.  It was a surprise when Smart actually turns out to have some competency.  Equally unsettling is 99's tendency to make googly eyes at Max.  Is part of the joke that everyone's oblivious to how incompetent Max is?

Don Adams is perfect for the role.  His unwavering tone of voice even in the face of his own ignorance is there right from the beginning.  The character evolved slightly into a more Clouseau-esque fool, but Adams had found Max's voice from the onset.  Barbara Feldon as 99 spends too much time awkwardly mooning over Max, a conscious effort to be sure.  It hampers her performance. Edward Platt as Chief of CONTROL is equally note perfect. The seeds of greatness are in the Pilot, but it's much too slow and labored compared with what follows later on. Skip the second episode too, it's quite racist. Just hitting up random episodes on youtube is probably your best bet.




I watched plenty of Batman reruns growing up too, once again, even though it was 20 years after the fact.  None of my hometown stations ever aired Batman, so I really only ever got to watch it when traveling and visiting family.  Even at a young age I didn't like it, but I was fascinated by it.  It wasn't the Batman I knew and loved, it was the highest camp, almost insulting to comic book fans with it's "BIFF" "BAM" "POW" effects and overt melodrama.

I always assumed The Green Hornet was much the same, a high-camp riff on costumed vigilantism.  I'd never seen an episode, and, quite frankly, it wasn't until I watched the Seth Rogen film that I realized I knew nothing about the character.  He's more a pulp radio hero in origins, not a comic book character, so he just never crossed my path.  The pilot blew my mind, if only a little, because it's a dead serious interpretation of the character.  It's not tongue in cheek at all.  It has no cheek.

I'm fascinated by the fact that it starts with the Green Hornet already in action.  He's the series hero but he operates as a bad guy, controlling the underworld in order to keep the underworld under control.

The theme song is insane, a classic.  Set design is pretty great.  The Black Beauty is, well, a beaut.  Bruce Lee!  It's got a lot of good things going for it, but the chief detraction, and it's a huge one, is the direly dull Van Williams as Britt Reid/Green Hornet.  He's not menacing, or charismatic.  He's not heroic or dangerous.  He's just sort of there.  With the whole show rotating around him, it's a problem.

The pilot isn't bad, but it feels like it's an hour long when it's only a half.  I read that the Hornet doesn't square off against any other costumes in the show (except during the crossover with Batman), which leads me to believe the show never reaches to be anything more than what we see in its first episode.


Interestingly enough it was The Man From U.N.C.L.E. (1964-1968) that Get Smart was aping, complete with its complicated hallways and sliding doors entrances.  The Man From U.N.C.L.E. was taking its lead from Bond as well as the British spy series of the time, The Saint, The Avengers and the like.

Now unlike Get Smart which I watched, and loved, and the Green Hornet which I had preconceived notions of, I have no experience whatsoever with TMFU.  I'm not really familiar with its stars (I sort of know Robert Vaughn) and I don't really have any sense of what the show's impact on popular culture at the time (or after) was.  My guess on the latter was that it was negligible, as Bond was really the forerunner of these things at the time.

The pilot episode introduces us to Vaughn as Napoleon Solo through a complex and confusingly edited opening sequence.  Agents of T.H.R.U.S.H. infiltrate U.N.C.L.E.'s New York headquarters and in the end it's Solo who stops them.  He gets his money shot as the bad guy fires off three rounds at his silhouette only to be stopped by the bulletproof glass before him.  The light turns on to reveal our well dressed, well groomed lead.  But he's no Bond.

The pilot, excellently titled "The Vulcan Affair", has a fairly interesting story, which involves Solo enlisting a housewife to help him infiltrate a millionaire industrialist's ball.  This industrialist, Vulcan, is suspected of being a THRUSH supporter, and is going to murder a visiting President from a young African nation.  The housewife used to be a lover of Vulcan, and they set her up with a false background to make her much more posh.  The actress Pat Crowley, is eminently watchable, and I think they missed a true opportunity to have an awesome espionage show about a stay-at-home mom who is a part-time spy.  She's quite the looker too.  She's like Betty Draper on Mad Men but with personality.

In the pilot Vaughn doesn't seem to have full awareness of who Napoleon Solo is yet, so he seems softer around the edges than he should.  A hardened spy like him probably wouldn't smile so much.

While there's nothing fancy to the visual aspect of the show, the tone is quite perfect.  It takes its material serious and it earns itself some nice character moments.  The action is quite stilted (as 60's TV action generally is) with bad guys going down with one punch to the back.  These are things easily overlooked.  I hear the later seasons start to devolve into camp, succumbing to some of the more ridiculous tendencies of the spy genre.  I'm definitely going to carry on at least to that point.  It's good stuff .  (Caught the first few minutes of the second episode and it's a terribly clunky opening sequence with a voice over introducing U.N.C.L.E. and then the three main characters introducing themselves to the camera...woof).

Nerdfall: Gotham, The Flash, Constantine, Star Wars: Rebels

Gotham, Mondays @ 8 on Fox/CTV
The Flash, Tuesdays @ 8 on CW/CTV
Constantine: Fridays @ 10 on NBC/Global
Star Wars: Rebels: Sundays @ 8 on Disney XD
---

Nerds may not be ruling the world (the world still belongs to the rich), but we're certainly dominating pop culture as of late.  Cinema and Television are both under the sway of what has traditionally been considered "geekstuffs", like sci-fi, fantasy, superheroes, horror and anachronistic period pieces.  They may not be the most popular shows, but they certainly cater to more than just a niche audience at this point.  I don't want to complain about this, as this is what I've dreamed of for a very long time, but at the same time, it's completely overwhelming the abundance of it.  I've gotten over the hump of feeling obliged to watch it all.  I've long since abandoned The Walking Dead, I have an on-again/off-again relationship with Marvel's Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. and light fantasy like Grimm, Supernatural, Sleepy Hollow,and Once Upon A Time (among others) I don't feel compelled to watch, nor do I feel guilty not watching since I know they have found their audiences that are pefectly happy with them.

Perhaps it's a safe bet taking up with primarily known quantities like Flash and Star Wars: Rebels, and it could be limiting my exposure to other, potentially enriching programming because of my lack of available time, but I'm not to concerned.  I will support outright the shows I like, and pick up upon buzzed about or intriguing-in-hindsight shows later on when the interweb sites I trust start convincing me to invest my time.

But that's what the fall is all about, as a TV watcher isn't it?  "What's worth your time?"  The harsh thing is pilot episodes are so rarely indicative of what the series will wind up being.  They're just a hook, but it almost always takes a few episodes, if not the bulk of a season for a show to find its true legs and the actors to find their characters.  One of my current favourite shows, Person of Interest,I skipped over a half dozen episodes in the middle of its first season because it wasn't going anywhere, at least that's what I thought.  Same with Fringe, where I watched only an episode or two of the first season before coming to the opinion it was another X-Files rip-off, only to step in partway through the second season to find it dealing with parallel dimensions and hooking me right in.  Revisiting Fringe's first season revealed a planned roadmap for the rest of the series.

This year's TV crop sees an unprecedented number of comic book-base programming coming to TV. Even after the success of Arrow and Marvel's AoS, it was surprising.  Arrow still feels like a cult hit, but with a stellar second season that abandoned most of the usual hoary CW romantic drama tropes, it was already seeded as a launching pad for the Flash, introducing Grant Gustin's Barry Allen midway through the season with the intention of turning a later episode of Arrow into a backdoor pilot for a Flash TV show (executives were so confident, however they just went to full pilot instead).  But the CW, despite providing some really solid entertainment over the years, still isn't the same as the major networks, so Gotham winding up on Fox and Constantine arriving on NBC are still rather surprising.
---

Gotham was first out the gate, and of the three DC Comics related shows, easily the one I was least excited about.  The advertising hit hard the "l'il Batman" and "l'il rogues" angle of the show, something I was thoroughly disinterested in.  I don't need to see Catwoman or Riddler or Poison Ivy or any other bat-villain before they are a bat-villain, nor do I really need to watch in painfully slow detail a 12-year-old Bruce Wayne already exhibit defining signs of Batman.

The show does actually center on the corruption-laden Gotham City Police Department and the crime families which run the city, and through them it does manage to build something unique, but unique here doesn't exactly equal good.  Ben McKenzie plays Detective Jim Gordon, the new transfer to the PD who prides himself on being clean as a whistle by-the-book.  His partner, Harvey Bullock (Donal Logue) is halfway to hell already and none-to-pleased that his partner isn't willing to play ball with the bad guys.  The crime families are two fold, the Falcones and the Maronis, currently at a stalemate in their turf war, but the flames are getting reignited as Boss Mooney (Jada Pinkett Smith) wants to climb over Falcone, and her underling, Oswald "Penguin" Cobblepot (Robin Lord Taylor) wants to climb over everyone.

The show has it's intriguing points, particularly the colorful underworld, with Pinkett Smith chewing up scenery with an Ertha Kitt joi de vivre, and Lord Taylor masterfully navigating his unevenly written part...plus it's always fun to see Dexter's David Zayas, and he seems to be having tremendous fun with Boss Maroni.  Where the show falters is in its presentation of Gordon and the Gotham City PD. Logue can do no wrong but McKenzie is so self-serious, clenching his jaw thorugh every scene that he comes off as posturing and cliche, less as a future leader.  There's internal affairs drama, and the most useless of characters in Gordon's girlfriend Barbara Kean (made even worse with Erin Richard's soulless performance) but it all feels stuffed in and unnecessary.  More effective is that each episode throws the GCPD into some weirdo murder plot that underlies the strange nature of Gotham City crime, and its oddball criminals.  It's actually one of its better touches.

Just as unnecessary is the "young Batman" storyline.  Having an ever-present young Bruce Wayne denies the show its ability to escape beyond the shadow of the bat.  I can understand why they tread so heavily to start, introducing so many young bat-villains but when you realize that Wayne is at least a decade away from putting on a cape and cowl it seems excessive and forced.  Not to mention it hinders the showrunners in developing characters like the Riddler and Catwoman at earlier stages knowing where they must wind up.  Edward Nygma, particularly, is a purposefully annoying character who does little else but exposit and annoy.

Six episodes have aired so far and I've caught at least 30 minutes of most of them.  It's not an altogether unwatchable show, but it hasn't yet justified its existence.  I like it's late-'90's setting, perhaps the show's best and subtlest touch.
---

As essentially a spin-off of Arrow, I knew The Flash was in good hands.  As I said we'd already met the lead character in season 2 of Arrow and Grant Gustin was absolutely charming...likeable, smart, nerdy, awkward, excitable.  Barry Allen from the comics of yore was kind of stuffy and a bit of a bore, but his sidekick, Wally West, was much more personable and energetic (as viewers of the Justice League Unlimited cartoon could attest), and Gustin sort of merges the two into the perfect TV Flash.  He even starts off each show with a voice over monologue as he races through the streets on patrol or on a mission, something that happened with each issue of Wally West's tenure as The Flash.  It's a delightful touch.

It was predetermined that I would like this show.  I flat out love the 1990 The Flash TV show (even still) and it took pains to try to separate itself from being a "comic book show".  It was direly serious at times, a result of Tim Burton's Batman's negative influence, but just to have a b-level character like the Flash on TV was a treat in itself and I liked the cast.  This iteration of the character, which featured comic book and former Flash writer Geoff Johns as producer and writer, promised to keep more in line with the comic book representation of the character and not shy away from it's more colourful aspects.  And it has succeeded to an utterly charming degree.

While many a comic book show in the past has teased their comic book origins through background easter eggs or tongue-in-cheek dialogue referencing something, The Flash does these things as seeds for the future. It's the first comic-book derived TV show that isn't embarassed by its roots, instead embracing the character and his world whole hog.

The pilot episode introduced the world of the Flash well enough, providing an origin story for his superpowers,  costume, and raison d'etre, as well as his super-powered villain.  The same accident that gave Barry his superpowers have also granted other people theirs, and he's taken it upon himself (and his support team of STAR Lab technicians) to police them.  Along with this general premise, there's the ongoing background thread of Barry's mother's murder from his childhood (by a man inside the lightning) and his father (played by 1990's Flash and Dawson's Creek dad, John Wesley Shipp) taking the fall for it.  Beyond that is Tom Cavanaugh (of the awesome "Mike and Tom Eat Snacks" podcast, among his many television an film credits) as Dr. Harrison Wells, who a) caused the accident that gave him his powers and b) somehow has access to news from 10 years in the future reporting the Flash's death.  Wells seems to be out to protect Barry, but we aren't altogether sure what his motivations.

Less interesting is Barry's crush on Iris Allen (Candice Patton), the daughter of Police Detective Joe Allen (the great Jesse L. Martin from Law and Order).  Barry lived next to Iris as a kid until his mom died and dad went to jail at which point Joe wound up raising him.  So Barry's crush is all kinds of weird considering that Iris is essentially his foster-sister.  On top of that, episode 4 of this season brings Felicity (from Arrow) to Central City and the chemistry between Barry and Felicity (even more than it was in Arrow Season 2) is note perfect.  These two characters are perfect for each other and the only reason the producers don't thrust them together is because Barry and Iris are a couple in the comics.  It seems ironic to say this, but at some point they need to understand that these shows can live their own life an not have to adhere to what their source material.  When you can run 200 miles per second, having a long-distance relationship isn't much of a challenge (but I guess sharing a character between two shows is).

If the first episode of The Flash didn't wow me as I'd hoped, it was because the visualization of the character's powers wasn't really what I was hoping for (see X-Men: Days of Future Past for the perfect super-speedster action sequence), but by the shows 4th episode, they seem to be getting a much better handle on how it can work and be exciting and fresh.  Plus the 4th episode introduces Wentworth Miller (Prison Break) as Captain Cold and he nails the character with absolute delight.  This set up the first real key player in Flash's Rogues Gallery (and the end of the episode teases Heat Wave, who I've learned is played by Miller's Prison Break brother, Dominic Purcell ,..this show knows how to have fun).  It is quite literally the most comic-book-feeling TV show we've ever had, and I love it.  I can't say it's the greatest show ever made, and that it's in any way flawless, but damn if it isn't tremendous amounts of fun.
---

John Constantine was created about 30 years ago for DC Comics and has had his own series for almost that entire time (first Hellblazer, and more recently, Constantine).  If he's widely known it's primarily from the 2005 supernatural thriller feature film wherein the character -- whose four main traits are being blond, British, a chain smoker and being quite an asshole -- was turned into Keanu Reeves.  It was a decent film, despite the miscasting, but it would have be exception were it, say, Guy Pierce (I know, he's Australian) or Daniel Craig or  Jason Statham, or, well, anyone who could fake an accent and look the part.

The new Constantine TV show has cast an actor that indeed looks the part with relative unknown Matt Ryan donning the tan trenchcoat, unkempt red tie, and rocking the scruffy blond hair and stubble.  Ryan's not a natural blond though, and because of the general attitude towards smoking in America, he doesn't smoke on screen, but his cigarettes and lighter are quite present.  He's also a bit of a prat, knowingly keeping people at a distance, and rousing others to punch him.  In the case of the former, he's seen far too many of his associates die because of him, and the latter, probably accepting it as some form of penance... if you want to read into these things.  Even though, I'm not well versed on Constantine, in my opinion showrunners Daniel Cerone and David S. Goyer have nailed the character quite well.

The pilot was an exceptionally well directed mini-movie that looked utterly expensive and fantastic.  It got mired in a lot of nonsensical magic mumbo-jumbo a few times, but overall was an enjoyable experience, with at least one hella creepy moment (when that dead body that had crashed through the SUV's windshield, neck at 150 degree angle, comes back to life and starts squelching...so nasty). The second episode really gathers the tone for the series to follow.  Constantine has a map of America with blood drops showing where evil may erupt.  Whenever a droplet turns wet, John must jump into action.  There's an X-Files meets Buffy the Vampire Slayer vibe, which in every sense is a positive thing.  It allows there to be these weird of-the-week mysteries that are entertaining on their own, while seeding in a larger seed of evil that will span the season.

Constantine has a supporting cast -- Chas Kramer (Charles Halford) who can't seem to be killed, Zed (Angelica Celaya) who has second sight abilities, and Manny (Harold Perrineau) an angel warning Constantine of dire things to come -- but one gets the sense they're incidental and disposable, which is not a bad thing.  Creating a varied roster of associates, as well as having the ability to kill of cast members almost expectedly (but in unexpected ways) gives Constantine a bit of a Doctor Who-gone-horror vibe, which we know can work.

I like the show.  It's fun and easy to get into, with the potential for some really interesting things to happen (being Fridays at 10pm, and given what NBC has permitted Hannibal to show on network TV, they could really amp up the gruesome and terror factor on the show).  The potential for DC Comics guest stars is high, but almost  unnecessary given the show's template.  Even after two episodes I've lost my craving for easter eggs (like Dr. Fate's helmet in the pilot).  All we really need is for enough people to buy into an asshole-as-hero to make it last.
---

And finally this Nerdfall, we have Star Wars: Rebels.  This takes place about 15 years after Revenge of the Sith, and is set to showcase the rise of the rebellion against the galactic empire.  They kicked off the series with a 1-hour (well, 40-something minutes) mini-movie introducing the cast, and bringing street-rat Ezra into the Rebel fold.  It was a choppy, oversimplified story, with obvious set-ups for future plot lines, and it has so many faltering points it could be easily dismissed.

But then, I thought the same of Star Wars: The Clone Wars, and it's taken me 7 years to discover that it actually turned into a great show worth watching.  Rebels has a few saving graces.  To start, the characters are actually quite likeable.  They may not be given the right things to do episode to episode, but they're nonetheless charismatic in a way the prequels never quit got.  Secondly, the show is starting to transition from the designs of Episode 3 into the designs of Episode 4 (aka Star Wars), and easter egg in visual teases of things that we know are coming up.  This could get too cutesy if it persists too long, but as an early hook it helps.  Thirdly, the show utilizes a lot of Ralph McQuarrie's early production designs for the original film.  The old stormtrooper helmets, some of the wardrobes, Zeb (one of the last surviving Lasat, and the original template for Chewbacca...the show makes a crack about this when they go on a Wookee rescue mission).  It`s a fun touch for the die hards.

It's far from hitting its stride already, and in advance we know there are limits to what the show can actually accomplish in the scope of the Rebellion vs the Empire, but if Clone Wars can make a half-dozen mostly compelling seasons out of a conflict with a predetermined outcome there's no reason that Rebels can't work either.  It`s unfortunate that they had to trot out Artoo and Threepeeoh in the second episode already, but it does catch us up on Bail Organa (not Jimmy Smits`voice, sadly) and his part in the Rebellion.

Two of the characters, Ezra and scruffy-looking pilot Kanan, have force powers, which is kind of mind blowing.  After consuming the original trilogy so many times as a child and being so immersed in that world, the thought that there might`ve still been other Jedi still alive around the galaxy never even entered my mind.  Kanan survived the Order 66, and he senses the talent in Ezra (Ezra, meanwhile, discovers Kanan`s lightsaber and holocron), so it will be interesting to see how they explore Jedi-like things a decade and a half after the Jedi should be extinct.

I also quite like Tiya off the bat, the Mandalorian, and look forward to learning more about her.  Chopper is a ramshackle astromech droid who looks like he will fall apart if you sneeze on him too hard.  He`s full of even more personality than Artoo, which seems like a stretch.  He also seems too much like BOB from Disney`s The Black Hole, so while I am amused by him, I don`t like him on principal.  But I guess it makes sense that if Artoo can develop a personality then why not any other droids.

The animation on Rebels is at once an improvement and a step back from Clone Wars.  Gone are the wooden beards and hair, but also gone seems to be a lot of the refined detail that the Clone Wars had.  Rebels seems to be on a bit more of a budget.

Somewhere in the past year I've turned the corner on Star Wars apathy and have come back around to "fan" again.

Rewatch: Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time

2010, Mike Newell (Enchanted April, Donnie Brasco) -- Blu-ray

It was my birthday and I was still having coughing fits from the remaindered lung infection, so no guilting myself about rewatching something; I just needed some fun. Prince of Persia sits in my collection of fantasy movies that I enjoy again and again. The collection evolves with technology, with many of the VHS tapes of years past yet to be replaced. They are rarely considered good movies but they are ones I enjoy.

This is of the swords & sandals sub-genre but like most, is more straight fantasy movie than historically accurate. That said, in my mind, ancient Arabia and ancient Persia have always been merged. They all include the cliches of minarets, carpets, djinn and world conquering empires. It is possible I don't have any real pop culture references for Persia. Sinbad? Maybe. But it matters not because a Disney movie based on a video game, starring entirely western actors is not going to even try for accuracy.

I never played the game it is based on (The Sands of Time), the platformer from the PS2 era of gaming. OK, I might have started it, but in my core memory, its the original side-scroller game from the 90s that stands out. The running, jumping and pre-parkour of the game was astounding for its age. So, its not surprising that the recent games and movie make use of the running, jumping, swinging and dodging that so often dominate parkour centered action scenes. Personally, not enough was used in the movie but that would have required an entirely city based movie instead of one with sweeping desert travel scenes, as anyone would expect in swords & sandals.

Its a dumb, standard movie, in the style of many Disney adaptations. That the Pirates.... movies rose above that standard is amazing, while this one keeps to the low expectations. As I already said, we have western (i.e. white) actors playing Persians: Ronald Pickup as the Persian king, Ben Kingsley as his brother, Richard Coyle & Toby Kebbell as his sons and Jake Gyllenhaal as his adopted son, the Prince of Persia in question. And of course, Gemma Arterton as Princess Tamina. The amusing thing is that Gyllenhaal, as the street rabble kid who is adopted by the kind king, affects a London street accent to offset the BBC English of the other actors. I always wonder when British English became the de facto representation of people speaking "another language".

Ahh Gemma Arterton. In a world where "the list" actually applies, she would be on My List. She has an unearthly beauty in this movie, smooth skinned and perfectly toned, that fits the role she is playing as the fabled beauty of Alamut. Amusingly though, I often mix up her role in this movie with her role as Io in Clash of the Titans. So, not so defining a role. She is to be beautiful and antagonistic towards the Hero, and she does that well enough. I wonder if a movie, where the hero and heroine bicker like old crones for most of the running time, has ever ended with them just disliking each other, instead of eventually falling in love/lust?

If there is one thing I actively dislike about this movie, it is the whole comedic addition of Alfred Molina as Sheik Amar. With his complaints about taxes and his love for his racing ostriches, the whole addition annoyed me. Still does. But he provides some additional supporting characters for our hero to draw upon when needed, a trope commonly used in fantasy movies. I feel I should trace that one back to find an origin, and suspect it starts entirely outside the fantasy genre.

You would think that if I state that there is one thing I actively dislike, I would have at least one example I actively love, as I rewatch these movies over and over again. But no, nothing of note reaches out from this movie. Its more an overall collection of magic and swordplay, visual notes and costuming, that catches me. The background shots of Alamut are fantastic, so broad and sweeping and carrying actual distance. You can see the money in this movie, in large sets like the celebration after the fall of Alamut, which even in the worst of movies, always lends a bit of a thrill for me. I just like BIG scenes, full of details and background notes.

With this movie rewatched, I almost feel I have to rewatch Clash of the Titans if not because Gemma is in it, but also because these sit side by side in my mind, very similar in structure to me, if not a bit more serious toned.

One last comment. I believe, that if there was ever to be a movie adaptation of the Uncharted series of video games, Newell could do a good job. The humor of the games as well as the big action pieces are familiar to him.

3+1 Short Paragraphs: Un Prophete

2009, Jacques Audiard -- Netflix

I cannot remember why, but this movie has been on the edge of my radar for quite some time. I vaguely recall a positive review by Roger Ebert. Also on the periphery of my mind is a scene of a man looking out a small window, perched high in the room considering his confinement and the world beyond.

Un Prophète is a French prison drama, about a young Arab boy (his racial origins & France's racial tensions play a part in the movie) sent to prison, straight from streets that have not treated him well. His face is stitched up, his arms and back are criss-crossed with scars and his clothes are only worth being tossed in a bin. We never really know what crime he committed or what happened to him before, because it doesn't matter. This prison is where Malik El Djebena becomes someone.

Malik goes into the prison young and afraid. He is not like the stereotypical strutting street thug ready to prove himself a criminal to his peers. He is merely there because life has led him there. And when the local prison Don, a Corsican named Luciani, coerces him into murdering another prisoner, Malik is torn and forever changed. He becomes the errand boy, the guy who makes the instant coffees, the guy who delivers messages, all for the Corsican criminals who run the prison with the obvious and unchallenged help of the prison officials themselves. And with this exposure, Malik doesn't leave the prison young, or afraid.

What was fascinating about how all of this was played out was that we are never really sure if Malik is meant for this life. He is not a bad man, but nor is he a man to stand up against evil. There is some commentary about how prison makes criminals of its residents, but this movie is more about Malik finding a place, a family and a direction for himself. The prophetic allusions are  somewhat unbalanced, as he has the only meaningful conversations of the movie with absent characters, who might represent his own more intelligent personality emerging. It is never clear and really, it does not play a big part. That he leaves the prison, leader not follower, ascribes some mystical overtones to what led him there, but really, the movie is more a personal evolution not a grand one.

3 Short Paragraphs: X-Men: Days of Future Past

2014, Bryan Singer (The Usual Suspects, Jack the Giant Slayer) -- download

That issue of The Uncanny X-Men, that one with the cover, that one this is inspired by! There was something about Wolverine with the gray in his sideburns and the crossed-out X-Men. Dystopia! Internment camps! Killer sentinels and time travel! That comic was one of the key points in building my fascination with dystopias. Also, one of the points for establishing my 'body count means plot weight' opinion. You would think I would have a lot invested in seeing the film adaptation. Maybe it was for that reason, that I was very meh about the coming of this movie. Or maybe it was my already deep seated meh for First Class that contributed. That said, I had no interest in seeing it in the cinemas and thus didn't suffer the usual anguish when I was forced to download it.

In Days of Future Past Bryan Singer returns to the franchise to connect the prequel First Class to his pair of X-Men movies. In a dark future where mutants are hunted down or thrown into detention camps, the remaining X-Men all embittered and determined, need to make use of a new power being used by Kitty Pryde, to send someone into the deep past and change history, thus eliminating this Darker Timeline. Of course, Wolverine is the best choice not just because he was there in the time period they need to go to, but also because his powers allow his to recover more quickly. And thus, with the help of Professor X (a completely unexplained, returned Patrick Stewart), Wolvie is sent back to talk with younger Professor X (James McAvoy).

Well, I'll be damned but this movie was a lot of fun. And its meaty, relying on the already established characterizations from the first three as well as the rebooted prequel cast. Its like they finally are finished with establishing movies and can just riff on their versions of characters I have known for thirty years or more. McAvoy and Fassbender are incredible together, the pain and anguish of each man's failings played out well against the confirmed dark future. And the flash forward battle scenes between morphing Sentinels and new/old X-Men is just ... colorful. With Wolverine tying the two stories together, a little mixed up but pretty much the same in each timeline, he pretty much plays observer as much as we do. If I can fault the movie for anything, it is the annoying bloodless PG ratings attached. Seriously, why have claws bone or metal, if you cannot spray blood as you delimb every foe you run into. He's too violent a character to revert to a cartoon version, in a movie that has such emotional weight to it.

3 Short Paragraphs: Transformers: Age of Extinction

2014, Michael Bay (The Rock, The Island) -- download

Age of Extinction doesn't pick up immediately after the last movie but does pick itself up in the world shattered after the War of Chicago, which is a nice bit of world continuity. And then it spends the next 3 hours being the same old same old. I commended the body count of the last movie and I commend the continuity of this movie having it mean something. But again, AGAIN, the movie has to toss in the idea that we not trust the alien robots who have fought and died to save our asses. So, as expected, Michael Bay knows some of the points of making good sequels but still always wants to seed his movies with easy expectations.. and bay-splosions.

The movie picks up not long after the battle in Chicago, about four years. Shia is out and Mark Wahlberg is in; he is a single dad and a failed inventor. Based on the way he interacts with his inventions, talking to them and hoping to coax them into working, instead of inspecting the wiring, circuit boards and software, its no wonder he's a failure. In fact, the whole personality he is assigned is rather dim --- he has a daughter he forbade from ever dating but seems to miss the fact she is super model hot. There is no reality where she is not dating, especially when you see the crowd she hangs with, all standard Bay-hotties. Meanwhile, Wahlberg has purchased a disabled Optimus Prime and nurses the guy back to health, just before he is betrayed by a co-worker and the government.

The next two and a half hours are running away, new autobots, dead autobots, explosions, a new comedic old guy character (Stanley Tucci who is a whole lot of fun), new style baddie robots (made by humans), the return of Megatron (duh) and another alien robot menace, again. Its, as they say, non-stop bay-splosions, car chases, battle scenes and deaths. We know there must be deaths but we only ever actually see one very visibly, the betraying co-worker. We knew he had to die but at least they make it count, kinda. Its all silly and over the top with tons of gramma screaming at the screen stupidities but, with a flick of the brain-switch, kinda fun. And there is Optimus Prime riding a fire breathing dinosaur robot while wielding a sword.

3 Short Paragraphs: The F Word

2013, Michael Dowse (Goon, It's All Gone Pete Tong) -- cinema

Otherwise known as What If in the rest of the world, the Canadian title of the movie says everything you need to know. No, its not about swearing, its an affable movie about being relegated to the friendzone and the troubles and responsibilities that come with that. To the average nice guy, this is the worst thing that can happen -- meet a nice girl, fall for her but hear those dastardly words, "Can we just be friends?" But being friendzoned comes with negative connotations, a sort of responsibility laid at the feet of the female side of the relationship, and this movie wants to sidestep this. The movie is about unrequited love, not sexual politics. For the most part.

Wallace (Daniel Radcliffe) is a med school dropout, living with his sister and heartbroken about his ex. He runs into Chantry (Zoe Kazan) at a house party and the two click, in that snarky pop culture conversation sort of way. Part of me wants to rewatch some old youth movies to see if people talked this way in the pre-Buffy days. Clever, relevant and oh so intelligent, Chantry is the first woman to make Wallace think about someone other than his ex. And then she mentions her BF. But they shake hands and agree to be friends.  Allan (Adam Driver) thinks Wallace is being stupid, hiding his feelings for the sake of the gentlemanly friendship. Wallace is conflicted. But they are good as friends.

The first act of the movie is all short choppy walking scenes, that gives the watcher a tour of the cool spots in Toronto. Wallace and Chantry, Wallace and Allan, Wallace and his sister, Chantry and her sister, Chantry and her friends. There is some weird slapstick comedy and a few out of place, otherworldly scenes of animation come to life. I felt things were far too heavy handed on the quips and clips, but it did lead eventually into the actual turmoil of the movie -- how the two do not deal with the growing mutual feelings between them. There is real emotion bubbling to the surface tangled in real life decisions as the BF moves to Ireland for work and Chantry is offered animation work in Taiwan. When it all comes together the two have to dispense with the charming dialogue and just talk to each other about how they feel. There is plenty of time for charming dialogue after they get together, and sit on a roof watching the stars.

We Agree(ish) Guardians of the Galaxy

2014, James Gunn -- in theatre


All right, people, it's time.  It's time I either poop or get off the poop-pot.  I know you've been waiting for this review from me for so long, Mr. Comic Book Geek...some of you I'm sure have resisted the urge to see the film until such time as I shine my light on it and either bathe it in praise, or douse it with denunciation.  So here's the poop, I couldn't decide whether I loved Guardians of the Galaxy as a result of meeting and exceeding my expectations, or if I was, like David, somewhat underwhelmed by the film for the very same reason.

Certainly my anticipation was high, I was a huge fan of the surprisingly recent source material from which this team of characters sprang.  I've always had great love for the B- (and more for the C- and D-) characters from DC and Marvel comics, and this was a team comprised exclusively of characters and heroes largely forgotten by even many of the hardcore nerds.  That the next big Marvel film would take a risk on a talking, gun-toting, trash-talking raccoon, and a sentient tree who only speaks one phrase ever, and two more characters in full-body green make-up was an utter surprise, but not an unwelcome one.  The Guardians of the Galaxy comic (which weaved in and out of cosmic epic crossovers in its three years of publishing) was relentlessly entertaining, dizzyingly rich with creative concepts, and featured an engaging cast of mismatched characters who truly belonged together if only because they didn't belong anywhere else.  It was, for me at least, an endlessly exciting, and perfectly logical choice for a monster-budgeted motion picture.


I struggle with how I feel about the cinematic GOTG.  I know I came out of the film feeling entertained, as entertained as any film in recent memory.  GOTG features laughs, excitement, and some rather surprising character moments (particularly Rocket's drunken outburst had my eyes welling up in empathy), all enveloped in both the space opera oeuvre I intrinsically love as well as being embedded in a superhero universe I am 100% invested in.  The constant spectacle of seeing things on screen I never thought I would see (the Knowhere space station inside a Celestial's head, I mean COME ON!! Cosmo the Russian space dog, yesss!  More of him in the sequel please.  Nova Corps, wahoo!) propelled me excitedly through the movie, and seeing Chris Pratt, whom I've liked intensely for years as dopey Andy Dwyer on Parks and Recreation, in a lead role couldn't have had me more tuned in.

But for all that, for all the great special effects, for all the cheering and laughing and almost-crying, so much of the film fell flat.  And no it wasn't the cheesy soundtrack -- which managed to ground the film in an Earth-based reality, without really ever needing to touch the Earth, beyond its opening few minutes -- it was just the condensed, Reader's Digest-light version of what felt like it should be a much longer story.  Ronan the Accuser (a completely disguised Lee Pace) certainly looked the part, but the in story motivation was whisper-thin, as was his character development.  It's a problem Marvel movies are generally having, villains who are basically there for the heroes to fight, and not so much great characters on their own. Compare to Loki or Iron Man 3's the Mandarin, and you can see most of the baddies are not casting much shadow.

Beyond that, certain moments felt palely false, like Gamora being manhandled in prison, or having to be rescued on more than one occasion.  She's a premiere fighter and assassin in the universe, she shouldn't in any way feel threatened by a group of thugs or unable to escape her own demise. A romance with Peter Quill should also be totally beneath her, and at least in this film, it never makes it to the big payoff, which I do admire, but I get the feeling it's just a tease for more love-hate hijinks next film.

Nebula, Gamora's step-sister, is an incredible-looking character.  The make-up job on actress Karen Gillen is phenomenal, such that, for me, she's the standout visual of the film, beyond Groot and Rocket.  Unfortunately, Gillen is either given fairly flat dialogue to deliver, or just doesn't manage to hit the dialogue with the right gravitas, as such she feels like a wasted character.  I do hope she gets more screentime in the next film.

The Nova Corps seem like a nice inclusion in the film, but the stunt casting of John C. Reilley and Glenn Close are overly distracting, the same could be said for Benicio Del Toro as the Collector.  Their characters are perfunctory and really should've called for small-time character actors in the roles.  As is, these are a few big-name people in very minor roles, signifying they have more importance then they really do.

On the upside, former pro-wrestler David Bautista is the revelation of the film, delivering deadpan, literal line readings with precision timing, building Drax into a hilarious, yet still intimidating character.  It's a shame Drax is de-powered next to his comic book counterpart, as he should have been able to go toe-to-to with Ronan, but Bautista still gives him a life that stands on its own.  As well, Bradley Cooper delivers a surprising and masterful voice performance as Rocket Raccoon, which certainly builds him into the endearing character he should be.  Vin Diesel's gravelly croak delivers so much with merely the words "I am Groot".  Of anything in the translation I was wondering how that would play, and it plays brilliantly. Certainly the voice of the Iron Giant knows how to make the most out of sparse line readings.

The film is a visual feast, though logic problems (like how various things survive various conflicts) plague the fallout of fight sequences, but overall Gunn produces a colourful and vivid Galaxy that makes the eyes pop, if not always stimulating the brain with ideas.

I have this feeling that a second viewing will either make or break the film for me, that I will either find too much flaw, or fall madly into like with it.  Given the strong public reaction and my already favourable disposition, I think I know which way I'll probably go, but it's not a foregone conclusion.  I'm certainly jazzed this renegade band of a-holes has made such a massive box-office splash, as a sequel is inevitable and I definitely want to spend more time in this neck of the Galaxy (more Cosmo, please).

  

3+1 Short Paragraphs: Divergent

2014, Neil Burger (Limitless, The Illusionist) -- download

For the time being, youth dystopian fiction is where it's at.  With the astounding popularity of The Hunger Games and the screen realizations of The Maze Runner and The Host, we have a few more years of teens against the Near Dark Future establishment coming. But, isn't it weird, when you think something is a thing and then you try and find examples, but realize they are so few? Its the opposite of finding out someone has a new car, and suddenly seeing that car everywhere on the road. Anywayz, its an easy stretch to see why today's youth would feel attached to fiction that has them up against cruel societies that care little for their people.

Now, despite my fondness for near future stories, I never cared to see this movie. The idea of a dark (near) future that is dominated by how it pre-defines its people, how it breaks everyone up into the group they are most suited for, didn't seem that dark to me. As a premise, it is not very alluring. OMG, they want you to be giving or martial or intellectual or whatever. AND you are actually allowed to go against the suggested group and choose. But what if you are the magical kid who has the connection to all the possible life directions / professions? Oooo dangerous. Even as I type it now, I cannot see how it would be considered a real issue. I imagined the movie would spend so much time convincing us this had an impact, I would end up rolling my eyes. But I was pleasantly surprised. The weight of the choices and how far outside she felt, is pretty apparent from the beginning.

Tris is raised in the "abnegation" tradition; those who are entirely giving. She doesn't feel it. During her 'aptitude test' the evaluator tells her the test fails but that she should tell them it said "abnegation". Instead Tris decides on the martial protectors called "dauntless". And thus begins her training at Hogw... the dauntless training arenas. Thus we get the cliches of The Hunger Games, or Harry Potter, or any other fiction where a young character has to spend most of the story training to not be the weak, unskilled, whiny version of themselves so they can blossom into the confident warrior that will set their people free. Inherently, I cannot fault that trend in fiction, having spent so much of my youth repeatedly reading the Band of Adventurers (i.e. Fellowship) trope.

But as training goes on, it becomes apparent why her being "divergent" (carrying traits from all the traditions) is so dangerous. She acts more independent than her peers, more thoughtful. So, despite being smaller and weaker than the other dauntless bullies, she rises through the training ranks. Meanwhile a conspiracy is going on around her, as the current leader of their people, an Erudite (smart people) played by Kate Winslet devises a way to control the dauntless like a suggestible zombie army. And the divergent are immune. As the story closes out, again we have to compare to The Hunger Games as our hero starts a rebellion against the leaders, for the betterment of her people. Let's assume it made enough money to move onto the rest of the series.

3 Short Paragraphs: Enemy

2013, Denis Villeneuve (Maelstrom, Incendies) -- download

Double. Doppelganger. Evil Twin. It must be unnerving to look into the eyes of someone and see yourself staring back. The mirror is within your realm of control; you can just look away. But to unexpectedly find your own face worn by a low grade actor in a B movie would be way beyond strange. Adam Bell is a teacher at U of T, a man who constantly teaches the same lecture over and over, one of history and totalitarian societies, Romans and Circuses. He is bored, bored of his life and his girlfriend and the dusky city of Toronto he lives in. But when, out of that simple boredom, he watches a movie recommended by a fellow boring teacher, he catches himself playing the bellhop. And boredom changes into an obsession with finding out who this double is.

This is an artistic movie, well shot full of wide scenes that make Toronto urbane yet chilling, institutional. Like Prisoners before it, it is quiet and bleak, even in the brightest sun, the skylines tainted with brown smog. There is an underlying tension to everything and every interaction in the movie. Adam meets his double, and its is not enlightening but scares him. Daniel St Claire, the stage name of Anthony, seems to be everything Adam is not -- confident, wealthy, stylish and intimidating. They are not twins, they are not uncannily alike -- they are exact doubles, down to matching scars. But this movie is not about finding out why, its about becoming aware of something more in the world, and being terrified of it. Villeneuve does such a good job of keeping this tension tight as a guide wire, while seeding us with curiosity.

When I see a movie that is enigmatic, as drawn from symbolism, I like to pretend everything is exactly what we see. They are not scenes of giant spiders because the spiders suggest we are caught in webs of control that we are unaware of. I like to envision a true web, an alternate Toronto that is under the dark, smoke tainted control of an unseen force. That these forces are playing with Adam, or perhaps Anthony, by giving him something to upset his life. There is a scene of the cityscape, with a gargantuan spider in the style of Louise Bourgeois's sculptures, roaming the horizon. It is merely cinematic (merely?) but my scifi mind scans the plot possibilities, seeking evil overlords that ride spiders, playing with their inhabitants who are wriggling flies in their web. If Villeneuve wants to conjure spiders as a thinly veiled comment on how we live urban lives, he can do so, but I see things more plainly, and likely more terrifyingly.

We Agree: Life Itself

2014, d. David James (Hoop Dreams)

David's writeup of Life Itself is one of, if not the best review he has written for this site.  It's a heartfelt reaction to this man, Roger Ebert, who we never met, but who we knew intimately through his writing.  Ebert was, and remains, for David and myself and countless others, the inspiration for what we do, which is talk -- and think -- about movies in a way that engages the public, even if the public is only one other person.

David asked me after the film if it was a good documentary, pleading his own ignorance of documentaries and their form.  I said, at the time, that I couldn't tell, basically because I was so emotionally invested in the subject matter from the get go I wasn't able to be objective.  A good documentary, though, starts with a thesis, but will find the path that it does in spite of the thesis, not because of it, whether it backs it up or not.  A documentary lives its life and unfolds as such upon the screen, and you can tell when a film is being dishonest in this regard.  Life Itself began as a documentary on Roger Ebert's life, based of his similarly titled memoir, and very quickly turned into a chronicle of his remaining time on Earth.  That fits the bill.

What documentaries can often do that makes them distasteful or unsavoury is deify their subjects, but director Steve James made it clear from the beginning that this film isn't his alone but a joint effort with Ebert himself, and Ebert would not permit such aggrandizing of his character.  Ebert, we learn, was not a humble man, but he was confident of his place in the world, and that allowed him all the freedom and confidence to give his opinion and have it mean something.  When Ebert injured himself, and later fell ill once again, he seemed uniquely proud to have James document it, and fearless to have every painful moment put on screen.

And it is painful.  It's truly a film where I watch a loved one die before me.  I grieved when Ebert passed away the first time, and I sobbed in the theatre when it inevitably happened again.  Because for all his strength, there came a time where even he was too weak to face the camera, to put that face on screen.  But he was also strong enough to make the decision that it was his time, something that his incredible wife Chaz would have refused had she known.

Between the in-the-moment events, James recalls Ebert's past as culled from his memoirs, interviews with his old editors and friends, pictures of his past life as a raconteur and roustabout, as a know-it-all and driven journalist, as a boob-man and a family man.  Ebert's destiny may not have been writing about film directly, but he was headed for a Pulitzer one way or another, having started his own self-published and self-distributed rag at the age of 12... laser focused.

The highlights were naturally the Siskel years, Roger facing off against his appointed nemesis from across the street, and across the aisle.  The two were born enemies, who became natural brothers, and shared a bond that was deeper than either of them truly cared to admit.  There was passion in their shouting matches, their one-upsmanship, their put-downs, and such heartbreak (and a lesson so noted in how do deal with it) when Roger learned way too late that his polar opposite was closing in on death.

I was a rapt reader of RogerEbert.com in Eberts final years, his blog posts shining a light on his intelligence and world savvy in a way his reviews only so frequently implied.  They also took us deep within Ebert's personal journey through his illnesses, his treatments, losing his jaw and his voice, but taking to technology to retain it, if not speak even louder than before.  Life Itself takes us through this journey again, but instead of it being through Rogers eyes, it's through those that love him, friends, family, James, and Chaz most of all.  It's a bright film filled with sadness, but inspiring and uplifting.  It's an emotional piledriver, but one that feels rewarding all the same.  Everyone in the audience held their thumb up for Roger at the end as they wiped away their tears with the other hand.

Graig and David Sometimes Disagree started out with bigger ambitions, but has settled into what it is because of life, itself.  Would we like it to be more collaborative, more engaged, more back-and-forth? Certainly.  We're not Gene and Roger, but when we get going, pulling apart a film the other liked, or just gushing together over a film we both loved (especially those films that get lambasted by the more mainstream reviewers) we can really have something unique to say (our back-of-the-streetcar post-mortem on Source Code was epic... if only we had something to record it on).  We kind of wanted this blog to be a hybrid of At The Movies debate and Ebert's incredible archive of film analysis and love, fully aware that it would pale in comparison to both, like a pale imitation of a pale imitation.  But Ebert, though departed, still sits firmly in the seat behind us every time we write (more thumbs down than thumbs up, I'm sure, but I'm still happy he's there).  In the end, we may be writing for you, dear reader, but even more we're writing for each other, and, moreover, in Ebert's image, we're writing for ourselves.  I miss Roger Ebert all the damn time.  There's some great movie reviewers worth paying attention to out there still (Nathin Rabin, I'm looking at you), but few come close to Roger, and they all owe him a debt of gratitude for elevating the conversation.

3+1 Short Paragraphs: Brick Mansions

2014, Camille Delamarre -- download

You have to wonder why American producers recreate movies that were already a hit in their own right. Banlieue 13, written by Luc Besson and directed by Pierre Morel (Taken), was an action hit in more countries than its home of France. The rather cheeky lifting of the base plot of Escape from New York had a cop and a criminal breaking into the walled off District 13 (Paris deals with its highly criminal neighbourhoods by walling them off) to rescue a ... bomb. Fluffy plot aside, it was known for its incredible parkour meets the martial arts of Ong Bak. David Belle not only starred, but also choreographed all the chase / fight scenes, which is not surprising since he is considered the founder of parkour as a movement.  See what I did there? It really is an amazing movie to watch, feeling as groundbreaking in action as The Bourne Identity did for fight scenes at its time.

David Belle returns in the remake as the criminal hero living in the walled-off city of New... I mean Detroit. Again, the walled-off area doesn't make too much literal sense. Both are trying to recreate the lack of building codes and the jammed-in feeling you get when you see images of Hong Kong, but apply it to a western location. If anything, Detroit lent itself easily for the use of abandoned buildings, gone completely lawless, if but for the fact that much of the filming happened in Montreal.

In the original there was some connection to the reality of certain neighbourhoods in Paris that had become completely controlled by the criminal element, in the extreme, where the police never visited, ever. The underlying opinion was that they were just abandoning the immigrant neighbourhoods they didn't want to bother policing. That isn't present in Detroit (that I am aware of), so it would be just the underclasses that cling to those areas of the city that look more bombed out then lived in. In both Belle's character is not so much a criminal as a Robin Hood hero trying to protect the average folk who were trapped inside the walls when they were erected. They may have been abandoned by the rest of the city, but not by Belle who wages a one man war against the criminals that control his home.

Again, the star of the movie is the parkour and quick paced action scenes. They are at least aware that Paul Walker cannot keep up with Belle, with a few fun scenes of him taking alternate routes. But other than the parkour, the movie is average action, average characterization and not very exciting. As I expected, all the pizazz was in the original, but I gather someone who had never seen it might like this one. As Walker's last movie, there is already a built in audience but I doubt this one made much of an impact anywhere.

How To Train Your Dragon 2

2014, d. Dean DeBlois (he's Canadian)

I used to be a Pixar snob.  Years back.  I just thought every other studio producing cgi-animated movies was just churning out pap for the masses.  Oh sure, Dreamworks`first effort, Antz, was decent enough, perhaps in some respects a more daring film than A Bug`s Life, but it doesn`t quite have the same allure as the Disney branch.  I mean, those tedious monsters Shrek and Ice Age that kept getting churned out every other year were such a grotesque, average bore, and ever other studio`s offering seemed like they were written for the brain dead.  

It`s only since my daughter`s been around, so the past 5 years or so, that I`ve truly given the other studios a shot.  Oh, sure, I dosed her heavily on Pixar in the first two years, but there`s only so many times one can watch Monsters Inc. before he needs a change of pace.  And let`s face it, Pixar hasn`t really been holding up their end, either, these past few years.  Brave, Cars 2, Monsters University, all not without their charms, but decidedly second-rate when compared to Up, WALL-E, or Toy Story 3.

I warmed to Dreamworks` a bit because of Kung-Fu Panda, but How To Train Your Dragon was the true softening blow, coming to that film only in the past 2 years.  It`s a beautiful boy-and-his-dog story mixed with a "nobody understands me, least of all my father" sub plot that is utterly affecting.  In ramping up for the second motion picture, Dreamworks produced a series, Dragonriders of Berk, which further expanded the world and its characters, maintaining much of the film's voice cast (which is rare for TV spinoffs), which has become my mother's favourite show.  So I was prepped, as were my kids, to see the sequel in theatre, but the experience was sullied when my daughter freaked out before the film started.  So I sent her packing back home with her grandmother (thus denying my mother a viewing of her favourite show on the big screen), and tried to not brood about it while the film was playing.

But I brooded nonetheless.  I enjoyed the movie, but it had obvious flaws, particularly around its villain, the role of Hiccup's mother, and the necessity of the demise of another character.  The death in particular is an affecting an emotional sweep, on the one hand, but it also feels very story/plot driven and not true to the situation or the characters.  The film's upbeat finale feels grotesquely hollow and unearned in the wake of the character's death, and really has me question whether it was truly necessary.  Disney films have long had death in them, exposing children to the mortality of their elders seems to be a mandate of film, but this was less than necessary for this movie.

The introduction of Hiccup's mother, which is a bit of a spoiler, provides a great moment for Hiccup, and Valka (voiced by the always awesome Cate Blanchett) is a great character.  Living in hiding, wrangling dragons, providing sanctuary, she's kind of a nutbar having lived in seclusion from any other humans so long.  Her humanity has kind of escaped her, and she's fiercely against the society that she's left, but given the changes that Hiccup introduced she should be welcome back home.  Naturally she's wary, and her reincorporation into society and reintroduction to her family should provide great drama, but the film unfortunately scuttles her and her story to the side to have the BIG FIGHT SEQUENCE which all summer movies must have.  Her story would be much better served on Dragonriders of Berk.

Drago (Djimon Hounsou) is the first non-white (human) character introduced into the HTTYD cinematic world, and it would be great if we could just look past it and not think anything of it, but that he's also the bad guy, stubborn, violent, and ultimately evil, it does seem an unfortunate choice from the filmmakers (as David also points out in his review).  True, vikings and Scandanavians are depicted as Caucasians traditionally, but there's no reason fiction, and fantasy more specifically, can't be more inclusive.  Beyond that, Drago is a painfully thin character.  He's basically on the scene to be menacing, filled with hate, rage, and puffed up with power... his deep, croaking voice meant to inspire fear in children.  The other new addition, Eret (Kit Harrington), gets more to do, and, despite being a poacher and working for Drago, gets his redemption.

The other Dragonriders besides Hiccup get the short shrift here, which I'm unsure whether it matters or not.  I found the same true of the Kung-Fu Panda sequel, where the focus is on the main character and perhaps a secondary character and all the great supporting cast gets scuttled further into the background.  They get reduced to quip machines or exposition talkers, and don't really feel like the ensemble they do on Berk or in the first film.

Story aside, the animation is stunning.  The flying sequence are breathtaking on the big screen, while the introduction of Valka's sanctuary finds the screen chock-a-block with dragons.  Hiccup's affection for Valka's main dragon yields some charming physical comedy, while the epic scope of the Alpha dragon fight which often eats up the entire background, was worth the price of admission alone.  We were treated to Pacific Rim last year, and Godzilla at around the same time as this... it's been a good 12 months-ish for giant monster fighting.

Though the story isn't quite as thoroughly solid as it could have been (rumours say that originally Valka was to be the villain of the piece, which would have made for an even more enticing film, and surely a tighter story) it's still vastly entertaining.

3 Short Paragraphs: The Tower

2012, Ji-hoon Kim (Sector 7) -- Netflix

I love disaster movies. Yet, so few come out that I haven't reviewed a legitimate one here. By legit, I mean something I saw in the theatre. Someday, you will get a 2012 rewatch. And yes, once I see Into the Storm on downloads, you will get that. But until then, I am getting my fix from Netflix and apparently, from Korea.

If, as a genre, disaster flicks are not very good, then the enhanced melodrama of Korean cinema only enhances the not-so-good elements of these movies. I am convinced that melodrama, present in every country's movies, is a very cultural thing. What is deep, heart wrenching and touching in one country is overly cheesy and unbearable in another's. If balanced by a good story or good special effects it can work. Those are not to be expected in this genre.

This is all a way to say, yes, my latest Korean disaster movie, about a luxury tower catching fire on its "launch" night, is not a very good movie. It burns, it explodes, it even floods. The wide net of a cast including plucky firefighters, single dads, trusting Christians, hard working housekeepers and the required uncaring building owner. The effects are actually decent, a mix of heavy practical effects and CGI fire. I just couldn't get past all the longing looks and desperate cries, to attach myself to the characters, required to actually care for the dying cast. Only the quiet focus of the Captain Young-ki, the dedicated fireman who is never home because he works so hard, kept me watching. His final sacrifice, detonating explosives to collapse one tower so its twin doesn't topple over taking out downtown Seoul, is actually tragic.