mconrad3

Under discussion:

Tae Guk Gi: The Brotherhood of War  (2004)

I'd be the first to admit that I haven't been up on foreign films as much as I probably should. One of my favorite films from last year (Let the Right One In) was made in Sweden. Today I had the opportunity to sample South Korean cinema in the form of Tae Guk Gi: The Brotherhood of War. I have never seen a war film that didn't deal with Amerian centered conflicts. Letters from Iwo Jima, while impressive, was still a primarily American film. Tae Guk Gi, on the other hand, is a product of Korea in which the American involvement is only mentioned in passing.

The story is of two brothers living in South Korea who are drafted into service following the outbreak of hostilities that would last for three years and serve as a proxy war during the Cold War. The view from the trenches ain't pretty, but that's what makes this film important. Not unlike Saving Private Ryan, this film places a more human face on soldiers in the war. They aren't the brave war heroes marching off to victory. They're sons, brothers, fathers, and people with real motivations and problems. Throughout the story we are presented with gritty examples of the horrors the Korean War had to offer.

What impressed me most about this film was its production value. On only a twelve million dollar budget, these filmmakers managed to create something on par with the greatest American war films. The Korean War was an ordeal that members of my generation have only seen from black and white file footage. In Tae Guk Gi, as it should be, it is treated as one of the most major conflicts their nation faced. Non native audience members can experience it as if it were "their" war and it adds that much impact to it.

Emotionally moving, you are hard pressed not to feel affected by Tae Guk Gi by the time the credits roll. It illustrates a conflict I don't think Americans have been made aware enough of. Unfortunately, it has been dismissed by mainstream audiences, likely because it comes with subtitles. I have no doubts in my mind that if it was an American war film, people would be talking about it like they did for Saving Private Ryan.

Under discussion:

Singin' in the Rain  (1952)

I was never a big fan of musicals. I had to participate in them throughout my elementary school career and even landed a few lead roles, but something about randomly breaking out into song didn't really jive with me. It's probably because it had been parodied so many times in my childhood shows and films that I couldn't take it seriously. Overall even the modern musicals haven't really appealed to me. Of all the musicals I've seen though, the ones from the forties, fifties, and sixties are the ones I can sit through. Singin' in the Rain is no exception.

Taking place just at the beginning of the talkie era of filmmaking, I was quite intrigued by the plot and story of the film. In all honesty, I wasn't expecting that much of an interesting story, being that I was of the assumption the entire movie was about singing in the rain. I admit now that I was wrong, and that I actually enjoyed the tale constructed before me. It may be only because it is one of the few original movies I've seen in the last three years, but it is actually pretty well crafted.

The music, which the film is defined by, was pretty good. Yes, several of the songs were catchy, but I still found somewhat annoyed by the breaking out into song. I think at this point in my life it can't be helped for me to feel that way. That being said, the amount of production that went into the bigger musical numbers is still astonishing to this day. In a world where green screen is the quick fix for every little thing, set design is something of an art unto itself.

I was pleasantly surprised by Singin' in the Rain. It's a more happy and cheery than I'm used to, but it is a well executed feel good film.

Under discussion:

Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind  (2004)

Eternal Sunshine is a film that I seem to enjoy the more I watch it. The first time I saw it, it struck a chord with me. At the time there was this girl in my life that reminded me very much of Clementine and I think that's what first drew me into the film. The thing is, though, as I watched it a second time, I realized there was much more to it than the quirky love interest. There were a few themes going on that also rang true when I discovered them within the storyline. It's not a mainstream movie, but I'm counting that on the side of the pros. That being said, it no doubt does not appeal to people who aren't interested in thinking about what their watching.

Aside from dissecting a relationship from the end backwards, I found this particularly intriguing kearnel commentary that may not have been intentional, but nevertheless spoke to me. It was the idea seen in many Greek and Shakespearian tragedies: fate cannot be escaped, and some things are meant to be. I'm not saying that there's a grand design to the universe, but I think there's a general procession to how it is going to unfold, and the story of Joel and Clem illustrates this theory. They erased each other from their memory, and yet something is left that goads them on to meet a second time. Even after they hear themselves talk about what they hated about their relationship, they decide to go for it anyway.

I read that the director intended the last shot of the film to convey the repeating cycle that Clem and Joel would get sick of each other, wipe their memories, and start over again ad nauseum until their deaths. While that's not necessarily the interpretation I take away from this film, it also speaks volumes of this existential concept of rhyming events and repeating cycles. All of these little themes and ideas that get voiced throughout the film make me think about life, the universe, and everything. That's what I like about it. But because of this, it won't appeal to the crowd expecting another "zany" hollywood romantic comedy. It's more than that, which is probably why it doesn't gain wide appeal.

Enough ramblings from my cynical mind. If you're into the arthouse scene, you'll like Eternal Sunshine. It's a dark film, a heartfelt film, and a funny film. It isn't the kind of film my dad is going to watch because he enjoys films like Epic Movie. I think all the people involved in the project did a wonderful job in telling a unique story (gasp! I know) that gives you and your friends something to talk about when the credits roll.

Under discussion:

Idiocracy  (2006)

It's a shame I didn't get around to seeing Idiocracy until I did. Mike Judge is one of my favorite comedic creators, but I wasn't aware he had done anything live action since Office Space, another cult classic. The issues with release certainly hampered its chances at a wider following, but I think considering the material and time of its completion wouldn't have helped it. Luke WIlson and Maya Rudolph play two people from the present accidentally frozen only to be woken up in a future where the culture revolves around all things stupid and/or redneck. The film pokes fun at just about every thing corporate and conservative America has to offer, but it doesn't have much depth to back it up.

The raw, dark humor was enough to get more than a few laughs out of me throughout the course of the story. In the back of my head, I was thinking how absurdly plausible the dystopian future depected here is. The overall stupidity of the society and the punches thrown at Fox and NASCAR Dad culture were humorous, but had no depth to them. The plot was pretty thin and all the characters (even the ones we're supposed to sympathize with) are cardboard cut-outs. The good thing is there's enough satire flying around to distract you, but it was disappointing coming from the guy who brough us King of the Hill.

Idiocracy isn't going to be a movie for everybody. People with vulgar senses of humor and cynics will both flock to this film despite its shortcomings. It does leave something to be desired when the credits start rolling. It is true that under all the absurdity there is a message to be heard, but if you think about it enough you might start to get depressed about the future of humanity.

Under discussion:

Night of the Comet  (1984)

Night of the Comet is by no means a "good" film by normal standards. It is rife with plotholes, clunky dialogue, and B-movie acting. HOWEVER, I can't help but enjoy it. It is 80s in every sense of the word and I am irrevocably drawn to it despite all of its flaws. Set in LA during a fictional comet strike, the plot revolves around sisters Samantha and Regina who must survive on their own after the comet's...well, I don't know what, but people either turned into orange dust or flesh-eating zombies. (I know you're already wondering what's not to like aout this flick). I'm sure in other hands it could be fleshed out and turned into some sort of Omega Man knock-off, but it's the corniness that makes this movie.

As I've said, the acting and story are what you'd expect from a Sci Fi Channel weekend movie. The lead actors don't put on terrible performances, but some of the lines they have to run through are hilarious in their own right. ("We can say ****, but let's substitute 'have sex' with 'get with' at every opportunity") There also isn't a whole lot of character development, and there's an entire sequence that seems utterly superfluous outside of watching Star Trek vet Robbie Beltran fight off a zombie child for ten minutes.

But I'm not watching this film for some deep artistic statement. I'm watching this film because it's simple 80s goodness in every sense of the phrase. Someone was hard at work on the synthesizer to score just about every second of the movie and I enjoyed all of it. I'm a sucker for 8-bit sound. The dress, hairstyles, arcade games, and random shopping mall montages all scream the decade they shot this thing in, and that's why I enjoy it. You won't be able to sit me down for those Sci Fi Channel weekend flicks, but tell me it's got a synthesizer soundtrack and was shot in 1984 and I'm there with a bag of popcorn.

At its heart, Night of the Comet is pure 80s flash. It may not sit well with anyone who was born at the wrong time, but for a product of the 80s and 90s, it's a nostalgia trip in the cheap seats with the bubble gum that sticks to your feet and the (you hope it's a) soda stain on tthe upholstery. I make no excuses for the cinematic quality or artistic merit of this fillm. I will say that I enjoyed every bit of it.

Under discussion:

Zack & Miri Make a Porno  (2008)

I should probably start by saying that I am a rabid Kevin Smith fan. This is not to say I think he can do no wrong, but one day I would be more than happy to be as successful as he is today. On small budgets and short, indie style shoots, Smith has acquired a fanbase most directors at his level don't possess. He's turned into that aloof musician that releases an album every few years and you hope it'll be just as good, if not better, than the last. Zack and Miri Make a Porno, while not my all time favorite of his films, delivers on most parts and despite its faults remains a genuinely funny movie.

The film stars Seth Rogen and Elizabeth Banks as high school friends and roomates who are forced to film a porno in order to make payment on their month's behind bills. The cast is much more high profile than any of Smith's other films, and some might even be mislead to believe it is a Judd Apatow production. That being said, the acting is also of a higher calibur than most of his films. Seth Rogen isn't breaking any ground playing the deadpan, chunky lead, but he fills the shoes well.

As a fellow writer I always look forward to hearing what dialogue will be coming out of Smith's characters next. The outrageous one-liners and vulgar ten minute conversations on God knows what always makes me laugh. He appeals to my baser instincts but also my wit; and I am rewarded for catching his inside geek/dork references (ie. Monroeville Zombies) strewn throughout the movie. I expect no less from Smith, and if nothing else he makes me laugh for an hour and a half.

The weakness of this film seems to lie deep in its plot between the second and third acts. Up until this point the pacing of the movie feels comfortable. Instead of taking another twenty or so minutes to keep the pace going, Smith jumps the timeline ahead three months and resolves most of the conflicts too easily. I have no problem with fairly happy endings in Kevin Smith's films, but this just didn't feel natural and felt more like he took a shortcut to get us to the end of the movie. While this hurts the film, it doesn't mean it makes it unwatchable.

Kevin Smith is the everyman's filmmaker. None of his films have won Oscars (these days I'd take that as a point of pride) and they aren't always deep. They do all manage to make me laugh, and you can still put them above all the poorly made remakes, reboots, sequels, prequels, adaptations, and [insert genre here] movie parodies. He's vulgar, dark, witty, and laughably funny. And although Zack and Miri has some mechanical flaws in its bones, it still fits the bill for an entertaining Smith flick.

Under discussion:

The Taking of Pelham One Two Three  (1974)

I'm not really sure why they're remaking this film. I like most of Tony Scott's stuff, but I don't know what else can be brought to the table after watching this version of The Taking of Pelham One Two Three. Filled with dark humor and New York cynicism, it definitely speaks of the urban climate in the seventies, but also of the attitude most New Yorkers have on a daily basis to this day. I'm also a bit of a trainspotter, so anything dealing with trains/subways I always have a vested interest in.

The flick has a brilliant cast from Walter Matthau and Robert Shaw to even Jerry Stiller. More than anything its fun to see these guys as they were more than thirty years ago before Jaws even came out. The choice of giving some of these roles to comedians definitely helped in adding the grim humor to the entire situation. Couple that with the soundtrack and it's a film that screams the seventies. It matches the kind of style everybody was used to during the first half of that decade and paints an interesting picture to future generations (moi) looking back.

The Taking of Pelham One Two Three is a pretty simple heist film with the twist of it being on the subway. The good guys win, the bad guys get killed, and a few hostages get popped along the way. But what is interesting is that "along the way" part. Seeing how people react to this insane situation and how they get from A to B to C. Its what makes the story worth watching, and if you're as deranged as me you'll even get a few laughs out of it.

Under discussion:

Pan's Labyrinth  (2006)

Guillermo del Toro is a very visual director. I was introduced to him through his earlier flick, The Devil's Backbone, and was enticed by his melding gritty realism with the supernatural. In Pan's Labyrinth he return's to Franco's Spain to tell another tale of a child stuck in a bad situation. I think I still enjoy the Devil's Backbone more, but Pan's Labyrinth definitely holds its own and was crucial in establishing del Toro's presence on the American filmmaking scene.

The film begins in 1944 in Spain after the end of the Spanish Civil War. Ofelia is unfortunately thrown into the middle of the woods at a fascist camp because her mother has remarried and is having the child of one Captain Vidal. Shortly after arriving, she discovers a magical prophecy that may prove her to be some form of underworld royalty. With the help of a faun, she goes about the tasks of allowing herself into this fantastical world. Compelling and original stories are hard to come by these days, and I have to give props to del Toro for managing to pull another one off.

Although things start slow, Pan's Labyrinth doesn't hold back on the shocking and disturbing moments once the plot starts moving. A fan of conventional effects over CGI, del Toro's penchan shows well in his rather sparse use of visual effects in a film that would probably warrant twice his budget of $19 million alone. His art direction, as usual, is his biggest strength. He can convince you of the mystical creatures residing in this forest, but also that they can reside right next to a historical conflict. Instead of worrying how fascists and fairies fit in the same film, we actually focus on the story.

I've heard that some of the roles in this flick were cast against their usual genre. Comedians playing sadists, sex kittens playing plain janes, etc. Although I am not fluent in Spanish, their visual performance was spot on and I sensed no awkwardness or clunky line deliveries. It may have been a gamble, but I think it paid off. Ivana Baquero, who plays Ofelia, conveys the curiosity and naivety required for the part and does well with it. Considering the film's success it should be interesting to see where she goes from here.

It was a little too slowly paced in the first act, and certain characterizations like the true motives of the faun aren't explored to the extent I think they could be. Like I've said, I prefer The Devil's Backbone, but Pan's Labyrinth is still a good film. I'll always be willing to sit down for a good yarn from del Toro, and if nothing else they're fun to look at.

Under discussion:

The Wrestler  (2008)

Darren Aronofsky is a good filmmaker, there isn't much debate about that. His usual subject of choice is about hopeless characters and their spiral down into insanity. Requiem for a Dream, for example, while a good film, is a piece I can only watch a handful of times over several years. I saw the trailers for The Wrestler, though, and thought it might be a departure from his usual stuff. I was wrong, but I still think it's his best film yet.

The story takes place in New Jersey (where all good stories take place, consequently) and revolves around dried up professional wrestler Randy "the Ram" Robinson. He's a kind hearted but rough living man who is estranged from his daughter and his closest relationship is with a stripper that he frequents on most weekends. His life is in the wrestling ring, but when he suffers a heart attack he's told he can never perform again. Like most of Aronofsky's characters, he's a tragic hero, and his path doesn't necessarily lead him to a happily ever after.

This is another film that's chosen to shoot prodominantly with a handheld camera. The look makes it feel like a documentary and that you are actually following this guy around through his daily life. It makes everything more gritty, but also more painful to watch when you feel like you're in the room when he has his heart broken several times throughout the movie. The world of the working man (and woman) is dripping from this film in a way that can only be found in rural New Jersey. It's dramatic, sad, heartfelt, but real.

And one non-surprise that seems so to everyone else is Mickey Rourke's acting. When I saw him playing bit roles I always thought him a competant actor. I only thought that this film allowed him the scale to play a really well developed character and even work some of his personal demons out on set. He does a great job on this flick and I think he deserves all the accolades he receives for it.

Like I said, I was expecting a more uplifting tale, but I suppose I should have known better. He also isn't afraid to make you feel very uncomfortable watching people's lives falling apart. The Wrestler isn't Darren Aronofsky breaking new ground, but improving on the real estate he's already got. Considering the times, he paints a human face on the life of an over the hill pro wrestler, warts and all.

Under discussion:

Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist  (2008)

My friends have varying opinions when it comes to flicks. When one of my buddies caught an advanced screening in New York, he said it was alright but not good enough to spend money on. One of my other friends loved it and claimed I would feel the same. I finally have seen Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist and I guess I'm somewhere in the middle. I see where my first friend didn't like it but where my second friend thought it was good. Some people are pegging it as the next American Graffiti. I wouldn't go so far as to say that, but I think it's still better than most of the romantic comedies that.

A group of Jersey kids head into the big city to catch a concert held by a band that's harder to find than a grounded character in a Kafka novel. It serves as an underlying subplot to keep everybody moving throughout lower Manhattan and Brooklyn. There's the usual stock cast of characters that come with a romantic teen comedy, but they work well. I guess the biggest issue with the characters is that, for the most part, they don't get a whole lot of development. There's time spent on Nick and Norah enough, but I wouldn't mind learning a bit more about their friends.

Michael Cera as usual is good at playing the awkward kid and Kat Dennings the sardonic girl. There aren't a lot of conventions being broken. On the up side, the actors fit their roles well. In between there's enough quirky humor and weird places to keep you interested. It is the Village afterall. I think the biggest thing that bugged me was, even though music played a sizable role, it wasn't as prevalent as I was thinking it would be as the story played out. If they were going for American Graffiti, a lot more musically cued scenes would help.

Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist is a good all-around flick. It's not breaking any rules or pushing any envelopes. It's funny, enjoyable, and it's not preaching to you about anything. It definitely comes out of the fire better than most of the usual crap Holllywood will put out. I think the general public set a high bar when Juno made some money as far as guaging smaller flicks. They aren't all going to be oscar winners, but the more individual care allows them to feel a little more like a good vinyl album instead of a much cheaper digital download.

Under discussion:

Memento  (2001)

I got to see Memento for the first time not too long ago. This was after I saw Batman Begins and The Prestige, so Nolan's style was well known to me, but I wasn't expecting what I got with Memento. It was disorienting, bizarre, funny, and most importantly thought provoking. My second time around I was aware of the full story. Where your first viewing experience of Memento is living main character Leonard's (Pearce) life, the second time around it is watching him live his life as his family and friends do.

For those already lost, Leonard has anterograde amnesia. He can't form new memories and can only remember the events of his life leading up to the accident that caused his illness. To illustrate this disability, Memento's scenes play out in backwards order. The last chronological plot event is seen first, and we work our way back from there. This makes sure the audience, like Leonard, doesn't know what happened before what they're viewing and have to piece together information and rely on what Leonard's notes tell him.

Aside from the editing choice, one of the best parts of this movie is the relationship between Leonard and his "friend" Teddy (Pantoliano). Leonard has no recollection of any relationship with Teddy, but the two still have this Odd Couple-esque chemistry. Leonard's disability makes it difficult, but despite all their issues they actually seem to make good friends. On the opposite end of the spectrum is Natalie (Moss) who has an ambiguous history with Leonard that is discovered and explored by the end of the film. When mixed together, these three characters make up the core of the story.

I thoroughly enjoyed Memento. It injects some new blood into the film noir genre and can still reach a broad audience. It is definitely a film that requires repeated viewing to understand all of it's facets, but I don't count that in the negative. Replay value should never be considered a bad thing. I also am finding that I enjoy the occassional film that makes you think, and Memento definitely does. It only goes to show that Chris Nolan's talent does not fade with time, as evidenced by his more recent ventures.

Under discussion:

Election  (1999)

I've seen Election over the last ten years in bits and pieces and I was never interested enough to rent or buy it. Now having the chance to sit through it being a little more experienced in analyzing films, I think it's a good film and I had fun watching it. I just didn't really dig it as much as I thought. The story revolves around Jim McAllister (Broderick), a high school teacher, attempting to thwart goodie goodie Tracy Flick (Witherspoon) in her bid for class president. By the time the story is finished, McAllister loses his job, his wife, and his home...and Flick becomes an aide to a senator.

The irony of it all is amusing, but I suppose I was looking for a little more vulgarity. There are some truly hilarious lines and moments scattered about the film, but they don't show up often enough. This is balanced out by the simple surrealness of some of the situations presented, but it wasn't as laugh out loud as I was expecting from it. It almost gets painful to watch towards the end as Broderick's character is inundated with failure after failure, yet still manages to be entertaining. This allowed the film to walk a fine line that I didn't think movies like Meet the Parents couldn't.

Overall, it's a solid film. There's nothing outwardly bad about it, but nothing really shocking or noteworthy. The plot is straight forward, the characters fit to the genre, but don't push any boundaries. Maybe it's too dated for anyone to see it as fresh. And don't mean to completely tear it apart. It's an enjoyable film, but it just didn't grab me for one reason or another.

Under discussion:

12 Monkeys  (1995)

There's only a few movies around where the bad guys win and general audiences will tolerate it. The most recent example would probably be "The Dark Knight" and even "The Empire Strikes Back". In most of these interpretations the audience takes solace in the fact that the good guys will get them in the next installment. Rarer still are films like "Twelve Monkeys", where there seems to be no hope of escaping immanent doom. The story revolves around a man sent back in time several times in order to collect information to prevent the release of a deadly virus that kills billions. The end proves to be extremely fatalist, as the actions taken by the future to find a cure cause the creation and spread of the virus in the past.

All things aside the writing seems to be the most appealing part of this film for me. All of the bizarre psychological concepts introduced throughout the story makes you start to question the sanity of just about everyone appearing in the film. It also manages to weave little intricate details all around to be tied up by the end. While the film seems open to interpretation, I felt the overall theme to be nihilistic. It doesn't matter whether the world ends tomorrow or if you're crazy; believe or do whatever makes you happy. There's still a few plotholes that can be chalked up to the fact that there's about a thousand different theories on how time and theoretical time travel works.

Another thing that I thought was done well was the acting. I don't think I've ever seen Brad Pitt play such a convincingly crazy character, and Bruce Willis pulls off the quiet disturbed type very well. When I saw Christopher Plummer's name in the credits I assumed he was going to have a bigger part than he turned out having. I was admitedly disappointed that he only got about five to ten minutes of screen time total.

"Twelve Monkeys" is a movie that will probably make you depressed about the world. It's bleak, future noir at some of it's best. That being said, a lot of the visual eyecandy you'd associate with the genre takes a back seat to the story, which I admire. There's only really a few moments spread throughout the film that have fantastical elements in them. Everything else is produced by Bruce Willis' interaction with the modern world of the 1990s. It will also make you think about a lot of things. My take on sci fi is that if it's good it makes you think, and that's definitely something this movie can do.

Under discussion:

Repo! The Genetic Opera  (2008)

Rock operas. I can't say I'm a fan of any manner of musical, but if I had to sit through one, it'd be the rock opera. Repo is one of the most recent examples of this genre, the most famous of which would probably be the Rocky Horror Picture Show. This film is no Rocky Horror, but it had just enough macabre to keep me interested the whole way through. It takes place fifty years from now when an organ transplant company (GeneCo) has saved humanity from an epidemic of organ failures. The catch is if you miss your payments, they send a repo man to rip the organs out of you. The surrounding world is very gothic and dark, but it only adds to the insanity of its denizens.

You'd think that a film that has to sing its way through the plot is going to have its fair share of lameduck tracks to keep the plot going. Repo has a few, but for the most part they're pretty catchy tunes. Even more surprising is the fact that just about everyone in the show can sing, Paris Hilton included (I know, I'm surprised too).

Visually, the film is quite appealing. The whole look of the world was what caught my attention when I first saw the trailer. My issue with it, is it seems the film holds back from something that could truly be a dark and gritty musical. There is a fair share of blood and gore, but it takes a back seat to the father-daughter story between Anthony Head and Alexa Vega. It's an interesting story, but having more of it take place on the streets instead of locked up in their house would have really helped draw me in. Maybe I've just been desensitized by violence, but I was somewhat underwhelmed in spite of my expectations.

It's a colorful universe being put in display for us, but I'm not entirely convinced the filmmakers took advantage of it. They introduce characters and concepts that I'd love to follow around but only appear sporadically throughout the story. It also has the disadvantage of feeling longer than it actually is. I don't dislike Repo, far from it, I think it was a well made flick that took some chances. It just didn't take enough chances in the right places and was too timid to really go for the throat. It holds up as a solid narrative and intriguing story, but I can't help feeling like something was missing from the recipe.

Under discussion:

Transsiberian  (2008)

Film noir has always been an interesting genre for me, but many of them fail to hold my attention. Today there aren't many coming out on a yearly basis, but the ones that do seem to garner a lot of attention. Brad Anderson, who is known for psychological thrillers, has injected this talent into his newest outing with Transsiberian. The story revolves around an American couple haphazardly caught in a Russian drug run as they take a train from China back to Moscow to catch their flight home.

After the film's first scene, the first line in English is, "ours is not a gray world" and then sets out the rest of the time to prove that statement wrong. There are few characters here that can be seen as pure good or bad. Even Woody Harrelson's faithful Christian do-gooder character doesn't hesitate to do something morally objectionable when pushed far enough. And the Rusian investigator played by Ben Kingsley, who serves as an antagonist of sorts, is a man we as an audience can sympathize with. Our lead characters are very much in the gray area but never become completely reprehensible.

The entire film, with a handful of exceptions, is shot handheld. This look adds to a very documentary, in the thick of things feel to it all, adding to the tension that slowly builds from the very beginning. There are a few flashback shots that I think weren't necessary, though, and I think Anderson either wasn't confident enough in his narrative style or audience to leave them out. That being said, there are only two very brief flashback shots that I can remember distracting me from the plot, so considering the detective-like theme it could have been much worse.

The acting is up to snuff, but this should come as no surprise to anyone who has seen Ben Kingsley, but this is the first time I have seen Emily Mortimer in a film. She does her part in adding to the collective tension leading the audience up to the climax late in the story. I usually steer away from thrillers because I hate having to sit through the tense moments, but here, where there is no clear cut party to root for, it was easier to bare. There were still a few moments where I found myself clenching my fists, but I suppose that is the point of a thriller.

Under discussion:

Max Payne  (2008)

The problems these days with video game - movie adaptations is they haven't quite figured out how to do them. If the studios started treating them the way they treat comic books and novels, things would probably be a lot better off. Unfortunately, Hollywood still thinks most video game plots are a lot like Super Mario (practically nonexistant), so they make up their own plot that kinda-sorta follows the general idea of the theme of the video game. Max Payne, which could have been a promising detective/mystery turned into another shoot-em-up.

The plot generally revolves around Wahlberg's character seeking revenge on the people who killed his wife. Not that original, but they've thrown in the twist of a super-soldier drug ring that adds to the visual flare I'll talk about later. They don't really explain or show enough for you to follow the story, so if you are going to watch it, just sit back and don't think too much. The characters are pretty cardboard cut out and don't push the boundries of any of the token stereotypes you'd find in this type of flick.

And for a movie that was decently cast, it wasn't very well directed. The acting is stale coming out of actors you think would actually put forward some talent, like Beau Bridges, Kunis, or Wahlberg. The only one I thought did a convincing job was Chris O'Donnell, but his ten minutes of screentime doesn't make up for the rest of the clunky lines and poor character development.

What I did very much enjoy about this film was the visuals. Most if not all of the shots were compelling, dramatically lit, and almost captures the look of the video game. On the downside though, even the action scenes don't seem to pace well because of the long shots. For a movie clocking in at just over an hour and a half it sure felt longer...and not in the good way. It was like the director realized the script wasn't going to be enough to hold the audience's attention so he focused all his time on making visually interesting shots.

One day they will make a video game film that faithfully adapts te original content to the big screen. On that day I will be able to look back to these days as the days like the first comic book adaptation flicks came out and Hollywood thought all you needed was the same name and face and you could make a profit. Until then, though, we're all going to have to suffer through movies that butcher what could be good stories.

Under discussion:

Star Wars: The Clone Wars  (2008)

Okay, so being who I am it was only a matter of time before I saw this flick. I've been a Star Wars fan pretty much since birth, I just wasn't going to fork over the blood money to keep George Lucas' money train to crappytown going. It seems Lucas lost his golden touch somewhere in the 90s and his projects since then have been getting progressively worse. The Star Wars prequel trilogy was underwhelming and Indy IV was a travesty. If I remember correctly, I ran out of the theater screaming, "is there no God?" after that flick. Anyways: The Clone Wars.

In an effort to launch the new CGI series for Cartoon Network, Lucasfilm released what I can only see as the first four episodes as one 90 minute movie for theaters. The plot structure certainly shows that it should have been split into about four parts, or at least two. Aside from the set up in the beginning, there is literally perhaps thirty seconds of exposition tieing up the two halves of the flick. The plot is the weakest part of this movie, but if you've seen some of the most recent film additions to Lucas' beloved franchises, this shouldn't come as a surprise.

The die-hard fans will be annoyed with the inconsistencies scattered all over the stories and newcomers to Star Wars will be completely lost as no time is given to properly introduce the main characters. The filmmakers assume we all know who these people are. I can understand having some self-assuredness when you make a film with a big name like Star Wars, but don't insult those who may not be old enough to have been introduced to the series or too old to have followed the new trilogy by throwing them into the middle of what plays out to be a compilation of sci-fi war footage.

That being said, the visuals are all that keep you in your seat. Despite it not being connected by a solid storyline, I will even admit to watching a bunch of clones and robots and jedi going at each other to the death was entertaining. As a test of CG enginuity, this movie succeeds. It seems that Lucas' main goal with his most recent projects is to show off the new technology, but sacrifices the heart of the film to do it. That could make an admirable argument...if movies like Wall-E didn't do the same thing while still providing a strong and compelling tale.

Star Wars: The Clone Wars is merely the most recent example of Lucas milking his franchise to death with his own lack of vision. I would love to see more Star Wars, but I don't want to see it from him. he did a great job setting everybody up, but at the rate he's going, perhaps it's time for others to take a whack at the mythology.

Under discussion:

Appaloosa  (2008)

I'm pretty picky with my Western flicks. I have to admit there's a lot that I can't sit through and it wasn't until recently that I developed a liking for the genre. As I learned more about film and its elements, I started to appreciate the old Spaghetti Westerns and even a few John Wayne flicks. When I first saw the trailer for Appaloosa, it wasn't so much the genre that attracted me, but the list of actors. It wasn't enough to get me into a theater, though, and I waited until catching it on DVD to see it. While it didn't blow my mind, it was a solid, classic Western; and I enjoyed it.

The story centers around two guns for hire (Harris and Mortensen) who help a town take care of their bad guy problem. It's a pretty standard plot, and I wasn't expecting anything amazingly original out of it. The real extra twist comes with the love interest, played by Renee Zellweger. Instead of the standard damsel in distress, she takes on an added depth that makes you think she might be as damaged as the men she's after. Zellweger is usually playing characters with a little more quirk than usual and this one is no different.

While most of the rest of the film is pretty standard for a Western, slow pace included, every so often I was pleasantly surprised. A funny line, or an oddly compelling shot would come along to catch my ear or eye respectively. The sprinkle of dark humor between the two main characters helps to enforce their relationship as well as tickle my pitch black wit. It's an odd but appealing mix of classic Western elements and more modern elements you'd see in a movie of other genres these days.

Appaloosa isn't an over the top blockbuster, nor is it an esoteric artsy type film. It's a Western, plain and simple; and it accomplishes what it sets out to do plus a little extra.